General Discussion /Post Karr

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

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.

That bit of gossip comes from the housekeeper who at FIRST said the Ramsyes were wonderful people and would never harm one of their children. Of course when she saw the dollar signs under her nose all of a sudden she "rememberd" all these juicy little tib bits.

JonBenet went to school and never did her teacher say she wet her pants in school or asked "whoever is around to wipe her clean". Also how could she compete in pagenats if she wet herself all the time?

Doesn't sound like a "red flag" child who wet and soiled herself. :rolleyes:

"One teacher reported to Patsy before JonBenets death, 'JonBenet will never have trouble giving an oral book report'!!!!! A teacher remembers how once a child brought treats for the classroom to eat but there wasn't enough to go around - it was JonBenet who suggested that the teacher 'cut the treats in half to be fair'!

"JonBenet is a pleasure to have in class," her teacher wrote in many reports. "She is a confident, positive student who works hard on all assignments. JonBenet's mature behavior makes her a positive role model for the other students."

"JonBenet entered beauty pageants and won several titles - not only due to her stunning good looks but also because of her beautiful personality and great talents. Her titles held include - Little Miss Charlevoix (Mich.), Colorado State All-Star Kids Cover Girl, America's Royal Miss, National Tiny Miss Beauty, Little Miss Merry Christmas, Little Miss Colorado. Her mother Patsy [who was crowned Miss West Virginia in 1973] entered her in pageants but without doubt it was JonBenets decision - she sang, danced and wore glamorous customes and makeup with joy. When you tell or force a child to do an activity they don't want to they have no enthusiasim - but JonBenet was full of enthusiasim - she loved entertaining and making people smile. Fame did not go to her head though. One pageant organiser recalls 'if JonBenet won she would act if it was the first time she had won, and if she lost she was the first person to congratulate the winner'. Suesan Rajabi, Miss Colorado USA 1996, judged one of the last pageants JonBenet competed in, she remembers JonBenet as 'sweet and funloving', she also says, "I've seen little girls who seemed to be in pageants against their will, but that wasn't true of JonBenet. She loved to perform, she loved the costumes."

http://www.geocities.com/jonbenet_1990/jbbio.html

[Solace]

Originally posted by hohum
Have any of you visited webbsleuths.org? There is a wonderful video of Wayne Cordeiro interviewing the Ramsey's. I think it was Patsy's last but I could not find a date.

Hohum, Who is posting it? on websleuths?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


If you like fiction. :cool:

Which part was fiction? And thank you, Solace.

I actually left some things out, such as Stewart Long telling Thomas that John Ramsey told him JonBenet's body had been discovered at 11 am, which just happens to be the time when John Ramsey was down in the basement closing windows and not reporting that he had been down there at all. Ooops!

I left out how suspicious it is that when JonBenet was found, JR led Fleet White right to the window, explained he found it open, and then went straight to the room JonBenet was in - then proceeded to tear the tape off her mouth and carry her upstairs screaming - destroying the crime scene and polluting the evidence.

John and Patsy Ramsey did nothing but try to hinder investigation at every turn, offering to comply, and then pulling out and blaming it on the attorneys when it was time to cooperate. Why why WHY would they FOUR months to interview with police about their daughter's murder - and then sit there and claim they can't remember anything? Patsy Ramsey claimed she could not even remember whether JonBenet had a bath Christmas Day or not, but she can describe in detail where JonBenet's pageant costumes came from and what decorations came from where on the trees in their home for the 1994 Parade of Homes Tour.

Forget the "too emotionally feeble" argument. That's so extremely selfish and pathetic, imo. Other less wealthy and affluent parents would NOT have been able to lawyer up and hide for months and years while their baby lies cold in a grave with no justice and they continue to "move on with the lives".

[bandit's mom]

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.

Additionally, this is the only link you now have to your daughter.
It's supposed to be telling you how to "save" her. Of course,
they also never mentioned in the 911 call that they had
been threatened that JonBenet would be killed if authorities
were notified. I find that very odd myself. I no doubt would
still call in LE, but I'd make damn sure they knew about the
threat so they could try to deal with it. At any rate,
back to the note. I would certainly think Patsy would hold
it and read it and then likely re-read it several more times.
It's, at that point, the only link!

[Solace]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't remember who actually posted it. Read my post, it's webbsleuths (2 bs) not websleuths.

Oh, thank you. That is the Jameson board?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


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:

"Written for money?"

Did the Ramseys give away their book for free? Wait! They used all the proceeds to find the "real killers," right? :rolleyes:



If the Ramseys had cooperated fully with the police investigation from the beginning, they wouldn't have caused the police, the investigators, the DA, the FBI & so many of their (former) friends & acquaintences to wonder why they seemed so reluctant to solve this crime.

They were suspects for SO LONG because they dragged their feet when it came to clearing themselves.

DUMB MOVE.

Reap what you sow.

[Solace]

Originally posted by hohum


You know it is. And probably you will not want to visit it having read your comments to and about Jameson.

I did not know it is and that is why I asked; I thought it might be.

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by Solace


Hohum, Who is posting it? on websleuths?

websleuths.com has been around ALONG time. And is a VERY GOOD BOARD.

This person who has been advertising their webbsleuths (with 2 b's) board here IMO is trying to do a spin off of a respected board.

Sly

[LI_Mom]

Has it ever been disclosed WHO was leaking info to Jameson?


That's one of the problems with this crime... everyone was leaking to everyone.

[Solace]

Originally posted by FoxySly


websleuths.com has been around ALONG time. And is a VERY GOOD BOARD.

This person who has been advertising their webbsleuths (with 2 b's) board here IMO is trying to do a spin off of a respected board.

Sly

It figures.

[LI_Mom]

Not everyone thinks Jameson is a reliable source....

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/jameson.html

[rashomon]

Originally posted by FoxySly


websleuths.com has been around ALONG time. And is a VERY GOOD BOARD.

This person who has been advertising their webbsleuths (with 2 b's) board here IMO is trying to do a spin off of a respected board.

Sly
Websleuths is indeed excellent, and their JonBenet Ramsey forum is one of the real important JB boards on the net. (Solace btw is a poster there too).
Webbsleuths on the other hand is run by Susan Bennett, a die-hard Ramsey supporter aka jameson. Reading over there would make you think you have visited a loony bin. Jameson bans anyone from her board who does not happen to agree with her opinion about the Ramseys. The result is that they all stew in their own Ramsey spin juice over there.

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
Not everyone thinks Jameson is a reliable source....

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/jameson.html

Interesting link LI_Mom (Since I live 30 miles from Area 51 I also like the title hehe)

From the link:
"She claimed to be a male poster and I really didn't question that. Her syntax and descriptions of what she thought may have happened surely came from the mind of a man. Jameson now claims she never said she was a male. She's right. She just happened to mention her wife and children. "

"Mr. Coffman Writes:

...."On the Internet, "Jameson's Timeline" web site presents a lengthy defense of the Ramseys. "Jameson" is the pseudonym of a housewife in North Carolina who had a vision while taking a shower two days after the murder that the Ramseys were innocent. She has met John and Patsy Ramsey and has even managed to insert herself into the police investigation. In April 1997, a tip from Jameson persuaded Boulder police detectives to fly to North Carolina to interview an imprisoned pedophile as a possible suspect. In another episode in the summer of 1998, Jameson sicced authorities, including the CBI, on the family of a former employee of the Ramseys, alleging that they were part of a child pornography operation. The only thing that came of the investigation was pain for a wrongly-accused family. Now, "Internet sleuth" Jameson, again claiming to have important evidence, is trying to prod the DA's office into summoning her to testify before the grand jury investigating the murder." (end quote)


Much, much more at link.

Sly

[LI_Mom]

I tried to register at websleuths the other day but they have banned email addresses from any "free" mail servers as well as AOL & Juno mail servers.

They don't give people many options for registering. :(

I sent an email to the address that was provided & haven't had a response.

If any of you members have any ideas, I'd certainly appreciate the help.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I tried to register at websleuths the other day but they have banned email addresses from any "free" mail servers as well as AOL & Juno mail servers.

They don't give people many options for registering. :(

I sent an email to the address that was provided & haven't had a response.

I know they won't accept hotmail, etc., which is what I used at first. I will send a message and ask if you can be admitted. I am not sure what will happen. You would be great and I hope it works.

If any of you members have any ideas, I'd certainly appreciate the help.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by FoxySly


Interesting link LI_Mom (Since I live 30 miles from Area 51 I also like the title hehe)

From the link:
"She claimed to be a male poster and I really didn't question that. Her syntax and descriptions of what she thought may have happened surely came from the mind of a man. Jameson now claims she never said she was a male. She's right. She just happened to mention her wife and children. "

"Mr. Coffman Writes:

...."On the Internet, "Jameson's Timeline" web site presents a lengthy defense of the Ramseys. "Jameson" is the pseudonym of a housewife in North Carolina who had a vision while taking a shower two days after the murder that the Ramseys were innocent. She has met John and Patsy Ramsey and has even managed to insert herself into the police investigation. In April 1997, a tip from Jameson persuaded Boulder police detectives to fly to North Carolina to interview an imprisoned pedophile as a possible suspect. In another episode in the summer of 1998, Jameson sicced authorities, including the CBI, on the family of a former employee of the Ramseys, alleging that they were part of a child pornography operation. The only thing that came of the investigation was pain for a wrongly-accused family. Now, "Internet sleuth" Jameson, again claiming to have important evidence, is trying to prod the DA's office into summoning her to testify before the grand jury investigating the murder." (end quote)


Much, much more at link.

Sly

Yes, it is an interesting link.

Now we have to ask ourselves if THIS person has a personal agenda, I suppose.

The whole case was one giant circus from the beginning.

It's very odd that lawyers who were well aware that the Boulder DA was known to bend over backwards to AVOID trials would fail to advise their clients to cooperate FULLY with the police so their names would be clearly quickly & the investigation would move forward.

It's also odd that such a powerful & qualified defense team would make such disasterous strategic mistakes in dealing with the media.

It seems that when the Ramseys SHOULD have spoken, they wouldn't. And when they SHOULDN'T have spoken, they were in front of the cameras digging a deep hole for themselves.

I'd love to know what their lawyers said to them behind closed doors. I'm sure they must have been furious with this clients.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I tried to register at websleuths the other day but they have banned email addresses from any "free" mail servers as well as AOL & Juno mail servers.

They don't give people many options for registering. :(

I sent an email to the address that was provided & haven't had a response.

If any of you members have any ideas, I'd certainly appreciate the help.

I just sent an e-mail to a moderator and mentioned your interest in joining, so we will see. I believe they want an address other than the ones you mention above. So I asked if they accept on the recommendation of others. Hopefully so.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Yes, it is an interesting link.

Now we have to ask ourselves if THIS person has a personal agenda, I suppose.

The whole case was one giant circus from the beginning.

It's very odd that lawyers who were well aware that the Boulder DA was known to bend over backwards to AVOID trials would fail to advise their clients to cooperate FULLY with the police so their names would be clearly quickly & the investigation would move forward.

It's also odd that such a powerful & qualified defense team would make such disasterous strategic mistakes in dealing with the media.

It seems that when the Ramseys SHOULD have spoken, they wouldn't. And when they SHOULDN'T have spoken, they were in front of the cameras digging a deep hole for themselves.

I'd love to know what their lawyers said to them behind closed doors. I'm sure they must have been furious with this clients.

Anyone who says they had a vision that the parents are innocent while taking a shower is someone who is out and out dying for the attention and will use a dead child to get it. If she cared so much about these people, she would not have been sharing with the tabloids. She is a lowlife and that is my opinion. And you will notice she has not returned since she was outed here a day or two ago by Rashomon.

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by rashomon

Websleuths is indeed excellent, and their JonBenet Ramsey forum is one of the real important JB boards on the net. (Solace btw is a poster there too).
Webbsleuths on the other hand is run by Susan Bennett, a die-hard Ramsey supporter aka jameson. Reading over there would make you think you have visited a loony bin. Jameson bans anyone from her board who does not happen to agree with her opinion about the Ramseys. The result is that they all stew in their own Ramsey spin juice over there.

I agree.
Kinda like the butch defeo Ammityville (vile) board.
Anyone who can defend a grown (spoiled rotten) man who murdered all 6 members of his family while they slept is beyond me.
Link: Info on the CTV Crime Library.

Sly

p.s. I've been a member of the REAL websleuths since Jan 04.
They are truly a awesome & dedicated community.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


I just sent an e-mail to a moderator and mentioned your interest in joining, so we will see. I believe they want an address other than the ones you mention above. So I asked if they accept on the recommendation of others. Hopefully so.

Thanks so much, Solace. :)

As I said, they really don't give people many email options. I can understand they want to cut down on the number of trolls & troublemakers who join; other boards are doing the same but not as drastically.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by FoxySly


I agree.
Kinda like the butch defeo Ammityville (vile) board.
Anyone who can defend a grown (spoiled rotten) man who murdered all 6 members of his family while they slept is beyond me.
Link: Info on the CTV Crime Library.

Sly

p.s. I've been a member of the REAL websleuths since Jan 04.
They are truly a awesome & dedicated community.

The other month, I saw an interview with DeFeo on cable. What a nutcase. It's sad, sure, but I can't see anyone defending him? What a crazy world.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Thanks so much, Solace. :)

As I said, they really don't give people many email options. I can understand they want to cut down on the number of trolls & troublemakers who join; other boards are doing the same but not as drastically.

Anytime. You would be an asset to the Board. We will keep trying.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Patsy spoke to JB's doctor about the bedwetting problem and the infections due to not wiping properly. It is in her 1998 deposition with Tom Haney.

TRY to keep up. :rolleyes: What has a bedwetting problem and not wiping properly got to do with underwear wet ALL the time, soiling herself or asking anyone to clean her up??? Below is the post i was answering as you well know.

Originally posted by rashomon

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.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


If you like fiction. :cool:

I agree and many here do like fiction. :shrug:

[webbsleuth]

WebbSleuths was started right about the time the Boulder News Forum started to fail. There was far too much trolling and attacking on the board and the Boulder Camera eventually took it down.

My forum was up long before weBsleuths was formed. Murphy and I started WebbSleuths - the name was my choice, the posts were mine - I was the leader. I do thiank Murphy for her help though. She knew how to start the forum, I did not. But the forum was mine - - there was never any doubt. Few people know Murphy was involved at all.

Murphy and I had a parting of the ways and I took WebbSleuths to a new server - - and some others, people who aren't part of the discussion anymore, started weBsleuths. They openly discussed how they would get people to the site because they would misspell MY domain name. (Oh well, that's life.)

The BORG dislike me - that's fine with me. I have NO problem with being disliked for being honest and on the right side.

I am not here to discuss me, however. I would rather discuss the case. And the facts.

The facts don't point to the parents as guilty. They were not indicted. The BORG is a lynchmob with no rope, just a lot of screaming at this point.

My advice to readers is to skip the personal rhetoric - - what does anyone really care about the history of the forums.

The case is what matters - - getting this solved.

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


The other month, I saw an interview with DeFeo on cable. What a nutcase. It's sad, sure, but I can't see anyone defending him? What a crazy world.

I too, soooooo VERY MUCH AGREE with you.

Sly

[webbsleuth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rashomon

Jameson bans anyone from her board who does not happen to agree with her opinion about the Ramseys. [/b]

[b]No, that is not true - just another BORG myth.

I try to maintain a public board. It does close when the BORG decide to spam it - but when that happens, everyone can see why it was closed and know where the blame lies.

I do ban people who post misinformation to the board - I won't host a forum of lies. So you won't read find the lie that Patsy's handwriting was a match on my forum. Or that Burke confessed or that John was into Kiddie porn.

Webb - - for Jack Webb - - "Just the facts, ma'am".

Every forum has a flavor - I like a civil forum - a forum of truth. And I have one.

weBsleuths is an interesting forum, I just don't like the misinformation that goes unchallenged there.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by hohum


I thought the person who identified Jameson as a male, precisely John Andrew Ramsey, was Foster. When did Jameson ever purport to be a male herself?

When I started, I didn't careto know details about anyone, and didn't care to give them outmyself. I spoke of my spouse, I did what I could not to reveal ANY private information - - I did not say I was male. Didn't say my wife died on the autobahn - nothing like that. The BORG started that and there was no way to prove i had not - - so I didn't try.

Think of it - - they could say you told them privately that you had a sex change operation and you really couldn't stop the anonymous posters.... so you ignore and know the smart people will judge you by YOUR posts, YOUR actions.

I am proud of what I have done in this case. I have discredited a false witness and brought the truth to a lot of people. If the BORG wants to lie about me - - I can't worry about it - - there are far too many of them - - like a swarm of gnats. You just have to accept that the smart posters will do the research and judge them for what they are and you for what you are.

sorry for sloppy typing, I have had a long day.

[nuisanceposter]

Prove me wrong.

[LI_Mom]

Webbsleuth, I asked earlier, I guess you missed my post....

what is BORG?



And before I jump to conclusions, I'll ask. Are you "Jameson?"

If so, why do you use so many different usernames?

[FoxySly]

According to whois.com jameson is caught in yet another lie:

Domain ID:D86246008-LROR
Domain Name:WEBBSLEUTHS.ORG
Created On:04-May-2002 00:18:19 UTC
Registrant Name:Jameson
Registrant Organization:Jameson


Domain Name: WEBSLEUTHS.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Creation Date: 25-May-1999


Sly

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


There are people who don't want to know the facts if they don't correlate with what they think. And then there are people like me who have really just started reading about the case since Patsy died and boy can that be confusing. I have never seen so much conflicting info on one subject.

I'm with you! It's almost impossible to keep the very few facts straight because it seems the case is less about what happened to Jonbenet than about the many players. So many petty fights & so many civil lawsuits and very little Jonbenet.

I didn't follow the case very closely when it was in the news & only read the books after Patsy died.

I did feel the Ramseys were less than honest in the beginning & it was really after I read THEIR book that I truly felt they were indeed capable of the crime or at least a coverup.

[f0rTyLeGz]

Originally posted by webbsleuth:

WebbSleuths was started right about the time the Boulder News Forum started to fail. There was far too much trolling and attacking on the board and the Boulder Camera eventually took it down.

I participated in the Boulder News Forum... wow it was electric! I was very sorry when it went down. It got hard to see the forest because of all the nut cases, but still...

Originally posted by webbsleuth:

My forum was up long before weBsleuths was formed. Murphy and I started WebbSleuths - the name was my choice, the posts were mine - I was the leader. I do thiank Murphy for her help though. She knew how to start the forum, I did not. But the forum was mine - - there was never any doubt. Few people know Murphy was involved at all.

And I was a memeber of Webbslueths too... that was long ago... I remember you liked Jack Webb :) and just the facts. :)

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace



Rash,

Obviously when a child does not completely wipe herself after urinating, her underwear will be wet. That is what is has to do with JB's underwear being wet, unless of course she had "dry" urine. But I have never heard of that, have you Rash?

Oh please, the poster inferred she wet herself all the time and you KNOW that. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Nuisanceposter: Do you get the feeling that they can't prove you wrong. Even in a court of law, yes it is true, the prosecutor has to "prove" his case and the defense only has to raise reasonable doubt, but one would think in this forum after reading your post, you would get a better answer than "that is not the way it works, prove what you say". By the way what you have said is readily known to all. Your posts are right on.

Wrong, how do you expect anyone to prove a negative or a figment of someone's imagination???:rolleyes: Some of her post has already been proven wrong BTW.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Also in these wonderful interviews John Ramsey explains just exactly what Nuisanceposter said in her post re finding JB. Fleet White says he went into the same room but walked out because it was pitch black. John says he went there earlier in the am but it was pitch black and saw nothing and left and later when searching with F. White, he opened the door (without turning the light on and saw the blanket and KNEW it was JB and he immediately pulled the tape off her mouth -thereby destroying any evidence. He says on the Barbara Walters interview that to think he would stage a scene and then destroy the staging by removing the tape is ridiculous and "doesn't make any sense".

Makes perfect sense to me and a few others. Also, it is extremely interesting that the second time around he could see into a pitch black room. Do you think he maybe found the body earlier and that is why his demeanor changed and Det. Arndt noticed it and was worried about him and told him to check again and that miraculously, he finds the body.

By the way, it is also interesting that he starts from the basement up. Anyone I ask says they would have started from JB's room since that is where she was last, hoping to find some semblance of information that would help. John doesn't need to do that, he knows where she is.

What makes sense to you is nonsence IMO. :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


That's not the way it works. You prove what you say.

You're the one accusing me of making up fiction in the JonBenet case, and really, the stuff I'm saying is something anyone even remotely familiar with the JonBenet Ramsey investigation should already know.

You're calling me a liar, prove it.

Match me link for link, and we'll hash it all out. I've spent the last nine and a half years following this investigation...have you?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Rosy: Do you have access to the 1997 and 1998 transcripts of the interviews. Great source of information on this case. The Ramseys were not interviewed at length and separately until April of 1997. They were not interviewed the day the gave hair and blood samples. Their lawyer said "no". If you have a sample of that interview, I would love to see it. But it does not exist.




"In her 93-page dismissal order, Carnes evaluated evidence that the Ramseys, Patsy Ramsey in particular, were responsible for their daughter's slaying. In her analysis, Carnes sharply criticized the botched investigation that followed the discovery of JonBenét's body; accused Boulder police of using the media to target the Ramseys; and stated that the Ramseys, despite widespread criticism to the contrary, attempted to cooperate fully with detectives investigating their daughter's murder. "

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


You're the one accusing me of making up fiction in the JonBenet case, and really, the stuff I'm saying is something anyone even remotely familiar with the JonBenet Ramsey investigation should already know.

You're calling me a liar, prove it.

Match me link for link, and we'll hash it all out. I've spent the last nine and a half years following this investigation...have you?

Read all posts on this thread as well as all of the thread below

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=268277&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

and you will see some of your fiction HAS already been disproven.

I HAVE followed the case from the beginning and I HAVE seen all the disinfomation put out by Thomas, the BPD and others that want to make a buck. I have also seen the evidence that the gossips do not want to face. There are plenty of other suspects that the BPD didn't even try to check out. Some have been "ruled" out by the DNA but yet the SAME DNA didn't rule out the Ramseys???? :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Solace


Nuisanceposter: Do you get the feeling that they can't prove you wrong. Even in a court of law, yes it is true, the prosecutor has to "prove" his case and the defense only has to raise reasonable doubt, but one would think in this forum after reading your post, you would get a better answer than "that is not the way it works, prove what you say". By the way what you have said is readily known to all. Your posts are right on.

I'm sure they can't prove me wrong, and I am not the least bit surprised that they have challenged my posts. Thank you again, Solace, and yes, everything I have said is basic fact that should known to all parties, even those who doubt the parents were involved. It truly makes me wonder just how much homework these people have done on this case.

All of us here owe it to JonBenet to become as knowledgable as possible in this case and continue searching to serve her justice. She lies lonely in grave while her parents have done all they can to make everyone stop looking at them - and sadly, the evidence keeps pointing right back at them.

Just for ONCE I would have liked to see John and Patsy Ramsey make JonBenet more important than themselves. A defunct tipline and a dead foundation are all they have done for her, other than obfuscate and hinder investigation every step of the way. Even that book they wrote was all about them - the title, Death Of Innocence, refers to the death of their OWN innocence. Make me puke...

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm sure they can't prove me wrong, and I am not the least bit surprised that they have challenged my posts. Thank you again, Solace, and yes, everything I have said is basic fact that should known to all parties, even those who doubt the parents were involved. It truly makes me wonder just how much homework these people have done on this case.

All of us here owe it to JonBenet to become as knowledgable as possible in this case and continue searching to serve her justice. She lies lonely in grave while her parents have done all they can to make everyone stop looking at them - and sadly, the evidence keeps pointing right back at them.

Just for ONCE I would have liked to see John and Patsy Ramsey make JonBenet more important than themselves. A defunct tipline and a dead foundation are all they have done for her, other than obfuscate and hinder investigation every step of the way. Even that book they wrote was all about them - the title, Death Of Innocence, refers to the death of their OWN innocence. Make me puke...

Hope you have a barf bag. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Well, let me just put my opinion this way.


Neither John, nor Patsy or Burke, or any Ramsey had anything to do with JonBenet's death...............and that's all I have to say about that.

Now, prove me wrong.

:patriot: Good one, of course they can't. If they had all the "proof" they THINK they do all they have to do is prove it in court.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Excuse me - I haven't said anything about fingerprints or interviews.

Don't mind him, he dreams up more and more fairy tales every day. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Nuisance: Notice, how we are getting only "Oh pleas.... and I don't agree". Nothing to dispute what we are saying.

I have posted links on both this thread and others to "dispute" what you are saying and you KNOW it. If you choose to believe gossip instead, that is your problem. :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Solace


Nuisance: Notice, how we are getting only "Oh pleas.... and I don't agree". Nothing to dispute what we are saying.



I absolutely notice that. They demand links from me but have supplied only one or two of their own.

Breezy, rosyred - Tell me what you want me to back up with links, and I'll supply you with as many as I can. Steve Thomas's book will also be considered a credible source, as will DOI. I often quote from both of those books, but have no internet links to back me up from those two books. I will supply page numbers.

As ever thanks again, Solace. I really like forum debate, and few topics are more interesting to me than the murder of JonBenet Ramsey and the subsequent investigation. I truly want to see the killer answer for killing that sweet little girl...whoever the killer may be.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Hi, Breezy......good to see you this morning!

Thanks, can't stay long cuz of family reunion this week end but I will pop in from time to time to laugh at the gossip and fairy tales.

Can you believe they post .........."Notice, how we are getting only "Oh pleas.... and I don't agree". Nothing to dispute what we are saying. " when you and I and others have been posting links disputing his nonsence for weeks? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter




I absolutely notice that. They demand links from me but have supplied only one or two of their own.

Breezy, rosyred - Tell me what you want me to back up with links, and I'll supply you with as many as I can. Steve Thomas's book will also be considered a credible source, as will DOI. I often quote from both of those books, but have no internet links to back me up from those two books. I will supply page numbers.

As ever thanks again, Solace. I really like forum debate, and few topics are more interesting to me than the murder of JonBenet Ramsey and the subsequent investigation. I truly want to see the killer answer for killing that sweet little girl...whoever the killer may be.

In case you missed it.................Read all posts on this thread as well as all of the thread below

http://boards.courttv.com/showthrea...40&pagenumber=1

and you will see some of your fiction HAS already been disproven.

I HAVE followed the case from the beginning and I HAVE seen all the disinfomation put out by Thomas, the BPD and others that want to make a buck. I have also seen the evidence that the gossips do not want to face. There are plenty of other suspects that the BPD didn't even try to check out. Some have been "ruled" out by the DNA but yet the SAME DNA didn't rule out the Ramseys????

BTW, the Thomas book is NOT a reliable source as he has been discredited in court TWICE. You can choose to believe him but you are only fooling yourself IMO.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Nuisanceposter: Notice how they are now starting to become enraged and nasty with the posting because they cannot back up anything. We are waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting......

:rolleyes: How silly and immature. Why should we be "enraged and nasty" over people who act so silly?


If you would learn to read with understanding you wouldn't have to wait any longer. Read all posts on this thread as well as all of the thread below

http://boards.courttv.com/showthrea...40&pagenumber=1

and you will see some of your fiction HAS already been disproven.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Nuisanceposter:

Any way you look at it, Patsy Ramsey is the one. She now, if there is any truth to the belief that you have to face it when you die, is facing it big time. Her cancer is a direct relation to the fact that she did a heinous heinous crime, maybe not intentional, but then covered it. And yes she had cancer before the crime, but she suffered big time when it resurfaced and it probably would not have come back so lethally if she had not had such a dark secret. The body does not like secrets.

You continue to get more and more childish. Patsy got cancer and died because she did a "heinous heinous crime"??? :rolleyes: I guess everyone who gets cancer and dies did a "heinous heinous crime" too in your opinion??? You make no sense at all. IMO it is you that better worry about facing your maker if you believe in one for being a gossip "bearing false witness".

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I guess Patsy first got cancer in 1993 in anticipation of committing a crime in 1996. Makes perfect sense to me, Breezy. How 'bout you? Makes about as much sense as some of the other things posted.

I can't believe I am reading such childish hateful things directed towards a stranger based on a discredited "detectives" book. It does make no sense and it is so thoughtless. There may be people reading this forum who are dying of cancer or some other dread disease and when they read that kind of rubish it must make them feel horrible thinking there are actually people in this world who think cancer is a "punishment".

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Patsy got cancer because Patsy got cancer. The stress in her life of continuing a lie did not help in relieve the cancer. Stress kills and it helped to kill Patsy with an onslaught of disease that had been previously taken care of.

Maybe it would have returned anyway, but the stress of the murder certainly did not help and you know what I meant. You are grasping again.

You mean the stress of gossips such as Thomas and yourself. :cuss:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Wasn't speaking to you Breezy, trot along to your reunion.

Do NOT tell me where to trot! This is a public forum and I will answer who and when I want to. That WAS a childish hateful statement you made and IMO you NEED to be called on it.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I agree, Breezy, and I think the reason so many people keep trying to prove she murdered JonBenet is because she was able to live her life to some degree of satisfaction despite all of the nastiest that was thrown her way. Good for her.

Words said at her funeral say it all IMO.

""I watched your lives after the tragedy of JonBenet's death and the horror of Patsy being falsely accused," Dr. Long read. "The three of you...walked through the furnace of fire and came out without smelling like smoke. No bitterness but a stronger, growing faith."

Dedicated to her family, her church, and her volunteer work, Patsy Ramsey was remembered as a woman who endured through tremendous tests.

"We say without a doubt today that she has been welcomed home with the words, 'Well done, good and faithful servant.' Amen."

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Weren't you on your way to a reunion or something.

You really can't read with understanding, can you? Do you know what week end means?

"week·end ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wknd)
n.
The end of the week, especially the period from Friday evening through Sunday evening.

Do you understand making food and getting ready so not having a lot of extra time for internet posting? You are proving how childish you are and what a self centered world you live in.

"breezy1234
Senior Member





Thanks, can't stay long cuz of family reunion this week end but I will pop in from time to time to laugh at the gossip and fairy tales.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


They left out "dedicated to the obliteration of her only child.
WHAT are you talking about, "only child"?

Dedicated to slaughtering her and covering it up and dedicated to bringing her only son, Berke, in her web of deceipt and lies. Dedicated to herself completely. Dedicated to destroying her only daughter's childhood by placing her in pageants from the tender age of 3;

Dedicated to caring completely for herself.

You are one hateful person for saying such garbage with NO proof. BTW JonBenet was NOT in any pagents at the "tender age of 3" and when she did enter pageants it was because JonBenet WANTED to. Better check FACTS instead of gossip but I know you are too wrapped up in a fariy tale book to understand facts.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


We are both lucky because we are able to sleep. JonBenet unfortunately was not so lucky because her mother interrupted her sleep for the rest of her life when she slaughtered her.

Another disgusting post based on NO evidence. You must be a very unhappy person to feel such hate for a stranger.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Dedicated to the complete destruction of her daughter's childhood for her own selfish gains, e.g. living through JonBenet.

I never met a 3 year old who knew what was good for them yet; neither has the law, that is why they have guardians. Hopefully, guardians that care, not guardians that kill them.

JB was not one of the lucky ones; because her mother killed her.

"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/

"Her brother, John Andrew, says 'she was a tomboy with scrapes on her knees like any other 6 year old' and many others tell of how she adored her big brother Burke. With her family she attended and was in involved in St. Johns Episcopal Church. JonBenet attended High Peaks Elementary school in Boulder where she is remembered by teachers and her peers as a caring, considerate, happy and friendly child. One teacher reported to Patsy before JonBenets death, 'JonBenet will never have trouble giving an oral book report'!!!!! A teacher remembers how once a child brought treats for the classroom to eat but there wasn't enough to go around - it was JonBenet who suggested that the teacher 'cut the treats in half to be fair'! "

http://www.geocities.com/jonbenet_1990/jbbio.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I think it's called "desperation."

So sad. I can't imagine anyone being that unhappy that they would say those things about a stranger. I pity him.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


She did the pageants because that is what her mother wanted her to do and her mother introduced her to them. She wanted her to be Ms. Universe because she wasn't.

Didn't Patsy understand that to be Ms. Universe, you have to be alive?:lol:

Once again you did NOT read with understanding.

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.

JonBenet entered beauty pageants and won several titles - not only due to her stunning good looks but also because of her beautiful personality and great talents. Her titles held include - Little Miss Charlevoix (Mich.), Colorado State All-Star Kids Cover Girl, America's Royal Miss, National Tiny Miss Beauty, Little Miss Merry Christmas, Little Miss Colorado. Her mother Patsy [who was crowned Miss West Virginia in 1973] entered her in pageants but without doubt it was JonBenets decision - she sang, danced and wore glamorous customes and makeup with joy. When you tell or force a child to do an activity they don't want to they have no enthusiasim - but JonBenet was full of enthusiasim - she loved entertaining and making people smile.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace
Guilty of literally stealing her daughter's childhood. Ranks right up there with premeditated murder.


:lol: Do you thinik if you say it enough times you will convince someone? Sorry, some of us have our eyes open and can understand facts unlike you who likes to read fairy tales and make up hateful stories. I really do pity you.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Like your sunglasses Rosy; see you just can't hide the fact that you are blind to the truth.:lol:

Nope, that is you who is blind to the truth. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


If Patsy had been interrogated that first day, she would have broken like Humpty dumpty and had a great fall and put yours and Rosie's dreams out of their misery.

She couldn't even fake the poly and pass it as some serial killers do; she couldn't even really convince herself that "she knew in her heart that she had not done this thing". (Spoken by Patsy Ramsey to Geraldo Rivera's producer). Sounds like something one would say when they know they did something very bad but are trying to convince themselves it was an accident.

She finally got it right after four times. Probably was stoned at the time also. Her lawyers did not let her be tested by the poly tester who wanted her to pass a drug test.

Besides being a murderer, she is a drug addict too. She probably killed JB in a drug induced rage, she loved her pills you know. Even kept that a secret from John. (John Ramsey, Interview by Mr. Kane - 1998)

What a mess!

You never tire of gossip do you? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


She would have broken like the coward that she proved herself to be.

IMO a coward is someone who sits behind a computer posting someone is guilty of a crime based on no proof and in fact closing their eyes to proof that she is not guilty. How sad for you.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


She bashed her defenseless six year old over the head or knocked her around so hard that JB fell against the bathtub; and then garrotted her to make sure she was dead and then she defiled her very tiny body to make it appear that an imaginary intruder did it. In so doing left all her disgusting fibers all over the place. Even with the incredible screw up, there is still evidence.

LOL keep repeating Steves lies if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. Those in the know and have seen the evidence know better and know Thomas chickened out when he had his chance to prove his fairy tale in court.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


In case you missed it.................Read all posts on this thread as well as all of the thread below

http://boards.courttv.com/showthrea...40&pagenumber=1

and you will see some of your fiction HAS already been disproven.

I HAVE followed the case from the beginning and I HAVE seen all the disinfomation put out by Thomas, the BPD and others that want to make a buck. I have also seen the evidence that the gossips do not want to face. There are plenty of other suspects that the BPD didn't even try to check out. Some have been "ruled" out by the DNA but yet the SAME DNA didn't rule out the Ramseys????

BTW, the Thomas book is NOT a reliable source as he has been discredited in court TWICE. You can choose to believe him but you are only fooling yourself IMO.

First off, let's class it up a little and drop the rancor. If you are in this debate purely to be petty, I won't even waste my time. I'm interested in discussion without any snide remarks, with emotion and personal feelings for key players left out.

You don't like Steve Thomas...fine. I understand that. I don't much care for John and Patsy Ramsey, but I can participate in a conversation about them without resorting to pettiness.

You want to throw Thomas's book out, okay, but he includes a lot of information that can be backed up and proven with official reports and papers. That also means Death Of Innocence is ruled out as a source. In all fairness, you cannot disclude one without the other. The Ramseys have also proven themselves to be unreliable and inaccurate sources.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


First off, let's class it up a little and drop the rancor. If you are in this debate purely to be petty, I won't even waste my time. I'm interested in discussion without any snide remarks, with emotion and personal feelings for key players left out.

You don't like Steve Thomas...fine. I understand that. I don't much care for John and Patsy Ramsey, but I can participate in a conversation about them without resorting to pettiness.

You want to throw Thomas's book out, okay, but he includes a lot of information that can be backed up and proven with official reports and papers. That also means Death Of Innocence is ruled out as a source. In all fairness, you cannot disclude one without the other. The Ramseys have also proven themselves to be unreliable and inaccurate sources.

IMO NO book is proof of a crime one way or the other. The "information" in the Thomas book is pure speculation.

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

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

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


'Splain something. Why would this woman - who has never been known to be violent - before or after someone murdered her daughter - do something like this because - I believe you said - her daughter wet the bed?

He said it because Steve Thomas said it. No matter that there was no evidence she wet the bed that night, if Steve said it is gospel to him. :shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


:<snip>


If you would learn to read with understanding you wouldn't have to wait any longer. Read all posts on this thread as well as all of the thread below

[url]http://boards.courttv.com/showthrea...40&pagenumber=1[

404 error page not found

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


There sure was evidence of urine on the bed.

NOT that night.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


404 error page not found

Courttv.com Message Boards > Current Crimes & Old/Cold Cases > JonBenet & Patsy Ramsay [m]

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


There sure was evidence of urine on the bed.

Wolf and Hoffman based most of their theory on the case from a book written by former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas, who suggested Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet in a bed-wetting incident, even though Carnes said there was never any evidence JonBenet wet her bed on the night in question.

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Yup, traces of urine whether you like it or not.

Yeah you in all your "wisdom" from a "book" know that and the judge who actually saw and heard the evidence is wrong. :lol:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


IMO NO book is proof of a crime one way or the other. The "information" in the Thomas book is pure speculation.

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

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

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

I don't know how you can sit there and dismiss all the information in Steve Thomas's book as speculation. How very closed-minded of you. I'm certainly not that biased when it comes to DOI. In between the personal sentiment is cold hard fact that can be backed up elsewhere, in both of those books.

My goodness, does it mean nothing to you that some very credible experts, including the FBI's CASKU unit, backed up Steve Thomas's theory? Thomas didn't dream this all up on his own, he had other experts providing input all along. FBI was there at the Ramsey house that morning, and they left as soon as the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide - but told Thomas, "Look at the parents" - and they backed up the theory that this was cover up by the parents when BPD presented the case...and at the same meeting, Lou Smit kept completely silent about his stun-gun intruder theory. Hmmm. Ramsey supporters want everyone else to believe that Thomas has as much a grudge against the Rams as they do against him - the sad truth is he was a cop doing his job, going where the evidence led him.

Carnes may scoff all she likes, but when you examine the full scope of the evidence, any scenario other than RDI does not make sense. Who was in the house? Who had the opportunity? Who told contradicting stories and can't pass a handwriting test?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Yeah you in all your "wisdom" from a "book" know that and the judge who actually saw and heard the evidence is wrong. :lol:

I doubt the evidence presented to the judge by Alex Hunter's office was totally unbiased and impartial. Hunter was rather corrupt, in cahoots with Ramsey attorneys, and gave them every pass at every instance. All you need to get away with murder in Boulder is a botched crime scene, corrupt officials, and an agressive defense team fueled by $$$.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I don't know how you can sit there and dismiss all the information in Steve Thomas's book as speculation. How very closed-minded of you. I'm certainly not that biased when it comes to DOI. In between the personal sentiment is cold hard fact that can be backed up elsewhere, in both of those books.

My goodness, does it mean nothing to you that some very credible experts, including the FBI's CASKU unit, backed up Steve Thomas's theory? Thomas didn't dream this all up on his own, he had other experts providing input all along. FBI was there at the Ramsey house that morning, and they left as soon as the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide - but told Thomas, "Look at the parents" - and they backed up the theory that this was cover up by the parents when BPD presented the case...and at the same meeting, Lou Smit kept completely silent about his stun-gun intruder theory. Hmmm. Ramsey supporters want everyone else to believe that Thomas has as much a grudge against the Rams as they do against him - the sad truth is he was a cop doing his job, going where the evidence led him.

Carnes may scoff all she likes, but when you examine the full scope of the evidence, any scenario other than RDI does not make sense. Who was in the house? Who had the opportunity? Who told contradicting stories and can't pass a handwriting test?

I've posted all the links and told you where and am really tried of the same ole. You can Solace go on believeing the Thomas fairy tale until the cows come home. It won't make it fact.

"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."

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I doubt the evidence presented to the judge by Alex Hunter's office was totally unbiased and impartial. Hunter was rather corrupt, in cahoots with Ramsey attorneys, and gave them every pass at every instance. All you need to get away with murder in Boulder is a botched crime scene, corrupt officials, and an agressive defense team fueled by $$$.

Hunter had nothing to do with the civil case. :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Courttv.com Message Boards > Current Crimes & Old/Cold Cases > JonBenet & Patsy Ramsay [m]

I'm not going to spend my afternoon reading a twenty something page thread when you're right here and able to speak for yourself now. We're in this thread, not that one.

Just tell me what you want me to provide links for, I will, and then you can respond with links of your own.

No need to direct each other to other threads in other boards, just quote the pertinant information. Much easier to discuss. :)

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I've posted all the links and told you where and am really tried of the same ole. You can Solace go on believeing the Thomas fairy tale until the cows come home. It won't make it fact.

"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."

Mary Keenan-Lacy, who just spent her own money to go to Patsy Ramsey's funeral...not an unbiased source.

So you're not willing to post any links in this current discussion between you and I right now? You're not willing to get into a discussion about the evidence with someone who can back up an RDI theory? I didn't think so. Enjoy your reunion. :seeya:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Hunter had nothing to do with the civil case. :rolleyes:

Oh, my mistake. Could you please clarify exactly what you were referring to? A link would be most appreciated. TIA.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin



<snip>

Where did you get that Patsy was exhausted - working from early morning and still at 9:30? They had been out to eat, to a Christmas party, and drove to look at the Christmas lights over Boulder. Sounds like that had a wonderful day to me.

What celebration the next day? They were leaving for their home in Michigan.

The evening you're describing was Christmas Eve.

And they were going to meet up with John's older children and continue celebrating Christmas in Michigan, and then head out on to a cruise on Disney's Big Red Boat.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm not going to spend my afternoon reading a twenty something page thread when you're right here and able to speak for yourself now. We're in this thread, not that one.

Just tell me what you want me to provide links for, I will, and then you can respond with links of your own.

No need to direct each other to other threads in other boards, just quote the pertinant information. Much easier to discuss. :)

It's your chocie what to read or not. AS I said I am getting ready for a family reunion and don't have time to hold your hand and walk you to each link when they are all there for all to see IF they wanted to.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Oh, my mistake. Could you please clarify exactly what you were referring to? A link would be most appreciated. TIA.

IF you had read what i posted you would know what i was referring to.

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

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

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

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

"Wolf and Hoffman based most of their theory on the case from a book written by former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas, who suggested Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet in a bed-wetting incident, even though Carnes said there was never any evidence JonBenet wet her bed on the night in question."

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

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


It's your chocie what to read or not. AS I said I am getting ready for a family reunion and don't have time to hold your hand and walk you to each link when they are all there for all to see IF they wanted to.

Please be reasonable. Directing someone to read a twenty-five page thread in response to them asking you to match the links you've asked them for isn't that fair.

I'm more than willing to discuss this murder and investigation point by pojnt including links to back up statements, but I'm not going to wear myself out doing all the work while you sit there with a superior attitude and can't be bothered to do anything other than point. Let me direct you to a twenty-five thread that I have only partially participated in and we're equal.

I'm more than willing to wait until you have more time.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Ho hum, the DNA that the was found in JB's underwear was of such that it could not be found to be reliable as a match to her fingernails. Also the DNA could easily have been a worker at the manufacturing plant.

The clippers used to cut JB's nails were used on other cadavers as well. So to try and match the DNA to her fingernails is just not happening.

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

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

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

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
Webbsleuth, I asked earlier, I guess you missed my post....

what is BORG?



And before I jump to conclusions, I'll ask. Are you "Jameson?"

If so, why do you use so many different usernames?

Yes, I am jameson. I never hide who I am. I couldn't get the name jameson here so chose something I thought would make clear who I am. I think I also signed my first few posts so noone would have any question.

BORG - it is from Star Trek. A group of people who join together and share one mindset. Anyone daring to think anything other than the accepted BORG thoughts finds themselves shunned or worse.
LONG ago, most of the posters thought the Ramseys did it. I stood out as someone who said I didn't think so. What parent spends a really nice day celebrating Christmas, goes to bed and then decides to garrote the kid? I mean normal people who aren't insane, on medication... and these people had NO history of being neglectful or abusive.
I was attacked. I was talking to Lou Smit one day and he said the lynch mob reminded him of the BORG.
I took the term to the forums and it is still used.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by FoxySly
According to whois.com jameson is caught in yet another lie:

Domain ID:D86246008-LROR
Domain Name:WEBBSLEUTHS.ORG
Created On:04-May-2002 00:18:19 UTC
Registrant Name:Jameson
Registrant Organization:Jameson


Domain Name: WEBSLEUTHS.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Creation Date: 25-May-1999


Sly

Try doing a search for webbsleuths.com
That was the first site for webbsleuths - - and that forum is still up with much older threads.
The forum went down once, we had to start it over - - lost EVERYTHING! After it got up and running, we had another problem and, while we didn't lose anything, I decided to purchase a second domain, for newer discussions, using a different server. That way, if one forum were to go down, the other would still be there.

Check it out. Please.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


there was never any evidence JonBenet wet her bed on the night in question."


Former Boulder police detective Steve Thomas believes JonBenet was killed because she wet her bed. Were JonBenet's sheets urine-stained? Sources from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation say they were.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25700,00.html

[webbsleuth]

The first WebbSleuths was on the www.smilyface.com domain. It was there for a while - I don't know exact date, sorry, but was closed in October of 1998 and put on munitrading.com.

Later I purchased jameson245.com and put the WebbSleuths forum on that. Still later, I bought Webbsleuths.com, org and net.

If you do the research, you will find Webbsleuths was part of the 48 Hours program I was on - - and that was well before weBsleuths was hatched.

But don't let that stop your attack. I am going to go read. Better things to do than to try to expose the constant lies putoutby the BORG.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Solace


Nuisanceposter: I am off for the weekend. Have a great weekend and see you Monday. I look forward to all that I can learn from you about this case.:beer:

Same to you, Solace, see you on Monday.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by Solace


Ho hum, the DNA that the was found in JB's underwear was of such that it could not be found to be reliable as a match to her fingernails. Also the DNA could easily have been a worker at the manufacturing plant.

The clippers used to cut JB's nails were used on other cadavers as well. So to try and match the DNA to her fingernails is just not happening.

You are wrong. There was more than one spot of blood in her panties. The first tests didn't end successfully, but years later they tested another spot and THAT resulted in the DNA profile being entered into CODIS.

The DNA in the panties matched the stuff under her nails - - and there were no panty fibers under her nails. Think about it. No waydid the DNA of some worker at some manufacturing plant fly through the air to her nails.

No, it isn't that complicated. She scratched her attacker, he touched his wound instinctively and then carried his own DNA to her panties on his hand.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter



Former Boulder police detective Steve Thomas believes JonBenet was killed because she wet her bed. Were JonBenet's sheets urine-stained? Sources from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation say they were.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25700,00.html

You believe unnamed "sources" more than you believe a NAMED JUDGE who saw the evidence? :rolleyes:

""Wolf and Hoffman based most of their theory on the case from a book written by former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas, who suggested Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet in a bed-wetting incident, even though Carnes said there was never any evidence JonBenet wet her bed on the night in question."

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

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Solace


Nuisance: I really have to run because I am late, but I am sure you posted something earlier today re a quote from someone with the name of Paugh who said the dna in the underwear could not be analyzed with any conviction (my words, paraphrasing). Do you have that. I can't find it. See you later.

Yep, no problem. That was a quote from Pam Paugh, Patsy's younger sister.

http://webdollie.tripod.com/pressrelease1.htm


Here's what Pam Paugh said on WROW 12/30/98 Question: Does the DNA under those fingernails actually match the DNA that was found in the panties? Pam: "Well, from what I know, the DNA under the fingernails, when it was collected, and ummm, I saw JonBenet's body (obviously) -- her fingernails had been removed fairly deeply into the nail bed ummm I would say about, oh on a child about an eighth of an inch from what we would call the half moon... ummm.. and later to find out though that when the fingernails were being removed the instruments that were used were not clean and nor were they taken out of a sealed sanitized package. They actually used previously used clippers and files and so forth so it was not known if THEY contaminated them or what--- so that had to be put aside as not useable. Secondarily then there was DNA found on the INside of her panties which is considered commingling DNA and that means that in other words if I touch your shoulder and then YOU touch your shoulder, ummm, those are unlikely to be touched in the same place Ummm if we however umm hold hands, and then or umm if I'm you know holding your hand or sticking my finger in your mouth or whatever and THEN it gets on the inside of your clothing, that's commingling DNA. So that's a long process to seperate that. And when it WAS seperated one strain of DNA does in fact belong to JB the other strain is unidentifiable. It has been tested against Patsy John and Burke's DNA and it is DEFINITELY a no-match."

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You believe unnamed "sources" more than you believe a NAMED JUDGE who saw the evidence? :rolleyes:


I would believe the Colorado Bureau of Investigation before I would believe some judge, and the unnamed sources are coming from CBI, so yes.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Were they urine-stained? Possible since it is known that JonBenet wet the bed on occasion.

Did it happen that night? How would anyone know?

On occasion? Housekeeper LHP said JonBenet the bed almost every night, and frequently when she got there, Patsy already had the sheets in the washer. She aslo said JonBenet's bedwetting had been prevelent when she first started working there, then it let up for six months, and started up again about a month prior to JonBenet's death.

It sounds to me like JonBenet may have had a little too much stress in her life. Maybe something going on that shouldn't have been.

True, we don't know that JonBenet wet her bed that night. Personally, I don't believe she even made it to bed Christmas night.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Yep, no problem. That was a quote from Pam Paugh, Patsy's younger sister.

http://webdollie.tripod.com/pressrelease1.htm


Here's what Pam Paugh said on WROW 12/30/98 Question: Does the DNA under those fingernails actually match the DNA that was found in the panties? Pam: "Well, from what I know, the DNA under the fingernails, when it was collected, and ummm, I saw JonBenet's body (obviously) -- her fingernails had been removed fairly deeply into the nail bed ummm I would say about, oh on a child about an eighth of an inch from what we would call the half moon... ummm.. and later to find out though that when the fingernails were being removed the instruments that were used were not clean and nor were they taken out of a sealed sanitized package. They actually used previously used clippers and files and so forth so it was not known if THEY contaminated them or what--- so that had to be put aside as not useable. Secondarily then there was DNA found on the INside of her panties which is considered commingling DNA and that means that in other words if I touch your shoulder and then YOU touch your shoulder, ummm, those are unlikely to be touched in the same place Ummm if we however umm hold hands, and then or umm if I'm you know holding your hand or sticking my finger in your mouth or whatever and THEN it gets on the inside of your clothing, that's commingling DNA. So that's a long process to seperate that. And when it WAS seperated one strain of DNA does in fact belong to JB the other strain is unidentifiable. It has been tested against Patsy John and Burke's DNA and it is DEFINITELY a no-match."

Get up to speed.

"It took a mere seven years for the Boulder law enforcement community to send the FBI the DNA sample that was found in JonBenet's underpants. It was determined a long time ago that this DNA sample did not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.

Boulder Police Department explained that the quality of the DNA had not been of sufficient quality to have been put into the law enforcement data banks. However, in late December of 2003, the Ramseys' attorney indicated that one part of the sample, taken from blood on JonBenet's undergarments, was determined by the FBI to be of sufficient quality to be put into the DNA Index System.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/19.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


On occasion? Housekeeper LHP said JonBenet the bed almost every night, and frequently when she got there, Patsy already had the sheets in the washer. She aslo said JonBenet's bedwetting had been prevelent when she first started working there, then it let up for six months, and started up again about a month prior to JonBenet's death.

It sounds to me like JonBenet may have had a little too much stress in her life. Maybe something going on that shouldn't have been.

True, we don't know that JonBenet wet her bed that night. Personally, I don't believe she even made it to bed Christmas night.

The same housekeeper who said the Ramsey's were wonderful people and would NEVER harm one of their children................until she changed her story when she smelled money. It sounds to me as if the housekeeper had too much stress keeping her story's straight cuz she was lying, definitely something going on that shouldn't have been.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


Do you totally discredit the tesimony of the people involved with the pageants, including the lady who made the dresses, who said that JB loved being a ham and participating? How do you pick who you believe and who you don't?

IMO he is a Thomas wannabee. If Thomas says it, he repeats it as if it is fact. :shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Get up to speed.

"It took a mere seven years for the Boulder law enforcement community to send the FBI the DNA sample that was found in JonBenet's underpants. It was determined a long time ago that this DNA sample did not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.

Boulder Police Department explained that the quality of the DNA had not been of sufficient quality to have been put into the law enforcement data banks. However, in late December of 2003, the Ramseys' attorney indicated that one part of the sample, taken from blood on JonBenet's undergarments, was determined by the FBI to be of sufficient quality to be put into the DNA Index System.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/19.html


*yawn* That panty DNA is so old and degraded and fragmented that they can't even tell what kind of cell it came from. If it was left there by an intruder, why isn't it fresh? (Thanks, rashomon!)

This article doesn't address the claim that fingernail DNA matches the panty DNA.

We know from Pammy Paugh's own words that the fingernail DNA is contaminated and useless.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by webbsleuth
[B]

You just have to accept that the smart posters will do the research and judge them for what they are and you for what you are.

Yes, well this smart poster has done just that. I will disregard
anything and everything you post about this case as
complete nonsense.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


The same housekeeper who said the Ramsey's were wonderful people and would NEVER harm one of their children................until she changed her story when she smelled money. It sounds to me as if the housekeeper had too much stress keeping her story's straight cuz she was lying, definitely something going on that shouldn't have been.

I read a while back that Burke Ramsey said JonBenet did wet herself a lot, and it was a big deal, contradicting what Patsy had been saying.

Surely all of JonBenet's doctor visits for vaginitis and bladder and yeast infections must count for something. If she wasn't being abused, she certainly did have toileting issues - and in a six year old, that's indicative of something wrong. Try and spin that one all you want, but even Nedra Paugh said there were toilet issues.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by hohum


There are people who don't want to know the facts if they don't correlate with what they think. And then there are people like me who have really just started reading about the case since Patsy died and boy can that be confusing. I have never seen so much conflicting info on one subject.


I've read superficial info on the case since it happened, but
I've never totally made up my mind one way or the other. From
what I've read recently, along with seeing the Patsy and John
appearance on LK, and a couple of other appearances, I have
to say, I'm leaning very, very strongly to my initial impression
which is that the Ramseys are either guilty themselves or
are protecting a close family member who is guilty.
I think there are just far too many holes in the intruder
theory.

I don't think the death was intentional, but once it occurred
I think the Ramsey's believed they could cover it up, but they
really didn't think it through properly, which is not surprising,
of course.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter



*yawn* That panty DNA is so old and degraded and fragmented that they can't even tell what kind of cell it came from. If it was left there by an intruder, why isn't it fresh? (Thanks, rashomon!)

This article doesn't address the claim that fingernail DNA matches the panty DNA.

We know from Pammy Paugh's own words that the fingernail DNA is contaminated and useless.

Tell it to the DA, the NEW detectives working on the case and the FBI. After all you of course know better than all of them. :lol:

Again get up to speed. There have been advances from 1997 until 2003.:rolleyes:

"However, in late December of 2003, the Ramseys' attorney indicated that one part of the sample, taken from blood on JonBenet's undergarments, was determined by the FBI to be of sufficient quality to be put into the DNA Index System."

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

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Tell it to the DA, the NEW detectives working on the case and the FBI. After all you of course know better than all of them. :lol:

Again get up to speed. There have been advances from 1997 until 2003.:rolleyes:

"However, in late December of 2003, the Ramseys' attorney indicated that one part of the sample, taken from blood on JonBenet's undergarments, was determined by the FBI to be of sufficient quality to be put into the DNA Index System."

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

Augustin and Gray...PIs hired by the Rams. Unless you can find me a more impartial source, I'm going to regard that as spin meant to exonerate the Rs, especially since the clippers used to JonBenet's nails were contaminated. They didn't use a new set of sterile clippers for each fingernail like they were supposed to.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I read a while back that Burke Ramsey said JonBenet did wet herself a lot, and it was a big deal, contradicting what Patsy had been saying.

Surely all of JonBenet's doctor visits for vaginitis and bladder and yeast infections must count for something. If she wasn't being abused, she certainly did have toileting issues - and in a six year old, that's indicative of something wrong. Try and spin that one all you want, but even Nedra Paugh said there were toilet issues.

You "read". Ye gads, you've "read" so much that is simply GOSSIP.

"First of all, parents who kill their own kids always have a motive for doing it, whether it is stress at work or money problems. The Ramseys had no motive for killing their daughter. Second, a child who is murdered by his or her own parents usually showed signs of abuse prior to their murder. JonBenet's doctor has stated that she never showed signs of physical abuse. Also, JonBenet's teachers and others who had close contact with her never once believed that she was being abused at home. There was no proof of abuse in the Ramsey home. "

"JonBenet Ramsey's family has provided the district attorney a psychiatrist's videotaped interview with the girl's 10-year-old brother, a pediatrician's records and other information that they contend indicates the family has no history of sexual abuse, a source says.

The family has made Burke Ramsey's interview with the psychiatrist - who was selected by the Boulder County Department of Social Services - and all of JonBenet's medical records available to the prosecutor. They also allowed pediatrician Dr. Francesco Beuf and his nurses to speak with investigators.

"BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - JonBenet Ramsey did not have a history of sexual abuse, the 6-year-old girl's doctor and a family spokesman said after an autopsy indicated she was sexually assaulted and strangled.

Portions of the autopsy released Friday revealed ''chronic inflammation'' of the girl's vagina, ''which could be an indication'' of prior sexual abuse, family spokesman Patrick Korten said. ''In this case, it is not.''

JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr. Francesco Beuf, said he never saw any indication that the young beauty queen was sexually abused.

''I can tell you as far as her medical history is concerned there was never any hint whatsoever of sexual abuse,'' Beuf said in an interview with KUSA-TV in Denver.

''I didn't see any hint of emotional abuse or physical abuse.

"DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of
them were for sinus infections and for colds.
DIANE SAWYER
And by majority you mean?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of
some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep
throats, sinus infections.
DIANE SAWYER
(VO) So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.
(From taped telephone conversation) How many times did you give her
a vaginal examination?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Well, it was five or six times in that three - year period.
DIANE SAWYER
(VO) We asked him to specifically review all notes that might
pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be
warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.
September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated
with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps
related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some
indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25
percent of children that age wet the bed. March 1995 -- abdominal
pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem. August 1996 --
another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said
everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this
number of complaints?
(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very
well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable
by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better.
But if you have four - year - old kids, you know how hard that is.
The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally
consistent with little girls her age.
DIANE SAWYER
If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have
seen it?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a
speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.
DIANE SAWYER
Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual
abuse?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service
people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are
very acutely aware of.
DIANE SAWYER
(on camera) And some other notes. Dr Beuf says he last saw JonBenet
Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus
infection. A couple of other things. Dr Beuf says he has turned in
people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career,
and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality
changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that
with JonBenet Ramsey.
And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's
records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was
nothing unusual there for a girl her age.
"

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
And the DNA profile is now in CODIS.......

Maybe someone should have read the 25 CTV board pages........

Again with the pettiness. I am not here to get into some snide comment battle.

I was aware that the panty DNA had been entered into CODIS before I ever came to this board. I'm also aware that it doesn't have all thirteen markers and was fragmented and degraded when they found it, unlike JonBenet's DNA.

Interesting.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Augustin and Gray...PIs hired by the Rams. Unless you can find me a more impartial source, I'm going to regard that as spin meant to exonerate the Rs, especially since the clippers used to JonBenet's nails were contaminated. They didn't use a new set of sterile clippers for each fingernail like they were supposed to.

Like Thomas?:lol: I guess everyone that doesn't think Patsy is guilty is "hired" by the "Rams", huh? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Again with the pettiness. I am not here to get into some snide comment battle.

I was aware that the panty DNA had been entered into CODIS before I ever came to this board. I'm also aware that it doesn't have all thirteen markers and was fragmented and degraded when they found it, unlike JonBenet's DNA.

Interesting.

Yeah it's so old and degraded that they waste their time and money looking for a match. :rolleyes:

BTW, can you tell me why if it's so old and degraded others were ruled out with it but never the Ramseys even though their DNA didn't match either? This was a witch hunt from day one and NO one was going to change the dirty little minds of the BPD, Thomas OR the gossips on different internet forums.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


IMO a coward is someone who sits behind a computer posting someone is guilty of a crime based on no proof and in fact closing their eyes to proof that she is not guilty. How sad for you.

IMO, you're very confused about the purpose of these forums.
They are for what is called "discussion". You seem to be under
the impression that they are here simply so people can all
voice their agreement with you. Problem clearly is that most
posters don't agree with you. I came here, and to the other
Ramsey threads, without a strong conviction as to the Ramsey's
guilt or innocence, but I've found your postings to be more
hysterical than informative. If anything the information contained
in YOUR postings, more often than not, lead me toward believing in their guilt, which I don't think is your intent. You are so intent on your defense of these people, I have to wonder if you know them personally. You really should get some rest from
these discussions, for your own peace of mind.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


IMO, you're very confused about the purpose of these forums.
They are for what is called "discussion". You seem to be under
the impression that they are here simply so people can all
voice their agreement with you. Problem clearly is that most
posters don't agree with you. I came here, and to the other
Ramsey threads, without a strong conviction as to the Ramsey's
guilt or innocence, but I've found your postings to be more
hysterical than informative. If anything the information contained
in YOUR postings, more often than not, lead me toward believing in their guilt, which I don't think is your intent. You are so intent on your defense of these people, I have to wonder if you know them personally. You really should get some rest from
these discussions, for your own peace of mind.

I AM discussing and am NOT stopping anyone from disagreeing with me nor do i care if most do disagree with me. I am not here for a popularity contest and I will continue to post facts when i see the gossip spread so thick.

How telling that your mind can be "led" into believing anyone guilty OR innocent by what a poster on a forum discusses. It says a lot about you.

You can "wonder" about anythng you wish to. Your "wondering" doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. Don't tell me about my "rest" or "peace of mind" as it is MY business what I do with my time, not yours.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I'm with you! It's almost impossible to keep the very few facts straight because it seems the case is less about what happened to Jonbenet than about the many players. So many petty fights & so many civil lawsuits and very little Jonbenet.

I didn't follow the case very closely when it was in the news & only read the books after Patsy died.

I did feel the Ramseys were less than honest in the beginning & it was really after I read THEIR book that I truly felt they were indeed capable of the crime or at least a coverup.

THIS is why the case is so confusing IMO.

"Because of the bizarre ransom note, and the fact that JonBenet was killed in her own home, detectives focused on her parents, John and Patsy, as their prime suspects.

Boulder police brushed aside the thousands of leads that came in, and dismissed the possibility that an intruder had somehow slipped inside the house and committed the murder. Instead, they leaked information to the media -- sometimes fabricated information , charges of pornography and sexual abuse -- to put pressure on the Ramseys. "

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

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

Thomas testified in a libel suit against the Ramseys, and he has fought to keep the deposition sealed. The presiding federal judge repeatedly refused requests to seal testimony related to Thomas' contact with journalists covering the case.

In April, a lawyer notified U.S. District Court Judge Julie Carnes that Thomas would no longer seek to seal that part of his testimony. A public version of the deposition was filed Wednesday.

Thomas' admission is significant because the article was the first to print the notorious 2 ½-page ransom note found Dec. 26, 1996, in its entirety. Thomas denies he gave Bardach a copy of the note, saying only that "I did discuss content of the ransom note with her."

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

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Wrong again and a fabrication on your part. You would like people to believe just as webbsleuth would so you post half truths. Post the other part where they say the DNA is hardly viable and there is a question as to whether it could match the fingernails because the clippers were used on other cadavers.

Please. Bogus, and untrue.

You tell CBS they are wrong cuz you read a book and you know better. :lol:

There is NO other part and quit making things up.

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


Try doing a search for webbsleuths.com
That was the first site for webbsleuths - - and that forum is still up with much older threads.
The forum went down once, we had to start it over - - lost EVERYTHING! After it got up and running, we had another problem and, while we didn't lose anything, I decided to purchase a second domain, for newer discussions, using a different server. That way, if one forum were to go down, the other would still be there.

Check it out. Please.

K, Done and YOU ARE STILL WRONG:

Domain Name: WEBBSLEUTHS.COM
Creation Date: 26-Jan-2000

Info from whois.com lookup.

Sly

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by webbsleuth
The first WebbSleuths was on the www.smilyface.com domain. It was there for a while - I don't know exact date, sorry, but was closed in October of 1998 and put on munitrading.com.

Later I purchased jameson245.com and put the WebbSleuths forum on that. Still later, I bought Webbsleuths.com, org and net.

If you do the research, you will find Webbsleuths was part of the 48 Hours program I was on - - and that was well before weBsleuths was hatched.

But don't let that stop your attack. I am going to go read. Better things to do than to try to expose the constant lies putoutby the BORG.

Ummmm, I'm gonna trust whois.com instead of you.
And they say you're WRONG.

And I'm gonna put you on iggy now coz like I don't have all day to point out your MANY MISTAKES and this is so not about you.

You're really trying to push your board over here.

If you want knowledgable poster over at your place you need to start telling the truth.

Now, can we PLEASE get on about JonBennet?
I am most tired of your nonsense & even though I put you on iggy I no doubt will have to suffer your bs though quotes.

IMO
Sly

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by webbsleuth
[B]

You just have to accept that the smart posters will do the research and judge them for what they are and you for what you are.

Yes, well this smart poster has done just that. I will disregard
anything and everything you post about this case as
complete nonsense.

Ditto that.

Sly

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


Yes, I am jameson. I never hide who I am. I couldn't get the name jameson here so chose something I thought would make clear who I am. I think I also signed my first few posts so noone would have any question.

BORG - it is from Star Trek. A group of people who join together and share one mindset. Anyone daring to think anything other than the accepted BORG thoughts finds themselves shunned or worse.
LONG ago, most of the posters thought the Ramseys did it. I stood out as someone who said I didn't think so. What parent spends a really nice day celebrating Christmas, goes to bed and then decides to garrote the kid? I mean normal people who aren't insane, on medication... and these people had NO history of being neglectful or abusive.
I was attacked. I was talking to Lou Smit one day and he said the lynch mob reminded him of the BORG.
I took the term to the forums and it is still used.

Thanks for the explanations.

I guess I've been outed as a non Star Trek fan. :D


I respect everyone's right to have their own opinions on this matter, as long as they show the 'other side' the same respect.


I do wonder how much longer we can see fair trials in this country with a media that is so aggressive? Lawyers & judges spend way too much time worrying about public relations than in conducting impartial trials.

The public's right to know should take a back seat to the integrity of the judicial system. There's time for the media & book deals AFTER a trial concludes, imo.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


You and I are on the same page. While I have enjoyed reading several of the books, even I have found conflicting stories in each of them. I would like to know which of the books is considered the "bible" on this case. Where one can depend on the facts being accurate?

My personal opinion (out of the 4 I read) is that the Schiller book (PMPT) is the closest to being without any known agenda.

Since he was a respected author, I think he was privvy to people close to the case & he never came to a conclusion throughout the book, so it seemed very fair.


I think Steve Thomas was totally burned out towards the end of this case & it destroyed him like it did so many people trying to solve this mystery. Linda Arndt was another victim of this case & all the infighting between the DA & police department.

If Jonbenet had been killed in a town other than Boulder, I believe this crime would have been brought to trial.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum
Mr. John B Ramsey

RNC
$2,000 213 Elm St
Charlevoix, MI 49720


I guess they aren't as broke as I thought.


John ran for office in 2004, in Michigan. :biggrin:

He lost in the GOP primary though.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I guess he thought he had the name recognition to run, though it was a bit surprising to see him in such a public race after all the bad publicity he had endured.

I guess he was hoping that he get the sympathy vote.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum
In 1997 the Ramsey's bought their Atlanta home at 4070 Paces Ferry Road NW for $664,000 at an interest rate of 6.75% secured through Merrill Lynch. The loan was for the full sale amount, they made no down payment. In 2003 they sold this house for $1.8 million. How is that for a profit after only 6 years?

The housing market has been crazy but it's on the way down now.

That must have been some house though... this is Atlanta we're talking about. Not NY or Calif.

[watson]

Hello,
I'm a new member. I've been trying to catch up reading the posts on this board. I would have to agree with the moderator who started this thread back in June......that Patsy Ramsey was wronged by being considered a suspect or guilty, and that makes her recent death all the more tragic.
It seems to me there is a one clear fact in the case that clears Patsy, and lots of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the police theory of how and why Patsy did it, that got her into trouble with the public in the first place, was dead wrong.
Would anyone like to discuss the fact that it seems to me clears her, or why the original police theory of how and why she did it can't be right?

[watson]

Well like I was saying, the one overiding FACT of this case that clears Patsy it seems to me is that.............she called the police, and called them very early..........within minutes of supposedly or actually waking up.
Why does this clear her? Because whichever parent did the crime (if a parent did do it), also wrote the long fake kidnapping note, planning to stage the crime as a kidnapping. This note (letter or script really) took a long time to write and copy out with the writers non dominant hand. It elaborately sets up the kidnapping scenario, it goes to great lengths to explain why the child was 'kidnapped', why she won't be found (no reamains for proper burial), carefully gives the parent who wrote it multiple excuses for NOT calling the police (you are being watched, monitored, etc.), and specifically sets up that 1 parent (John) should leave the scene first thing in the morning (to withdraw the money from his account) allowing each parent time away from the other so the guilty one could get rid of the body.
Having wrote all this up, thought the whole thing out, laboriously set up reasons why the police wouldn't be called, and how the writer would have time alone to get rid of the body, it is inconceivable that Patsy would then disregard everything she had wrote and set up, throw out the whole fake kidnapping plan, and call the police on herself. Think about it, if she did do it, she had to know when making that 911 call that the police would come to the house, search it, find the body and know she had lied about the kidnapping and suspect her, so why call them, when in the note she gave herself 10 good reasons not to? Because she didn't count on the police doing ANY search and finding the body? I"d say that's really unbeliveable, that the same person who was intelligent enough to write the note would be so stupid. Beside, that idea is blown by the fact that she actually called her friends over too, and had THEM search making sure the whole fake kidnapping plan she'd worked so hard on would be exposed. Add to this that her call came so quickly after she woke up or supposedly woke up (giving no time for her to make a new plan), that the content of her call and voice on the 911 tape seem genuine, showing no deception, and that if she wrote the note she followed NONE of the instructions she so carefully wrote out in it for herself, means she could of not wrote the note and therefore didn't do the crime. Basically if a parent did do it, the parent who called the police and thereby blew the plan, is NOT the parent who did it. If anyone wants to argue both parents did it together, that's impossible too, because in that case neither parent would have called the police, they would have taken the body to the woods that morning, taken more time to stage the scene further, then called police, using the specific instructions in the note as the excuse for not calling the police earlier as the writer intended.
I say, that by calling the police and exposing the fake kidnapping plan Patsy cleared herself as a viable suspect, I don't see how anyone gets around this first step logic.
In addition as I said earlier, when the police did get around to labeling patsy as the killer their scenario and reasons for doing so are full of holes and not supported by the evidence.

[webbsleuth]

Originally posted by hohum
In 1997 the Ramsey's bought their Atlanta home at 4070 Paces Ferry Road NW for $664,000 at an interest rate of 6.75% secured through Merrill Lynch. The loan was for the full sale amount, they made no down payment. In 2003 they sold this house for $1.8 million. How is that for a profit after only 6 years?

I don't have a dollar figure but have to say they put a lot in that house. Practically gutted it and rebuilt it. I was there for some of that.

The house had two new kitchen islands. Built in drawers for frozen foods and produce. A special refrigerator just for wines.

New walls, new windows, a stone wall around the property. A fountain in the yard.

Lots of money went in - - there may have been some profit but not as much as your post suggests.

[webbsleuth]

I have transcrips like this one available - - this is the one on Olive.
http://www.jameson245.com/48hours2.htm

But to watch any of the shows.... no.


They do do reruns somewhere - maybe one day they will do the Foster show again. I don't know.

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by hohum
In 1997 the Ramsey's bought their Atlanta home at 4070 Paces Ferry Road NW for $664,000 at an interest rate of 6.75% secured through Merrill Lynch. The loan was for the full sale amount, they made no down payment. In 2003 they sold this house for $1.8 million. How is that for a profit after only 6 years?

Being from Atlanta, I will say I'm actually surprised a house on Paces Ferry could be bought for as little as $664,000 even 9 years ago. That area, especially West Paces is the most expensive area of Atlanta. $1.8 million in 2003 sounds a little more realistic.

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by webbsleuth


I don't have a dollar figure but have to say they put a lot in that house. Practically gutted it and rebuilt it. I was there for some of that.

The house had two new kitchen islands. Built in drawers for frozen foods and produce. A special refrigerator just for wines.

New walls, new windows, a stone wall around the property. A fountain in the yard.

Lots of money went in - - there may have been some profit but not as much as your post suggests.

That makes more sense. Probably found an older home in need of major renovations....

[briansgirlj]

Originally posted by audpaud
I just don't understand courtv's crime library bias ie Summary of CONVICTED Family Killer Jeffrey MacDonald and now this bias in favor of Patsy Ramsey.

What gives?:confused:

Always remember the person is innocent until proven guilty. That being said, with the Jon Benet case, I think the son is the killer. I think he had been molesting his sister for a while and that night it got out of hand. That would explain the botched scene at the house. I think that Patsy and her husband did some major covering up and thats why they said it was an abduction case. Patsy and her husband was ruled OUT by forensic evidence. I am not sure if they even testing the son.
With the Mc Donald case, I think it is highly plausible that the teenage girl and her friends did it higher than a kite. There was more than one person who saw her and the men not far from the house. Why, she would not be arrested & charged is because of who she was. She was the daughter of a high ranking military member. I think that since this happened on post, it was a cover up with the mp's and the father of the teen daughter. That is only my 2 cents

[Show~Me]

Originally posted by webbsleuth

My forum was up long before weBsleuths was formed. I am not here to discuss me, however.

That in not true!

I would rather discuss the case. And the facts.[/B]

You do not even have the facts right about your own board! Here you are telling untruths about who was first. How can we believe anything you say if you would lie about this?

My advice to readers is to skip the personal rhetoric - - what does anyone really care about the history of the forums.[/B]

This reader does not take the advice of a proven liar. Most of us do care not about the history of the boards but the fact you lied about it's history. I too, did my own research. You lied.

The case is what matters - - getting this solved. [/B]

Hard to get things solved when we have to weave though the lies you and others put out as truths. IMO

[Show~Me]

Originally posted by hohum
If you can click on this or click and paste, there are lots of pages of pictures.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/10042002-48hrs-pic1.htm

There are a lot of pages and pictures. But the pictuers are fuzzy as if someone took them with a dirty lens or though a window.
Really not worth the time wasted. IMO

[LI_Mom]

Interesting that the foundation they set up for Jonbenet seemed to be little more than a public relations bid.

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenet-foundations.htm


And they didn't even keep up their own website?



CONTACT INFORMATION TO HELP FIND THE KILLER: The Ramseys, in their book, "Death of Innocence," page 374 asks the public help to find the killer of their daughter and their contact/resource list includes the family web site as www.ramseyfamily.com (that no longer exists), an e-mail tip address of JonBenetinfo@aol.com (that returns mail as 'unknown'), a tip hotline telephone number (which was printed in error at publication and never corrected), and the JonBenet Ramsey Children's Foundation legal tax address at P.O. Box 724505, Atlanta, GA 31139 is listed in the book as where to mail confidential tips.


JonBenet Ramsey Children's Foundation
Activity 1997 thru 2000

1997 Tax Return - Contributions = $ 769.00

1998 Tax Return - Contributions = $ 000.00

1999 Tax Return - Contributions = $ 2,000.00

2000 Tax Return - Contributions = $ 000.00



It sounds to me as if the Ramseys were in a real rush to move on with their lives & put all this behind them.

Unlike the families of other well known child victims:

Adam Walsh
Polly Klaas
Amber Hagerman (Amber Alert)


Obviously, they felt the same way OJ did about 'looking for the real killer.'

How sad for poor Jonbenet.

[FoxySly]

LI_Mom,

You keep reading my thoughts. Looking for the "real killers", dang I am so tired of hearing the real killers say that!

Sly

[SilSal]

You have to PAY to post or send emails to any members..otherwise your emails go to HIR/Jameson....and you have to give your full name, address, and I think your first born.

Also, you have to believe the Ramseys are innocent or you are banned and don't get your money back

"WebbSleuths was started right about the time the Boulder News Forum started to fail. There was far too much trolling and attacking on the board and the Boulder Camera eventually took it down."

Trolling = disagreeing with Jameson

Jameson sold out on the Ramseys...made some $40,000 with the tabloids for her deceitful ways...

She has no proof of their innocents and spreads things that are untrue...

Just because something has been said over and over doesn't make it true like she says..

There is NO evidence of an intruder..NONE!

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by SilSal
There is NO evidence of an intruder..NONE!

Well there is that mystery footprint.

Even though the Ramsey home was open to the public & there is no way to tell WHEN the footprint was made.


There was the partial print on the basement door.

Even though there was no way to know when it was made or whether it was left by someone invited into the home.


There is that smudge on the basement wall & the broken window.

Even though John admits HE climbed in through that window when he locked himself out a year earlier. And never fixed the window.


There was the assertion that the window was found OPEN when John searched the house early in the morning.

Even though even after he FOUND the open window.... a possible way an intruder got in &/or out and murdered his daughter, he didn't think it was important enough to even mention to the police.


There was the unmatched DNA in Jonbenet's panties.

Even though when investigators tested unopened packages of the same panties, they found DNA in those also.


There was the pubic-like hair.

Even though, Melinda Ramsey was a possible source.


There was the mystery pineapple & glass w/ tea bag.

Even though the bowl onlyy had Patsy & Burke's prints and the glass only had Burke's prints.


There was the 'War & Peace' length ransom note.

Even though Patsy was NOT ruled out as being the author. And the kidnapper did NOT try very hard to kidnap JB because he could have left through a backdoor & been gone before anyone woke up.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by briansgirlj


Always remember the person is innocent until proven guilty. That being said, with the Jon Benet case, I think the son is the killer. I think he had been molesting his sister for a while and that night it got out of hand. That would explain the botched scene at the house. I think that Patsy and her husband did some major covering up and thats why they said it was an abduction case. Patsy and her husband was ruled OUT by forensic evidence. I am not sure if they even testing the son.


The older son, John Andrew, was NOT in Boulder when the crime occured. He was NOT tied in, in any way. He is INNOCENT.

Burke's DNA did not match the partial DNA they found. However, Burke's fingerprints WERE found on a glass and the bowl (of pineapple) in the kitchen, but nobody in the family would admit to having a snack after they came home from the party.

Burke's pocketknife was found downstairs in the basement.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


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

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

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

From the same link:

"48 Hours reports that there is now what's believed to be a complete DNA profile of JonBenet Ramsey's killer. And there's strong evidence that he may have had an accomplice and that he may have tried to kill again."


It's just not very surprising to me that detectives working FOR the Ramseys might come to these conclusions. I'd like to hear the same conclusions coming from other sources without a personal agenda.

[SilSal]

an intruder never went through that window as Lou Smit says..hahahahaha

the spider webs were NOT disturbed according the the spider experts (couldn't have re-webbed them)...

so WHY do people believe Smit who is NOT an expert on spiders?

and the GJ didn't indict because Hunter was being bought by Haddon & Co.(the Rams attorneys. the GJ's didn't have an option to vote, it was Hunter's dicision

[LI_Mom]

The insect expert said that the weather during that day did get warm enough that it was POSSIBLE that a spider might repair a web.



That still doesn't explain how a person could climb in through a small window and not leave any traces inside the room of the dirt or leaves that would accumulate near a ground level window.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Hunter had no control over the decision made the the GJ.......

The DA didn't need to tell the GJ what to do.

Between the bungled crime scene & the fact that their was no formal interview with the Ramseys BEFORE their lawyers were given a list of questions the police needed answered, there was no way anyone could ever be successfully prosecuted for this case without a confession.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Picture in one of the links above shows no debris on outside in front of this window. Another picture show a scuff mark on the wall and a demo of how it could have been made (no proof of when it was made of course.)

It's illogical that there would be NO debris outside a ground level winter in the winter. The wind blows dead leaves against a house, it's ineviatble.

And a person would have to drag some inside on his stomach as he slithering through.

--



I wonder how the heck they know a smudge on the wall looked fresh?


And why, oh why, would an intruder who has not left a single piece of evidence UPSTAIRS, suddenly be so careless & leave a footprint & a smudge on a wall & a print on a door?

And why would an intruder leave his flashlight upstairs when he's going downstairs to a dark basement & into a dark yard to escape?

[LI_Mom]

From law enforcement's point of view, a partial dna profile is better on file than no profile but that doesn't mean it can ever be used successfully in a trial.

It can be used to exclude suspects but never to prove someones guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Do we know it was an intruder's flashlight?

Bascially, we don't know when/how he came in the house, we don't know when/how he left.

And I used he.........we don't know - it could have been a she.

Basically we don't KNOW if there was a intruder.

Basicaly it could have been NO ONE.

And IMO no one came thur that window & the spider did NOT do all that work in such a short period of time. Plus, if you do some research, you will know how to tell spiders repair work, how fast and yes, even how awesome they are.

Do you know why spiders don't get stuck to their own web?
Oh sorry, this is not about the spider, or is it?

If there was an intruder it was the spider. IMO

Sly

Sly

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I suppose it's possible that he cleaned around the window before he went in because he didn't want to crawl through the debris.

How would you tell a fresh smudge? I don't know. I don't even know when Smit looked at the smudge.

I suppose it was dark when he called in through the window - maybe he didn't look at the wall?

Footprints - different flooring (concrete, probably dusty) - easier to detect than footprint on carpet

Do we know it was an intruder's flashlight?

Bascially, we don't know when/how he came in the house, we don't know when/how he left.

And I used he.........we don't know - it could have been a she.

An intruder cleaned around OUTSIDE the window? Sure, he brought a dustbuster with him just to avoid dragging in any evidence of his breakthrough. Since this guy is such a neat freak, I wonder why he didn't clean up the glass that was INSIDE the window?


If you can't tell WHEN a smudge was made, then it's useless as evidence, isn't it?

The Ramseys said they had a flashlight that was just LIKE the one found in their kitchen but they couldn't say whether this one WAS theirs.

No police officers admitted to leaving a flashlight at the scene. The got no prints from the flashlight... not even from the batteries.

It doesn't make much sense to me that an intruder would leave his flashlight behind when it's still dark outside.

--

LOL Sly, maybe a spider killed her. Do they have poisonous spiders in Boulder? :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Well, I have watched Charlotte's Web. Does that count?


Let's say an intruder DID slither through a small basement window. (Which I don't believe)

Why on earth would he take his victim back to the basement to leave through that same small space instead of making a quick getaway from one of the many doors upstairs?

It's totally illogical.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


LOL Sly, maybe a spider killed her. Do they have poisonous spiders in Boulder? :rolleyes:

Rereading my comment, it seems a little confusing.

I wasn't trying to be confrontational with FoxySly & shouldn't have used the :rolleyes: smiley.

I was trying to say I believe it's just as likely a spider was guilty as an intruder was.

[SilSal]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rosyredrobin
[B]

Didn't I post earlier that we don't know how/when the intruder came in or left? According to what I've read there were several doors open.

The intruder could have been there from the time they left for dinner until Patsy got up in the morning. Who knows?

BTW, Barry Scheck slid through the window just to see if it could be done.


There were NOT doors open.

and it was NOT Barry Scheck that crawled through that window...it was Loose Smit trying to show someone COULD get through it..

Lou Smit never did comment on the debris her dragged in..hahahahaha


and who said they believe Smit cause he's a good detective???

OMG !

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Didn't I post earlier that we don't know how/when the intruder came in or left? According to what I've read there were several doors open.

The intruder could have been there from the time they left for dinner until Patsy got up in the morning. Who knows?

BTW, Barry Scheck slid through the window just to see if it could be done.

And with regard to your earlier question about him cleaning around the window. You ever crawled into a place? Human nature, you move whatever is in the way so you don't have to crawl through it, get it on your clothes, or bring it in with you.

I always believed it was possible a person could enter through the window because John said he did it the year before.

I don't care HOW careful you are to try not to drag debris in with you, unless he laid plastic or something else down BEFORE he laid down, he's going to pick up tiny specks of dirt or leaves that he can barely see in the dark.



Open doors?

Yes, that's possible since I wouldn't put it past this family to go out & leave doors unlocked or even open.

And they also gave out keys like they were Halloween candy.

But it still defies logic that a person inside a house for so many hours would leave no evidence of his being there.... except in the basement... which he shouldn't have even been in IF he wanted to kidnap the child.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I remember reading somewhere that John said it was the one "really bad" thing he had done in his life. DOI or PM/PT?

And when his ex-wife was asked for the name of his lover, she claimed she didn't remember the name. :biggrin:

Of course, this was AFTER John hired defense lawyers for his kids & ex. It's never smart to bite the hand that feeds you.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Remember we were discussing why Fleet White got so upset with John in Atlanta.

Something I just read (again) in PM/PT - It says Fleet told his wife that around 3:00 p.m. he had called John's pilot and cancelled the flight to Atlanta thinking the police might not want him to leave.

Says nothing about discussing with Mr. Ramsey beforehand......
and another part reads that a police overheard Mr. Ramsey making arrangements to fly to Atlanta and told him, "you can't leave, we have a lot of unfinished business here. We need to talk to you." John Ramsey answered "ok" without protest.

Makes me wonder if/why Mr. Ramsey didn't call his pilot back then and tell him the trip was off.....did he? if not, why not? and, what
"made" Fleet White make that call.

My point - seems like early in the game Fleet wanted to "control" John Ramsey.


What page does it say Fleet was the one who called to cancel the trip to Atlanta? I can't find it when they describe finding JB's body & the other police arriving.


And considering the police told John the family couldn't leave yet (leave JB in the morgue & the police to wait until they got back to question the only people who had any knowledge of what happened that night).... it stands to reason someone had to call & cancel the flight.

I'd think if Fleet was a close enough friend to take care of Burke on that day, he was a logical choice to cancel the flight as well.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


And it could be that she felt no animosity toward the woman or that she did not want the affair brought up and the details broadcast across the country for her children to see and hear.

I don't believe she felt NOTHING towards the woman who caused her marriage to fail.

I DO believe they thought it was better to keep that closet door closed & were worried about their reputations.

Just another example of the Ramsey family giving the police reason to wonder why they didn't put everything on the table so they could exclude suspects ASAP and solve the crime & get justice for poor Jonbenet.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin



How would we know how John's first wife felt? Whose reputations? What suspects related to the matter of his first marriage? And what do you feel the police or we, the general public, needed to know about an affair that happened - at the time - some twenty years previously. Sounds like more of just wanting to know all of the "gossipy" details to me.

We know how John's ex felt because she's a wife & mother of 2 & her husband's affair had to have SOME effect on her life. I doubt she was happy to learn he had an affair, unless the marriage was physically AND emotionally 'over' before that time.

I don't think the public has a right or a need to know ANYTHING about their private lives, but I think the police DO have a right to know everything & anything that will help them solve the case.

The ONLY ones who were hurt by not fully cooperating ASAP are the Ramseys... nobody else.

I think it's totally disingenuous for the Ramseys to make it difficult for the police to exclude them as suspects and then whine & expect symapthy because they haven't been excluded.

Again.... the ONLY innocent victim in all this was Jonbenet. The Ramseys made themselves victims by their stonewalling & legal game playing.

Even the title of the book tells us that they felt THEY were the main victims in this, instead of their daughter.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Does webbsleuth know anything about Fleet White? Perhaps the Ramsey's told her something about their disagreement.

According to John, HE called his pilot friend to tell him to pick up his older kids because JB has been kidnapped.

John Fernie was the one who called Atlanta to get money transfered to Boulder.

Rod Westmoreland called a couple of times from Ga to confirm details about the money transfer.

John called Gary Merriman at the office to get a list of names of potential suspects from work.

Next John suddenly remembers he broke the basement window last year. He goes downstairs to check if THAT'S how an intruder came in. He finds the window is open.

He thinks about JB. He writes, "I keep saying to myself. Stay strong. I will too. We can make it."

He goes upstairs and tells nobody about the open window. Guess it's not a big deal if your kid is kidnapped and you just found a potential entry point. Nothing worth sharing.
:rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Maybe she'll read this and answer if she does.

I just read...that White & his wife were cleared through forensics and alibi........the police were asked if White's erratic behavior during JonBenet's funeral and afterward had been considered before he was cleared. Their answer was "yes" but one policeman pointed out that White had information that he still had not shared, but he had sat on it so long, its credibility was questionable.

Wonder what that was all about?

Fleet became more & more angry as time went on & he saw that John was trying to implicate HIM in the murder.

He knew the Ramsey lawyers would not permit their clients to do any interviews without first being able to read their previous statements. They did not want to contradict anything they said earlier.

Fleet wanted the same sweetheart 'deal' or he refused to keep cooperating. I think he already knew the case was never going to be solved & he probably figured it was more important to protect himself & his wife than to keep worrying about justice for JB. I think it was a sad but very wise decision on his part.

[LI_Mom]

I don't think a partial match would be compelling evidence unless there was also a lot of OTHER evidence pointing to the person's guilt.

A defense attorney would rightly dismiss a partial match as not being reliable.

[LI_Mom]

There is some question whether that blanket was even on JB's bed that night. It might have been in the dryer.

The housekeeper said she made the bed with different sheets than had been found on the bed 2 nights later.


On Sunday, Sept. 13, Michael Kane, Bruce Lof hunter's grand-jury team and Det. Jane Harmer went to see Linda Hoffmann-Pugh. They had brought several thick books of crime-scene photos, the same ones shown to Patsy earlier in June. For three hours, Hoffmann-Pugh reviewed the photos taken inside the Ramseys' house. They showed her a picture of JonBenét's white thermal blanket—the one in which she had been found dead. It had many brown-colored stains on it. Some of them looked like dried blood. Then they showed her a picture of JonBenét's bed, which looked strange to her. It had other sheets than those she had used to make the bed just two days before the murder. Looking at the comforter, you couldn't tell that the blanket beneath it had been pulled off. The bed in the photo looked barely disturbed. Hoffmann-Pugh knew that to pull the blanket off, you had to first remove the comforter, otherwise the comforter would get messed up. Maybe the sheets and white blanket she used hadn't been on the bed at all the night of the murder. She told the police that they might have been in the washer-dryer in the cabinet outside JonBenét's room."

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/timemag.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the housekeeper said.

Anyway, Patsy's house, Patsy's blanket, Patsy's coat, Patsy's dryer. Any number of opportunities for fiber transfers. Wonder if they tested anyone else's clothes for "consistent" fibers?

The housekeeper only told her "stories" AFTER she was offered money from one of the rags. Before that she said the Ramsey's were wonderful people who would never harm one of their children.

Why should they test anyone elses fibers? They had already made up their minds the Ramsey's were guilty. Others were "cleared" by the DNA but the Ramsy's never were with the SAME DNA. :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Someone mentioned earlier that fibers from Patsy's jacket were found on the tape that was on JonBenet's mouth.

PM/PT - four fibers were found on the tape that were consistent with fibers from Patsy's jacket. Dr. Lee explained that the word consistent was not the same as a definite match, that finding would not be convincing to a jury, and was not a smoking gun.

It was also pointed out that the fibers from Patsy's jacket could have been transferred to the blanket when she was tucking JonBenet in and when John pulled the tape from JonBenet's mouth and laid it on the blanket fibers could have been picked up.

"Consistent with" is as close to a match as you get in fiber forensics.

Dr. Lee also said this is not a DNA case.

Fibers from the jacket Patsy Ramsey wore Christmas night were found on the back side of the tape over JonBenet's mouth (the tape which showed no signs of being present while she was alive), in Patsy's paint tray (that she said she was never near on that day), and tied into the double knot of the cord that was affixed around JonBenet's neck.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the housekeeper said.

Anyway, Patsy's house, Patsy's blanket, Patsy's coat, Patsy's dryer. Any number of opportunities for fiber transfers. Wonder if they tested anyone else's clothes for "consistent" fibers?

Yes. Black fibers found in JonBenet's crotch area were "consistent with" the black wool shirt John Ramsey had worn that evening.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


They interviewed him the day JonBenet was found without permission from Patsy or John. They interviewed him again on January 8 (2 hours) - some info from PM/PT - he didn't want to talk about JonBenet's death, he didn't answer questions about sexual abuse like a molested child woud answer, he said a secret isn't a secret if you tell it, he didn't seem to be holding anything back.

He was interviewed again later(after the moved to Atlanta) 3 days in a row, 2 hours each day - nothing significant, and he testified before the GJ.

You left out the part during the Atlanta interview where Burke testified that JonBenet fell asleep in the car but awakened to help carry presents to the home of a friend, and then was still awake when the Ramseys arrived home. Burke also testified that JonBenet walked in the house slowly and climbed the spiral staircase to go to her bedroom just ahead of Patsy - this backs up the original story JR told to Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach, but contradicts the later story that John Ramsey eventually stuck with.

Oh, what tangled webs we weave...

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


What did I just post?

A rather rude and uncalled-for reply.

That DNA can match all the criteria to be entered into CODIS that it wants, but that doesn't mean it was left there by the killer, and that doesn't mean this crime will be solved by it.

The foreign DNA is old, degraded and fragmented. JonBenet's DNA is fresh and complete.

Obviously the foreign DNA was not left on the panties at the same time JonBenet's DNA was, or it would be as fresh and complete as hers. The foreign DNA is not from the killer.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


A rather rude and uncalled-for reply.

That DNA can match all the criteria to be entered into CODIS that it wants, but that doesn't mean it was left there by the killer, and that doesn't mean this crime will be solved by it.

The foreign DNA is old, degraded and fragmented. JonBenet's DNA is fresh and complete.

Obviously the foreign DNA was not left on the panties at the same time JonBenet's DNA was, or it would be as fresh and complete as hers. The foreign DNA is not from the killer.

It wasn't rude and uncalled for. :rolleyes:

It means it COULD be solved with the DNA along WITH other evidence and that is what hohum said.

You go right ahead and tell the FBI and other experts that you KNOW the foreign DNA is not from the killer. :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You "read". Ye gads, you've "read" so much that is simply GOSSIP.

"First of all, parents who kill their own kids always have a motive for doing it, whether it is stress at work or money problems. The Ramseys had no motive for killing their daughter. Second, a child who is murdered by his or her own parents usually showed signs of abuse prior to their murder. JonBenet's doctor has stated that she never showed signs of physical abuse. Also, JonBenet's teachers and others who had close contact with her never once believed that she was being abused at home. There was no proof of abuse in the Ramsey home. "

"JonBenet Ramsey's family has provided the district attorney a psychiatrist's videotaped interview with the girl's 10-year-old brother, a pediatrician's records and other information that they contend indicates the family has no history of sexual abuse, a source says.

The family has made Burke Ramsey's interview with the psychiatrist - who was selected by the Boulder County Department of Social Services - and all of JonBenet's medical records available to the prosecutor. They also allowed pediatrician Dr. Francesco Beuf and his nurses to speak with investigators.

"BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - JonBenet Ramsey did not have a history of sexual abuse, the 6-year-old girl's doctor and a family spokesman said after an autopsy indicated she was sexually assaulted and strangled.

Portions of the autopsy released Friday revealed ''chronic inflammation'' of the girl's vagina, ''which could be an indication'' of prior sexual abuse, family spokesman Patrick Korten said. ''In this case, it is not.''

JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr. Francesco Beuf, said he never saw any indication that the young beauty queen was sexually abused.

''I can tell you as far as her medical history is concerned there was never any hint whatsoever of sexual abuse,'' Beuf said in an interview with KUSA-TV in Denver.

''I didn't see any hint of emotional abuse or physical abuse.

"DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of
them were for sinus infections and for colds.
DIANE SAWYER
And by majority you mean?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of
some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep
throats, sinus infections.
DIANE SAWYER
(VO) So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.
(From taped telephone conversation) How many times did you give her
a vaginal examination?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Well, it was five or six times in that three - year period.
DIANE SAWYER
(VO) We asked him to specifically review all notes that might
pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be
warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.
September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated
with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps
related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some
indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25
percent of children that age wet the bed. March 1995 -- abdominal
pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem. August 1996 --
another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said
everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this
number of complaints?
(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very
well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable
by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better.
But if you have four - year - old kids, you know how hard that is.
The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally
consistent with little girls her age.
DIANE SAWYER
If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have
seen it?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a
speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.
DIANE SAWYER
Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual
abuse?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service
people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are
very acutely aware of.
DIANE SAWYER
(on camera) And some other notes. Dr Beuf says he last saw JonBenet
Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus
infection. A couple of other things. Dr Beuf says he has turned in
people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career,
and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality
changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that
with JonBenet Ramsey.
And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's
records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was
nothing unusual there for a girl her age.
"

Hmmm, Dr. Beuf, a close personal friend of the Ramseys. An impartial source? Not at all.

Here is a list of experts who examined the case and think it looks like JonBenet had been abused:


David Jones, Richard Krugman, Robert Kirschner, John McCann, James Monteleone, Virginia Rau, and Ronald Wright.

I don't think JonBenet was being molested so much as being punished genitally for her continued incontinenece.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Yes. Black fibers found in JonBenet's crotch area were "consistent with" the black wool shirt John Ramsey had worn that evening.

Link??

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



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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


You left out the part during the Atlanta interview where Burke testified that JonBenet fell asleep in the car but awakened to help carry presents to the home of a friend, and then was still awake when the Ramseys arrived home. Burke also testified that JonBenet walked in the house slowly and climbed the spiral staircase to go to her bedroom just ahead of Patsy - this backs up the original story JR told to Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach, but contradicts the later story that John Ramsey eventually stuck with.

Oh, what tangled webs we weave...

Link?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Hmmm, Dr. Beuf, a close personal friend of the Ramseys. An impartial source? Not at all.

Here is a list of experts who examined the case and think it looks like JonBenet had been abused:


David Jones, Richard Krugman, Robert Kirschner, John McCann, James Monteleone, Virginia Rau, and Ronald Wright.

I don't think JonBenet was being molested so much as being punished genitally for her continued incontinenece.

:rolleyes: The accusations are getting sicker and sicker and all with NO proof.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Solace


I don't know. Maybe because he could have heard someone or could have been approached by the so called intruder. And he is really going to sleep through Patsy's screaming to John that someone took Jon Benet.

There's no way Burke slept through Patsy screaming and calling for John and both of them running up and down the stairs searching for JonBenet.

Burke was heard on the 911 call.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/21ramsey.html

An audio-enhanced 911 tape reveals that JonBenét Ramsey's brother, Burke, was awake when his mother called police to report the little girl's kidnapping at 5:51 a.m.

That conflicts with the girl's parents' consistent statements to investigators that the boy was asleep until 7 a.m. — after police arrived at their home — sources close to the investigation said Thursday.

Those sources say enhancement of the tape reveals Burke's voice in the background, asking his parents "What did you find?" John Ramsey allegedly can be heard shouting to Burke, "We are not talking to you," and Patsy shouts "Oh my Jesus, oh my Jesus."

The statements were recorded after Patsy Ramsey mistakenly thought she had hung up the telephone after making the 911 call.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


<snip>

You go right ahead and tell the FBI and other experts that you KNOW the foreign DNA is not from the killer. :rolleyes:

They do say that. Their professional opinion is what I base my personal opinion on.

Think about it - if the foreign DNA was deposited on the underwear at the same time as JonBenet's, why is her DNA fresh and complete while the foreign DNA is not?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Burke says he did not sleep through the noise that morning, that he heard his parents talking loudly. I'm sure his instincts told him something was wrong. If Burke had been approached by the intruder, he would have gone running up to his parents room in a nano second rather than just lying in bed pretending to be asleep.

John and Patsy admitted that Burke was awake that morning.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996-911.htm

And why didn't this intruder target Burke as well? He's so hateful and vicious and angry at John Ramsey that he assaults and kills the little girl, why not really stick it to JR and kill his son too? After all, the intruder supposedly had a stun gun and wasn't afraid to move around in the Ramsey house doing his dirty work while the parents slept. Why didn't he go stun Burke and garotte him too?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Link?

Steve Thomas's book, hb, page 317.

I can't find a link online, but this was an official police interview that was filmed, so it isn't public.

Burke was interviewed on videotape for two consecutive days by Detective Schuller while Deputy DA Pete Hofstrom and Ramsey lawyer Jim Jenkins watched from another room.

During that interview is when Burke Ramsey contradicted his parents' testimony and said that his little sister was awake prior to and when the Ramsey family returned home Christmas night.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


And that was going to clear the problem right up. How totally absurd........ JMO

I agree. It's absurd to think corporal punishment would clear up JonBenet's frequent uncontrollable urination.

It may explain why JonBenet had healing wounds in her vaginia and barely any hymen.

I just wanted to clarify that it not my personal opinion that JonBenet was being molested for the abuser's sexual gratification.

The punishment theory makes more sense to me than the one that has some intruder breaking in and leaving no evidence other than a 2 and 1/2 page letter in Patsy's handwriting and some old and fragmented DNA on JonBenet's underwear.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Link??

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



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

Of course there's dissention.

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

Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Ramsey%20Did%20It%20Theories


# Fibers matching John's shirt were found in JonBenet's crotch. This potentially highly incriminating evidence is cited in the transcripts of interviews the police conducted with both John and Patsy Ramsey in August, 2000. (See Section 0202, lines 10-24 of Patsy's interview and Section 0057, lines 21-25 and 0058, line 1 of John's interview.) While the presence of Patsy's fibers at the crime scene can be explained as innocent transference from mother to daughter prior to the crime, John's fibers are a different matter entirely, since it's difficult to explain how they could have gotten inside JonBenet's panties in some innocent manner.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


:rolleyes: The accusations are getting sicker and sicker and all with NO proof.

You don't want to see any proof. I've given you a list of experts who disagree with Dr. Beuf, and many of them hold more substantial credentials than Dr. Beuf.

Yes, it's terrible to think something had been happening to JonBenet, but there's proof to back that idea up right in the autopsy.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


You would have to ask the intruder those questions.

Don't you mean the foreign faction?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


There's no way Burke slept through Patsy screaming and calling for John and both of them running up and down the stairs searching for JonBenet.

Burke was heard on the 911 call.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/21ramsey.html

An audio-enhanced 911 tape reveals that JonBenét Ramsey's brother, Burke, was awake when his mother called police to report the little girl's kidnapping at 5:51 a.m.

That conflicts with the girl's parents' consistent statements to investigators that the boy was asleep until 7 a.m. — after police arrived at their home — sources close to the investigation said Thursday.

Those sources say enhancement of the tape reveals Burke's voice in the background, asking his parents "What did you find?" John Ramsey allegedly can be heard shouting to Burke, "We are not talking to you," and Patsy shouts "Oh my Jesus, oh my Jesus."

The statements were recorded after Patsy Ramsey mistakenly thought she had hung up the telephone after making the 911 call.

"WOOD: Burke was asleep at that time. He did wake up, we later learned, when he heard his mother screaming. But he feigned sleep and so John and Patsy, until they heard about his testimony before the grand jury, they always thought that he was asleep.

KING: All right. Let's hear it. The 911 call Patsy Ramsey makes, the early morning, the day after Christmas, 1996. Listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

P. RAMSEY: Police -- 755 15th Street.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's going on there, ma'am?

P. RAMSEY: We had a kidnapping. Hurry, please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Explain to me what's going on. OK?

P. RAMSEY: We have a -- there's a note left and our daughter's gone.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A note was left and your daughter's gone?

P. RAMSEY: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How old is your daughter?

P. RAMSEY: Six years old. She's gone. Six years old.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How long ago was it?

P. RAMSEY: I don't know. I just found the note. And my daughter's taken.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does it say who took her?

P. RAMSEY: What?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does it say who took her?

P. RAMSEY: I have a note. There's a ransom note here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a ransom note?

P. RAMSEY: It says "SBTC." "Victory." Please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. What's your name?

P. RAMSEY: Patsy Ramsey. I'm the mother. Oh, my God! Please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. I'm sending an officer over. OK?

P. RAMSEY: Please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you know how long she's been gone?

P. RAMSEY: No, I don't. Please. We just got up and she's not here. Oh, my God. Please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.

P. RAMSEY: Talk to somebody.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am, honey.

P. RAMSEY: Please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Take a deep breath for me, OK?

P. RAMSEY: Please, hurry, hurry, hurry.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?

(END AUDIO TAPE)

KING: Very dramatic.

WOOD: It is. And genuine.

KING: Does she remember that call well, Patsy?

WOOD: I don't think so. I think that she was in such a state of mind that morning, her mind racing, her daughter missing, that she really does not have a great recollection of what she said.

You know, one of the things that I think led to the Boulder police fighting so far to keep this tape from being made public, in addition to the voice of Patsy Ramsey, was the fact that after Patsy hung up the phone, the Boulder police claimed that she had somehow not hung up the receiver on the wall phone and that there was a conversation that was picked up through an enhanced version of this tape that involved John and Burke, the 9-year-old son, and Patsy.

And that when they were interrogated by the police, John and Patsy said they didn't speak to Burke after the 911 call. So that was allegedly the smoking gun, that Patsy Ramsey lied.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) who appeared on this show (UNINTELLIGIBLE) accused Patsy of being the murderer. He was the one that claimed JonBenet's brother, Burke, could be heard at the end of the 911 tape.

WOOD: Absolutely, and that information was leaked out from the Boulder Police Department in September of 1998. Again, allegedly the smoking gun, the objective proof that the Ramseys were lying.

Well, in fact, that conversation is not on that tape. It's been enhanced by the FBI, the Secret Service, they found nothing. I gave it to one of the rival networks, NBC News. They hired two independent experts. They tested it. There absolutely is no voice on there discernible that belongs to Burke or John or Patsy. KING: We had Patsy being interrogated by investigators about the 911 call and whether or not she talked to anyone else at the end of the call. Let's listen to that from 1998."

"KING: And you enhanced the tape, and there was no conversation?

WOOD: The test shows that there was no conversation. And you noticed that when Patsy said, "Play the tape, I'll listen. Maybe it will jog my memory." They don't play the tape.

KING: Where did they get the idea from?

WOOD: You know, Larry, there was -- evidence was established that there was, in fact, a plan by the Boulder Police Department to leak information accusatory to the Ramseys to the media, in an effort to convince the public that they were guilty, to pressure them so that somehow they might confess.

I think that this tape was part of that plan, it's objective evidence of that plan. It was either an intentional fabrication or it was the product of an imaginative but prejudiced mind. Because you listen to the tape as a lay person, there's no way that at the end of the tape the background noise could be a conversation. There's no way that a wall phone could not have been hung up.

It was leaked, it was damaging. It's one of many things that was leaked about this family that I think has led to a public perception that they were involved, a perception, by the way, which I think has dramatically changed in the last several months in terms of how people feel about this family."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html

In his book, “JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation,” Thomas claimed that by enhancing the tape you can hear John and Patsy talking to their son Burke. He claims that’s important because the Ramseys reportedly told police their son was asleep at the time of the call. If true, Thomas claims it suggests the family was altering their story right from the start.

But both the FBI and Secret Service — who examined the tapes — said such a conversation could not be heard.

NBC News had the tape tested by experts at two different labs that examine 911 tapes to see if there was any conversation after the hang up.

“I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI’s findings. There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument,” says Frank Piazza of Legal Audio in New York City.

David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Are you saying you don't think Dr. Beuf was a competent doctor? What evidence do you have? Since Dr. Beuf had been treating JB for a number of years I would believe what he says. He is in the best position to judge what was or was not happening with JB not some "experts" who are brought in after JB died.

I'm not saying he's not a competent doctor at all. I do, however, think that since he is a close personal friend of the Ramseys that he may not be as forthcoming as someone with no personal ties.

I also believe that experts with more years and hours of experience and research on determining sexual abuse than Dr Beuf such as the ones I have listed may be better qualified to determine if she has been abused, whether they saw her in life or not. They have the same information as Dr Beuf, who never did an internal examination on JonBenet.

I wonder how many of the girls under the age of seven years old that Dr Beuf had the same issues of toileting and the same number of visits concerning genital issues.

My own daughter, at age eleven, has only been treated for a genital issue once - a bladder infection last summer.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Isn't it amazing what people will do for money. We do know that the housekeeper had money problems and had asked Patsy to loan her money.

You would think the Boulder police, after walking down the same path a thousand times trying to find guilt in the Ramsey's and coming up short, would have changed their course. They just wore that path out and came to a dead end, while the killer was probably doing the same thing to another child. I suppose even the authorities have a hard time admitting they are wrong. Thank goodness they got new blood in the department and have moved in other directions. If only this had happened right after the murder.

The Boulder Police wore that path out because that's where the evidence kept leading them. They weren't the only ones - FBI's CASKU agreed. That's pretty tough to argue.

And I don't any other children being killed anywhere near in the same manner as what happened to JonBenet. God bless her.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Solace
Nuisanceposter: I am just going to sit back and watch what they do with your evidence here. You are doing great and backing it up bigtime.

It is my belief you could have a video of Patsy admitting this on her deathbed and there would be those that say it is coerced. Anyway, keep going. You are excellent.:beer:

Thanks, Solace. And I agree with you - they'll argue that the Rs are innocent despite any amount of evidence pointing to the contrary, including a confession from Patsy herself.

I care about this case because I care about JonBenet. I take the time to do research and discuss this case with other JBR enthusiasts because I want to honor her and give her justice. She should be the only one that matters here - we should all work to find her killer, whether it's a Ramsey or an intruder, to show her the highest love and respect.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


That might be something to research - in general - before you assume the worse in this case.

Beuf's information is confidential and sealed. I can only go on my own experiences and those of my personal acquaintances, and the professional opinion of medical experts - which indicate JonBenet's medical history was unusual compared to the average, to say the least.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Who said Dr. Beuf is a close personal friend of the Ramsey's? I don't recall that he was one of the guests at their Christmas party.

You don't think doctors are trained to look for sexual abuse? This is part of their training. And I especially think this is true with pediatricians.

Maybe Dr Beuf had a another engagement that evening.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer1_fam.html

JonBen�t's pediatrician and his wife, who were also Ramsey friends and fellow parishioners of St. John's Episcopal Church.

DOI, pb, page 32

Memeber's of Patsy's family - her sister Pam and Polly's husband, Grant - and John Andrew, Melinda, and Stewart, and my brother, Jeff - gathered with us at the Fernies'. Other good friends, like Penni and Chek Beuf, Roxy and Stuart alker, and Glen and Susan Stine arrived.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


What evidence? The evidence that took them down the dead end path while precious time was wasted? The evidence that was brought before a grand jury of people who spent months looking at this evidence and came back with no conviction. A pedophile is on the loose and the children he comes into contact with could very well end up like JB. Do you actually think someone who did this to JB just went from that sadistic crime to being a normal person the next day and beyond? If you have children, I would watch them like a hawk. Look what happened to Adam Walsh.

Let's see, evidence...contradicting stories, a ransom note like no other ransom note ever of what which Patsy cannot be excluded as the author, several failed and inconclusive lie detector tests, the pineapple in JonBenet's intestine, the unreal aspects of the crime, the staging,no sign of a break-in, the lack of evidence left by an intruder, the fiber evidence linking Patsy and her jacket to the crime, the immediate lawyering up for all Ramseys, including John's former wife....we can over these point by point.

The Grand Jury...who never heard from either Thomas or the Ramseys, and was instructed by corrupt DA Alex Hunter who acted so unprofessionally during his time as DA that he should have been brought up on charges of obstruction of justice in this case.

This crime is not the standard work of a pedophile. Pedophiles do not leave rambling ransom notes and he would most likely have taken JonBenet with him...certainly not risk being caught in the basement by her parents while he molests and strangles her with no way out other than a window measuring 18 by 30 inches. He also left no forensic evidence - no prints, no hair, no fluids. I know you're going to argue he left DNA in her panties - once again, if so, why is JonBenet's DNA fresh and complete and the foreign DNA isn't?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Yes because Burke told them he was awake and they believed him. He was not up and walking around. How many people does a pedophile need to kill in one night? If this intruder is so angry at John Ramsey, why not just kill John Ramsey?

I'd like to know the answer to those questions myself.

Why did this intruder, if there was one, kill JonBenet? The ransom note says he was there to kidnap her for a ransom. If that was the case, why did he not just kidnap her and get the money? Why didn't he take her even if she was dead? He could have ransomed the body. If his plan was to kidnap her, why didn't he write a note beforehand? And how does the foreign faction fit into this pedophile acting alone?

That's just a couple of things that don't add up.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I asked the question before. Of JonBenet's visits how many related to genital issues, how many to allergies, how many were well care visits. As you said the information is confidential and sealed - and that IMO - means no one really knows why she visited the doctor - so all of the "speculation" is just that.

DIANE SAWYER
(VO) This is the first time Dr Beuf has gone over his records
publicly.
(From taped telephone conversation) And is that unusual to see a
child that many times?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of
them were for sinus infections and for colds.
DIANE SAWYER
And by majority you mean?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of
some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep
throats, sinus infections.
DIANE SAWYER
(VO) So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.
(From taped telephone conversation) How many times did you give her
a vaginal examination?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Well, it was five or six times in that three - year period.
DIANE SAWYER
(VO) We asked him to specifically review all notes that might
pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be
warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.
September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated
with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps
related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some
indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25
percent of children that age wet the bed. March 1995 -- abdominal
pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem. August 1996 --
another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said
everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this
number of complaints?
(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very
well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable
by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better.
But if you have four - year - old kids, you know how hard that is.
The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally
consistent with little girls her age.
DIANE SAWYER
If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have
seen it?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a
speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.
DIANE SAWYER
Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual
abuse?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service
people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are
very acutely aware of.
DIANE SAWYER
(on camera) And some other notes. Dr Beuf says he last saw JonBenet
Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus
infection. A couple of other things. Dr Beuf says he has turned in
people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career,
and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality
changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that
with JonBenet Ramsey.
And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's
records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was
nothing unusual there for a girl her age.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&om=523&forum=DCForumID101

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Solace


And it is more than likely that he (Berke) asked what did you find and it was heard on the tape, since everyone now knows he was awake and John finally admitted it.

Here's what I really don't understand.

The Ramseys, supposedly believing the ransom note is real and not only has JonBenet been kidnapped but that the kidnappers are still watching the house, send Burke out to go over to the White's house as if there is no reason to fear for his safety.

Not only that, they have no concern at all for JonBenet's safety in the 911 call.

Patsy sits there and tells the operator that her daughter has been kidnapped and never once mentions that the kidnapper has said in his ransom note that they are watching the house and will decapitate JonBenet if they discover police have been called. She doesn't mention it at all.

Not only that, she proceeds to telephone several friends and their reverand and invite them all over as well.

The Rs claim later that they hadn't read the note all the way through, but come on...use common sense. If you find your child missing and a ransom note, you're going to read the whole thing through and figure out what's going on before you start dialling everyone you know. I know I would, considering it is the only means I have of finding my child and getting her back. Patsy knew how it ended, and John was on the floor reading it while she called 911 - they had to have seen the threat to behead JonBenet.

And not only do they call 911 and not mention the threat to their kidnapped child's life and throw an impromptu get-together, they go ahead and send Burke out to the White's knowing the note said there are kidnappers holding JonBenet and watching the house, ready to cut her head off!

So either they had very little concern for their children's safety, or they knew there was no reason to fear for their safety.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


When John said "up" referring to Burke he meant "awake." Not up roaming around the house. To continue to muddy the waters is not going to help find JBs killer. One wonders if the killer reads or posts on the message boards about the case. Pray he doesn't move in next to you.

I'm not the least bit afraid that JonBenet's killer is going to be interested in coming after me, and I doubt s/he spent much time worried about "the JonBenet thing," much less reading these boards.

I'm not here to muddy up any waters. Quite the opposite.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Incredible!:lol:

I told you nuisance poster. It does not matter what you have. They are too embarrassed to admit that they did not do their homework.:biggrin:

WHO didn't do their homework? :rolleyes:

"Just what happened after Patsy hung up the phone has been debated in law enforcement circles. One former Boulder police detective, Steve Thomas, believes after Patsy hung up, the phone didn’t really disconnect.

In his book, “JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation,” Thomas claimed that by enhancing the tape you can hear John and Patsy talking to their son Burke. He claims that’s important because the Ramseys reportedly told police their son was asleep at the time of the call. If true, Thomas claims it suggests the family was altering their story right from the start.

But both the FBI and Secret Service — who examined the tapes — said such a conversation could not be heard.

NBC News had the tape tested by experts at two different labs that examine 911 tapes to see if there was any conversation after the hang up.

“I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI’s findings. There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument,” says Frank Piazza of Legal Audio in New York City.

David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/

[LI_Mom]

I don't find Fleet's actions bizarre in the least.

Nobody else was telling the Ramseys that it was important to speak to the police so they could solve this crime.

Fleet was the only friend John had that told him that he was digging a deep, deep hole for himself & Patsy.

Fleet became a very convenient scapegoat for all the Ramsey supporters. Just as Steve Thomas did.

Not surprisingly, the people who were the most outspoken about SOLVING this horrific crime became the 'enemy.'

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Why just ask for $118,000? Do you think the Ramsey's would be stupid enough to use that figure? Sounds like a nut and not very bright when he could have asked for a $1,118,000.00 and got it. Ever thought that JB might have recognized the intruder so he couldn't let her live? Ever think he accidentally pulled the garrote too tight? Why compound the problem and take a dead child? Then you have to dispose of the body. Do you really think a pedophile is going to think like a rational person. Who knows what movie he got the "foreign faction" phrase from. Seems like he spent a lot of time watching movies, roaming around, and killing children. What a life. And for writing the note ahead of time, maybe he was a street person pedophile and didn't own a note pad and a sharpie pen so he decided to steal the Ramsey's.

$118,000 - good question. Some say it was Psalm 118, which Patsy supposedly liked, some say it referred to JR's bonus. I think it was thrown in to cast suspicion on AG employees and away from the Rs. Yes, I think they'd be dumb enough to use that amount, because I think they thought they were being clever by using that amount.

The note sounds like a red herring to distract the police from thinking the Rs may have done it. I don't believe for a second that any criminal would sit and compose such a ridiculous piece of work - which, incidentally, was written in very proper letter-writing methods by someone who was able to write so closely tp Patsy that she was never excluded as the author of the note. Patsy, the journalism student, who would know exactly what the proper form for letter-writing is.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404


There's no evidence of a pedophile. JonBenet was wounded vaginally by a paintbrush from Patsy's paint tray in the Ramsey basement. I do believe a pedophile would have removed JonBenet from the house before he molested her.

I believe the killer was someone JonBenet knew, and I believe the killer could not take her out of the house because it was too risky.

A street person...uh huh. One who was able to come into the house without breaking in, able to move about around the house without making noise, got JonBenet up and fed her pineapple then waited around for it to digest, felt comfortable enough to sit and write a 2 1/2 page ransom note without leaving any prints (in fact, there were NO prints on the ransom note, not even John and Patsy's), and then disappear again and never repeat the crime he pulled off so perfectly that he has never been caught.

That person does not exist.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


WHO didn't do their homework? :rolleyes:

"Just what happened after Patsy hung up the phone has been debated in law enforcement circles. One former Boulder police detective, Steve Thomas, believes after Patsy hung up, the phone didn’t really disconnect.

In his book, “JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation,” Thomas claimed that by enhancing the tape you can hear John and Patsy talking to their son Burke. He claims that’s important because the Ramseys reportedly told police their son was asleep at the time of the call. If true, Thomas claims it suggests the family was altering their story right from the start.

But both the FBI and Secret Service — who examined the tapes — said such a conversation could not be heard.

NBC News had the tape tested by experts at two different labs that examine 911 tapes to see if there was any conversation after the hang up.

“I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI’s findings. There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument,” says Frank Piazza of Legal Audio in New York City.

David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/

Like I said about something else, there is dissention. Both you and I have posts links to sources who say different things. I'll leave it at "There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument".

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


RE visits to Dr. Beuf. During interrogation, Patsy said that JB had pneumonia once and some respiratory/sinus related problems. The itching, redness came from wearing wet pullups/diapers and Desitin, over the counter, was used to treat it. That would be called a rash.

Bed-wetting is common enough with children, but how many 5, 6 year olds have problems with soiling themselves during the day, to the point where they need pull-ups and Desitin? Why didn't the Ramseys with their excellent health insurance take their daughter to a specialist, a urologist, perhaps?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Just as I thought. Thanks, Breezy

How many girls under the age of seven years old do you know of that have been treated one or more times for vaginitis?

Most girls that age are unaware they have a vagina, because they don't have to deal with irritation in it, much less needing a doctor for it. Poor JonBenet.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


The housekeeper only told her "stories" AFTER she was offered money from one of the rags. Before that she said the Ramsey's were wonderful people who would never harm one of their children.


Gee, I guess she would have automatically been considered credible & innocent if she avoided the police, investigators & went straight to CNN and also hired a public relations spokesman? :biggrin:


It doesn't suprise me that she would change her mind about the Ramseys as the months & years went by.

Any normal person would have second thoughts about their employer after learning they are not working with the police to solve the crime but are working with lawyers to set down special conditions under which they can be questioned?

Any normal person would have second thoghts about someone who names THEM as a suspect.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Looks like the Grand Jury did not think Steve Thomas or the Ramsey's had anything more to offer them. That's right, if the DA doesn't convict "your" guy he must be corrupt. If Hunter was so corrupt, why weren't charges brought against him? As John Ramsey said, you just have to trust the system. The Grand Jury fulfilled their mission, or do you think they were biased too?

I have no idea why Hunter has not been brought up on charges other than he has the right friends in the right places. Just like the Ramseys.

Yes, I think the jury was biased. They were horrified by Meyer's autopsy report and didn't believe a parent would do this to a child - the police books are full of parents who have enacted far more brutal killings on their own children. They also didn't hear from the Ramseys themselves or Steve Thomas. I don't believe the jury heard it all.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Bed-wetting is common enough with children, but how many 5, 6 year olds have problems with soiling themselves during the day, to the point where they need pull-ups and Desitin? Why didn't the Ramseys with their excellent health insurance take their daughter to a specialist, a urologist, perhaps?

I have another question, knowing JB had a problem cleaning herself after using the toilet, why didn't the Ramseys buy her moistened wipes?

And if need be, send her to play with Daphne White (or elsewhere) with a travel size package of moistened wipes so she didn't soil her panties while on playdates? And so she didn't have to suffer from constant iritation?

Do parents really think it's 'normal' OR healthy for their 6 year old daughter to still ask any nearby adult to come wipe her after using the toilet?


The Ramseys seem to be in serious denial about JB's problem.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Poor JonBenet is right. And poor Patsy for having to live the remainder of her life under the umbrella of suspicion because of a rogue cop, other LE officials who were going to intimidate a confession out of her, and the media and people in general speculating and assigning unwarranted value to that speculation.

Patsy didn't help herself much by stalling for four months before talking to police (and countless times afterward), failing lie detector tests, never being able to be excluded as the author of the ransom note, contradicting her own previous comments, and answering questions with "I don't know" and "I can't recall." Oh, yes, and those pesky jacket fibers in the crime scene.

ONCE AGAIN - Thomas had a lot of experts backing up his theory, including FBI.

If people thought Patsy was guilty it's because she looked guilty. I'm not going to feel sorry for her when evidence points to her involvement. My pity is reserved for JonBenet.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Poor JonBenet is right. And poor Patsy for having to live the remainder of her life under the umbrella of suspicion because of a rogue cop, other LE officials who were going to intimidate a confession out of her, and the media and people in general speculating and assigning unwarranted value to that speculation.

Poor Patsy? :biggrin: :biggrin:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


For a mother who - according to you - had just killed her daughter she certainly was being cunning.

Her life and freedom depended on it. Amazing what people can come up with when feeling backed up against a wall. I think she may have had help writing the ransom note.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Solace


Right, the fibers that Patsy says were probably transferred when she hugged JB's body. But she didn't hug the tape, it was downstairs with those "pesky" fibers clinging to it. They were probably airborne fibers and just landed on the tape when John pulled it off JB's mouth. That's it!

Right. The tape that was in the basement, and no where near Patsy's jacket. The tape never came upstairs, and Patsy claims to have not gone downstairs that day. The tape that showed no evidence of being on JonBenet when she was alive, and appeared as though it had already been used before it was put on JonBenet.

It's not just the fibers in the tape - it's the fibers found in the paint tray where the paintbrush that was used to assault JonBenet was found, the same paintbrush that was used to create the garotte. The same garotte which had Patsy's jacket fibers tied up in the double knot at the back of JonBenet's neck.

How did she get those fibers in the paint tray when she was supposedly never downstairs on the 25th? How did those fibers get caught in the knot? It wasn't from a hug.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


I don't know. Maybe because he could have heard someone or could have been approached by the so called intruder. And he is really going to sleep through Patsy's screaming to John that someone took Jon Benet.

It's possible that Patsy really DID believe Burke slept through screaming & crying..... IF that kind of dysfunction was NOT an unusual thing in their home.


But they'll never convince me that it's logical to NOT awaken an almost 10 year old boy & ask him if he heard or saw anything at all during the night my daughter was kidnapped by a 'small foreign faction.'

:rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


It's possible that Patsy really DID believe Burke slept through screaming & crying..... IF that kind of dysfunction was NOT an unusual in their home.


But they'll never convince me that it's logical to NOT awaken an almost 10 year old boy & ask him if he heard or saw anything at all during the night my daughter was kidnapped by a 'small foreign faction.'

:rolleyes:

Exactly. You'd wake him up, ask him what he may have seen or heard, and keep him right in sight from that moment on. Thoroughly check his bedroom.

And definitely not allow him to leave the house without you when you believe kidnappers holding your other child are watching your house and will decapitate children.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by hohum


My neices live near there and my husband said we rode by the Ramsey house some years ago but I don't remember it. Anyway I agree with you that $664,000 was a bargain even in 1997 on Paces Ferry NW. And I am sure they didn't spend anywhere near $1,136,000 remodeling it, which is the difference in the buying/selling price unless they tore it down and started over. If you look at what is for sale this very day on Paces Ferry NW, $1.8 million is one of the lowest prices.

In 1997 the housing market, nationwide, was at the end
of a very bad period. By 2003 the market had been on the upswing for close to 5 years. The increase isn't really surprising.
My MIL sold her home in a very nice Beach community in So.
Calif. in 1997 for $350,000. By 2003 that same house was worth
over 1 million and would go now for close to 2 mil. I'm not
surprised at the profit they saw, just based on market conditions.

[rashomon]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Poor JonBenet is right. And poor Patsy for having to live the remainder of her life under the umbrella of suspicion because of a rogue cop, other LE officials who were going to intimidate a confession out of her, and the media and people in general speculating and assigning unwarranted value to that speculation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have always found the word 'umbrella' somewhat ridiculous in that context. For an umbrella is something used for protection purposes.
But hmm, wait - maybe 'umbrella' fits the Ramseys after all: the Ramseys have been living under the umbrella of protection, that's it.
A spineless jellyfish of a DA , that coward Alex Hunter, protected them. A detective hired by the DA's office protected them by saying he would never participate in their indictment or arrest.
Smit should have bee kicked out of the case right then after saying that. An investigator simply can't state things like that.

Then there's that gullible Trip DeMuth, who based his 'conclusions' on the mere assumption that parents could not have done this to their child.

These are just a few examples of people eager to protect the Ramseys.

Poor, poor Patsy - having to live under this 'umbrella of protection' all those years, an umbrella which actually helped her evade justice.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


For me, it was not what Fleet was saying so much but the way he was saying it, very angry and in your face. Other people seemed to notice it as much or more that John and Patsy Ramsey. Fleet and John were sailing buddies and John told Patsy, unbeknownst to her, it was always on John's dime. Fleet never offered to pay for anything.

Maybe if John's other friends had been as honest with him as Fleet was, he wouldn't have given the distinct impression that he & Patsy were guilty &/or hiding something from the police?

I really put very little stock in what John's friends or Team Ramsey thought of Fleet. Their goal was to shield the Ramseys and anyone who wouldn't cooperate with their agenda became an instant enemy.


And if it's true that Fleet never offered to pay for anything, then John was either not bothered enough to put an end to that relationship OR John was a pretty weak person who allowed himself to be used as a meal ticket.


I remember reading that Patsy's mother said about John, 'As long as Mr. Ramsey brings in the money, we'll spend it.'

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Lucky for Burke he had another place to go during this chaos. The police knew where Burke was. If they needed or wanted to interview him immdediately why didn't they go the short distance to the White's and talk to him? The police didn't do their job and now people want to blame the Ramsey's. Go figure.

The police on the scene were the FIRST to bungle the case.

Luckily for the Ramseys, their lawyers were able to take full advantage of the police mistakes AND the well known reluctance of the Boulder DA's office to prosecute crimes.

As a defense team, Team Ramsey did a brilliant job of protecting their clients from being fully debriefed while the crime was fresh in their minds and from being interviewed in a timely manner.

If they were actually interested in solving the crime and seeking justice for JB, they were AS negligent as the DA was.

The DA might as well been working FOR the Ramseys. He really let the defense lawyers walk all over him. (And who knows if he was ever paid off or he was just incompetent as prosecuter & was better suited to be a defense lawyer?)

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


How many girls under the age of seven years old do you know of that have been treated one or more times for vaginitis?

Most girls that age are unaware they have a vagina, because they don't have to deal with irritation in it, much less needing a doctor for it. Poor JonBenet.

Vaginitis in little girls is a very common condition; usually an infection (vaginosis), sometimes an irritation (vaginitis). It usually starts to be a problem when the little girl starts going to the potty by herself and wiping from back to front or back and forth - in any case, not "front to back and drop the paper" as she should. Symptoms are itching, burning with urination (mimicing bladder infection), and perhaps a yellow or green vaginal discharge (which mother often thinks erroneously to be a yeast infection). Poor hygeine is the cause; good hygeine is often curative.

The other form of vaginitis is just vaginal irritation from soap, especially bubble bath. In residency we called it "Mr. Bubble vaginitis." No bubble bath for little girls, I'm afraid.





http://www.drhull.com/EncyMaster/V/vaginitis.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Poor JonBenet is right. And poor Patsy for having to live the remainder of her life under the umbrella of suspicion because of a rogue cop, other LE officials who were going to intimidate a confession out of her, and the media and people in general speculating and assigning unwarranted value to that speculation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have always found the word 'umbrella' somewhat ridiculous in that context. For an umbrella is something used for protection purposes.
But hmm, wait - maybe 'umbrella' fits the Ramseys after all: the Ramseys have been living under the umbrella of protection, that's it.
A spineless jellyfish of a DA , that coward Alex Hunter, protected them. A detective hired by the DA's office protected them by saying he would never participate in their indictment or arrest.
Smit should have bee kicked out of the case right then after saying that. An investigator simply can't state things like that.

Then there's that gullible Trip DeMuth, who based his 'conclusions' on the mere assumption that parents could not have done this to their child.

These are just a few examples of people eager to protect the Ramseys.

Poor, poor Patsy - having to live under this 'umbrella of protection' all those years, an umbrella which actually helped her evade justice.


:rolleyes: Poor poor rashomon, bought the lies put out by team Thomas and builds on them.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Don't forget the remark John made about how much Patsy spent decorating.

Yep.

We're definitely talking about "new money" when dealing with John & Patsy.

That's why it doesn't sound like John would care if Fleet isn't opening his own wallet.

Besides.... you say they were sailing buddies. John owned a boat, did Fleet? I assume John didn't charge ANY of his friends to go sailing if he invited them to his summer home.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


The Ramsey's knew no more about investigating homicides that the Boulder police. At least they were smart enough to know it and hired some experts.

I agree. Between the first police on the scene, the non-cooperation between police & prosecuters & the wimpy DA, they never got this case back on the right track & never would be able to solve the crime. The defense lawyers were worth every penny John paid them.

The ONLY smart thing about the Ramseys is that they hired a team of lawyers.

They were dumb as a box of rocks in most other ways, though. Or outright liars.

Well, maybe both..... IF their goal was to get justice for JB.

[LI_Mom]

The DA probably investigated to find a way to AVOID taking this to trial.

Hunter's office had spent so many years perfecting plea bargaining crimes down, he probably knew his lawyers couldn't go to court & prove the sun is hot.

When he saw the team Ramsey bought... he knew he was dead meat.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I think Fleet had been sailing for many years and it's likely they had to pay an entrance fee for the races they were in. Don't know if Fleet owned a boat but why buy one when he could use John's for free. Who likes a freeloader?

John did, obviously.

Fleet was a close friend when they went over to their home to celebrate Christmas.

Fleet was a close friend when he sent JB over to play with Daphne.

Fleet was close enough friend that he shuttled Burke over to Fleet's house before they found JB's body in the basement.

I'd rather have a friend like Fleet White in my corner than people like the Ranseys.



Btw, do you have a link showing where John alleges that Fleet was a cheapskate? I never heard this before.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Lucky for Burke he had another place to go during this chaos. The police knew where Burke was. If they needed or wanted to interview him immdediately why didn't they go the short distance to the White's and talk to him? The police didn't do their job and now people want to blame the Ramsey's. Go figure.

The police did go the short distance to the White's. They interviewed Burke and the Rs got upset because they didn't get permission first.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


The police did go the short distance to the White's. They interviewed Burke and the Rs got upset because they didn't get permission first.

Suppose the ransom note had been authentic, and the kidnappers had cut off JonBenet's head when they saw the police there and suppose they had gotten ahold of Burke when he left the house. That's an awful big chance the Ramseys took, calling police and not warning them JonBenet could be killed...and then inviting all those friends over...and then sending Burke out. They knew there was no one watching thier house, imo.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Sorry I don't have a link. It's in the transcript of the police interrogation of the Ramsey's. I have about 50 pages left to read.

I've been waiting for over a month to get that book from my library system.

It's a good thing I'm not holding my breath waiting, though.

:)

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I can't imagine any DA doesn't want to bring a case to trial, will do everything possible to see that it happens. My gosh look at Nifong in Durham making a fool of himself. Not to mention what had been spent investigating the case. I think the grand jury was called hoping to get a conviction to save face for the DA but alas, not enough evidence.

Hohum, I don't understand what the heck was going on in Boulder.

Violent crimes were plea bargained down to disgustingly light sentences in too many cases. The JB case was really a culmination of years of very wishy-washy attitudes towards crime.


It's really a shame that a little girl's murder is almost forgotten in all this.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin



Something interesting I just read. Patsy kept a key hide out front in case she got locked out. John didn't know that, but wonder who else did?



As I remember that... (don't remember WHERE I read it though), it was only a theory that Patsy might have kept a key outside without John's knowledge.

She would lock herself out of the house frequently, since the door automatically locked. I didn't understand why she wouldn't check that the door did NOT automatically lock BEFORE she went outside. It's not exactly rocket science.




There WERE a whole bunch people who were given keys to the Ramsey house. The police were able to track down most of them but a few they never could find. Maybe the people simply lost them or had already returned them, I don't know.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


It's a moot point, there were no other voices on the 911 tape. It's not hard to see why this case never found a killer, too many people wanting to hear and read and see things that didn't exist. It would be an interesting thesis to research why so many people wanted the Ramsey's to be guilty.

Mass brainwashing IMO. Thomas and the BPD did a good job with the help of the media.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum
Perhaps I spoke too soon about being hopeful. Read this.

http://www.nyopinion.com/articles/archives/2006/07/take_jonbenet_c.php

This is just an opinion piece and no better than yours.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Mass brainwashing IMO. Thomas and the BPD did a good job with the help of the media.

Let me remind you yet again that Thomas's RDI theory was the same theory the FBI's CASKU unit thought was what happened.

Thomas and BPD and the media did not brainwash the respected experts at CASKU.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


In my unprofessional opinion, I think the media swayed people's thinking especially related to the pageants - made much ado over these when JonBenet's involvement wasn't half what was made out to be.

Also, as much as we are talk about the American dream, I think a lot of people are jealous when someone else is successful - as in the case of John Ramsey - can't wait to dig up the dirt on someone like him.

Envy of the Ramseys' lifestyle.

The fact that the Ramseys were able to continue to live relatively satsifying lives in spite of attempts to bring them down.

As I said jm - unpro - o.

I think most people found the child beauty pageant scene to be inappropriate and disturbing, but they weren't jealous about it.

It was however, a more frequent occurrence than a "few Sunday afternoons", as Patsy said.

There's a lot of training and rehearsal and involvement in the child beauty pageant circuit. These kids are usually on a pretty regular cycle of practice to stay competitive.

Once the media caught hold of JonBenet dressed up in formal hair with cascades of blonde curls and heavy make up they had a field day. I do think they used the images of her competing in pageants to sensationalize the story, but I also have to wonder about how much of her life it was and how it affected her.

I am reminded of a story Patsy related once, and I think it was in DOI...I'll go look for it. Anyway, the story was that the family was eating at a restaurnat and JonBenet was cold, and wanted to put on her sweater, and Patsy told her, "No, you're still on display."

That's cold.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I think most people found the child beauty pageant scene to be inappropriate and disturbing, but they weren't jealous about it.

It was however, a more frequent occurrence than a "few Sunday afternoons", as Patsy said.

There's a lot of training and rehearsal and involvement in the child beauty pageant circuit. These kids are usually on a pretty regular cycle of practice to stay competitive.

Once the media caught hold of JonBenet dressed up in formal hair with cascades of blonde curls and heavy make up they had a field day. I do think they used the images of her competing in pageants to sensationalize the story, but I also have to wonder about how much of her life it was and how it affected her.

I am reminded of a story Patsy related once, and I think it was in DOI...I'll go look for it. Anyway, the story was that the family was eating at a restaurnat and JonBenet was cold, and wanted to put on her sweater, and Patsy told her, "No, you're still on display."

That's cold.

IMO you are still buying the BS. Patsy didn't "relate" that story, if anyone did it was Thomas. Patsy did NOT "display" Jonbenet. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Let me remind you yet again that Thomas's RDI theory was the same theory the FBI's CASKU unit thought was what happened.

Thomas and BPD and the media did not brainwash the respected experts at CASKU.

The key word here is "thought" IMO Thomas DID brainwash the public and even though he has had his chance to prove his theory in court, he chickened out. His BS is still appearing on these forums even AFTER his "theories" were disproven and/or he admitted he put out untrue things to try to "smoke out the Ramseys".

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


The key word here is "thought" IMO Thomas DID brainwash the public and even though he has had his chance to prove his theory in court, he chickened out. His BS is still appearing on these forums even AFTER his "theories" were disproven and/or he admitted he put out untrue things to try to "smoke out the Ramseys".
Thomas' opinion that Patsy was the perp has not been disproven. And do you really believe that Thomas would have been able to 'brainwash' the FBI's CASKU experts, who happened to agreewith him that no intruder committed this crime?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234

:rolleyes: Poor poor rashomon, bought the lies put out by team Thomas and builds on them.
You know very well that many agreed with Thomas' asessment of the case. The CASKU experts for example. Why do you think they agreed with him, Breezy? These were no laypeople, but super-pros.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


IMO you are still buying the BS. Patsy didn't "relate" that story, if anyone did it was Thomas. Patsy did NOT "display" Jonbenet. :rolleyes:

You don't call putting your child in a beauty pageant and having her ride on top of a float in a town parade displaying her? That's making sure all attention is focused on her!

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


You don't call putting your child in a beauty pageant and having her ride on top of a float in a town parade displaying her? That's making sure all attention is focused on her!

It is not "displaying" her anymore than letting your child join scouts or play sports. Cub Scouts, Browines, Little League and other child sports teams also ride on floats or march in town parades. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

Thomas' opinion that Patsy was the perp has not been disproven. And do you really believe that Thomas would have been able to 'brainwash' the FBI's CASKU experts, who happened to agreewith him that no intruder committed this crime?

Thomas and the BPD started the brainwashing before JonBenet was even burried. After almost 10 years of trying to dig up dirt and proof against the Ramseys...............STILL no proof. If you and your friends here OR "the FBI's CASKU experts" think you can prove it with your suspicions and stories from books, nothing is stopping you.

:shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


It is not "displaying" her anymore than letting your child join scouts or play sports. Cub Scouts, Browines, Little League and other child sports teams also ride on floats or march in town parades. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, breezy, but entering your 5 year old daughter in a child beauty pageant is NOT the same as signing her up to play soccer.

For one thing, it can hundreds, possibly even thousands of dollars to compete in child beauty pageants - entrance fees, make up, hair, costumes, lessons, portfolios of photos - it's a commitment that steadily requires cash flow.

JonBenet competed in nine pageants in 2 years, from ages 4 to 6. Some of the pageants were Little Miss Charlevoix, Colorado All-Star Kids, Little Miss Colorado Sunburst , Royale Miss, and Little Miss Christmas. She was scheduled to compete in another one as soon as the family arrived home from their cruise.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Thomas and the BPD started the brainwashing before JonBenet was even burried. After almost 10 years of trying to dig up dirt and proof against the Ramseys...............STILL no proof. If you and your friends here OR "the FBI's CASKU experts" think you can prove it with your suspicions and stories from books, nothing is stopping you.

:shrug:

And you can say the exact same thing about the RST and Lou Smit and the intruder theory.

Where's the proof that an intruder was in the Ramsey home that evening?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

You know very well that many agreed with Thomas' asessment of the case. The CASKU experts for example. Why do you think they agreed with him, Breezy? These were no laypeople, but super-pros.


And MANY did NOT agree with Thomas AFTER they found out the truth and did some real investigating. Why do you think they disagreed? These were not laypeople either. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


And you can say the exact same thing about the RST and Lou Smit and the intruder theory.

Where's the proof that an intruder was in the Ramsey home that evening?

No one is accusing a certain NAMED "intruder". Thomas is the one who NANED Patsy as the killer was so sure of his throries and said he would prove them. He did NOT prove anything!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan

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

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

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234



And MANY did NOT agree with Thomas AFTER they found out the truth and did some real investigating. Why do you think they disagreed? These were not laypeople either. :shrug:

Why don't you tell us, breezy, just how many experts disagreed with Thomas after hearing his theory, and who they were.

CASKU, the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit, did not disagree. You can't find a more reputable panel of experts in crimes of this nature than them.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm sorry, breezy, but entering your 5 year old daughter in a child beauty pageant is NOT the same as signing her up to play soccer.

For one thing, it can hundreds, possibly even thousands of dollars to compete in child beauty pageants - entrance fees, make up, hair, costumes, lessons, portfolios of photos - it's a commitment that steadily requires cash flow.

JonBenet competed in nine pageants in 2 years, from ages 4 to 6. Some of the pageants were Little Miss Charlevoix, Colorado All-Star Kids, Little Miss Colorado Sunburst , Royale Miss, and Little Miss Christmas. She was scheduled to compete in another one as soon as the family arrived home from their cruise.

And I'm sorry but I don't agree. Maybe you and I couldn't afford the pageant stuff but the Ramseys could. That does NOT mean JonBenet was on display or that her parents murdered her.

"I am one of those so-called "pageant kids" and I have been for several years now. I don't think the positive side of kiddie pageants have been publicized nearly enough, and neither has the truth about JonBenet and her role as a contestant.

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/

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Why don't you tell us, breezy, just how many experts disagreed with Thomas after hearing his theory, and who they were.

CASKU, the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit, did not disagree. You can't find a more reputable panel of experts in crimes of this nature than them.

Better yet YOU tell us just how many experts agreed with Thomas. :rolleyes: Provide a link that EVERYONE invoved in CASKU or LE agrees with Thomas. Strange they are wasting time and money putting the foreign DNA on file to check out other suspects if they are ALL so sure the Ramsyes are guilty. :shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


And I'm sorry but I don't agree. Maybe you and I couldn't afford the pageant stuff but the Ramseys could. That does NOT mean JonBenet was on display or that her parents murdered her.

"I am one of those so-called "pageant kids" and I have been for several years now. I don't think the positive side of kiddie pageants have been publicized nearly enough, and neither has the truth about JonBenet and her role as a contestant.

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/

It says right in DOI, pages 56 - 57, that JonBenet was four years old when she competed in the Little Miss Charlevoix pageant. In fact, she mentions that there were only two other four-year-olds entered. Is Patsy wrong in her own book about her own daughter?

Calm down, breezy, I was merely making the point that competing in child beauty pageants is different from playing on a local sports team. Putting your child in a beauty pageant is having her looked over and judged in part on appearance. That's not a sport, that's display.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


It says right in DOI, pages 56 - 57, that JonBenet was four years old when she competed in the Little Miss Charlevoix pageant. In fact, she mentions that there were only two other four-year-olds entered. Is Patsy wrong in her own book about her own daughter?

Calm down, breezy, I was merely making the point that competing in child beauty pageants is different from playing on a local sports team. Putting your child in a beauty pageant is having her looked over and judged in part on appearance. That's not a sport, that's display.

And I am merely making the point it is not different IMO. You think what you wish and so will I. Until recently a child involved in sports was also "judged" on his or her ability to be good at the sport. A child who was not good at it sat on the bench, was bat or water boy/girl and\or eventually gave up. Jon Benet was good at what she did and she enjoyed it as everyone who saw her including the judges could tell. You and I may not like it but it IS a personal choice of the parents and child and I for one am really getting tired of the crap of people thinking they can tell others how to live their lives. IMO it is NO different than having your child on display for his or her ability to play a sport.

BACK to the original post where Thomas said that Patsy said that JonBenet couldn't have a sweater because she was "on display" is more fabrication on his part.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


No one is accusing a certain NAMED "intruder". Thomas is the one who NANED Patsy as the killer was so sure of his throries and said he would prove them. He did NOT prove anything!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan

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

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

Are you aware that John Ramsey changed his story about whether the doors and windows were locked that night? First he said he checked every one, then he said he didn't check any. How convenient that he says that night was the one night they didn't set the alarm. The Ramseys are known by friends as people who were good about locking up. And John Ramsey waited some four months to report that he supposedly found a window open an 1/8 of an inch in the basement, when both police and Fleet white had been down there earlier that morning and none of them noticed an open window - and that's what officers were searching for - a point of entry. Four months.

Where is the evidence that an intruder came in through a window? There was an intact spider web and expert Dr Opell said that species of spide rwas dormant at the time and wouldn't have had enough time to respin it. The police photo shows a hose and grill over that window - did the intruder go back and set that stuff back like it was after he went through the window - which measured 18 by 30 inches? And no one can date that Hi Tec bootprint.

The knots - not difficult at all. Meyer described the knot at the back of JonBenet's neck as a double knot, such as you'd tie your shoes with. It was not a functional garotte - it did not slide like a noose. The handle - mummy wrap, anyone? Not difficult. If you want to say they were, remember JR was a sailor with Navy training.

The duct tape was already used. It didn't come fresh from the roll, it had been used elsewhere before it was out on JonBenet's mouth. It wasn't placed there when she was alive, either - there was no indication that she had struggled against it, and there was mucus from her face on it as if it had placed over the mucus. Why gag a child who won't fight? Staging.

Many think the animal hairs may have come from Patsy's paintbrushes or make up brushes. Patsy also owned many fur items such as boots and coats. No one knows when JonBenet last washed her hands.

The Hi Tec shoeprint is undateable, and Burke owned a pair with a compass in the laces.

There were there palm prints on the wine cellar door - two Patsy's, and one Melinda's.

The baseball bat could very well have belonged to the Rs or any neighbor kids who had been in the basement. Proves nothing in connection to this crime.

Black fibers matched the black wool shirt JR wore that night. I linked it elsewhere - two link, in fact.

The DNA was fragmented and degraded because it was old, and the nail DNA was contaminated.

That public hair was actually an ancillary hair, like from someone's arm, and it was traced back to Patsy's family.

Those injuries do not match a stun gun. That has never been proven.


Here are some links where you can find proof of what I say.

http://websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=23

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4

http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Better yet YOU tell us just how many experts agreed with Thomas. :rolleyes: Provide a link that EVERYONE invoved in CASKU or LE agrees with Thomas. Strange they are wasting time and money putting the foreign DNA on file to check out other suspects if they are ALL so sure the Ramsyes are guilty. :shrug:

I said CASKU, if that's not good enough for you, you figure out who they are and make your own decision. Seems rather petty to me personally that you can't just accept that Steve Thomas wasn't just some "rogue cop" out running around tossing out wild accusations like you want to believe, and had experts like FBI backing him up.

I'm not here to get into skirmishes of this variety in concern to the JonBenet case. That's disrespectful to her. It belittles her life and her tragic death.

It can't hurt to enter the DNA in the databank. It was found on the murdered child's clothes, it's part of the crime scene. That doesn't mean it was left by the killer though, especially not when the DNA was degraded and fragmented while JonBenet's was fresh and complete.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Are you aware that John Ramsey changed his story about whether the doors and windows were locked that night? First he said he checked every one, then he said he didn't check any. How convenient that he says that night was the one night they didn't set the alarm. The Ramseys are known by friends as people who were good about locking up. And John Ramsey waited some four months to report that he supposedly found a window open an 1/8 of an inch in the basement, when both police and Fleet white had been down there earlier that morning and none of them noticed an open window - and that's what officers were searching for - a point of entry. Four months.

Where is the evidence that an intruder came in through a window? There was an intact spider web and expert Dr Opell said that species of spide rwas dormant at the time and wouldn't have had enough time to respin it. The police photo shows a hose and grill over that window - did the intruder go back and set that stuff back like it was after he went through the window - which measured 18 by 30 inches? And no one can date that Hi Tec bootprint.

The knots - not difficult at all. Meyer described the knot at the back of JonBenet's neck as a double knot, such as you'd tie your shoes with. It was not a functional garotte - it did not slide like a noose. The handle - mummy wrap, anyone? Not difficult. If you want to say they were, remember JR was a sailor with Navy training.

The duct tape was already used. It didn't come fresh from the roll, it had been used elsewhere before it was out on JonBenet's mouth. It wasn't placed there when she was alive, either - there was no indication that she had struggled against it, and there was mucus from her face on it as if it had placed over the mucus. Why gag a child who won't fight? Staging.

Many think the animal hairs may have come from Patsy's paintbrushes or make up brushes. Patsy also owned many fur items such as boots and coats. No one knows when JonBenet last washed her hands.

The Hi Tec shoeprint is undateable, and Burke owned a pair with a compass in the laces.

There were there palm prints on the wine cellar door - two Patsy's, and one Melinda's.

The baseball bat could very well have belonged to the Rs or any neighbor kids who had been in the basement. Proves nothing in connection to this crime.

Black fibers matched the black wool shirt JR wore that night. I linked it elsewhere - two link, in fact.

The DNA was fragmented and degraded because it was old, and the nail DNA was contaminated.

That public hair was actually an ancillary hair, like from someone's arm, and it was traced back to Patsy's family.

Those injuries do not match a stun gun. That has never been proven.


Here are some links where you can find proof of what I say.

http://websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=23

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4

http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/

Those are not links, they are simply other forums just like this one where anyone can say anything and of course it is NOT proof. I can't believe someone would actually think a forum is a basis of proof. :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Those are not links, they are simply other forums just like this one where anyone can say anything and of course it is NOT proof. I can't believe someone would actually think a forum is a basis of proof. :rolleyes:

I was trusting that you would able to read the thread titles, or might actually be interested enough to start reading the threads.

How is a forum full of information not a basis of proof? Many of those threads contain direct links to everything I have said, provided by people much more knowledgeable than I. It's not my fault you don't want to inform yourself.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I was trusting that you would able to read the thread titles, or might actually be interested enough to start reading the threads.

How is a forum full of information not a basis of proof? Many of those threads contain direct links to everything I have said, provided by people much more knowledgeable than I. It's not my fault you don't want to inform yourself.

I have read the other forums about this case. I have provided links and the Ramsey did it bunch ignore them. That is their choice but I will continue to provde links to real information and not leaks, theories or books. IMO being informed is links by a judge and the DA who have seen the REAL evidence NOT links to forums from people who only state their opinions who have NOT seen the evidence. It is not my fault that you want to think opinions are proof.

A forum is simply opinions just as this forum is opinions. It is your opinion they are guilty, it is mine they are not. How is either of those opinions proof?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Maybe the knot would be complicated for some of the posters here, but it is not for most people. It is not a complicated knot although everyone pro-Ramsey would like us to believe it is.

I guess the judge is wrong then and you are right. :lol:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I said CASKU, if that's not good enough for you, you figure out who they are and make your own decision. Seems rather petty to me personally that you can't just accept that Steve Thomas wasn't just some "rogue cop" out running around tossing out wild accusations like you want to believe, and had experts like FBI backing him up.

I'm not here to get into skirmishes of this variety in concern to the JonBenet case. That's disrespectful to her. It belittles her life and her tragic death.

It can't hurt to enter the DNA in the databank. It was found on the murdered child's clothes, it's part of the crime scene. That doesn't mean it was left by the killer though, especially not when the DNA was degraded and fragmented while JonBenet's was fresh and complete.

What would be good enough for me would be proof not "thoughts" or speculation. IMO Steve Thomas is the worst thing that ever happened to Boulder or to to any investigation. He's cokcy and tries to make the evidence fit his theory instead of following the evidence. His misinformation and accusations is what stalled this case from the get go IMO.

I guess you think they should throw out all DNA because it proves nothing in your opinion. WHY then did police rule out others based on DNA they had when she was killed but NOT the Ramsey's with the SAME DNA?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I said CASKU, if that's not good enough for you, you figure out who they are and make your own decision. Seems rather petty to me personally that you can't just accept that Steve Thomas wasn't just some "rogue cop" out running around tossing out wild accusations like you want to believe, and had experts like FBI backing him up.

I'm not here to get into skirmishes of this variety in concern to the JonBenet case. That's disrespectful to her. It belittles her life and her tragic death.

It can't hurt to enter the DNA in the databank. It was found on the murdered child's clothes, it's part of the crime scene. That doesn't mean it was left by the killer though, especially not when the DNA was degraded and fragmented while JonBenet's was fresh and complete.

This is why I think Thomas and anyone who buys his crap is full of hot air. They ignored REAL leads like this and put out false leaks to point to wards the Ramseys? WHY???? Is this the kind of police work we really want?

"Among the files he’s keeping on sex offenders in Boulder, Gary Oliva’s name stands out. Police said that in 1991, months after he sexually assaulted the little girl, Oliva tried to strangle his mother with a telephone cord. And in December 1996, Oliva, then a fugitive and a homeless drifter, may have been less than a block away from the Ramsey’s house.

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

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

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

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

What made Michael most worried was the cassette tapes the two had exchanged. After high school, Michael and Gary thought a fun way to keep in touch was through audio tapes.

“I’d go to Carl Jr.’s and interview someone, He’d go to the store and interview a macaroon cookie. Stupid stuff,” says Michael.

But in 1989, Oliva’s tapes, once amusing, changed dramatically. “The tapes started getting darker, more depraved, and sicker, it would turn my stomach,” says Michael.

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

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

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

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

No one from the police called him and asked to listen to any of those tapes. “I mentioned I had cassette tapes. I mentioned I had hand writing samples. I don’t know what it’s worth but I thought, here’s a lead you might want to follow up on. I know this fellow was in Boulder, Colo., and I called up and told them that.” What did the Boulder police do with the tip? Nothing. According to Lou Smit, the Boulder Police didn’t follow up on 95 percent of the more than 3,000 phone tips that came in. In Oliva’s case, police didn’t investigate him until nearly four years after JonBenet’s death, when Oliva was caught with drugs - and a stun gun.

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

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

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

As it turns out, 48 Hours Investigates is not the only one interested in Oliva. A Boulder police officer assigned to the Ramsey case was in the room taking notes while Moriarty interviewed Oliva.

The Ramsey investigators had to physically take the evidence to the police before they would even evaluate it.



"Why aren’t the Boulder police taking these leads more seriously? Police have dismissed Oliva because his DNA doesn’t match evidence at the scene. The Ramseys say police have a double standard: While some suspects have been cleared because their DNA doesn’t match, they have not been cleared for the same reason.

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by breezy1234


This is why I think Thomas and anyone who buys his crap is full of hot air. They ignored REAL leads like this and put out false leaks to point to wards the Ramseys? WHY???? Is this the kind of police work we really want?

"Among the files he’s keeping on sex offenders in Boulder, Gary Oliva’s name stands out. Police said that in 1991, months after he sexually assaulted the little girl, Oliva tried to strangle his mother with a telephone cord. And in December 1996, Oliva, then a fugitive and a homeless drifter, may have been less than a block away from the Ramsey’s house.

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

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

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

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

What made Michael most worried was the cassette tapes the two had exchanged. After high school, Michael and Gary thought a fun way to keep in touch was through audio tapes.

“I’d go to Carl Jr.’s and interview someone, He’d go to the store and interview a macaroon cookie. Stupid stuff,” says Michael.

But in 1989, Oliva’s tapes, once amusing, changed dramatically. “The tapes started getting darker, more depraved, and sicker, it would turn my stomach,” says Michael.

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

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

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

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

No one from the police called him and asked to listen to any of those tapes. “I mentioned I had cassette tapes. I mentioned I had hand writing samples. I don’t know what it’s worth but I thought, here’s a lead you might want to follow up on. I know this fellow was in Boulder, Colo., and I called up and told them that.” What did the Boulder police do with the tip? Nothing. According to Lou Smit, the Boulder Police didn’t follow up on 95 percent of the more than 3,000 phone tips that came in. In Oliva’s case, police didn’t investigate him until nearly four years after JonBenet’s death, when Oliva was caught with drugs - and a stun gun.

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

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

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

As it turns out, 48 Hours Investigates is not the only one interested in Oliva. A Boulder police officer assigned to the Ramsey case was in the room taking notes while Moriarty interviewed Oliva.

The Ramsey investigators had to physically take the evidence to the police before they would even evaluate it.



"Why aren’t the Boulder police taking these leads more seriously? Police have dismissed Oliva because his DNA doesn’t match evidence at the scene. The Ramseys say police have a double standard: While some suspects have been cleared because their DNA doesn’t match, they have not been cleared for the same reason.

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

Some of you go on and on about beauty pagenats, pineapple, patsys paintbrush, notepad and paper, the SLIM possibility Patsy wrote the note, the Ramsey's forgetting a detail and calling it a lie, a wet bed, their hiring lawyers and ignore a REAL lead like this and others. WHY? IMO because it was mass brainwashing by Thomas, the BPD and the media.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace



It is a bogus lead and it is old hat and it was followed up and on and on and on and he did not kill JB Ramsey. You have to do better than this. Lou Smit had his share of bogus leads also. You should print those.

:rolleyes: Proof of that???

Of course the mind reader cops in Boulder "knew" it was a bogus lead before they even asked any questions about this guyMust be nice to be mind readers...............opps I forgot Thomas already had his theory and NO one or NO amount of evidence would convince them he was wrong. It was a lot easier to blame the parents than to do any real investigative work.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace



It is a bogus lead and it is old hat and it was followed up and on and on and on and he did not kill JB Ramsey. You have to do better than this. Lou Smit had his share of bogus leads also. You should print those.

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 Solace



It is a bogus lead and it is old hat and it was followed up and on and on and on and he did not kill JB Ramsey. You have to do better than this. Lou Smit had his share of bogus leads also. You should print those.

"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


This is not the Twilight Zone; get something with substance. It was checked and dismissed for the umpteenth time.

Maybe you should check out some more links or something.

Maybe you should open your eyes and mind. Can't you understand the point is police never even investigated these people by their own admission. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Thomas didn't say that one of Patsy's girlfriends did and she had planned to speak to Patsy about the pageants but then Patsy killed JB and she didn't get a chance to.

It was in Thomas's book, right? Have you talked to this "girlfriend"? Has this girlfriend" testified to this under oath? You say Patsy killed JonBenet but you CAN't provide any proof.


By your own admission and now a few months later you THINK you have all the answers. ...................

"solace
The belief is that Jon Benet's mother did this crime? I know very little about this case probably as much as the average person, so I am outdone here. Did I not read that there was sexual abuse of JB, so were the mother and the father involved? Any help is appreciated.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Or she is just an idiot!:lol:

Yeah everyone who faces the truth and realizes Thomas is a jerk is an idiot in your opinion. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


This is not the Twilight Zone; get something with substance. It was checked and dismissed for the umpteenth time.

Maybe you should check out some more links or something.

I have checked out "more links" and found this quite interesting!

*snipped*
solace
Posted: May 15, 2006 4:34 PM
The belief is that Jon Benet's mother did this crime? I know very little about this case probably as much as the average person, so I am outdone here. Did I not read that there was sexual abuse of JB, so were the mother and the father involved? Any help is appreciated.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


ROFL.....so we have an expert of 2 1/2 months........ Somehow that doesn't compare to 10 years, but that's JMO.....

But he's read the Thomas book and reads forums and he is VERY open about saying Patsy definitely killed JonBenet. :rolleyes: Pretty sad.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


What would be good enough for me would be proof not "thoughts" or speculation. IMO Steve Thomas is the worst thing that ever happened to Boulder or to to any investigation. He's cokcy and tries to make the evidence fit his theory instead of following the evidence. His misinformation and accusations is what stalled this case from the get go IMO.

I guess you think they should throw out all DNA because it proves nothing in your opinion. WHY then did police rule out others based on DNA they had when she was killed but NOT the Ramsey's with the SAME DNA?

I think you should stop accusing Thomas of making up lies and providing misinformation when his theory has been backed up by very credible experts and has yet to be disproven. The Ramseys have been caught in lies and you don't see me bringing that up in every post. It's rather narrow-minded and immature that you can't stop accusing him or admit it when his theory has been agreed upon by experts far more in the know than either you or I.

As degraded and as fragmented as the DNA is, it can still be useful.

Listen close, because you just don't seem to understand -

JonBenet's DNA is fresh and complete.

The foreign DNA is fragmented and degraded.

The DNA was not deposited on the underpants at the same time.

The foreign DNA has not excluded the Rs because it wasn't left there by the killer, but it can still prove that people such as Helgoth, Wolf, and Kenady were not there also. They weren't cleared solely on that DNA, though.