General Discussion /Post Karr

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


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?

Well...if you had done the homework, then you would know that some of the information in the Ramsey case cannot be found online and is only documented for public viewing in books, such as DOI and Steve Thomas's.

Citing a book as a source is every bit as credible as a link. Just because the info isn't available with a mere click does not mean it isn't valid and cannot be used as a source.

If you bothered to read the threads on those forums, you would know that individual links to individuals facts are replete all through them, many many more than I could sit and link to one by one. A forum is a collection of people combining information from all sources and discussing it, and if you can't figure that out then I'll bid you good day and you can continue to bury your head in the sand.

It's your opinion that links to people other than Judge Carnes and the DA are not as valid as links coming from them. I see you love to quote Judge Carnes and do so daily. I find that source to be as credible as you do Steve Thomas. I've linked you to the statements of people every bit as involved as Carnes and the DA, and obviously you're unable to be open-minded enough to even give their statements a chance.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


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.

Breezy, how very rude and petty of you to attempt to humiliate someone who doesn't agree with you like this. This is junior high school gossipy girl behavior.

Have you better reply when discussing this case than to try to bother someone through posting information that you think will make them look bad?

Please refrain from making personal attacks. This isn't helping JonBenet.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Not display - participation/competition. Rules to follow, goals to meet - just like a sport.

Yes...with much greater emphasis placed on physical appearance.

Children as young as two or three have their hair styled, dyed, highlighted, teased, sprayed, totally coiffed in hairstyles suitably only for glamour purposes.

Children having tan spray blasted all over them. Children having manicures and hair extensions.

Children needing to have dental pieces made, because the judges aren't supposed to discount for missing teeth, but they do.

Children taught to walk in a certain way, stand and pose, and coquettishly catch the eyes of the judge.

And why, oh why, would there ever be a swimsuit competition in girls this young?

All of this is based on physical appearance, and serves no real purpose in the every day world outside of beauty pageants. It just teaches children that they need to look better than they already do - to be fake, because they weren't good looking enough to compete without being totally made up.

Name one other sport that requires a child to pay this much attention to personal physical appearance.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


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.

I don't care what you think I should do. Thomas admitted under oath he was the source of the many "leaks" that started the Ramsey's are guilty garbage. IMO it is YOU who is " rather narrow-minded and immature" . You are free to continue to post misinformation but that is not my style, sorry.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace



Rosy, Am I to infer from your post that you are assuming you and Breezy are experts. If you are, experts all over are in trouble. Because you and Breezy could not understand the facts if they came down and hit you squarely in the face. Just my opinion of course.

And no I do not go along with a Judge just because that person is a judge. If everyone felt that way, there would be quite a few innocent people in prison. I think Barry Scheck would agree with that.

So Breezy keep on quoting. When you have something interesting to say, I will listen. So far you have done very little to support your claim but misstate facts of the case over and over. One would think you would know a lot more than you do by now. How long have you been at this. Longer than 2 1/2 months I think, yes?

Never know it. You are going to have to pay attention more and be less angry with your posts. That seems to be holding you back some.

You might want to pick up some literature in between rants on the forum.

:lol: "Literature" is NOT where you get facts about a murder. Literature is NOT a court of law. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Breezy, how very rude and petty of you to attempt to humiliate someone who doesn't agree with you like this. This is junior high school gossipy girl behavior.

Have you better reply when discussing this case than to try to bother someone through posting information that you think will make them look bad?

Please refrain from making personal attacks. This isn't helping JonBenet.

He told me to check out other links and that is just what i did. It is NOT gossip when it was what he said and it there for all to see. :rolleyes:

Don't tell me what to "refrain" from.

NOTHING and NO one can "help" JonBenet................or Patsy but they do have family that are still alive and have feelings and the crap that is posted on this and other forums is beyond disgusting.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace



Lets not forget that JB had to practice for hours upon hours. There is no childhood there. That is being taken away by Patsy. She was 4 years old and practicing for hours. John at least said no when Patsy wanted to take her to Las Vegas. I consider it legalized child abuse.

Proof that she "practiced hours and hours" and she had her childhood taken away from her because of it?? :rolleyes: Just more gossip from you. I've come to expect nothing BUT gossip from you and of course you NEVER supply any proof.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Yes...with much greater emphasis placed on physical appearance.

Children as young as two or three have their hair styled, dyed, highlighted, teased, sprayed, totally coiffed in hairstyles suitably only for glamour purposes.

Children having tan spray blasted all over them. Children having manicures and hair extensions.

Children needing to have dental pieces made, because the judges aren't supposed to discount for missing teeth, but they do.

Children taught to walk in a certain way, stand and pose, and coquettishly catch the eyes of the judge.

And why, oh why, would there ever be a swimsuit competition in girls this young?

All of this is based on physical appearance, and serves no real purpose in the every day world outside of beauty pageants. It just teaches children that they need to look better than they already do - to be fake, because they weren't good looking enough to compete without being totally made up.

Name one other sport that requires a child to pay this much attention to personal physical appearance.

Proof that JonBenet started at 2 or 3 or any of those things you mentioned was done to Jonbenet? When was she in a swimsuit competition? There is NO proof but you find it sport to make things up and gossip about something that has NOTHING to do with murder. :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Thanks for the TV dates, Hohum. I'm going to jot down a note so I remember to watch.

Of course, I'll have to be reminded to read the note. It's times like these that we could use TiVo, huh? :tongue:



My library doesn't have that book, I'm waiting for it to be sent from another library in our system. It seems to take forever for this process. Darn!

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Rosy, you are wrong again. I have not read anything about you. Reading your posts are quite enough. Breezy has followed this case since it happened? Is that supposed to impress me? So what! Do you really believe you have to study a case for ten years to know what is going on? No, you don't, and echoing a Judge with every other post is hardly impressive either and echoing district attorney who has let so many criminals off during his reign, is even less impressive.

OMG, get up to speed. The DA I quote is NOT a "he". Once again proof you don't even READ the links. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy, you sound like you have had one too many.

One too many of your own thoughts that is. I think you are starting to give yourself the creeps.

Get it through your head. Patsy killed her daughter. Then she staged the strangulation; then she defiled her in the worst way possible so everyone would say, there is just no way a mother could do this. She is so sure of herself that she sits down and writes a three page note. These psychopaths are all alike Peterson, Ramsey, Rotier etc. They all believe they are beyond reproach. Sorry!

And they always get someone to believe in them and all the while having a great laugh about it. Patsy is dead and if there is any truth to what some say, she is paying dearly and she should, she killed her daughter.

Yeah ok, expert.....:lol:

[LI_Mom]

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:

But they aren't up there in sexy outfits & wearing makeup.

Sorry, you can't compare a normal child's activities to a child who is strutting on stage with the sole purpose of showing off their body.

Adding a talent segment does not change the fact that these pageant kids are up there to be judged on their looks.

And for any mother to feign shock that a pedophile might have been drawn to a child who has been carefully TAUGHT to be enticing in front of adults is not dealing with a full deck.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


I am speaking of the one and only Alex Hunter. Breezy, you have got to get some rest.

:rolleyes: You better get some rest. I have not quoted Hunter. Read it again REAL slow.

"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.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Get some rest tonight Breezy.

Have your mommy read you a bedtime fairy tale tonight. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


You should get some rest. You sound tired.:biggrin:

I AM tired of reading the trash that some of you THINK is proof of murder but rest will not make me less tired of it. That trash is just childish, cruel and unthinking IMO. :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

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.

pg. 97 DOI (Speaking of the children's Christmas parade)

"For several years both JB & B had been 2 of the many children joining the event.

Our first involvement occurred in 1996 when Patsy was still struggling w/ chemotherapy. Burke's boy scout troop wanted to participate, so Patsy came up with the idea for the float."


Boy Scouts. A great place for a boy to learn how to tie knots.

Just like a sailor or ex-Navy man would have experience with knots.

Of course, we would never expect either Ramsey to admit they had knowledge about knots. That would make them look like suspects.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Righhhhhht, big difference between 3 and 4 years old.

I didn't realize she was already 4 years old. That changes everything. Thank you for bringing that to everyone's attention Breezy. See, these are the things that show you have been studying this case for ten years and have a wealth of information. And such an important fact too. Well, now I am just going to have to go back and rethink the pageant thing. Thanks again Breezy.

You better go back and "rethink" a lot of things and you're welcome. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


pg. 97 DOI (Speaking of the children's Christmas parade)

"For several years both JB & B had been 2 of the many children joining the event.

Our first involvement occurred in 1996 when Patsy was still struggling w/ chemotherapy. Burke's boy scout troop wanted to participate, so Patsy came up with the idea for the float."


Boy Scouts. A great place for a boy to learn how to tie knots.

Just like a sailor or ex-Navy man would have experience with knots.

Of course, we would never expect either Ramsey to admit they had knowledge about knots. That would make them look like suspects.

CUB Scouts and Burke would be the age of a CUB Scout, NOT a Boy Scout, do not learn how to "tie knots" but nice try.:rolleyes:

"Since 1930, the Boy Scouts of America has helped younger boys through Cub Scouting. It is a year-round family program designed for boys who are in the first grade through fifth grade (or 7, 8, 9, and 10 years of age). Parents, leaders, and organizations work together to achieve the purposes of Cub Scouting. Currently, Cub Scouting is the largest of the BSA's three membership divisions. (The others are Boy Scouting and Venturing.)

The 10 purposes of Cub Scouting are:

Character Development
Spiritual Growth
Good Citizenship
Sportsmanship and Fitness
Family Understanding
Respectful Relationships
Personal Achievement
Friendly Service
Fun and Adventure
Preparation for Boy Scouts

http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-502.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


And thank God you are there to lead us all on the right track.

:lol: All I see iyou and your friends doing is SIDETRACKING that has NOTHING to do with murder or proof of the Ramsey's guilt but enjoy if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to do your part to spread gossip and try to destroy a family. IMO they are stronger than to be destroyed by the gossips such as you.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


CUB Scouts and Burke would be the age of a CUB Scout, NOT a Boy Scout, do not learn how to "tie knots" but nice try.:rolleyes:

"Since 1930, the Boy Scouts of America has helped younger boys through Cub Scouting. It is a year-round family program designed for boys who are in the first grade through fifth grade (or 7, 8, 9, and 10 years of age). Parents, leaders, and organizations work together to achieve the purposes of Cub Scouting. Currently, Cub Scouting is the largest of the BSA's three membership divisions. (The others are Boy Scouting and Venturing.)

The 10 purposes of Cub Scouting are:

Character Development
Spiritual Growth
Good Citizenship
Sportsmanship and Fitness
Family Understanding
Respectful Relationships
Personal Achievement
Friendly Service
Fun and Adventure
Preparation for Boy Scouts

http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-502.html

Well then, that's yet another example where the Ramseys own words are a crock of ____?

Can we believe ANYTHING they said?

[rashomon]

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:
Breezy: you cling to some biased links, swallow what Judge Carnes said (who got her info mostly from team Ramsey) hook, line and sinker, and ignore that Mary Keenan is so biased too that some people think she should be charged with obstruction of justice.
Steve Thomas did not brainwash anyone, and since you have not read his book, how do you expect to be taken seriously by those who have really researched this case?

You quoted poster Solace from another forum, and your implication was that she did not know much about this case.
I can assure you Breezy, meanwhile Solace knows so much about this case that in comparison to her, you know but a fraction.
For example, unlike you, she went through the Ramseys' statements with a fine tooth comb and discovered their many contradictions.
With your limited knowledge and refusal to take a look at all the evidence, you wouldn't stand a chance in the really important Ramsey forums like Websleuths and FFJ, where Solace is a respected poster.
Which is why you prefer to stay in your small Courttv corner, where only a handful of people post on the Ramsey threads.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Then don't read it.

Oh I WILL read it and call you on it every time i get the chance, tired or not. Gossip and gossips uncontested continue to grow like a metastatic cancer.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

Breezy: you cling to some biased links, swallow what Judge Carnes said (who got her info mostly from team Ramsey) hook, line and sinker, and ignore that Mary Keenan is so biased too that some people think she should be charged with obstruction of justice.
Steve Thomas did not brainwash anyone, and since you have not read his book, how do you expect to be taken seriously by those who have really researched this case?

You quoted poster Solace from another forum, and your implication was that she did not know much about this case.
I can assure you Breezy, meanwhile Solace knows so much about this case that in comparison to her, you know but a fraction.
For example, unlike you, she went through the Ramseys' statements with a fine tooth comb and discovered their many contradictions.
With your limited knowledge and refusal to take a look at all the evidence, you wouldn't stand a chance in the really important Ramsey forums like Websleuths and FFJ, where Solace is a respected poster.
Which is why you prefer to stay in your small Courttv corner, where only a handful of people post on the Ramsey threads.


:lol: yeah ok, thanks for the diagnois "doctor".

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy I was not referring to that post. You are so overrought with anger that you just spurt out the first thing that comes to you very tiny mind.

I am talking about Alex Hunter who blew the case, and also the fact that you echo everything Judge Carne says. So you try to keep up Breezy. Obviously, it is a chore and you need a nap or something. So go take it. Nothing to be embarrassed about. WE all understand.

That is the ONLY DA I quoted. Get a grip. You understand NOTHING but fairy tale books and "posters" who agree with you. :rolleyes:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234

Patsy did NOT "display" Jonbenet. :rolleyes:
Pageants are about displaying one's child, breezy. That's their purpose.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy, this Board is not only about your quotes. You are obviously upset, so why don't you take a break from the board and chill.

You don't even remember what you posted. :lol:

"Originally posted by Solace


Rosy, you are wrong again. I have not read anything about you. Reading your posts are quite enough. Breezy has followed this case since it happened? Is that supposed to impress me? So what! Do you really believe you have to study a case for ten years to know what is going on? No, you don't, and echoing a Judge with every other post is hardly impressive either and echoing district attorney who has let so many criminals off during his reign, is even less impressive.

Once again I will say I have NEVER quoted Hunter. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

Pageants are about displaying one's child, breezy. That's their purpose.

No they are not but you stick with that opinion if you choose to. :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

I find it strange & creepy that people like Breezy are so emotionally invested in proving the Ramseys are innocent & that an intruder murdered Jonbenet BUT the Ramseys themselves moved on & didn't bother to keep up with the solving the case.

They set up a website allegedly to solve the murder & yet... the website is dead.

www.ramseyfamily.com



They couldn't even be bothered to pretend they were still interested in looking for the "real killers?" That really speaks volumes about this family, imo.


Poor Jonbenet.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I feel a certain way about people who are determined to prove the Ramseys guilty, but I won't share it here.

Yes, but can you compare a stranger's actions to a family's INACTIONS?

It's ONLY the actual family that has a personal stake in solving this terrible crime and getting justice for their own relative.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy, let me explain something and you can try or try not to get it. You quote and echo anything and everything that comes from Team Ramsey. Team Ramsey fed Alex Hunter, Team Ramsey fed the DA. Team Ramsey feeds to this day. Lin Wood can't do enough, after all he made most of his money from them, so he says. So you are echoing them whether you care to believe it or not.

You agree with Alex Hunter, don't you. You agree with Lin Wood, don't you. You agree with Judge Carne don't you. Then you echo them. Why is it that is so hard to understand.

By the way Breezy, the DA, once again, believed Patsy did it. And he was right about that. He just didn't have what it took to go after them and a few hundred other criminals.

This is why you should read something other than what you NARROWLY exist on.

IN yours and Thomas's opinion Hunter was "fed" by the Ramseys, NOT mine. IMO Hunter wanted to prosecute the Ramseys so therefore NO I did NOT agree with him. You are so very lost in this case you not only don't understand the case but also what I think and who I agree with. :rolleyes: GROW UP and realize you are not an expert on this case OR me or what I or anyone else thinks. :no:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I find it strange & creepy that people like Breezy are so emotionally invested in proving the Ramseys are innocent & that an intruder murdered Jonbenet BUT the Ramseys themselves moved on & didn't bother to keep up with the solving the case.

They set up a website allegedly to solve the murder & yet... the website is dead.

www.ramseyfamily.com



They couldn't even be bothered to pretend they were still interested in looking for the "real killers?" That really speaks volumes about this family, imo.


Poor Jonbenet.

You really THINK I am trying to prove the Ramseys innocent? How silly. I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV or this forum, I can't prove anyone guilty or innocnet. I post links that support my opinion and to show how and why I came to that opinion, simple as that. This IS an opinion board and I can have my opinion even if it disagrees with yours. :rolleyes: What you think of the Ramseys is up to you and if you continue to trash them it says more about you than it does about them IMO.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Yes, he was gung ho on prosecuting them, that is why he didn't. He is right up your alley Breezy. In fact you would get along great with him. He seems like your type.

Read something besides the Thomas trash and you MAY learn something. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


flamemad: There she goes again.

:biggrin:

:rolleyes: and there he goes again, talking about me instead of the case.

Once again Mary Keenan is not a he and she and a judge have said there is more evidence that an intruder killed JonBenet than a Ramsey did.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


How about the interviews themselves? They just roll right along lying in those. Yup, I think I will take another look at those. I just love catching them in lies and it happens so often, dont you think.

She did it Breezy. She smashed her daughter's head in and garrotted her and defiled her.

You might as well just face it. You can't go on like this. It is taking its toll!:patriot:

Enjoy "catching them in lies" (in your opinion) and spreading your gossip and accusations. How sad for you but whatever makes you happy. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


*snipped*

You might as well just face it. You can't go on like this. It is taking its toll!:patriot:

:lol: I'm not the one that calls a she a he, I am not the one that is confused and I am not the one who likes to post about other posters constantly instead of the case.

Hunter is a he, Keenan is a she. I post Keenan's remarks, not Hunters. Think you can remember that?:rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Now what do you know about he and shes?:lol:

Obviously more than you do as you think Keenan is a he. :rolleyes: :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


It is great. You ought to try it sometime. It is called reading the truth, straight from their mouths. You can't beat it Breezy.

Too bad you don't know truth when it is under your nose.

BTW, Hunter is a he, Keenan is a she. I post Keenan's remarks, not Hunters. Think you can remember that?

"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

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You really THINK I am trying to prove the Ramseys innocent? How silly. I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV or this forum, I can't prove anyone guilty or innocnet. I post links that support my opinion and to show how and why I came to that opinion, simple as that. This IS an opinion board and I can have my opinion even if it disagrees with yours. :rolleyes: What you think of the Ramseys is up to you and if you continue to trash them it says more about you than it does about them IMO.

I'm going to assume you thought I meant "prove" in a legal sense & tell you that I meant it in a general sense only.

I haven't said you or anyone else is not entitled to their own opinions.

My only point was that I find it appalling & extremely sad that the Ramseys don't even bother to keep up the charade of looking for the "real killers." Just like OJ. Poor victims.

They couldn't even shell out a few dollars per year to keep their domain active? Ugh.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I'm going to assume you thought I meant "prove" in a legal sense & tell you that I meant it in a general sense only.

I haven't said you or anyone else is not entitled to their own opinions.

My only point was that I find it appalling & extremely sad that the Ramseys don't even bother to keep up the charade of looking for the "real killers." Just like OJ. Poor victims.

They couldn't even shell out a few dollars per year to keep their domain active? Ugh.

A web site is not the end all ya know. Patsy HAS been battling cancer and they still had a son to raise. Too bad they didn't do enough to suit you.

""We can't just hold our breath and hope the killer will be found and then go on with our lives," Patsy Ramsey said in 2004. "We have to move ahead now. We can't let evil win."

The Ramseys offered a reward of $100,000 to the person who captured their daughter's killer. They also wrote a memoir, "The Death of Innocence" and filed libel suits against several news outlets.

"Our family name has been destroyed," John Ramsey said. "We want the killer of our daughter found."

Schiller said that Patsy Ramsey was the driving force behind the continued investigation. Without her, he said the case will most likely die.



"Her being alive was a motivating factor for the case and the investigation to keep continuing. Every once in a while she would come back there and meet with the D.A. to get a progress report or to put pressure on them to keep up the case," he said. "That makes news when Patsy Ramsey comes to town and you'd have the D.A. come out and meet with the reporters afterward."



The murder is still an open case. The Ramseys' attorney, L. Lin Wood, said new DNA testing may provide proof that it was an intruder who committed the crime.

"The legacy of the case hopefully will be that DNA will solve it and then at that point in time we'll have that confirmation publicly that I've had for years," Wood said.




But never-ending speculation in the tabloid press, and numerous books, continued to feed the nation's interest.


http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2116198&page=1.

This says 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."

http://www.11alive.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=81422

[LI_Mom]

A Weak D.A.

While widespread allegations of political manipulation by former District Atty. Alex Hunter are warranted as an explanation for inaction in the JonBenét case, the truth may be simpler: Hunter has a long record of being a weak prosecutor who rarely goes to trial, and often infuriates the police because of the lenient sentences he is willing to plea bargain down to. The Boulder police suspected for some time that Hunter was hoping to work out a plea bargain in the JonBenét Ramsey murder case. That, of course, is based on the police belief that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime and that her husband conspired with her to cover-up the murder.

In addition to having a reputation in many quarters as being lazy and weak, Alex Hunter is that rare breed – a district attorney who is a true 1960s liberal. When Hunter first ran for the D.A.'s office in 1972, he vowed he would pursue rehabilitation rather than punishment. After six terms as prosecuting attorney, Hunter still believes strongly in rehabilitation, even for the most serious offenders. After 28 years as prosecutor, Hunter has never put a defendant on death row.

His actions as prosecutor have often caused criticism to rain down on him.

1981: In a highly publicized case, Hunter charged Christopher Courtney with second-degree murder after Courtney shot two people dead at the Longmont Civic Center. When the first trial ended in a mistrial, Hunter reduced the charge to criminally negligent homicide and Courtney walked away with a two-year sentence in the county jail. That generated cries of dismay from the mayor and city council.

1982: Kirk Long resigned as undersheriff. Long penned a letter at that time that sounds chillingly reminiscent of that written in 1998 by Det. Steve Thomas. The letter said, in part: "We in America have a legal system that is designed to be adversarial. It is apparent to me that the only adversary relationships within the legal system of the 20th Judicial District are the relationships between law enforcement agencies and the office of the District Attorney. The ignoring of compelling physical evidence, the artificial bolstering of conviction statistics through plea bargaining, deferred prosecutions, and deferred sentences speaks loudly of incompetence and political maneuvering. The essence of my belief is that the citizens of Boulder County do not have an advocate in the judicial system."

1985: In a foot-dragging case reminiscent of the Ramsey investigation, it took Hunter more than two years to charge Mike Grainger with a crime, even though Grainger’s obese wife was found laying in bed with a massive head wound, and there was no evidence of an intruder. Grainger got three years.

1992: The Rape Crisis Team, part of the Mental Health Center of Boulder County, penned a report, "Sexual Assault in Boulder County: The Crimes and Their Consequences." The report showed that, in 1990, of 60 cases involving children, 42 abusers avoided serving any time at all, three went to a halfway house, 13 served county jail time (half of those with work-release) and only one was sentenced to state prison.

1986: In his last major case, Hunter was named special prosecutor in neighboring Adams County to try the sheriff there, Bert Johnson. The sheriff was charged with extortion, embezzlement and sexual misconduct. Hunter offered to dismiss all charges if Johnson would resign from office, but the judge rejected the deal. Hunter lost the case at trial. He decided never to try another case.

Hunter, who did not seek re-election in 2000, made a lot of enemies over the years, but they were never able to do him in politically. Ordinarily, in a case such as JonBenét’s, the danger to a prosecutor perceived as shirking his duty comes from the parents. In the Ramsey case everything is twisted. The parents – who have considerable power – have showered praise on the "professionalism" of Hunter’s office and scorn on the Boulder Police Department. According to Det. Thomas, Hunter and his staff are the only reason the Ramseys have avoided indictment.

Conclusion

As things stand, it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever be charged or prosecuted for the murder of JonBenét Ramsey - unless someone were to come forward and confess.

Time is on the Ramseys side. When the grand jury failed to indict them, they passed their gravest test. In the Ramseys' book, The Death of Innocence, they describe in great detail the fear they had of the grand jury and how they expected an indictment against both of them. They were so sure they would be indicted that they returned to Boulder in the days before the grand jury was mandated to finish its deliberations. They wanted desperately to avoid the ignominy of being arrested in Atlanta and forced to spend several days in the Fulton County Jail before being extradited to Colorado. Both had a deep revulsion to the image of their being arrested and handcuffed. Above all, they did not want to be handcuffed. They wanted to be able to just turn themselves in to the District Attorney's office and have bond posted immediately for their release.

Chances that the new district attorney, Mary Keenan, will convene another grand jury are not strong. Keenan worked for Hunter for 13 years and is considered his protégé. In all likelihood no such killer will ever be caught; John and Patsy Ramsey, as well as their son Burke, will continue to avoid indictment, and no one will ever be called to answer for the murder of JonBenét Ramsey.

http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Proof that JonBenet started at 2 or 3 or any of those things you mentioned was done to Jonbenet? When was she in a swimsuit competition? There is NO proof but you find it sport to make things up and gossip about something that has NOTHING to do with murder. :rolleyes:

I didn't say JonBenet started pageants at 2 or 3. I said children as young as 2 or 3 are in pageants being coiffed and made up.

Jon Benet started doing pageants at age four.

She was in a swimsuit competition in at least one of her pageants because I remember Patsy defending her removing her skirt with a flourish to show her swimsuit and referring to it as "demonstrating she can work with a prop."

I do not make things up. I have more than enough factual information to draw upon.

As for how I feel about Patsy encouraging JonBenet to do pageants - I believe Patsy saw JonBenet as little more than an extension of herself. A live doll to dress up and play with. An object to appease her own desire - that of winning the Miss America crown.

[LI_Mom]

I always found the Ramsey reward of $100,000 curious.

Considering they were multi-millionaires AND that they were prepared to pay $118,000 to a kindnapper, I kind of wondered about the subtraction of the $18,000.


I also wondered how just days after JB's death, the Ramseys were on CNN saying this:

RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.

RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on.


Not angry? I'm thinking to myself, that's a pretty admirable trait.... until I hear how ANGRY Patsy got her interviews. And how ANGRY Patsy was with the media & the photographers & the authors & the police & anyone who didn't jump high enough to suit her.

Too bad they saved their anger for the people who offended them & not for the 'intruder' who sexually abused, strangled & then smashed their daughter's head in.

Weird people.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I don't care what you think I should do. Thomas admitted under oath he was the source of the many "leaks" that started the Ramsey's are guilty garbage. IMO it is YOU who is " rather narrow-minded and immature" . You are free to continue to post misinformation but that is not my style, sorry.

Leaks? Thomas was rather angry that his investigation was compromised by leaks coming from Alex Hunter's office.

http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

The public’s shock at the murder soon began to share equal time with its growing dismay at the Boulder police’s investigation, a dismay fed by a steady stream of leaks from the Boulder County District Attorney's office about the inept police investigation being conducted.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0216jon1.shtml

A new book on the Jon Benet Ramsey murder suggests Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter leaked information critical of the lead investigator to a supermarket tabloid reporter.

Excerpts from the book, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller, appeared this week in the Denver Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek. It will go on sale later this week.

<snip>

KMGH also cited an excerpt in which Shapiro described Hunter's phoning Ramsey defense lawyer Bryan Morgan to get an answer to a question.

"I couldn't believe what I was seeing," Shapiro is quoted as saying. "The DA was calling Ramsey's criminal defense lawyer right in front of me to get information that I had asked for."

KMGH also reported on another excerpt from Schiller's book that describes a conversation between Shapiro and former Boulder Detective Steve Thomas, who was also assigned to the Ramsey investigation.

The book said one detective wore a body wire and secretly tape-recorded Shapiro talking about his access to Hunter.

The book claims Hunter was "speechless" when police later confronted him with a tape of the conversation.


Who posts misinformation, breezy?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by hohum

I don't know why all this harping on the pageant thing. No, it's not your typical past time for most people. Yes it is expensive. No a lot of people don't understand it. I have never been in a pageant but I have a good friend (male) who judges pageants, coaches participants. He is also a lawyer. To me it's akin to drama and acting. I don't want to play soccer either, but so what. To each his own. Out of curiosity how is this going to help find who killed JB?
Delving ino the background of family whose child has been found dead in their own home is very important. And didn't even the Ramseys themselves say JB's involvement in pageants might have attracted pedophiles? I don't believe a pedophile killed JB, but I can imagine that quite a few pedophiles can be found among the audience in these pageants.
Jmpo, but I would find a male like your friend who judges pageants and coaches participants highly suspicious in that regard.
When little girls are dressed up to look like Marilyn Monroe, a boundary has been crossed which should never be crossed. It robs children of their innocence.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I always found the Ramsey reward of $100,000 curious.

Considering they were multi-millionaires AND that they were prepared to pay $118,000 to a kindnapper, I kind of wondered about the subtraction of the $18,000.


I also wondered how just days after JB's death, the Ramseys were on CNN saying this:

RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.

RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on.


Not angry? I'm thinking to myself, that's a pretty admirable trait.... until I hear how ANGRY Patsy got her interviews. And how ANGRY Patsy was with the media & the photographers & the authors & the police & anyone who didn't jump high enough to suit her.

Too bad they saved their anger for the people who offended them & not for the 'intruder' who sexually abused, strangled & then smashed their daughter's head in.

Weird people.

I find it strange that some people think everything the Ramseys did or didn't do is strange. :shrug: Too bad we can't all be alike, think alike and act alike, huh?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Leaks? Thomas was rather angry that his investigation was compromised by leaks coming from Alex Hunter's office.

http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

The public’s shock at the murder soon began to share equal time with its growing dismay at the Boulder police’s investigation, a dismay fed by a steady stream of leaks from the Boulder County District Attorney's office about the inept police investigation being conducted.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0216jon1.shtml

A new book on the Jon Benet Ramsey murder suggests Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter leaked information critical of the lead investigator to a supermarket tabloid reporter.

Excerpts from the book, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller, appeared this week in the Denver Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek. It will go on sale later this week.

<snip>

KMGH also cited an excerpt in which Shapiro described Hunter's phoning Ramsey defense lawyer Bryan Morgan to get an answer to a question.

"I couldn't believe what I was seeing," Shapiro is quoted as saying. "The DA was calling Ramsey's criminal defense lawyer right in front of me to get information that I had asked for."

KMGH also reported on another excerpt from Schiller's book that describes a conversation between Shapiro and former Boulder Detective Steve Thomas, who was also assigned to the Ramsey investigation.

The book said one detective wore a body wire and secretly tape-recorded Shapiro talking about his access to Hunter.

The book claims Hunter was "speechless" when police later confronted him with a tape of the conversation.


Who posts misinformation, breezy?

Thomas leaked misinformation.

"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 [b]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. "

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


"Another reporter, Jeff Shapiro, then of The Globe tabloid, had extensive contact with Thomas, and recalled a conversation with him in July 1997, two months before the article appeared.

Thomas asked Shapiro if he knew of Vanity Fair and what people thought of it. Shapiro said it was a reputable national magazine."So you think people would take an article in that magazine seriously?" Shapiro recalls Thomas asking.

"He probably knew that the credibility of the information he was relaying depended on the credibility of the magazine," Shapiro said this week.

Shapiro said Thomas later attempted to lead him into thinking "a lot of people talked to this woman (Bardach)."

"if Thomas had been discovered, "he would have been a disgraced rogue cop" and would never have been given a platform for his theory that Patsy Ramsey accidentally killed JonBenet and covered it up. That was the core of his book, released in 2000, for which the publisher last year settled a libel claim filed by the Ramseys.

Wood alleged Thomas was never discovered because Boulder police sandbagged on finding leaks of information damaging to the Ramseys. Wood considers that part of a campaign that police waged in the media to sweat a confession out of the Ramseys.

Thomas admits in his deposition that such a strategy was used, a detail reported by NBC's Today show in October.

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

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Solace


Lawrence Schiller says Steve Thomas was the most knowledgeable detective on the Ramsey case, just fyi.

Absolutely. The Ramseys themselves said that they thought Steve Thomas was dedicated to serving justice for JonBenet and was working as hard as he could to do so - they said he just had the wrong person. And once again, experts including FBI agreed that Thomas had the right one.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Absolutely. The Ramseys themselves said that they thought Steve Thomas was dedicated to serving justice for JonBenet and was working as hard as he could to do so - they said he just had the wrong person. And once again, experts including FBI agreed that Thomas had the right one.

NO one was stopping them from "absolutely" proving that Thomas "had the right one". All talk, no action just like some posers here that are so sure Thomas is right. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Along with most everyone in the DA's office believed Patsy did it. Too bad Alex Hunter was so weak!

Wrong again "expert". Thomas couldn't even prove it in a civil case where only a Preponderance of the evidence is required so how could he prove it beyond a resonable doubt???

I still don't think he understands that we have to worry about jeopardy. You get one swing and you'd better be ready, and I don't know what it's going to take to get it through his head that you don't move on it -- certainly he can be critical of me. That's his right. But what about the other 11 lawyers. You know, let's remember there is more oversight in this case than any criminal case in the history of the United States as far as I know.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/04/lkl.00.html

On August 31, 2001, CNN reported that Patsy Ramsey had issued a challenge to the Boulder police, via her attorney, that urged them to "file charges against her if they think they can prove that she killed her daughter."

Following the challenge, Patsy told USA Today, "I'm beyond being hurt or embarrassed, if you think I did it, let's have a trial and get it over with."

Ramsey attorney Lin Wood followed up on CNN's Larry King Live, when he demanded that Boulder County special prosecutor Michael Kane "explain why a grand jury did not indict either of the Ramseys after a 13-month investigation."

He added that Kane should either "put up or shut up" about charging the Ramseys.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/14.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Lawrence Schiller says Steve Thomas was the most knowledgeable detective on the Ramsey case, just fyi.

AND he also said................"Lawrence Schiller, author of a book about the Ramsey case, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," said that it is unlikely the Ramseys were responsible for the death of their daughter."

"Schiller thinks the Ramseys were treated unfairly by the police, who he said put out leaks meant to condemn the Ramseys in the public's eyes.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2116198&page=1.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Well, lets not go that far. One of you is quite enough.:lol:

Another childish personal attack instead of talking about the CASE!

Remember Alex Hunter is a HE. Mary Keenan is is SHE. Schiller thinks the Ramsey's were treated unfairly by police. Grand jury did not indict. A judge and the DA said there was more evidence an intruder killed Jonbenet than the Ramseys did. There is DNA that may one day match with the killer, already proven not a Ramsey DNA.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


What are you talking about Breezy. You are rambling again.

Yeah "rambling" with FACTS about the CASE and links to back them up instead of personal attacks and childish accustaions with NOTHING to back them up. :rolleyes:

Try reading real slow so you MAY understand. Once more...............Along with most everyone in the DA's office believed Patsy did it. Too bad Alex Hunter was so weak!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wrong again "expert". Thomas couldn't even prove it in a civil case where only a Preponderance of the evidence is required so how could he prove it beyond a resonable doubt???

I still don't think he understands that we have to worry about jeopardy. You get one swing and you'd better be ready, and I don't know what it's going to take to get it through his head that you don't move on it -- certainly he can be critical of me. That's his right. But what about the other 11 lawyers. You know, let's remember there is more oversight in this case than any criminal case in the history of the United States as far as I know.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI.../04/lkl.00.html

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


NO one was stopping them from "absolutely" proving that Thomas "had the right one". All talk, no action just like some posers here that are so sure Thomas is right. :rolleyes:

Alex Hunter's office stopped Thomas from adequately doing his job, refusing to give him search warrants etc. Thomas did all the paperwork, got the nod from his supervisor, and was told by Hunter's officeinstead of getting warrants, he should politely request the Ramseys give him the records he wanted.

WHAT???

Name ONE other child murder investigation in which the police were told to build a rapport with the parents of the murdered child (who, btw, are prime suspects) and then ask them to hand over potentially incriminating records.

I challenge you, breezy - name just one.

That's just insane and ridiculous. No other DA's office in the US has ever completely stalwarted an infomous murder investigation like this.

Are you familiar with the resignation letter that Thomas turned in, accusing Hunter's office of obstruction of justice and compromising an investigation, and are you further aware of Fleet White's letter to Gov Roy Romer that charges the same?

I'm not sure Thomas is right...I'm sure CASKU is right.

Name one other child murder in which the killer was an intruder, broke into the home, stayed for hours, fed the victim a snack and waited for her to digest before assaulting and killing her and stopping to write a three page ransom note in the same house, unafraid of being caught?

Name one other child murder in which the victim was wiped down and redressed and tied in restraints so loose they never would have bound her in life, with tape put over her mouth after she was unconscious or dead.

Name one other child murder in which the perp left a three page ransom note in which the mother of the deceased CANNOT be ruled out as the author, yet some 70 other people were.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Alex Hunter's office stopped Thomas from adequately doing his job, refusing to give him search warrants etc. Thomas did all the paperwork, got the nod from his supervisor, and was told by Hunter's officeinstead of getting warrants, he should politely request the Ramseys give him the records he wanted.

WHAT???

Name ONE other child murder investigation in which the police were told to build a rapport with the parents of the murdered child (who, btw, are prime suspects) and then ask them to hand over potentially incriminating records.

I challenge you, breezy - name just one.

That's just insane and ridiculous. No other DA's office in the US has ever completely stalwarted an infomous murder investigation like this.

Are you familiar with the resignation letter that Thomas turned in, accusing Hunter's office of obstruction of justice and compromising an investigation, and are you further aware of Fleet White's letter to Gov Roy Romer that charges the same?

I'm not sure Thomas is right...I'm sure CASKU is right.

Name one other child murder in which the killer was an intruder, broke into the home, stayed for hours, fed the victim a snack and waited for her to digest before assaulting and killing her and stopping to write a three page ransom note in the same house, unafraid of being caught?

Name one other child murder in which the victim was wiped down and redressed and tied in restraints so loose they never would have bound her in life, with tape put over her mouth after she was unconscious or dead.

Name one other child murder in which the perp left a three page ransom note in which the mother of the deceased CANNOT be ruled out as the author, yet some 70 other people were.

We are NOT talking about "other child murders". Wolf was NOT ruled out of writing the note in THIS case but he got a free pass anyhow. We dont' know how many others wer not ruled out that was not reported in the media. The only reason we know about Wolf is becasue of the civil suit. MANY were "ruled out" because of DNA but the Ramsey's were not based on the SAME DNA.

Prove any of it. It's not too late. There is NO statue of limitations on murder. :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Another childish personal attack instead of talking about the CASE!

Remember Alex Hunter is a HE. Mary Keenan is is SHE. Schiller thinks the Ramsey's were treated unfairly by police. Grand jury did not indict. A judge and the DA said there was more evidence an intruder killed Jonbenet than the Ramseys did. There is DNA that may one day match with the killer, already proven not a Ramsey DNA.

That judge and DA are biased, breezy. If that's all you've got to hold onto, it may sustain you in this forum for a bit (although I dismiss those two every time you mention them, which is every day without fail), but take that claptrap over to another board and they'd slay you alive for citing those two as valid sources.

[nuisanceposter]

So you can't name another one of any of those things...I didn't think so.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
So you can't name another one of any of those things...I didn't think so.

I don't care about any of those things and they prove nothing about this case. You can throw up all the gargbage you wish to but you or no one else can prove guilt of Patsy in THIS CASE. :rolleyes: For some strange reason you really seem to expect every murder to be alike and for everyone to think alike. It won't happen. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


That judge and DA are biased, breezy. If that's all you've got to hold onto, it may sustain you in this forum for a bit (although I dismiss those two every time you mention them, which is every day without fail), but take that claptrap over to another board and they'd slay you alive for citing those two as valid sources.

Yep EVERYONE who sees the FACTS of the case and ignores the Thomas gossip and "theories" is biased. :lol: You think you know the answers and can prove in court in front of an "unbiased" judge that everyone but Thomas and those who bought his garbage is biased, go for it.

Don't tell me where to take the FACTS of the case. You are free to ignore them but not everyone is as close minded as you and your shadows. Pretty vicious talk IMO...............you say......... "they'd slay you alive for citing those two as valid sources"????? Get real, you and your little freinds have tried to "slay me alive" with your gossip and I am still standing and am NOT going anywhere.:rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I don't care about any of those things and they prove nothing about this case. You can throw up all the gargbage you wish to but you or no one else can prove guilt of Patsy in THIS CASE. :rolleyes: For some strange reason you really seem to expect every murder to be alike and for everyone to think alike. It won't happen. :shrug:

You obviously don't understand that I'm saying this case was absolutely nothing like any case before it and any case after it. There is no killer out there on the loose. The evidence points directly at parental cover up.

What about Hunter telling Thomas to go ask the Ramseys for records and not issuing warrants? That directly pertains to the case and has a direct effect on why this case is still not solved. The evidence to prove the Ramseys did it exists, and Hunter knew it. He made sure Thomas has every block in front of him possible while he hid behind the Ramsey defense team hoping they wouldn't turn on him.

What about Patsy never being excluded as the author of the ransom note? Who wrote the ransom note, breezy? And why?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Yep EVERYONE who sees the FACTS of the case and ignores the Thomas gossip and "theories" is biased. :lol: You think you know the answers and can prove in court in front of an "unbiased" judge that everyone but Thomas and those who bought his garbage is biased, go for it.

Don't tell me where to take the FACTS of the case. You are free to ignore them but not everyone is as close minded as you and your shadows. Pretty vicious talk IMO...............you say......... "they'd slay you alive for citing those two as valid sources"????? Get real, you and your little freinds have tried to "slay me alive" with your gossip and I am still standing and am NOT going anywhere.:rolleyes:

Your ignorance in more areas than one continues to amuse me.

I have no "little friends" here. I came to this board independent of anyone else because I was interested in seeing what people here were saying. I recognize both Solace and rashomon from other JBR boards, but the enthusiasts of the case tend to run into one another while passing through various boards.

I'm not interested in bringing anyone here to say anything to you, either. I do my own thing, and do not need to resort to playground ambush tactics.

If you'd like to hear a differing opinion, go on over to http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4

or
http://websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=23

Start posting your links to Judge Carnes and talk about Alex Hunter and see what kind of information they have to answer you with. And btw, these people aren't my "little friends" either. They are, however, extremely knowledgable and open-minded people when it comes to discussing the JonBenet case.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


4.5 out of 5.0 possibility that she did not write the note.

Ah, yes, one of the Ramsey-hired experts came up with that score. Be fair, include the others. Please read this:

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


Check out the side-by-side comparisons of Patsy's handwriting and read what experts have to say.

I'll ask you, too, rosyredrobin (robins are my favorite birds) - who do you think the ransom note, and why?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Your first sentence above belies the second one.

Really...how so?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Still on the DA thing, oh well. You'll get it eventually, just keep thinking.

A Judge, wow and a DA, a female one at that, I am super impressed. Where did they get all their information from, the Ramseys. Excellent.

Keep dreaming about the DNA evidence that may one day match the killer. It isn't happening. Unless of course you think the killer is the worker at the manufacturing plant, who handled the underwear; ran in and ran out of the house in record time. If that is the best you can come up with, Patsy's reputation doesn't have a chance. Maybe you can get some more concrete evidence. Keep trying Breezy. It has to be somewhere. But it is not in the underwear. Maybe the flashlight? Oh, no, those were wiped clean; even the batteries. No DNA evidence there. Now who would have done that. Maybe Patsy in her insanity that night.

Probably felt downright crazy after smashing her daughter's head in.

I think someone smashed in your head. :rolleyes:

Of course a judge and a DA who looked at the evidence from BOTH sides doesn't impress you. All that impresses you is the Thomas fairy tale.

Strange that "the worker at the manufacturing plant, who handled the underwear" also "handled" JB's fingernails because she had the SAME DNA under her nails.

You go right on believing in fairy tales if it makes you happy. All you are doing is making a fool out of yourself.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by hohum


John Ramsey said in his interrogation that the family had been elevated to a level in the public that he did not feel comfortable with which included articles about him and his company as well as (I think) the visibility of JB riding in the parade, though he did not specifically mention this. I imagine pedophiles can even be found in a church congregation, the movie theater, the shopping mall, the grocery story. You might even have one living next door to you. I bet that less people have investigated that concern than have delved into the background of the Ramsey's. John Ramsey said it best in that the sick minds are the ones who think sick thoughts. And to say that my friend who judges pageants is "highly suspicious" is inflammatory since you don't even know the person and is very telling of what the Ramsey's had to endure from uninformed people like you with nothing else to do but think sick thoughts. I feel sorry for you.
And I feel sorry for anyone who believes the Ramseys could not have severely injured or killed their child in a rage. It happens all the time. Just think of the many parents who take the child whom they have injured to the hospital, and tell the staff the child fell down the stairs, etc.
Maybe a a visit to a pediatric hospital would be very enlightenting for you. Or a talk to the hospital staff.
And in terms of your friend: that was a general opinion of mine. I personally would find any male (not just your friend) who trains little girls for beauty pageants suspicious, and believe me if he were an acquaintance of mine, I'd observe him very closely in that regard.

What's the point in dressing up a six-year-old girl to make her look like twenty? That's what I call sick.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Your ignorance in more areas than one continues to amuse me.

I have no "little friends" here. I came to this board independent of anyone else because I was interested in seeing what people here were saying. I recognize both Solace and rashomon from other JBR boards, but the enthusiasts of the case tend to run into one another while passing through various boards.

I'm not interested in bringing anyone here to say anything to you, either. I do my own thing, and do not need to resort to playground ambush tactics.

If you'd like to hear a differing opinion, go on over to http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4

or
http://websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=23

Start posting your links to Judge Carnes and talk about Alex Hunter and see what kind of information they have to answer you with. And btw, these people aren't my "little friends" either. They are, however, extremely knowledgable and open-minded people when it comes to discussing the JonBenet case.

IMO you are as confused as your litle friend Solace. I did not post links about Hunter, I was posting links about Keenan but I guess the two of you think they are one and the same. You call it "knowledgeable and open minded" to repeat gossip and to even make up some of their own not to mention they don't even read the links provided that show their "knowledge" is wrong??? WOW :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

And I feel sorry for anyone who believes the Ramseys could not have severely injured or killed their child in a rage. It happens all the time. Just think of the many parents who take the child whom they have injured to the hospital, and tell the staff the child fell down the stairs, etc.
Maybe a a visit to a pediatric hospital would be very enlightenting for you. Or a talk to the hospital staff.
And in terms of your friend: that was a general opinion of mine. I personally would find any male (not just your friend) who trains little girls for beauty pageants suspicious, and believe me if he were an acquaintance of mine, I'd observe him very closely in that regard.

What's the point in dressing up a six-year-old girl to make her look like twenty? That's what I call sick.

They could have but there is NOTHING in their background or since that shows they did. There is also NO evidence to show they did. Could have and did are two different things.

Can't you understand others have a different view than you do? Pageants are NOT "sick", it's sick minds that only think they are sick.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I think someone smashed in your head. :rolleyes:

Of course a judge and a DA who looked at the evidence from BOTH sides doesn't impress you. All that impresses you is the Thomas fairy tale.

Strange that "the worker at the manufacturing plant, who handled the underwear" also "handled" JB's fingernails because she had the SAME DNA under her nails.

You go right on believing in fairy tales if it makes you happy. All you are doing is making a fool out of yourself.
If you had read Thomas' book, you would know that he did look at the evidence from both sides.
But the judge obviously didn't. She received most of her info from team Ramsey.
As far as I'm informed, the DNA under JB's fingernails was degraded and inconclusive; I'll ask this question on one of the important Ramsey forums where there are people who have done a lot of research re the DNA issue.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


They could have but there is NOTHING in their background or since that shows they did. There is also NO evidence to show they did. Could have and did are two different things.

Can't you understand others have a different view than you do? Pageants are NOT "sick", it's sick minds that only think they are sick.
Don't you think it is sick to dress up a six-year-old girl like Marilyn Monroe? Don't you think it is sick to teach a five year-old girl seductive hip-swings?
Don't fool yourself Breezy. Would you want your daughter in those pageants?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


IMO you are as confused as your litle friend Solace. I did not post links about Hunter, I was posting links about Keenan but I guess the two of you think they are one and the same. You call it "knowledgeable and open minded" to repeat gossip and to even make up some of their own not to mention they don't even read the links provided that show their "knowledge" is wrong??? WOW :rolleyes:

I know the difference between Alex Hunter and Mary Keenan-Lacy very well. I also know the similarities - both are pro-Ramsey and unprofessional in their attitudes towards them.

Keenan just spent her own money to go to Patsy Ramsey's funeral - as a friend. How is that unbiased and impartial?

You accuse me of making up things and spreading gossipo every day - yet you're the one posting info from another board to in attempt to humiliate someone.

Just because you don't want to believe what I say does not give you the right to call me a liar.

I have backed up what I have said. I know the evidence in this case and have spent many many hours studying this case up one side and down the other.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't remember seeing MM dressed up in a cowgirl outfit but then I didn't see all of her movies.

Does that mean the only pageant outfit you have seen JonBenet dressed in was the cowboy sweetheart one?

Are you familair with this one?

http://www.maketoast.com/photos/0JBenetR.html

or this one?

http://www.maketoast.com/photos/pageant1.html

this one, real nice for a 5 year old

http://www.maketoast.com/photos/newtabrunjonbenet.html

next

http://www.maketoast.com/photos/newglobepicture.html

next

http://www.maketoast.com/photos/NNjb7.html

and another like that

http://www.maketoast.com/photos/NNjb9.html

and of course, the Las Vegas showgirl costume

http://www.maketoast.com/photos/people4jonbenet.html


Now you tell me how dressing a girl her age like an adult like that is not a little off.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rashomon

If you had read Thomas' book, you would know that he did look at the evidence from both sides.
But the judge obviously didn't. She received most of her info from team Ramsey.
As far as I'm informed, the DNA under JB's fingernails was degraded and inconclusive; I'll ask this question on one of the important Ramsey forums where there are people who have done a lot of research re the DNA issue.

Thomas was dedicated to finding JonBenet's killer, no matter who it was. He wasn't in this investigation to persecute the Ramseys - it just so happens the evidence indicates they know who did it and covered it up.

As for Judge Carnes...come on. She couldn't see that the Ramseys have changed their statements, that Patsy wasn't excluded as author of the note, and that Lou Smit can't commit to his own theory? Something is really wrong in Boulder.

Thank you, rashomon, I am interested in hearing what they have to say.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


When I see JB I see a happy, healthy, talented, extremely bright six year old who was well loved and well cared for. I don't look at her with perverted thoughts based on how she is dressed.

Hohum, come ON!!! She's dressed like a 25 year old woman, not a 5 year old girl!

How can you say it's okay to dress up a child that age like a Las Vegas showgirl???

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


I think many people took a dislike to Patsy Ramsey from the beginning and because of that formed an opinion that she must be guilty. It's a personal feeling that people have about her rather than based on concrete evidence which would most likely have convinced the grand jury to bring a conviction.

And then there are the people who look at the evidence and see that the killer had to be one of the Ramseys. It's not forming an opinion that Patsy must be guilty out of dislike or jealousy, it's seeing that she had the most motive and opportunity and that things are definitely not as the Ramseys wish them to be.

Why did the Whites stop being such close friends with the Ramseys? Because they believe the Ramseys were guilty. Their best friends of several years, who knew JonBenet personally, think they're guilty. Didn't help when the Rs tried to accuse them of being the killers, but the Rs tried to accuse virtually everyone they knew of being the killers.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Tunnel vision and why no one was charged in this crime. Sad.

What about you, hohum? Who wrote the ransom note, and to what end?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


LOL, not only do you watch pageants, you watch documentaries about them. You are really obsessed with these things. Go to the opera or a broadway play, unless you think there might be some "indecently" dressed people in those too. Another LOL. I wasn't crazy to take piano lessons but my mother made me, Boo Hoo. And now you tell us you think it is wrong for children to learn songs and sing. This is more bizarre than I thought. Get a grip, this is snowballing.

And you're trying desperately to downplay it just as Patsy did.

I've seen docs on child beauty pageants, also, like HBO's Living Dolls, and it's an incredibly candid behind the scenes look of the life of children in the pageant lifestyle. Seeing a doc like that doesn;'t make you a perv, but you'll call names just because you have no other recourse.

It isn't children learning songs and singing. That's chorus class.

Children, little children, spend hours on training and rehearsal for these pageants, not to mention the time spent sitting for make and hair and oh yes, fake tan spray, and their parents spend thousands of dollars on the entrance fees and training and make up and hair stylists.

And this nowhere the same as a swim meet. My god, that's reaching. Children in a swim meet are competing athletically, and the judges are not there to determine the winner based on their appearance and costume but on athletic ability alone.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Re: DNA under the fingernails. We already went over that one Breezy. That is not a fact and you know it. I believe Nuisanceposter refuted that in one of her posts. Yes, I know you never read it. Do some research and educate yourself instead of rambling on thoughtlessly.

And Breezy, that is not very nice to say you think someone smashed my head. You sound upset again. Do some Tai Chi. Works wonders. Really gets the blood flowing and when the blood is flowing, one thinks better and clearer.

No one "refuted" anything and YOU KNOW that. Too bad you think "education" is reading a fairy tale book and agreeing with posters on a forum. :rolleyes: Why should I let the likes of you "upset" me? You really do think your childish posts could upset anyone? :no:

"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 :no:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

If you had read Thomas' book, you would know that he did look at the evidence from both sides.
But the judge obviously didn't. She received most of her info from team Ramsey.
As far as I'm informed, the DNA under JB's fingernails was degraded and inconclusive; I'll ask this question on one of the important Ramsey forums where there are people who have done a lot of research re the DNA issue.

Thomas looked at both sides? OMG, that is the joke of the decade.

You get your inofrmation from a "forum"? :lol:

Once more for the slow readers.

"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.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Hohum, you are zealous in your attacks and I am responding in kind. If it is too hot for you, then cool off. But if you are going to post what you have in the way you have, I can rise to the occasion every time.

And by the way, you are not "this pageant poster", you are Ho-Hum. You are presuming to tell Nuisanceposter what she should be doing. I take exception to that. You are sounding holier than thou not constructive at all. That usually happens when someone cannot defend their argument. Want to try again. :biggrin:

Getting personal again. :rolleyes: I guess it is YOU who can't defend their argument when it is one attack after another from you to people who dare oppose your views.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Thomas looked at both sides? OMG, that is the joke of the decade.

You get your inofrmation from a "forum"? :lol:

Once more for the slow readers.

"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.

Right. Mary Keenan-Lacy, who attended Patsy's funeral as a friend on her own money.

She can hardly be considered impartial.

And Judge Carnes. I've never seen seen someone quote her as much as breezy does. Repeating it again and again doesn't meant the intruder theory holds up.

Where is the evidence that an intruder was in that house that night? Where is the fiber evidence? Where is the DNA?

The panty DNA is not from the killer, as it is fragmented and degraded whereas JonBenet's is not. It doesn't take a genius to realize a difference in age of the DNA means a different date of deposit.

I'll tell you where the fiber evidence is...it's the red fibers in Patsy's paint tray and on the back of the duct tape and tied in the knot. It's the black fibers from John's shirt on her genitals.

Let us not forget the ransom note, three and a half pages of handwritten diatribe so closely matching Patsy's own handwriting that she cannot be eliminated as the author of the note.

How did Keenan and Carnes miss that?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I finished reading it last night. Let us know how you like it. To me, it's a must read for any interested party.

I will (I'm still waiting for the library to call me. Grrr) & I agree.

I think a lot of people are put off because it's tied to the National Enquirer but as far as I know it's just transcripts from the investigation.

The one drawback is that you can't measure body language or voices. Oh well, it's better than nothing.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Right. Mary Keenan-Lacy, who attended Patsy's funeral as a friend on her own money.

She can hardly be considered impartial.

And Judge Carnes. I've never seen seen someone quote her as much as breezy does. Repeating it again and again doesn't meant the intruder theory holds up.

Where is the evidence that an intruder was in that house that night? Where is the fiber evidence? Where is the DNA?

The panty DNA is not from the killer, as it is fragmented and degraded whereas JonBenet's is not. It doesn't take a genius to realize a difference in age of the DNA means a different date of deposit.

I'll tell you where the fiber evidence is...it's the red fibers in Patsy's paint tray and on the back of the duct tape and tied in the knot. It's the black fibers from John's shirt on her genitals.

Let us not forget the ransom note, three and a half pages of handwritten diatribe so closely matching Patsy's own handwriting that she cannot be eliminated as the author of the note.

How did Keenan and Carnes miss that?

You think cops were there taking down license numbers of those there were biased too? How could you miss that? Quit seeing everything anyone that doesn't agree with you do or say as sinsiter and biased.


A more direct reminder of the family's sad legacy could be seen in the parking lot, where a plain- clothed Roswell police officer made a video record of every license plate. Asked why, the officer replied that JonBenet's death remains an open investigation.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4812397,00.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy, now you know what you are saying is my argument. You are going to have to get your own.

Go back and you will see it is NOT your argument, it was mine. :rolleyes: You sure are forgetful. No wonder you are having so much trouble remembering FACTS of the case and are unable to read links.

BTW, "The service was both a celebration of Patsy Ramsey's spirit and humor, and a recognition of the deep Christian faith that increasingly defined her, particularly as ovarian cancer consumed the last 13 years of her life.
Folsom told mourners that if Patsy Ramsey could speak, she would surely ask her friends "to not just wear hats and have fun, but to study God's word."

She also urged them "not to live a life by a name, or what's out there about us, but to live a life measured by love, faith and compassion," an apparent allusion to the Ramseys' fight to maintain their innocence after JonBenet's murder and the example they set in turning the other cheek.

There was only one direct mention of the suspicion Patsy Ramsey battled after her daughter's 1996 slaying. Rev. Mike Long read from a letter sent by Kay Arthur, founder of Precept Studies International, a popular women's Bible study series.

Arthur wrote that she was horrified to see Patsy Ramsey "falsely accused" in JonBenet's death. But she walked through a "furnace of fire," emerging "without smelling like smoke. No bitterness, but a stronger, growing faith.''

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4812397,00.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Oh please, get something new or worthwhile. It is old already. It is DNA that has not been proven to be worthwhile at all. Augustin and Gray and Breezy are all convinced. So what. You repeat yourself time and again.

It is not worth while DNA and that is, as they say, that!

I will continue to post the FACTS of the case even if you choose not to believe them.

"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."

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 . 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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace



Anyone notice how Breezy just ignores: The panty DNA is not from the killer, as it is fragmented and degraded whereas JonBenet's is not. It doesn't take a genius to realize a difference in age of the DNA means a different date of deposit.

Anyone notice how Solace ignores links and refuses to understand there IS a COMPLETE DNA profile NOW I guess he can't get past the Thomas book, his Bible.


"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."

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 . 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...ain661569.shtml

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


And lets not forget that assistant DA Hofstrom had breakfast with the Ramsey lawyers on a regular basis and it was Hunter I believe that owned a building with the Ramsey attorney (Bynum) (sp?). Nah, that is not a conflict of interest at all. They were just friends. No problem there. Lets not forget the subpoenas that first day that took hours upon hours for the DA's office to okay. Just couldn't get that pesky language right. But Steve Thomas was not hindered in any way. And when the Ramseys finally did agree to complete interviews, they specified that THEY WERE TO BE DONE BY THE DA'S OFFICE. Oh, and there is that little thing about Lou Smit NOT sharing the information he had with Steve Thomas for something like a year. No problem there either. Steve is probably lying about all this anyway. Who cares what he says.

Also, luckily for the Ramseys Lou Smit was ok'd to testify at the Grand Jury, but Steve Thomas was not, thank God. So all in all, I think the DA did a fine job.

:biggrin:

And Smit wasn't above playing games either.

It's not very logical that a man who was so determined to prove his intruder theory would attempt to withhold evidence he had gathered towards that goal.

If he was simply concerned that the evidence would be destroyed he would have made copies BEFORE he returned the evidence to the DA's office.

His strange actions suggest a man who might have been engaged in covering up evidence that DISRPOVED his theory.

There's just no end to the dysfunction & corruption in Boulder's legal system. (Luckily for the Ramseys. Unfortunately for Jonbenet.)


http://crime.about.com/od/unsolved/p/jonbenet_case.htm


Hunter and Smit Clash: In February 1999, District Attorney Alex Hunter demanded that detective Lou Smit return evidence that he collected while he worked on the case, including crime scene photographs. Smit refuses "even if I have to go to jail" because he believed the evidence would be destroyed if returned, because it supported the intruder theory. Hunter filed a restraining order and got a court injunction demanding the evidence. Hunter also refused to allow Smit to testify before the grand jury.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Ah, yes, one of the Ramsey-hired experts came up with that score. Be fair, include the others. Please read this:

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


Check out the side-by-side comparisons of Patsy's handwriting and read what experts have to say.

I'll ask you, too, rosyredrobin (robins are my favorite birds) - who do you think the ransom note, and why?

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

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


His name is Joe Schmo and he is a factory worker who handled the underwear. :biggrin:

Joe Schmo & his small foreign faction. :biggrin:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


Once again she reposts and reposts. :lol:

Borrrrrrrrrrring! What do you expect the defense experts to say, that she wrote it. She still cannot be eliminated. She is still in the game. She is the only one who cannot be eliminated.

She wrote it.:biggrin:

Well she's elimated now. :biggrin:

And John & Burke aren't about to start confessing now.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


And then there are the people who look at the evidence and see that the killer had to be one of the Ramseys. It's not forming an opinion that Patsy must be guilty out of dislike or jealousy, it's seeing that she had the most motive and opportunity and that things are definitely not as the Ramseys wish them to be.

Why did the Whites stop being such close friends with the Ramseys? Because they believe the Ramseys were guilty. Their best friends of several years, who knew JonBenet personally, think they're guilty. Didn't help when the Rs tried to accuse them of being the killers, but the Rs tried to accuse virtually everyone they knew of being the killers.

What was her motive in your opinion? :shrug:



Maybe Fleet White had some dirty laundry he didn't want hung out for all to see huh?

"According to the story, the woman claimed she was assaulted as a child by adults who used a rope or garrote to partially suffocate her. She said the adults' pattern included choosing a child and striking the child in the head if she did not cooperate. JonBenet Ramsey is believed to have been strangled by a rope device and struck in the head with a blunt object.

The woman, according to the story, has long known the family of Fleet White, the Boulder oilman and former Ramsey family friend who was with John Ramsey when he found his daughter's body in a basement room of the family home. She claims Fleet White's father, 86-year-old Fleet R. White Sr., is her mother's godfather.

Hill on Friday declined to detail the alleged connection between the California woman and the Ramsey case, but said, "A portion of (her story) is relevant to the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation."

Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise said police and prosecutors at this point don't know if the woman's allegations are substantively connected with the Ramsey case. "


"A Jefferson County district judge sentenced Fleet White Jr. to 30 days in jail today for ignoring a subpoena in connection with a case related to the JonBenet Ramsey homicide.

White, a former friend of the Ramseys, took off his suit coat and tie and was handcuffed and led away to jail.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Once again she reposts and reposts. :lol:

Borrrrrrrrrrring! What do you expect the defense experts to say, that she wrote it. She still cannot be eliminated. She is still in the game. She is the only one who cannot be eliminated.

She wrote it.:biggrin:

Can't you READ?? ""During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. "

She is NOT the "only" one that can't be eliminated. :rolleyes: I can keep reposting links as much as your can repost the Thomas lies, gossip and your own made up thoughts.

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

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


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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


His name is Joe Schmo and he is a factory worker who handled the underwear. :biggrin:

You really can't post like an adult, can you?

His name is................ police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Joe Schmo & his small foreign faction. :biggrin:

For the other child that thinks this is funny. His name is police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Everyone has read this Breezy. Another ridiculous theory that cannot be backed up because there is nothing there. Naturally Hill declined to detail anything. They always do. You just post little snippets of things and hope that they will prove your ridiculous theory.

Nope. Patsy did it. Loud and clear. She bashed her child's head in Breezy. She swung very hard and killed her. And coward that she is, she didn't try to save her, she continued on and made sure the deed was done. Lovely woman.

We are only allowed to post little snippets and the readers are supposed to go to the link provided and read it all. Too bad you are unable to click on a link and read it.


If you can prove she did it, go right ahead. You know NOTHING about the facts of the case and have only been following it for 3 months so don't try to act like the expert that you are NOT. :no:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace
.

You make me laugh out loud. :biggrin:

Nice you can find amusement in a childs death.

There is nothing funny about changing a mans name or mocking the ransom note about a childs death. IMO it is just making an ***** out of yourself.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Joe Schmoe is the owner of the DNA and he is a factory worker. Keep up Breezy. Oh wait a minute, it is nap time, isn't it.:biggrin:

Then go take your nap little one. It sure would be nice for you to let the adults post about the Ramsey CASE without your constant silliness.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


What was her motive in your opinion? :shrug:



Maybe Fleet White had some dirty laundry he didn't want hung out for all to see huh?

"According to the story, the woman claimed she was assaulted as a child by adults who used a rope or garrote to partially suffocate her. She said the adults' pattern included choosing a child and striking the child in the head if she did not cooperate. JonBenet Ramsey is believed to have been strangled by a rope device and struck in the head with a blunt object.

The woman, according to the story, has long known the family of Fleet White, the Boulder oilman and former Ramsey family friend who was with John Ramsey when he found his daughter's body in a basement room of the family home. She claims Fleet White's father, 86-year-old Fleet R. White Sr., is her mother's godfather.

Hill on Friday declined to detail the alleged connection between the California woman and the Ramsey case, but said, "A portion of (her story) is relevant to the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation."

Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise said police and prosecutors at this point don't know if the woman's allegations are substantively connected with the Ramsey case. "


"A Jefferson County district judge sentenced Fleet White Jr. to 30 days in jail today for ignoring a subpoena in connection with a case related to the JonBenet Ramsey homicide.

White, a former friend of the Ramseys, took off his suit coat and tie and was handcuffed and led away to jail.


What ever came of this 37 year old woman?

It took her THREE YEARS to come forward & say that she once knew Fleet White & that she was a victim of pysical & sexual abuse since she was 3 years old.


Maybe she hadn't heard that Fleet White's DNA did not match the mystery intruder?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234



If you can prove she did it, go right ahead. You know NOTHING about the facts of the case and have only been following it for 3 months so don't try to act like the expert that you are NOT. :no:


There's no need to follow a case for a set amount of time before you can understand what's going on. Anyone is capable of studying a case & getting up to speed in short order.

Let's face it, there's not very much actual evidence in this case & most of the info concerns the dysfunction of the powers that be in Boulder.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



What ever came of this 37 year old woman?

It took her THREE YEARS to come forward & say that she once knew Fleet White & that she was a victim of pysical & sexual abuse since she was 3 years old.


Maybe she hadn't heard that Fleet White's DNA did not match the mystery intruder?

Maybe when ALL the facts come out we may find out the truth about her, White and others. Unfortunatley "everyone" was cleared by the DNA the didn't clear the Ramseys. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace
.

Au contraire Ms. Breezy. The intruder theory is laughable. So is the DNA theory. There is no reason to keep looking because there is no one out there. The killer is dead. The abettor still lives though.:biggrin:

In Your opinion and IMO your opinion isn't worth squat. When someone can make jokes about this case and refuses to understand anything that points to the facts of the case it says a lot more about you than the killer whoever it may be.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy, these happen to be facts I am posting and I have come to the conclusion that you need to get a sense of humor as soon as possible. Immediately!:biggrin:


Sorry but if I wanted to read jokes I would not be posting in a forum about a death of a child. If you find it funny, enjoy but as I said that says more about you than it does about the killer.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Maybe when ALL the facts come out we may find out the truth about her, White and others. Unfortunatley "everyone" was cleared by the DNA the didn't clear the Ramseys. :shrug:

I think the woman's mental health problems would make it impossible for a jury to consider her credible.

And the fact that it took her THREE YEARS to come forward is a big problem.

Not to mention that she alleges this happened in Calif. I wonder if the Ca. authorities even bothered to look into her story? I doubt it. We would have heard something.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234



Sorry but if I wanted to read jokes I would not be posting in a forum about a death of a child. If you find it funny, enjoy but as I said that says more about you than it does about the killer.

That's exactly how I felt when reading the Ramsey's book.

I couldn't understand how Patsy could find it at all funny that she & her friends/family would aggravate the media (and in the next breath complain that the media were being so unfair to them.)

I couldn't understand why Patsy would mention John aiming a rifle at someone at their summer home & laughing about it.

I couldn't understand Patsy explaining how devestated John was at Beth's death by car accident & then writing how she & the kids watched videos & counted the car crashes... to get their minds off things.

I couldn't understand all the snickering Patsy did throughout the book.

It really turned me off BIG TIME.

(This form could use a puking smiliey)

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


See Breezy, Patsy had a sense of humor. :biggrin:

I bet Joe Schome has a sense of humor, too. :biggrin:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


What else, oh yes, the lying about Berke being up. Really proves nothing, just that the Ramseys feel the need to lie about it. And why is that? Most likely because they have something to hide. Otherwise, there is no reason. Patsy did say to her friend when she was at the Fernsies house "we did not mean for this to happen".




Recently, I read on the web (can't find it now) where Patsy was being questioned about the 911 call.

The question was regarding what John was doing or saying while she was speaking to the operator.

Patsy's answer was VERY odd in that she said, "John Ransey was ____" instead of simply saying John.

The implication is that perhaps John Fernie was already at the house when she called 911.

I wish I could find the link again, it was very interesting. :(


Here's an MP3 of the 911 call, if anyone's interested. IMO, Patsy sounds like she's trying to win an Academy Award. Totally unbelieveable to me.

http://www.jonbenetramsey.org/patsy911-FFJ.mp3

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


That's exactly how I felt when reading the Ramsey's book.

I couldn't understand how Patsy could find it at all funny that she & her friends/family would aggravate the media (and in the next breath complain that the media were being so unfair to them.)

I couldn't understand why Patsy would mention John aiming a rifle at someone at their summer home & laughing about it.

I couldn't understand Patsy explaining how devestated John was at Beth's death by car accident & then writing how she & the kids watched videos & counted the car crashes... to get their minds off things.

I couldn't understand all the snickering Patsy did throughout the book.

It really turned me off BIG TIME.

(This form could use a puking smiliey)

Maybe if you quit reading books and read the facts of the CASE you would be better off and wouldn't have to puke.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


I know it takes you a little longer to read, but some of us can go a little faster and absorb a little quicker. No offense, Just my opinion.

Let's see. Those darn fibers underneath the tape covering JB's mouth, consistent with Patsy's jacket. They are also in the paint box in the cellar where the paint brush was taken from and the garrote made from. Then there is the matter of Patsy seeing the heart on JB's hand the morning of the 26th and then changing her story to fit (saying she remembered it from the autopsy report) and didn't see it after all. She saw it in her mind. What else, oh, before I forget, the ransom note where sometimes one can even superimpose the left handed note Patsy wrote over the Ransom and lo and behold some of the words are a near perfect match.

What else, oh yes, the lying about Berke being up. Really proves nothing, just that the Ramseys feel the need to lie about it. And why is that? Most likely because they have something to hide. Otherwise, there is no reason. Patsy did say to her friend when she was at the Fernsies house "we did not mean for this to happen".

She lets her son go at 7 that morning when her daughter is kidnapped. She calls everyone under the son and short of using a blow horn tells them to come over (but she is concerned that JB will be beheaded).

She implicates just about every single one of her friends during her 1997 interview and 1998.

I can see why you love her Breezy. She is just upstanding from the word go. She is the pillar of the community. The killing community that is. She is right up there with the best of them.

Now, if there is any truth to the afterlife, she is down there with the worst of them.

Aint it funny how life works. :biggrin:

Oh no, fibers "consistant" with Patsy's clothes were found on HER daughter and HER paintprush in HER home. What a shock.:rolleyes: Can you tell me when that was testified to in court by an expert?

"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/

I am NOT going to go round and round and play games with such childish crap. Once again, GROW UP and stop repeating LIES that you KNOW are lies.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



Recently, I read on the web (can't find it now) where Patsy was being questioned about the 911 call.

The question was regarding what John was doing or saying while she was speaking to the operator.

Patsy's answer was VERY odd in that she said, "John Ransey was ____" instead of simply saying John.

The implication is that perhaps John Fernie was already at the house when she called 911.

I wish I could find the link again, it was very interesting. :(


Here's an MP3 of the 911 call, if anyone's interested. IMO, Patsy sounds like she's trying to win an Academy Award. Totally unbelieveable to me.

http://www.jonbenetramsey.org/patsy911-FFJ.mp3

Don't bother telling me that everyone who doesn't agree with you and Thomas is "biased", I've heard it before but i will STILL continue to post the facts.

"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/

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I think the woman's mental health problems would make it impossible for a jury to consider her credible.

And the fact that it took her THREE YEARS to come forward is a big problem.

Not to mention that she alleges this happened in Calif. I wonder if the Ca. authorities even bothered to look into her story? I doubt it. We would have heard something.

The fact is maybe Fleet didn't want any of this out though, huh? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Right Breezy, the Ramsey fibers are just flying around all over the place. One would naturally expect them to be on the underside of the tape over her daughter's mouth. Very normal.

As far as the voices on the tape, Berke is heard; he was up and John spoke to him. John later on admits he was up, Berke admits he was awake. So give it up Breezy. It is not working.

Had this been in New York City, Patsy would have died in prison, where she rightly belongs for bashing her daughter's head in.



"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/

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


:biggrin: Nah! He was up and he was heard and John admits he was awake and so does Berke. They should know Breezy; they are talking about themselves.:biggrin:

Get a grip, you KNOW darn well they were NOT talking about when the 911 call was made but you just continue to act childish. Do you really think the FBI and the secret service would lie about such a non issue?

"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."

[Jesfer_Chits]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


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.

If you've ever been devastated, humiliated and your whole inner being crushed, when you find out that your mate has had an affair, you don't forget the name of the other person involved with the one you love--it's ingrained in your gray matter forever.
Yet another case of SM = Selective Memory.


LI_Mom, Like Sly, I've been a member of WeBsleuths since the early months of 2004. I had an AOL account when I applied and didn't have a problem. Because AOL allows 7 screen names/7 email addresses, it is a problem now with many message boards - the ability to switch hats at the click of a button. Allowing someone to be 7 different people if they wanted to (way too much trouble if it were me).
I sent a PM to a couple of the moderators to get the word out that you've applied.
Hope to see you there soon! :)

Jes

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Get a grip, you KNOW darn well they were NOT talking about when the 911 call was made but you just continue to act childish. Do you really think the FBI and the secret service would lie about such a non issue?




It's NEVER a non-issue when a suspect lies.

ESPECIALLY a person who hires multiple lawyers who launch a defense before the police can even begin a proper investigation into the murder of an innocent child.

It's an issue. A BIG issue.

If people lie about little things, they'll lie about big things.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



It's NEVER a non-issue when a suspect lies.

ESPECIALLY a person who hires multiple lawyers who launch a defense before the police can even begin a proper investigation into the murder of an innocent child.

It's an issue. A BIG issue.

If people lie about little things, they'll lie about big things.

Can't you read, they did not lie. Thomas did. :rolleyes:

Read it again.

""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/

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



It's NEVER a non-issue when a suspect lies.

ESPECIALLY a person who hires multiple lawyers who launch a defense before the police can even begin a proper investigation into the murder of an innocent child.

It's an issue. A BIG issue.

If people lie about little things, they'll lie about big things.

Really if "people will lie about little things, they'll lie about big things and it's a big issue if someone lies, WHY did THOMAS lie???


"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]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Maybe if you quit reading books and read the facts of the CASE you would be better off and wouldn't have to puke.

I wish you told me that BEFORE I read the Ramsey's book. :biggrin:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Can't you read, they did not lie. Thomas did. :rolleyes:

Read it again.

""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/


Yes but Aerospace Corp. which enhanced the tape disagrees.


Then again, it just doesn't matter does it, since John himself changed the story as soon as he thought there was proof Burke WAS awake.

Maybe it's even worse to know he lied to protect himself? After all, I thought the important thing was to solve the crime? Silly me.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



Yes but Aerospace Corp. which enhanced the tape disagrees.


Then again, it just doesn't matter does it, since John himself changed the story as soon as he thought there was proof Burke WAS awake.

Maybe it's even worse to know he lied to protect himself? After all, I thought the important thing was to solve the crime? Silly me.

I ask again do you really think the FBI and the secret service would lie about such a non issue? Oh yeah, I forgot anyone that doesn't agree with you and Thomas is "biased...............according to you. :lol:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


The only voices on the tape are the 911 operator, John Ramsey in the background, and Patsy Ramsey. Burke was awake but still in bed. You are hearing voices that aren't there, which is not unusual considering the stress of the murder. Lots of people hear voices that aren't there.

What I find so amazing is the proof is posted over and over and they STILL continue to believe Thomas even though it has been proven he lied more than once. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

"A linguistics scholar who told Boulder police that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note had first offered his services to the Ramseys because of his strong belief in her innocence.

"I know that you are innocent -- know it, absolutely and unequivocally," Donald Foster wrote in a June 18, 1997, letter to Patsy Ramsey, mother of the slain 6-year-old JonBenet.

"I would stake my professional reputation on it -- indeed, my faith in humanity."

Steve Thomas, a former lead detective in the case, cites Foster's analysis as key evidence in his claim that Patsy Ramsey wrote the three-page ransom note left in the Ramsey home on Dec. 26, 1996.

Thomas details his accusations against Patsy Ramsey in his book, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, due out today.

"I finally heard the magic words while seated in the book-lined office of Don Foster, an Elizabethan scholar and professor at Vassar College in upstate New York, who just happened to be a hell of a linguistic detective," Thomas writes.

"'Steve,' said Foster, 'I believe I am going to conclude the ransom note was the work of a single individual: Patsy Ramsey."'

But in his 1997 letter to Patsy Ramsey, Foster told her, "I believe you were an ideal mother, wise, protective, caring and truly devoted." He goes on to offer his services to help prove Patsy Ramsey's innocence.

Neither Foster nor Thomas could be reached for comment.

Although Thomas mentions Foster's letter to Patsy Ramsey in his book, the document goes into far greater detail than the author suggests. The Ramseys' attorney, Lin Wood, provided Foster's letter to the Denver Rocky Mountain News on Monday.


http://rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0411rams3.shtml

Thomas KNEW Foster was full of BS because he KNEW he wrote to Patsy and said ""I know that you are innocent -- know it, absolutely and unequivocally," Donald Foster wrote in a June 18, 1997, letter to Patsy Ramsey, mother of the slain 6-year-old JonBenet.

"I would stake my professional reputation on it -- indeed, my faith in humanity."

yet Thomas bs-ed the public by not giving ALL the details of what he origninally said to Patsy. Any rookie cop knows that a defense attorney would make chop suey of of testimony of a guy like Foster but Thomas knowlingly mislead not only the public but his fellow cops as well. WHY did he lie about that? If he could lie about the tape AND Foster he would lie about anything.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


It's all they have. It's a moot point. The important people still investigating the murder know the truth. That's all that counts.

That's for sure. I just am really amazed at the mass brainwashing that can happen. Scary because it could happen to any of us.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


It's hard to be better off if one can read yet not comprehend. So it's easier to talk about pageants and hearing voices and how Patsy and John Ramsey are so despicable because they did everything wrong and the White's don't like them anymore so they must be guilty and the DNA in the national database is no good. Etc Etc Etc

LOL, yeah you are right.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


The only voices on the tape are the 911 operator, John Ramsey in the background, and Patsy Ramsey. Burke was awake but still in bed. You are hearing voices that aren't there, which is not unusual considering the stress of the murder. Lots of people hear voices that aren't there.

I couldn't make out the words but I DID hear voices in the background after Patsy thought she hung up.

And I'm not stressed about the murder. It's interesting to me, like any other crime would be.

The tape is just another mystery that will go unsolved, I guess.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I couldn't make out the words but I DID hear voices in the background after Patsy thought she hung up.

And I'm not stressed about the murder. It's interesting to me, like any other crime would be.

The tape is just another mystery that will go unsolved, I guess.

You really THINK you heard voices that the FBI and the secret service as well as other experts can't hear? :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


It's all they have. It's a moot point. The important people still investigating the murder know the truth. That's all that counts.

I wonder how vigorously they are still investigting this considering how tainted the crime scene was & the amount of evidence the prime suspects were privy to before they even agreed to be formally questioned?

Without a confession, nobody will ever be tried for this murder.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You really THINK you heard voices that the FBI and the secret service as well as other experts can't hear? :rolleyes:

Yes, I do.

I listened to the audio & heard something.

Even if the 'enhanced tape' was simply created to trick the Ramseys into changing their story & maybe lead to a breakthrough, then it certainly worked.

When they thought they were caught in a lie & would look bad, they changed their story.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I wonder how vigorously they are still investigting this considering how tainted the crime scene was & the amount of evidence the prime suspects were privy to before they even agreed to be formally questioned?

Without a confession, nobody will ever be tried for this murder.

What do you think the "prime suspects" could say when they were sleeping when JonBeent was killed? The DNA could very well solve this case not to mention if all those who were "cleared" by the BPD before they were even investigated are now investigated by REAL investigators who don't have their minds made up from the beginning.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234
"A linguistics scholar who told Boulder police that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note had first offered his services to the Ramseys because of his strong belief in her innocence.

"I know that you are innocent -- know it, absolutely and unequivocally," Donald Foster wrote in a June 18, 1997, letter to Patsy Ramsey, mother of the slain 6-year-old JonBenet.

"I would stake my professional reputation on it -- indeed, my faith in humanity."

Steve Thomas, a former lead detective in the case, cites Foster's analysis as key evidence in his claim that Patsy Ramsey wrote the three-page ransom note left in the Ramsey home on Dec. 26, 1996.

Thomas details his accusations against Patsy Ramsey in his book, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, due out today.

"I finally heard the magic words while seated in the book-lined office of Don Foster, an Elizabethan scholar and professor at Vassar College in upstate New York, who just happened to be a hell of a linguistic detective," Thomas writes.

"'Steve,' said Foster, 'I believe I am going to conclude the ransom note was the work of a single individual: Patsy Ramsey."'

But in his 1997 letter to Patsy Ramsey, Foster told her, "I believe you were an ideal mother, wise, protective, caring and truly devoted." He goes on to offer his services to help prove Patsy Ramsey's innocence.

Neither Foster nor Thomas could be reached for comment.

Although Thomas mentions Foster's letter to Patsy Ramsey in his book, the document goes into far greater detail than the author suggests. The Ramseys' attorney, Lin Wood, provided Foster's letter to the Denver Rocky Mountain News on Monday.


http://rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0411rams3.shtml

Thomas KNEW Foster was full of BS because he KNEW he wrote to Patsy and said ""I know that you are innocent -- know it, absolutely and unequivocally," Donald Foster wrote in a June 18, 1997, letter to Patsy Ramsey, mother of the slain 6-year-old JonBenet.

"I would stake my professional reputation on it -- indeed, my faith in humanity."

yet Thomas bs-ed the public by not giving ALL the details of what he origninally said to Patsy. Any rookie cop knows that a defense attorney would make chop suey of of testimony of a guy like Foster but Thomas knowlingly mislead not only the public but his fellow cops as well. WHY did he lie about that? If he could lie about the tape AND Foster he would lie about anything.

No, to me the interesting question is why did Foster change his original opinion?

First he thinks Patsy is innocent & then after studying the ransom letter more intensely, he comes to a different conclusion.

What's interesting to me is whether Foster had any personal contact with Patsy that caused him to doubt his first impression or whether his change of heart was simply the result of his own research?

Let's not pretend that coming to a different conclusion is the same as a LIE.


Maybe Foster was guilty of thinking a mother couldn't be capable of murdering a child? Big deal.

Lots of people thought Susan Smith was a swell mother too.... before they found out that she wasn't.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


No, to me the interesting question is why did Foster change his original opinion?

First he thinks Patsy is innocent & then after studying the ransom letter more intensely, he comes to a different conclusion.

What's interesting to me is whether Foster had any personal contact with Patsy that caused him to doubt his first impression or whether his change of heart was simply the result of his own research?

Let's not pretend that coming to a different conclusion is the same as a LIE.


Maybe Foster was guilty of thinking a mother couldn't be capable of murdering a child? Big deal.

Lots of people thought Susan Smith was a swell mother too.... before they found out that she wasn't.

GEEZ, again you didn't read the link. Thomas lied, he KNEW Foster was a quack and still he misled the public and his fellow detectives.

I guess Fosters reputation didn't mean much to him.

""A linguistics scholar who told Boulder police that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note had first offered his services to the Ramseys because of his strong belief in her innocence.

"I know that you are innocent -- know it, absolutely and unequivocally," Donald Foster wrote in a June 18, 1997, letter to Patsy Ramsey, mother of the slain 6-year-old JonBenet.

"I would stake my professional reputation on it -- indeed, my faith in humanity."

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


No, to me the interesting question is why did Foster change his original opinion?

First he thinks Patsy is innocent & then after studying the ransom letter more intensely, he comes to a different conclusion.

What's interesting to me is whether Foster had any personal contact with Patsy that caused him to doubt his first impression or whether his change of heart was simply the result of his own research?

Let's not pretend that coming to a different conclusion is the same as a LIE.


Maybe Foster was guilty of thinking a mother couldn't be capable of murdering a child? Big deal.

Lots of people thought Susan Smith was a swell mother too.... before they found out that she wasn't.

He is a fraud!

"In a June 10, 1997 letter [see copy below] faxed to literary agent Chris Calhoun of Sterling Lord Literistic, and obtained by Bennett, Foster boasted that he had "solved this Colorado crime," and proposed writing a magazine article about his discovery. "For the past five months, John Andrew Ramsey has cruised from one JonBenet website to another, posting messages under a dozen or more pseudonyms—most often "jams" or "jams jameson," Foster wrote. The fax letter to the literary agent was shown on the CBS 48 Hours program.

Foster bragged: "It strains credulity that a Shakespeare scholar dwelling in Poughkeepsie should solve this Colorado crime using no other resources than laptop computer and an Internet hookup—but everything about this case is strange."

Declares Patsy Ramsey Innocent…

So certain was Foster of his identification, he sent a letter eight days later to the slain child's mother, Patsy Ramsey, who was a suspect. Foster told her: "I know you are innocent—know it absolutely and unequivocally. I will stake my professional reputation on it, indeed my faith in humanity." Foster said his analysis of the ransom letter "leads me to believe you did not write it and the police are wasting their time by trying to prove that you did." The purpose of the letter was to offer his services to the Ramseys, but they rejected the offer. (Rocky Mountain News, September 27, 1998).

Undeterred, Foster was setting up a magazine deal to expose jameson as the murderer of JonBenet, when he got a rude shock. A journalist told him he had met jameson, and she was a middle-aged woman. Foster e-mailed jameson, asking her to call him. Sue Bennett did so on June 25, 1997, and identified herself as jameson. She recollects that Foster wouldn't believe she was jameson or that jameson was not John Andrew. He came up with the theory that she was a relative who was sheltering John Andrew, allowing him to use her computer and e-mail address. Foster mailed Bennett a 3-page certified letter dated June 27, 1997, urging her to come clean and tell him what she knew about John Andrew's alleged part in the murder, citing state laws about being an accessory. It's an extraordinary letter, revealing a mindset that can best be described as delusional.

It turned out John Andrew Ramsey was in Georgia at the time of the murder and has been publicly cleared of involvement.

…Then Declares Patsy Ramsey Guilty

A more humble, or principled, person would have backed off the Ramsey case after such a fiasco. But not Donald Foster. A few months later, he offered himself to the Boulder, Colorado police to do literary analysis of the ransom note, and provided them with a report, this time identifying Patsy Ramsey as the note's author! (Rocky Mountain News, September 26, 1998) Apparently Foster's main finding was that the ransom note had a lot of exclamation points, and Patsy Ramsey sometimes used exclamation points too.

A storm of controversy erupted when Patsy Ramsey's lawyer releasted Foster's earlier letter, which so passionately claimed he could prove she didn't write the note.

Former FBI agent Gregg McCrary (a real forensic analyst, unlike Foster) said Foster's decision to work for the Boulder police was "morally indefensible." He added: "You just can't do that. You can't take a stand on one side and then when the other side comes calling, you flip-flop." (Boulder News, October 19, 1998)

"And what was Foster's own response to the CBS 48 Hours expose of his mistake? In a letter to 48 Hours, he said he had "just been speculating." (Transcript, 48 Hours, April 8, 1999)"

http://www.colemanhoax.com/foster_subpage.htm

This quack is what Thomas got his followers to believe???? Sad!!!

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Jesfer_Chits


If you've ever been devastated, humiliated and your whole inner being crushed, when you find out that your mate has had an affair, you don't forget the name of the other person involved with the one you love--it's ingrained in your gray matter forever.
Yet another case of SM = Selective Memory.


LI_Mom, Like Sly, I've been a member of WeBsleuths since the early months of 2004. I had an AOL account when I applied and didn't have a problem. Because AOL allows 7 screen names/7 email addresses, it is a problem now with many message boards - the ability to switch hats at the click of a button. Allowing someone to be 7 different people if they wanted to (way too much trouble if it were me).
I sent a PM to a couple of the moderators to get the word out that you've applied.
Hope to see you there soon! :)

Jes

Thanks, Jes.

Just wanted to let you guys know, I've already registered there.

Of course, there are SO MANY JB threads there, I didn't know where to start so I've been staying here. It's just been too darned hot to think straight. :D

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Maybe if you quit reading books and read the facts of the CASE you would be better off and wouldn't have to puke.

And what book was she reading, breezy?

Death of Innocence, by John and Patsy Ramsey.

As far as looking into the facts of this case, that particular book should not be overlooked. LI Mom made some good points about Patsy Ramsey's character and how she conducts herself.

Maybe if you stopped trying to be insulting constantly you'd actually understand what people are saying.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You think cops were there taking down license numbers of those there were biased too? How could you miss that? Quit seeing everything anyone that doesn't agree with you do or say as sinsiter and biased.


A more direct reminder of the family's sad legacy could be seen in the parking lot, where a plain- clothed Roswell police officer made a video record of every license plate. Asked why, the officer replied that JonBenet's death remains an open investigation.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4812397,00.html

As if the killer was going to show up at Patsy's funeral.

Those cops were taking down the license plate numbers not to nail a killer, who would have been smart enough not to park in the parking lot after evading capture for nine and a half years (DUH!), but to have a record of everyone who attended that funeral.

Do you think the Roswell police are out there right now, tracking down every plate number and compiling information on everyone parked in the parking lot because they actually think one of them was the killer and they're about to snag him?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


What I find so amazing is the proof is posted over and over and they STILL continue to believe Thomas even though it has been proven he lied more than once. :shrug:

You do the same thing with the Ramseys. They've been caught lying more than once and still you believe every word from them.

The difference with Thomas is that FBI backs him up where it counts most - figuring out who the killer is.

I love how FBI is good enough when it's proving the 911 call has no extra voices but it's not good enough when naming Patsy as Prime Suspect No. 1.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


<snip>

Former FBI agent Gregg McCrary (a real forensic analyst, unlike Foster) said Foster's decision to work for the Boulder police was "morally indefensible."

<snip>

I'm glad you brought up McCrary. Let's see what else he has to say...

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/12/27-1.html

Former FBI agent McCrary said there isn't one piece of evidence pointing to anyone other than the family. He - and police - believe the ransom note was a carefully planned deception.

"The crime is very revealing," McCrary said. "What we have here is an inordinate amount of time the offender spent in that house. The child was murdered in the house. The child was assaulted in the house. The ransom note was written in the house. The child was strangled with a paint brush from the house. That's where to look for the killer."

McCrary said investigators have to overlay the facts of the case on the statistical probability pointing to the parents.

"Anything is possible - aliens could have come down," McCrary said. "But when an offender stages the scene, it's to deflect the investigation away from them. Without the staging, (the Ramseys) are the immediate suspects."


http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/04/26-1.html

"To me, if they present the case to a grand jury and they don't get an indictment, I don't know if they'll ever solve it," said Gregg McCrary, a former criminal profiler for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because grand jury investigations are one-sided, McCrary added, the most common concern is that prosecutors will seek an indictment after excluding all evidence not corroborating their theory of a crime.

"But to be honest, I've seen cases presented to a grand jury where the district attorney didn't want an indictment and presented a weak case," McCrary said. "To me, that would be a face-saving scenario out of this thing if they don't want to prosecute the Ramseys."


http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html

But one of Douglas's former FBI colleagues, Gregg McCrary, watched the television interview with more than a passing interest. He turned down the job as the Ramsey family's profiler a couple of weeks ago. McCrary found some notable flaws in Douglas' profiling work for the Ramseys. NBC referred, without contradiction from Douglas, to the profiler's "interview with the parents for 4 1/2 hours."

McCrary said the parents should have been interviewed separately, not jointly, for the profiling work to be valid. "That's always the correct way to do this. It's fundamental," McCrary said. "You separate the people, you interview them independently, you lock them into statements and then you compare." To do otherwise virtually invalidates the effort, he said. And he wasn't impressed with Douglas' conclusion that John Ramsey is telling the truth. "I've talked to guilty offenders in the penitentiary, and some of them are so manipulative and persuasive that they almost have you believing they didn't do it," he told me yesterday.

[LI_Mom]

McCrary? Someone new to look up:

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/24-2.html



Ex-FBI Profiler Gives JonBenet Take
.c The Associated Press

By JENNIFER MEARS

BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - The key to solving JonBenet Ramsey's slaying may be contained in 430 words of small, sometimes shaky script that two experts suggest were written to throw investigators off the killer's track.As the investigation winds down and heads toward a grand jury, the 2 1/2-page ransom note looms large as one uncontaminated piece of evidence in the 15-month-old case.

Yet the note initially caused trouble: Police, accepting it as proof of a kidnapping and assuming the missing child had been whisked away, allowed friends and family to wander unescorted through the house and taint the crime scene.

No officer was with John Ramsey, for instance, when he went to a basement storage room and returned carrying his daughter's beaten and strangled body.

``The note was totally ridiculous from the standpoint of having any credibility as a kidnap note,'' former FBI profiler Robert Ressler told The Associated Press. Police ``wasted effectively eight hours of crucial time in buying this kidnap note.''

But, said Ressler, ``get the person that wrote that note and that person may not have killed JonBenet, but they certainly know what happened.''

For that reason, he said, ``It's probably the best piece of evidence they have.''

Police Cmdr. Mark Beckner, who took over the investigation in October, called the note important but would not say what conclusions authorities have drawn from it.

``Listen Carefully!'' the note begins. ``We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your business but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our possession.''

Ressler has assisted with hundreds of investigations, including those of multiple murderers Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy. Now a private consultant in forensic behavioral science and based in Virginia, Ressler said the evidence, including the autopsy, suggests JonBenet was killed accidentally and ``an elaborate cover-up was done to divert police away from the crime.''

He believes, for instance, that the child was garroted to divert police from what he believes is the true cause of her death: a blow to the head. The writing of the note, he said, was part of the overall effort to send police astray.

If police had not fallen for the ploy, he said bluntly, the case would now be solved. ``They should have immediately started the investigation at another level,'' he said.

Patsy Ramsey said she found the note at 5:30 a.m. Dec. 26, 1996, as she walked down the backstairs toward the kitchen to make coffee.

Gregg McCrary, another former FBI profiler now doing private criminal consulting in Virginia, said placement of the note - on the backstairs of the sprawling $1.5 million home - is significant.

``That's not a prominent place to leave a note - unless you know that they come downstairs in the morning to make coffee,'' McCrary said. ``That shows me a knowledge of the house and of the activities of the people in the house.''

``The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation such as police or FBI will result in your daughter being beheaded. ... Use that good, southern common sense of yours.''

Ressler said this passage and others that provide information about the kidnappers show the writer has no criminal experience.

``Kidnap notes do not give information,'' Ressler said. ``They don't tell you how many people are in the organization, they don't tell you they are going to behead your daughter and they don't tell you the kind of container to use to get the money.''

In addition, he said, the note ``reflects a person whose knowledge of kidnapping comes from movies and books.'' One line, in particular - ``Don't try to grow a brain, John'' - echoes a line spoken by actor Dennis Hopper in the movie ``Speed.''

The ransom note was written with a black felt-tip pen on lined paper reportedly from a tablet in the home. Containing directives and contingencies, it is overall a sophisticated letter written by an educated person, said Bethany Dumas, a University of Tennessee English linguistics professor who has testified several times as an expert witness.

``You can try to deceive us, but be warned we are familiar with law enforcement counter-measures and tactics.''

That passage, Dumas said, is ``very formal, very educated.''

The $118,000 demand is interesting to McCrary, who notes most ransom demands are for ``a huge fat sum.'' When Exxon executive Sidney J. Reso was abducted in 1992, the ransom demanded was $18.5 million.

Also, McCrary said, the Ramsey note is unnecessarily wordy.

``Like the comment, `We respect your business.' It's not important to get the job done, but somebody felt it was important to say,'' McCrary said. ``Usually, it's `We've got your daughter and if you want to see her alive pay us.'''

``Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 a.m. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested.''

``This business of getting a good night's rest because the next days are going to be trying, all these things are just above and beyond a kidnapper,'' Ressler said.

The language has a caretaker quality and sounds like it comes from a ``college-educated mature female. But I'm not saying that it is Mrs. Ramsey,'' he said.

Ressler said the writing points to a woman because ``men aren't that caring. They really don't care.''

A huge turnout of reporters and photographers is expected in Boulder on Wednesday, when selection for the next Boulder County grand jury begins, although District Attorney Alex Hunter has not yet indicated whether he will send the Ramsey case to the new grand jury.

Copyright 1997 The Associated Press.


It sounds like the professionals think the ransom note sounds bogus & are leaning towards a Ramsey.

[LI_Mom]

All they had to do was find a license plate that said: Victory! S.B.T.C & the case would be solved! :D

[rashomon]

Originally posted by hohum

I don't remember seeing MM dressed up in a cowgirl outfit but then I didn't see all of her movies.
I think you know very well that this was not about the cowgirl outfit.
ST, p. 353:
"Shortly before her death, she participated in the America's Royale Tiny Miss pageant, which had a "come as a famous person" theme. She dressed as Marilyn Monroe, and her mother did the same. I doubt that JB even knew who Marilyn Monroe was."

So Patsy Ramsey chose for her daughter (and for herself!) Marilyn Monroe, who is the icon of female sexuality. Speaks volumes imo. How can there be any doubt that JB grew up in a sexualized atmosphere?
And wasn't Patsy's favorite song "Wherever we go" from the musical 'Gypsy', which is about a mother pimping her daughter? I remember reading his on a forum.

In addition, Patsy obviously had boundary issues, in that she did not see herself as separate from her daughter, which is why she came dressed in the same outfit. No doubt did she see JB as an extension of herself and try to relive her own youth through JB.
JB's dance instructor Kit Andre had this impression too.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by hohum

Who told you that? In general you seem to be pretty suspicious of people. Even those you don't know.
The source is in the book Journey Beyond Reason, (p 4/5) which quotes C. Brennan's April 25/2003 article in the Rocky Mountain News. Title: "Judge Carnes' ruling questioned".

"Carnes ruling was based only on the facts presented by the Ramseys and their lawyer L. Lin Wood, and Wolf and his lawyer, Darnay Hofman - and not on a comprehensive review of investigators' 40,000-plus pages of evidence."

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


And what book was she reading, breezy?

Death of Innocence, by John and Patsy Ramsey.

As far as looking into the facts of this case, that particular book should not be overlooked. LI Mom made some good points about Patsy Ramsey's character and how she conducts herself.

Maybe if you stopped trying to be insulting constantly you'd actually understand what people are saying.

I KNOW what particular book she was reading and I STILL say, ya'll would be better off to stop reading books and look to the FACTS and EVIDENCE of the case. I understand what people are saying, anything and everything the Ramseys did is wrong and they are guilty even if there is no evidence because the "books. said this or that. You ignroe FACTS and continue to quote "books". If you are "insulted" that i don't agree with the books or any of the Ramsey's are guily crowd, too bad, I will continue to post links with facts rather than books that are ONLY opinions.:shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


As if the killer was going to show up at Patsy's funeral.

Those cops were taking down the license plate numbers not to nail a killer, who would have been smart enough not to park in the parking lot after evading capture for nine and a half years (DUH!), but to have a record of everyone who attended that funeral.

Do you think the Roswell police are out there right now, tracking down every plate number and compiling information on everyone parked in the parking lot because they actually think one of them was the killer and they're about to snag him?

You go tell the cops "duh, they are wasting their time" because you KNOW everything. Strange I have never seen or heard of cops taking down license numbers at any other funeral but you think cops just like to have a "record of everyone who attended that funeral". :rolleyes:

A more direct reminder of the family's sad legacy could be seen in the parking lot, where a plain- clothed Roswell police officer made a video record of every license plate. Asked why, the officer replied that JonBenet's death remains an open investigation.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...4812397,00.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

I think you know very well that this was not about the cowgirl outfit.
ST, p. 353:
"Shortly before her death, she participated in the America's Royale Tiny Miss pageant, which had a "come as a famous person" theme. She dressed as Marilyn Monroe, and her mother did the same. I doubt that JB even knew who Marilyn Monroe was."

So Patsy Ramsey chose for her daughter (and for herself!) Marilyn Monroe, who is the icon of female sexuality. Speaks volumes imo. How can there be any doubt that JB grew up in a sexualized atmosphere?
And wasn't Patsy's favorite song "Wherever we go" from the musical 'Gypsy', which is about a mother pimping her daughter? I remember reading his on a forum.

In addition, Patsy obviously had boundary issues, in that she did not see herself as separate from her daughter, which is why she came dressed in the same outfit. No doubt did she see JB as an extension of herself and try to relive her own youth through JB.
JB's dance instructor Kit Andre had this impression too.

Geez, if the gossip isn't read from a book, it is read on a forum. :rolleyes: Forget facts,if it's not read in a book or a forum, make up your own..................no doubt and obviously counts, not facts.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

The source is in the book Journey Beyond Reason, (p 4/5) which quotes C. Brennan's April 25/2003 article in the Rocky Mountain News. Title: "Judge Carnes' ruling questioned".

"Carnes ruling was based only on the facts presented by the Ramseys and their lawyer L. Lin Wood, and Wolf and his lawyer, Darnay Hofman - and not on a comprehensive review of investigators' 40,000-plus pages of evidence."

Books, books, books=opiniions, opinions, opinions. Do you think the DA didn't have ALL the evidnece from BOTH sides?


"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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Yes, I do.

I listened to the audio & heard something.

Even if the 'enhanced tape' was simply created to trick the Ramseys into changing their story & maybe lead to a breakthrough, then it certainly worked.

When they thought they were caught in a lie & would look bad, they changed their story.

You listen to any 911 tape and you will hear "something" if it's not shut off right after the call. It's the sound of the recording equipmentl but NOT voices. IMO it just shows the power of suggestion and the ability to brainwash those who WANT to believe the worst about someone.

They did not change their story. Have you ever known anyone close that has died or even been hurt badly or very sick? If you have think back and TRY to remember every detail of that time and see if you remember everything in the exact sequence it happened. People are not recorders, cameras or computers in normal situations but when something traumatic happens in their lives it is even more confusing.


What was the "breakthrough" you THINK happened? The GJ heard the tape and the other evidnece and did NOT indict.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


You do the same thing with the Ramseys. They've been caught lying more than once and still you believe every word from them.

The difference with Thomas is that FBI backs him up where it counts most - figuring out who the killer is.

I love how FBI is good enough when it's proving the 911 call has no extra voices but it's not good enough when naming Patsy as Prime Suspect No. 1.

What lies and what do I believe from THEM? I post links to evidence, not links to what the Ramsey's said. :rolleyes:

If Thomas and the FBI have figured out who the killer is WHY was she not prosecuted? :shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I KNOW what particular book she was reading and I STILL say, ya'll would be better off to stop reading books and look to the FACTS and EVIDENCE of the case. I understand what people are saying, anything and everything the Ramseys did is wrong and they are guilty even if there is no evidence because the "books. said this or that. You ignroe FACTS and continue to quote "books". If you are "insulted" that i don't agree with the books or any of the Ramsey's are guily crowd, too bad, I will continue to post links with facts rather than books that are ONLY opinions.:shrug:

You're just trying to be difficult, and you're being completely unfair.

If you think books are just "opinion" and have no basis in fact, you need to go back to school. All those reports I did all those, with books listed as my sources, accepted by my teachers, and you're saying books aren't a source of factual information?

Is it just for the JonBenet case? Do you relaize how narrow-minded that is?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Geez, if the gossip isn't read from a book, it is read on a forum. :rolleyes: Forget facts,if it's not read in a book or a forum, make up your own..................no doubt and obviously counts, not facts.

Or you can do what breezy does, and accuse everyone you don't agree with of lying and making up facts. There is no need for this coment

FH20

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
McCrary? Someone new to look up:

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/24-2.html



Ex-FBI Profiler Gives JonBenet Take
.c The Associated Press

By JENNIFER MEARS

BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - The key to solving JonBenet Ramsey's slaying may be contained in 430 words of small, sometimes shaky script that two experts suggest were written to throw investigators off the killer's track.As the investigation winds down and heads toward a grand jury, the 2 1/2-page ransom note looms large as one uncontaminated piece of evidence in the 15-month-old case.

Yet the note initially caused trouble: Police, accepting it as proof of a kidnapping and assuming the missing child had been whisked away, allowed friends and family to wander unescorted through the house and taint the crime scene.

No officer was with John Ramsey, for instance, when he went to a basement storage room and returned carrying his daughter's beaten and strangled body.

``The note was totally ridiculous from the standpoint of having any credibility as a kidnap note,'' former FBI profiler Robert Ressler told The Associated Press. Police ``wasted effectively eight hours of crucial time in buying this kidnap note.''

But, said Ressler, ``get the person that wrote that note and that person may not have killed JonBenet, but they certainly know what happened.''

For that reason, he said, ``It's probably the best piece of evidence they have.''

Police Cmdr. Mark Beckner, who took over the investigation in October, called the note important but would not say what conclusions authorities have drawn from it.

``Listen Carefully!'' the note begins. ``We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your business but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our possession.''

Ressler has assisted with hundreds of investigations, including those of multiple murderers Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy. Now a private consultant in forensic behavioral science and based in Virginia, Ressler said the evidence, including the autopsy, suggests JonBenet was killed accidentally and ``an elaborate cover-up was done to divert police away from the crime.''

He believes, for instance, that the child was garroted to divert police from what he believes is the true cause of her death: a blow to the head. The writing of the note, he said, was part of the overall effort to send police astray.

If police had not fallen for the ploy, he said bluntly, the case would now be solved. ``They should have immediately started the investigation at another level,'' he said.

Patsy Ramsey said she found the note at 5:30 a.m. Dec. 26, 1996, as she walked down the backstairs toward the kitchen to make coffee.

Gregg McCrary, another former FBI profiler now doing private criminal consulting in Virginia, said placement of the note - on the backstairs of the sprawling $1.5 million home - is significant.

``That's not a prominent place to leave a note - unless you know that they come downstairs in the morning to make coffee,'' McCrary said. ``That shows me a knowledge of the house and of the activities of the people in the house.''

``The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation such as police or FBI will result in your daughter being beheaded. ... Use that good, southern common sense of yours.''

Ressler said this passage and others that provide information about the kidnappers show the writer has no criminal experience.

``Kidnap notes do not give information,'' Ressler said. ``They don't tell you how many people are in the organization, they don't tell you they are going to behead your daughter and they don't tell you the kind of container to use to get the money.''

In addition, he said, the note ``reflects a person whose knowledge of kidnapping comes from movies and books.'' One line, in particular - ``Don't try to grow a brain, John'' - echoes a line spoken by actor Dennis Hopper in the movie ``Speed.''

The ransom note was written with a black felt-tip pen on lined paper reportedly from a tablet in the home. Containing directives and contingencies, it is overall a sophisticated letter written by an educated person, said Bethany Dumas, a University of Tennessee English linguistics professor who has testified several times as an expert witness.

``You can try to deceive us, but be warned we are familiar with law enforcement counter-measures and tactics.''

That passage, Dumas said, is ``very formal, very educated.''

The $118,000 demand is interesting to McCrary, who notes most ransom demands are for ``a huge fat sum.'' When Exxon executive Sidney J. Reso was abducted in 1992, the ransom demanded was $18.5 million.

Also, McCrary said, the Ramsey note is unnecessarily wordy.

``Like the comment, `We respect your business.' It's not important to get the job done, but somebody felt it was important to say,'' McCrary said. ``Usually, it's `We've got your daughter and if you want to see her alive pay us.'''

``Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 a.m. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested.''

``This business of getting a good night's rest because the next days are going to be trying, all these things are just above and beyond a kidnapper,'' Ressler said.

The language has a caretaker quality and sounds like it comes from a ``college-educated mature female. But I'm not saying that it is Mrs. Ramsey,'' he said.

Ressler said the writing points to a woman because ``men aren't that caring. They really don't care.''

A huge turnout of reporters and photographers is expected in Boulder on Wednesday, when selection for the next Boulder County grand jury begins, although District Attorney Alex Hunter has not yet indicated whether he will send the Ramsey case to the new grand jury.

Copyright 1997 The Associated Press.


It sounds like the professionals think the ransom note sounds bogus & are leaning towards a Ramsey.

Well that does it. Too late to prosecute Patsy but get John NOW. :lol:

What you fail to understand is the evidence was NOT all known when this was written.

The GJ did see ALL the evidence known when it was seated and and did not indict. There is even more evidence now that points AWAY from the Ramseys but no matter to you and your friends, forget the evidence and continue to quote the old gossip.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You go tell the cops "duh, they are wasting their time" because you KNOW everything. Strange I have never seen or heard of cops taking down license numbers at any other funeral but you think cops just like to have a "record of everyone who attended that funeral". :rolleyes:

A more direct reminder of the family's sad legacy could be seen in the parking lot, where a plain- clothed Roswell police officer made a video record of every license plate. Asked why, the officer replied that JonBenet's death remains an open investigation.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...4812397,00.html

There's been a lot of things going on in the JonBenet case that people have never seen or heard of before.

Really, breezy - think about it...the killer hasn't been caught in the past nine years, so s/he's going to show up at Patsy's funeral and park in the parking lot??? That's ridiculous.

Of course they're going to say the investigation is still open - it is. That's a pretty vague and open-ended statement.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm glad you brought up McCrary. Let's see what else he has to say...

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/12/27-1.html

Former FBI agent McCrary said there isn't one piece of evidence pointing to anyone other than the family. He - and police - believe the ransom note was a carefully planned deception.

"The crime is very revealing," McCrary said. "What we have here is an inordinate amount of time the offender spent in that house. The child was murdered in the house. The child was assaulted in the house. The ransom note was written in the house. The child was strangled with a paint brush from the house. That's where to look for the killer."

McCrary said investigators have to overlay the facts of the case on the statistical probability pointing to the parents.

"Anything is possible - aliens could have come down," McCrary said. "But when an offender stages the scene, it's to deflect the investigation away from them. Without the staging, (the Ramseys) are the immediate suspects."


http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/04/26-1.html

"To me, if they present the case to a grand jury and they don't get an indictment, I don't know if they'll ever solve it," said Gregg McCrary, a former criminal profiler for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because grand jury investigations are one-sided, McCrary added, the most common concern is that prosecutors will seek an indictment after excluding all evidence not corroborating their theory of a crime.

"But to be honest, I've seen cases presented to a grand jury where the district attorney didn't want an indictment and presented a weak case," McCrary said. "To me, that would be a face-saving scenario out of this thing if they don't want to prosecute the Ramseys."


http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html

But one of Douglas's former FBI colleagues, Gregg McCrary, watched the television interview with more than a passing interest. He turned down the job as the Ramsey family's profiler a couple of weeks ago. McCrary found some notable flaws in Douglas' profiling work for the Ramseys. NBC referred, without contradiction from Douglas, to the profiler's "interview with the parents for 4 1/2 hours."

McCrary said the parents should have been interviewed separately, not jointly, for the profiling work to be valid. "That's always the correct way to do this. It's fundamental," McCrary said. "You separate the people, you interview them independently, you lock them into statements and then you compare." To do otherwise virtually invalidates the effort, he said. And he wasn't impressed with Douglas' conclusion that John Ramsey is telling the truth. "I've talked to guilty offenders in the penitentiary, and some of them are so manipulative and persuasive that they almost have you believing they didn't do it," he told me yesterday.


Good for you, at least you are finally getting away from books, but the fact is his opinions are no better than anyone elses................UNLESS he can prove them and he has not so far.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


There's been a lot of things going on in the JonBenet case that people have never seen or heard of before.

Really, breezy - think about it...the killer hasn't been caught in the past nine years, so s/he's going to show up at Patsy's funeral and park in the parking lot??? That's ridiculous.

Of course they're going to say the investigation is still open - it is. That's a pretty vague and open-ended statement.

Don't tell me, tell the cops that took the time to get the license plate numbers how rediculous it is. :shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rashomon

I think you know very well that this was not about the cowgirl outfit.
ST, p. 353:
"Shortly before her death, she participated in the America's Royale Tiny Miss pageant, which had a "come as a famous person" theme. She dressed as Marilyn Monroe, and her mother did the same. I doubt that JB even knew who Marilyn Monroe was."

So Patsy Ramsey chose for her daughter (and for herself!) Marilyn Monroe, who is the icon of female sexuality. Speaks volumes imo. How can there be any doubt that JB grew up in a sexualized atmosphere?
And wasn't Patsy's favorite song "Wherever we go" from the musical 'Gypsy', which is about a mother pimping her daughter? I remember reading his on a forum.

In addition, Patsy obviously had boundary issues, in that she did not see herself as separate from her daughter, which is why she came dressed in the same outfit. No doubt did she see JB as an extension of herself and try to relive her own youth through JB.
JB's dance instructor Kit Andre had this impression too.

The dedication in DOI -

For JonBenet

Wherever we go...

Whatever we do...


Here they've quoted from the musical Gypsy in the dedication of their book. Patsy claims it was a song that she and JonBenet sang together frequently. There's a reason it raises eyebrows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsy:_A_Musical_Fable

Gypsy is loosely based on the memoirs of Gypsy Rose Lee, the famous striptease artist, and focuses on her struggle with her mother, Mama Rose, whose name has become synonymous with "the ultimate show business mother."


I agree that Patsy seemed to have boundary issues with her daughter. Dressing her up as Marilyn Monroe (and yourself! Mother/daughter sex sirens, anyone? WHO DOES THAT??? Patsy!) and as a Las Vegas showgirl indicate to me that she did not see her 6 year old daughter as a 6 year old at all, and thought it was okay to lead her into sexualized behavior inappropriate for a child so young.

Kit Andre, JonBenet's dance instructor, watching videos of JonBenet performing in pageants, said he did not teach her those moves.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


You're just trying to be difficult, and you're being completely unfair.

If you think books are just "opinion" and have no basis in fact, you need to go back to school. All those reports I did all those, with books listed as my sources, accepted by my teachers, and you're saying books aren't a source of factual information?

Is it just for the JonBenet case? Do you relaize how narrow-minded that is?

We are NOT talking text books here. :rolleyes: NONE of those people quoted in "books" about this CASE were under oath. They could say ANYTHING. If Thomas was so sure of the theory and quotes in his book, WHY did he chicken out and settle when he had his chance to prove what he said was fact? :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


What lies and what do I believe from THEM? I post links to evidence, not links to what the Ramsey's said. :rolleyes:

If Thomas and the FBI have figured out who the killer is WHY was she not prosecuted? :shrug:

Some of the "evidence" you have posted is coming straight from the mouths of the Ramseys and bantered out by their attorneys. Just because there's a link to Lin Wood or Lou Smit doesn't mean the info didn't come from the lying Rs first.

You really don't know this case. It's both frustrating and hilarious to keep watching.

I'll explain again, because you didn't understand me the first two times I explained it - Patsy Ramsey got away with this due to a botched crime scene, corrupt Boulder officials, and an agressive defense team fueled by $$$.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234



Good for you, at least you are finally getting away from books, but the fact is his opinions are no better than anyone elses................UNLESS he can prove them and he has not so far.

He's a trained and respected FBI expert. His professional opinions carry a lot of weight.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


The dedication in DOI -

For JonBenet

Wherever we go...

Whatever we do...


Here they've quoted from the musical Gypsy in the dedication of their book. Patsy claims it was a song that she and JonBenet sang together frequently. There's a reason it raises eyebrows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsy:_A_Musical_Fable

Gypsy is loosely based on the memoirs of Gypsy Rose Lee, the famous striptease artist, and focuses on her struggle with her mother, Mama Rose, whose name has become synonymous with "the ultimate show business mother."


I agree that Patsy seemed to have boundary issues with her daughter. Dressing her up as Marilyn Monroe (and yourself! Mother/daughter sex sirens, anyone? WHO DOES THAT??? Patsy!) and as a Las Vegas showgirl indicate to me that she did not see her 6 year old daughter as a 6 year old at all, and thought it was okay to lead her into sexualized behavior inappropriate for a child so young.

Kit Andre, JonBenet's dance instructor, watching videos of JonBenet performing in pageants, said he did not teach her those moves.

Raise all the eyebrows you wish to but that does not prove murder. We ARE talking about the murder, aren't we?.............OR are we going to talk about parenting that some of us don't agree with? Maybe we should go into everyones homes and check out how they rasie their children and raise some eyebrows, huh? If parents don't raise their kids they way ALL of us agree with we should remove those kids from the home, huh? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Or you can do what breezy does, and accuse everyone you don't agree with of lying and making up facts.

Are you saying Thomas didn't lie? Are you saying things written by posters on forums are all facts and they do not make things up? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


You're just trying to be difficult, and you're being completely unfair.

If you think books are just "opinion" and have no basis in fact, you need to go back to school. All those reports I did all those, with books listed as my sources, accepted by my teachers, and you're saying books aren't a source of factual information?

Is it just for the JonBenet case? Do you relaize how narrow-minded that is?

I forgot to add..................no it is NOT just the Ramsey case, "crime" books written with opinions and with quotes from people that were not sworn in are not factual information, they are opinions.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Well that does it. Too late to prosecute Patsy but get John NOW. :lol:

What you fail to understand is the evidence was NOT all known when this was written.

The GJ did see ALL the evidence known when it was seated and and did not indict. There is even more evidence now that points AWAY from the Ramseys but no matter to you and your friends, forget the evidence and continue to quote the old gossip.

Time to go do your homework, breezy.

The GJ did not have ALL of the evidence when they were seated. In fact, when they made their decision, they were still waiting for some evidence.

What evidence points away from the Rs?

No fingerprints from an intruder?

No fiber evidence from an intruder?

No DNA from an intruder?

A ransom note in Patsy's handwriting?

The inconsistent stories told by both John and Patsy?

You did see what McCrary had to say about a DA who wants a GJ to let someone off, didn't you? here, from a previous post of mine in this thread:

"But to be honest, I've seen cases presented to a grand jury where the district attorney didn't want an indictment and presented a weak case," McCrary said. "To me, that would be a face-saving scenario out of this thing if they don't want to prosecute the Ramseys."

It's a well-known fact that Hunter was rather buddy-buddy with the R defense team.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


He's a trained and respected FBI expert. His professional opinions carry a lot of weight.

And so are Carnes, Keenan and Smit and others who do not agree with him trained and respected professionals whose opinions SHOULD carry a lot of weight. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Some of the "evidence" you have posted is coming straight from the mouths of the Ramseys and bantered out by their attorneys. Just because there's a link to Lin Wood or Lou Smit doesn't mean the info didn't come from the lying Rs first.

You really don't know this case. It's both frustrating and hilarious to keep watching.

I'll explain again, because you didn't understand me the first two times I explained it - Patsy Ramsey got away with this due to a botched crime scene, corrupt Boulder officials, and an agressive defense team fueled by $$$.

Keep getting "frustrating and hilarious", no skin off my nose.

Don't explain to me, explain to the courts and prove your case. :shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Raise all the eyebrows you wish to but that does not prove murder. We ARE talking about the murder, aren't we?.............OR are we going to talk about parenting that some of us don't agree with? Maybe we should go into everyones homes and check out how they rasie their children and raise some eyebrows, huh? If parents don't raise their kids they way ALL of us agree with we should remove those kids from the home, huh? :rolleyes:

No, breezy, please try to keep up. I know it's hard with the way you want to distract everything form the issue but...

we were discussing the parenting of a woman whose daughter was found strangled and bludgeoned in her own home - a woman who did not pass every lie detector test in relation to this case, a woman who could not be ruled out as the author of the ransom note, a woman whose clothing fibers were found in the crime scene she said she was never near, and a woman who has exhibited some mental health issues.

We don't need to investigate every mother, just the ones who have their daughters turn up dead and cannot be excluded as suspects.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Time to go do your homework, breezy.

The GJ did not have ALL of the evidence when they were seated. In fact, when they made their decision, they were still waiting for some evidence.

What evidence points away from the Rs?

No fingerprints from an intruder?

No fiber evidence from an intruder?

No DNA from an intruder?

A ransom note in Patsy's handwriting?

The inconsistent stories told by both John and Patsy?

You did see what McCrary had to say about a DA who wants a GJ to let someone off, didn't you? here, from a previous post of mine in this thread:

"But to be honest, I've seen cases presented to a grand jury where the district attorney didn't want an indictment and presented a weak case," McCrary said. "To me, that would be a face-saving scenario out of this thing if they don't want to prosecute the Ramseys."

It's a well-known fact that Hunter was rather buddy-buddy with the R defense team.

I've done my homework, all you've done for homework is read books and quote one guy you finally really put some effort in looking up.

No matter what Hunter presented or not the GJ did have the power to call witnesses they would like to hear from and can ask questions they want to be answered so what McCrary said may be true but that does not mean the GJ did not do it's job. Now are you are saying the GJ members were budy buddy with the Ramseys too?:rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


No, breezy, please try to keep up. I know it's hard with the way you want to distract everything form the issue but...

we were discussing the parenting of a woman whose daughter was found strangled and bludgeoned in her own home - a woman who did not pass every lie detector test in relation to this case, a woman who could not be ruled out as the author of the ransom note, a woman whose clothing fibers were found in the crime scene she said she was never near, and a woman who has exhibited some mental health issues.

We don't need to investigate every mother, just the ones who have their daughters turn up dead and cannot be excluded as suspects.

Proof she did not pass "every lie detector test in relation to this case". "try to keep up"You forgot to mention NOT the only one who could not be ruled out. "try to keep up" A woman whos clothing fibers were "consistant" at the crime scene in her own home on her own daughter. How many other fibers were tested from other suspects BTW? "Try to keep up". Mental health issues because she was upset her daughter was killed? Gee, no one should be bothered by that. :rolleyes:

The ramseys HAVE been investigated backwards and forwards up and down and NOTHING has ever proven them anything but loving, caring parents. Once again if you think the books, forums and raised eyebrows can investigate them better than has been done, go for it and prove it in court. :shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I've done my homework, all you've done for homework is read books and quote one guy you finally really put some effort in looking up.

No matter what Hunter presented or not the GJ did have the power to call witnesses they would like to hear from and can ask questions they want to be answered so what McCrary said may be true but that does not mean the GJ did not do it's job. Now are you are saying the GJ members were budy buddy with the Ramseys too?:rolleyes:

Where is the evidence pointing to an intruder? The supposedly unlocked points of entry? John Ramsey's initial story was that he checked all of them before he went to bed, then later he changed that to he didn't check any of them. And wow, he also says the Christmas night was the only night they forgot to set their alarm. How convenient. The basement window? Spider web intact, no dirt and debris, grill and hose on grate, no fiber evidence of break in.

And what about the ransom note?

[breezy1234]

On December 27, the Rocky Mountain News quoted an Assistant District Attorney as saying, "It was very unusual for a kidnap victim's body to be found at home - it's not adding up." According to Charlie Brennan, the journalist who wrote the story, the police had also indicated to him that they held a strong belief that the parents were responsible. Julie Hayden, a television reporter for Denver's Channel 7, also covered the story on the same day and drew the same conclusion. She later explained that from her first exposure to the case, the police had made it very clear that they were not scouring the area looking for "some mad kidnapper" but instead, concentrating their efforts on John and Patsy Ramsey.



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


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

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

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

"Even with blatant visual evidence that proved that the theory was groundless, the story continued to be told. Even more doubtful was the claim of "no forced entry." The police report on December 26 noted that there were a number of open windows and at least one open door, therefore an intruder would not need to break in. One possible point of entry was the basement window. Not only was it easily accessible via a ground level lift-out grille, it had been broken sometime before Christmas and could not be secured. These facts, although well documented by the police, did not come to public attention until a year after the event.

When questioned regarding the accuracy of the information he received, reporter Charlie Brennan stated that up until March 1997, he and other members of the press did not know that there was a broken window in the basement and believed that his police source had fed him false information.

The reality of this situation is that an intruder could have easily entered the house through the basement window and moved around the house virtually undetected and unheard.

"The end result? - No secret room, no need for forced entry and very little snow, which leads to one of two conclusions - either the press distorted the facts to embellish their story or someone inside the police department leaked false information, intentionally or otherwise. Despite having been proved incorrect, all three bits of misinformation were given continual coverage."

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

[breezy1234]

"One story, printed by Vanity Fair magazine, suggested that John Ramsey had left the house before the police had arrived. Ann Bardach, the journalist who wrote the story, described how John Ramsey had used the excuse of going out to get the mail. The story was false and was traced back to another leaked police report. Curiously, even after the story was proved to be untrue, the police did not make any attempts to correct the situation. Perhaps they were hoping that such stories would place additional pressure on the Ramseys."

"Even as they buried their daughter, a new story emerged that revealed that John and Patsy had hired several criminal lawyers. Although Mike Bynum hired the attorneys, it was seen as another indication of the parents' guilt. "

"The next day Mayor Leslie Durgan, gave a press conference to reject Patsy's claim, stating: - "People in Boulder have no need to fear that there is someone wandering the streets of Boulder, as has been portrayed by some people, looking for young children to attack. Boulder is safe, it's always been a safe community and it continues to be a safe community.

During a 1997 interview, Durgan explained her reasons for making the announcement: - "It was done in large part to allay the fears of children in our community and to let people know that the information that I had at that time was that we did not have some crazed person wandering the streets of University Hill."

When asked by the interviewer where she had gotten her information from, she replied, "the police chief."

"The Ramseys concerns regarding the aggression of the media is shared by many journalists who believe that their profession has declined considerably due to intense competition, a loosening in regulations and the increasing view of news as a profit making, rather than a journalistic pursuit. Sadly, the news has become entertaining instead of informative and personal tragedy has degenerated into a public spectacle.

The editor of Boulder's own Daily Camera newspaper, Barrie Hartman, viewed coverage of JonBenet's murder with increasing alarm and expressed this opinion:

"One of the failings that we in the news print media have is that when we have stories that the tabloids have reported, we feel obliged to report on them as well, which can cause us some problems. I think JonBenet was a good example of that, where the details are repeated before they are verified as facts."

Late in 1997, Mayor Leslie Durgan attempted to distance herself from the JonBenet media circus when she told an interviewer, "I now have learned an important lesson and that is I don't believe what I read in the press, hear in the press, listen to on talk radio anymore, but at that point I did. I was pretty naive, I thought that if it was in the press then it was probably true." This was a strange comment considering she claimed that she got her information from the police department.

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

[nuisanceposter]

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

At a news conference later that month, Wood presented the results of the Ramseys' polygraph exams, and offered to allow the Boulder Police and D.A.'s office to interview the polygraphers. Wood told the reporters that when the first batch of exams proved "inconclusive" they hired different polygraphers to conduct the second round.

"Inconclusive" is not passing. I like how they just went and found someone else who would pass them.

[breezy1234]

""People's eyes glaze over when you start talking about the First Amendment and privacy," he says. "But if we allow the media to try people outside of the judicial system, without any boundaries or limitations, everyone is at risk. Serious journalists need to start asking themselves: Do I want to be judge and jury for this person?"'

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/saga_6.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

At a news conference later that month, Wood presented the results of the Ramseys' polygraph exams, and offered to allow the Boulder Police and D.A.'s office to interview the polygraphers. Wood told the reporters that when the first batch of exams proved "inconclusive" they hired different polygraphers to conduct the second round.

" I like how they just went and found someone else who would pass them.

Get some education. Inconclusive does NOT mean didn't pass.

"The first polygraph examination was unusable due to distortions.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/24/se.02.html

""Quality control: A separate report covering the quality control of these examinations has been written by Cleve Baxter, who is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of detection of deception and the person who originated numerical scoring. Baxter's independent analysis corroborated the findings of the undersigned primary examiner.

"Final conclusion: Based on extensive polygraph examination, neither John nor Patsy Ramsey were attempting deception when they gave the indicated answers to the relative questions."

I will now turn this over to Cleve Baxter, who will discuss his quality control.


Please be nice there is no need to be harsh.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234
On December 27, the Rocky Mountain News quoted an Assistant District Attorney as saying, "It was very unusual for a kidnap victim's body to be found at home - it's not adding up." According to Charlie Brennan, the journalist who wrote the story, the police had also indicated to him that they held a strong belief that the parents were responsible. Julie Hayden, a television reporter for Denver's Channel 7, also covered the story on the same day and drew the same conclusion. She later explained that from her first exposure to the case, the police had made it very clear that they were not scouring the area looking for "some mad kidnapper" but instead, concentrating their efforts on John and Patsy Ramsey.



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


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

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

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

"Even with blatant visual evidence that proved that the theory was groundless, the story continued to be told. Even more doubtful was the claim of "no forced entry." The police report on December 26 noted that there were a number of open windows and at least one open door, therefore an intruder would not need to break in. One possible point of entry was the basement window. Not only was it easily accessible via a ground level lift-out grille, it had been broken sometime before Christmas and could not be secured. These facts, although well documented by the police, did not come to public attention until a year after the event.

When questioned regarding the accuracy of the information he received, reporter Charlie Brennan stated that up until March 1997, he and other members of the press did not know that there was a broken window in the basement and believed that his police source had fed him false information.

The reality of this situation is that an intruder could have easily entered the house through the basement window and moved around the house virtually undetected and unheard.

"The end result? - No secret room, no need for forced entry and very little snow, which leads to one of two conclusions - either the press distorted the facts to embellish their story or someone inside the police department leaked false information, intentionally or otherwise. Despite having been proved incorrect, all three bits of misinformation were given continual coverage."

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

The snow means nothing either way.

As for the unlocked entry - I already covered that. John Ramsey changed his story. He originally told Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach that he had checked all of those the night before and it was all secure.

Then when he finally allowed police to interview him in March of 97 he changed his story, and said he hadn't checked any of the doors.

This change in story contradicted the police reports of three individual LE officers.

The basement window...it measured 18 by 30 inches and there was a lot of undisturbed plants and leaves right in front of it, not to mention the intact spider web spanned across it.

Funny how John Ramsey didn't say anything about a broken window until March of 97. You'd think a man who was searching first for his kidnapped daughter and then for the murderer of said daughter would mention that to police right away, not four months later after he's been made to allow police to interview him.

The reality of this situation is that there never was an intruder and the Ramseys are lying to cover for someone.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


It took them forever too. She finally got it right. But I would bet a million she found one that would let her be "stoned" when she took it. Her lawyer turned down one poly who insisted she take a drug test. There is always someone who can be bought. ALWAYS!!!

"Consistent with their honesty and their candor, I will tell you that John and Patsy Ramsey, when tested by Jerry Toriello, ran what is referred to in the field as inconclusive charts, inconclusive examinations. Jerry Toriello recommended that John and Patsy be retested. But in making his recommendation, he made it clear to me that the appropriate protocol to be followed would be for someone else to perform the retest. He told me, if you want to go to the best in the country for a retest, you go to Dr. Edward I. Gelb in Los Angeles.

I check out Dr. Gelb. Dr. Gelb's reputation was as represented by Jerry Toriello. He was, from everyone that I spoke with, considered to be the foremost polygraph examiner in the country: over 30,000 polygraph examinations conducted, former president of the American Polygraph Association, performs polygraph examinations on a regular basis for five law enforcement agencies in California, a man that was represented to me as one that could not be bought, that could not be fooled, a man of integrity, a man of ethics, one of the, if not the most qualified polygraphic examiners in the United States.

I discussed Dr. Gelb with John and Patsy Ramsey, and said this, apparently, is the person that we should try to get to do the re-test, and John and Patsy said no, that if Dr. Gelb was as represented, if he was the best, and if he was fair, that they wanted me to go directly to Chief Mark Beckner and offer to take the test from Dr. Gelb. I did that having never spoken to Edward Gelb.

I called Mark Beckner, and I said: John and Patsy Ramsey will take the test from Ed Gelb of Los Angeles, California. We made the offer fully aware of the fact that the test results from Dr. Gelb would be made public and, as part of the process Dr. Gelb would be fully aware of, and it would also be public that John and Patsy had run inconclusive tests from Jerry Toriello.



"CLEVE BAXTER: All, right my name is Cleve Baxter. I have been working with the polygraph for 52 years. They say, how do you become an expert in the field? I say, you just live longer and the rest of them die off.

In 1948, I was trained by the late Leonard Keeler, who is a famous person in the background of polygraph. And 1949, I started the Central Intelligence Agency polygraph section. In 1962 -- which is, by the way is still in existence, that section. In 1962, I started the Baxter School of Lie Detection. And I have been director for 156 basic polygraph courses. And with 154 of these, I was also the chief instructor. The difference of the two, were two classes were taught in Spanish and I couldn't be chief instructor.

In 1960, I developed the Baxter Zone Comparison polygraph technique and also introduced, as already has been mentioned, the first system for the numerical evaluation of polygraph charts, which is still in use.




Yep two of the top experts in the field were bought and risked their reputation just for the Ramseys. :rolleyes:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...5/24/se.02.html
:rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


The snow means nothing either way.

As for the unlocked entry - I already covered that. John Ramsey changed his story. He originally told Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach that he had checked all of those the night before and it was all secure.

Then when he finally allowed police to interview him in March of 97 he changed his story, and said he hadn't checked any of the doors.

This change in story contradicted the police reports of three individual LE officers.

The basement window...it measured 18 by 30 inches and there was a lot of undisturbed plants and leaves right in front of it, not to mention the intact spider web spanned across it.

Funny how John Ramsey didn't say anything about a broken window until March of 97. You'd think a man who was searching first for his kidnapped daughter and then for the murderer of said daughter would mention that to police right away, not four months later after he's been made to allow police to interview him.

The reality of this situation is that there never was an intruder and the Ramseys are lying to cover for someone.

No matter how many times you are shown proof that police were NOT always truthful (sometimes at their own admission) you insist on calling the Ramseys "liars" instead.

The reality of this situation is you do NOT know there was no intruder just as I do not KNOW there was one but the evidence supports the there was one.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't know that and I have not seen a picture of it either.

Nor have I but if Thomas who has been shown to be a liar wrote it in his book, to some here it MUST be true. :shrug: Strange the media ran pictures of all the other pageants but not that one, huh?;)

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


This in a nutshell shows how misinformed you are about the case. Never did either John or Patsy say this. They said that they had not used the alarm in years because JB had accidentally set it off when she was a tiny tot. Where in the world do you get your information?

They get it from "forums" and Thomas and repeat it as if fact. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Gelb's involvement in the Ramsey case has brought out some very interesting information about the man. Internet sleuths, fixated on the Ramsey case, started checking into Gelb's background and he became closely scrutinized in crime sleuthing forums. Supposedly Gelb's resume states that he received his doctorate degree from LaSalle University in Louisiana. That would be a real problem, because LaSalle was found to be nothing but a mail-order diploma mill. LaSalle's office was investigated and raided by the FBI, and Thomas Kirk, LaSalle's owner and founder, was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to five years in federal prison. Kirk earned millions of dollars from people looking to obtain fraudulent college degrees at a discount rate with little or no actual course work required.
Calls to Gelb's office by people trying to verify his education were not returned, and one internet sleuth even went as far as to check the master registry of Ph.D. dissertations and could find no information on a doctorate thesis authored by Edward Gelb.
:biggrin:

Gee maybe this web sleuth can now try to prove Patsy guilty and prove John helped her cover it up, huh? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace
Twenty years ago, Cleve Backster was doing some experimenting when he decided to hook up his polygraph machine to a house plant. Backster then claimed that not only could he read the plant's emotions, but the plant could read his mind. Backster took his experiment further by devising a machine that would dump live brine shrimp into boiling water at random intervals. The shrimp-machine was placed in front of the polygraph-attached plants and turned on. Backster claimed the machine "showed" that the plants exhibited "emotional" reaction to the shrimps' demise. The plants were supposedly also able to sense the death of a yogurt culture.:biggrin:

You are doing a spendid job of proving what i posted weeks ago about polygraphs.

"Scientists overwhelmingly agree that polygraph "testing" is junk science. The only "raging debate" pits people who don't yet understand that it's flimflam against the growing number who do.
Our government's stubborn reliance on this pseudoscience poses a clear and present danger: make-believe science yields make-believe security. "

http://antipolygraph.org/

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


I believe the word is "OWNED". :lol:

:biggrin:

"Owned" what? You make no sense.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace



But I thought they were the top experts in their field.

That is Owned with a capital "O".

:biggrin:


They are but their field is junk science. Why do you think they can't be used in court unless both parties agree? BECAUSE the courts know they are unreliable. :rolleyes:

Owned with or without a capital still makes no sense but I have come to expect that from you.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


But, again for the sake of my children - I would not give out that name so that the whole affair can be revisited and put on every TV talk show in America. John's first wife had remarried. I'm sure - just like other people do - she had moved on.

Come on. The police are investigating the brutal murder of a 6 year old child & you think 'forgetting ' the name of your ex's lover is going to take the focus OFF you?

It was little things like that that caused people to wonder why the family members & the Ramsey friends were making it so diificult to quickly exclude the Ramseys & move to the next stage of the investigation.

Anyone with a lick of sense should have known that the police & the media doesn't back off when they aren't getting the answers they want... they become suspicious & relentless.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace



Originally posted by breezy1234


"Consistent with their honesty and their candor, I will tell you that John and Patsy Ramsey, when tested by Jerry Toriello, ran what is referred to in the field as inconclusive charts, inconclusive examinations. Jerry Toriello recommended that John and Patsy be retested. But in making his recommendation, he made it clear to me that the appropriate protocol to be followed would be for someone else to perform the retest. He told me, if you want to go to the best in the country for a retest, you go to Dr. Edward I. Gelb in Los Angeles.

I check out Dr. Gelb. Dr. Gelb's reputation was as represented by Jerry Toriello. He was, from everyone that I spoke with, considered to be the foremost polygraph examiner in the country: over 30,000 polygraph examinations conducted, former president of the American Polygraph Association, performs polygraph examinations on a regular basis for five law enforcement agencies in California, a man that was represented to me as one that could not be bought, that could not be fooled, a man of integrity, a man of ethics, one of the, if not the most qualified polygraphic examiners in the United States.

I discussed Dr. Gelb with John and Patsy Ramsey, and said this, apparently, is the person that we should try to get to do the re-test, and John and Patsy said no, that if Dr. Gelb was as represented, if he was the best, and if he was fair, that they wanted me to go directly to Chief Mark Beckner and offer to take the test from Dr. Gelb. I did that having never spoken to Edward Gelb.

I called Mark Beckner, and I said: John and Patsy Ramsey will take the test from Ed Gelb of Los Angeles, California. We made the offer fully aware of the fact that the test results from Dr. Gelb would be made public and, as part of the process Dr. Gelb would be fully aware of, and it would also be public that John and Patsy had run inconclusive tests from Jerry Toriello.



"CLEVE BAXTER: All, right my name is Cleve Baxter. I have been working with the polygraph for 52 years. They say, how do you become an expert in the field? I say, you just live longer and the rest of them die off.

In 1948, I was trained by the late Leonard Keeler, who is a famous person in the background of polygraph. And 1949, I started the Central Intelligence Agency polygraph section. In 1962 -- which is, by the way is still in existence, that section. In 1962, I started the Baxter School of Lie Detection. And I have been director for 156 basic polygraph courses. And with 154 of these, I was also the chief instructor. The difference of the two, were two classes were taught in Spanish and I couldn't be chief instructor.

In 1960, I developed the Baxter Zone Comparison polygraph technique and also introduced, as already has been mentioned, the first system for the numerical evaluation of polygraph charts, which is still in use.

Yep two of the top experts in the field were bought and risked their reputation just for the Ramseys.



:lol:

In case you don't realize it they are STILL top in their field but as I said their field is junk science.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


What did you expect them to do? They hired private investigators to do the job the police didn't do, which they should not have had to do. At their own expense. I mean it has been 10 years. They had another child to raise. They could not and should not have devoted 24/7 to this case, how normal is that? I realize that some people after a death get involved in causes and become activists of sorts. But I can't say what I would do so I won't judge them.


Investigators? Hopefully the new investigators & lawyers they have working on the case are actually being paid to find Jonbenet's killer this time & not simply to protect the Ramseys from the legal system.




Armistead said his assignment, working for the Ramseys' lawyers, was not to solve the crime. It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested.

"I was alert to the fact that there's no getting around the fact that many children who are killed are killed by their parents," he said. "It was not like I was naive. It wouldn't have changed how I did anything. It didn't really matter to me whether they did it or didn't do it.

"I saw my mandate as being to protect the Ramseys. At some point in time, there was some pressure to 'find the killer.' But I was not in a position to do that. I didn't have access to the evidence."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_912274,00.html

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rashomon

And didn't even the Ramseys themselves say JB's involvement in pageants might have attracted pedophiles?

Yes.

John Ramsey even went so far as to forbid JB to enter a pageant in Las Vegas because he was concerned about the type of people that would be there.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You go tell the cops "duh, they are wasting their time" because you KNOW everything. Strange I have never seen or heard of cops taking down license numbers at any other funeral but you think cops just like to have a "record of everyone who attended that funeral". :rolleyes:

A more direct reminder of the family's sad legacy could be seen in the parking lot, where a plain- clothed Roswell police officer made a video record of every license plate. Asked why, the officer replied that JonBenet's death remains an open investigation.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...4812397,00.html


Pictures at funerals and at memorial services are s.o.p. in open investigations.

I'm confused by your post. You sound upset that the police are still making an effort to search for the killer.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Come on. The police are investigating the brutal murder of a 6 year old child & you think 'forgetting ' the name of your ex's lover is going to take the focus OFF you?

It was little things like that that caused people to wonder why the family members & the Ramsey friends were making it so diificult to quickly exclude the Ramseys & move to the next stage of the investigation.

Anyone with a lick of sense should have known that the police & the media doesn't back off when they aren't getting the answers they want... they become suspicious & relentless.

They didn't back off the Ramseys BECAUSE they had their minds made up from the get go.

They DID back off other suspects though and in most cases didn't even follow up on leads.

"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.

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

Other suspects that were backed off on and they didn't find suspicious.

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

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Raise all the eyebrows you wish to but that does not prove murder. We ARE talking about the murder, aren't we?.............OR are we going to talk about parenting that some of us don't agree with? Maybe we should go into everyones homes and check out how they rasie their children and raise some eyebrows, huh? If parents don't raise their kids they way ALL of us agree with we should remove those kids from the home, huh? :rolleyes:

If their kids end up dead in the basement, we should.

And question them BEFORE the hire lawyers & clam up.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


If their kids end up dead in the basement, we should.

And question them BEFORE the hire lawyers & clam up.

They DID question them before they had lawyers. In case you failed your Constitution class, it is every Americans RIGHT to hire lawyers AND it is every Americans right to NOT talk to the police if they choose not to without that lawyer. :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


"Consistent with their honesty and their candor, I will tell you that John and Patsy Ramsey, when tested by Jerry Toriello, ran what is referred to in the field as inconclusive charts, inconclusive examinations. Jerry Toriello recommended that John and Patsy be retested. But in making his recommendation, he made it clear to me that the appropriate protocol to be followed would be for someone else to perform the retest. He told me, if you want to go to the best in the country for a retest, you go to Dr. Edward I. Gelb in Los Angeles.

I check out Dr. Gelb. Dr. Gelb's reputation was as represented by Jerry Toriello. He was, from everyone that I spoke with, considered to be the foremost polygraph examiner in the country: over 30,000 polygraph examinations conducted, former president of the American Polygraph Association, performs polygraph examinations on a regular basis for five law enforcement agencies in California, a man that was represented to me as one that could not be bought, that could not be fooled, a man of integrity, a man of ethics, one of the, if not the most qualified polygraphic examiners in the United States.

I discussed Dr. Gelb with John and Patsy Ramsey, and said this, apparently, is the person that we should try to get to do the re-test, and John and Patsy said no, that if Dr. Gelb was as represented, if he was the best, and if he was fair, that they wanted me to go directly to Chief Mark Beckner and offer to take the test from Dr. Gelb. I did that having never spoken to Edward Gelb.

I called Mark Beckner, and I said: John and Patsy Ramsey will take the test from Ed Gelb of Los Angeles, California. We made the offer fully aware of the fact that the test results from Dr. Gelb would be made public and, as part of the process Dr. Gelb would be fully aware of, and it would also be public that John and Patsy had run inconclusive tests from Jerry Toriello.



"CLEVE BAXTER: All, right my name is . I have been working with the polygraph for 52 years. They say, how do you become an expert in the field? I say, you just live longer and the rest of them die off.

In 1948, I was trained by the late Leonard Keeler, who is a famous person in the background of polygraph. And 1949, I started the Central Intelligence Agency polygraph section. In 1962 -- which is, by the way is still in existence, that section. In 1962, I started the Baxter School of Lie Detection. And I have been director for 156 basic polygraph courses. And with 154 of these, I was also the chief instructor. The difference of the two, were two classes were taught in Spanish and I couldn't be chief instructor.

In 1960, I developed the Baxter Zone Comparison polygraph technique and also introduced, as already has been mentioned, the first system for the numerical evaluation of polygraph charts, which is still in use.




Yep two of the top experts in the field were bought and risked their reputation just for the Ramseys. :rolleyes:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...5/24/se.02.html
:rolleyes:

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml


Polygraph Operator "Dr." Edward I. Gelb Exposed as a Phony Ph.D.

Past President of the American Polygraph Association Obtained Degree from an Unaccredited Diploma Mill

by George W. Maschke
16 June 2003

Why would one of the most prominent polygraph operators in America falsely pass himself off as a Ph.D.? Edward I. Gelb of Los Angeles isn't saying.

Since 1969, after completing training at the Backster School of Lie Detection in San Diego, Gelb claims to have conducted in excess of 30,000 polygraph examinations. Along with attorney F. Lee Bailey, Gelb appeared on a nationally syndicated television program called "Lie Detector." Gelb has been interviewed about polygraph matters on such national television programs as "Entertainment Tonight," "Geraldo Rivera Live," "CNN Newstand," and CNN's "Larry King Live" show. His high profile clients include O.J. Simpson and John and Patsy Ramsey (parents of JonBenet Ramsey, whose murder remains unsolved). Gelb is a past president, executive director, and chairman of the board of the American Polygraph Association and in 1998 earned the association's Leonarde Keeler Award "for long and distinguished service to the polygraph profession."

Gelb has publicly claimed to hold a Ph.D. degree in psychology since at least 1996. In 1997, he represented himself as a Ph.D. to the highest court in the land -- the United States Supreme Court -- as a co-signer of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists' amicus brief in U.S. v. Scheffer, where he is listed as "Ed Gelb, Ph.D."

But compelling evidence pieced together by discussants on the AntiPolygraph.org message board indicates that Gelb never earned a doctoral degree from any accredited university. The comprehensive Dissertation Abstracts database (the definitive worldwide collection of doctoral dissertations including over 1.6 million records dating back to 1861) includes no doctoral dissertation by an Edward Gelb.

Gelb did not return phone phone calls and e-mail seeking clarification regarding his educational background. However, AntiPolygraph.org has obtained a copy of Gelb's resume (80 kb PDF) that was included in court documents filed in a civil suit in 2002. Writing about himself in the third person, here is what Gelb says about his educational background: "Dr. Gelb was educated at the University of Southern California, LaSalle University and U.C.L.A.. He has been awarded a bachelor's degree in political science, a master's degree in psychology and a doctorate in psychology."

Gelb doesn't state where or when he earned which degree. Perhaps Gelb would like us to infer that he listed the universities in the same order that he listed his degrees and that he earned a bachelor's degree at USC, a master's degree at LaSalle, and a doctorate at UCLA. But this is certainly not the case. If Gelb had earned his Ph.D. at UCLA (or USC), his dissertation would surely be included in the Dissertation Abstracts database. That leaves LaSalle University. There is a legitimate institution of higher learning called LaSalle University in Philadelphia, but it awarded its first Ph.D. degree of any kind in 2002, years after Gelb began putting the letters "Ph.D." after his name. Ed Gelb didn't earn a doctoral degree there.

No, the "LaSalle University" that awarded Gelb his "doctorate" turns out to be a defunct, unaccredited diploma mill in Mandeville, Louisiana that was owned and operated by one Thomas James Kirk, A.K.A. Thomas McPherson. In 1996, LaSalle was raided by the FBI, and in 1997 Kirk pled guilty to federal fraud charges. (For more on the bogus LaSalle University, see "The swim 'doctor': Credentials of nutrition adviser to U.S. women's team questioned," by Danny Robbins and Margaret Jamison, Houston Chronicle, 7 September 2000 and "Chiropractors with False credentials and diplomas" on ChiroWatch.com.)

Mr. Edward I. Gelb is no Ph.D., and he should stop masquerading as such.




And Cleve Baxter is the guy who hooked up plants to polygraph tests to prove that plants can read your mind. Just saying.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Not true. For instance. "Honey do you think my hair looks bad today. Oh no it looks fine." Probably it doesn't but people do this all the time. Doesn't mean they are pathological liars.

A white lie is used to spare another persons feelings.

There's no comparison between a white lie and a lie that is meant to enhance your own image.

One is selfless & the other is selfish.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Foster lost all his credibility when he started flip flopping, whatever that was about. He's a strange looking bird.

I wonder if Foster's letter to Patsy was an attempt to get her to communicate with him so he could study the case further?

We know he got sucked into all the web gossip concerning Jameson's part in all the exciting JB sleuthing & believed she was John Andrew. He was definitely intriqued by the case, like so many other people.

Knowing his part in exposing the Unabomber & Joe Klein, I can't completely dismiss him as a nutjob.

I think his heart was in the right place & he made a very serious tactical error in writing to Patsy & claiming he thought she was innocent.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


No matter how many times you are shown proof that police were NOT always truthful (sometimes at their own admission) you insist on calling the Ramseys "liars" instead.

The reality of this situation is you do NOT know there was no intruder just as I do not KNOW there was one but the evidence supports the there was one.

Guess what?

The FBI also plants disinformation in order to get suspects to react.

This is pretty standard procedure in investigations & the media has ALWAYS been the means with which law enforcement 'communicates' with the bad guys.

It's NOT law enforcement's job to monitor the media or to force the media to print retractions... it's their job to catch crimminals.

[LI_Mom]

That's exactly how John Douglas operates. He makes an educated guess (but it's still only a guess) about what he thinks the suspect should be like & then he makes the profile public in order to get leads or better yet, direct contact from the killer?

[LI_Mom]

I agree, Solace, that he didn't lose credibility as an expert linguist BUT I do think his (stupid!) letter to Patsy would be used by the defense to ridicule him & that a jury would probably end up ignoring any testimony by him.


In any event, a profiler only gives investigators directions & leads to look at.

Foster & John Douglas both speculate... it's not as if we're talking about hard evidence.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


They didn't back off the Ramseys BECAUSE they had their minds made up from the get go.

They DID back off other suspects though and in most cases didn't even follow up on leads.

"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.

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

Other suspects that were backed off on and they didn't find suspicious.

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


They didn't take their focus off the Ramseys because the Ramseys dragged their feet at clearing their own names.

It's no wonder the police focus remained on the Ramseys.

The Ramseys made a choice to act like defendants & their lawyers went into crimminal defense mode. The police were justified in thinking them guilty or at the least onstructing justice.


It's very sad that the police took so long to muddle through all the tips, but that's what happens in the majority of highly publicized cases... there are endless tips that must be checked.



Thankfully, Olivia's DNA didn't match, so in the end it didn't make any difference to the case that it took them that long to follow up on this tip.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


Very true. But, I do think that handwriting analysis has been used by the police and to a successful end in other cases. It is just one more technique that was given to the police in this case to back up their belief that Patsy did it. He did a good job, but the DA was not going to try this case. As Steve Thomas said, this case needs a confession.

True, it was just one technique used to help solve a crime that had almost no evidence & what WAS there was tainted by bad police work.

This crime hinged on circumstantial evidence. A lot of small pieces that on their own were not a smoking gun but put together painted a picture.

I still believe Foster might have been hoping to ingratiate himself with Patsy in order to secretly study her.

[nuisanceposter]

Wow. Let's talk about Judge Carnes and how credible her opinion should be.

"What Mr. Ramsey fails to tell the Michigan voters is that Judge Julie Carnes presided over a CIVIL lawsuit, in CIVIL court, a lawsuit filed by Chris Wolf against the Ramseys for defamation of character, after they named him as a murder suspect in their book, "Death of Innocence."

The Ramseys� civil attorney Lin Wood presented a one-sided view of the evidence to Judge Carnes. Her decision was based on that one-sided view. However, there were over 40,000 pages of police documents and evidence collected in the criminal investigation by the BPD that Judge Carnes never saw."

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

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=241

"Judge Julie Carnes last month tossed out the defamation suit filed against the Ramseys by journalist Chris Wolf, whom the Ramseys had identified in their book as one of the suspects in the death of their daughter. In her ruling, Judge Carnes writes that "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did."

But, of course, the only evidence that Judge Carnes was weighing was the evidence in the record before her. She didn't have access to Boulder police files, to transcripts of the police interviews with the Ramseys, or to media accounts of the information police say they have. The Ramseys told the judge about what police have -- and claim to have -- only when it served their interests. And Wolf's attorney, who didn't have access to police files either, didn't dispute the "overwhelming majority" of the statements of facts asserted by the Ramseys, according to Judge Carnes.

<snip>

The Ramseys also learned in 2000 that prosecutors say they have the results of fiber tests indicating that fibers similar to the ones in the red sweater-jacket she had been wearing the day before her daughter was killed are consistent with fibers from in the paint tray from which the brush used to fashion the ligature found around her daughter's neck was found, in the brush that was a part of the ligature, and "tied into" the ligature.
The Ramseys didn't mention a word of this to Judge Carnes, making the judge look like she's flailing around in the dark, being spoon fed only the information that would lead her to the conclusions the Ramseys want her to reach, while the people feeding her keep secret what they've been told that don't want her to know.

<snip>

Finally, Judge Carnes does a tap dance on the question of the credibility of Gideon Epstein, the handwriting expert Wolf was relying on for his assertion that Patsy wrote the ransom note. Judge Carnes acknowledged that in reaching her decision on whether to dismiss Wolf's suit before it goes to a jury that she is not supposed to assess the credibility of any of his witnesses, because that is something only a jury is permitted to do. Judge Carnes also acknowledges that Epstein is qualified to render such an opinion.

But she complained that in his deposition in the case Epstein hadn't explained the methodology he had used to conclude with "absolute certainty" that Patsy had written the note. Yes, he had said there were similarities between the note and Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting. But he hadn't specified how many similarities or what kind. His failure to do so, Judge Carnes concluded, meant that "the weight and impact" of his testimony would "necessarily" have been less than the weight of the handwriting experts relied on by Boulder police.

Epstein could, of course, have explained his methodology in more detail in his deposition, had Wolf's attorney asked him to, and to a jury, had Carnes permitted the case to go forward. But barring a successful appeal, the judge has made sure he won't get the opportunity.

Now, how is it that Judge Carnes knows about the handwriting experts Boulder police relied on? The Ramseys told her about them and their findings. And how did they know? Because Boulder prosecutors, bending over backwards to accommodate the Ramseys, had told them.

There's no reason to expect the Ramseys to give Judge Carnes evidence they know of that undercuts their assertions.

And there's no reason to consider Judge Carnes's ruling much more than a summary of the catalog of oft repeated Ramsey claims about the case."
http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-carnes.htm

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


I just read a few things on that site, which is very interesting:

"If you think you have any information that could help, please call, write, or e-mail us. Or if you know anyone who can make a device like the garrote or the hand ligature (which had a loop on both ends) pictured on the Jameson Web site * please speak up. Contact us by e-mail at JonBenetTipLine@aol.com, call your local police or call the Boulder Police. Cont.."


Is that the most absurd bull$%^ you have seen yet. If you know of anyone that can make a garrote. Yeah, right, we're talking about tackling E=MC2. He is so full of it Mr. Ramsey. He comes across as this loving, sweet laid back guy and he is as cut throat as Patsy is.


Let's see... if one out of every 100 men who were once boy scouts or in the Navy is named as a suspect & the police fail to question every supsect within a few weeks or months... the Ramsey defense is that the police are not investigating all leads.

Hey! John's message sounds reasonable to me, Solace. :biggrin:

Victory!
S.B.T.C :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


If you are saying they did not know the name of the "other woman" when John was married to Lucinda you are wrong. He was asked that question in his interrogation and he told her name and spoke about it at some length but the name was bleeped out when the interrogation was published. Which it should have been. I wonder how many people on this board and elsewhere have actually read the interrogation reports. LI MOM I know you are waiting for that very book. But has anyone else here read the interrogation?

I'm still waiting for the book.


The question is not that the woman's name should have been made public.

The point was that when, in the early investigation, the police questioned the ex & asked for the name, she pretended she forgot. She was NOT being helpful in the investigation & this was just another example of people protecting the Ramseys & not allowing the police to exclude them quickly as the Ramseys said they wanted.


It was MONTHS before John was interrogated.


You know, a defendant &/or suspect cannot expect the police to only follow the leads they are willing to provide & try to prevent them from following leads that they feel are dead ends.

That's not how an investigation works. That's how you make yourself look uncooperative & maybe hiding something.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Wow. Let's talk about Judge Carnes and how credible her opinion should be.

"What Mr. Ramsey fails to tell the Michigan voters is that Judge Julie Carnes presided over a CIVIL lawsuit, in CIVIL court, a lawsuit filed by Chris Wolf against the Ramseys for defamation of character, after they named him as a murder suspect in their book, "Death of Innocence."

The Ramseys� civil attorney Lin Wood presented a one-sided view of the evidence to Judge Carnes. Her decision was based on that one-sided view. However, there were over 40,000 pages of police documents and evidence collected in the criminal investigation by the BPD that Judge Carnes never saw."

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

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=241

"Judge Julie Carnes last month tossed out the defamation suit filed against the Ramseys by journalist Chris Wolf, whom the Ramseys had identified in their book as one of the suspects in the death of their daughter. In her ruling, Judge Carnes writes that "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did."

But, of course, the only evidence that Judge Carnes was weighing was the evidence in the record before her. She didn't have access to Boulder police files, to transcripts of the police interviews with the Ramseys, or to media accounts of the information police say they have. The Ramseys told the judge about what police have -- and claim to have -- only when it served their interests. And Wolf's attorney, who didn't have access to police files either, didn't dispute the "overwhelming majority" of the statements of facts asserted by the Ramseys, according to Judge Carnes.

<snip>

The Ramseys also learned in 2000 that prosecutors say they have the results of fiber tests indicating that fibers similar to the ones in the red sweater-jacket she had been wearing the day before her daughter was killed are consistent with fibers from in the paint tray from which the brush used to fashion the ligature found around her daughter's neck was found, in the brush that was a part of the ligature, and "tied into" the ligature.
The Ramseys didn't mention a word of this to Judge Carnes, making the judge look like she's flailing around in the dark, being spoon fed only the information that would lead her to the conclusions the Ramseys want her to reach, while the people feeding her keep secret what they've been told that don't want her to know.

<snip>

Finally, Judge Carnes does a tap dance on the question of the credibility of Gideon Epstein, the handwriting expert Wolf was relying on for his assertion that Patsy wrote the ransom note. Judge Carnes acknowledged that in reaching her decision on whether to dismiss Wolf's suit before it goes to a jury that she is not supposed to assess the credibility of any of his witnesses, because that is something only a jury is permitted to do. Judge Carnes also acknowledges that Epstein is qualified to render such an opinion.

But she complained that in his deposition in the case Epstein hadn't explained the methodology he had used to conclude with "absolute certainty" that Patsy had written the note. Yes, he had said there were similarities between the note and Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting. But he hadn't specified how many similarities or what kind. His failure to do so, Judge Carnes concluded, meant that "the weight and impact" of his testimony would "necessarily" have been less than the weight of the handwriting experts relied on by Boulder police.

Epstein could, of course, have explained his methodology in more detail in his deposition, had Wolf's attorney asked him to, and to a jury, had Carnes permitted the case to go forward. But barring a successful appeal, the judge has made sure he won't get the opportunity.

Now, how is it that Judge Carnes knows about the handwriting experts Boulder police relied on? The Ramseys told her about them and their findings. And how did they know? Because Boulder prosecutors, bending over backwards to accommodate the Ramseys, had told them.

There's no reason to expect the Ramseys to give Judge Carnes evidence they know of that undercuts their assertions.

And there's no reason to consider Judge Carnes's ruling much more than a summary of the catalog of oft repeated Ramsey claims about the case."
http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-carnes.htm

Start reading links. Do you think the DA also doesn't have ALL the facts from ALL side? :rolleyes:

"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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Guess what?

The FBI also plants disinformation in order to get suspects to react.

This is pretty standard procedure in investigations & the media has ALWAYS been the means with which law enforcement 'communicates' with the bad guys.

It's NOT law enforcement's job to monitor the media or to force the media to print retractions... it's their job to catch crimminals.

Guess what? It was the FBI's grand idea in this case. :rolleyes: It is NOT the FBI's or LA's "job" to plant FALSE information in the media. They can and do tell the supsect all kinds of junk to try to smoke them out but ruining a suspects reputation by leaking LIES to the media is NOT their "job"!

Put yourself in the suspects place, no matter what supsect. Would you like lies about you told to the press? :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Did they find anything yet?:biggrin:

Yes they have.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


For someone who posts that Gelb is the one and only, you are awfully snippy Breezy. Why don't you take that sarcasm down a knotch, it is starting to make you look ugly, or uglier I should say.

What is a "knotch"?

LOL, I don't have a video cam so how can you see how ugly I am or what I look like?

Strange you can rarely post without a personal attack.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


Look at the posters here who willingly and with malice aforethought post false information to slander the Ramsey's. If Lin Wood or someone from his office takes a look here, they might just have another lawsuit to take to court.

I thought the same thing. These people are posting garbage much of it from whole cloth with NOTHING to back it up and the Ramsey's and Wood have sued and won for less.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Foster lost no credibility. He changed his mind with his belief that Patsy was guilty. That does not sit right with the Ramsey Team. Now if it were the other way around and he first accused her and then changed his mind, people like Breezy would be saying "Renowned Linguist changes his mind. Mr. Foster who was able to bring to light lost writings of William Shakespeare has changed his mind and believes P. Ramsey to be innocent." Breezy would love him and so would Ho-hum no matter how strange they think he looks.:biggrin:

Wrong again and he changes his mind on whims.

But it was no surprise to Shakespearean scholars when their colleague Professor Foster crashed and burned. His dishonesty, arrogance, and lack of integrity had been well known since Foster made his first claim to fame—the identification of an obscure Elizabethan funeral elegy as the work of none other than William Shakespeare.

The poem in question, Funeral Elegy for William Peter, dated 1612, was signed only by printed initials. Foster claimed Shakespeare probably wrote it, pointing to verbal quirks like the frequency of certain words, choice of rhymes, pattern of word length, and so on.

Foster published a book on his theory in 1989, but it attracted little attention until 1995, when Foster pushed his theory at a scholarly conference, and The New York Times covered it on the front page. Suddenly, Donald Foster and the obscure poem were world news. And Donald Foster, whose regular job was teaching freshman English at Vassar, tasted notoriety, and liked it.

Foster bragged that he was the first scholar in this century to have uncovered a genuine new work by Shakespeare. The story was dressed in the trappings of high technology, because Foster used computers for tasks like counting how often a word was used. Appropriately dazzled, some American editors accepted Foster's claim, and included Funeral Elegy in new collections of Shakespeare's works.

But Shakespearean scholars all over the world reacted with horror, scorn, and hard evidence to the contrary. They pointed out that Funeral Elegy flunked all the standard tests for Shakespearean authorship, and that Foster could make his claim only by inventing new tests.

on June 12, 2002, Foster admitted in a posting to a Shakespeare internet discussion group that his claim was false--Funeral Elegy was indeed not written by William Shakespeare but instead by John Ford. Typically, Foster made no apologies for his 13-year-old fraud and his insulting denunciations of his critics. Instead, he proclaimed that his willingness to admit error showed he was a "scholar." (New York Times, June 20, 2002)

http://www.colemanhoax.com/foster_subpage.htm

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



They didn't take their focus off the Ramseys because the Ramseys dragged their feet at clearing their own names.

It's no wonder the police focus remained on the Ramseys.

The Ramseys made a choice to act like defendants & their lawyers went into crimminal defense mode. The police were justified in thinking them guilty or at the least onstructing justice.


It's very sad that the police took so long to muddle through all the tips, but that's what happens in the majority of highly publicized cases... there are endless tips that must be checked.



Thankfully, Olivia's DNA didn't match, so in the end it didn't make any difference to the case that it took them that long to follow up on this tip.

The Ramsey's DNA didn't match either. :rolleyes: You really think because the ramsey's hired lawyers, their constitutionl right BTW and the rest of the non issues you people talk about is more evidence than that against Olivia and the others? God help us all if pineapple, pageants and hiring lawyers is proof of murder.

BTW, HOW did the Ramseys' "obstruct justice". READ the Bill of Rights for crying out loud!!!

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234

In case you failed your Constitution class, it is every Americans RIGHT to hire lawyers AND it is every Americans right to NOT talk to the police if they choose not to without that lawyer. :rolleyes:
Sure it is. What is your point? Every perp is entitled to a lawyer and can keep his mouth shut if he wants. Just think of OJ Simpson, to name just one prominent example. :)

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


The investigators, who the Ramsey's also hired at their own expense, were to investigate the murder.

Here's what the Ramsey Investigator had to say:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_912274,00.html


Armistead said his assignment, working for the Ramseys' lawyers, was not to solve the crime. It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Guess what? It was the FBI's grand idea in this case. :rolleyes: It is NOT the FBI's or LA's "job" to plant FALSE information in the media. They can and do tell the supsect all kinds of junk to try to smoke them out but ruining a suspects reputation by leaking LIES to the media is NOT their "job"!

Put yourself in the suspects place, no matter what supsect. Would you like lies about you told to the press? :shrug:


I totally disagree.

We've seen time & again where police appeal to suspects via newspapers or tv.

I think in solving a murder, the first concern is flushing out the guilty party.

Law enforcement has a job. If anyone should be 'blamed' for hurting people it's the media for their unquenchable thirst for ratings & sale at anyone's expense.


I think the Ramseys did their fair share of naming suspects also. And they included names in their book. Why are their actions any less objectionable?

[LI_Mom]

I fully support their right to hire lawyers & investigators & public relations experts.

What I DON'T support is their right to have their legal team treat their clients as if they are already named crimminal defendants and then to endlessly whine that people think they are guilty.

There are TWO courts you have to be concerned with.

The legal court and the court of public opinion.

And the p.r. team lost badly in the court of public opinion, imo.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I fully support their right to hire lawyers & investigators & public relations experts.

What I DON'T support is their right to have their legal team treat their clients as if they are already named crimminal defendants and then to endlessly whine that people think they are guilty.

There are TWO courts you have to be concerned with.

The legal court and the court of public opinion.

And the p.r. team lost badly in the court of public opinion, imo.

Named or not it was quite obvious they WERE the prime and ONLY suspects the cops were dwelling on. The lies put out to the press by LE were things that anyone would "whine" about.:rolleyes: The court of public opinion is a court of gossips that can't prove their theories or accusaions but they sure do enjoy trashing people that were already suffering the greatest loss parents can even go through.

There is one more "court" much higher than the gossips and that court knows the true facts and that is the court Patsy put her faith and trust in. That court is one all the gossips will also have to face and explain a few things to one day.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



I totally disagree.

We've seen time & again where police appeal to suspects via newspapers or tv.

I think in solving a murder, the first concern is flushing out the guilty party.

Law enforcement has a job. If anyone should be 'blamed' for hurting people it's the media for their unquenchable thirst for ratings & sale at anyone's expense.


I think the Ramseys did their fair share of naming suspects also. And they included names in their book. Why are their actions any less objectionable?

It's fine you totally disagree but you better hope it never happens to you one day. If it does MAYBE THEN you will have some compassion and understanding of what lying cops feeding the media BS can do to a family. You CAN'T "flush out" the guilty party when the ONLY party is "one" party while other "party's" who acted a hell of a lot more suspicious than the ramseys were dismissed and not even questionend until YEARS after the murder IF at all. If all the money they spent nad mouthing the Ramseys and talking to everyone that ever knew them from grade school up was spent to investigate suspicious actions of others the case would have been solved IMO.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

Sure it is. What is your point? Every perp is entitled to a lawyer and can keep his mouth shut if he wants. Just think of OJ Simpson, to name just one prominent example. :)

You KNOW my point so don't play dumb. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Breezy that's just cause s/he has nothing to say about the topic, but s/he has to have the last word so s/he reverts to personal attacks. Kind of like a kid does on the playground. You know?

Exactly. Strange bunch that can't discuss the case without calling names, personal attacks and BS. :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I've seen you post this before. I do not agree. From my corner of the world that is not a true statement. Why? Because LE ineffectiveness was noted from the very beginning.....

And I think if they won in the court of public opinion, very few people would still believe either the Ramseys were guilty or at the very least were not telling all they knew.

LE ineffectiveness at the beginning of this case did little more than make people (citizens & most professionals alike) realize nobody would/could ever be held accountable for this brutal murder without a confession.

The fact that this case was so badly bungled does next to nothing to prove the Ramsey's innocence just as it did nothing to prove anyone's guilt.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Named or not it was quite obvious they WERE the prime and ONLY suspects the cops were dwelling on. The lies put out to the press by LE were things that anyone would "whine" about.:rolleyes: The court of public opinion is a court of gossips that can't prove their theories or accusaions but they sure do enjoy trashing people that were already suffering the greatest loss parents can even go through.

There is one more "court" much higher than the gossips and that court knows the true facts and that is the court Patsy put her faith and trust in. That court is one all the gossips will also have to face and explain a few things to one day.

And I, like millions of other people, believe the police were right to focus on the Ramseys as prime suspects.

If there's one thing Americans love, it's an unresolved case/story.

I think a person who finds themselves in a position to become a 'public figure' through no fault of their own, perhaps, have to factor in the publics reactions.

The Ramsey's p.r. team should have offered their clients better advice. The lawyers should have also should have taken into account the long term damage that would result from appearing on CNN before meeting with the police. The lawyers should have known doing a documentary would also increase the public's cynicism about the Ramsey's contention that the media was their enemy.

And lastly, the Ramsey's book should have been read by their lawyers & the cavalier parts such as: describing aiming a gun at someone & laughing about it, telling your son to count car crashes in a movie, women in car chases to evade the media & leaving your arthritic mother in the car while you stop in at your alma mater to chat with journalism students... things like that do NOTHING to make a person have symapthy for Patsy.


Patsy's words & actions are worthy of being judged, after all, she wrote those words with the intention of letting people see what kind of person she was & what she thought & felt.

Maybe her words impressed some people. They didn't impress me. I found her cold and calculating & very stupid to have even written the things she did. I can't believe the lawyers even let that book go to print.

[Sprocket]

It amazes me that people still think the Ramseys didn't cover up the death of their daughter that occured within their own home.

People actually think that the most distinguished profilers in child killings, the FBI CASKU, who have analized over 1700 child abduction/killings since the 1970's were out on a limb in outer space with their "no intruder" analysis of the case.



:rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Please. A lot of what happened to the Rs was due to their own actions, or lack of action. They made themselves look guilty without much help from anyone else.

There is no forensic evidence of an intruder.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Start reading links. Do you think the DA also doesn't have ALL the facts from ALL side? :rolleyes:

"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

"But, of course, the only evidence that Judge Carnes was weighing was the evidence in the record before her. She didn't have access to Boulder police files, to transcripts of the police interviews with the Ramseys, or to media accounts of the information police say they have."


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



She ruled on the evidence in front of her, but she didn't see the entire case file.

If Ramsey innocence is so obvious, why have they never been cleared as suspects?

[f0rTyLeGz]

Originally posted by Sprocket
It amazes me that people still think the Ramseys didn't cover up the death of their daughter that occured within their own home.

People actually think that the most distinguished profilers in child killings, the FBI CASKU, who have analized over 1700 child abduction/killings since the 1970's were out on a limb in outer space with their "no intruder" analysis of the case.



:rolleyes:
Amazing but true!

It never crossed the Ramsey's combined brains to take the note seriously. They called the police and their pals immediatly. They were being observed by a small foreign faction (does ANYONE ever say "faction?"), that was willing to cut off JonBent's head if they didnt follow the note to a T!

Oh never mind we have to call Fleet anyway!

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


"But, of course, the only evidence that Judge Carnes was weighing was the evidence in the record before her. She didn't have access to Boulder police files, to transcripts of the police interviews with the Ramseys, or to media accounts of the information police say they have."


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



She ruled on the evidence in front of her, but she didn't see the entire case file.

If Ramsey innocence is so obvious, why have they never been cleared as suspects?

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

The DA DID see the entire case and has access to Boulder police files, to transcripts of the police interviews with the Ramseys, or to media accounts of the information police say they have."
:rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Please. A lot of what happened to the Rs was due to their own actions, or lack of action. They made themselves look guilty without much help from anyone else.

There is no forensic evidence of an intruder.

"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."

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Please. A lot of what happened to the Rs was due to their own actions, or lack of action. They made themselves look guilty without much help from anyone else.

There is no forensic evidence of an intruder.

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


And I, like millions of other people, believe the police were right to focus on the Ramseys as prime suspects.

If there's one thing Americans love, it's an unresolved case/story.

I think a person who finds themselves in a position to become a 'public figure' through no fault of their own, perhaps, have to factor in the publics reactions.

The Ramsey's p.r. team should have offered their clients better advice. The lawyers should have also should have taken into account the long term damage that would result from appearing on CNN before meeting with the police. The lawyers should have known doing a documentary would also increase the public's cynicism about the Ramsey's contention that the media was their enemy.

And lastly, the Ramsey's book should have been read by their lawyers & the cavalier parts such as: describing aiming a gun at someone & laughing about it, telling your son to count car crashes in a movie, women in car chases to evade the media & leaving your arthritic mother in the car while you stop in at your alma mater to chat with journalism students... things like that do NOTHING to make a person have symapthy for Patsy.


Patsy's words & actions are worthy of being judged, after all, she wrote those words with the intention of letting people see what kind of person she was & what she thought & felt.

Maybe her words impressed some people. They didn't impress me. I found her cold and calculating & very stupid to have even written the things she did. I can't believe the lawyers even let that book go to print.


LOL, you speak for "millions of Americans" now?:lol: I will let my own common sense and the DA speak for me, NOT you, thanks. Get your nose out of books and stop believeing forum posters as gospel and look to those who KNOW all the evidence such as the DA.


"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

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234

You KNOW my point so don't play dumb. :rolleyes:
It's you who play dumb throughout your in posts, Breezy, by claiming for example that people should not waste their time reading the main books about the case.

Everyone can hire a lawyer, so what? Has anyone here said it was against the law for the R's to lawyer up? Of course not. Therefore shouldn't our focus be on why the Ramseys hired a lawyer? What was their motive for doing so?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

It's you who play dumb throughout your in posts, Breezy, by claiming for example that people should not waste their time reading the main books about the case.

Everyone can hire a lawyer, so what? Has anyone here said it was against the law for the R's to lawyer up? Of course not. Therefore shouldn't our focus be on why the Ramseys hired a lawyer? What was their motive for doing so?

IMO she DID say the Ramseys should not have hired a lawyer before they talked to the cops. THAT is BS, anyone with a brain that gets the vibes the Ramseys did from LE SHOULD hire a lawyer BEFORE they talk to cops.

LI_Mom
Member

Registered: Sep 2005
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 307

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


Raise all the eyebrows you wish to but that does not prove murder. We ARE talking about the murder, aren't we?.............OR are we going to talk about parenting that some of us don't agree with? Maybe we should go into everyones homes and check out how they rasie their children and raise some eyebrows, huh? If parents don't raise their kids they way ALL of us agree with we should remove those kids from the home, huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If their kids end up dead in the basement, we should.

And question them BEFORE the hire lawyers & clam up.

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=268706&perpage=40&pagenumber=16

Read all the books you choose to but they are NOT evidence.



:rolleyes:

The Right to Remain Silent.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to remain silent in the face of questions posed by any police officer or government agent.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Breezy, was Olive's or Helgoth's DNA compared to this DNA?

It was compared to the "old" DNA but to my knowledge not to the new DNA.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace




"…It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The very same scientist who conducted the DNA testing in the Denver Police Department’s DNA lab contradicts the above statement.

Rocky Mountain News, May 18, 2004, Charlie Brennan
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...2893675,00.html
text version backup

A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

"That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used. It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist.

"You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist said. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

"It is only a sample," he said. "You need a match, and that will help you get a name. And then that gives you somebody to talk to. But that person might be alibied-out, or there might be some other explanation for why it's there."

He also said there is no way to "age" the sample, to determine whether it was left in the underwear at the time of JonBenet's murder or at some other point.

…Another state forensics expert, who also asked not to be identified, said the significance of the DNA profile must be weighed conservatively, based on where it was found, and in what substance.

Without knowing if a sample was left by blood, saliva, or some other material, it could be "unknown cellular material sloughed off by somebody's hand," the source said. "You're in an area that is very gray, and it can be very confusing, as to the interpretive value of it."



:biggrin:

:rolleyes: " said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used."

MORE unnamed "sources". Even after all this time they STILL are all mouth and NO action.


BTW, it WAS found on TWO places on JB NOT just her underwear.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Lin Wood, threatened to sue the city of Boulder if the case were not turned over to the Ramsey friendly D.A., Mary Keenan. According to a Rocky Mountain News article written by Charlie Brennan, dated February 10, 2003, Mr. Wood told D.A. Keenan in October of 2002 that the lawsuit would prove "expensive and time consuming."

In a Rocky Mountain News article by Owen Good, dated December 24, 2002, Mr. Wood stated, "If it is believed this was a deal for Mary Keenan to take the investigation and cut a deal with Lin Wood to avoid being sued, it just didn’t happen," Wood said. "I say that even though I made it very clear to Mary Keenan that we would be willing to forgo the lawsuit if she transferred the case."







:rolleyes: Link? "it is "believed"?? LOL

Keenan was the elected DA so NATURALLY the case would be turned over to her. ALL cases were turned over to her. Do you think the cases should be turned over to the local dog catcher? :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Solace


Lin Wood, threatened to sue the city of Boulder if the case were not turned over to the Ramsey friendly D.A., Mary Keenan. According to a Rocky Mountain News article written by Charlie Brennan, dated February 10, 2003, Mr. Wood told D.A. Keenan in October of 2002 that the lawsuit would prove "expensive and time consuming."

In a Rocky Mountain News article by Owen Good, dated December 24, 2002, Mr. Wood stated, "If it is believed this was a deal for Mary Keenan to take the investigation and cut a deal with Lin Wood to avoid being sued, it just didn’t happen," Wood said. "I say that even though I made it very clear to Mary Keenan that we would be willing to forgo the lawsuit if she transferred the case."



:biggrin:

Good find, Solace.

Typical Ramsey team tactics.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Lets see what else we can find. This is fun shooting down all the misconceptions that have been posted. Now when a new poster arrives, he or she can read the truth and not the slanted version. :biggrin:

IMO all you are shooting is your own foot. "Sources" and worse without a link mean NOTHING. Even Thomas wasn't afraid to use his own name. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


In a Rocky Mountain News article by Owen Good, dated December 24, 2002, Mr. Wood stated, "IF it is believed this was a deal for Mary Keenan to take the investigation and cut a deal with Lin Wood to avoid being sued, it just didn’t happen," Wood said. "I say that even though I made it very clear to Mary Keenan that we would be willing to forgo the lawsuit if she transferred the case".:biggrin:

Link?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


The most recent advances in DNA research are based on the 13 CODIS (emphasis added) identifying locators used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). These 13 loci, or locators, have been established as the standard for human identification.

Human Genome Project Information
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml

To identify individuals, forensic scientists scan 13 DNA (emphasis added) regions that vary from person to person and use the data to create a DNA profile of that individual (sometimes called a DNA fingerprint).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One need only do the math to understand that the 10 loci submitted to the CODIS database do not meet the criteria of 13 identifying locators used by CODIS.

Therefore, the DNA is incomplete, not the entire profile, as asserted by John Ramsey on his website. One could say that those 10 loci match 10 loci belonging to someone, but what about the other three loci that are needed for identification? What if the three additional loci for the suspect were A, B, and C, but the missing loci for the sample DNA were X, Y, and Z? It would mean that the wrong person had been identified as a killer based upon incomplete DNA, which is why the CODIS criteria are as strict as they are.

The bottom line is, the DNA sample submitted to the CODIS database by the Denver Police Department DNA lab is not useless, as it can be used for elimination purposes and to possibly match those 10 loci with suspect DNA where there is plenty of other incriminating evidence to identify that suspect. It would, however, face many challenges in court if it were used to try to identify a suspect on the weight of the DNA evidence alone, because the weight of a DNA profile is dependant on the number of loci used. 13 is the FBI standard, not 10.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:biggrin:

The bottom line is, the DNA sample submitted to the CODIS database by the Denver Police Department DNA lab is not useless, as it can be used for elimination purposes and to possibly match those 10 loci with suspect DNA where there is plenty of other incriminating evidence to identify that suspect. It would, however, face many challenges in court if it were used to try to identify a suspect on the weight of the DNA evidence alone, because the weight of a DNA profile is dependant on the number of loci used. 13 is the FBI standard, not 10.

It didn't even come close to matching ANY Ramsey. :shrug:


"CODIS (COmbined DNA Index System), an electronic database of DNA
profiles that can identify suspects, is similar to the AFIS (Automated
Fingerprint Identification System) database. Every State in the Nation is in
the process of implementing a DNA index of individuals convicted of
certain crimes, such as rape, murder, and child abuse. Upon conviction and
sample analysis, perpetrators' DNA profiles are entered into the DNA
database. Just as fingerprints found at a crime scene can be run through
AFIS in search of a suspect or link to another crime scene, DNA profiles
from a crime scene can be entered into CODIS. Therefore, law
enforcement officers have the ability to identify possible suspects when no
prior suspect existed.

-------------------------------

Identifying DNA Evidence

Since only a few cells can be sufficient to obtain useful DNA information
to help your case, the list below identifies some common items of
evidence that you may need to collect, the possible location of the DNA
on the evidence, and the biological source containing the cells. Remember
that just because you cannot see a stain does not mean there are not
enough cells for DNA typing. Further, DNA does more than just identify
the source of the sample; it can place a known individual at a crime scene,
in a home, or in a room where the suspect claimed not to have been. It can
refute a claim of self-defense and put a weapon in the suspect's hand. It
can change a story from an alibi to one of consent. The more officers
know how to use DNA, the more powerful a tool it becomes."

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


By the way, the Ramsey Team initiated the settlement with Thomas. Steve Thomas would only agree to a settlement if he did not have to PAY ONE DIME, he could continue to speak about the case and his book continued to be published.

:biggrin:

Link.

"Steve Thomas said Monday he has retained the services of Daniel Petrocelli and said he looks forward to the opportunity to "expose in a court of law what happened in the Ramsey home" the night the couple's daughter, JonBenét, was killed.

"The former police detective who wrote a book accusing John and Patsy Ramsey of killing their daughter has agreed to pay them an undisclosed amount of money to settle a libel lawsuit.

Ex-detective Steve Thomas, his co-author, Don Davis, and publisher St. Martin’s Press are participating in the settlement, Ramsey attorney L. Lin Wood said. He would not say how the three will divide the payment.

“The settlement agreement is a repudiation of Steve Thomas’ theory,” Wood said Wednesday. “I think it clearly is a vindication of the Ramseys .”

Wood said that the libel claim was a gamble for the Ramseys , who would have had to prove their innocence to win the case. That the defendants decided to pay money is vindication for the Ramseys , Wood said.

“They didn’t sue this case under any false impressions, that it would be easy or worth millions,” he said. “They sued this case as a matter of principle. A man wrote a book accusing Patsy of murder, and John of covering it up, and profited off a child’s death. And win, lose or draw, they were not going to tolerate it.”

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail02.asp?ID=23

The boy wonder chickened out and settled no matter how you want to look at it or what Steve claims AFTER the fact. He HAD his chance to prove them guilty and instead "settled".




:rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


No one was accusing the Ramseys 4 hours after the death of their daughter. The police were asking for help in finding the killer. The Ramseys lawyered up in 4 hours way before Eller decided to hold the body. The Ramseys had their lawyers in place almost immediately.

Link? Another gossip "story" repeated by you. :rolleyes:

The Ramsey friends were not stupid, they KNEW "the police were not simply asking for help in finding the killer". If you think that you are living in la la land. The parents are always the first suspect in a child killing.

[nuisanceposter]

Innocence? Vindication?

The Ramseys have yet to be cleared as suspects.

[nuisanceposter]

Again with the fragmented and degraded DNA. Anyone not desperate to cling to any hope would realize that the variance in completeness of the DNA between JonBenet's and the foreign DNA indicates that they were deposited at different times.

They don't even know what kind of cell the foreign DNA came from.

As for the stun gun, they should have exhumed her. Since they didn't, they have to rely on Dr Meyer's professional opinion of the marks - and he said they were abrasions, not burns. He would know the difference. The marks aren't the correct distance apart to have been stun gun marks. They're too close together. Here's more:


http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Interpreting%20the%20Evidence#EvidenceofaStunGun


Evidence Against a Stun Gun

* The most complete rebuttal to the stun gun theory has been provided by Internet poster Jayelles here
* AirTaser, the manufacturer of the stun gun that would have left markings most similar to those found on JBR's body, was skeptical that any stun gun could have been used without either creating much noise or causing JBR to scream in pain. An extensive interview with an AirTaser representative is found here. Internet poster Margoo speculates this aired on MSNBC in July 2001.
* The Ramsey Stun Gun Myth purports to show that the spacing of the alleged stun gun marks is too small to have been caused by an AirTaser.
* Wolfmarsgirl developed a theory that the stun gun marks instead were made by Patsy Ramsey's rings.
* DocG writes: The "stun gun" is a perfect example of the lengths to which Ramsey supporters must go when constructing their mystery intruder. Since there is no real evidence of any such person, it has been necessary to concoct evidence out of thin air. Anyone can take some marks from a photograph, shop around for something that seems to fit those marks, and then assert that the marks "must have been" made by that object. If Smit hadn't found a stun gun with the necessary measurements he'd have found some other object that filled the bill, something the Ramseys were unlikely to possess, such as a plumber's tool or maybe something only a dentist or optometrist might use. Anything that might prove useful in concocting a reasonable doubt defense. All the stun gun theory proves is that Lou Smit is NOT operating as an objective investigator but, on the contrary, a Ramsey advocate. What's most troubling about this whole issue is the way so many reasonable people have taken this absurd theory seriously, to the point of going to considerable trouble to "refute" it (see above). It's not worth refuting. Why bother? There IS no stun gun evidence, just a myth concocted to manipulate public opinion.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


From Judge Carnes’ Decision:

“Dr. Michael Doberson, a forensic pathologist who examined the Boulder Coroner's autopsy report and autopsy photos, and who concluded that the injuries to "the right side of the face as well as on the lower left back are patterned injuries most consistent with the application of a stun gun." (Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 5(A) attach. as Ex. 3 to Defs.' Ex. Vol. I, Part A. ) Defendants' evidence that a stun gun was used, then, stands unrebutted. In other words, plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that creates a material dispute of fact on this point or that offers an alternative explanation for the origin of these marks, other than a stun gun. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the undisputed facts indicate that a stun gun was used in the commission of the murder.

In addition, the Court notes that defendants have provided compelling testimony from homicide detective Andrew Louis Smit, who is widely regarded as an expert investigator, in support of the intruder theory. (SMF 168; PSMF 168.) Detective Smit has reviewed the evidence and prepared a comprehensive CD presentation that summarizes this evidence and offers the inferences that can be logically drawn from that evidence. From a review of this evidence, Detective Smit believes that JonBenet was subdued by a stun gun, taken from her bedroom by an unknown intruder, and then sexually assaulted, tortured and murdered by this intruder in the basement of the defendants' home in Boulder, Colorado.”


The Truth

Dr. Michael Doberson, the expert the Ramsey’s rely on for their stun gun theory, has stated he can’t be sure a stun gun was used without exhuming the body.


From The Boulder Daily Camera - January 13, 1998.

"They came over and showed me some pictures from the (Ramsey) autopsy and asked for my opinion, whether they could be stun gun injuries," Dobersen recalled. "I told them that they could be; that was a possibility. But there were a lot of things they could do to narrow down the possibilities of what it could be."
Dobersen told Boulder investigators to do what The New Yorker reports they eventually did - measure the distance between the wounds and compare that to stun guns.
"Besides", he added, "the only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for very characteristic changes in skin tissue."
"You really can't tell from a photo," Dobersen said.

I LOVE THIS.

:biggrin:

Dr. Michael Dobersen, a stun gun expert and coroner for neighboring Arapahoe County, also believes the marks on JonBenet were left by a stun gun. To prove it, he used one on the skin of an anesthetized pig. “The marks are similar in size, shape and color and are a certain distance apart,” he says.

While there are some minor differences, both Doberson and Smit believe the experiment confirms a stun gun was used.




:rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


The GJ DID NOT convict the Ramsey's either. And what does that mean in America?

Not as innocent as you'd like. The Ramseys still have not been cleared as suspects. There's certainly no vindication there.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234



LOL, you speak for "millions of Americans" now?:lol: I will let my own common sense and the DA speak for me, NOT you, thanks. Get your nose out of books and stop believeing forum posters as gospel and look to those who KNOW all the evidence such as the DA.



Are you having trouble understanding my very plain English?

I never intimated that I was speaking FOR other people, I was simply saying that I agree with the millions who still believe the Ramseys are NOT completely innocent.

And while YOU choose to take comfort in Judge Carne's ruling from a simple civil case, I prefer to look at people who were personally involved with the investigation.

I find it damning that the private investigator that a Ramsey lawyer hired would make a statement like this, "Armistead said his assignment, working for the Ramseys' lawyers, was not to solve the crime. It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested."

There are TWO possibilities here:

1) The Ramsey's own PI was telling the truth.

2) The Ramsey's own PI was lying.

If the Ramsey's own PI was telling the truth, that looks REAL bad for an innocent client. Not to mention, all the time wasted NOT looking for "the real killers."

If the Ramsey's own PI was lying, then it leads one to wonder how many OTHER people involved with the Ramsey defense were liars? And why did they lie? Did they have to or was that just business as usual for these people?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


ROFL....... I, like millions?

BTW - the fact that you do not approve of Patsy does not make her a murderer.

And the fact that YOU find nothing wrong with her words & actions does NOT make her innocent.

Furthermore, I've mentioned many examples of why I felt Patsy's behavior or words were odd & none of the Patsy supporters have addressed those issues.


Simply saying a person never showed signs of being abusive or a killer in the past does NOT equate to a defense. Sure, it might show that it is unlikely that a person suddenly killed their child BUT it doesn't make it impossible.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I believe Breezy has posted to the contrary........

It might surprise you to hear that some people here do not consider Breezy to be the ultimate authority.

Are you saying Breezy has said that the Ramseys have been cleared as suspects?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Excuse me. That is not what I said. Go back and read my post.

This is what you said:

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


But, again for the sake of my children - I would not give out that name so that the whole affair can be revisited and put on every TV talk show in America. John's first wife had remarried. I'm sure - just like other people do - she had moved on.

And I stand by my answer to your comment:



Come on. The police are investigating the brutal murder of a 6 year old child & you think 'forgetting ' the name of your ex's lover is going to take the focus OFF you?

It was little things like that that caused people to wonder why the family members & the Ramsey friends were making it so diificult to quickly exclude the Ramseys & move to the next stage of the investigation.

Anyone with a lick of sense should have known that the police & the media doesn't back off when they aren't getting the answers they want... they become suspicious & relentless.

---

And I'll add... the goal was to question John's lover for whatever reasons LE felt necessary. And his wife might have already 'moved on' but everything changes when a child turns up strangled to death.

I doubt any of the people questioned were 'happy' that they had to answer embarrassing or uncomfortable questions.

Imagine if EVERYONE questioned, demanded a lawyer & then refused to speak for fear of incrimminating themselves? They had that right also.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


"the only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for very characteristic changes in skin tissue."
"You really can't tell from a photo," Dobersen said.
:biggrin:

"Originally posted by breezy1234


Dr. Michael Dobersen, a stun gun expert and coroner for neighboring Arapahoe County, also believes the marks on JonBenet were left by a stun gun. To prove it, he used one on the skin of an anesthetized pig. “The marks are similar in size, shape and color and are a certain distance apart,” he says.

While there are some minor differences, both Doberson and Smit believe the experiment confirms a stun gun was used. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523887.shtml

"Arapahoe County Coroner Michael Dobersen said Smit's theory is plausible.

"Unless some other evidence is presented to me, the most likely explanation for those injuries is that they were caused by a stun gun," Dobersen told NBC. "

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


It means that "enough" evidence was not presented to them to warrant a trial but ALSO "enough" evidence was not presented to exonerate them. So, they are still basically skating by but they are not exonerated even though Mr. Ramsey has erroneously stated so.

DUH, a GJ doesn't "exonerate" anyone. Bottom line is they did NOT indict. John was not talking about the GJ, he was talking about the Carnes decision. They had their chance to prove Patsy guily there and could NOT!. Thomas also had his chance to prove her guilty in the ciivl suit against him and he did not. As Keenan said.........................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.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


It might surprise you to hear that some people here do not consider Breezy to be the ultimate authority.

Are you saying Breezy has said that the Ramseys have been cleared as suspects?

As Keenan said.........................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.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


*snipped*
FACT: Doberson said he wasn’t ready to make a definite public statement unless the body was exhumed. The next logical step would be exhumation; yet, the Ramseys absolutely refused to do this.




You sure are confused. NO one in this country is suppoed to have to prove their innocence. LE could have had her body exhumed without the Ramsey's permission if they were so sure a stun gun wasn't used. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Mr. Thomas conceded NOTHING. The Ramseys conceded that Mr. Thomas would pay nothing to them; Mr. Thomas's book would continue to be published and Mr. Thomas would speak at will if he chose. Looks to me like the Ramseys settled for "nothing".

Are you Thomas? If not you do NOT know the details of the settlement. :rolleyes: Looks to me like Thomas chickened out after he said................."Steve Thomas said Monday he has retained the services of Daniel Petrocelli and said he looks forward to the opportunity to "expose in a court of law what happened in the Ramsey home" the night the couple's daughter, JonBenét, was killed. "

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/03arams.html

He had his chance and of course didn't. All mouth and no action AGAIN Thomas.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


As Keenan said.........................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.

They're still suspects who have never been cleared.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


<snip>

He had his chance and of course didn't. All mouth and no action AGAIN Thomas.

Steve Thomas presented his case to FBI's CASKU unit, and they agreed with him...while Lou Smit sat there and said nothing.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


As Keenan said.........................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.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty by the LEGAL SYSTEM only.

However, the court of public opinion was never constrained by legal requirements & safeguards.



People like Lizzie Borden & OJ were actually lucky enough to be found not guilty in a crimminal court of law but still lost badly in the court of public opinion.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


He conceded NOTHING; he can speak at will; he paid NOTHING an his book is still selling. Bought it 2 months ago.:lol:

DUH, he conceded by NOT proving Patsy guilty like he said he would. :rolleyes:

Book banning is not something done in this country lightly, even if it is a fairy tale and can't be proven true. :rolleyes: Remember the Constitution?