General Discussion /Post Karr

[rashomon]

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.
But why should an intruder write such a long note then? This wouldn't make sense either.
I believe the Ramseys threw two scenarios together (political kidnapping for ransom, sexual assault), in the hope that at least one would be swallowed. They may have felt that the headbash alone was not convincing enough. Two parents in the home with their dead child bashed on the head, ransom note or not, might draw suspicion on them at once. Better create an additional bizarre sexual assault scenario to make it appear as if a sexual pervert had committed the crime. I also believe they wanted to direct the attention away from the head bash by creating the garrote contraption.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

But why should an intruder write such a long note then? This wouldn't make sense either.
I believe the Ramseys threw two scenarios together (political kidnapping for ransom, sexual assault), in the hope that at least one would be swallowed. They may have felt that the headbash alone was not convincing enough. Two parents in the home with their dead child bashed on the head, ransom note or not, might draw suspicion on them at once. Better create an additional bizarre sexual assault scenario to make it appear as if a sexual pervert had committed the crime. I also believe they wanted to direct the attention away from the head bash by creating the garrote contraption.

Wow, surprise surprise, you "believe" the Thomas theory that has no evidence to support it.

"The autopsy report states that JonBenet suffered a severe blow to her head shortly before or around the time of her murder.

Wolf surmises that Patsy Ramsey then staged a crime scene to make it look like an intruder killed JonBenet.

“Plaintiff has provided no evidence for this theory,” Carnes wrote.

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

But why should an intruder write such a long note then? This wouldn't make sense either.
I believe the Ramseys threw two scenarios together (political kidnapping for ransom, sexual assault), in the hope that at least one would be swallowed. They may have felt that the headbash alone was not convincing enough. Two parents in the home with their dead child bashed on the head, ransom note or not, might draw suspicion on them at once. Better create an additional bizarre sexual assault scenario to make it appear as if a sexual pervert had committed the crime. I also believe they wanted to direct the attention away from the head bash by creating the garrote contraption.

From autopsy.......................

Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trama.

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05



And your point is?


Read your own post that this was in reply to.
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=268277&perpage=40&pagenumber=18

If you are unable to get the conection maybe you will be able to understand when you face the facts of the case.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05



Again Breezy, tell me the point of this post?

If you are unable to get the conection maybe you will be able to understand when you face the facts of the case.:shrug:

[Solace]

Originally posted by Will05


I already know the facts of the case I just want to hear what your point is DIRECTLY from you. Quit hiding behind your links & face the facts.:rolleyes:

I also would love to know Breezy's point. Breezy you seem to only quote links. Do you have any thoughts of your own on this subject. I know I asked you that way back but I think you posted another link. Lets hear it from Breezy, her own thoughts and not someone else's.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05


I already know the facts of the case I just want to hear what your point is DIRECTLY from you. Quit hiding behind your links & face the facts.:rolleyes:

My point was made to anyone who had an open mind and if you don't, oh well. :shrug:

I'm not hiding behind anything. I post links to prove my opinions are based on facts unlike your opinions that are based on gossip.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


From autopsy.......................

Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trama.

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

Breezy the key word here is "associated". Very important. You might want to read things as they are not as you would like them to be.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


I also would love to know Breezy's point. Breezy you seem to only quote links. Do you have any thoughts of your own on this subject. I know I asked you that way back but I think you posted another link. Lets hear it from Breezy, her own thoughts and not someone else's.

Yes, my thoughts are based on facts instead of maybes, could bes, possiblys, theories OR Steve Thomas fairy tales. Sorry if you don't like the facts the links I provide prove but that is your problem, not mine. :shrug:

All you and your little friend Will "think" and "believe" is based on Thomas's wild "theories" that have no basis of fact. If you think repeating his thoughts is "thoughts of your own" you are more brainwashed than I thought. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05


You absolutley are hiding behind your links. Just tell me what your point is with the post. What's the matter? You don't believe the own link you posted? You're posting a link accusing someone of a serious crime & you won't even back it up? AGAIN, what is your POINT?

:lol: Think what you wish. I posted the link and if you don't like it, too bad.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy the key word here is "associated". Very important. You might want to read things as they are not as you would like them to be.

ANY autopsy lists causes of death in order. Hers was listed as strangulation FIRST. She could have died from either the blow or the strangulation but she DID die did from strangulation.

"The autopsy report said JonBenet may have been sexually abused. A blow to her head left a fracture 8 1/2 inches long, it said. The stated cause of death: strangulation. By New Year's, JonBenet had been buried in Marietta, Georgia, where she was born.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9712/25/jonbenet/index.html

FINAL DIAGNOSIS:

I. Ligature strangulation

A. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow of neck

B. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages, neck

C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and skin of face

II. Craniocerebral injuries

A. Scalp contusion

B. Linear, comminuted fracture of right side of skull

C. Linear pattern of contusions of right cerebral hemisphere

D. Subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage

E. Small contusions, tips of temporal lobes

III. Abrasion of right cheek

IV. Abrasion/contusion, posterior right shoulder

V. Abrasions of left lower back and posterior left lower leg

VI. Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa

VII. Ligature of right wrist


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

BTW..............YOU might want to read things as they are not as you would like them to be.

[LI_Mom]

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.

Btw, I don't know if Nedra passed away.

I never sang to my son when it was asleep, except maybe when he was an infant & I was rocking him to sleep. However, I can imagine other mothers might do that so I didn't find that very odd. Self-serving maybe, to make her look more loving.

My son was an ultra light sleeper & I never would have tried to change him into PJs if he was already asleep. I suppose if a child is in a deep enough sleep, they might stir when you are changing them but not fully wake up.

As far as I remember, Patsy did not put the Barbie nightgown on JB and also couldn't remember which blanket was on the bed.

The white blanket & Barbie nightgown was found in the basement.... the nightgown next to her body but none of the other clothes disturbed. JB was wearing a sequined top, longjohns and the panties with flowers. Both sets of pants were stained with urine.

Wasn't the red turtleneck found upstairs in JB's bathroom or bedroom?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


It makes no sense for anyone to write such a long note, the parents or an intruder. Whoever heard of such a thing. The killer, if an intruder, probably wrote the note before the murder. If Patsy murdered JB the note would have been written after the murder to cover up the accidental crime. I don't think Patsy would have had the presence of mind to write a note, she would have been too hysterical/distraught, much less a 2 and 1/2 page note. Only an amateur, obviously familiar with movie lines, would have written such a ridiculous and ridiculously long note.

I agree.

Is it any wonder the police could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt who commited this bizarre murder? BOTH theories can be shot with holes very easily & combined with the numerous mistakes made at the crime scene, this case was doomed from the beginning.


Knowing Patsy's flair for the dramatic (watch her CNN interview) & her many years of experience performing on stage and learning how to remain calm while under stress (her pageant days).... I think it IS possible that she could 'tell' herself that what happened to JB was a terrible accident & now was the time to save the rest of her family. She might have even felt like a victim. First the cancer & now this... why do these terrible things happen to me?

IF JB was already dead, there are only 2 choices left.

Try to cast the blame on a stranger OR explain exactly what was going on in the middle of the night that caused such an uncharateristic episode that resulted in JB's accidental death?


The more I think of it, the more sense it makes that Burke did something, Patsy saw him & she went totally ballistic.


That also explains the pineapple AND the glass with the teabag. Both of which had Burke's fingerprints. Are we to believe that Burke helped unload the dishwasher & placed it in a cupboard and that's why his prints were on the glass that was on the table near the pineapple?

[Solace]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't know how long fingerprints stay on a glass but couldn't Burke have used the glass, it was washed in the dishwasher, and his prints still remained on the glass. Is this possible? I agree with you that when looking at the facts one starts to think one way and then a fact comes up and I'm off in the other direction. Whoever did this really almost committed the perfect crime, whether by accident, design, or sheer luck. But don't forget that Michael Skakel was brought to justice after 28 years, something he didn't expect. I would like to know where some of the other suspects in the Ramsey case are now and what has their life been like since the murder. I think that will show some clues.

ANY autopsy lists causes of death in order. Hers was listed as strangulation FIRST. She could have died from either the blow or the strangulation but she DID die did from strangulation.

"The autopsy report said JonBenet may have been sexually abused. A blow to her head left a fracture 8 1/2 inches long, it said. The stated cause of death: strangulation. By New Year's, JonBenet had been buried in Marietta, Georgia, where she was born.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9712/25/jonbenet/index.html


You are amazing Breezy. They are listing strangulation first because that is what the SAW FIRST. Meyer pulled back her scalp and saw the fracture. He is not sure of the cause of death so he says STRANGULATION ASSOCIATED WITH A FRACTURE TO THE HEAD".

And you are also quoting an article. Please, you are talking to people who have read the autopsy reports. You think if you change it, no one will question it?

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


:lol: Think what you wish. I posted the link and if you don't like it, too bad.

Breezy, what do you think of Lawrence Schiller?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't know how long fingerprints stay on a glass but couldn't Burke have used the glass, it was washed in the dishwasher, and his prints still remained on the glass. Is this possible? I agree with you that when looking at the facts one starts to think one way and then a fact comes up and I'm off in the other direction. Whoever did this really almost committed the perfect crime, whether by accident, design, or sheer luck. But don't forget that Michael Skakel was brought to justice after 28 years, something he didn't expect. I would like to know where some of the other suspects in the Ramsey case are now and what has their life been like since the murder. I think that will show some clues.

" One of those suspects came to light in a most dramatic way. It was early in 1997, when Alex Hunter, then Boulder district attorney, made a startling announcement: "I want to say something to the person or persons that took this baby from us. The list of suspects narrows. Soon, there will be no one on the list but you."

Those words were written by the FBI as part of a strategy to put the killer and any accomplices under pressure. That strategy may have worked. But just two days later, the Boulder Sheriff's Department discovered a man by the name of Michael Helgoth, dead in his home, an apparent suicide.

Did he have anything to do with JonBenet's murder? "We were walking along at the end of the day, just as calm as can be. He just casually comes up and says, 'I wonder what it'd be like to crack a human skull,'" says John Kenady, who worked with Helgoth at an auto salvage yard outside of Boulder. "And I looked at him and I thought, 'Whoa, I don't want to have this conversation.'"

Just a few months before JonBenet's murder, Kenady says he noticed a change in Helgoth's attitude: "Mike was pretty happy around late November, about him and a partner making a killer deal, and they were each gonna make $50,000 or $60,000."

Kenady didn't think anything of it, until he read in newspapers about the ransom note found at the Ramsey home that demanded a curious $118,000. It was close to the amount Helgoth had said he and his unknown partner would make -– and it was a ransom that was never paid to anyone.

"Then Christmas goes -- comes. And then he's really depressed. And there's no money. And then he said that he wanted to crack a human skull," says Kenady. "And then, she received a crack in her skull. I felt obligated to go to the police department and tell them what I knew."

Gray says Kenady "provided a very relevant piece of information that should have been a priority lead for the Boulder police department." Kenady says he called 10-20 times, but got no response: "No one would call me back."

"I got the distinct feeling that they had absolutely no interest in anything that took them away from the theory that John and Patsy Ramsey killed their daughter," says Gray, even though he and San Augustin were convinced Helgoth was worth a closer look.

"His friends say that he owns several stun guns, that he was a gun nut," adds Gray. "And supposedly through the sources that we talked to, that he used to break into people's houses just for the thrill of doing it."

The stun gun is important because Gray and San Augustin believe, from examining autopsy photos, that JonBenet was incapacitated with one at some point during her attack.

"In that time frame, 1995-95 time frame, the only stun gun that had a laser sight on it was Air Taser," says Gray, who adds that he believes this was the same type of stun gun used on JonBenet.

San Augustin adds that the high-tech boots, which they later took into possession, were originally ignored by investigators in Helgoth's home. But they were later discovered by Kenady and passed on to Gray and San Augustin.

San Augustin showed 48 Hours the underside of Helgoth's boot. "On the left is the high tech impression that was made in the area where JonBenet's body was found," says San Augustin. "There's no reason for Helgoth's boot to be in the Ramsey home where JonBenet's body was found."

The investigators turned the boots over to the Boulder police, who now claim their investigation showed they were the wrong size for a match. But they have yet to be turned over to the district attorney for further analysis.

The private detectives in their investigation also uncovered a number of Helgoth's personal video tapes that they say the sheriff's office ignored. San Augustin says they found one piece of video that included coverage of an unsolved murder in Colorado.

But what was even more disturbing were videotapes of Helgoth and one of his girlfriend's children. "The ex-girlfriend and he had a major argument over supposedly her coming home and finding the daughter in the bedroom, and he was in bed under covers and she was on the covers," says Gray. "They had a big fight and there were temporary restraining orders issued."

Most surprising of all, however, was the nature of Helgoth's suicide. Investigators initially said he died from a bullet to his head. But in fact, Gray says, the fatal shot was nowhere near his head.

"The gun was found on Michael's right and he's right-handed," says Gray. "The bullet hole is on Michael's left and it goes across the body from left to right."

"It became really odd to us that he would then take the gun and bring it around and then try and shoot himself," adds San Augustin. "It doesn't make sense why you would have somebody commit suicide in that manner."

The investigators were left with only one conclusion. Someone killed Helgoth. Why?

"If he's one of two people involved in a major, major-major death of a small girl, what's the best way to eliminate an -- you know, the word getting out that you had any involvement in it?" asks Gray. "You eliminate your partner."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Helgoth involved in JonBenet's murder -- and was he killed by a partner for what he knew? In the Ramsey ransom note, there was the mention of "two gentleman who are watching over your daughter."

"If you look at the case real close, you'll see that quite possibly there was more than one person involved," says San Augustin.

But there is one thing investigators are sure of: Helgoth's DNA does not match the DNA profile sitting in the Denver crime lab.

"Investigators must be careful not to put all the weight in the investigation on the DNA because the DNA, as important as it is, could be misleading them, depending on who it matches or who it doesn't match," says LaBerge.

It could mean that if Helgoth was involved, he wasn't alone. And the person who sexually assaulted and killed JonBenet is still out there.

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't know how long fingerprints stay on a glass but couldn't Burke have used the glass, it was washed in the dishwasher, and his prints still remained on the glass. Is this possible? I agree with you that when looking at the facts one starts to think one way and then a fact comes up and I'm off in the other direction. Whoever did this really almost committed the perfect crime, whether by accident, design, or sheer luck. But don't forget that Michael Skakel was brought to justice after 28 years, something he didn't expect. I would like to know where some of the other suspects in the Ramsey case are now and what has their life been like since the murder. I think that will show some clues.

""There's a Dance West school where the victim of the assault in our case, the one that we investigated, and the Ramsey girl, both attended," says Peterson, who now believes Jon Benet was first targeted at that dance studio because of what happened to his client, just nine months after JonBenet was murdered.

Like JonBenet, she took lessons at Dance West. And like JonBenet, another girl, who is identified as "Amy," was attacked and sexually assaulted at night in her own bedroom on Sept. 14, 1997.

That night, Amy's father was out of town. After catching a movie, Amy and her mother returned home late. What they didn't know when they entered the house was that there was already an intruder inside.

Amy's father, who asked that his identity be obscured, agreed to talk about what happened that night: "My feeling is he got into the house while they were out and hid inside the house, so he would have been in there for perhaps four to six hours, hiding."

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.'"

Peterson says Amy's mother heard whispering, and proceeded through the doorway, and saw a person, who just brushed her aside and quickly made his escape by jumping out a second-floor window.

"He was like a ghost," recalls Amy's father. "We couldn't figure out where he came from, or where he went."

By the time the Boulder police arrived, the man was long gone. Because the intruder had gotten in and out of the house so easily, Amy's father began to think this wasn't the first time he had done something like this.

"The first thing that occurred to us was that it was the parallel to the Ramsey case because it was exactly the same situation," says Amy's father, who even told the Boulder police about the Dance West studio connection to the Ramsey case. "I think someone, somewhere, drew a bead on her. Obviously had us under surveillance that we were not aware of."

The studio has since gone out of business and been torn down, but photos show that there was a balcony overlooking the dance floor where parents and anyone else could come in and watch the children.

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.

"This person is someone with a huge ego, someone who views himself as bold," says Peterson, who believes there are too many parallels between Amy's case and JonBenet's murder.

Both JonBenet and Amy were sexually assaulted by an intruder at night in their homes -- within nine months of each other. Fiber evidence shows that JonBenet's attacker may have been wearing black, as was the man who attacked Amy. And there's the fact that both girls took lessons at the Dance West studio.

But Boulder police never found any connections to the murder of JonBenet.

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't know how long fingerprints stay on a glass but couldn't Burke have used the glass, it was washed in the dishwasher, and his prints still remained on the glass. Is this possible? I agree with you that when looking at the facts one starts to think one way and then a fact comes up and I'm off in the other direction. Whoever did this really almost committed the perfect crime, whether by accident, design, or sheer luck. But don't forget that Michael Skakel was brought to justice after 28 years, something he didn't expect. I would like to know where some of the other suspects in the Ramsey case are now and what has their life been like since the murder. I think that will show some clues.

"According to Carnes, Wolf was identified as a possible suspect by Detective Lou Smit, who said there were too many “unanswered questions” about him.

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

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

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

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

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

Carnes notes in her ruling that one man named in the Ramseys’ book, Michael Helgoth, committed suicide two months after the murder and one day after District Attorney Alex Hunter announced they were narrowing the search for JonBenet’s killer.

A stun gun was found near Mr. Helgoth’s body, as well as “HI-TEC” boots. Evidence in the case suggests that JonBenet’s killer used a stun gun on her. Unidentified shoeprints from HI-TEC boots also were found in the Ramseys’ basement.

Another possible suspect is Gary Olivia, a transient with a history of child molestation, who was seen in the Boulder area in December 1996. Carnes wrote that Olivia picked up his mail one block from the Ramsey home and was present at JonBenet’s memorial service.

The Ramseys also identified Bill McReynolds as someone who should be investigated. McReynolds, a former University of Colorado journalism professor, portrayed Santa Claus at the Ramseys’ home for the third consecutive year in 1996 — two nights before the 6-year-old was found slain.

In addition, McReynolds’ wife had written a play about a young girl held captive in a basement.

Carnes also noted that McReynolds’ daughter had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted 22 years to the day before JonBenet’s death. A card written to JonBenet from McReynolds was found in her trash can after the murder.

McReynolds died at the age of 72 last September. Police said they never considered him a serious suspect.


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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy, what do you think of Lawrence Schiller?

Anyone can wroite a book and say whatever they wish and say this one or that one said such and such. I think the judges and the new DA's opinions are the best evidence of the truth rather than a book written for money. She heard evidence from both sides UNDER oath, not from gossip.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


" One of those suspects came to light in a most dramatic way. It was early in 1997, when Alex Hunter, then Boulder district attorney, made a startling announcement: "I want to say something to the person or persons that took this baby from us. The list of suspects narrows. Soon, there will be no one on the list but you."

Those words were written by the FBI as part of a strategy to put the killer and any accomplices under pressure. That strategy may have worked. But just two days later, the Boulder Sheriff's Department discovered a man by the name of Michael Helgoth, dead in his home, an apparent suicide.

Did he have anything to do with JonBenet's murder? "We were walking along at the end of the day, just as calm as can be. He just casually comes up and says, 'I wonder what it'd be like to crack a human skull,'" says John Kenady, who worked with Helgoth at an auto salvage yard outside of Boulder. "And I looked at him and I thought, 'Whoa, I don't want to have this conversation.'"

Just a few months before JonBenet's murder, Kenady says he noticed a change in Helgoth's attitude: "Mike was pretty happy around late November, about him and a partner making a killer deal, and they were each gonna make $50,000 or $60,000."

Kenady didn't think anything of it, until he read in newspapers about the ransom note found at the Ramsey home that demanded a curious $118,000. It was close to the amount Helgoth had said he and his unknown partner would make -– and it was a ransom that was never paid to anyone.

"Then Christmas goes -- comes. And then he's really depressed. And there's no money. And then he said that he wanted to crack a human skull," says Kenady. "And then, she received a crack in her skull. I felt obligated to go to the police department and tell them what I knew."

Gray says Kenady "provided a very relevant piece of information that should have been a priority lead for the Boulder police department." Kenady says he called 10-20 times, but got no response: "No one would call me back."

"I got the distinct feeling that they had absolutely no interest in anything that took them away from the theory that John and Patsy Ramsey killed their daughter," says Gray, even though he and San Augustin were convinced Helgoth was worth a closer look.

"His friends say that he owns several stun guns, that he was a gun nut," adds Gray. "And supposedly through the sources that we talked to, that he used to break into people's houses just for the thrill of doing it."

The stun gun is important because Gray and San Augustin believe, from examining autopsy photos, that JonBenet was incapacitated with one at some point during her attack.

"In that time frame, 1995-95 time frame, the only stun gun that had a laser sight on it was Air Taser," says Gray, who adds that he believes this was the same type of stun gun used on JonBenet.

San Augustin adds that the high-tech boots, which they later took into possession, were originally ignored by investigators in Helgoth's home. But they were later discovered by Kenady and passed on to Gray and San Augustin.

San Augustin showed 48 Hours the underside of Helgoth's boot. "On the left is the high tech impression that was made in the area where JonBenet's body was found," says San Augustin. "There's no reason for Helgoth's boot to be in the Ramsey home where JonBenet's body was found."

The investigators turned the boots over to the Boulder police, who now claim their investigation showed they were the wrong size for a match. But they have yet to be turned over to the district attorney for further analysis.

The private detectives in their investigation also uncovered a number of Helgoth's personal video tapes that they say the sheriff's office ignored. San Augustin says they found one piece of video that included coverage of an unsolved murder in Colorado.

But what was even more disturbing were videotapes of Helgoth and one of his girlfriend's children. "The ex-girlfriend and he had a major argument over supposedly her coming home and finding the daughter in the bedroom, and he was in bed under covers and she was on the covers," says Gray. "They had a big fight and there were temporary restraining orders issued."

Most surprising of all, however, was the nature of Helgoth's suicide. Investigators initially said he died from a bullet to his head. But in fact, Gray says, the fatal shot was nowhere near his head.

"The gun was found on Michael's right and he's right-handed," says Gray. "The bullet hole is on Michael's left and it goes across the body from left to right."

"It became really odd to us that he would then take the gun and bring it around and then try and shoot himself," adds San Augustin. "It doesn't make sense why you would have somebody commit suicide in that manner."

The investigators were left with only one conclusion. Someone killed Helgoth. Why?

"If he's one of two people involved in a major, major-major death of a small girl, what's the best way to eliminate an -- you know, the word getting out that you had any involvement in it?" asks Gray. "You eliminate your partner."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Helgoth involved in JonBenet's murder -- and was he killed by a partner for what he knew? In the Ramsey ransom note, there was the mention of "two gentleman who are watching over your daughter."

"If you look at the case real close, you'll see that quite possibly there was more than one person involved," says San Augustin.

But there is one thing investigators are sure of: Helgoth's DNA does not match the DNA profile sitting in the Denver crime lab.

"Investigators must be careful not to put all the weight in the investigation on the DNA because the DNA, as important as it is, could be misleading them, depending on who it matches or who it doesn't match," says LaBerge.

It could mean that if Helgoth was involved, he wasn't alone. And the person who sexually assaulted and killed JonBenet is still out there.

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

Breezy, we know all about Helgoth and he did not do it. It is old news and we are not swallowing it. Can't you do any better than that?

[Solace]

Originally posted by hohum


I'm not Breezy, but I respect the book that Lawrence Schiller wrote because he doesn't try to cram a theory down anyone's throat. It was a book I didn't want to put down full of interesting facts and memories by people who knew the principals in this case. The only thing missing were some pictures, only one of JB on the back cover.

Thank you for your reply. So Breezy, what do you think of Lawrence Schiller?

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Anyone can wroite a book and say whatever they wish and say this one or that one said such and such. I think the judges and the new DA's opinions are the best evidence of the truth rather than a book written for money. She heard evidence from both sides UNDER oath, not from gossip.

Breezy, I have a feeling you know nothing of Lawrence Schiller and nothing of S. Thomas. I have a feeling you are getting your information about them from what you pick up from others. You never read their work; you don't know them, do you?

We know you didn't read S. Thomas, but now I know you also did not read L. Schiller, who by the way says in his book that the Ramseys are innocent until proven guilty. Breezy if you ever want to be taken seriously, you might want to read what you are so against.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't know how long fingerprints stay on a glass but couldn't Burke have used the glass, it was washed in the dishwasher, and his prints still remained on the glass. Is this possible? I agree with you that when looking at the facts one starts to think one way and then a fact comes up and I'm off in the other direction. Whoever did this really almost committed the perfect crime, whether by accident, design, or sheer luck. But don't forget that Michael Skakel was brought to justice after 28 years, something he didn't expect. I would like to know where some of the other suspects in the Ramsey case are now and what has their life been like since the murder. I think that will show some clues.


Patsy & John claim JB was asleep when they arrived home.

John claims that he helped Burke with a toy for a while before taking him upstairs to get ready for bed.

Both parents deny knowing anything about the 'mysterious' pineapple but nobody seems to mention the glass with the teabag.

A glass with ONLY Burke's fingerprints on it.


The most logical scenario is that JB & Burke were in the kitchen together having a snack after the parents were asleep.

I recall that Burke's pocketknife also was found downstairs in the basement but the housekeeper said she had hidden it in the cabinet where the Pullups were kept.

Did JB find & take the knife downstairs & did she taunt Burke that she had his knife? Like a typical bratty sister. Did Burke get angry and finally aggressive?

People said that Patsy spent all her time with JB & the pageants, now that the cancer scare had passed & JB was old enough to be fun.

Once JB was involved with the pageants, Burke didn't get the attention from his mother that he used to & John was away from home a great deal of the time on business trips.

Burke certainly had reason to be jealous of JB & to have emotional problems due to his dad's absences and his female relatives focused on the 'star' of the family.

People have said that both kids were undisciplined & quite bratty at times. In most families, children argue & fight with each other when no adults are there to calm them down or stop them.... when adults are around, they are more likely to be on their good behavior.



Another thing that bothers me about the case.

The ransom note did NOT even have Patsy or John's fingerprints on it. I'd assume a letter like that would be full of their prints while they frantically read the devastating news.

And I don't buy that they were just being careful not to destroy evidence because in their book they made sure to say they had NO idea that the police would ever consider them suspects or that their house should have been considered a crime scene from the very beginning. And we know that John destroyed the crime scene when he found JB's body & instead of calling for the police, he disturbed the evidence & then carried her upstairs.



Btw, the Skakel case will likely be reopened. His cousin, Bobby Kennedy is working hard towards that goal & I think he has a good case that Michael is innocent.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Yes, the red turtleneck was found balled up on the floor as I remember in one of those 2 rooms. What did Patsy do to get JB ready for bed. Did she change her clothes?

I'm not very clear on what Patsy says she did.

John tsaid he ook off her shoes & coat. I guess Patsy would have taken off her party outfit & put on what she wore as PJs?

If you read the Ramsy book, it's really a very rambling account of what went on & there's no timeline to follow. That makes it hard to even find partricular passages because it jumps around.

They spent the majority of the time writing about their lives JB was killed or the way the press & everyone was out to get them after she was killed.

Very, very little is devoted to describing any facts of the case. For that reason, I don't think they helped themselves at all by writing the book.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy, I have a feeling you know nothing of Lawrence Schiller and nothing of S. Thomas. I have a feeling you are getting your information about them from what you pick up from others. You never read their work; you don't know them, do you?

We know you didn't read S. Thomas, but now I know you also did not read L. Schiller, who by the way says in his book that the Ramseys are innocent until proven guilty. Breezy if you ever want to be taken seriously, you might want to read what you are so against.

Of course I don't "KNOW" any authors of any of the books about this case. I really don't care what Schiller said as NO author knows the case as well as a judge who reviewed the evidnece and didn't gain financially from her opinion.

Do you really think I care if any of the gossips who are so sure the Ramsey's are guilty "take me seriously"??? I don't! This is an opinion board and anyone who reads my opinions can take them or leave them, no skin off my nose either way.

BTW I don't depend on "books" to do my thinking for me. :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Here's another link you might find interesting... from 2005. I think it has been posted previously but anyway..... FWIW

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

A news story that is reporting what Ramsey investigators & Lou Smit have always said from the beginning.

There's nothing new that I can see.

Although it would be comforting for the Ramseys if they could convict the already dead Helgoth & clear their names. It's worth a shot, I suppose.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Of course I don't "KNOW" any authors of any of the books about this case. I really don't care what Schiller said as NO author knows the case as well as a judge who reviewed the evidnece and didn't gain financially from her opinion.

Do you really think I care if any of the gossips who are so sure the Ramsey's are guilty "take me seriously"??? I don't! This is an opinion board and anyone who reads my opinions can take them or leave them, no skin off my nose either way.

BTW I don't depend on "books" to do my thinking for me. :shrug:

It has nothing to do with dependence on a book. So I guess you don't read at all.

You do depend on links though.

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


SNIP

Another thing that bothers me about the case.

The ransom note did NOT even have Patsy or John's fingerprints on it. I'd assume a letter like that would be full of their prints while they frantically read the devastating news.

And I don't buy that they were just being careful not to destroy evidence because in their book they made sure to say they had NO idea that the police would ever consider them suspects or that their house should have been considered a crime scene from the very beginning. And we know that John destroyed the crime scene when he found JB's body & instead of calling for the police, he disturbed the evidence & then carried her upstairs.




I thought I had heard/read everything about this case, but I don't remember this. There were NO prints on the note. What about when Patsy picked it up to read it? What about when she showed it to John?

Oh my, that ranks right up there with some of the most damaging evidence against them.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Of course I don't "KNOW" any authors or any of the books. I really don't care what Schiller said as NO author knows the case as well as a judge who reviewed the evidnece and didn't gain financially from her opinion.

Do you really think I care if any of the gossips who are so sure the Ramsey's are guilty "take me seriously"??? I don't! This is an opinion board and anyone who reads my opinions can take them or leave them, no skin off my nose either way.

BTW I don't depend on "books" to do my thinking for me. :shrug:

Yes, the judge in the civil suit who says there was not enough evidence to convict the Ramseys beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's why the DA didn't bring the case to trial & let a jury weigh all the facts & come to a decision.

Unfortunately or fortunately, there was not enough evidence to CONVICT BARD.

That doesn't make them innocent, it only makes them UNTRIED. Still in limbo.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Former Juror


I thought I had heard/read everything about this case, but I don't remember this. There were NO prints on the note. What about when Patsy picked it up to read it? What about when she showed it to John?

Oh my, that ranks right up there with some of the most damaging evidence against them.

I think there were a few smudges that were useless but why weren't there prints all over that note?

Very, very weird.


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


No Prints Are Reported On Ramsey Ransom Note

Published: July 18, 1997

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Yes, the judge in the civil suit who says there was not enough evidence to convict the Ramseys beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's why the DA didn't bring the case to trial & let a jury weigh all the facts & come to a decision.

Unfortunately or fortunately, there was not enough evidence to CONVICT BARD.

That doesn't make them innocent, it only makes them UNTRIED. Still in limbo.

No that is NOT what she said. She did say:

"there is "virtually no evidence" to support theories that her parents killed her.

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

Keenan agrees with her.

"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 Solace


It has nothing to do with dependence on a book. So I guess you don't read at all.

You do depend on links though.

I don't read fairy tales or opinions in books, sorry. :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


No that is NOT what she said. She did say:

"there is "virtually no evidence" to support theories that her parents killed her.

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

Keenan agrees with her.

"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


And there was virtually no evidence to support theories that an intruder killed her.


Maybe she killed herself? :rolleyes:


The fact is that the crime scene was tainted from the first minutes of the case & without a confession, nobody could be convicted of this murder.

Defense lawyers can argue all the evidence in this case & get a client off. Thus.... NO TRIAL.

[Solace]

Originally posted by Former Juror


I thought I had heard/read everything about this case, but I don't remember this. There were NO prints on the note. What about when Patsy picked it up to read it? What about when she showed it to John?

Oh my, that ranks right up there with some of the most damaging evidence against them.

And lets not forget that the only print on the door to where JB was found is Patsy's palm print.

So are they both wearing gloves when handling this note?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Former Juror


I thought I had heard/read everything about this case, but I don't remember this. There were NO prints on the note. What about when Patsy picked it up to read it? What about when she showed it to John?

Oh my, that ranks right up there with some of the most damaging evidence against them.

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

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



"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.


http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/16-1.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



And there was virtually no evidence to support theories that an intruder killed her.


Maybe she killed herself? :rolleyes:


The fact is that the crime scene was tainted from the first minutes of the case & without a confession, nobody could be convicted of this murder.

Defense lawyers can argue all the evidence in this case & get a client off. Thus.... NO TRIAL.

Oh but there WAS evidence an intruder killed her. You are free to dismiss it as Thomas and the Boulder keystone cops did but it is there.

"In her 93 page opinion, Atlanta federal Judge Julie Carnes found abundant largely uncontested evidence that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey, including:

? At least seven windows and a door in the Ramsey home were found open or unlocked after JonBenø}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 JonBenø}was found.

? JonBenø…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 JonBenø…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 JonBenø…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 JonBenø…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 JonBenø…s body was found did not belong to the Ramseys.

? Brown cotton fibers found on JonBenø…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 JonBenø…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 JonBenø…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 JonBenø…s death but who later began working for the Ramseys. Smit has said he believes JonBenø}was subdued by a stun gun.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002341.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



And there was virtually no evidence to support theories that an intruder killed her.


Maybe she killed herself? :rolleyes:


The fact is that the crime scene was tainted from the first minutes of the case & without a confession, nobody could be convicted of this murder.

Defense lawyers can argue all the evidence in this case & get a client off. Thus.... NO TRIAL.

"According to Carnes, Wolf was identified as a possible suspect by Detective Lou Smit, who said there were too many “unanswered questions” about him.

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

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

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

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

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

Carnes notes in her ruling that one man named in the Ramseys’ book, Michael Helgoth, committed suicide two months after the murder and one day after District Attorney Alex Hunter announced they were narrowing the search for JonBenet’s killer.

A stun gun was found near Mr. Helgoth’s body, as well as “HI-TEC” boots. Evidence in the case suggests that JonBenet’s killer used a stun gun on her. Unidentified shoeprints from HI-TEC boots also were found in the Ramseys’ basement.

Another possible suspect is Gary Olivia, a transient with a history of child molestation, who was seen in the Boulder area in December 1996. Carnes wrote that Olivia picked up his mail one block from the Ramsey home and was present at JonBenet’s memorial service.

The Ramseys also identified Bill McReynolds as someone who should be investigated. McReynolds, a former University of Colorado journalism professor, portrayed Santa Claus at the Ramseys’ home for the third consecutive year in 1996 — two nights before the 6-year-old was found slain.

In addition, McReynolds’ wife had written a play about a young girl held captive in a basement.

Carnes also noted that McReynolds’ daughter had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted 22 years to the day before JonBenet’s death. A card written to JonBenet from McReynolds was found in her trash can after the murder.

McReynolds died at the age of 72 last September. Police said they never considered him a serious suspect.


http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/s...ail03.asp?ID=26

[Solace]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by breezy1234


Oh but there WAS evidence an intruder killed her. You are free to dismiss it as Thomas and the Boulder keystone cops did but it is there.

"In her 93 page opinion, Atlanta federal Judge Julie Carnes found abundant largely uncontested evidence that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey, including:

? At least seven windows and a door in the Ramsey home were found open or unlocked after JonBenø}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 JonBenø}was found.

? JonBenø…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 JonBenø…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 JonBenø…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 JonBenø…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 JonBenø…s body was found did not belong to the Ramseys.

? Brown cotton fibers found on JonBenø…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 JonBenø…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 JonBenø…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 JonBenø…s death but who later began working for the Ramseys. Smit has said he believes JonBenø}was subdued by a stun gun.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002341.html

The evidence does not suggest an intruder. John left the mark when he climbed in the summer before. And the suitcase had not been up against the window, it was moved there by Fleet White. It was away from the window to begin with. So I guess the intruder jumped from the suitcase to the window and was so agile that he did not disturb the spider web. Although in the Routier case, that is one of the pieces of evidence that helped convict her. There was no fingerprints or mess on the window sill. She does not have any money though.

The garrotte was not complicated. I could do it in my sleep. Please!

Four fibers consistent with Patsy's jacket that she wore to the
Whites were found underneath the tape over JB's mouth and in the paint box.

The Boulder police were known to have worn hi tec shoes, they were down in the cellar. Also, it is possible that the shoe print is from Melinda, JB's half sister.

Male DNA found in the underwear worn by JB was also found on the other pieces of unworn underwear bought in the same batch as the ones worn by JB (most likely came from the manufacturer and could have transferred to her fingernails)

Re: Pubic Hair: There were a number of guests who had used JB's room when she was not there. Her older brother slept there and so did friends of his. Easily could have come from a guest.

Injuries consistent with a stun gun: Lou Smit admits on LKL that he is not positive it is a taser, but the closest thing he could find. Another thing when a taser is used the marks are not black, they are red in color. If a stun gun was used, the marks would have been bright red.

Tape: Evidence suggests it came from one of JB's dolls

Anything else, Breezy?

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by Solace


I also would love to know Breezy's point. Breezy you seem to only quote links. Do you have any thoughts of your own on this subject. I know I asked you that way back but I think you posted another link. Lets hear it from Breezy, her own thoughts and not someone else's.

You and "Will" sound like you're trying to undermine the actual facts as stated in Breezy's links, however, it's not going to work. The facts are the only thing that counts, not books based on opinions and theories. She's only doing what she's supposed to.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


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

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



"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.


http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/16-1.html

There you go quoting The Daily Camera - they are so pro Ramsey, it is absurd. :lol:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


"According to Carnes, Wolf was identified as a possible suspect by Detective Lou Smit, who said there were too many “unanswered questions” about him.

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

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

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

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

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

Carnes notes in her ruling that one man named in the Ramseys’ book, Michael Helgoth, committed suicide two months after the murder and one day after District Attorney Alex Hunter announced they were narrowing the search for JonBenet’s killer.

A stun gun was found near Mr. Helgoth’s body, as well as “HI-TEC” boots. Evidence in the case suggests that JonBenet’s killer used a stun gun on her. Unidentified shoeprints from HI-TEC boots also were found in the Ramseys’ basement.

Another possible suspect is Gary Olivia, a transient with a history of child molestation, who was seen in the Boulder area in December 1996. Carnes wrote that Olivia picked up his mail one block from the Ramsey home and was present at JonBenet’s memorial service.

The Ramseys also identified Bill McReynolds as someone who should be investigated. McReynolds, a former University of Colorado journalism professor, portrayed Santa Claus at the Ramseys’ home for the third consecutive year in 1996 — two nights before the 6-year-old was found slain.

In addition, McReynolds’ wife had written a play about a young girl held captive in a basement.

Carnes also noted that McReynolds’ daughter had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted 22 years to the day before JonBenet’s death. A card written to JonBenet from McReynolds was found in her trash can after the murder.

McReynolds died at the age of 72 last September. Police said they never considered him a serious suspect.


http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/s...ail03.asp?ID=26


Carnes is simply explaining all the theories that Team Ramsey & a timid DA'a office presented that point away from the Ramseys. She has no way to judge whether those theories were provable or accurate, only that they raised doubt.


Without exhuming JB's body we don't know for sure that a stun gun was used. Some people said it was a possibility & some others said it was not a stun gun.

Since the Ramsey house was open to the public & they allowed strangers to walk all through the home & even look in bedrooms & closets, it was impossible to rule out every footprint or smudge on a wall.

John himself said he broke the window in the basement & it was never fixed. There was NO dirt found near the window that would suggest a person crawled in through that small opening.

The suitcase near the window was moved by Fleet White & he picked up some glass & placed it on the suitcase.

One small smudged partial print was found on the basement door. There was no way to determine how long it had been there. The same with the single unmatched footprint.... it was found in the concrete dust of the unfished cement floor.

Did the intruder fail to leave prints all over the house & only left one small smudge on the door, a small mark on the wall, plus a SINGLE footprint in dust?

Wouldn't he have two feet?

[Solace]

Originally posted by Lianasmom


You and "Will" sound like you're trying to undermine the actual facts as stated in Breezy's links, however, it's not going to work. The facts are the only thing that counts, not books based on opinions and theories. She's only doing what she's supposed to.

Lianasmom: If Breezy could give some evidence that did not come from a source in Ramsey's camp, I would give it credence. When she finally gave an opinion to LI Mom about why she thought it was plausible that the Ramseys did not wake up Berke, it was beyond laughable.

According to Breezy, if a six year old is found to be kidnapped and a ransom note left saying she will be beheaded if instructions are not followed, there is no reason whatsoever to wake up the other sleeping child, even though someone (if the intruder theory was valid) could have come in an sexually assaulted him during the night and terrorized him, even though he might be able to help in identifying an intruder. But according to Breezy that is not something to be considered, so just let him sleep.

Breezy argues to be argumentative and that is it. And it is clear from her statement that she felt Berke was fine left in his bed and undisturbed.

[LI_Mom]

I'd add that the pubic hair tested showed similarities to Melinda Ramsey.

A frequent guest to her father's home.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


There are photographs showing that dirt was disturbed on the window frame where the grate was. That garrotte looked complicated to me.


There was no dirt dragged INSIDE though.

It's quite a feat to pull yourself through a small window and not drag in some dirt or dead leaves or what not.


Wait! Maybe the intruder vacuumed the floor before he went upstairs to feed JB some fresh pineapple? :biggrin:

[Solace]

Originally posted by hohum


There are photographs showing that dirt was disturbed on the window frame where the grate was. That garrotte looked complicated to me.

No one climbed through the grate except John a few months before and he left his footprint on the lower wall as he came in. The spider web was in tact, but according to the Ramseys, the spider came out after the intruder left and rewebbed.

The garrote is NOT complicated it is simply wound around on each side and tied. Please take a look at it, I know you could do it.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



There was no dirt dragged INSIDE though.

It's quite a feat to pull yourself through a small window and not drag in some dirt or dead leaves or what not.


Wait! Maybe the intruder vacuumed the floor before he went upstairs to feed JB some fresh pineapple? :biggrin:

That has to be it LIMom.:seeya:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by hohum


There are photographs showing that dirt was disturbed on the window frame where the grate was. That garrotte looked complicated to me.
Anyone able to tie a shoelace can tie the type of knot which was around Jon Benet's neck and wrap a rope around a handle. The knot on her neck btw was a fixed knot which made a cord tied around a stick useless anyway as a garroting instrument. In short, the cord around the stick was completely redundant.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


That garrotte looked complicated to me.

Complicated?

On closer look, it doesn't look THAT complicated to me.

Here's a pic:

http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote2.jpg


It does look like the type of thing a typical boy would play with. Especially a boy who liked knives & watching movies that showed car crashes.

Burke used his pocketknife to whittle all over the house. He would leave shavings wherever he went & Patsy said she didn't know how to get him to stop other than taking the knife away from him.

The housekeeper finally DID take the knife (I guess she was tired of cleaning up after such a spoiled child) & she hid it in the cabinet where JB's pullups were stored.


The pullups were found half hanging out of the cabinet when the police investigated but Patsy said she did NOT change JB during the night.


Did Burke go to retrieve his knife on that night? Was that why it was found downstairs in the basement?

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Complicated?

On closer look, it doesn't look THAT complicated to me.

Here's a pic:

http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote2.jpg


It does look like the type of thing a typical boy would play with. Especially a boy who liked knives & watching movies that showed car crashes.

Burke used his pocketknife to whittle all over the house. He would leave shavings wherever he went & Patsy said she didn't know how to get him to stop other than taking the knife away from him.

The housekeeper finally DID take the knife (I guess she was tired of cleaning up after such a spoiled child) & she hid it in the cabinet where JB's pullups were stored.


The pullups were found half hanging out of the cabinet when the police investigated but Patsy said she did NOT change JB during the night.


Did Burke go to retrieve his knife on that night? Was that why it was found downstairs in the basement?

Interesting post LIMom.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Wow, surprise surprise, you "believe" the Thomas theory that has no evidence to support it.

"The autopsy report states that JonBenet suffered a severe blow to her head shortly before or around the time of her murder.

Wolf surmises that Patsy Ramsey then staged a crime scene to make it look like an intruder killed JonBenet.

“Plaintiff has provided no evidence for this theory,” Carnes wrote.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=25
Breezy: you can quote judge Carnes until JonBenet rises from her grave, but you won't change the fact that Carnes got most of her biased info from team Ramsey. For more info on Judge Carnes, go to the 'Separating Fact From Fiction' thread on the Websleuths forum, which, as opposed to this small forum here on CTV which only consists of one thread, is one of the really important and highly estimated JonBenet forums on the internet, with posters whose knowledge on the case would make your jaw drop to your knees.
But of course you won't go there because you prefer to stay in your 'the Ramseys are innocent' bubble.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Lianasmom: If Breezy could give some evidence that did not come from a source in Ramsey's camp, I would give it credence. When she finally gave an opinion to LI Mom about why she thought it was plausible that the Ramseys did not wake up Berke, it was beyond laughable.

According to Breezy, if a six year old is found to be kidnapped and a ransom note left saying she will be beheaded if instructions are not followed, there is no reason whatsoever to wake up the other sleeping child, even though someone (if the intruder theory was valid) could have come in an sexually assaulted him during the night and terrorized him, even though he might be able to help in identifying an intruder. But according to Breezy that is not something to be considered, so just let him sleep.

Breezy argues to be argumentative and that is it. And it is clear from her statement that she felt Berke was fine left in his bed and undisturbed.

As I said before, you should write your own fairy tale book. I explained my reasoning and it is all back there on this thread if anyone wants to look. :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

The more we talk, the more it makes sense that Burke was awake with JB that night.

The mysterious snack.

Two kids who are still over-excited about Christmas PLUS the trip coming up in a couple of hours & can't sleep. Didn't Burke say that his parents only THOUGHT he was alseep the next morning but he was pretending. He could have still been awake by the time John shut off the light that night.

A jealous son. A bratty little sister who was known to ask anyone & everyone to help her wipe after using the bathroom. Not a child shy about her body.

JB must have spent a LOT of time practicing her pageant routines & gestures in the house. This was not merely a passing hobby for the Ramsey women... this was JB's destiny & it was serious business.

At almost 10 years old, Burke has to start to be curious about sex & perhaps the suggestive outfits JB wore in the pageants sparked his budding sexuality?

Maybe Burke just wanted to play 'doctor' and either the mother or father came upon them & exploded.

Do you turn in your son? His life would have been destroyed & yours, too. What would the neighbors & business associates say? We're talking about a business that made ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Do you give that up?



Take THAT Judge Carnes! :biggrin:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

Breezy: you can quote judge Carnes until JonBenet rises from her grave, ]that is a disgusting and childish remark

but you won't change the fact that Carnes got most of her biased info from team Ramsey. Wolf AND Thomas (team Thomas)had their chance to prove their theories and couldn't) For more info on Judge Carnes, go to the 'Separating Fact From Fiction' thread on the Websleuths forum, which, as opposed to this small forum here on CTV which only consists of one thread, is one of the really important and highly estimated JonBenet forums on the internet, with posters whose knowledge on the case would make your jaw drop to your knees.
But of course you won't go there because you prefer to stay in your 'the Ramseys are innocent' bubble. Thanks but as I told you numerous times, I will take the word of a seasoned detective, a judge and the present DA over consiracy buffs on the internet. If all those "knowledgeable" posters know so much and can PROVE it, they are free to take it to court and do so. They would rather sit on their computers posting their "theories" and trying to destory people with their vicious gossip than to put their theories to the test of a court room. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
The more we talk, the more it makes sense that Burke was awake with JB that night.

The mysterious snack.

Two kids who are still over-excited about Christmas PLUS the trip coming up in a couple of hours & can't sleep. Didn't Burke say that his parents only THOUGHT he was alseep the next morning but he was pretending. He could have still been awake by the time John shut off the light that night.

A jealous son. A bratty little sister who was known to ask anyone & everyone to help her wipe after using the bathroom. Not a child shy about her body.

JB must have spent a LOT of time practicing her pageant routines & gestures in the house. This was not merely a passing hobby for the Ramsey women... this was JB's destiny & it was serious business.

At almost 10 years old, Burke has to start to be curious about sex & perhaps the suggestive outfits JB wore in the pageants sparked his budding sexuality?

Maybe Burke just wanted to play 'doctor' and either the mother or father came upon them & exploded.

Do you turn in your son? His life would have been destroyed & yours, too. What would the neighbors & business associates say? We're talking about a business that made ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Do you give that up?



Take THAT Judge Carnes! :biggrin:

Gossip, gossip, gossip. :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Breaking news:

Ramseys deny that the hundreds of strangers in their home could have possibily left any traces & that any evidence that the police cannot match is proof of an intruder who entered their home to kidnap their daughter forgetting to take her body.

Furthermore, Team Ramsey has heard from unnamed sources that Mark Furhman is responsible for planting all the evidence that suggests the Ramseys are guilty.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Gossip, gossip, gossip. :rolleyes:

Nope. That's called looking at what little is known about the facts and then constructing a LOGICAL theory.


As oppossed to thinking a person is innocent because a judge in a civil trial said there just wasn't enough evidence for the DA to try them in crimminal court.

I don't buy the 'they MUST be totally innocent because there seems to be reasonable doubt' theory.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I'd add that the pubic hair tested showed similarities to Melinda Ramsey.

A frequent guest to her father's home.

Oh? Where was that proven? Ya think Smit,the judge and the DA would know something like that.

Personally I don't believe it BECAUSE it was not brought up in court. She stated in her opinion.................A pubic hair found on the blanket covering JonBents body did not match that of any Ramsey.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Nope. That's called looking at what little is known about the facts and then constructing a LOGICAL theory.


As oppossed to thinking a person is innocent because a judge in a civil trial said there just wasn't enough evidence for the DA to try them in crimminal court.

I don't buy the 'they MUST be totally innocent because there seems to be reasonable doubt' theory.

Oh well, you are not the judge or the DA nor do you know the evidence they know. Until you can prove what you say, IMO it is gossip.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
Breaking news:

Ramseys deny that the hundreds of strangers in their home could have possibily left any traces & that any evidence that the police cannot match is proof of an intruder who entered their home to kidnap their daughter forgetting to take her body.

Furthermore, Team Ramsey has heard from unnamed sources that Mark Furhman is responsible for planting all the evidence that suggests the Ramseys are guilty.

Childish post and now I see you are not serious about evidnece, you just like to gossip and make up stories.:seeya:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


And I don't think a nine year old (Burke) could have tied it that neatly either.

JMO

You're wasting your time trying to talk sense to her. Did you see this post of hers? She is just here to play games, make up stories and gossip.

'Originally posted by LI_Mom
Breaking news:

Ramseys deny that the hundreds of strangers in their home could have possibily left any traces & that any evidence that the police cannot match is proof of an intruder who entered their home to kidnap their daughter forgetting to take her body.

Furthermore, Team Ramsey has heard from unnamed sources that Mark Furhman is responsible for planting all the evidence that suggests the Ramseys are guilty.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Childish post and now I see you are not serious about evidnece, you just like to gossip and make up stories.:seeya:


And I can tell by your post "Oh well, you are not the judge or the DA nor do you know the evidence they know. Until you can prove what you say, IMO it is gossip." that you are serious about discussing the case.


What part of: the crime scene was so degraded that the DA was afraid to bring this to trial, are you having trouble grasping?

The only thing left to do is examine the evidence AND info that has been made available and come to a LOGICAL CONCLUSION. Just as any jury would do if the case ever goes to trial.

By your thinking juries are irrelevant to crimes, all we have to do is look at the hard and circumstantial evidence & we'd automatically know WHICH side is telling the truth.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234
Thanks but as I told you numerous times, I will take the word of a seasoned detective, a judge and the present DA over consiracy buffs on the internet. If all those "knowledgeable" posters know so much and can PROVE it, they are free to take it to court and do so. They would rather sit on their computers posting their "theories" and trying to destory people with their vicious gossip than to put their theories to the test of a court room. :rolleyes:

Breezy are you taking any prescription medication. I think arguing with you is futile because there is definitely something funny going on. You get extremely angry and I have a feeling there is more to this anger than meets the post.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I did look at the garrotte and it was done in a very tight neat way. I can't even tie our boat to the dock without it slipping. I do think someone would have had to have a little training, like a boy scout, to be able to do this. I don't think Patsy could have tied that knot unless she had practiced.

There were three people in the house who might have created that knot.

It might have been created by Burke as a toy.... that night or even a long time ago.

We just don't know WHEN the garrote was made.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



And I can tell by your post "Oh well, you are not the judge or the DA nor do you know the evidence they know. Until you can prove what you say, IMO it is gossip." that you are serious about discussing the case.


What part of: the crime scene was so degraded that the DA was afraid to bring this to trial, are you having trouble grasping?

The only thing left to do is examine the evidence AND info that has been made available and come to a LOGICAL CONCLUSION. Just as any jury would do if the case ever goes to trial.

By your thinking juries are irrelevant to crimes, all we have to do is look at the hard and circumstantial evidence & we'd automatically know WHICH side is telling the truth.

Who said he was "afraid" to bring it to trial because of the crime scene? :rolleyes: Just more gossip unless it was testified to or you ARE the DA.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234
Thanks but as I told you numerous times, I will take the word of a seasoned detective, a judge and the present DA over consiracy buffs on the internet. If all those "knowledgeable" posters know so much and can PROVE it, they are free to take it to court and do so. They would rather sit on their computers posting their "theories" and trying to destory people with their vicious gossip than to put their theories to the test of a court room. :rolleyes:
No need to become red with anger in your posts, Breezy. Let's stick to the hard facts, even if they are unpleasant to you.
"Seasoned detective?" You mean Lou Smit with his intruder fantasy? Smit did not arrive upon the scene until months after the death of JB. He obviously had been influenced by the Heather Dawn Church case, and since believed that parents automatically must be innocent.

Smit's musings re the 'garrrote'.
"He (the intruder) had to put a noose around this garrote. He had to put it around JonBenet's neck."

Delmar England calls this 'incoherent gibberish', because the noose IS the garrote. Which shows that Smit knew no more about garrotes than the average layperson.
Smit was a detective, but this does not automatically make him an expert on things like stun guns and garrotes. But Smit, full of himself, did not think it necessary to consult experts.

Another of my favorites:
Smit: "I see someone taking that handle and pulling it very violently tight and killing her."

Priceless, Louie! Has it ever occurred to you that you "saw" exactly what the stager of the scene wanted you to see, and that you swallowed the stager's scenario hook, line and sinker? Ever thought of that?
No wonder the police detectives called you a "delusional old man", lol.

But at least we'll have to give Louie that: he has gotten very, very quiet in the past years re his stun gun nonsense. He probably was pretty embarrassed that renowned stun gun experts totally disagreed with his claim that a stun gun was used on JonBenet.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy are you taking any prescription medication. I think arguing with you is futile because there is definitely something funny going on. You get extremely angry and I have a feeling there is more to this anger than meets the post.

:rolleyes: Oh yeah, I am "extremely angry". :lol:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy are you taking any prescription medication. I think arguing with you is futile because there is definitely something funny going on. You get extremely angry and I have a feeling there is more to this anger than meets the post.

It's as if Breezy has a personal stake in this & isn't just talking about strangers.

She acts like anyone who won't agree that the Ramseys are innocent is launching a personal attack against her instead of stating their own opinions about a public case.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


There were three people in the house who might have created that knot.

It might have been created by Burke as a toy.... that night or even a long time ago.

We just don't know WHEN the garrote was made.

HoHum, Why could Patsy have not tied that knot6. She was constantly primping JB for these pageants. I am sure she tied many a knot during the course of these pageants. Costumes have to be fixed, things have to be done last minute. I bet she was a pro at fixing last minute things. Why not a knot around a garrote. She would know how to do that. She was accomplished at getting JB the perfect costume and making sure it fit perfectly. Actually, thinking about it, she is more of a suspect in knowing how to do this than anyone else in the family.

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
The more we talk, the more it makes sense that Burke was awake with JB that night.

The mysterious snack.

Two kids who are still over-excited about Christmas PLUS the trip coming up in a couple of hours & can't sleep. Didn't Burke say that his parents only THOUGHT he was alseep the next morning but he was pretending. He could have still been awake by the time John shut off the light that night.

A jealous son. A bratty little sister who was known to ask anyone & everyone to help her wipe after using the bathroom. Not a child shy about her body.

JB must have spent a LOT of time practicing her pageant routines & gestures in the house. This was not merely a passing hobby for the Ramsey women... this was JB's destiny & it was serious business.

At almost 10 years old, Burke has to start to be curious about sex & perhaps the suggestive outfits JB wore in the pageants sparked his budding sexuality?

Maybe Burke just wanted to play 'doctor' and either the mother or father came upon them & exploded.

Do you turn in your son? His life would have been destroyed & yours, too. What would the neighbors & business associates say? We're talking about a business that made ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Do you give that up?



Take THAT Judge Carnes! :biggrin:

Your theory is based on sheer speculation on your part and holds no basis in fact. There's nothing logical about it. Sorry.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


It's as if Breezy has a personal stake in this & isn't just talking about strangers.

She acts like anyone who won't agree that the Ramseys are innocent is launching a personal attack against her instead of stating their own opinions about a public case.

It would be great IF the guilty's would give their opinions but IMO they are giving opinions of Thomas and the leaks he supplied to the press. :rolleyes:

WHAT is YOUR persponal stake in this?:shrug:

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


It's as if Breezy has a personal stake in this & isn't just talking about strangers.

She acts like anyone who won't agree that the Ramseys are innocent is launching a personal attack against her instead of stating their own opinions about a public case.

Yes she does and it is becoming laughable rather than trying to learn anything about the case. No one really wants to hear her, she is insulting to everyone except those that agree with her.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Lianasmom


Your theory is based on sheer speculation on your part and holds no basis in fact. There's nothing logical about it. Sorry.

That is all they have is speculation and fairy tales. :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Who said he was "afraid" to bring it to trial because of the crime scene? :rolleyes: Just more gossip unless it was testified to or you ARE the DA.

You mean Hunter wanted to bring it to trial?

Maybe Thomas wouldn't let him?

:rolleyes:

[Solace]

Originally posted by Lianasmom


Your theory is based on sheer speculation on your part and holds no basis in fact. There's nothing logical about it. Sorry.

Lianasmom: I have to admit you make me laugh out loud. But actually it is a fairly reasonable speculation especially the part about the knife being hidden behind the diapers. Patsy said she was packing and took some diapers with her for the trip but she did not have to use any on JB that night.

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Nope. That's called looking at what little is known about the facts and then constructing a LOGICAL theory.


As oppossed to thinking a person is innocent because a judge in a civil trial said there just wasn't enough evidence for the DA to try them in crimminal court.

I don't buy the 'they MUST be totally innocent because there seems to be reasonable doubt' theory.

Don't forget a grand jury looked at every bit of evidence and determined there wasn't enough to indict the Ramseys. A grand jury's job is to determine if there's probable cause, not whether they were actually guilty of the crime, and there was none.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


You mean Hunter wanted to bring it to trial?

Maybe Thomas wouldn't let him?

:rolleyes:

I think you are right LIMom. Alex Hunter practically begged Steve Thomas to bring this case to trial - I think it was at the local diner where he really made a fool out of himself and Steve Thomas said "no absolutely not, you don't have enough evidence". Alex Hunter was beside himself because that was his forte bringing cases to trial and he could not believe how Thomas was responding especially when he felt he had such incriminating evidence.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


You mean Hunter wanted to bring it to trial?

Maybe Thomas wouldn't let him?

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by breezy1234


Who said he was "afraid" to bring it to trial because of the crime scene? Just more gossip unless it was testified to or you ARE the DA.

YOU said he was afarid to bring it to trial, not me. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by LI_Mom



What part of: the crime scene was so degraded that the DA was afraid to bring this to trial, are you having trouble grasping?

The only thing left to do is examine the evidence AND info that has been made available and come to a LOGICAL CONCLUSION. Just as any jury would do if the case ever goes to trial.

By your thinking juries are irrelevant to crimes, all we have to do is look at the hard and circumstantial evidence & we'd automatically know WHICH side is telling the truth.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


It would be great IF the guilty's would give their opinions but IMO they are giving opinions of Thomas and the leaks he supplied to the press. :rolleyes:

WHAT is YOUR persponal stake in this?:shrug:

I have no personal stake & really don't care one way or the other.

I came here to discuss the various theories surrounding this case. But I'm not hearing any personal ideas or feelings from the Pro-Ramsey side, I'm just hearing the same old Ramsey defense talking points repeated over & over.

So far, the Pro-Ramsey argument boils down to:

1. If they can't PROVE BARD the Ramseys are guilty so they are innocent.

2. Unless the prosecution can match every single footprint or fingerprint inside that home, that proves there was an "intruder" in the house.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


I think you are right LIMom. Alex Hunter practically begged Steve Thomas to bring this case to trial - I think it was at the local diner where he really made a fool out of himself and Steve Thomas said "no absolutely not, you don't have enough evidence". Alex Hunter was beside himself because that was his forte bringing cases to trial and he could not believe how Thomas was responding especially when he felt he had such incriminating evidence.


:lol: More unproven silly gossip. There is no use talking to children who like to play word games and make up gossip. Maybe when your mommy decides to monitor your computer usage those who don't think the death of a little girl and the destruction of her fmaily is "funny" and can have an adult conversation. :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


I think you are right LIMom. Alex Hunter practically begged Steve Thomas to bring this case to trial - I think it was at the local diner where he really made a fool out of himself and Steve Thomas said "no absolutely not, you don't have enough evidence". Alex Hunter was beside himself because that was his forte bringing cases to trial and he could not believe how Thomas was responding especially when he felt he had such incriminating evidence.

:beer:

And remember how Hunter & the FBI told the Ramseys that they should go ahead and do the CNN interview and that the police were in no rush to solve the crime? :biggrin:

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by Lianasmom


You've raised very legitimate questions. I.

Thanks Lianasmon and Hohum. I've never had a problem imagining the why. I grew up as a child performer, singing, dancing, etc, and there is plenty of crossover with the pageant world. I've seen plenty of stage parents and know how pushy they can be.... And as for speculating about how "nice" or "sweet" people are, well, Ted Bundy was nice and sweet, too.

When I first heard about it, I believed one or another Ramsey was guilty... until I saw the garrote and read the "ransom" note. Sure, a bash-on-the-head accident/cover-up could happen if the perpetrators had the necessary tranquility of mind to sit down and think about it:

"OK, we've just accidentally killed our kid, let's make it look like either a pedophile or a jealous co-worker.... John, go look up what's the preferred method of pedophiles.... Garotte? OK, let's fashion one and wrap it around our half-dead child's neck. Now, let's write a lengthy note on our own paper. OK, Patsy, now you ram this stick in your dead child's vagina so it looks legit...."

Sorry to sound crass, but I just can't see that! Even a parent who kills his/her kid still loves him/her, despite how twisted the love may be.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234



:lol: More unproven silly gossip. There is no use talking to children who like to play word games and make up gossip. Maybe when your mommy decides to monitor your computer usage those who don't think the death of a little girl and the destruction of her fmaily is "funny" and can have an adult conversation. :shrug:

Breezy: Page 161 of Pefect Murder/Perfect Town. Read it yourself.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by noelsaloy


Thanks Lianasmon and Hohum. I've never had a problem imagining the why. I grew up as a child performer, singing, dancing, etc, and there is plenty of crossover with the pageant world. I've seen plenty of stage parents and know how pushy they can be.... And as for speculating about how "nice" or "sweet" people are, well, Ted Bundy was nice and sweet, too.

When I first heard about it, I believed one or another Ramsey was guilty... until I saw the garrote and read the "ransom" note. Sure, a bash-on-the-head accident/cover-up could happen if the perpetrators had the necessary tranquility of mind to sit down and think about it:

"OK, we've just accidentally killed our kid, let's make it look like either a pedophile or a jealous co-worker.... John, go look up what's the preferred method of pedophiles.... Garotte? OK, let's fashion one and wrap it around our half-dead child's neck. Now, let's write a lengthy note on our own paper. OK, Patsy, now you ram this stick in your dead child's vagina so it looks legit...."

Sorry to sound crass, but I just can't see that! Even a parent who kills his/her kid still loves him/her, despite how twisted the love may be.

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

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

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

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

[Solace]

Originally posted by noelsaloy


Thanks Lianasmon and Hohum. I've never had a problem imagining the why. I grew up as a child performer, singing, dancing, etc, and there is plenty of crossover with the pageant world. I've seen plenty of stage parents and know how pushy they can be.... And as for speculating about how "nice" or "sweet" people are, well, Ted Bundy was nice and sweet, too.

When I first heard about it, I believed one or another Ramsey was guilty... until I saw the garrote and read the "ransom" note. Sure, a bash-on-the-head accident/cover-up could happen if the perpetrators had the necessary tranquility of mind to sit down and think about it:

"OK, we've just accidentally killed our kid, let's make it look like either a pedophile or a jealous co-worker.... John, go look up what's the preferred method of pedophiles.... Garotte? OK, let's fashion one and wrap it around our half-dead child's neck. Now, let's write a lengthy note on our own paper. OK, Patsy, now you ram this stick in your dead child's vagina so it looks legit...."

Sorry to sound crass, but I just can't see that! Even a parent who kills his/her kid still loves him/her, despite how twisted the love may be.


Noelsloy: You are making lol. Ok, lets put that aside for a minute and deal with the ransom note.The similarities are incredible. Will you agree with that? Even Patsy's analyzers agree and admit they cannot rule her out.

It is a very distinct handwriting to change back and forth from script to print. 24 out of the 26 lettes matching at some point. Sometimes you can even lay words that Patsy wrote with her left hand over the ransom note and they match. What do you say to that?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy: Page 161 of Pefect Murder/Perfect Town. Read it yourself.

:rolleyes: A book is NOT proof.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


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

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

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

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

And I agree that people will do horrible, sick things, too. It's not the horribleness or the sickness so much as the degree of rational thought that it requires to come up with this plan. In a traumatic, intense situation, people do sick things, but they are also stupid things. They don't become criminal masterminds.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by MakeSomeNoise
Anyone know how the rest of the family is coping?

I attended the funeral and reception after. The family knew this was coming and was prepared. They are doing well under the circumstances.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


:beer:

And remember how Hunter & the FBI told the Ramseys that they should go ahead and do the CNN interview and that the police were in no rush to solve the crime? :biggrin:

:beer:

Thank God there are those that can see the light.

There are a lot of people on this board who just cannot believe a mother could do this to a child. This is what I think of Patsy Ramsey. Patsy Ramsey is an extremely strong person and I believe she is capable of doing what most people cannot do, e.g. beating stage IV ovarian cancer (even though it did kill her, she held her own for quite some time) and that is pretty rare. She is very strong. Strong people, it is my belief, can be capable of doing incredibly good things and if need be, if need be, can be capable of going incredibly bad things, if it is necessary.

Patsy I believe felt this was necessary. I think Patsy felt there is no good to come of anyone going to jail for this. I have to take care of it. I never would believe what I am saying, except for the Ransom note and oh yes the fibers under the tape of JB's mouth that match Patsy's jacket.

I think she did it.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by SilSal


Since when does a DA attend the funeral of a murder suspect when the case is still ongoing??



I believe the DA attended the funeral of a parent of a murdered child, an individual the EVIDENCE indicates is innocent.

Have you even read what the DA said after Federal Judge Carnes released HER statement? The bulk of the evidence points to an intruder.

His DNA is in CODIS - - he could be exposed any day. You really need to do the research before you attack.

jameson

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


:rolleyes: A book is NOT proof.

Neither are any announcements that came from the Ramsey lawyers OR the Ramsey P.R. people.

Neither are any of the suspects that the Ramseys supplied. They are just speculation on their part.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


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

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

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

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

Exactly, LIMom, this meant everything to her. She was showing her home at Christmas time. That alone tells you she wants to be thought very very highly of in the community. She was on every committee known to Boulder. She judged contests, had parties at the school to raise money for various charities, some of which people felt she went overboard on. She threw a party at John's company and it cost 40,000 just for the party with a southern tone. etc. etc. Public opinion means EVERYTHING to her. I can see her doing it if she thought the child was dead.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace



Noelsloy: You are making lol. Ok, lets put that aside for a minute and deal with the ransom note.The similarities are incredible. Will you agree with that? Even Patsy's analyzers agree and admit they cannot rule her out.

It is a very distinct handwriting to change back and forth from script to print. 24 out of the 26 lettes matching at some point. Sometimes you can even lay words that Patsy wrote with her left hand over the ransom note and they match. What do you say to that?

""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."

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by rashomon

Steve's loyalty has always been to JonBenet, for whom he still wants justice. Even Patsy Ramsey acknowledged Thomas' committment and sincerity.



Give me a break!

Steve Thomas quit the case and them wrote a book - - his theory which was NOT supported by the evidence.

He did NOT defend his words in court but disappeared with histail between his legs, never to be heard from again, I suspect.

He is not working on this case and there is no evidence that he cares at all anymore.

He is busy with his own baby daughter. Finding justice JonBenet is NOT part of his life, he puts no time into that.

As for Patsy saying those nice things about Steve - - that was long ago and far away. Time has changed things.

[Solace]

Originally posted by noelsaloy


And I agree that people will do horrible, sick things, too. It's not the horribleness or the sickness so much as the degree of rational thought that it requires to come up with this plan. In a traumatic, intense situation, people do sick things, but they are also stupid things. They don't become criminal masterminds.

But they did not become masterminds, she wrote a three page note with her left hand, that is not a very smart thing to do.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Neither are any announcements that came from the Ramsey lawyers OR the Ramsey P.R. people.

Neither are any of the suspects that the Ramseys supplied. They are just speculation on their part.

Right but a judges and a DA's opinion is a heck of a lot more proof than a book written for MONEY. The judge didn't write a book or give her opinion for money. :rolleyes:

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


""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."

Riiiiiiiiiiight!. Tomorrow I will bring you the names of many analyzers who are totally convinced and absolutely sure that she wrote it.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by rashomon



In case it interests you: Delmar England did contact DA Mary Keenan and told her how biased and wrong she was.


LOL - - he has no credibility with people in Boulder. Not since he wrongly accused me of writing the Patricia letters. They all know I didn't do that - -couldn't have done it because I was with some of THEM when Patricia was fielding letters.

He had access to all that information but chose to ignore it and accuse me - - and he was wrong.

His credibility, as far as I can tell, is less than zilch with anyone who really knows what is going on.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Right but a judges and a DA's opinion is a heck of a lot more proof than a book written for MONEY. The judge didn't write a book or give her opinion for money. :rolleyes:

Right, judges never ever have any pressure on them to go any way but the right way.

Breezy, what dimension are you in?

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Interesting too that they Ramseys were never subpoenaed to appear before the GJ. Some people tried to excuse that by saying that they probably would have taken the 5th. Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm betting no. JMO

I know for a fact that the Ramseys were ready, willing and eager to talk to the grand jury. I was told the prosecutor, Kane, didn't want the jurors to meet the Ramseys in person. It wouldn't have helped him if the grand jurors met the Ramseys and (God forbid) ask them questions themselves (allowed in CO GJ proceedings)

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Riiiiiiiiiiight!. Tomorrow I will bring you the names of many analyzers who are totally convinced and absolutely sure that she wrote it.

You do that. BTW, I suggest you don't include Foster in that list because he has already discredited himself by writing to Patsy that he would stake his reputation on the fact she did NOT write the note.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by rashomon


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.

Absolutely - - good parents CAN "lose it" and hurt their children. But that is not what the evidence tells us happened here. Someone took that child to the basement and made a garrote. Sexually assaulted her and left MALE DNA behind during the attack. How can you put that on Patsy. And even if you want to say she could have flipped out and taken her to the basement because she wasreally a monster for an hour or more - - how can you honestly say she could have hidden that side before and after that night?


As for Patsy's aggressive side - - her most aggressive isn't one tenth the aggression of the average posters. Are all posters capable of brutally strangling their own children? Remember, it wasn't a quick death - JBR fought for her life.

jameson

...and for the record, i am just visiting here for tonight and maybe a bit tomorrow - - if you want me after that, go to webbsleuths.org

[Solace]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I dream of a day when there will be no harassment, threatening, cause for discomfort, from one CourtTV message board user or chat participant, or other individual entity to another - and that we can all play DRAGNET and post just the facts, m'am, just the facts, or at least post links or express our opinions as IMO...........

JMO.......

Rosy, I dream of the same thing. Do you by any chance notice the posts that your friend Breezy continues to make when she disagrees. There is a way of disagreeing in a nice way, but I have yet to see her do that and she is nasty with pretty much everyone. I know you must see them.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Right, judges never ever have any pressure on them to go any way but the right way.

Breezy, what dimension are you in?

Well darn, let's just do away with judges and proof under oath in court. Let internet posters find guilt based on a lying detectives book. :rolleyes:

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by sisu
Obviously she was very stressed with ongoing infections and bedwetting.

No need to talk about pageants - - they are no different from scouting or little league. Good and bad in every activity.

but on the other, check out http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID70/3.html

A kindergartner wetting the bed is no big deal and there were no
"ongoing infections".

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by Solace


Maybe some really strong evidence would change my mind. But I have yet to see it.

The handwriting wasn't patsy's - the DA admitted that. And they are putting a lot of faith in the DNA catching the killer - - that is the MALE DNA found under JBR's nails and mixed with her blood in her panties.

If that doesn't make you think twice, I doubt anything will.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You do that. BTW, I suggest you don't include Foster in that list because he has already discredited himself by writing to Patsy that he would stake his reputation on the fact she did NOT write the note.

I had a feeling you would bring up Foster. He admits that and says he was wrong and he believes Patsy did it and not only analyzes her handwriting but also the paragraphing and phrasing. But there are others. Lord Breezy, relax. You are wrong and one day you will see the light. I am convinced you are sure you are right because you are in so deep now that you can't admit it, because you are angry, but there is even hope for you.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


:beer:

Thank God there are those that can see the light.

There are a lot of people on this board who just cannot believe a mother could do this to a child. This is what I think of Patsy Ramsey. Patsy Ramsey is an extremely strong person and I believe she is capable of doing what most people cannot do, e.g. beating stage IV ovarian cancer (even though it did kill her, she held her own for quite some time) and that is pretty rare. She is very strong. Strong people, it is my belief, can be capable of doing incredibly good things and if need be, if need be, can be capable of going incredibly bad things, if it is necessary.

Patsy I believe felt this was necessary. I think Patsy felt there is no good to come of anyone going to jail for this. I have to take care of it. I never would believe what I am saying, except for the Ransom note and oh yes the fibers under the tape of JB's mouth that match Patsy's jacket.

I think she did it.

I agree. She's tough as nails, imo.

I lean towards thinking Burke was involved in some way & his mother could not bear to lose TWO CHILDREN.

I truly think John was shocked & dazed to the point that he was following Patsy's lead.



Interesting tidbit:

When Patsy went into labor with JB, she woke up "around 12:30 am," went to the bathroom with her cell phone & called her mother.

Her mother told her to wake John & get to the hospital.

Patsy called 911, mentions that she had to press various numbers on an automated system (??) & finally spoke to 911..... THEN she woke John "at 1:00 am" and he sprung into action & was ready to go within a few minutes.



"We left home, knowing Mom & Dad were on their way so we didn't have to worry about Burke. My sister Pam was only 2 miles away, and she would be coming too, so the only issue was getting to Northside Hospital as quickly as we could."

(They arrive at the hospital at 1:12 am)

And why did it take almost half an hour for her to wake John?

And I'm not sure why they called 911 if they were planning to drive to the hospital?

Is it normal to leave an almost 4 year old alone in the house asleep? You don't wait another 2 minutes for the sister to arrive... just in case they DON'T get inside the house or whatever?


Just a very weird thing for Patsy to include in her book. Very strange family, imo.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by Solace


But they did not become masterminds, she wrote a three page note with her left hand, that is not a very smart thing to do.

I've heard confilicting things about the handwriting analysis, so I don't know what to think about that.... Here's the way I could see Patsy doing all this: She is either brilliant under pressure with a remarkable gift for logical thinking or she's a sociopath like Suesan and Terry Knoor's mother. I would also have to see John Ramsey not at all involved until after it was too late, maybe after she dialed 911. This I say because I can't see two people giving that note the thumbs up.

Or, I suppose, she really did do an amateur, stupid cover-up, and the police were stupider by just the necessary margin.

Perhaps. But this scenario takes a lot of things for granted: the bizareness of the note, the either brilliance or stupidity of the plan (however you choose to see it), the fashioning of a garrote (instead of some faster method such as another bash to the head, smothering, etc.)

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I agree. She's tough as nails, imo.

I lean towards thinking Burke was involved in some way & his mother could not bear to lose TWO CHILDREN.

I truly think John was shocked & dazed to the point that he was following Patsy's lead.



Interesting tidbit:

When Patsy went into labor with JB, she woke up "around 12:30 am," went to the bathroom with her cell phone & called her mother.

Her mother told her to wake John & get to the hospital.

Patsy called 911, mentions that she had to press various numbers on an automated system (??) & finally spoke to 911..... THEN she woke John "at 1:00 am" and he sprung into action & was ready to go within a few minutes.



"We left home, knowing Mom & Dad were on their way so we didn't have to worry about Burke. My sister Pam was only 2 miles away, and she would be coming too, so the only issue was getting to Northside Hospital as quickly as we could."

(They arrive at the hospital at 1:12 am)

And why did it take almost half an hour for her to wake John?

And I'm not sure why they called 911 if they were planning to drive to the hospital?

Is it normal to leave an almost 4 year old alone in the house asleep? You don't wait another 2 minutes for the sister to arrive... just in case they DON'T get inside the house or whatever?

She is strange. Look at JB prancing around. My son was looking at some of the film and he said "Jesus, she doesn't even know what she is doing, she has no idea", meaning JB. It was awful to do to your child, putting her in pageants. She had no childhood at all.

Just a very weird thing for Patsy to include in her book. Very strange family, imo.

[Solace]

Originally posted by Solace


Anyone who puts their child in those pageants is strange. Did you ever see the documentary on the pageants. The parents are completely nuts and the kids are completely miserable. It was easier for Patsy because she had money, but it was just as hard for JB as it was for the kids without money. She had to work just as hard as they did.


THAT IS AN AWFUL THING TO DO TO A 4 YEAR OLD.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


I had a feeling you would bring up Foster. He admits that and says he was wrong and he believes Patsy did it and not only analyzes her handwriting but also the paragraphing and phrasing. But there are others. Lord Breezy, relax. You are wrong and one day you will see the light. I am convinced you are sure you are right because you are in so deep now that you can't admit it, because you are angry, but there is even hope for you.

WHY do you THINK I am angry? :rolleyes: Deep in WHAT? Posting on this board is a diversion. . I must admit seeing the silliness of adults believing a "book" and dismissing evidence is kind of entertaining. Believeing a "book" of a man who when he had his chance to prove his theories in court, chickend out and settled but they still quote him and he is still their "hero". :rolleyes: That in itself is sad IMO.

[webbsleuth]

found on CTV

1. the ransom note.

Huh? It was left with a body in the house - - certainly not a real attempt to get ransom. I can guess why the intruder left it with a body in the house - - no idea why a parent would if they were staging a kidnapping!

2. where the pen and paper came from.

The Ramsey house - - and if the intruder had access to the child, he had access to the pad and pen. More important are the items the killer carried in that could not be linked to the parents! The stun gun, cord and tape. The Hi-Tec boots, handwriting and DNA

the handwriting analysis.

Clears the parents, if you ask me. Check out what the DA said in deposition - it's being discussed at www.webbsleuths.org

where the paintbrush came from.

The Ramsey house - - and if the intruder had access to the child, he had access to it.

the pineapple.

Not in her stomach but in her intestines - - likely eaten much earlier in the day. Not related to crime.

the fiber evidence.

Fibers on her body matched nothing in the house. Ditto on animal hairs found on her body. Doesn't point to parents.

Patsy's wearing of the same outfit.

The next time you wear the same clothes two days in a row (well, the first was a half-day) you need to ask yourself if that is evidence of any crime.
In this case, had she worn the outfit to kill her daughter in that basement, it would have been filthy. It was not.

the 911 call.

I don't know how to respond to this one. How is the 911 call evidence of guilt?

the body was found by John and Fleet White.

After the police failed to find it in their search. After Det. Arndt told them to search the house. How is that evidence of guilt?

they refused to take a LE lie detector test.

Nope, that's a lie. They agreed to take one - Patsy said she'd take 10 - but Steve Thomas never arranged it.

the quick flight to Atlanta.

They stayed in Boulder until the funeral - - no quick flight. And they returned after as well - - no evidence of guilt there.

other underwear from the same manufacturer had DNA on them.

[b]Please share lab reports on this. LE didn't collect the rest of the package that the panties had been taken out of so they didn't test THOSE panties to see if there was matching DNA. No reports - - just rumor put out by the BORG - - but not good evidence at all.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Patsy couldn't even apply JBs makeup properly or fix her hair so she had to hire experts. She might have been able to tie a big old bow on a little girl's dress which is nothing like the knot on that garrotte. Even I can do that. Patsy was a pro at hiring people to do things for her. Cleaners, yard people, photographers, makeup artists, decorators, babysitters, etc. One hobby Patsy did enjoy was painting which I don't think involves garrottes which someone did fashion from an item in her paint tray.


How do we know Burke didn't create that garrotte when he was playing alone in the basement one day? His train room was in the basement, he must have played down there on occasion.

It's possible it was laying around & they grabbed it because it was convenient to their coverup.

I imagine they would become more & more frantic AS they went about setting the crime scene.

They have to finish up & then go upstairs to construct a note that shows an intruder was in the house.

PLUS they have to make sure Burke knows not to say a WORD about what went on. He is to say he slept through everything & that way, the focus wouldn't be on him for very long.

There's a lot to do & not too much time because they have a scheduled flight out early in the morning so people EXPECT they will be up very early.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't see how seeming strange to some people makes one a killer? What if any one of us had a neighbor whose child was murdered. The police come over to investigate. We are going to look at your computer they say. LOL why are you so interested in child murders, you spend too much time on the computer talking about dead children and that is strange. Just think if someone came to your house this very minute to look into every corner of your life. Would they find anything "strange?" Because no two people do things the same way.

True, Hohum, and I was one of those pageant kids.... There were strange people and kick-back-and-whittle-some normal people. There were parents who pushed kids, but there were also kids who were total hams and loved the attention.

Also, I think boy and girl siblings messing around is quite normal. So is a 6-yr-old having 1/2 a hymen. Dance lessons will do that easily, even scratching yourself too hard after an episode of prickly heat.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Anyone who puts their child in those pageants is strange. Did you ever see the documentary on the pageants. The parents are completely nuts and the kids are completely miserable. It was easier for Patsy because she had money, but it was just as hard for JB as it was for the kids without money. She had to work just as hard as they did.


THAT IS AN AWFUL THING TO DO TO A 4 YEAR OLD.

"It is obvious JonBenet loved doing pageants. If she had not enjoyed them, it would be clear to the judges. Judges can tell when a child enjoys competing and when she does not. Only children who appear to be having fun up on stage receive high scores. If a child does not like being a part of the pageant, she receives a low score. JonBenet always got high scores.

JonBenet's life DID NOT revolve around pageants. The media has portrayed her as a constant contestant in the pageant world, however, this could not be more untrue. A "real pageant kid" participates in one to four pageants a month, and that usually makes up to fifty pageants a year. JonBenet participated in less than ten pageants in one year, far from fifty! True pageant moms put their daughters in kiddie pageants just a few months after they are born, JonBenet did not start competing until she was five years old. Patsy Ramsey waited until JonBenet was old enough to make her own decision on whether or not she wanted to compete in pageants. "


http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/pagentkids/

"JonBenet also was known to be generous, sharing toys and treats.

She was her mother's daughter, according to LaDonna Griego, a Thornton child beauty pageant organizer. Patsy Ramsey shared expensive pageant costumes with other competing children. She even urged her seamstress to make a dress that could be easily adjusted in case another child ran into a fashion faux pas on the runway.

"She would have taken the slip off JonBenet" if another child needed it, Griego said.

It's the pageant photographs that have cemented JonBenet in the public's memory. But in a May interview with the Colorado media, Patsy said pageantry activities were only a "very small part of JonBenet's life" that occurred on a "few Sunday afternoons." Griego described Patsy as a supportive pageant mom - compared to some who get swept up in the competition.
http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/12/26-2.html

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



How do we know Burke didn't create that garrotte when he was playing alone in the basement one day?

That's the best explanation I've heard for the garrote.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't see how seeming strange to some people makes one a killer? What if any one of us had a neighbor whose child was murdered. The police come over to investigate. We are going to look at your computer they say. LOL why are you so interested in child murders, you spend too much time on the computer talking about dead children and that is strange. Just think if someone came to your house this very minute to look into every corner of your life. Would they find anything "strange?" Because no two people do things the same way.

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

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

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

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

Not me, anyway. LOL

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I dream of a day when there will be no harassment, threatening, cause for discomfort, from one CourtTV message board user or chat participant, or other individual entity to another - and that we can all play DRAGNET and post just the facts, m'am, just the facts, or at least post links or express our opinions as IMO...........

JMO.......

:beer:


Yes, I wish people wouldn't take things personally & feel like they are being attacked because someone has a different opinion.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by 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.



The child was killed with a garrote - - she fought for her life - - there's no way it could have been an accident!

The handwriting on the note was not that of any Ramsey - and the DNA under JonBenet's nails and in her panties, mixed with her blood, was not from the Ramsey family either. LE has put that into CODIS and hope for a match one day - that will solve the case.

You should look at the facts before accusing a boy - - he was a BOY at the time.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


When the Ramsey's won their case against Steve Thomas, what happened to his books that had not sold? Was it part of the condition of the lawsuit that the book had to be removed from book stores?

I don't think so. You can buy it used for 49 cents and new for 6.24 on a certain book page on the net(not sure I am allowed to mention the name here). Some people consider it a collectable item? As far as regular book stores I don't know.

[webbsleuth]

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.

Boy, you have a lot of misinformation.

When Patsy put JonBenet to bed, she didn't change her top because she didn't want to disturb her more than necessary. JBR was found in that same white top.

Patsy took off her black VELVET pants and put her in long johns. Why? Because every so often, JBR would wet the bed - and she didn't want the velvet pants ruined if the child wet in the night.

The Barbie PJ's were found in the basement - probably caught up in the blanket the killer took downstairs.

As for singing a song to her - that is also wrong. She and JonBenet used to say a prayer every night when she went to bed - - Now I lay me down to sleep. Patsy said she said the prayer as she tucked Jon in - - that's not too hard to understand. I did that myself when I tucked in my kids.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Anyone can wroite a book and say whatever they wish and say this one or that one said such and such. I think the judges and the new DA's opinions are the best evidence of the truth rather than a book written for money. She heard evidence from both sides UNDER oath, not from gossip.

I have listed my book on Ebay - "Murdering JonBenet" It is a play, a dark play that most theaters wouldn't consider sharing with their audiences. But it is written, based on fact with a lot of GOOD information.

Check it out - part of the proceeds will go to Lou Smit for his discretionary fund.

Sorry to cut out but - - hopefully back later. Family dinner calling.....

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


The child was killed with a garrote - - she fought for her life - - there's no way it could have been an accident!

The handwriting on the note was not that of any Ramsey - and the DNA under JonBenet's nails and in her panties, mixed with her blood, was not from the Ramsey family either. LE has put that into CODIS and hope for a match one day - that will solve the case.

You should look at the facts before accusing a boy - - he was a BOY at the time.

She could have been hit on the head & unconscious before she was strangled. We can't assume she had a chance to FIGHT.

The handwriting analysis could NOT rule out Patsy beyond a reasonable doubt, unlike every other person they checked who WAS ruled out.

DNA under her nails was tainted because the coroner failed to use clean clippers for each nail. That evidence would be laughed out of court by a defense lawyer.

Not to mention, we don't know when was the last time her nails had been thoroghly cleaned prior to her murder. Patsy did NOT bathe her before the party & she had been outside playing.

They were NOT able to get a complete DNA sample from the panties, only a partial. It would only serve to exclude people, not to MATCH anyone.

Furthermore, a never before opened package of the same brand panties were tested and also found to have traces of DNA. The panties were not manufactured or packaged in a sterile environment. Without a DNA match, having a mystery sample tells us nothing.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum
[QUOTE]Originally posted by webbsleuth
found on CTV


the pineapple.

[b]Not in her stomach but in her intestines - - likely eaten much earlier in the day. Not related to crime.

Why do you think the pineapple became such a big deal? If it was found in her intestines how long would it have been in her system? There have been so many inaccuracies and suppositions about this case reported all over the place I would like to be clear on this.

G.I. Tract: The esophagus is empty. It is lined by gray-white mucosa. The stomach contains a small amount (8-11cc) of viscousto green to tan colored thick mucous material without particulate matter identified. The gastic mucosa is autolyzed but contains no areas of hemorrhage or ulceration. The yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple. No hemorrhage is identified. The remainder of the small intestine is unremarkable. The large intestine contains soft green fecal material. The appendix is present.

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

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


Boy, you have a lot of misinformation.

When Patsy put JonBenet to bed, she didn't change her top because she didn't want to disturb her more than necessary. JBR was found in that same white top.

Patsy took off her black VELVET pants and put her in long johns. Why? Because every so often, JBR would wet the bed - and she didn't want the velvet pants ruined if the child wet in the night.




John says:


"Soon Patsy called for the kids to come in to clean up a little before the party. She wanted JB to wear a red turtleneck w/ her black velvet pants so that mother & daughter would be dressed alike, but JB wanted to ewar the complete outfit she had chosen. Finally Mom gave in. JB piut on her outfit w/ her black boots, which zipped up the front....."



It's more likely that JB & Patsy argued over what she would wear & THAT'S why the turtleneck was found balled up & tossed aside.

Rather than be late for the party, Patsy gave in & let the kid have her way. And I assume it would hurt Patsy that her daughter wouldn't wear matching outfits on Christmas.

And JB didn't wet the bed every so often. She wet the bed almost every single night.

Sometimes she would crawl into bed with Burke after she wet her own bed.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



*snipped"


The handwriting analysis could NOT rule out Patsy beyond a reasonable doubt, unlike every other person they checked who WAS ruled out.



More gossip. Wolf was not ruled out either.

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

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

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


We always use our security but I do have friends that have them and never turn them on. They don't want to be bothered. And remember most people don't think bad things will happen to them. I guess when one is ready to deliver, the baby waits on no one, not even the grandparents on their way to sit with the other child. Patsy probably didn't want to take a chance that John might have to deliver the baby! I think Patsy was a bit of a drama queen not to mention a southern one. Someone said to me, think of the Delta Burke character in Designing Women, Suzanne Sugarbaker, and you probably have a good idea of Patsy.

Yes, I can understand that reasoning.

Heck, I might have rushed out also if I thought I wouldn't make it to the hospital in time. Of course, my mother would have killed me for being so irresponsible. :D:

I don't think there can be a smoking gun with this case... it's all the typical behaviorisms that you look at to see whether they ARE capable of making bad &/or stupid decisions.

If they are, then it is not unreasonable to look at them very closely & not close your mind to the possibility that they are guilty OR know more than they are saying.


LOL @ Suzanne Sugarbaker. I love that show.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


More gossip. Wolf was not ruled out either.

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

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


Well Wolf WAS cleared, in any event.

"And there's no reason to consider Judge Carnes's ruling much more than a summary of the catalog of oft repeated Ramsey claims about the case."

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

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Seems like I repeat myself a lot, but 'someone' saw the bowl of what was assumed to be pineapple in a PICTURE the police took and asked Patsy about it sometime later.............I say again, I think too much has been made of the pineapple. JMO


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523875.shtml


Smit asked Patsy questions about pineapple that her daughter ate before being murdered. Autopsy results found undigested pineapple in JonBenet’s stomach. And police discovered fingerprints on a bowl of pineapple left in the family’s dining room on the morning of the murder.

“I didn’t put the bowl there. OK? I didn’t put the bowl there,” Patsy told Smit.

“But now, I’m telling you they are not somebody else’s. I’m telling that they belong to the one of two of you,” Haney responded.

“Well, I don’t know. I did not put that there. No,” Patsy said.

It was Patsy’s fingerprints on the bowl — according to police — suggesting that Patsy gave the fruit to her daughter. But if Patsy did give it to her, and was lying about it, the investigators wondered, could she be lying about everything?

“Sometimes, the simplest most obscure little thing could be so significant,” Haney said.

“Right. I did not feed JonBenet pineapple. OK? So I don’t know how it got in her stomach. And where this bowl of pineapple came from. I can’t recall putting that there,” Patsy said.

---

Even Patsy's not denying there WAS a bowl of pineapple.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



Well Wolf WAS cleared, in any event.

"And there's no reason to consider Judge Carnes's ruling much more than a summary of the catalog of oft repeated Ramsey claims about the case."

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

:lol: Well, WHEN was Wolf cleared in any event??

Wolf AND Thomas had a chance to give their side as well. They proved nothing. That was the reason for the suit, to give Wolf a chance to prove his...er Thomas's theory. If he couldn't do that then he couldn't accuse the Ramseys of "implicating" him unjustly.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Burke used his pocketknife to whittle all over the house. He would leave shavings wherever he went & Patsy said she didn't know how to get him to stop other than taking the knife away from him.

The housekeeper finally DID take the knife (I guess she was tired of cleaning up after such a spoiled child) & she hid it in the cabinet where JB's pullups were stored.


The pullups were found half hanging out of the cabinet when the police investigated but Patsy said she did NOT change JB during the night.


Did Burke go to retrieve his knife on that night? Was that why it was found downstairs in the basement?


Patsy didn't have a problem with Burke whittling, the housekeeper. patsy didn't say anything about hiding the knife, the housekeeper did that on her own.

The pullups were IN the cabinet when the cops arrived. They were pulled out a bit during an early search and the photograph was taken after that.

There is no reason to think the knife was hidden in that cabinet, but Burke had both of his knives in Atlanta after the move, so it seems the knife in the basement was NOT HIS!

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Childish post and now I see you are not serious about evidnece, you just like to gossip and make up stories.:seeya:

I agree - LI__Mom isn't good at knowing the facts, just has a theory and wants to force it to fit. Hir posts are fullof cruel suggestions stated as if they were fact. How do you put up with this day after day???

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



How do we know Burke didn't create that garrotte when he was playing alone in the basement one day? His train room was in the basement, he must have played down there on occasion.



JonBenet's hair was caught up in the knot - - it wasn't made before that night - - it was made ON JonBenet.

This information was all on 48 Hours - - the transcripts are all available online - - why don't you read before you post???

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by hohum
[QUOTE]Originally posted by webbsleuth
found on CTV


the pineapple.

[b]Not in her stomach but in her intestines - - likely eaten much earlier in the day. Not related to crime.

Why do you think the pineapple became such a big deal? If it was found in her intestines how long would it have been in her system? There have been so many inaccuracies and suppositions about this case reported all over the place I would like to be clear on this.

You need only read the autopsy to see the pineaple was NOT in the stomach. It was in the start of the intestines.

Have you got any children? If so, you know they can eat a spaghetti dinner at 6 and be puking it at midnight. Vomit comes from the stomach. The only way it comes from the intestine is if there is a very serious medical condition.

So it was not eaten 10 minutes before ber death - or an hour.

I went to Colorado and visited with coroners who were working as consultants on the case - and they ALL told me it was possible, even probable, that she ate it before going to the Whites' for dinner.

Why did the BORG try to ignore those facts?

Because they figured if people thought the pineapple was eaten just before her death... it would look bad for the parents who said they didn't feed her anything that night. And there was really very little - - no, there is no way an intruder fed her and waited for a few hours to kill her in that house.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


I agree - LI__Mom isn't good at knowing the facts, just has a theory and wants to force it to fit. Hir posts are fullof cruel suggestions stated as if they were fact. How do you put up with this day after day???

I resent that remark.

The ONLY time I have stated something is a "fact" is when I am quoting directly from the Ramsey book. I suppose it's possible that the Ramseys were not telling the truth in their book but I have a feeling that's not the point you were trying to make.


Considering the case is UNSOLVED, the only way to approach the case is to work with what info IS public & then discuss whether each piece points TO or AWAY from a suspect.

IF you can come up with a logical explanation for WHY you believe a person might NOT be ruled out as a suspect, there's nothing "cruel" about that.


You seem to be believe the Ramseys are innocent, so instead of complaining that you don't like my attitude, tell my why you think the points I am bringing up are illogical theories?

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



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

Not me, anyway. LOL

"We left home, knowing Mom & Dad were on their way so we didn't have to worry about Burke. My sister Pam was only 2 miles away, and she would be coming too, so the only issue was getting to Northside Hospital as quickly as we could."


I believe the older children were in the house as well. They would have been old enough to take care of Burke for an hour or so if they had to.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by hohum


I never suspected Burke, it was way beyond what I thought a boy of 9 could do. I have even heard Burke described as slow or retarded. Where that came from I don't know since it's my understanding he is at Purdue in college now.

I have met the ramseys, been with Burke several times. He and my son visited together. Burke is not slow or retarded. He is a bit quiet when you first meet him (so am I) but I assure you he is perfectly normal.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


You need only read the autopsy to see the pineaple was NOT in the stomach. It was in the start of the intestines.

Have you got any children? If so, you know they can eat a spaghetti dinner at 6 and be puking it at midnight. Vomit comes from the stomach. The only way it comes from the intestine is if there is a very serious medical condition.

So it was not eaten 10 minutes before ber death - or an hour.

I went to Colorado and visited with coroners who were working as consultants on the case - and they ALL told me it was possible, even probable, that she ate it before going to the Whites' for dinner.

Why did the BORG try to ignore those facts?

Because they figured if people thought the pineapple was eaten just before her death... it would look bad for the parents who said they didn't feed her anything that night. And there was really very little - - no, there is no way an intruder fed her and waited for a few hours to kill her in that house.

But they didn't feed her pineapple BEFORE they went out for dinner.

Patsy repeatedly said she had NO IDEA where the pineapple might have come from.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by hohum


When did JonBenet wear the red turtleneck that was found balled up on the floor? I don't know how they could tell if anything was disturbed because her room was such a mess.

The red turtleneck was found on the bathroom counter. Patsy had thought she and JonBenet would wear matching outfits - black pants and red tops - but JonBenet decided she wanted to wear the white top with the star - so she changed and left the unfolded top in her bathroom.

No mystery there at all.

[webbsleuth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LI_Mom
[B]

She could have been hit on the head & unconscious before she was strangled. We can't assume she had a chance to FIGHT.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But she did fight - - there was foreign DNA under her nails and claw marks on her neck where she tried to get the ligature off.

Imagine this - - you catch your arm on a thorn as you are walking by a rosebush. What do you do first? You instinctively touch it - - and then if you should put your hand down a child's pants.... you carry your DNA to that place.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


:lol: Well, WHEN was Wolf cleared in any event??

Wolf AND Thomas had a chance to give their side as well. They proved nothing. That was the reason for the suit, to give Wolf a chance to prove his...er Thomas's theory. If he couldn't do that then he couldn't accuse the Ramseys of "implicating" him unjustly.


*scratching head* Are there 2 different Wolf's in this case? I'm getting a little confused by all the names. I was thinking of some guy whose girlfriend gave his name to the police.




I just don't understand how a civil lawsuit concerning alleged libel against the Ramseys compares to a crimminal case against them for the murder of their child.

In order to win their lawsuits, Carnes told Thomas & Wolf that they had to PROVE the Ramseys were guilty.

So now the authors have to do the DA's job in order to "win?" Very reasonable expectation.


Thomas might have lost his case, but his book is still being sold all over & is still in public libraries all over the country. So, other than money, what did the Ramseys "win?"

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I know Patsy said that JB ate cracked crab at the party, but has Priscilla White said that she served no pineapple.

I never read any accounts of anyone saying there was pineapple at the party.

I would imagine that info would have been leaked to the press like almost everything else was.


It's truly the "mystery" pineapple. As I said earlier, I'm curious about the glass with Burke's prints next to the bowl with Patsy & Burke's prints.

Not surprisingly, we never hear anything about testing the spoon JB used to eat the pineapple. The police really made a mess of this investigation from the get go.

[LI_Mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by webbsleuth
[B]

"We left home, knowing Mom & Dad were on their way so we didn't have to worry about Burke. My sister Pam was only 2 miles away, and she would be coming too, so the only issue was getting to Northside Hospital as quickly as we could."


I believe the older children were in the house as

There was no mention of John's other kids being there.

Patsy said herself that they left knowing her mother would arrive soon so they weren't really worried.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by LI_Mom




The handwriting analysis could NOT rule out Patsy beyond a reasonable doubt, unlike every other person they checked who WAS ruled out.




Simply not true. DA Hunter made it clear that there were people who could not be cleared by their handwriting - and Patsy was probably NOT the author based on her score.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



And JB didn't wet the bed every so often. She wet the bed almost every single night.

Sometimes she would crawl into bed with Burke after she wet her own bed.

You almost have it right.

The BORG says she wet the bed every night - - Patsy and the others in the family said it was once or twice a week. No big deal.

She didn't crawl in bed with Burke.

She would change into dry clothes and crawl into the second bed in his room.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by webbsleuth
[B]

"We left home, knowing Mom & Dad were on their way so we didn't have to worry about Burke. My sister Pam was only 2 miles away, and she would be coming too, so the only issue was getting to Northside Hospital as quickly as we could."


I believe the older children were in the house as

There was no mention of John's other kids being there.

Patsy said herself that they left knowing her mother would arrive soon so they weren't really worried.

Right, the book did not mention the other kids being there. Unfortunately, the editors took out a lot of details to keep the book down to a certain number of pages. I personally thought that paragraph was edited badly.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LI_Mom
[B]

She could have been hit on the head & unconscious before she was strangled. We can't assume she had a chance to FIGHT.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But she did fight - - there was foreign DNA under her nails and claw marks on her neck where she tried to get the ligature off.

Imagine this - - you catch your arm on a thorn as you are walking by a rosebush. What do you do first? You instinctively touch it - - and then if you should put your hand down a child's pants.... you carry your DNA to that place.

I bet there's foreign DNA under YOUR nails right now also. Mine too.

How do you know the marks on her neck weren't from the person struggling to strangle her?

We are supposed to believe her hands were tied. An intruder is going to tie her up AFTER he strangles her? Even harder to believe IF we are supposed to buy the stun gun theory. She wasn't fighting anyone.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


But they didn't feed her pineapple BEFORE they went out for dinner.

Patsy repeatedly said she had NO IDEA where the pineapple might have come from.

John was in and out of the house that day - - and patsy was off coloring her hair and packing. Burke's prints are on the bowl and it would make sense that HE got out the snack.

He was not asked about that. A shame. We might have been able to clear up the mystery - butthe cops didn't ask. They didn't talk to the family about pineapple until LONG after the murder.

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


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

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

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

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

What does this have to do with what you're alleging Patsy Ramsey did to JB? So you're saying an accident happened, but that Patsy took a chance on being brought up and convicted on 1st degree murder charges of her own child as opposed to just admitting that such an accident happened? Wouldn't it make more sense to even the least sensible person you can think of to take a chance on losing somewhat because of an accident as opposed to losing everything because of premeditated murder? Surely if she committed this horrific crime as you say, it would have crossed her mind and surely John's that they stood to lose everything, including leaving Burke without parents since they would be in jail? This is why the pro-guilty people just don't come across as logical, it makes no sense at all.

[webbsleuth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LI_Mom
[B]


*scratching head* Are there 2 different Wolf's in this case? I'm getting a little confused by all the names. I was thinking of some guy whose girlfriend gave his name to the police.

!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the same Wolf.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Thomas might have lost his case, but his book is still being sold all over & is still in public libraries all over the country. So, other than money, what did the Ramseys "win?"

He was discredited - even if a lot of people read his book not knowing that.

He isn't speaking on the subjectanymore. If he were, he could be sued again - - every time he told the same pack of.... misleading theory.

[webbsleuth]

Have to sign off now - - someone needs the computer. Will try to b back later. Meanwhile, remember a LOT of the truth is in the documents - and a lot of the documents are at webbsleuths.org

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin



Maybe someone else can answer that I don't know, but

Mentioning the Whites...........I want to know what Fleet White got so upset with Mr. Ramsey about in Atlanta. Why he accused John of "lawyering up." Why this upset him (Fleet), and what else was going in Fleet's mind. Breezy provided some info talking about the Whites after John's & Patsy's book was published, but I'm curious about the beginning of the end of their friendship.


From what I read, it started in Atlanta after the funeral & after they did the CNN interview. Fleet couldn't understand how they could go to the media before going back to sit down with the police.


It's understandable that Fleet would be upset since he was with John when they found JB's body & since Burke had been sent to his house that morning.

He was more than a casual observer in all this.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


Simply not true. DA Hunter made it clear that there were people who could not be cleared by their handwriting - and Patsy was probably NOT the author based on her score.

I'll concede that point. Maybe there were other non-family members who were not completely ruled out either.

But Patsy was THE ONLY family member who was a potential match.

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't see how seeming strange to some people makes one a killer? What if any one of us had a neighbor whose child was murdered. The police come over to investigate. We are going to look at your computer they say. LOL why are you so interested in child murders, you spend too much time on the computer talking about dead children and that is strange. Just think if someone came to your house this very minute to look into every corner of your life. Would they find anything "strange?" Because no two people do things the same way.

Excellent point. I started to respond, but I'll just say "what hohum said."

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LI_Mom
[B]


*scratching head* Are there 2 different Wolf's in this case? I'm getting a little confused by all the names. I was thinking of some guy whose girlfriend gave his name to the police.

!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the same Wolf.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Thomas might have lost his case, but his book is still being sold all over & is still in public libraries all over the country. So, other than money, what did the Ramseys "win?"

He was discredited - even if a lot of people read his book not knowing that.

He isn't speaking on the subjectanymore. If he were, he could be sued again - - every time he told the same pack of.... misleading theory.

Thanks, Websleuth. It's sure hard keeping all the characters straight. lol


It's the other posters who are claiming some kind of victory because the Ramseys won the civil suit. I think it's a very hollow victory if the "libel" is still allowed to be sold.

So the authors cannot repeat what they wrote but why do they have to? It's there in black & white & they probably moved on with their lives anyway. I doubt they care about the Ramsey case anymore.

The Ramseys gained nothing. Except money.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Lianasmom


What does this have to do with what you're alleging Patsy Ramsey did to JB? So you're saying an accident happened, but that Patsy took a chance on being brought up and convicted on 1st degree murder charges of her own child as opposed to just admitting that such an accident happened? Wouldn't it make more sense to even the least sensible person you can think of to take a chance on losing somewhat because of an accident as opposed to losing everything because of premeditated murder? Surely if she committed this horrific crime as you say, it would have crossed her mind and surely John's that they stood to lose everything, including leaving Burke without parents since they would be in jail? This is why the pro-guilty people just don't come across as logical, it makes no sense at all.

No, I was saying that in the split second that the accident happened, it's believeable that a frantic parent can go temporarily 'insane' & only think of self-preservation & NOT in a logical manner.

I can't say that it DID happen, only that I can how it might be possible.

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


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

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

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

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

Not me, anyway. LOL

Wasn't the area known for being safe, I mean isn't that one of the reasons the Boulder PD were so inexperienced, not much crime or at least not murders? We don't usually use our alarm system and our neighbors told us they don't use theirs, partly because we live in a gated community; I don't know if the Ramseys lived in a gated community, but that's a possibility.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


Then why did people in books after the autopsy came out keep speculating on when the pineapple was eaten? The autopsy doesn't even say for sure it is pineapple. Why be so vague. It only creates confusion and does not help the cause. Anyway, after much ado, it seems the pineapple is a moot point.

"Books" can say anything, that does not make it fact.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Thanks, Websleuth. It's sure hard keeping all the characters straight. lol


It's the other posters who are claiming some kind of victory because the Ramseys won the civil suit. I think it's a very hollow victory if the "libel" is still allowed to be sold.

So the authors cannot repeat what they wrote but why do they have to? It's there in black & white & they probably moved on with their lives anyway. I doubt they care about the Ramsey case anymore.

The Ramseys gained nothing. Except money.

IMO they gained a lot more than money. They proved he couldn't prove his lies when he had the chance to prove what he said in court UNDER OATH. He folded like a limp rag and settled instead. What happened to "defending" himself and "exposing the Ramseys???? All mouth, no action. They won when he settled IMO.


"In response to the Ramsey suit, Mr. Thomas states:

"I stand by my convictions. The Ramseys have no right to silence me or anyone else who wishes to seek the truth and speak out about this horrible tragedy of injustice.

I will vigorously defend myself against the Ramseys' lawsuit and look forward to the opportunity to expose in a court of law what happened in the Ramsey home on Christmas night 1996."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_April_2/ai_72617484

[Former Juror]

IMO, Fleet White came to realize what most people came to realize....that the Ramseys were guilty of this crime.

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Are you familiar with their disagreement?

Which one? I do know about the problem that started when the Ramseys pointed their finger at Fleet White, even though he had been cleared.

I don't pretend to know everything about Fleet White, but I find him very compelling considering he supported the Ramseys but changed his tune as the evidence piled up.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You do that. BTW, I suggest you don't include Foster in that list because he has already discredited himself by writing to Patsy that he would stake his reputation on the fact she did NOT write the note.

Tom Miller - American School of Investigative Services: "It is my professional opinion that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.

Cina L. Wong, Court Qualified Board Certified Document Examiner: "It is my professional opinion that Patsy Ramsey very likely wrote the ransom note"

David Liebman, Certified Doc. Examiner, President of NADE, "In my professional opinion, Patsy Ramsey is the ransom note writer".

Ted Widmer, Chairman of the Grapholocial Society of San Francisco and author of the Book "Crime and Penmanship" spent days poring over samples. "Widmer echoed the conclusions of former detective Steve Thomas, who revealed that 24 of the alphabet's 26 letters (found in the ransom note) looked as if they had been written by Patsy. Her left hand-writing sample is very revealing. The word "carefully in the first line is an exact match. Same is true for the word "faction" and on an on. Most revealing are the percent signs in both Patsy's sample and the ransom note. They are a match.

Gideon Epstein - Handwriting Expert "I am absolutely certain that Patsy wrote the note".

SERAPH profiling report

Patsy's own experts do not rule her out. Steve Thomas presents that to her on LKL and she does not deny it.

And lets not forget Foster, who changed his mind and said Patsy is the author.

[Solace]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


I agree - LI__Mom isn't good at knowing the facts, just has a theory and wants to force it to fit. Hir posts are fullof cruel suggestions stated as if they were fact. How do you put up with this day after day???

Webbsleuth: It is not necessary to be rude. And as far as your claim that Patsy said she would take 10 lie detector tests, this is true. But she said one thing and did another. She and John refused to be examined by the FBI polygraph examiners. Patsy's attorneys also refused to let her be examined by one poly tester who wanted her tested for drugs before he examined her. Patsy also failed at least two tests, was inconclusive on a second and finally got it right the third time. John refused to take any. They said they were never asked to take one when they were on Babara Walters show. She did not press him about his saying no to Steve Thomas.

Court TV recently had a poly examiner on saying they both passed. His credentials are suspect.

I believe Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter and John most likely knew it and helped cover it. If you don't like what I am saying that is one thing, but you can present your case without being rude.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by hohum


Thanks for keeping us straight on the facts.
Webbsleuths, lol. (Not to be confunded with the great Websleuths forum with one b).
The Webbsleuths forum is owned by Susan Bennett aka 'jameson', a die-hard Ramsey supporter, but who nevertheless greedily sold the Ramsey police interviews to the tabloids fo a lot of money. I doubt if the Ramseys liked her much after that.
Won't you give that forum a try, Breezy? Your co-posters over there would sooo agree with you, believe me But you are probably already a poster over there - at least you sound exactly like one of them.

[Solace]

Originally posted by rashomon

Webbsleuths, lol. (Not to be confunded with the great Websleuths forum with one b).
The Webbsleuths forum is owned by Susan Bennett aka 'jameson', a die-hard Ramsey supporter, but who nevertheless greedily sold the Ramsey police interviews to the tabloids fo a lot of money. I doubt if the Ramseys liked her much after that.
Won't you give that forum a try, Breezy? Your co-posters over there would sooo agree with you, believe me But you are probably already a poster over there - at least you sound exactly like one of them.

Rashomon: I thought that was the case. I will be ignoring her in the future. Anyone who stoops that low to sell the interviews is not someone I would give a second thought to. :biggrin:

[Solace]

Originally posted by Solace


Rashomon: I thought that was the case. I will be ignoring her in the future. Anyone who stoops that low to sell the interviews is not someone I would give a second thought to. :biggrin:

Someone I would NOT give a second thought!:biggrin:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Tom Miller - American School of Investigative Services: "It is my professional opinion that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.

Not so lilly white. "Two indicted in alleged bribery attempt to buy copy of the Ramsey ransom note for $30,000.

A Jefferson County, Colorado grand jury brought indictments against retired Boulder attorney, and former journalist and private investigator Thomas C. Miller, 48 and Globe tabloid news editor Craig A. Lewis, 44, on charges of commercial bribery and criminal extortion in the April 1, 1997, attempt to purchase a copy of the Ramsey ransom note for $30,000.





Cina L. Wong, Court Qualified Board Certified Document Examiner: "It is my professional opinion that Patsy Ramsey very likely wrote the ransom note"

“In contrast to the experts relied upon by defendants and by the Boulder Police Department, however, neither of these experts have ever seen or examined the original ransom note,” Carnes wrote. “In fact, Mr. Epstein and Ms. Wong do not know what ‘generation’ copy of the ransom note they examined.”

David Liebman, Certified Doc. Examiner, President of NADE, "In my professional opinion, Patsy Ramsey is the ransom note writer"




Known Samples used for comparison (copies):



Ted Widmer, Chairman of the Grapholocial Society of San Francisco and author of the Book "Crime and Penmanship" spent days poring over samples. "Widmer echoed the conclusions of former detective Steve Thomas, who revealed that 24 of the alphabet's 26 letters (found in the ransom note) looked as if they had been written by Patsy. Her left hand-writing sample is very revealing. The word "carefully in the first line is an exact match. Same is true for the word "faction" and on an on. Most revealing are the percent signs in both Patsy's sample and the ransom note. They are a match.

Ted Widmer, director and principal instructor of the International School of Handwriting Sciences in San Francisco, concurs: "one of the tenants {sic} in handwriting identification is we always like to have the original sample. In other words, we like to have the one that was actually written with the pad and so forth, not a photocopy. None of us except for the people directly involved, apparently, in Colorado have actually seen the original note. The reason for that is because one of the main aspects of handwriting identification is pressure pattern. In other words, the force exerted, which is directly related to the neuromuscular system of the person. When you have a photocopy, you can't see that."



Gideon Epstein - Handwriting Expert "I am absolutely certain that Patsy wrote the note".

SERAPH profiling report

Patsy's own experts do not rule her out. Steve Thomas presents that to her on LKL and she does not deny it.

Summary Findings. "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.





And lets not forget Foster, who changed his mind and said Patsy is the author.

COLOR=blue]he sent a letter eight days later to the slain child's mother, Patsy Ramsey, who was a suspect. Foster told her: "I know you are innocent—know it absolutely and unequivocally. I will stake my professional reputation on it, indeed my faith in humanity." Foster said his analysis of the ransom letter "leads me to believe you did not write it and the police are wasting their time by trying to prove that you did." The purpose of the letter was to offer his services to the Ramseys, but they rejected the offer. (Rocky Mountain News, September 27, 1998).[/COLOR]







Wolf and Hoffman, however, hired their own handwriting experts, Gideon Epstein and Cina Wong, who said they were “100 percent certain” Mrs. Ramsey wrote the ransom note.

"Wong, herself, admits that NADE does not require specialized training or experience for its certification. (Wong Dep. at 87-89.) Finally, even Epstein, plaintiff's other expert, testified that Wong is not qualified to render opinions in this case. (Epstein Dep. at 32-33.) Accordingly, the Court concludes Ms. Wong is not qualified to provide reliable handwriting analysis in this case." (Carnes 2003:57)
Methodology: "Ms. Wong received her copy of the Ransom Note and certain writings alleged to be historical writings of Mrs. Ramsey from the tabloid. The National Enquirer. (SMF P 258; PSMF P 258.)" (Carnes 2003:27)."


“In contrast to the experts relied upon by defendants and by the Boulder Police Department, however, neither of these experts have ever seen or examined the original ransom note,” Carnes wrote. “In fact, Mr. Epstein and Ms. Wong do not know what ‘generation’ copy of the ransom note they examined.”

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


"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]

Originally posted by rashomon

Webbsleuths, lol. (Not to be confunded with the great Websleuths forum with one b).
The Webbsleuths forum is owned by Susan Bennett aka 'jameson', a die-hard Ramsey supporter, but who nevertheless greedily sold the Ramsey police interviews to the tabloids fo a lot of money. I doubt if the Ramseys liked her much after that.
Won't you give that forum a try, Breezy? Your co-posters over there would sooo agree with you, believe me But you are probably already a poster over there - at least you sound exactly like one of them.

Ah, another wild accusation with no proof about ME. Why do posters who do not agree with you worry you so much? Afraid the truth will come out and others will see the lying folly of Team Thomas??

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Webbsleuth: It is not necessary to be rude. And as far as your claim that Patsy said she would take 10 lie detector tests, this is true. But she said one thing and did another. She and John refused to be examined by the FBI polygraph examiners. Patsy's attorneys also refused to let her be examined by one poly tester who wanted her tested for drugs before he examined her. Patsy also failed at least two tests, was inconclusive on a second and finally got it right the third time. John refused to take any. They said they were never asked to take one when they were on Babara Walters show. She did not press him about his saying no to Steve Thomas.

Court TV recently had a poly examiner on saying they both passed. His credentials are suspect.

I believe Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter and John most likely knew it and helped cover it. If you don't like what I am saying that is one thing, but you can present your case without being rude.

You too are rude so why tell others it is not necessary? :shrug:

"Finally, after changing their minds several times, Boulder police announced that they would take John and Patsy Ramsey up on their offer to take polygraph tests and agreed to the Ramseys' terms that the tests be conducted by an independent expert in Atlanta and have the results made public.

The disagreements over the tests continued into May with John and Patsy Ramsey appearing on CNN's Burden of Proof program to describe how they had "come up with some names of individuals that are pre-eminent in their field of polygraphy" and had submitted them to Boulder police only to have the police reject them all in favor of an FBI examiner.

The Ramseys later proposed that Edward Gelb, a Los Angeles-based polygraph expert, conduct their lie detector tests because he had "earned a national reputation for fairness" but the Boulder police continued to insist on the FBI. The Ramseys selected Gelb, a past president of the American Polygraph Association, from 2,400 other examiners because he was the most experienced, having conducted more than 30,000 lie detector tests in the previous 30 years and had been an instructor to both the FBI and the Department of Defense. The Boulder police again rejected the proposal.

Several days later, Richard Keifer, the chairman of the American Polygraph Association announced that the group was willing to provide a qualified examiner and expert to administer the test with the same kind of quality control used by the FBI. Keifer said a lie detector test conducted by his group would be fair to both sides. "If they agree to take the polygraph and have us administer it, we will administer it in an independent fashion and make the final decision of who the examiner will be," he said. "We'll give consideration to both sides."

The Ramsey's attorney agreed saying: "The Ramseys would do it if it would help move the investigation forward, not because they felt they had a responsibility to prove their innocence but if Beckner doesn't sign on, they're taking all the risk and receiving no benefit." He added that in his opinion, the Boulder police were insisting on using the FBI to give the agency a chance to grill the Ramseys. Keifer, who once headed the FBI polygraph unit, confirmed that the FBI interrogates people who flunk the test. "They get a lot of confessions," he said. On May 16, Boulder police officially rejected Keifer's offer."


Seems to me the ones who were playing game were the cops. I believe you quote Thomas and don't have a thought of your own that didn't come out of his "book".

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
And once again Breezy blows them out of the water.

Way to go Breezy! :beer:

:beer: LOL. Breezy is right on top of it, isn't she?

[Solace]

Breezy, so they tried to get the ransom note. You post as if they raped their mothers.

So the examined copies, we will just throw their studies out the window.

BREEZY, you are going to have to take up knitting soon, your posts are getting old, just like the links you provide.:lol:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace
Breezy, so they tried to get the ransom note. You post as if they raped their mothers.

So the examined copies, we will just throw their studies out the window.

BREEZY, you are going to have to take up knitting soon, your posts are getting old, just like the links you provide.:lol:

What???? I simply posted an article about one of Thomas's "experts" who tried to buy the ransom note. WHERE did i imply anyone raped theit mother???:rolleyes: What an imagination some of you have. Can't you stick to the FACTS and quit with the fairy tales???

I will "take up" what I choose and really don't care if the gossips think my posts or links are "getting old". As long as the gossip continues I will post my links with FACTS and I don't care if you like the facts or not. :shrug:

[Solace]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


What's with this personal stuff? Isn't Breezy entitled to her opinion just like everyone else? Just curious.......

Rosy, your friend Breezy gets very personal. I am just making an observation re her posts - they are the same old thing over and over again and they have been disproved. She echoes Lin Wood and his ilk and expects us all to drop from the shock of it all.

Another thing, as far as her blowing anything out of the water, it is safe and secure in the water because whether she would like to hear it or not, there are experts who believe Patsy wrote the note and they are valid in their opinions.

But one does not have to be an expert to just look at the similarities and see that Ms. Patsy Ramsey wrote the note.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


What???? I simply posted an article about one of Thomas's "experts" who tried to buy the ransom note. WHERE did i imply anyone raped theit mother???:rolleyes: What an imagination some of you have. Can't you stick to the FACTS and quit with the fairy tales???

I will "take up" what I choose and really don't care if the gossips think my posts or links are "getting old". As long as the gossip continues I will post my links with FACTS and I don't care if you like the facts or not. :shrug:

Aw shucks, Breezy.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


See what I mean. Can't even post without getting personal.
IMO.

Yep and he has the nerve to tell someone else (he doesn't agree with of course) " It is not necessary to be rude". :rolleyes:

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by Solace
Breezy, so they tried to get the ransom note. You post as if they raped their mothers.

So the examined copies, we will just throw their studies out the window.

BREEZY, you are going to have to take up knitting soon, your posts are getting old, just like the links you provide.:lol:

All right Will, enough of you.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Ah, another wild accusation with no proof about ME. Why do posters who do not agree with you worry you so much? Afraid the truth will come out and others will see the lying folly of Team Thomas??
It was a conjecture, not a 'wild accusation'. I'm actually surprised that you would think posting on Webbseuths is a bad thing. Imo that's the right place to go for die-hard Ramsey supporters.

I'm not a member of Team Thomas, but a member of Team JonBenet. And S. Thomas has always been a member of Team JonBenet too, even if you can't see this. But how could you if you haven't even read his book?

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by webbsleuth
[B]

I attended the funeral and reception after.


Which certainly verifies how completely unbiased your views
are.

[Solace]

Originally posted by hohum


Foster flipflopped too much to be credible. Anyone who has followed a trial knows that both sides can find expert witnesses to back up what they believe. Last I read, John was ruled out and Patsy was not, though that doesn't mean she wrote the note either. And that's all we are ever going to know about it without the author of the note admitting to it and if you believe it was Patsy then you will never know for sure.

I agree.

[Solace]

Here are few items for thought.

The DNA in her panties is the killer's

Not-FACT. The DNA was degraded and early testing produced too few markers to identify anyone with 100% certainty. Later testing produced a few more markers enabling the sample to be entered into CODIS. The only official statement about the DNA which we have came from Tom Bennett last year when he said that the DNA might be the killer's but it might not. The sample was miniscule and could have been deposited at the time of manufacture if a worker had coughed or sneezed over the underwear.

The DNA under her fingernails matches the DNA in her panties

Not-FACT. The DNA under her fingernails had even fewer markers than the DNA in her panties and little has been spoken of it. Also, early reports suggested that the same nail clippers had been used for all of her fingernails and that cross contamination could have occured. There exists only one statement which says that the fingernail and panty DNA "match" - from Lou Smit when he made a documentary some years ago. However, Mr Smit made several statements at that time which we know to be erroneous and he has never repeated it - nor has any other official source.

Also - if the fingernail and panty DNA matched, it would make a nonsense of Tom Bennett's statement about the DNA possibly coming from a cough or sneeze. If there was any possibility of that, how would such a miniscule amount of DNA find its way under her nails?

She was sexually abused before her death
Not FACT. Experts disagree about this.

There were no footprints in the snow - therefore it was an inside job

Unclear. The first policemen to arrive at the house observed that there were no footprints in the snow which was lying around the house. Photographs show very little snow and large patches where an intruder could avoid walking on snow but these photographs were taken hours after the first policeman's report - when the small covernig of snow could have long melted.

This is worn out statement which is often used to try and discredit peolpe who believe in Ramsey guilt but it is rather a non-point.

The bedsheets were not wet

Not FACT. According to Steve Thomas' deposition, lab reports stated that the sheets had "traces of creatinine". Tiny amounts of creatinine are found in the urine of a healthy person. A bladderful of urine emtied on a sheet would therefore leave only traces of creatinine.

Also, the sheets were poly-cotton and multi-coloured. They would have dried very quickly and urine stains would not have been easy to see from a photo. Steve Thomas also stated in his deposition that witnesses had told him the sheets smelled of urine.

The Ramseys co-operated in every way

Not FACT. The Ramseys were obligated to co-operate with giving physical evidence and they did. However, it was 4 months before they sat down with police and gave formal interviews and another 18 months before they gave second interviews. John Ramsey also declined to take a polygraph saying that he would be "insulted". When asked if she would take a polygraph, Patsy ramsey said she would take "ten of them".

The Ramseys passed polygraphs

FACT. However, they refused to take FBI polygraphs and the polygraphs which they took were self-sponsored. The first polygraphs they took were inconclusive and they changed polygrapher. When they passed later polygraphs with a different polygrapher, they announced it to the press. Patsy failed two polys.

The Ramseys have been cleared by a Federal Judge

Not FACT. In one of the many Ramsey libel cases (Ramseys v Wolf), Judge J Carnes stated that the evidence was more consistent with an intruder killing JonBenet than the parents. However, Judge Carnes was ruling on a libel case. She did not have access to the police files and worked only with outdated evidence supplied by the Ramseys. This judgement was not on a murder trial.

The Ramseys have been cleared by the Boulder DA

Not FACT. After Judge carne's ruling, Boulder DA Mary Lacey said that she agreed with her statement that the evidence pointed more to an intruder than the ramseys. She later qualified this by stating that the Ramseys were nevertheless not being excluded from the investigation.

These facts were posted on websleuths and for the openminded, they are interesting, if nothing else.
__________________

[Solace]

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.

Former Juror: Could you let me know what books you have read. I am very interested. I have read: PM/PT, S. Thomas's book, Dr. Wecht's book, the two Hodges book. I also have the Enquiror book (I know) but it is excellent; it is the 1997 transcripts. That is it. Do you have any others?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Even if Burke had made it and left it lying in the basement, an intruder could have used it as well as the parents which is what I think you are saying. I just don't think it's feasible that the parents sat up for hours repeatedly trying to construct such a ludicrous ransom note. And I stand by my previous thought that if they wrote the note they would never have just left the pad lying right out on the counter. They would at least have tried to hide it. The only reason an intruder left it lying there was that it didn't belong to him. Why not direct suspicion to the Ramsey's and deflect it from himself. How easy is that?


Yes, anyone could have used a pre-constructed garrotte.

I'm only theorizing that it might NOT have been created in the heat of the moment & that we are only assuming that the parents must be innocent because they couldn't have created such a complicated & awful device.



Why would the parents need to hide a pad that belonged to them?

They simply say the intruder used my pad & my pen.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


You almost have it right.

The BORG says she wet the bed every night - - Patsy and the others in the family said it was once or twice a week. No big deal.

She didn't crawl in bed with Burke.

She would change into dry clothes and crawl into the second bed in his room.

Thanks for clearing that up about the second bed.

Although, I wonder why she didn't crawl into a bed in one of the empty bedrooms? It would be interesting to know how Burke felt about Jonbenet coming into his room at night?

IMO, it's not really signifigant if the parents downplay how often she wet the bed.


Btw, what does BORG stand for?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I don't think so. You can buy it used for 49 cents and new for 6.24 on a certain book page on the net(not sure I am allowed to mention the name here). Some people consider it a collectable item? As far as regular book stores I don't know.


The Death of Innocence : The Untold Story of JonBenet's Murder and How Its Exploitation Compromised the Pursuit of Truth by John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey

(Hardcover - Mar 17, 2000)

Used & new from $0.50

Other Edition(s): Hardcover, Paperback

[Solace]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


There had to be more to it than meets the eye. He was John's good friend. What made him think his judgment was better than John's? Did Fleet have something to hide? What was he afraid John was going to say? Just thinking..........

This is the Fleet White Theory. Yes, right, he went over to their house and raped and killed JB. That is a theory that will always be just a theory and pure speculation and it is grasping, frankly.


Also, Fleet says more was made out of it than actually happened. He says he approached John and said I think you are making a mistake and you should probably speak to the police. The lawyers are not helping.

There is nothing wrong with that. I really cannot see Fleet going crazy at the wake reception for JB. No one is that crass. Well I can think of a few, but I do not believe Fleet did that.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth



Patsy didn't have a problem with Burke whittling, the housekeeper. patsy didn't say anything about hiding the knife, the housekeeper did that on her own.

The pullups were IN the cabinet when the cops arrived. They were pulled out a bit during an early search and the photograph was taken after that.

There is no reason to think the knife was hidden in that cabinet, but Burke had both of his knives in Atlanta after the move, so it seems the knife in the basement was NOT HIS!


Well, the housekeeper really has no motivation to lie about such a trivial thing, does she? I think Linda's accounts sounded very reasonable & logical.


How do you know the pullups were disturbed AFTER the police searched?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


Right, the book did not mention the other kids being there. Unfortunately, the editors took out a lot of details to keep the book down to a certain number of pages. I personally thought that paragraph was edited badly.

Nope.

I checked the book & they specifically say:

"John & Burke took the 3 big kids back home to Marietta & returned an hour or so later."




And if as you say the editor chopped up their book, the Ramseys should have sued their own editor for making them look shallow & not very bright.

[Solace]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Solace


This is the Fleet White Theory. Yes, right, he went over to their house and raped and killed JB. /QUOTE]

Who said anything about thinking Fleet White raped JonBenet?

Earlier today - totally out of context you posted to Breezy- "You post as if they raped their mothers."

What is your problem?

What is the matter Rosy? Didn't you understand what I meant when I posted what I did in response to Breezy. I meant she was making much more out of the fact than needed to be done. You can't be that naive, can you.

Okay, JB was not raped, she was sexually abused with a stick before she was killed, or maybe after. Either way it is rape in my book. The child was violated, you would agree with that.

What is your problem. Is this too much for you to think about?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


There had to be more to it than meets the eye. He was John's good friend. What made him think his judgment was better than John's? Did Fleet have something to hide? What was he afraid John was going to say? Just thinking..........

Almost always an outsider's judgement is better than a person in the middle of a catastrophe.

If Fleet was guilty of ANYTHING, why would he urge the Ramseys to cooperate with the police & why would he object to the Ramseys doing TV interviews? He sure wouldn't want to call attention to himself & give the Ramseys any reason to be angry with him.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum
Why do you think Lou Smit thinks an intruder might have come in through the grate into the basement window when the spider web was there and had not been disturbed making that entry an impossibility.

From the defense side:

Scientists & bug experts were consulted & said the temps had risen that day & it WAS technically possible that a spider rewove the web.


More bothersome to me is that if a person creeped in through an outside window, I would expect to see some dirt dragged in next to the entrance.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rashomon


I'm not a member of Team Thomas, but a member of Team JonBenet. And S. Thomas has always been a member of Team JonBenet too, even if you can't see this. But how could you if you haven't even read his book?

Bravo!

The Ramseys freely CHOSE to make this case a media circus when they decided to do that CNN interview just a few days after JB's murder. They expected the public to automatically treat them as victims and not even consider that they might be guilty.



http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/06/slain.girl/9701.01.ep.html


CABELL: Inevitably, speculation on talk shows will focus on you. It's got to be a sickening --

RAMSEY, J: It's nauseating beyond belief.

RAMSEY, P: You know, America has just been hurt so deeply with the -- this -- the tragic things that have happened. The young woman who drove her children into the water, and we don't know what happened with the O.J. Simpson -- and I mean, America is suffering because have lost faith in the American family.

We are a Christian, God-fearing family. We love our children. We would do anything for our children.


Isn't it a little odd that Patsy would mention a mother who denied killing her children and then lied to the police AND the whole country?

And also mention a man who just got away with murdering 2 people... to the shock of most of the nation?


I think that was a telling slip.

[Solace]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


So your post to Breezy was just to point out that her post/opinion was extreme? I see.

The rest of what you posted here in no way relates to my original question. More posting for effect?

JMO

Rosy, it directly relates. You asked me who talked about rape in relation to Fleet White. I answered that I did not think Fleet did the murder or assaulted JB in any way (that encompasses rape). If you can't understand that , then I should give you more leeway than I have. I didn't realize it was that hard for you to understand, but I do now and I will take that into consideration.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


If any one of you, in a totally innocent accident, caused your child to fall and hit their head, would you plan some elaborate scheme to cover it up or would you immediately call 911. Remember you would probably not know how seriously they were injured. They did not even know JB had the crack in her skull until she was autopsied.

In a totally innocent accident, no way.

What if it wasn't totally innocent though?

What if I came upon my son playing doctor with my young daughter & in a rage, I hit her by accident?

I might then be out of my mind with guilt AND in a rage about the perverted, disgusting thing I have just seen. I might be worried that what happened would become public knowledge.


I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's certainly very possible & logical.

[noelsaloy]

...from one of Patsy's favorite books, .The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie:

"Sandy Stranger had a feeling at the time that they were supposed to be the happiest days of her life, and on her tenth birthday she said so to her best friend Jenny Gray who had been asked to tea at Sandy's house. The speciality of the feast was pineapple cubes with cream, and the speciality of the day was that they were left to themselves. To Sandy the unfamiliar pineapple had the authentic taste and appearance of happiness and she focused her small eyes closely on the pale gold cubes before she scooped them up in her spoon, and she thought the sharp taste on her tongue was that of a special happiness, which was nothing to do with eating, and was different from the happiness of play that one enjoyed unawares. Both girls saved the cream to the last, then ate it in spoonfuls."

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


In a totally innocent accident, no way.

What if it wasn't totally innocent though?

What if I came upon my son palying doctor with my young daughter & in a rage, I hit her by accident?

I might then be out of my mind with guilt AND in a rage about the perverted, disgusting thing I have just seen. I might be worried that what happened would become public knowledge.


I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's certainly very possible & logical.

I don't know LIMom. It is a thought, but I don't think she would strike out like that if she caught him doing that. First of all, she is much bigger and much stronger. All she has to do is pull him off JB. Then gone for John. I can't see her wanting to kill Berke if she saw him sexually assaulting JB. Remember he is a child himself, 9 years old. Do you honestly believe that she would lash out at him with the force that she did and instead hit JB. That means she would want to kill him.

Now I could see her wanting to kill an adult male, but not a child. He is still 9. Just a thought.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
...from one of Patsy's favorite books, .The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie:

"Sandy Stranger had a feeling at the time that they were supposed to be the happiest days of her life, and on her tenth birthday she said so to her best friend Jenny Gray who had been asked to tea at Sandy's house. The speciality of the feast was pineapple cubes with cream, and the speciality of the day was that they were left to themselves. To Sandy the unfamiliar pineapple had the authentic taste and appearance of happiness and she focused her small eyes closely on the pale gold cubes before she scooped them up in her spoon, and she thought the sharp taste on her tongue was that of a special happiness, which was nothing to do with eating, and was different from the happiness of play that one enjoyed unawares. Both girls saved the cream to the last, then ate it in spoonfuls."

Weird.


I don't think we have to dig THAT deeply into the mystery pineapple.

I still say, it's definitely to the Ramsey's advantage to deny knowledge or ownership of as much as they possibly can. If guilty, their goal would be to promote that intruder theory & what better way to drive the point home than to claim you don't know where something came from?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


I don't know LIMom. It is a thought, but I don't think she would strike out like that if she caught him doing that. First of all, she is much bigger and much stronger. All she has to do is pull him off JB. Then gone for John. I can't see her wanting to kill Berke if she saw him sexually assaulting JB. Remember he is a child himself, 9 years old. Do you honestly believe that she would lash out at him with the force that she did and instead hit JB. That means she would want to kill him.

Now I could see her wanting to kill an adult male, but not a child. He is still 9. Just a thought.

I agree, it's not very likely.

What if Burke had hurt & WAS still hurting JB? What if Jonbenet's scream woke up Patsy & she ran downstairs to confront an out of control scene? In that case, she might react somewhat violently.

No I don't think she wanted to kill anyone. I'm thinking she might have lashed out & struck JB's head instead of Burke's butt or legs.

[Solace]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Solace, I believe you are the one who brought up the idea of Fleet White raping JonBenet. Do try to keep up.

Here it is so you can read again.

Do us both a favor. Don't respond to any more of my posts. That way you won't have to worry about communicating at my level.
:cool:

:lol:

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I love your posts. Thanks...
Thanks! I've heard that there are ritualistic elements to "mystery fruits." Feedind a bound person a "mystery fruit," while blindfolded, with hands bound... There is also something I've heard about serial killers called the "victors" while their victims called " victims."

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I agree, it's not very likely.

What if Burke had hurt & WAS still hurting JB? What if Jonbenet's scream woke up Patsy & she ran downstairs to confront an out of control scene? In that case, she might react somewhat violently.

No I don't think she wanted to kill anyone. I'm thinking she might have lashed out & struck JB's head instead of Burke's butt or legs.

But that is such a strong hit. It cracked her head completely open for 81/2 inches long. She had to be hit with something heavy and curved, as I understand it, or slammed against the bathtub.

What bothers me is the red turtleneck. There is no evidence that she was wearing it that night. I have not read anything that says the Fleets say she was wearing it. So I am assuming that that they argued about it before leaving for the Whites and that is how the turtleneck landed in the bathroom. I don't think they were arguing about that when they got home, because there is no evidence that JB was wearing that at the Fleet's party.

There was a fiber from the rope found in the bed. Then it appears she was tied up in the bed and brought downstairs. I think she was carried and that is how the garlands got into her hair. (this is really really sad).

I am not to keen on saying John was molesting JB, although there are those that believe it. I think she was hit and it was an accident. I can't see John covering it up and not calling for an ambulance if he were not sure she was dead. I think John would have called an ambulance. His first daughter's death almost killed him. I don't think he knew about this until later after the staging.

[Solace]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Give me leeway.........ROFL You are something else.


Haven't got a clue as to what ROFL means. :patriot:

[osme]

ROFL-rolling on floor laughing
ROFLMAO -rolling on floor laughing my *** off

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I posted before that I think too much has been made of the pineapple, but who knows? Maybe you're on to something! I haven't heard a blindfold mentioned in this case though, have you?

No, I haven't. I have a friend at work who's into bondage stuff (between consenting adults, of course) and these fruit scenarios are some things she's told me.... The whole scene has ritualistic written all over it, and these are things known to a small exclusive community.... Anyway, i agree that the pineapple may be nothing. People make a big deal out of the Ramseys not telling the exact details every time (was John sitting on the floor, standing, was this light on, that light, etc...) To me, people who have the exact details and repeat them the same way over and over seem MORE guilty. If you're really in a fit of terror, everything runs together and details get confused. Short-term memory gets jumbled. I think it's even possible Patsy did feed her pineapple, but just can't remember because of all the chaos that ensued later.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


But that is such a strong hit. It cracked her head completely open for 81/2 inches long. She had to be hit with something heavy and curved, as I understand it, or slammed against the bathtub.

What bothers me is the red turtleneck. There is no evidence that she was wearing it that night. I have not read anything that says the Fleets say she was wearing it. So I am assuming that that they argued about it before leaving for the Whites and that is how the turtleneck landed in the bathroom. I don't think they were arguing about that when they got home, because there is no evidence that JB was wearing that at the Fleet's party.

There was a fiber from the rope found in the bed. Then it appears she was tied up in the bed and brought downstairs. I think she was carried and that is how the garlands got into her hair. (this is really really sad).

I am not to keen on saying John was molesting JB, although there are those that believe it. I think she was hit and it was an accident. I can't see John covering it up and not calling for an ambulance if he were not sure she was dead. I think John would have called an ambulance. His first daughter's death almost killed him. I don't think he knew about this until later after the staging.

Possibly a golf club?

As far as the shirt:



(Ramsey book) John says:

"Soon Patsy called for the kids to come in to clean up a little before the party. She wanted JB to wear a red turtleneck w/ her black velvet pants so that mother & daughter would be dressed alike, but JB wanted to wear the complete outfit she had chosen. Finally Mom gave in. JB put on her outfit w/ her black boots, which zipped up the front....."


She never did wear the red shirt & Patsy must have been pretty hurt that they didn't wear matching outfits. Could THAT have been the beginning of Patsy's anger with JB on Christmas day? Maybe bedwetting again was just the straw that broke the camel's back? Patsy might have been over tired from the holdidays PLUS she might be stressed at having to prepare and pack & get ready for a very early morning flight.


I wasn't aware of what they found upstairs in the bedroom.

I DO know JB was brought upstairs and laid out on the floor under the tree. The garland is easily explained.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I agree. I don't think Patsy seemed the type of person to hit as a form of discipline. This idea is so far fetched to me with no basis for truth that it should be in the tabloids except for the fact that most of them have been sued enough that even they try to stick to the facts.

We're not talking about discipline.


What I'm supposing is what would be the reaction of a conservative & a very religious mother who has just come upon her son engaged in sex games with his little sister? A little girl who is crying for help?

I think it's logical that she could fly off the handle.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace



There was a fiber from the rope found in the bed. Then it appears she was tied up in the bed and brought downstairs. I think she was carried and that is how the garlands got into her hair. (this is really really sad).



I've been searching but can't find anything that talks about fiber evidence that was found in the bedroom.


Lots of talk about fibers from the duct tape & other things that were from downstairs in the basement.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
IMO - this speculation is beyond the pale.


I disagree.

I think they are all very logical theories that explain why it's not at all hard to believe there was no intruder in that house.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Possibly a golf club?

As far as the shirt:



(Ramsey book) John says:

"Soon Patsy called for the kids to come in to clean up a little before the party. She wanted JB to wear a red turtleneck w/ her black velvet pants so that mother & daughter would be dressed alike, but JB wanted to wear the complete outfit she had chosen. Finally Mom gave in. JB put on her outfit w/ her black boots, which zipped up the front....."


She never did wear the red shirt & Patsy must have been pretty hurt that they didn't wear matching outfits. Could THAT have been the beginning of Patsy's anger with JB on Christmas day? Maybe bedwetting again was just the straw that broke the camel's back? Patsy might have been over tired from the holdidays PLUS she might be stressed at having to prepare and pack & get ready for a very early morning flight.


I wasn't aware of what they found upstairs in the bedroom.

I DO know JB was brought upstairs and laid out on the floor under the tree. The garland is easily explained.

I can see the golf club being used, but I am more inclined to believe it was the flashlight because the prints were removed. But it is so hard for me to believe that Patsy is going to take that huge flashlight and hit JB with it because she was angry.

Now, I believe she hit her, but I do not believe she intended to kill her. But why use the flashlight or an implement then, why not just hit her with her hand? If she is as angry as I think she was, I don't think she would have taken the time to look for something, she would have just smacked her.

I think she fell against the bathtub.

What was the reason for removing the prints from the flashlight. Maybe Patsy was just scared and when she was using the flashlight downstairs (as a neighbor says he saw a moving light) late that night. This is what I have read (don't know if it is gospel). I know a neighbor said he saw a light on and it was unusual. (I realize another neighbor thought it unusual that that back light was not on).

I think the garlands got on her from the stairs. She was brought down unconscious and her head rubbed up against the garlands on the stairs.

[Solace]

Originally posted by osme
ROFL-rolling on floor laughing
ROFLMAO -rolling on floor laughing my *** off

Thank you Osme.

[Former Juror]

Did anyone ever confirm that there were no prints on the ransom note at all?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I hope Burke doesn't read the message boards. Religious mom, little boy (9 years old) playing sex games with his little (6 year old) sister. Too much for me.

JMO

I would hope Burke AND John and the rest of their family doesn't waste their time reading message boards that talk about Jonbenet.

I think the many lawyers & p.r. people that the Ramseys hired failed to calculate the negative aspects of having such an overwhelming defense team.

Without a confession and a conviction in this case, the Ramseys will ALWAYS been under a cloud of suspicion for many, many, many people.

It's only in a court of law that people are "innocent until proven guilty." They are not guaranteed that right in the court of public opinion. And they struck out in THAT court.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I would say that's a toss up. JMO, of course.


Well the people who think they are innocent are on one side.

Then you have the people who think they are guilty with the people who still aren't sure on the other side.


I don't think that's the outcome the Ramseys hoped for.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Former Juror
Did anyone ever confirm that there were no prints on the ransom note at all?


I wish there was a site that we KNEW for sure was reliable. Is there?



http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/16-1.html

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.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Maybe it's:

The people who think they are innocent with the people who still aren't sure.

Then you have the people who think they are guilty.

I know the Ramseys would like to know who murdered their daughter, but as I've said before I am so proud of them for not letting this beat them in the ground and I'm so glad they were able to get on with their lives.

That's JMO


I somehow doubt they'd be comfortable with the people who are still questioning their guilt or innocence.

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Well, I'll have to agree with you on that.

But, on the other hand, the people that still question their guilt or innocence aren't likely to be the kind of people they would associate with. JMO

What is that supposed to mean? That is a surprising comment coming from you. We may disagree on this case, but we are usually in the same corner.

:shrug:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


But, on the other hand, the people that still question their guilt or innocence aren't likely to be the kind of people they would associate with. JMO

I totally, totally agree.

But getting back to my point, I think the fact that their lawyers & p.r. people went to such extremes to protect them from being accused, is what fueled this doubt in the first place.

I don't think they foresaw how damaging this type of defense would be to the Ramsey's reputations. A miscalculation on their part.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I didn't respond to you, did I? I thought I responded to LI_Mom.

:confused:

That's what I thought, too.

It sure can get confusing around here, huh? :)

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I didn't respond to you, did I? I thought I responded to LI_Mom.

:confused:

Sorry for interrupting. I just re-read the entire exchange and get it now. That's what I get for skipping pages.

[breezy1234]

"In a recently unsealed deposition, John Ramsey denies a much-publicized argument with White — about Ramsey's cooperation with police — ever occurred.

In the deposition, reviewed by police and prosecutors for the first time last week,

Ramsey speaks at length about his relationship with White. He talks about what he calls White's "strange behavior" and criticizes him for insisting the Ramseys do a CNN interview days after the killing.

Ramsey also speaks about his battles with tabloid reporters and having to live suspecting "everyone" of his daughter's death.

Although the deposition offers few new insights into the killing of JonBenet, it marks the only time John Ramsey has answered questions under oath related to his daughter's death.

Ramsey's statements are contained in a 110-page transcript of a video-taped deposition taken Oct. 20, 1998, as part of Boulder photographer Stephen Miles' libel and slander lawsuit against Ramsey and the National Enquirer.

The lawsuit was eventually thrown out. A federal district court judge ordered the deposition unsealed in November.

Although the deposition has been unsealed for almost three months, neither the Boulder police nor the Boulder County District Attorney's office had reviewed the documents when asked to comment Thursday.

By Friday, District Attorney Alex Hunter said prosecutors and detectives had reviewed the deposition but did not find any useful new information.

As another example, Ramsey cites White's insistence the Ramseys do the Jan. 1 CNN interview days after their daughter's death. The CNN interview, aired together with footage of JonBenét's beauty pageant contests, fueled national interest on the case. Many thought the interview was the idea of the Ramsey's public relations team.
"That was done entirely because of Fleet White's angry and/or, emotional insistence that we do it," Ramsey says. "He was strongly promoting it.


"The stated reason was that we were getting crucified in the press," Ramsey says. "We ought to let people see who we were."

Ramsey says he felt media attention was hurting the case.

"Our focus was that we wanted this case to be out of the media limelight so it could be investigated properly, because this was a drain on the police as well," Ramsey says. "It was not productive."

By the time of the depositions, however, the Ramseys had agreed to cooperate in a television documentary about their experiences. They are currently writing a book.

Although some media reports suggest Ramsey may have named White as a suspect to police, Ramsey says police never asked who the Ramseys thought killed their daughter.

"We never gave a list to the police of people we thought could be responsible, which negates a lot of stuff that follows," Ramsey says.

Instead, detectives asked them questions such as who might be angry with them and who had keys to the house, he says.

"Unfortunately, a lot of people had keys to our house, contractors, plumbers, cleaning ladies, neighbors," he says.

But Ramsey says he and his wife would find it hard to believe anyone they knew would have killed their daughter.

"We honestly don't think we know anybody that could be this evil," he says, a comment he makes at least two other times during the deposition.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/020600ramsey.html

Humm,

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
And I was thinking Fleet got mad at Mr. Ramsey BECAUSE he thought they should talk to the police before they did an interview with CNN. (Where did I read that?)

From Solace of course. :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


The handwriting wasn't patsy's - the DA admitted that. And they are putting a lot of faith in the DNA catching the killer - - that is the MALE DNA found under JBR's nails and mixed with her blood in her panties.

If that doesn't make you think twice, I doubt anything will.

The DA...please. Biased in favor of the Rs. Let's hear a list of all of the experts whose professional opinion it is that Patsy *is* the author.

The DNA found under JonBenet's nails has not been matched to the panty DNA, and the panty DNA was fragmented and degraded. When other pairs of panties from the package were tested, they were found to have DNA on them too.

Let's discuss the fibers consistent with Patsy's jacket on the back of the tape (which was applied after JonBenet was dead, as there is no evidence of any struggle against it), left in the paint tray where the brush with which the ligature was constructed came from, and tied into the knot tight around JonBenet's neck.

Let's discuss the inconsistent stories both John and Patsy told police, and how Burke had a story that contradicted the one his father stuck with.

Let's discuss the pineapple found in JonBenet's intestines, not yet as far digested as the crab JonBenet had for dinner - pineapple consistent down to the rind with the pineapple found in the bowl on the table in the R's breakfast room. Pineapple which indicates JonBenet was awake and alive long enough to eat it after they arrived home Christmas night - when John and Patsy claim JonBenet was asleep...although Burke Ramsey testified that his little sister walked in the house that evening just behind their mother, not asleep at all.

Let's discuss the Ramseys complete lack of fear about this intruder, sending their other child out to go to the White's house just hours after they received a ransom note, and before they found their missing daughter dead. Let's discuss how they sent him right back to school again afterwards, with mere parents with no training as security.

Let's discuss how the Rs called 911 as soon as they found the ransom note, and didn't even tell the operator *once* that their daughter's head would be cut off if the kidnapper, supposedly watching the house, sees they have called police.

Let's discuss how John Ramsey found a broken window unlatched and slightly open while checking through his basement when he supposed to stay with the group in the sunrooom - and how he didn't even bother to mention to the police until *four* months later that he had found that. Why in God's name would he keep quiet about that? He should have been yelling up the stairs the second he noticed that window cracked open if he was really trying to figure out where his daughter was and who had her.

The Ramseys did not spend their fortune searching for a killer...far from it. They spent their fortune defending their sorry butts, knowing how guilty they looked as well as how guilty they were. They thought it more worth their time to spend their money suing people than trying to track down the person who killed their daughter.

And the final slap in JonBenet's little face. Pam Paugh stating that Patsy didn't worry much about "that JonBenet thing." How dare she refer to her own niece's brutal death at age 6 on Christmas night in her own home and the Ramseys subsequent pityfest and denial of cold hard evidence pointing squarely at them "that JonBenet thing."

God bless Steve Thomas. He was JonBenet's hero. He tried as hard as he could to serve her justice, and even Patsy Ramsey herself admitted that. And Thomas wasn't working solely on his own...his theory was backed up by some pretty stiff experts, including the FBI's CASKU unit.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


:eek: ROFL.......

Seriously..............this was his post...................All fairy tales of course.

Solace
Member


This is the Fleet White Theory. Yes, right, he went over to their house and raped and killed JB. That is a theory that will always be just a theory and pure speculation and it is grasping, frankly.


Also, Fleet says more was made out of it than actually happened. He says he approached John and said I think you are making a mistake and you should probably speak to the police. The lawyers are not helping.

There is nothing wrong with that. I really cannot see Fleet going crazy at the wake reception for JB. No one is that crass. Well I can think of a few, but I do not believe Fleet did that.

[Puggles]

I worked in the security department of a large corporation. We used to send our staff to different types of training sessions, sessions, etc., given by different law enforcement agencies.

My manager went to a seminar where somebody from the FBI was speaking (not sure if it was a current agent or retired). I'm scetchy about the time frame but I think it was more than a year after JonBenet's death. One of the cases they discussed was this case. Somebody asked who they thought had killed her. They said FBI investigators thought that the parents did it, but it was an accident and they did a poor job of covering it up.

I don't have any other details, but I thought somebody might be interested.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


If I'm not mistaken (from PM/PT) the duct tape was placed on the blanket that was either covering her or beside JonBenet. The blanket was left in the basement. Later on Fleet White went back to the room where JonBenet was found and picked up the tape. Why did he go back to the room? Why did he pick up the tape? I don't know......... :shrug:

IF Fleet did that, the better question is WHY did the police allow it?? There was NO excuse after the body was found for anyone to be going through the house picking up anything.

[Puggles]

Rosy,

I have been reading the posts here. I wanted to post this the other day but I wasn't sure how people would feel. Tonight, I thought I would put it out there.

I have always felt it was the parents. They seemed to control the investigation too much. I haven't read any books about the case but if it was any other child in the USA the parents would have been suspects right away.

Puggles

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Why are you even putting this theory forward? There is nothing to indicate Burke was into sex games. Did they find any pornographic sites on his computer? I think the boy was more interested in airplanes. We have enough confusing theories without adding to them.

The reason I focus on Burke is because when he was interviewed by the psychologist & asked if he had any idea what happened to JB, he said (paraphrase) I really don't know. Maybe someone took a knife and then hit her over the head or something.

Considering his knife WAS found downstairs and JB's head HAD been hit, it's reasonable to think he knew more than anyone was admitting.

When asked if he & his parents talked about JB, he said not much. Do you think about her a lot? Not really, I try to forget.



I never heard or read anything about what might have been found on the Ramsey computer.

I'm not thinking of depraved sex... just the typical "show me yours & I'll show you mine" that is not unusual at that age.

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by hohum


A partial smeared palm print. Not identified to my knowledge. Maybe webbsleuth would know.

So, why were there no prints from Patsy when she came down the stairs and picked it up the first time?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


When John took the duct tape off JB in the basement what did he do with it? Was it stuck to the blanket when he brought her upstairs or did he leave it in the basement. Remember Patsy put herself on top of JB in that same outfit when she saw her on the floor upstairs.

He placed it on the blanket, on the floor, and left it there.

He carried her upstairs & she was covered with a sweatshirt.

Fibers matched to Patsy were found on the tape but Patsy did NOT go into the basement at all that day.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234
"In a recently unsealed deposition, John Ramsey denies a much-publicized argument with White — about Ramsey's cooperation with police — ever occurred.

In the deposition, reviewed by police and prosecutors for the first time last week,

Ramsey speaks at length about his relationship with White. He talks about what he calls White's "strange behavior" and criticizes him for insisting the Ramseys do a CNN interview days after the killing.

Ramsey also speaks about his battles with tabloid reporters and having to live suspecting "everyone" of his daughter's death.

Although the deposition offers few new insights into the killing of JonBenet, it marks the only time John Ramsey has answered questions under oath related to his daughter's death.

Ramsey's statements are contained in a 110-page transcript of a video-taped deposition taken Oct. 20, 1998, as part of Boulder photographer Stephen Miles' libel and slander lawsuit against Ramsey and the National Enquirer.

The lawsuit was eventually thrown out. A federal district court judge ordered the deposition unsealed in November.

Although the deposition has been unsealed for almost three months, neither the Boulder police nor the Boulder County District Attorney's office had reviewed the documents when asked to comment Thursday.

By Friday, District Attorney Alex Hunter said prosecutors and detectives had reviewed the deposition but did not find any useful new information.

As another example, Ramsey cites White's insistence the Ramseys do the Jan. 1 CNN interview days after their daughter's death. The CNN interview, aired together with footage of JonBenét's beauty pageant contests, fueled national interest on the case. Many thought the interview was the idea of the Ramsey's public relations team.
"That was done entirely because of Fleet White's angry and/or, emotional insistence that we do it," Ramsey says. "He was strongly promoting it.


"The stated reason was that we were getting crucified in the press," Ramsey says. "We ought to let people see who we were."

Ramsey says he felt media attention was hurting the case.

"Our focus was that we wanted this case to be out of the media limelight so it could be investigated properly, because this was a drain on the police as well," Ramsey says. "It was not productive."

By the time of the depositions, however, the Ramseys had agreed to cooperate in a television documentary about their experiences. They are currently writing a book.

Although some media reports suggest Ramsey may have named White as a suspect to police, Ramsey says police never asked who the Ramseys thought killed their daughter.

"We never gave a list to the police of people we thought could be responsible, which negates a lot of stuff that follows," Ramsey says.

Instead, detectives asked them questions such as who might be angry with them and who had keys to the house, he says.

"Unfortunately, a lot of people had keys to our house, contractors, plumbers, cleaning ladies, neighbors," he says.

But Ramsey says he and his wife would find it hard to believe anyone they knew would have killed their daughter.

"We honestly don't think we know anybody that could be this evil," he says, a comment he makes at least two other times during the deposition.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/020600ramsey.html

Humm,


Well, if John says it, then it MUST BE true, is that what you're saying?


Darn! And to think I doubted OJ all these years. I'll never doubt a suspect again. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


The reason I focus on Burke is because when he was interviewed by the psychologist & asked if he had any idea what happened to JB, he said (paraphrase) I really don't know. Maybe someone took a knife and then hit her over the head or something.

Considering his knife WAS found downstairs and JB's head HAD been hit, it's reasonable to think he knew more than anyone was admitting.

When asked if he & his parents talked about JB, he said not much. Do you think about her a lot? Not really, I try to forget.



I never heard or read anything about what might have been found on the Ramsey computer.

I'm not thinking of depraved sex... just the typical "show me yours & I'll show you mine" that is not unusual at that age.

Where in the heck did you hear what Burke said? PLEASE don't tell me that Thomas or any of the "authors" said the psychologist told him anything Burke said.:rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Former Juror


So, why were there no prints from Patsy when she came down the stairs and picked it up the first time?

Why she wiped them off of course. :lol:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Puggles
I worked in the security department of a large corporation. We used to send our staff to different types of training sessions, sessions, etc., given by different law enforcement agencies.

My manager went to a seminar where somebody from the FBI was speaking (not sure if it was a current agent or retired). I'm scetchy about the time frame but I think it was more than a year after JonBenet's death. One of the cases they discussed was this case. Somebody asked who they thought had killed her. They said FBI investigators thought that the parents did it, but it was an accident and they did a poor job of covering it up.

I don't have any other details, but I thought somebody might be interested.

Interesting post, Puggles.

I believe you. From what I've read the majority of law enforcement in Boulder thought the Ramseys were guilty.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



Well, if John says it, then it MUST BE true, is that what you're saying?


Darn! And to think I doubted OJ all these years. I'll never doubt a suspect again. :rolleyes:

Well John was under oath and White nor the police disputed what he testifid to. We know when Thomas was under oath he couldn't recall or didn't remember like the chdiken he is. He is all mouth and when push came to shove he folded like a limp dishrag. :rolleyes:

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Why she wiped them off of course. :lol:

If you had a serious response or a link, you would have posted it. So, you obviously can't explain it away.

Why are there no prints?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Well John was under oath and White nor the police disputed what he testifid to. We know when Thomas was under oath he couldn't recall or didn't remember like the chdiken he is. He is all mouth and when push came to shove he folded like a limp dishrag. :rolleyes:

John sued Fleet White also?


Thomas' book is STILL on shelves all over the country and the Ramseys are still under a cloud of suspicion. And always will be.

And Fleet White & Steve Thomas probably sleep very well at night.

Team Ramsey sure seem to love going to court. Too bad they never liked doing police interviews the way they like suing people. I suppose the lawyers get a nice chunk of money out of all these suits.


:D

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Where in the heck did you hear what Burke said? PLEASE don't tell me that Thomas or any of the "authors" said the psychologist told him anything Burke said.:rolleyes:

Hold on. I'll call John & ask HIM. :biggrin:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Former Juror


If you had a serious response or a link, you would have posted it. So, you obviously can't explain it away.

Why are there no prints?

She had handled the so-called ransom note twice and John had touched it as well. The only identifiable fingerprints on the ransom note belonged to Patsy, John, and the technician at the lab that processed the note.

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Hold on. I'll call John & ask HIM. :biggrin:

:rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


John sued Fleet White also?


Thomas' book is STILL on shelves all over the country and the Ramseys are still under a cloud of suspicion. And always will be.

And Fleet White & Steve Thomas probably sleep very well at night.

Team Ramsey sure seem to love going to court. Too bad they never liked doing police interviews the way they like suing people. I suppose the lawyers get a nice chunk of money out of all these suits.


:D

READ the link instead of making "jokes".


Ramsey's statements are contained in a 110-page transcript of a video-taped deposition taken Oct. 20, 1998, as part of Boulder photographer Stephen Miles' libel and slander lawsuit against Ramsey and the National Enquirer.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/020600ramsey.html

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Former Juror


If you had a serious response or a link, you would have posted it. So, you obviously can't explain it away.

Why are there no prints?


I don't understand it either. It seems they only found a palm print???

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/16-1.html

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."

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Breezy, this link didn't work for me........

Trying again

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Breezy, this link didn't work for me........

Humm, I can't get it to work for me either.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


READ the link instead of making "jokes".


Ramsey's statements are contained in a 110-page transcript of a video-taped deposition taken Oct. 20, 1998, as part of Boulder photographer Stephen Miles' libel and slander lawsuit against Ramsey and the National Enquirer.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/020600ramsey.html


I don't see anything at this link saying that White or Thomas testified at this photographer's lawsuit against John.


I would think people were more interested at testifying at a trial that dealt with Jonbenet's murder than a civil suit.




"The lawsuit was eventually thrown out. A federal district court judge ordered the deposition unsealed in November."

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



I don't see anything at this link saying that White or Thomas testified at this photographer's lawsuit against John.


I would think people were more interested at testifying at a trial that dealt with Jonbenet's murder than a civil suit.




"The lawsuit was eventually thrown out. A federal district court judge ordered the deposition unsealed in November."

I don't know where you have been but NO one has been on trial for the murder of JB so how could anyone testify no matter who was interested in doing so. WHO said Thomas or Whtie testifed? Can you read??? Once MORE JOHN TESTIFIED about White and THAT is what the link was about.

"By Friday, District Attorney Alex Hunter said prosecutors and detectives had reviewed the deposition but did not find any useful new information. "

Don't you think if John was lying they would have said something??? Heck, he could have been prosecuted for perjury if he was lying.

You also don't see where the Ramseys sued anyone either in the link you as you stated. :rolleyes: YOUR post:

"Originally posted by LI_Mom


John sued Fleet White also?


Thomas' book is STILL on shelves all over the country and the Ramseys are still under a cloud of suspicion. And always will be.

And Fleet White & Steve Thomas probably sleep very well at night.

Team Ramsey sure seem to love going to court. Too bad they never liked doing police interviews the way they like suing people. I suppose the lawyers get a nice chunk of money out of all these suits.

I don't know where you have been but NO one has been on trial for the murder of JB so how could anyone testify no matter who was interested in doing so.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I don't know where you have been but NO one has been on trial for the murder of JB so how could anyone testify no matter who was interested in doing so. WHO said Thomas or Whtie testifed? Can you read??? Once MORE JOHN TESTIFIED about White and THAT is what the link was about.

"By Friday, District Attorney Alex Hunter said prosecutors and detectives had reviewed the deposition but did not find any useful new information. "

Don't you think if John was lying they would have said something??? Heck, he could have been prosecuted for perjury if he was lying.

You also don't see where the Ramseys sued anyone either in the link you as you stated. :rolleyes: YOUR post:

"Originally posted by LI_Mom


John sued Fleet White also?


Thomas' book is STILL on shelves all over the country and the Ramseys are still under a cloud of suspicion. And always will be.

And Fleet White & Steve Thomas probably sleep very well at night.

Team Ramsey sure seem to love going to court. Too bad they never liked doing police interviews the way they like suing people. I suppose the lawyers get a nice chunk of money out of all these suits.

I don't know where you have been but NO one has been on trial for the murder of JB so how could anyone testify no matter who was interested in doing so.


So we're back to square one.

Just because John said something about Fleet White in a civil trial, doesn't mean I have to buy what he's saying.

One of the main suspects in the murder case just might have a personal agenda.


And I know there has been no murder trial. And I highly doubt there ever will be.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



So we're back to square one.

Just because John said something about Fleet White in a civil trial, doesn't mean I have to buy what he's saying.

One of the main suspects in the murder case just might have a personal agenda.


And I know there has been no murder trial. And I highly doubt there ever will be.

Of course you don't have to "buy" anything anyone says. :shrug:
For people like you it's much better to "buy" books written for money than to believe something under oath that no principal has questioned.
:rolleyes:

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by hohum


Does one leave a clear hand print every time they touch something? You tell me I don't know.

I don't know. But, if you bend down and pick up a piece of paper off of a staircase, it would be VERY difficult to not use your fingers and leave a print....unless you had gloves on, of course.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Former Juror


I don't know. But, if you bend down and pick up a piece of paper off of a staircase, it would be VERY difficult to not use your fingers and leave a print....unless you had gloves on, of course.

"She had handled the so-called ransom note twice and John had touched it as well. The only identifiable fingerprints on the ransom note belonged to Patsy, John, and the technician at the lab that processed the note.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Where did you read this?

"I don't think she ever worried too much about the JonBenét thing," Pam said, referring to the rampant speculation that Patsy was to blame for her 6-year-old daughter's unsolved death nearly a decade ago.


http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3983709



This just sickens me. As if any mother would "not worry too much" about their 6 year old daughter dying a violent death, the supposed killer still on the loose, and everyone seeing the evidence point to Patsy's involvement.

Just like when ther Rs said on tv less than a month after JonBenet's death that they weren't that angry and just wanted to move on with their lives.

What???????

Name ONE other set of parents of a child murdered by an intruder who feels that way, says something like that. IMO that how a guilty parent would react.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


No need to talk about pageants - - they are no different from scouting or little league. Good and bad in every activity.

but on the other, check out http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID70/3.html

A kindergartner wetting the bed is no big deal and there were no
"ongoing infections".
Remember that JB did ot only wet herself at night, but also during daytime. Her underpants were always wet. (I think this is mentioned in PMPT).
I am a kindergarten teacher and imo a six-year-old child not only wetting herself during the day but also still having soiling accidents and then asking whoever is around to wipe her clean is a big deal. It is highly unusual and should raise a red flag.