General Discussion /Post Karr [Archive] - Page 9

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
The Ramsey's were prevented from visiting JB's grave?

Funny they weren't 'prevented' from going to church or appearing on TV or from vacationing in Michigan or from house hunting in Atlanta or any other places they went. :D

It's more likely that it was guilt that prevented them from visiting JB's grave? Guilt at being responsible for her murder OR guilt over frustrating LE's efforts to solve the case.

:read: what i said about that!

"He made it impossible for the Ramseys' to even visit their daughters at their graves in peace.

:read: your "heros" book.

Another startling revelation that Thomas offered in his book was that Boulder police detectives [pv]had broken into an Atlanta cemetery and bugged JonBenet Ramsey's grave. [/b]It happened seven months into the investigation when police became frustrated at the lack of developments in the case and recruited a patrolman from Georgia State Police to break into St. James Episcopal Cemetery. He tells how Boulder detectives planted a hidden microphone and camera a few feet from JonBenet's grave and monitored them for three days, hoping to catch a mourner's confession. He also admitted that John and Patsy Ramsey, who were the primary targets of the stakeout, did not visit the grave during that time.

Four months later, the detectives returned to the cemetery with a fake tombstone they had commissioned from a special-effects company to hide the equipment. The plan was foiled, however, when a child discovered the fake tombstone and announced loudly that it was made of wood."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/book_10.html

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

He did no such thing. And you have the nerve to call me a liar...

Thomas had some very reputable experts including FBI's Casku unit backing his theory up.

You just can't accept that, can you, and you have to keep saying he had no back up when he clearly did.

PROOF and evidence is back up. He had NEIHER or he would have proven it in court when he had the chance !!!

:shrug:

nuisanceposter

08-04-2006, 02:13 PM

Mike Bynum had been a prosecutor for the DA's office before becoming part of the largest law firm in town. He was a good friend of the Ramseys.

It's right on page 28 of DOI.

I wonder how many other parents of murdered children have been able to avoid police interviews like the Ramseys were.

I guess only ones who had high-powered attorneys as personal friends.

Why wouldn't the parents want this killer caught as soon as possible? Is thier own grief more important than stopping a child killer from attacking again? It was to the Ramseys.

nuisanceposter

08-04-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

PROOF and evidence is back up. He had NEIHER or he would have proven it in court when he had the chance !!!

:shrug:

Exactly as I thought...you can't accept that police have evidence backing up Ramsey guilt so you keep lying and saying they don't.

nuisanceposter

08-04-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Solace

That is what I mean Rosyred! I don't care if he were a real estate attorney, he is doing the talking. Understand. He is representing them. That is all they need, representation. Now they have it. So the police can ask until they raise Clarence Darrow from the dead, but they are not getting the interviews.

That is right Patsy was knocked out on valium and that is not an accident. Unfortunately, she was allowed to do this. She should not have been. She and John should have been separated immediately and questioned. By the way I am echoing what Judge Carne states that they should have been immediately questioned separately.

Absolutely. The Ramseys were given preferential treatment from the beginning and took advantage of it as much as they could.

They had no trouble pulling it together to appear on national television, yet they can't talk to police at all because they're too distraught.

Meanwhile they tell us on CNN that there is a killer on the loose, yet they don't seem to think it would help stop him if they talked to the cops.

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Solace
By using the word confronted, it means he took over the conversation. Does not necessarily mean he was trying to "stir" something up or be "confrontational". He was letting the police know that he was the spokesperson and in the future, go through him. He initiated the conversation before the Ramseys could be interviewed. He was protecting them and being paid to do it. So John Ramsey was well aware of what was going on. Lawyers do not work for free, not ever.

Ever heard of pro bono?

They lawyered up immediately when the police had not accused them of anything and were specifically asking the Ramseys to go over anything they could remember while it was fresh in their minds. The Ramseys REFUSED. Doesn't sound like they were looking to catch an intruder that evening. Probably wanted to wait a few more days so the intruder could get a good head start, if he exists that is.

Once again, the parents are ALWAYS a suspect in a child murder and it is their constitutional right to not answer questions.

LI_Mom

08-04-2006, 02:29 PM

Bynum was previously a prosecutor with the Boulder DA's office.

He took it upon himself to tell John that the Ramseys were in no position to deal with anything & asked for permission to handle things.

John agreed.

Mike told the police that the Ramseys would NOT be going in for interviews.

JB's pediatrician was at the house & medicated Patsy. It's no wonder she was 'out of it' & unable to cope.

However, I wonder why John didn't go down & help the police launch the investigation, in the meantime?

Yes, I would say they were lawyered up & on the defensive very early on.

Legally, they were well within their rights. However, the sad consequences of that choice was not well thought out by the Ramseys or the team they assembled. They cast suspicion upon themselves and since there was never a trial, the suspicion remains to this day.

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Absolutely. The Ramseys were given preferential treatment from the beginning and took advantage of it as much as they could.

They had no trouble pulling it together to appear on national television, yet they can't talk to police at all because they're too distraught.

Meanwhile they tell us on CNN that there is a killer on the loose, yet they don't seem to think it would help stop him if they talked to the cops.

HOW could they stop the killer by talking to the cops? Pull his name out of a hat? They WERE interviewed, gave handwritting samples, gave hair and blood samples, as well as fingerprints, even pubic hair samples and if cops didn't find that enough, oh well, nothing more they could say would find the killer. :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
Bynum was previously a prosecutor with the Boulder DA's office.

He took it upon himself to tell John that the Ramseys were in no position to deal with anything & asked for permission to handle things.

John agreed.

Mike told the police that the Ramseys would NOT be going in for interviews.

JB's pediatrician was at the house & medicated Patsy. It's no wonder she was 'out of it' & unable to cope.

However, I wonder why John didn't go down & help the police launch the investigation, in the meantime?

Yes, I would say they were lawyered up & on the defensive very early on.

Legally, they were well within their rights. However, the sad consequences of that choice was not well thought out by the Ramseys or the team they assembled. They cast suspicion upon themselves and since there was never a trial, the suspicion remains to this day.

He did.
"Police questioned them both on December 27 and John again on December 28. Officers were with the Ramseys 24 hours a day from 6 a.m. December 26, the day JonBenet's body was found, through 2 p.m. December 29, when the Ramseys left for the funeral in Atlanta.

"Detectives began requesting interviews from the couple shortly after John Ramsey and a friend found the 6-year-old strangled in the basement of the Ramseys' Boulder home on Dec. 26. About eight hours earlier, Patsy Ramsey discovered a ransom note demanding $118,000 and called police.

After the homicide, investigators extensively interviewed the parents on Dec. 26 and John Ramsey on Dec. 27, "

LI_Mom

08-04-2006, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

:read: what i said about that!

"He made it impossible for the Ramseys' to even visit their daughters at their graves in peace.

:read: your "heros" book.

Another startling revelation that Thomas offered in his book was that Boulder police detectives [pv]had broken into an Atlanta cemetery and bugged JonBenet Ramsey's grave. It happened seven months into the investigation when police became frustrated at the lack of developments in the case and recruited a patrolman from Georgia State Police to break into St. James Episcopal Cemetery. He tells how Boulder detectives planted a hidden microphone and camera a few feet from JonBenet's grave and monitored them for three days, hoping to catch a mourner's confession. He also admitted that John and Patsy Ramsey, who were the primary targets of the stakeout, did not visit the grave during that time.

Four months later, the detectives returned to the cemetery with a fake tombstone they had commissioned from a special-effects company to hide the equipment. The plan was foiled, however, when a child discovered the fake tombstone and announced loudly that it was made of wood."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/book_10.html [/B]

You're a riot. I have no heroes, much less anyone connected to the Ramsey circus.

For a moment, let's pretend the Ramseys really did stay away because the cemetary was under surveilannce by their arch enemies, the police. Why couldn't they show up & not SAY ANYTHING & just pray silently & leave flowers or gifts? Surely, they didn't think the police would be there to arrest them... only to watch.

I'm curious, do you think the police should have totally ignored the gravesite? It's common procedure for LE to stake out places they think a killer might show up, cemetaries being one of those places but do you think JB's grave should have been an exception?

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Solace

*snipped*

We are not talking about pro bono here. They were paid.

your post..............Originally posted by Solace
By using the word confronted, it means he took over the conversation. Does not necessarily mean he was trying to "stir" something up or be "confrontational". He was letting the police know that he was the spokesperson and in the future, go through him. He initiated the conversation before the Ramseys could be interviewed. He was protecting them and being paid to do it. So John Ramsey was well aware of what was going on. Lawyers do not work for free, not ever.

How on earth do you KNOW who was paid and who was not? :lol:

LI_Mom

08-04-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

HOW could they stop the killer by talking to the cops? Pull his name out of a hat? They WERE interviewed, gave handwritting samples, gave hair and blood samples, as well as fingerprints, even pubic hair samples and if cops didn't find that enough, oh well, nothing more they could say would find the killer. :rolleyes:

Very interesting.

All the 'cooperation' you listed was geared towards clearing the Ramseys & yet you still ask what use it would be for the Ramseys to talk to the cops?

You don't think explaining everything in great detail might give the police clues as to what direction to look?

This makes perfect sense IF they're guilty.

nuisanceposter

08-04-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

HOW could they stop the killer by talking to the cops? Pull his name out of a hat? They WERE interviewed, gave handwritting samples, gave hair and blood samples, as well as fingerprints, even pubic hair samples and if cops didn't find that enough, oh well, nothing more they could say would find the killer. :rolleyes:

They did not give those things right away and you know it. The police were there to question them the day after the child was found dead. The police did not already have samples from them at that point.

It's completely reasonable and expected that police would want to interview them as soon as possible.

They were the parents of the dead child, and she was found dead in their home while they were the only ones home.

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Solace

They were not interviewed and Breezy is aware of this. The Chief of Police says to call their speaking to the Ramseys on December 26th an interview would not be reasonable. And on December 27th Mike B. who represented them said "No interiews now".

They gave non testimonial samples and no interviews. His Lawyer (Mike B.) called the police and told them that all they could have was the samples. No interviews.

Breezy this is not Ophrah's audience where John gets to lie and say I gave samples and cooperated and by smokescreening he hopes to bull%^& the audience into believing that he was interviewed. We know better, so you will have to do better than to just keep saying it as though it were gospel.

But I think Breezy is aware of all of this, as much as she hates to admit it.

:biggrin:

"Detectives, however, extensively questioned the parents on Dec. 26, according to a letter from the Ramseys' attorneys last week to Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter, who recently identified the couple as the focus of the investigation.

Beginning early Wednesday, Detectives Tom Trujillo and Steve Thomas questioned the Ramseys separately at the district attorney's office in the Justice Center at Sixth Street and Canyon

Boulevard. The interrogations also involved a representative from the prosecutor's office, an attorney for the Ramseys and a Ramsey family investigator, according to city spokeswoman Leslie Aaholm.

Conditions of the interview met the specifications police outlined last week, Aaholm noted:

Detectives, selected after consultation with Hunter, interviewed John and Patsy Ramsey individually. Ramsey attorneys accompanied the parents.

Authorities questioned Patsy Ramsey first.

The interviews had an "open-ended time frame" with reasonable breaks.

Investigators tape-recorded the interrogations.

Authorities questioned the couple at a neutral location "acceptable to the Boulder Police Department."

Detectives concluded the interrogations about 5 p.m. Hunter would not discuss if investigators would conduct more interviews.

"It's my understanding that this was a one-shot deal," another source said, noting the Ramseys have no legal obligation to submit to police questioning.

Ramsey lawyers, however, said the parents cooperated with police.

"John and Patsy Ramsey fully complied with the agreement and answered all questions posed to them," Hal Haddon, who represents John Ramsey, said in a press release.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/05/01-1.html

"Carnes sharply criticized the botched investigation that followed the discovery of JonBenét's body; accused Boulder police of using the media to target the Ramseys; and stated that the Ramseys, despite widespread criticism to the contrary, attempted to cooperate fully with detectives investigating their daughter's murder.

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

If this is a lie whey didn't Thomas even prove that much when he had the chance? Why didn't HE sue the Ramseys if it was a lie? Did the judge lie too?

:rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

They did not give those things right away and you know it. The police were there to question them the day after the child was found dead. The police did not already have samples from them at that point.

It's completely reasonable and expected that police would want to interview them as soon as possible.

They were the parents of the dead child, and she was found dead in their home while they were the only ones home.

Answered above.

nuisanceposter

08-04-2006, 02:55 PM

Please read what a man who has dealt with police in the investigation of the murder of his daughter has to say about the Ramseys and their behavior - Marc Klaas. A man who set up a functional foundation for his daughter and has used it to help anyone he could.

http://www.klaaskids.org/1997/Summer%201997.pdf

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Solace

I know and most likely you do too that the Ramseys said they used the money from the sale of the book to go into a fund (which never happened by the way) and also TO THEIR DEFENSE FUND.

Breezy, your posts of late amount to knitpicking, e.g. re the above; You have been studying this case for some ten years, can you give us more than what you have been?

Who said ANYTHING about the money from the ramseys book? IMO you are losing it. TRY to stay on task. YOU were talking about lawyers ALWAYS getting paid. The Rmasey book nor any of the other books are lawyers. LOL

I am not here to "give" you anything. I post links with facts and evidence and if you don't like them, oh well.

nuisanceposter

08-04-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

"Detectives, however, extensively questioned the parents on Dec. 26, according to a letter from the Ramseys' attorneys last week to Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter, who recently identified the couple as the focus of the investigation.

Beginning early Wednesday, Detectives Tom Trujillo and Steve Thomas questioned the Ramseys separately at the district attorney's office in the Justice Center at Sixth Street and Canyon

Boulevard. The interrogations also involved a representative from the prosecutor's office, an attorney for the Ramseys and a Ramsey family investigator, according to city spokeswoman Leslie Aaholm.

Conditions of the interview met the specifications police outlined last week, Aaholm noted:

Detectives, selected after consultation with Hunter, interviewed John and Patsy Ramsey individually. Ramsey attorneys accompanied the parents.

Authorities questioned Patsy Ramsey first.

The interviews had an "open-ended time frame" with reasonable breaks.

Investigators tape-recorded the interrogations.

Authorities questioned the couple at a neutral location "acceptable to the Boulder Police Department."

Detectives concluded the interrogations about 5 p.m. Hunter would not discuss if investigators would conduct more interviews.

"It's my understanding that this was a one-shot deal," another source said, noting the Ramseys have no legal obligation to submit to police questioning.

Ramsey lawyers, however, said the parents cooperated with police.

"John and Patsy Ramsey fully complied with the agreement and answered all questions posed to them," Hal Haddon, who represents John Ramsey, said in a press release.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/05/01-1.html

"Carnes sharply criticized the botched investigation that followed the discovery of JonBenét's body; accused Boulder police of using the media to target the Ramseys; and stated that the Ramseys, despite widespread criticism to the contrary, attempted to cooperate fully with detectives investigating their daughter's murder.

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

If this is a lie whey didn't Thomas even prove that much when he had the chance? Why didn't HE sue the Ramseys if it was a lie? Did the judge lie too?

:rolleyes:

this interview you're referring to happened quite some time after the murder. We were discussing the 27th of December. The Ramseys were not cooperating with police on the 27th. They were stalling and refusing to be interviewed through legal counsel put in place right away to defend them.

Thomas isn't a well-connected millionaire, breezy. Maybe he couldn't afford to sue the Ramseys. They backed down in that settlement and he's still selling his book, isn't he? Why did the Ramseys settle?

Did the judge see all of the Ramsey case file? No, she didn't. She only saw what was presented to her in the civil case of Wolf vs Ramseys. Thomas wasn't a part of that at all, or Judge Carnes may not have ruled as she did.

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Solace

You and I both know or you should know that the officers were posted outside the Fernsies residence on December 27 and 28 for protection. There was no interviewing going on.

And you know it. And post your backup for your quote Breezy. We all want to know where you get this stuff.

They were questioned extensively on the 26th and again the Chief of Police says 'to say the questioning of the Ramseys on the 26th was an interview, would be unreasonable. They were not interviewed".

YOU of all people ask for back up when you post BS story after BS story and ignore when anyone asks you for a link???? :lol: :lol:

What is the differnece between an interview and questioning if all they wanted to do was "find the killer? You messed up BIG time with that statement.

:rolleyes:

nuisanceposter

08-04-2006, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

YOU of all people ask for back up when you post BS story after BS story and ignore when anyone asks you for a link???? :lol: :lol:

What is the differnece between an interview and questioning if all they wanted to do was "find the killer? You messed up BIG time with that statement.

:rolleyes:

It's a valid request, breezy. Do you have a link or not?

She didn't mess up at all. The Ramseys messed up. They weren't concerned about finding their daughter's killer or talking to police would have been more important to them.

Please read the link I provided to Marc Klaas's comments.

http://www.klaaskids.org/1997/Summer%201997.pdf

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

It's a valid request, breezy. Do you have a link or not?

She didn't mess up at all. The Ramseys messed up. They weren't concerned about finding their daughter's killer or talking to police would have been more important to them.

Please read the link I provided to Marc Klaas's comments.

http://www.klaaskids.org/1997/Summer%201997.pdf

I didn't save the link as links no longer seem necessary here. My bookmarks are getting much too long trying to quell the BS put out on this forum.

Duh, there were witnesses to Polly's kidnapping so of course Mark was real brave. :rolleyes: ANYONE who KNOWS they are a supect and talks to the police is crazy. Mark was not and could not be a suspect because of the witnesses.

LI_Mom

08-04-2006, 03:42 PM

Of course, the idea that the Ramseys would stay away from a place the police might be is ridiculous.

After all, a "small foreign faction" has it out for them. They would welcome the police presence & be thankful that they were being protected.

Joe Schmo's the only one who needs to be afraid of the police. :D

LI_Mom

08-04-2006, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

I didn't save the link as links no longer seem necessary here. My bookmarks are getting much too long trying to quell the BS put out on this forum.

Duh, there were witnesses to Polly's kidnapping so of course Mark was real brave. :rolleyes: ANYONE who KNOWS they are a supect and talks to the police is crazy. Mark was not and could not be a suspect because of the witnesses.

That's faulty logic.

The police would have NO WAY of knowing whether Mark had any type of connection to the person the witnesses described.

It's imperative that the police question people as quickly as possible so they can follow leads BEFORE valuable evidence might be lost forever.

LI_Mom

08-04-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

The public can be lied to and brainwashed and think whatever they choose but it has nothing to do with anyones guilt. :rolleyes:

The public can be lied to and brainwashed and think whatever they choose but it has nothing to do with anyones innocence. :rolleyes:

nuisanceposter

08-04-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

There is an exception to every rule. In this case, the Ramsey case is the exception.

Yes, but why? What is that has you convinced they weren't involved? Who do you think wrote the ransom note and why? I'm just curious.

LI_Mom

08-04-2006, 04:40 PM

Mark Klaas was more interested in finding answers than in protecting himself in case the police came to believe he was involved in the crime in any way.

Probably, Mark Klaas was NOT nervous about helping the police because he knew he was innocent.

LI_Mom

08-04-2006, 04:43 PM

I never saw the video.

I don't know WHO was advising the Ramseys about public relations but they person should find a different job. :D

The horrendous p.r. moves did more to bury the Ramseys than anything else.

LI_Mom

08-04-2006, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Well, it did help that Mark didn't live in the house with Polly.......
JMO

Yes, because any forensic evidence found in the home linked to Mark would have been harder to explain away.

But the point is that he WAS a suspect, just like every parent of a missing or murdered child should be.

And he did everything he could to allow the police to exclude him ASAP so they could concentrate on leads that would help solve the crime.

Jayelles

08-04-2006, 04:57 PM

Photo of the size 4/6 compared to the size 12/14 here (post #3):-

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7107

Decide for yourself whether you believe they are similar in size as Patsy Ramsey and the RST have claimed.

My daughter is 6 and is similar in height and weight to JonBenet when she died. The smaller size fit her with a little growth room left, The larger size are appallingly large on her. They slip down to her hips and the bottom of the crotch dangles down at her knees. The waistband needs to be pulled up to her armpits in order for the crotch to reach between her legs. The leg openings are very wide.

They would be extremely uncomfortable to wear. My daughter wouldn't wear them - she said they looked like they would fit Mummy. Neither would I put them on her. To do so would IMO be tantamount to neglect.

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Breezy Avoids.:biggrin:

I'm taking lessons from you and your "friends" here. :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Mark was interviewed for 13 hours "in agony" as he puts it. But it was important that the police believed he was not a part of it.

Now you have the facts on Mark.

:rolleyes:

LI_Mom

08-04-2006, 05:03 PM

I agree, Rosy.

They were meant for someone else & it's really no big deal.

Although, I can't imagine any kid wanting to wear underwear that is 6 sizes too large. Under pants, they would be uncomfortable & under a dress or skirt, I wonder what kept them from falling off. :tongue:

But kids do all kinds of wacky things, so I find it believable she begged to wear them.

Jayelles, I don't think it would be "neglect" as much as not being very firm with your kids & letting them get their way. I think it's safe to say, the kids were rather spoiled & according to the housekeeper they were also undisciplined.

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Yes, I believe Patsy had bought the panties as a Christmas gift for someone else. JonBenet saw them, wanted them - so Patsy gave them to her...

No big deal......... IMO

They are just throwing out more smoke screens...............WITHOUT links again of course. Just more gossip. She could have had on any undies on or none but it does not prove who murdered her.

LI_Mom

08-04-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Yes he did LIMom. Because he KNEW he had nothing to do with it and his heart was pretty much ripped up. He didn't care anymore, just help me find the killer, is how he felt. You can still see it in his face how sad he is from it. He would DO ANYTHING FOR HELP. And so did John Walsh and his wife. This is the way it works. You need to help the police look elsewhere. How are they supposed to know. They don't. They have to find out.

Unless of course you don't want the police too close.

On the other hand, maybe it gets down to how selfless a parent is?

Maybe in the Ramsey's case, they were SO deathly afraid of being named suspects that they put their own needs ahead of their murdered daughters?

Maybe they were hoping that even if they did not cooperate quickly & fully, the police could work around them & still solve the murder & get justice for JB?

Considering they had such a formidable legal team assembled as well as ties to the DA's office, I wonder why they thought they would not be able to defend themselves against flimsy false charges, in the event they were named suspects? Maybe the lawyers were the ones who were running scared?

Jayelles

08-04-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I agree, Rosy.

They were meant for someone else & it's really no big deal.

Although, I can't imagine any kid wanting to wear underwear that is 6 sizes too large. Under pants, they would be uncomfortable & under a dress or skirt, I wonder what kept them from falling off. :tongue:

But kids do all kinds of wacky things, so I find it believable she begged to wear them.

Jayelles, I don't think it would be "neglect" as much as not being very firm with your kids & letting them get their way. I think it's safe to say, the kids were rather spoiled & according to the housekeeper they were also undisciplined.

I don't think a child would want to wear them - they just don't fit. As my 6 year old said - it would be like wearing Mummy's.

In her interview Patsy said that they "took a decision" to just "use" the knickers. There is no way you could describe putting them on a 6 year old as "using" them. In order to "use" them, Patsy would have had to secure them with safety pins - to tighten the waistband and to shorten the crotch by about 5 inches.

I am sure that if you saw what these look like on a 6 year old (as I have),...put it this way - no self-respecting parent would permit her to wear them.

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 05:35 PM

Former Boulder Detective Makes His Case In Book
... A Case He Couldn't Make In A Courtroom: That Patsy Was To Blame
by Charlie Brennan

April 2000

Nobody else is saying it, so it appears this falls to me:

Steve Thomas is the little kid who, protesting a call by the ump, takes his bat and ball and quits, bringing the game to an end for everyone.

Thomas is the former Boulder police detective who resigned in protest over the handling of the JonBenet Ramsey murder, and is now telling all in his book published Tuesday, April 11, by St. Martin's Press, "JonBenet -- Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation." It is co-authored by veteran Boulder County non-fiction writer Don Davis.

If there was any question as to whether this case might someday be prosecuted, that question has been answered. It won't. Thomas empties his three years of bitter frustration onto the pages of a book that, while compelling reading for any Ramseyphile, could also serve as exhibits A-through-Z for defense attorneys, should this beleaguered case ever limp battered and bloodied into a courtroom.

We pause for this disclosure: I am far from a disinterested observer in this matter. I worked for 16 months in collaboration with Lawrence Schiller on another Ramsey book, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," published in February 1999.

It was, I feel, the definitive book on the Christmas night 1996 murder of Boulder's six-year-old child beauty queen -- until now. A significant number of law enforcement personnel cooperated with Schiller and myself by sharing details they felt could be divulged without compromising the investigation or precluding a future prosecution.

Certainly, we didn't cast all players in an entirely positive light. We exposed bizarre subplots to the drama -- police and prosecutors dallying with a tabloid reporter to advance their own personal vendettas, for example -- that left many shaking their heads in disbelief. The tales of extreme dysfunction between and among some officials involved in this case are already widely chronicled.

Thomas now picks the scabs and the blood is flowing anew.

He holds nothing back in his quiver, blasting District Attorney Alex Hunter ("a Teflon politician who was always one step removed from any carnage left behind by his office"), both the Boulder police chiefs he served under (mocking former Chief Tom Koby's affection for "bluesky psychobabble"), and even dumps on many peers in the detective bureau. The infallible and unforgiving Thomas is not the kind of person you want to unwittingly cut off in traffic.

In an interview with the Denver Post, Thomas declined to say whether the book was based on his own notes or case files. I can answer that one. It's clearly based on case files, some of which he obviously must have carted home sometime before or after noisily throwing down his badge on Aug. 6, 1998.

Readers can see that for themselves as early as page 14, where Thomas and Davis reprint a verbatim transcript of Patsy Ramsey's call to 911. It's all there, down to the last "(inaudible)." As a student of the case who was outside the Ramseys' home to see JonBenet wheeled away past the twinkling white Christmas lights in a body bag, I know this transcript has previously appeared nowhere else. It's not part of any file that is open to the public.

Thomas not only violates the spirit of the oath he took as a law enforcement officer. He also tramples two citizens' rights to a presumption of innocence.

His book makes the case Thomas couldn't make in a courtroom. He flatly declares Patsy committed the murder in a fit of rage over bed-wetting, and that her husband joined the next morning in a cover-up. Thomas isn't alone in embracing such a theory. But this is the first time a central figure in the investigation has dared say so for the record.

In writing "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," Schiller and I certainly had our own theories, but we spared readers our conjecture. Instead, we clearly laid out the reasons that many believe the Ramseys are guilty, and the reasons that others consider them innocent. We invited readers to draw their own conclusions.

Call me old-fashioned, but for a former detective to unilaterally issue his own indictment through a publisher and not a courtroom, in a case still under investigation, is flat wrong.

Thomas had no experience as a homicide investigator prior to arriving on this stage. He couldn't put together a case that would stand up in a courtroom. Not to be denied, he's doing so in a book. Here, he's unbound by such distractions as the rules that govern evidence.

It should be noted that Thomas walked away from law enforcement one month before a grand jury was even convened in this matter. That panel worked for 13 months after he was gone and still couldn't come up with grounds to indict John and Patsy Ramsey or anyone else.

If I can be forgiven another baseball analogy, it's as if Steve Thomas is the would-be slugger who whiffs in every at-bat during the big game -- then smacks it over the wall off a batting tee in front of the vacant seats after the crowd's gone home.

The product of Thomas and Davis' labors is, no question, essential reading for anyone with an interest in the child murder heard 'round the world. This is the first book published to date from a key participant in the investigation. Its pages carry the ringside sense of intimacy.

But by doing it this way, at this time, Thomas does a disservice to the couple he accuses, to the officers he leaves behind, and most of all, to the memory of a little girl whose murder is now far less likely to be avenged.

There is this irony. Thomas believes Patsy Ramsey struck her daughter in a rage -- then, mistakenly believing JonBenet already dead, applied a garrote to disguise the crime as something else. In taking that second, bizarre step, Thomas believes, Patsy Ramsey then actually killed JonBenet for real.

The ex-detective may well have done the same, misreading this case as over -- then making darn sure that it is.

Jayelles

08-04-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Jayelles, can you tell me what is your point and I mean this seriously. Are you saying that maybe JB put them on being afraid that she dirtied her other ones and did not want to tell Patsy?

No. I am saying that I don't believe JonBenet put them on - or even wanted to wear them nor do I think Patsy would have allowed her to wear them. They weren't useable. I don't understand why Patsy said in her interview "we took the decision" to just "use" them. Putting these on a 6 year old could not be described as "using them" - they could have served no purpose other than to be a nuisance to the child wearing them.

Imagine that you normally wear full sized knickers (i.e. on the waist knickers). Now imagine a pair of knickers which are so large on the waist that they immediately slide down to your hipbones so that the crotch hangs down practically to your knees. The slightest tug would pull them down past your hips so that they would drop to your ankles. The leg holes are so huge and the kickers are so baggy that when you stand sideways, they bell out at the back and front and your backside and genital area are exposed. You would be just as well going commando - probably better actually because you wouldn't have to deal with the nuisance value of knickers which were just getting in the way.

IN her interniew, Patsy said there wasn't much difference in size between the 4/6 and 12/14 and you can see from the photo that this simply wasn't true.

I bought these for my daughter when she was 3. They didn't fit her until she was 5! She's now 6 and they aren't too small - the fit is still comfortable-generous. The larger size would fit an adult. Remember - it's not just the fit across the waist - these are long from waistband to crotch-bottom. They honestly do hand down miserably and no self-respecting parent would permit a child to wear them let alone take the desicion to use them.

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

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?

You said...............
And I, like millions of other people, believe the police were right to focus on the Ramseys as prime suspects.

HOW in the heck do you KNOW what "millions of other people believe? IMO THAT is speaking for other people when you do NOT know what those millions "believe". :rolleyes:

Tell the WHOLE story about Armistead.

"Armistead said that, contrary to what many might believe, he was privy to very little firsthand information or evidence in the case,
other than what he and other defense-team investigators developed.

And he learned that much of what the public considered "evidence" in the case, was something less. For example, Armistead is unsurprised that former Ramsey neighbor Melody Stanton, who reported hearing a scream the night JonBenet died, now believes she heard it two nights before the murder -- if she heard one at all.

"The 'scream in the night' thing, I put it in the classification of a lot of this quote, unquote, other evidence," Armistead said. "It became more and more unreliable, as the case progressed."

It was close to two years after the crime that he first saw crime-scene photographs.

"I was surprised about how devastating the injuries were," Armistead said. "It's one thing to read them on paper. It's another thing to see them. I've seen plenty of injuries like that, but I was surprised that these were that devastating."

Other low points for Armistead during the case included the week his own pictures from inside the Ramsey house -- taken after the crime scene had been released -- ended up in a supermarket weekly. It was later determined they were spares that had been stolen from his firm's trash.

Also, there were the unscrupulous journalists who posed as potential clients only to get inside Armistead's office with hopes of somehow obtaining Ramsey-case secrets. One went so far as to pay Armistead a $1,000 "retainer," which Armistead kept.

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

And yes I will "take comfort in Judge Carne's ruling" and in DA Keenans agreeement with her and Keenan DID see ALL the evidence unlike Armistead by his own admission.

breezy1234

08-04-2006, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

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.

Very little in life is impossible but to prove something you have to have EVIDENCE. :rolleyes: Theories and suspicions are NOT evidence.

Jayelles

08-05-2006, 04:39 AM

Sure. This is all in the link I posted above, but to save you time, here is the post containing the extracts from Patsy's police interview. KoldKase has highlighted the appropriate bits so they stand out:-

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=106788&postcount=65

It's worth reading. Patsy claims Jonbenet operned the packet herself - you require scissors to do that because they are secured with a strong little nylon tie. Patsy then admits they knew JonBenet had opened the packet and that "they" "took the decision" to just go ahead and "use" them.

I try to put myself in this position. Here is a packet of knickers which I bought as a gift for my size 12-14 niece. I bought a packet for my 6 year old daughter too - in her own size (4-6). However, for some reason, my daughter decides she wants the large size too and opens them - so I decide "OK, we'll just use them".

Sorry - that doesn't work for me

1) why would JonBenet open her cousin's gift when she had an identical set herself that fitted her?

2) Why didn't Patsy just give the niece the packet anyway and say "Sorry, you're little cousing cut the tag"

3) Why did Patsy's "solution" have to be to "use" a set of knickers which were miles to big for Jonbenet just because Jonbenet had cut the tag to the packet?

I bought this set of 12/14 knickers to do a size comparison. They say L(12/14) on the packet. The next size down was M(8/10). I have opened the packet, but I have no intentions of letting my daughter "just use them" because they don't fit! They are totally unusable at theis stage. You wouldn't put your 6 year old child in a size 12-14 dress or tights or a pair of shoes that were miles too big just because she had removed the tags!

I shall put them away in my closet and if and when she is of an age that they would fit... and if she WANTS to wear them at that stage, she can have them then( and only then).

rashomon

08-05-2006, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234
Former Boulder Detective Makes His Case In Book
... A Case He Couldn't Make In A Courtroom: That Patsy Was To Blame
by Charlie Brennan

April 2000

Nobody else is saying it, so it appears this falls to me:

Steve Thomas is the little kid who, protesting a call by the ump, takes his bat and ball and quits, bringing the game to an end for everyone.

Thomas is the former Boulder police detective who resigned in protest over the handling of the JonBenet Ramsey murder, and is now telling all in his book published Tuesday, April 11, by St. Martin's Press, "JonBenet -- Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation." It is co-authored by veteran Boulder County non-fiction writer Don Davis.

If there was any question as to whether this case might someday be prosecuted, that question has been answered. It won't. Thomas empties his three years of bitter frustration onto the pages of a book that, while compelling reading for any Ramseyphile, could also serve as exhibits A-through-Z for defense attorneys, should this beleaguered case ever limp battered and bloodied into a courtroom.

We pause for this disclosure: I am far from a disinterested observer in this matter. I worked for 16 months in collaboration with Lawrence Schiller on another Ramsey book, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," published in February 1999.

It was, I feel, the definitive book on the Christmas night 1996 murder of Boulder's six-year-old child beauty queen -- until now. A significant number of law enforcement personnel cooperated with Schiller and myself by sharing details they felt could be divulged without compromising the investigation or precluding a future prosecution.

Certainly, we didn't cast all players in an entirely positive light. We exposed bizarre subplots to the drama -- police and prosecutors dallying with a tabloid reporter to advance their own personal vendettas, for example -- that left many shaking their heads in disbelief. The tales of extreme dysfunction between and among some officials involved in this case are already widely chronicled.

Thomas now picks the scabs and the blood is flowing anew.

He holds nothing back in his quiver, blasting District Attorney Alex Hunter ("a Teflon politician who was always one step removed from any carnage left behind by his office"), both the Boulder police chiefs he served under (mocking former Chief Tom Koby's affection for "bluesky psychobabble"), and even dumps on many peers in the detective bureau. The infallible and unforgiving Thomas is not the kind of person you want to unwittingly cut off in traffic.

In an interview with the Denver Post, Thomas declined to say whether the book was based on his own notes or case files. I can answer that one. It's clearly based on case files, some of which he obviously must have carted home sometime before or after noisily throwing down his badge on Aug. 6, 1998.

Readers can see that for themselves as early as page 14, where Thomas and Davis reprint a verbatim transcript of Patsy Ramsey's call to 911. It's all there, down to the last "(inaudible)." As a student of the case who was outside the Ramseys' home to see JonBenet wheeled away past the twinkling white Christmas lights in a body bag, I know this transcript has previously appeared nowhere else. It's not part of any file that is open to the public.

Thomas not only violates the spirit of the oath he took as a law enforcement officer. He also tramples two citizens' rights to a presumption of innocence.

His book makes the case Thomas couldn't make in a courtroom. He flatly declares Patsy committed the murder in a fit of rage over bed-wetting, and that her husband joined the next morning in a cover-up. Thomas isn't alone in embracing such a theory. But this is the first time a central figure in the investigation has dared say so for the record.

In writing "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," Schiller and I certainly had our own theories, but we spared readers our conjecture. Instead, we clearly laid out the reasons that many believe the Ramseys are guilty, and the reasons that others consider them innocent. We invited readers to draw their own conclusions.

Call me old-fashioned, but for a former detective to unilaterally issue his own indictment through a publisher and not a courtroom, in a case still under investigation, is flat wrong.

Thomas had no experience as a homicide investigator prior to arriving on this stage. He couldn't put together a case that would stand up in a courtroom. Not to be denied, he's doing so in a book. Here, he's unbound by such distractions as the rules that govern evidence.

It should be noted that Thomas walked away from law enforcement one month before a grand jury was even convened in this matter. That panel worked for 13 months after he was gone and still couldn't come up with grounds to indict John and Patsy Ramsey or anyone else.

If I can be forgiven another baseball analogy, it's as if Steve Thomas is the would-be slugger who whiffs in every at-bat during the big game -- then smacks it over the wall off a batting tee in front of the vacant seats after the crowd's gone home.

The product of Thomas and Davis' labors is, no question, essential reading for anyone with an interest in the child murder heard 'round the world. This is the first book published to date from a key participant in the investigation. Its pages carry the ringside sense of intimacy.

But by doing it this way, at this time, Thomas does a disservice to the couple he accuses, to the officers he leaves behind, and most of all, to the memory of a little girl whose murder is now far less likely to be avenged.

There is this irony. Thomas believes Patsy Ramsey struck her daughter in a rage -- then, mistakenly believing JonBenet already dead, applied a garrote to disguise the crime as something else. In taking that second, bizarre step, Thomas believes, Patsy Ramsey then actually killed JonBenet for real.

The ex-detective may well have done the same, misreading this case as over -- then making darn sure that it is.
LOL, it's pretty obvious what Brennan was doing here. Since he worked so closely together with Schiller, it seems he saw himself as some kind of 'co-author' of PMPT. So what's more logical for him than promote the book PMPT at the expense of the other 'rivaling' book on the market, Steve Thomas' book, which he is trying to discredit in a totaly distorted way?
That was lame, Charlie, very lame. You have written far better articles than that one. Your personal motive sticks out a mile. :D

rashomon

08-05-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Thanks for the info, but I guess I don't see the big deal about the panties..........
The panty issue is a very big deal, RRR. For JB was found dressed in size 12 panties which were way too big for her (she normally wore size 6).
What is also crucial is the word 'Wednesday' on the the size 12 panties. It was obviously important for whomever redressed JB's dead (or near-dead) body that this day of the week was on her panties, to make it appear as if JB had been abducted from her own bed on Dec 25, 1996 (which was a Wednesday). And suppose Patsy in her frenzy then decided to open the larger size 12 package because she couldn't find any other size six panties which had Wednesday on them.

Jayelles: is it true that JBs own size 6 panties which had Wednesday on them could not be found by investigators?

rashomon

08-05-2006, 10:11 AM

Hey Breezy, a question: why did you enter a false birthday date in your profile? It says you were born on Dec 31, 1969.
But in one of your posts here, you claimed to be a 64-year-old great-grandmother. Now which is it, Breezy? Enlighten me! :biggrin:

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

*snipped*

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?

WHAT in the heck is so bad about keeping innocent people from being arrested and out of jail? You make no sense. If you were innocent of something and LE and the media were crucifying you, would you want to go to jail to make yourself "look" innocent? :rolleyes: VERY strange thinking IMO.

You want to see"liars" look to LE and Thomas. They admitted they lied to the public or "omitted" telling the public the truth.

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by rashomon
Hey Breezy, a question: why did you enter a false birthday date in your profile? It says you were born on Dec 31, 1969.
But in one of your posts here, you claimed to be a 64-year-old great-grandmother. Now which is it, Breezy? Enlighten me! :biggrin:

Hey rashomon, it is none of your business why i put in the false date AND I am not the topic of this thread. Don't tell me I was "under oath" to give my correct birthdate or even where I lived. :rolleyes: ANYONE who gives out too much personal information on a forum such as this is looking for trouble from crazies. I see I attracted one anyhow in you if you are more interested in me and my birthday than in the case.

It would take a heck of a lot more than my real birthdate to enlighten you BTW.

:shrug:

Back to the case.

"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

08-05-2006, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

So now you're officially speaking for LIMom & Rashomon? ROFL.......... What does that mean - strength in numbers?

LOL LOL

IMO it means he is speaking for those with closed minds and nothing nor no one would change those "minds". Evidence has been provided though links the cops AND Thomas lied and mislead the public by their own admission and yet they come here and say everyone who works for or who believes the Ramseys are innocent are liars or biased. LOL

Even with people who have been cleared by DNA or anothers confession there are some people who still will not accept the one they THOUGHT was guilty is really innocent. Read about all those who have been cleared and released, they are still hounded by the crazies. :shrug:

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

LOL, it's pretty obvious what Brennan was doing here. Since he worked so closely together with Schiller, it seems he saw himself as some kind of 'co-author' of PMPT. So what's more logical for him than promote the book PMPT at the expense of the other 'rivaling' book on the market, Steve Thomas' book, which he is trying to discredit in a totaly distorted way?
That was lame, Charlie, very lame. You have written far better articles than that one. Your personal motive sticks out a mile. :D

:lol: Yep, anyone who disagrees with you is "lame" and "biased". :rolleyes:

nuisanceposter

08-05-2006, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Hey rashomon, it is none of your business why i put in the false date AND I am not the topic of this thread. Don't tell me I was "under oath" to give my correct birthdate or even where I lived. :rolleyes: ANYONE who gives out too much personal information on a forum such as this is looking for trouble from crazies. I see I attracted one anyhow in you if you are more interested in me and my birthday than in the case.

It would take a heck of a lot more than my real birthdate to enlighten you BTW.

:shrug:

Back to the case.

"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

Good old breezy - eyerolls and shrugs in every post with a healthy dose of superiority.

You can stop quoting Keenan and Carnes, breezy. It's been proved that Keenan is not impartial and that Carnes was not in possession of all of the evidence when she made her ruling.

nuisanceposter

08-05-2006, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

:lol: Yep, anyone who disagrees with you is "lame" and "biased". :rolleyes:

Instead of insult rashomon, why don't you counter what she said...maybe provide a link to the contrary?

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Good old breezy - eyerolls and shrugs in every post with a healthy dose of superiority.

You can stop quoting Keenan and Carnes, breezy. It's been proved that Keenan is not impartial and that Carnes was not in possession of all of the evidence when she made her ruling.

Sorry I will NOT quit quoting them. WHERE is the "proof" that Keenan is not impartial? In your mind? :rolleyes: Carnes heard BOTH sides. If it could have been proven Patsy was guilty, it would have been. :shrug:

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Instead of insult rashomon, why don't you counter what she said...maybe provide a link to the contrary?

Read it. :rolleyes: She did not "provide a link" to prove anything, it was her opinion only and then I gave my opinion. Now grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child who isn't getting their way. :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

The panty issue is a very big deal, RRR. For JB was found dressed in size 12 panties which were way too big for her (she normally wore size 6).
What is also crucial is the word 'Wednesday' on the the size 12 panties. It was obviously important for whomever redressed JB's dead (or near-dead) body that this day of the week was on her panties, to make it appear as if JB had been abducted from her own bed on Dec 25, 1996 (which was a Wednesday). And suppose Patsy in her frenzy then decided to open the larger size 12 package because she couldn't find any other size six panties which had Wednesday on them.

Jayelles: is it true that JBs own size 6 panties which had Wednesday on them could not be found by investigators?

Yep, the panty issue is a big deal but stuff like this isn't even worth mentioning or investigating because it means someone other than Patsy could be involved.

"According to Michael, on one tape Oliva pretended he’s been left alone to babysit a friend’s daughter. According to Michael, Oliva talks about raping a little girl. As the tape continues, Oliva appears to be simulating a rape. On another tape, he talks about hurting a child.

“Some of the things I do like making bacon strips out of little girl, you see, I’m into it, you know,” he claims Oliva said.

“These tapes are not a joke. These tapes are not a joke at all,” says Michael.

Michael says he left all his information on the Boulder police tip line. “I told them about the cassette tapes. I told them about the phone call. I told them about what I knew.”

No one from the police called him and asked to listen to any of those tapes. “I mentioned I had cassette tapes. I mentioned I had hand writing samples. I don’t know what it’s worth but I thought, here’s a lead you might want to follow up on. I know this fellow was in Boulder, Colo., and I called up and told them that.”

What did the Boulder police do with the tip? Nothing.

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Which is SOP for LE - in some cases. If they had spent their time following legitimate clues and accepted help that was offered from other agencies in the beginning - this case could have been solved.

Yes I agree and the Ramseys would not have had to live under that silly umbrella for all those years.

nuisanceposter

08-05-2006, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Read it. :rolleyes: She did not "provide a link" to prove anything, it was her opinion only and then I gave my opinion. Now grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child who isn't getting their way. :rolleyes:

Your opinion was insulting. Really...a 64 year old great grandmother who spends her time being condescending and insulting to others on a board saying others act like a spoiled child not getting their way is quite the amusing scenario.

Take your own advice, breezy, drop the attitude and try to be a decent person for once, instead of being as nasty and as vicious as you can.

You don't understand why the size of the panties is important, do you?

nuisanceposter

08-05-2006, 11:33 AM

Mary Keenan-Lacy used her own money to go to Patsy Ramsey's funeral. That is not the action of an impartial official.

As for Carnes...

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

The recent ruling by a federal judge dismissing a suit against the Ramseys is a good illustration of the hazards of relying on lawsuits as vehicles for truth seeking.

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.

The result is that Carnes's ruling reads very much like something the Ramseys would write. For openers, for example, she writes that JonBenet was murdered. The only evidence before her of that was the assertion of the Ramseys that their daughter was murdered. Wolf's lawyer didn't dispute that because Wolf also thinks JonBenet was murdered. So Judge Carnes accepted that conclusion. She had no choice. No one suggested otherwise to her.

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

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

A federal judge who last month tossed out a defamation suit against the Ramseys declared there is "abundant evidence" for the intruder theory. But as a vehicle for truth finding the ruling is of little value. The judge didn't have access to the police files. She didn't know about the grand-jury testimony of Burke and a friend that Burke owned a Hi-Tec boot. In writing her decision, she was unable to fashion a coherent explanation for the actions of the intruder in writing a long ransom note while in the Ramsey home. Such an intruder would have been at risk of discovery. Further she offers no explanation for why an intruder, who had killed rather than kidnapped JonBenet and left her body in the cellar, would leave a ransom note, knowing that as soon as a thorough search of the house was conducted no ransom could be obtained. (For a detailed dissection of the judge's ruling, click here.)

nuisanceposter

08-05-2006, 12:01 PM

More on Keenan and how impartial she isn't...

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

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."

nuisanceposter

08-05-2006, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Yep, the panty issue is a big deal but stuff like this isn't even worth mentioning or investigating because it means someone other than Patsy could be involved.

"According to Michael, on one tape Oliva pretended he’s been left alone to babysit a friend’s daughter. According to Michael, Oliva talks about raping alittle girl. As the tape continues, Oliva appears to be simulating a rape. On another tape, he talks about hurting a child.

“Some of the things I do like making bacon strips out of little girl, you see, I’m into it, you know,” he claims Oliva said.

“These tapes are not a joke. These tapes are not a joke at all,” says Michael.

Michael says he left all his information on the Boulder police tip line. “I told them about the cassette tapes. I told them about the phone call. I told them about what I knew.”

No one from the police called him and asked to listen to any of those tapes. “I mentioned I had cassette tapes. I mentioned I had hand writing samples. I don’t know what it’s worth but I thought, here’s a lead you might want to follow up on. I know this fellow was in Boulder, Colo., and I called up and told them that.”

What did the Boulder police do with the tip? Nothing.

The panty issue is a big deal. Just because you don't understand why doesn't mean it isn't.

As for Oliva...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523892.shtml

As it turns out, 48 Hours Investigates is not the only one interested in Oliva. A Boulder police officer assigned to the Ramsey case was in the room taking notes while Moriarty interviewed Oliva.

And the DNA doesn't match...the same DNA that should exonerate the Ramseys should also exonerate Oliva.

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

He denies killing or hurting JonBenet, and also provided a DNA sample that didn't match evidence in the Ramsey case.

LI_Mom

08-05-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

WHAT in the heck is so bad about keeping innocent people from being arrested and out of jail? You make no sense. If you were innocent of something and LE and the media were crucifying you, would you want to go to jail to make yourself "look" innocent? :rolleyes: VERY strange thinking IMO.

You want to see"liars" look to LE and Thomas. They admitted they lied to the public or "omitted" telling the public the truth.

If the Ramseys didn't antagonize the media & instead used their "good Southern sense" the media could have been an important ally to them in their search for the 'real killer.'

If the Ramsey's lawyers spent less time keeping their clients AWAY from the police who were trying to develop & follow leads then LE wouldn't have assumed they were hiding some knowledge of this crime.

If the Ramsey's lawyers didn't take the position that their clients would only agree to cooperate with the investigation IF the DA treated the Ramseys as if they were already formally named suspects & had access to all evidence then they wouldn't have looked guilty as sin.

Team Ramsey made a decision to act in an all out defensive mode from day one. Yes, it saved their clients from being brought up on charges & in that, it was an effective defense. However, the price of that successful defense is that it never took into account the long term damage to the Ramsey's reputations. They have never & WILL never be cleared in the court of public opinion unless the 'real killer' one day confesses to the murder.

Public opinion has always been a cruel court & without the media in your corner, you have no way to sucessfully rehabilitate yourself. That's just a fact of life. They crucified themselves, with their lawyer's help.

LI_Mom

08-05-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

The panty issue is a very big deal, RRR. For JB was found dressed in size 12 panties which were way too big for her (she normally wore size 6).
What is also crucial is the word 'Wednesday' on the the size 12 panties. It was obviously important for whomever redressed JB's dead (or near-dead) body that this day of the week was on her panties, to make it appear as if JB had been abducted from her own bed on Dec 25, 1996 (which was a Wednesday). And suppose Patsy in her frenzy then decided to open the larger size 12 package because she couldn't find any other size six panties which had Wednesday on them.

Jayelles: is it true that JBs own size 6 panties which had Wednesday on them could not be found by investigators?

If I remember correctly, either the Thomas book or the Schiller book spoke of Patsy's sister entering the house (before they flew off to Atlanta) & removing a lot of property (with police knowledge). The police did list some of the things she took but they were not very thorough about searching everything that was removed.

That would explain why LE couldn't find the missing panties but the Ramsey investigators found them.

Another thing Patsy specifically asked her sister to get were the black jeans Patsy wore to the party (and the next morning when they found JB's body). Her reason was they were her favorites or some such nonsense. Strange, you're going to Atlanta for your daughter's funeral & you need your favorite black jeans... you don't have another pair you can wear?

Just another logical reason that LE felt the Ramseys were NOT cooperating with the investigation & were not willing to hand over any important evidence that might useful in solving this tragic crime.

nuisanceposter

08-05-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

If I remember correctly, either the Thomas book or the Schiller book spoke of Patsy's sister entering the house (before they flew off to Atlanta) & removing a lot of property (with police knowledge). The police did list some of the things she took but they were not very thorough about searching everything that was removed.

That would explain why LE couldn't find the missing panties but the Ramsey investigators found them.

Another thing Patsy specifically asked her sister to get were the black jeans Patsy wore to the party (and the next morning when they found JB's body). Her reason was they were her favorites or some such nonsense. Strange, you're going to Atlanta for your daughter's funeral & you need your favorite black jeans... you don't have another pair you can wear?

Just another logical reason that LE felt the Ramseys were NOT cooperating with the investigation & were not willing to hand over any important evidence that might useful in solving this tragic crime.

That's right, Pam Paugh spent a couple of hours at the Ramsey house going in and out, filling up bags and boxes full of things until the car was loaded. Completely insane to allow her to do that - another example of how the Rs were treated with kid gloves.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-pam-removed.htm

"She spent an hour on her first trip through the crime scene and emerged with a big cardboard box filled to the brim, which she plopped into the trunk of the police car. For the next several hours, Pam made about half a dozen trips through the bouse, often spending an hour or more inside, and hauled out suitcases, boxes, bags, and loose items until the backseat of the police car was stuffed like a steamer trunk."

"Pam's last trip was into the bedroom of JonBenet, and she pumped herself up again; "I can do this, I can do this, I can do this." She came back carrying an armload of stuffed animals and other items from the first room in the house to have been sealed off by police."

"Everett kept only a general inventory of what was removed, and even that abbreviated listing was astonishing. Stuffed animals, tiaras, three dresses for JonBenet, pageant photo portfolios, toys and clothes for Burke, John Ramsey's Daytime, the desk Bible, and clothing. For Patsy, there were black pants, dress suits, boots, and the contents of the curio cabinet. Bills, credit cards, a black cashmere trench coat, jewelry that included her grandmother's ring and an emerald necklace, bathrobes, a cell phone, personal papers, bank records, Christmas stockings, her Nordstrom's credit card, and even their passports. The patrol car was loaded with zipped bags, boxes, sacks, and luggage, the true contents unknown."

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44/

In an unprecedented move, Mrs. Ramsey's sister; Pam Paugh, was allowed into an active crime scene; still under investigation, with the pretense of getting clothing for the funeral. The list of things removed included far more than mourning attire. A friend in the DA's office may have illegally influenced this decision. It went so far as the sister impersonating a police officer wearing a jacket and badge so as not to arouse suspicion. With multiple unfamiliar investigative agencies present, her actions would have appeared and been considered official.

And I have to agree about the black jeans. Wife of a multi-millionaire...credit cards up to her eyeballs...and she wants the exact pair of jeans she had worn the night her daughter was murdered. That's very suspicious.

LI_Mom

08-05-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

The media - from day 1 - was out to get the Ramseys. Gossip and innuendo sell lots of print........the media doesn't care who is innocent or guilty. They print what sells.

Crucified themselves? I haven't heard of a Ramsey going to jail yet.......and it appears they are all continuing with their lives.
As far as them still being concerned about the court of public opinion, I doubt that any of them spend much time worrying about what you and I think.

JMO...........

Of course, the media's primary goal is to get ratings & make money.

They focus on a story for as long as it's still hot news & as soon as something better comes along they move on. They don't have a personal stake in the outcome of any story, so accuracy to them is not the most important issue.

My point was that the media is an invaluable tool to have on your side. It's not in your best interests to have the media turn against you & once you are forced into damage control mode, you are in a deep, deep, deep hole.

Simply said, Team Ramsey made a terrible mistake in underestimating what part the media would play in this case & they never DID manage to get the majority of the public on the Ramsey's side.

LI_Mom

08-05-2006, 02:07 PM

Thanks for the links, nuisanceposter.

And didn't it take them over a year to finally hand over the clothes they wore the day JB was found?

No rush, I suppose. It's not as if this was a very important investigation. :flamemad:

nuisanceposter

08-05-2006, 02:46 PM

Not a problem.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/61398rams.html

Boulder police asked the Ramseys to turn over the clothes they were wearing Dec. 25, 1996. The family complied with the request in January of this year.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer5_ce.html

Evidence Not Seized
During Authorized Searches
and Evidence Sought by Search Warrants Denied by the DA

clothing worn by the Ramseys 12/25/96: the clothing was requested by the BPD 11/97; two shirts, a pair of pants and a sweater were turned over by the Ramseys 1/98

On top of taking that long to comply, Detective Thomas claimed that the clothes the Ramseys finally handed over were not the same clothes as they had worn on the night JonBenet was killed, stating that some of the clothes were obviously never worn.

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Not a problem.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/61398rams.html

Boulder police asked the Ramseys to turn over the clothes they were wearing Dec. 25, 1996. The family complied with the request in January of this year.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer5_ce.html

Evidence Not Seized
During Authorized Searches
and Evidence Sought by Search Warrants Denied by the DA

clothing worn by the Ramseys 12/25/96: the clothing was requested by the BPD 11/97; two shirts, a pair of pants and a sweater were turned over by the Ramseys 1/98

On top of taking that long to comply, Detective Thomas claimed that the clothes the Ramseys finally handed over were not the same clothes as they had worn on the night JonBenet was killed, stating that some of the clothes were obviously never worn.

God Thomas, the admitted liar spoke again. :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
More on Keenan and how impartial she isn't...

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

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."

:lol: You talk about not being impartial and biased.................lol every link you post is biased OPINIONS and Thomas BS.

nuisanceposter

08-05-2006, 03:28 PM

Check the links, they aren't attributed to Thomas. My links are every bit as fact-based as yours, breezy. You can't have it both ways, where those that support your stance are valid but no one else's are.

I've posted credible links and proven my point that Keenan is Ramsey-biased and Carnes didn't have the full volume of evidence when she made her ruling. You think that's wrong, prove it.

nuisanceposter

08-05-2006, 03:30 PM

Check the links. Only my last comment was attributed to Detective Thomas. The others are from other sources that are not opinion-based and supported by police documentation.

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Check the links. Only my last comment was attributed to Detective Thomas. The others are from other sources that are not opinion-based and supported by police documentation.

Thomas is NOT a detective, he is a carpenter so why do you continue to call him a "detective". Do you think it makes his lies any more believeable?

Police documentation? You mean police "leaks" and were NOT proven and in fact were disproven. You really think "quoted sources " is reliable evidence? :rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

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

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Check the links, they aren't attributed to Thomas. My links are every bit as fact-based as yours, breezy. You can't have it both ways, where those that support your stance are valid but no one else's are.

I've posted credible links and proven my point that Keenan is Ramsey-biased and Carnes didn't have the full volume of evidence when she made her ruling. You think that's wrong, prove it.

Your links are opinions the same as the opinions on this forum or any other. I don't have to prove anything just as you don't. Grow up. I'm not stopping you from believing the opinions of those links but I will stick to the evidence that was presented in court, the fact that when Thomas had his chance to prove his theories in court he chickend out AND the GJ did NOT indict. No matter what you say about Keenan IMO her idea is right according to the constitution.

"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."

Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan

You go right ahead reading and posting your opinion pages insisting everyone who thinks the Ramseys are innocent or even want to give them a fair chance is "biased". It says more about you than the Ramsey's and it's no skin off my nose. :shrug:

LI_Mom

08-05-2006, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Thomas is NOT a detective, he is a carpenter so why do you continue to call him a "detective". Do you think it makes his lies any more believeable?

[l]

By the same token, we should call Alex Hunter a part time college student & a stay-at-home dad.

Good point.

LI_Mom

08-05-2006, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Your links are opinions the same as the opinions on this forum or any other. I don't have to prove anything just as you don't. Grow up. I'm not stopping you from believing the opinions of those links but I will stick to the evidence that was presented in court, the fact that when Thomas had his chance to prove his theories in court he chickend out AND the GJ did NOT indict. No matter what you say about Keenan IMO her idea is right according to the constitution.

"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."

Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan

You go right ahead reading and posting your opinion pages insisting everyone who thinks the Ramseys are innocent or even want to give them a fair chance is "biased". It says more about you than the Ramsey's and it's no skin off my nose. :shrug:

Keenan is talking about how the legal system must treat people.

She's really not saying anything news worthy.... just that the DA didn't charge the Ramseys & that there was no trial.

Nowhere has she given the public ANY reason to change their opinions surrounding this case.

And, by & large, the public was not at all swayed by the outcome of any of the civil cases that were offshoots of the MAIN CASE.

rashomon

08-05-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234
[B]
Hey rashomon, it is none of your business why i put in the false date AND I am not the topic of this thread. Don't tell me I was "under oath" to give my correct birthdate or even where I lived. :rolleyes: ANYONE who gives out too much personal information on a forum such as this is looking for trouble from crazies. I see I attracted one anyhow in you if you are more interested in me and my birthday than in the case.
It would take a heck of a lot more than my real birthdate to enlighten you BTW.

Breezy, since your profile is publicly accessible, it is none of your business which speculations I draw from it.
Courttv doesn't require to put a birthday date in at all, so why put a false date in if you don't want to give out personal info? You could have left that field blank.
I've had the feeling that you might be a pretty young person, due to your very emotional and fanatical posts. Your reply was that you are a 64-year-old great-grandmother. But your profile says your birthday is Dec 31, 1969.
Maybe I'm not internet savvy, but I don't see the point in putting in a false birthday date if you are not even required to put in a birthday date.

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Breezy, since your profile is publicly accessible, it is none of your business which speculations I draw from it.
Courttv doesn't require to put a birthday date in at all, so why put a false date in if you don't want to give out personal info? You could have left that field blank.
I've had the feeling that you might be a pretty young person, due to your very emotional and fanatical posts. Your reply was that you are a 64-year-old great-grandmother. But your profile says your birthday is Dec 31, 1969.
Maybe I'm not internet savvy, but I don't see the point in putting in a false birthday date if you are not even required to put in a birthday date.

Well you THINK you have ALL the answers so think whatever you wish. I don't have to prove anything to you OR explain anything to you. :rolleyes: What you see points of or what you think of me really doesn't interest me.

It must really bother you that I post links to facts instead of gossip for you to worry so much about me rather than the case.

BACK to the CASE!

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

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

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

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Keenan is talking about how the legal system must treat people.

She's really not saying anything news worthy.... just that the DA didn't charge the Ramseys & that there was no trial.

Nowhere has she given the public ANY reason to change their opinions surrounding this case.

And, by & large, the public was not at all swayed by the outcome of any of the civil cases that were offshoots of the MAIN CASE.

How you do know what the public was swayed by? You really think you can speak for "the public"? :no: Speak for yourself and think for yourself.

Remember the public once thought the world was flat and that slavery was a good thing. Are you one that still thinks those things because "some" of "the public" thought them? :shrug:

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

By the same token, we should call Alex Hunter a part time college student & a stay-at-home dad.

Good point.

I don't call Alax Hunter anything except Alex Hunter. :shrug:

LI_Mom

08-05-2006, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

I don't call Alax Hunter anything except Alex Hunter. :shrug:

I can't say I'm at all surprised.

I wonder if you could hate Steve Thomas more if he did something to personally affect your life?

LI_Mom

08-05-2006, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

How you do know what the public was swayed by? You really think you can speak for "the public"? :no: Speak for yourself and think for yourself.

Remember the public once thought the world was flat and that slavery was a good thing. Are you one that still thinks those things because "some" of "the public" thought them? :shrug:

The world isn't flat????

I learn something new everyday.

Breezy, you should be a teacher.

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

I can't say I'm at all surprised.

I wonder if you could hate Steve Thomas more if he did something to personally affect your life?

I don't hate him, I just think he is a lying arrogant jerk who backed down when he had the chance to prove his accusations in court. He tried to make a buck off a dead little girl and her grieving parents and compromised the case to do it . That is about as low as you can get IMO.

I just thank God he will never be able to do it to another family.

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

The world isn't flat????

I learn something new everyday.

Breezy, you should be a teacher.

Remember the RAMSEY case? :rolleyes:

"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

LI_Mom

08-05-2006, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

How could they underestimate the media when the media was sure from day 1 that the Ramseys had something to hide.

Anyway - the only figure I've ever read about the public is that 52% think the Ramsey know more than they were telling. That I believe was in 2000. 52% is - IMO - slightly more than half and certainly not the "majority."

Please provide some reliable sources to back up the statement that the media was sure they were guilty from day one.

I find it hard to believe that the media would even need to make a stand so soon... there was plenty to report without having to pick sides.

52% is not a majority? Where? In bizzaro world?

LI_Mom

08-05-2006, 09:12 PM

I disagree about Thomas. You're making him a scapegoat for the entire case & won't see all the other people involved who made terrible mistakes in handling this crime.

Lots of people made money on this case. Thomas, Schiller, Shapiro, Singular, Ramseys, Wecht, Lee... the list goes on & on.

Books, tv, newspapers.... the crime was a hot item. That's the way it works for all big crime stories in this country.

breezy1234

08-05-2006, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I disagree about Thomas. You're making him a scapegoat for the entire case & won't see all the other people involved who made terrible mistakes in handling this crime.

Lots of people made money on this case. Thomas, Schiller, Shapiro, Singular, Ramseys, Wecht, Lee... the list goes on & on.

Books, tv, newspapers.... the crime was a hot item. That's the way it works for all big crime stories in this country.

No, Thomas is not the only one who made mistakes BUT he is the ONLY "cop" that tried to profit off the case and used others to write his trash book. All the others you metioned were NOT cops. It is NOT a cops job to have a hissy fit if others don't agree with him and write a book. He made DAMN sure no one will EVER be able to be prosecuted because of his nasty book. If an intruder is ever prosecuted a defense attorney would have a field day with all Thomas's crap to prove "reasonable doubt".

nuisanceposter

08-05-2006, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

No, Thomas is not the only one who made mistakes BUT he is the ONLY "cop" that tried to profit off the case and used others to write his trash book. All the others you metioned were NOT cops. It is NOT a cops job to have a hissy fit if others don't agree with him and write a book. He made DAMN sure no one will EVER be able to be prosecuted because of his nasty book. If an intruder is ever prosecuted a defense attorney would have a field day with all Thomas's crap to prove "reasonable doubt".

You know, breezy, the mature way to handle disliking former detective Steve Thomas so much would be to NOT speak of him venomously in every post you make.

I don't much like the Ramseys but I don't sit and use my dislike and distrust of them to slander them continuously and taunt and insult anyone who believes their story the way you do with Thomas.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you detract some of the power of what you have to say with your consistent bitter attitude towards Thomas. IMO.

rashomon

08-06-2006, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

The world isn't flat????

I learn something new everyday.

Breezy, you should be a teacher.
If team Ramsey stated the world was flat Breezy would probably believe it. :)

rashomon

08-06-2006, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

"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
This is a strange comment indeed, for it is impossible for any mayor to be so naive to believe that if something is in the press it is probably true. Lol. My guess is that Mayor Durgan did not want to get further involved as soon as she realized that the Ramsey case was going to grow into something monstrous. Her own personal interests as a politician probably were the true motive for her statement.

Speaking of the Ramsey case and the press: is it true that the Ramseys once sued CourtTV? If yes, what was the reason?

rashomon

08-06-2006, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

No, Thomas is not the only one who made mistakes BUT he is the ONLY "cop" that tried to profit off the case and used others to write his trash book. All the others you metioned were NOT cops. It is NOT a cops job to have a hissy fit if others don't agree with him and write a book. He made DAMN sure no one will EVER be able to be prosecuted because of his nasty book. If an intruder is ever prosecuted a defense attorney would have a field day with all Thomas's crap to prove "reasonable doubt".
Breezy, you are not qualified to comment on a book if you haven't read it.
And your stubborn reluctance to read Steve Thomas' book (or even PMPT) tells me a lot about your true motives, Breezy. It shows that you are not interested in discussing this case at all. You would make a fool of yourself in Forums like Websleuths or FFJ if you ranted there against Thomas' book without having read it.
Maybe you are afraid that something will be in these books which would rock your 'The Ramseys are innocent' boat.

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

Breezy, you are not qualified to comment on a book if you haven't read it.
And your stubborn reluctance to read Steve Thomas' book (or even PMPT) tells me a lot about your true motives, Breezy. It shows that you are not interested in discussing this case at all. You would make a fool of yourself in Forums like Websleuths or FFJ if you ranted there against Thomas' book without having read it.
Maybe you are afraid that something will be in these books which would rock your 'The Ramseys are innocent' boat.

Don't tell me what I am qualified for. I am not interested in discussing gossip books. If you choose to discuss books there must be a place to do so but a murder investigation is not the place IMO. A "book" that is full of misinformation and accusations and NO one sworn under oath to tell the truth is no more than one long tabloid IMO. You don't like that opinion, oh well, that doesn't bother me at all. A lot of people are making "fools" out of themselves right here without me going to another forum to see more of them. Books are not evidence or proof. I am in no boat but IMO your boat is sinking with the gossip.

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

You know, breezy, the mature way to handle disliking former detective Steve Thomas so much would be to NOT speak of him venomously in every post you make.

I don't much like the Ramseys but I don't sit and use my dislike and distrust of them to slander them continuously and taunt and insult anyone who believes their story the way you do with Thomas.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you detract some of the power of what you have to say with your consistent bitter attitude towards Thomas. IMO.

Right, you don't "sit and use my dislike and distrust of them to slander them continuously and taunt and insult anyone who believes their story the way you do with Thomas."
:lol:

"A lead detective in the JonBenet Ramsey homicide case was the primary source for a scathing 1997 magazine article that rocked the investigation.

Steve Thomas, who quit the Boulder Police Department in frustration in 1998, admitted in a September 2001 deposition to being an anonymous police informant for the Vanity Fair article, "Who Killed JonBenet?" by Ann Louise Bardach.

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

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

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

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

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

IMO he was the "lead" reason the case was never solved with his whining, leaking and book.

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 08:20 AM

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

This is a strange comment indeed, for it is impossible for any mayor to be so naive to believe that if something is in the press it is probably true. Lol. My guess is that Mayor Durgan did not want to get further involved as soon as she realized that the Ramsey case was going to grow into something monstrous. Her own personal interests as a politician probably were the true motive for her statement.

Speaking of the Ramsey case and the press: is it true that the Ramseys once sued CourtTV? If yes, what was the reason?

WHY Durgan made the comment.

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."

The Ramseys were outraged. They simply couldn't understand why someone such as Mayor Durgan would say such things publicly when it was obvious to them that JonBenet's killer was still out there. Sadly they were yet to realize that Durgan's comments were indicative of the opinions of the police and a large percentage of the general public who believed that John and Patsy were solely responsible for the death of their daughter.

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."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/attack_3.html

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Please provide some reliable sources to back up the statement that the media was sure they were guilty from day one.

I find it hard to believe that the media would even need to make a stand so soon... there was plenty to report without having to pick sides.

52% is not a majority? Where? In bizzaro world?

"By Monday, December 30, the Ramseys had returned to Atlanta to bury JonBenet. Again another story was released concerning how they got there. According to the article written by Charlie Brennan, John Ramsey flew his family to Atlanta in his private jet. The story, which had attempted to portray John as an unfeeling elitist, was also false. The jet actually belonged to Lockheed-Martin, the company that had previously purchased Access Graphics, John Ramsey's company. He did not pilot it. The company, hearing of their loss, had offered the services of one of their jets.

JonBenet's funeral took place on New Year's Eve 1996, at her parents' family church in Atlanta. That day, the family had to shield the Ramseys from the growing hostility that the media coverage had created. 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. Alarmed by the mounting criticism, Bynum and members of the family urged the Ramseys to go on television and defend themselves. The following day they appeared on CNN.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/attack_3.html

The first images of JonBenet Ramsey that were broadcast to the world showed a pretty little girl in heavy make-up and flamboyant costumes parading across a stage. At the time, the media described her as "a painted baby, a sexualized toddler beauty queen."

From the day in 1996 when JonBenet was found dead in the basement of her home in Boulder Colorado, the Boulder police and a large proportion of the world's media believed that her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, were responsible for her death.

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.

From that day on, a clear pattern emerged in the coverage of the case. While police chief Tom Koby made little comment, reporters had their own sources, which tended to implicate the Ramseys.

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

rashomon

08-06-2006, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Right, you don't "sit and use my dislike and distrust of them to slander them continuously and taunt and insult anyone who believes their story the way you do with Thomas."
:lol:

"A lead detective in the JonBenet Ramsey homicide case was the primary source for a scathing 1997 magazine article that rocked the investigation.

Steve Thomas, who quit the Boulder Police Department in frustration in 1998, admitted in a September 2001 deposition to being an anonymous police informant for the Vanity Fair article, "Who Killed JonBenet?" by Ann Louise Bardach.

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

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

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

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

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

IMO he was the "lead" reason the case was never solved with his whining, leaking and book.
The reason why Thomas leaked info to the press out of sheer frustration was because Hunter & Co blocked the investigation.
You rant about Thomas, but Hunter was giving info to the press all the time (just think about Shapiro!), so much that his advisor finally told him to keep his mouth shut.
The Vanity Fair article is dead on the money about what happened in this investigation.

nuisanceposter

08-06-2006, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Right, you don't "sit and use my dislike and distrust of them to slander them continuously and taunt and insult anyone who believes their story the way you do with Thomas."
:lol:

"A lead detective in the JonBenet Ramsey homicide case was the primary source for a scathing 1997 magazine article that rocked the investigation.

Steve Thomas, who quit the Boulder Police Department in frustration in 1998, admitted in a September 2001 deposition to being an anonymous police informant for the Vanity Fair article, "Who Killed JonBenet?" by Ann Louise Bardach.

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

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

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

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

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

IMO he was the "lead" reason the case was never solved with his whining, leaking and book.

And once again, your only response is another hate-filled post designed to malign Detective Thomas's character and professionality. Pathetic and disturbing.

Thanks for hammering my point home, breezy.

Rashomon is right. You can only banter your hate and resentment here on this board because you'd be told seven ways from Sunday if you showed up on at a more serious JBR board like Websleuths or FFJ and tried to peddle this juvenile rage.

You haven't even read Thomas's book or PMPT? Ahahahahahaha! There's zero reason to listen to another word you say if you can't even be bothered to read the main books associated with this case. Your opinion doesn't count for crap if you can't even bring yourself to learn as much as you can.

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

The reason why Thomas leaked info to the press out of sheer frustration was because Hunter & Co blocked the investigation.
You rant about Thomas, but Hunter was giving info to the press all the time (just think about Shapiro!), so much that his advisor finally told him to keep his mouth shut.
The Vanity Fair article is dead on the money about what happened in this investigation.

Yeah right, your statement proves........."It profoundly shaped views of prosecutors' involvement that persist to this day " EVEN when it is shown to you that many "dead on the money about what happened in this investigation" are LIES.

Ah well you can lead a horse to water but ya can't make him drink.......................OR believe or understand facts when their minds are made up.

:shrug:

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

And once again, your only response is another hate-filled post designed to malign Detective Thomas's character and professionality. Pathetic and disturbing.

Thanks for hammering my point home, breezy.

Rashomon is right. You can only banter your hate and resentment here on this board because you'd be told seven ways from Sunday if you showed up on at a more serious JBR board like Websleuths or FFJ and tried to peddle this juvenile rage.

You haven't even read Thomas's book or PMPT? Ahahahahahaha! There's zero reason to listen to another word you say if you can't even be bothered to read the main books associated with this case. Your opinion doesn't count for crap if you can't even bring yourself to learn as much as you can.

WHAT "character and professionality"? He proved he has no "character and professionality" with his silly unproven book of lies, half truths and innuendo. NO cop with "character and professionality" would compromise a case as he did IMO.

You are free to not "listen" to another word I say if you choose. That just proves to me you CHOOSE to believe what was planted in your haad by "Team Thomas" and nothing will allow you to change your mind. Court transcipts, admission of leaking lies, not being able to prove his theories in court when he had the chance, police admission they did not follow up on other leads, GJ did not indict all means nothing to you cuz a "book" writen for profit and against everything a good cop stand for said so. Maybe when you realize a book is NOT evidence you will understand you can't learn anything from someone who writes a tabloid style book with lies, half truths, innuendo,gossip and unproven theories. :rolleyes:

nuisanceposter

08-06-2006, 10:17 AM

It proves nothing.

Nothing was planted in my head by anyone. I was and am an avid news-watcher, and this story of the pretty girl with the unusual name killed in her own home on Christmas night caught my attention right away. I watched every thing I could find on tv about JonBenet, I read every thing I could find in print from the beginning. The first actual book I read about the JonBenet case was Dr Cyril Wecht's book, followed by PMPT (which is a rather impartial account, you should read it if you haven't), and all I knew about Thomas at first was that he was one of the cops on the job.

I was able to form my personal opinion on what may have happened to JonBenet based on a variety of different sources of information.

Books always have been and still continue to be valid sources of information, and many present factual evidence. Technically, even the sites you link present some amount of opinion.

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 10:27 AM

Smit said that while he firmly believes in the intruder theory, if his investigation turns up evidence pointing toward a family member, he won't hesitate to pursue it.

"If the evidence leads that way, I'd definitely go that way," Smit said. "But so far, it hasn't. I'm not in this to protect the Ramseys."

Former Boulder Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise, "I have always thought that Lou Smit is one of the foremost homicide investigators in at least this state, if not the nation.

"He solved or was involved in solving over 200 homicides during his career. And if anyone can turn up anything new on this case, it'll be Lou Smit."

Smit vowed he will never forget the Ramsey case and said he'll press on with his investigation for as long as he's able.

"I see evidence of an intruder," he said again. "I see a very sick individual.

"I think this person has to be caught. And if people still want to downgrade the Ramseys and degrade them and add to their misery, that's up to them."

I will add.................they are the ones who will have to live with what they have done with gossip and innuendo when the real killer is found.

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
It proves nothing.

Nothing was planted in my head by anyone. I was and am an avid news-watcher, and this story of the pretty girl with the unusual name killed in her own home on Christmas night caught my attention right away. I watched every thing I could find on tv about JonBenet, I read every thing I could find in print from the beginning. The first actual book I read about the JonBenet case was Dr Cyril Wecht's book, followed by PMPT (which is a rather impartial account, you should read it if you haven't), and all I knew about Thomas at first was that he was one of the cops on the job.

I was able to form my personal opinion on what may have happened to JonBenet based on a variety of different sources of information.

Books always have been and still continue to be valid sources of information, and many present factual evidence. Technically, even the sites you link present some amount of opinion.

Books with nothing but opinions are no more valad than the opinions expressed here or on any forum.

Yes, all are opinion, even the judges and Keenans.................the point is they are NOT in it for MONEY like Thomas was, they have accused anyone without proof as Thomas did, and they are NOT speading lies, gossip and innuendo as he was.

Do you really think you formed your personal opinion on facts or unproven gossip? IMO until it is proven in court, it is gossip, especially in this case where Thomas and the cops admitted they gave the media false leaks and didn't try to clear up other untrue stories the press came up with.

noelsaloy

08-06-2006, 11:23 AM

Interesting article about snow cover on December 25, 1996 http://wwwa.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&blog=voss

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Solace

More on Keenan and how impartial she isn't...

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

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."

This is not an opinion Breezy, Lin Wood states it. Read the last sentence.

Your stating that we are posting opinions and inuendos is not going to cut it here. What do you think about the fact that Lin Wood on the orders of the Ramseys threatened to sue if the case were not transferred.

We are waiting. And as far as speaking for LI Mom, Nuisanceposter and Rashomon, I do not. I am sure they would want to hear that Patsy Ramsey did not murder her child in this cold blooded way. I am asking for you to give us more than you have to prove it. Your continuous quoting of Judge Carnes has been read and answered by all of us. She was not dealing with every record. At least we give some thought out opinions that are worth consideration and have substance. Why not give us some thought out opinions insted of links and Judge Carnes and those pesky polygraphers.

It is unfortunate that you had to resort to posting the findings of Gelb, but that is what one is left to when one has nothing else. The Ramseys consorted with the only option they had, sleeze. When you lie down with dogs Breezy, you get up with fleas. The Ramseys give you nothing to work with. That is why they are still under the "umbrella of suspicion".

Give us some concrete opinions and we will listen.

What is with posing a political link?? Haven't you noticed when ANYONE is running for office for ANYTHING the oppsite side tries to dig up dirt? IMO the fact John did run for office proves to me he had nothing to fear about the dirt diggers or he would not have run.

Too bad you can't or won't understand that the police were doing NOTHING about the Ramsey investigation, had spent almost 2 million dollars in 6 years and NOTHING was solved and that is why the Ramseys and Wood wanted it turned over to the DA. If JB was your child would you want the cops to drag their feet for 6 years with nothing acomplished? Should the same bungling cops be given, 10 years, 12 year or what is YOUR time line before it be turend over to someone else??? It is unfortunate that you can't understand that very simple fact.

The Ramseys NOR I have to give you "anything to work with". Where did you get the idea someone "under the umbrella" or someone who understands the constitution had to prove anything and when did you become a "detective" on this case that you need "something to work with"? :rolleyes:

Better get up from those dogs as the fleas are biting you all over. :shrug:

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Solace

I already answered this on Friday and Breezy is aware of it and did not respond. So I will do it again.

Steve Thomas was sued by the Ramseys. He lost his house in the process paying for lawyers. The Ramseys came to him with settling. He settled with the following provisos:

1. Not one dollar, not one dime would be paid to the Ramseys.
2. He could continue to speak about the case, as he willed.
3. His book would continue to be sold.

The Ramseys accepted.

Breezy, what do you think of that? The Ramseys sue a man because they believe he slandered them. They initiate a settlement and agree to his terms.

That tells me quite a bit about the Ramseys. S. Thomas ran out of money. But S. Thomas did not back down. He refused to settle if he had to retract any of his statements and he refused to settle if he were asked to pay any money.

So what are you talking about, who won what? It appears to me that the Ramseys wanted the case to go away.

Breezy, I ask you to speak to the terms of the settlement. Will you?

Ah, but I DID answer it, too bad you accuse BEFORE you check it out. Oh well, that's your MO. I HAVE spoken to the terms of the settlement OVER and OVER.

The Ramseys wanted the case to go away??? LOL THEY filed the case for crying out loud! WHY would they file it if they wanted it to go away? IMO the Ramseys won money and the fact that Thomas did NOT prove his theories when he had the chance. He can scream them from the rooftops but until he can prove them he is just another tabloid writer making a buck off of a dead child and victimizing her parents for the second time.

nuisanceposter

08-06-2006, 01:41 PM

The Ramseys hired PIs and attorneys not to search for the killer of their daughter, but to keep them out of jail and go after anyone who tried to disagree with them.

That says a lot. A LOT. JonBenet's own parents weren't even working as hard as they could to search for the killer. They let her down more than anyone else has. They who should have been her staunchest allies and crusaders left her to lie in a grave referred to as "that child" while they do all they can to cry about themselves and worry about saving their own butts - on televison, no less.

It's always all about them, and it was never about her.

Solace is asking you to back up your claims of their innocence with some solid facts, not just go off on a tangent talking about how you dislike so and so and how everything is nothing but opinion.

Talk about the case, breezy, not the players. Talk about the actual evidence. Where is the forensic evidence indicating anyone other than a Ramsey was in that house that night?

There is NONE. What you will find is a staged crime scene with fibers from the clothing that both of the parents were wearing that evening combined with their version of events that leaves holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through and a ransom note that Patsy cannot be excluded as the author of.

Can you talk about that, breezy?

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by noelsaloy
Interesting article about snow cover on December 25, 1996 http://wwwa.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&blog=voss

"By December 28, various local news sources made it clear to their readers that the Ramseys were the principal suspects in the case. While the police made few comments regarding any evidence they had to implicate the parents, the media began to cite their own "evidence." The first "clue" they focused on was the supposed lack of footprints in the snow surrounding the house, which suggested that someone inside was responsible. Later the media admitted that this opinion was based on an official report from a policeman at the scene who noted: - "Strange, no footprints." The next item was also gleaned from a police report. It stated that there were allegedly no signs of forced entry."

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.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/evidence_2.html

No snow on walkways, look at the photos.

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene3.html

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Breezy, I am assuming you are here to defend the Ramseys. If you are, then do it. You have yet to respond to the transferring of the case by the DA after being pressured by Lin Wood. Can you respond to the statement. It has been posted several times for you. Lin Wood's words have been posted and you refer to them as "innuendo". That does not get by us Breezy. Defend your case.

You also have not responded to the fact that Steve Thomas rejected the offer of settlement if HE HAD TO PAY ONE DIME. The Ramseys accepted the fact that he would not pay a cent. What do you think of that? What do you think of the fact that the reason the Ramseys started the lawsuit was because John says Steve Thomas assaulted his wife verbally and he would sue him for that. AND THEN, as a result of the settlement, Steve Thomas can continue to say whatever he wants. He refused to give up his right of free speech. What do you think of that Breezy?

You assume wrong. I am NOT here to "defend" the Ramseys, I am here to point out facts and to prove much of the so called evidence some of you THINK is evidence is nothing more than gossip. I am NOT a lawyer and do not play one on TV or here.

I really don't care WHAT gets by you or doesn't get by you. :rolleyes: I do NOT have a case and NEVER said I did!

You are believing an admitted liar when Thomas says anything. You are free to believe him but I do NOT! NO one should give up their right to free speach, including admitted liars. It IS his right to lie as much as he wishes to. What do you think of that Solace. :rolleyes:

nuisanceposter

08-06-2006, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

<snip>

The Ramseys wanted the case to go away??? LOL THEY filed the case for crying out loud! WHY would they file it if they wanted it to go away?

<snip>

Why did they settle then, and on Thomas's terms?

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Remember the RAMSEY case? :rolleyes:

"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

That's one very STUPID mayor if she didn't know this before this crime.

I wonder if something was in the water in Boulder. How else do you explain so many lame politicians in one small area?

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Solace

You evade again. What about his not paying any money to the Ramseys?

What are you doing here Breezy if you cannot defend the so called "facts", which so far LI Mom, Nuisanceposter and I are doing a great job of refuting. BUT Before you vent again, please reply to the fact that Steve refused to pay any money and that was fine with the Ramseys.

You believe Steve, I don't. :no:

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Why did they settle then, and on Thomas's terms?

You believe him, I don't!:no:

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The Ramseys hired PIs and attorneys not to search for the killer of their daughter, but to keep them out of jail and go after anyone who tried to disagree with them.

That says a lot. A LOT. JonBenet's own parents weren't even working as hard as they could to search for the killer. They let her down more than anyone else has. They who should have been her staunchest allies and crusaders left her to lie in a grave referred to as "that child" while they do all they can to cry about themselves and worry about saving their own butts - on televison, no less.

It's always all about them, and it was never about her.

Amen.

For allegedly innocent people, they sure took their sweet time helping LE exclude themselves as suspects. And all the while, they complained that the police refused to clear them & look at all the people they named. :rolleyes:

Maybe they were hoping OJ would find JB's "real killer" after he found Nicole & Ron's? :biggrin:

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

You believe Steve, I don't. :no:

So the Ramseys were in it for JUST the pay day & it didn't really matter to them that the book would still be available for all the world to read?

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Solace

The Ramseys don't have a problem with what he is saying, why do you Breezy?

Oh, I think the Ramseys had a BIG problem with what he was saying but the fact of the matter is he is protected under the Constitution & was within his rights to give his educated opinion on this case just like hundreds of other people did.

IF Thomas had no right to make public his opinion then neither did Lou Smit or any other Ramsey supporter.

I'm sure the Ramseys positively seethed inside because they couldn't hush up the people who said things they didn't like. Especially Patsy because she had a very hard time staying calm, cool & collected under pressure.

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Lets see. JB's body is found at 1:05 p.m. Around 1:30, John is on the phone with his pilot arranging to leave that evening. He is stopped. They ask for another day to be interviewed after all "we just lost our child". That is granted. Detective Arndt, et al, go to the Fernsies on December 27th. John says Patsy is basically comotose and he needs more time.

Meanwhile, the "imaginery" intruder has plenty of time to skip town. But John and Patsy will be in touch.

They get in touch some four months later.

Yes, they are extremely interested in aiding the police.

I can actually understand Pasty being medicated & in no condition to go down to the station.

I CANNOT understand why John did not go down the following day.

Patsy had plenty of friends & family surrounding her... she didn't need John for moral support for the few hours it would take him to help the police launch a proper investigation.

Nope. It doesn't make any sense why they BOTH were wary of the police from day one pol & that became damning to them when they showed up on CNN a few days later & still took another 4 months to iron out the special conditions under which they would finally agree to be questioned.

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

"By Monday, December 30, the Ramseys had returned to Atlanta to bury JonBenet. Again another story was released concerning how they got there. According to the article written by Charlie Brennan, John Ramsey flew his family to Atlanta in his private jet. The story, which had attempted to portray John as an unfeeling elitist, was also false. The jet actually belonged to Lockheed-Martin, the company that had previously purchased Access Graphics, John Ramsey's company. He did not pilot it. The company, hearing of their loss, had offered the services of one of their jets.

JonBenet's funeral took place on New Year's Eve 1996, at her parents' family church in Atlanta. That day, the family had to shield the Ramseys from the growing hostility that the media coverage had created. 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. Alarmed by the mounting criticism, Bynum and members of the family urged the Ramseys to go on television and defend themselves. The following day they appeared on CNN.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/attack_3.html

The first images of JonBenet Ramsey that were broadcast to the world showed a pretty little girl in heavy make-up and flamboyant costumes parading across a stage. At the time, the media described her as "a painted baby, a sexualized toddler beauty queen."

From the day in 1996 when JonBenet was found dead in the basement of her home in Boulder Colorado, the Boulder police and a large proportion of the world's media believed that her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, were responsible for her death.

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.

From that day on, a clear pattern emerged in the coverage of the case. While police chief Tom Koby made little comment, reporters had their own sources, which tended to implicate the Ramseys.

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

In that case, then the Ramsey lawyers made a TERRIBLE decision to advise their allegedly innocent clients to avoid the police & to only agree to be formally interviewed 4 months after the murder.

The lawyers by insisting the police treat their clients as they WERE already named suspects & afford them the rights that defendants would be entitled to helped fuel the negative reactions of the media, the police & the public.

I'm still amazed at how ineffectual & even incompetent the Ramseys public relations expert was. Unbelievable. What a waste of money.

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Solace

I can understand if they both were medicated quite frankly. However, I cannot understand why the police allowed them to be medicated. Another mistake.

I doubt the Ramseys asked permission.

Not that the police on the scene were smart enough to deny permission if asked. :D

NOBODY in that house had enough brains to consider the place a crime scene until it was far too late & evidence was comprimised forever.

Strange that a houseful of police, lawyers & highly successful businessmen could be SO utterly stupid, isn't it?

Dumb & dumber in that house. Or else, John's assembled friends knew from the beginning that it didn't matter if the crime scene was destroyed.

Bunny2

08-06-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

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

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

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

A pubic hair found on the blanket covering JonBenét's body did not match that of any Ramsey. "...
There are hairs, fibers and other such items in your own home at this moment that don't match anyone you know or anything you own. In fact, unmatched fibers (and other such items) are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically worthless and often aren't even reported. Until you can match or source the item to a suspect, and provide other corroborating evidence that that person committed the crime, it remains worthless forensically no matter where it was found.

Bunny2

08-06-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234
Former Boulder Detective Makes His Case In Book
... A Case He Couldn't Make In A Courtroom: That Patsy Was To Blame
by Charlie Brennan

April 2000
... Thomas not only violates the spirit of the oath he took as a law enforcement officer. He also tramples two citizens' rights to a presumption of innocence. ...Interesting that you chose that particular segment to highlight in blue. I don't see how he could have "trampled two citizens' rights to a presumption of innocence" when citizens do not automatically have that right and it applies only in the courtroom.

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Solace

What I meant is the Ramseys do not seem to have a problem with Steve Thomas saying that he paid them nothing, etc. He came right out and wrote a letter and they have said nothing. They may not like it LIMom, but they are going along with it - the terms of the agreement. He announed this on his web site. If he is making this up as Breezy implies, the Ramsey would be on him immediately for breaking the terms of the agreement. I think they agreed to exactly what Steve Said.

I guess John finally "grew a brain" and realized the only way to PROVE Thomas is wrong is when the mysterious intruder is convicted.

Bunny2

08-06-2006, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

...First of all I find it intesting that Rashomon would look up Breezy's profile...... Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Several years? Must have been under another nic. Profile says Rash registered 12/05, 147 posts............. ROFL......
Looks like Rash isn't the only one interested in the profiles of others, eh?

:lol:

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Well I know that John's lawyer Mike Byrum(sp?) was in business at some point with Alex Hunter. That tells us a lot. I think they owned a building together.

There was so much corruption going on in that DA's office, it is incredible. Linda Arndt was just the worst. She is writing a book now. How could she let John search the house is beyond any reason. How she could put a sweatshirt over the body is beyond reason. How she could let John and Patsy hug JB is beyond reason. And how Bill Wise let the Ramsey's go without separating them and questioning them is beyond reason.

But even with all of that you still have the fibers in the garrotte and the tape of JB's mouth. It is impossible to overlook this.

But I think John and Patsy PURPOSELY called their friends. With the friends hovering over them and Patsy screaming, the police are going to have an extremely hard time interviewing them. These are NOT New York detecties where they would have cleared the house immediately of ALL FRIENDS. John and Patsy knew what they were doing, they were assembling their friends to keep them from being questioned extensively. IT WORKED.

I totally agree.

And Bynum was an ex prosecutor with the Boulder DA, he knew how easy it would be to manipulate the investigation to his client's advantage.

Don't forget Arndt, actually FAXED the list of questions to Team Ramsey in Atlanta & asked them to get them answered for investigators. :rolleyes: This was before she developed 'amnesia' about the case, naturally. :biggrin:

The Ramseys must have been confused & thought it was another one of their 'open houses' or something. :D

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 05:32 PM

Personally, I think these beauty pageants for little kids are disgusting except for the ones that show children ONLY as natural children.

However, I think it's also a regional thing & some people think these extravagant pageants are acceptable.

That's just not going to set off any alarm bells for some people. :(

And also, isn't it comparable to young kids being groomed for the Olympics? In some cases the kids really DO want to devote their lives to the countless hours of preparation while in other cases, they are being pushed into it by adults?

However, I DO think Patsy was not one of those parents who would never have allowed JB to quit the pageants without a MAJOR fight. Her daughter was going to follow in her footsteps if she had anything to say about it.

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Solace

They were both really good on Barbara Walters. I almost believed them and then I thought about it and came back to reality.:biggrin:

LOL!!!

You used you "good Northern sense?" :biggrin:

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 06:20 PM

I do find it hard to believe parents could do that to a child but I find it even HARDER to understand their strange actions following the 911 call & after.

It just doesn't make any sense to me, starting with NOT waking up Burke... a potential witness OR victim.

And then with a full house of people not one of them is smart enough to know that a kidnapping is a CRIME SCENE & might be the only way you will ever find your daughter again.

I think we can make a case for any of the Ramseys being the one who precipitated the 'accident' that hurt/killed JB. But I definitely think Patsy was the one who got the ball rolling on the coverup.

LI_Mom

08-06-2006, 06:25 PM

I agree.

Patsy had a very generous side and a sharp tongue.... probably lots of fun, if she liked you. Maybe she was a little too vain and shallow, but that struck me as being sad more than anything else.

Reading the various books, it was Pasty's mother who came off sounding like a cold & nasty person.

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Oh, I think the Ramseys had a BIG problem with what he was saying but the fact of the matter is he is protected under the Constitution & was within his rights to give his educated opinion on this case just like hundreds of other people did.

IF Thomas had no right to make public his opinion then neither did Lou Smit or any other Ramsey supporter.

I'm sure the Ramseys positively seethed inside because they couldn't hush up the people who said things they didn't like. Especially Patsy because she had a very hard time staying calm, cool & collected under pressure.

Thanks for clearing that up for him. He wouldn't believe me.

breezy1234

08-06-2006, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Solace

You once again did not answer the question. The answer you gave me on Friday referred only to the fact that this is America and no one can stop publication of a book. I am paraphrasing your answer.

YOU NEVER ANSWERED Breezy. You have not spoken to the fact that the Ramseys accepted the fact that Thomas would not pay ONE CENT and would continue to speak. This defeats their lawsuit. You are here to defend their good name and their actions. Why don't you do it. Don't you have an answer Breezy. Why don't you let everyone know what you think about the fact that Steve Thomas paid nothing and can continue to speak on the lawsuit.

Everyone here knows what I think and there is no use chewing my cabbage twice or 100 times for you. :rolleyes: Round and round you go. :lol:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

In that case, then the Ramsey lawyers made a TERRIBLE decision to advise their allegedly innocent clients to avoid the police & to only agree to be formally interviewed 4 months after the murder.

The lawyers by insisting the police treat their clients as they WERE already named suspects & afford them the rights that defendants would be entitled to helped fuel the negative reactions of the media, the police & the public.

I'm still amazed at how ineffectual & even incompetent the Ramseys public relations expert was. Unbelievable. What a waste of money.

They didn't go to jail and make their daughters muder that much worse for them as other innocent parents did so IMO they did a good job.

These people "co-operated and talked to police. BIG mistake. I followed the case and could see through police BS but he was convicted and sat in Joliet prison for a few years. They both lost custody of younger child for a while as well based on BS and "reported" in the media.

"Dowaliby and his wife, Cynthia, biological mother of the victim by a prior marriage, both had been charged with the crime, based not only on Mann’s testimony but also on what proved to be an erroneous assumption about the forensic evidence: Police and prosecutors incorrectly assumed that a window of the Dowaliby home through which the Dowalibys claimed an intruder had entered to abduct Jaclyn had been broken from the inside. That seemed to make sense because there was more glass outside than inside, but forensic analysis ultimately established, incontrovertibly, that the window had been broken from the outside.

Illinois State Police and the FBI also failed to investigate the principal alternative suspect in the case, a mentally ill relative, who offered a dubious alibi that witnesses who eventually came forward disputed.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/7MenOut.htm

To those of you who like "books" try this one. BTW, I did NOT read any of the books about this case, I followed TV and newspaper news as I lived in Chicago at the time.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume7/j7_1_br8.htm

"This is a frightening account of what can happen to a couple falsely charged with child abuse and murder and demonstrates the dangers of not demanding an attorney from the beginning and of depending upon the justice system for justice. It made little difference to the court or to the Chicago agencies that a convict had confessed to the killing of the victim or that a person who physically resembled the husband was located near where the victim's body had been found. The crime was never solved.

I found this opinion good reading and relates to the Ramsey case.

"I say "frustrating" because one awful thing after another, after another, after another keeps happening for at least 300 pages. Police start the lies because they're so anxious to close the case of a missing child that they pin the blame almost immediately on the easiest targets, the parents. From there, they ignore all facts that might disprove their theory. The prosecutors do the same and claim things that aren't true. Witnesses lie. The media, with one notable exception, is a mouthpiece for the prosecution. The jury doesn't get what really happened because of inept lawyers, prosecutorial misconduct, and plain ol' stupidity.

"I can't think of a big upcoming court case that is covered day by day in the news that the media has not already decided for us. And, usually, their decision is based on whatever the police and prosecutors tell them. It's so easy to forget that they might be wrong. And then all the t.v. channels' Web sites have a place for us to vote on the guilt or innocence of someone who hasn't even been to trial yet."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/044021243X/002-7171344-8576853?v=glance&n=283155

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Solace

Speaking of chewing cabbage twice. I have yet to see you chew it once. You cannot refute what we have been posting since Friday. I have not seen it yet. I will take that as you have no answer.

:biggrin:

You have NOT proven anything you have been posting. You post proof and then you can tell me what I "refuted" or not. You choose to believe an admitted liar, fine but I do not. :shrug: You can "take it" how ever you wish to.:rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Solace

Breezy, no one had to clear anything up for me. My answer was to prove that the Ramseys accepted the settlement and I said the Ramseys had no problem with it. Of course they must have, but they accepted it.

So your trying to wing it and fly on someone else's post is not making it.

READ the constitution. EVERY American has the right to free spech, even if they lie as I HAVE said before "someone elses"" post. Bottom line is Steve did NOT do as he said he was looking forward to do in court, prove the Ramseys's guilty, instead he chickened out and settled.

Now as I said, you can go round and round on the merry go round without me. This is silly and childish when you will not accept even the constitution of the US. :seeya:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Solace

You refuted nothing Breezy. You either ignored the topic such as the experts and hoped it would go away after we posted the articles on Gelb, et al or you said I don't believe him (Thomas) re settlement. He settled and paid nothing. You choose not to believe that. The Ramseys have not called him on it. He has posted it and it stays there. But you choose not to believe it, because truthfully, that is all you can say. Frankly, Breezy, you are one of those posters who will never admit that you could be wrong about anything even when everyone who has been reading this knows differently. You did not refute our posts. You can if you want to though. Love to hear it.:biggrin:

Yapping puppy. :seeya:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Solace

I will take that as you have no answer to the posts on the unreliable Dr. Gelb and the fact that the Ramseys accepted Steven's not PAYING A DIME and SPEAKING AT WILL ABOUT THE CASE.

Thanks Breezy. I knew you would see the light eventually.:biggrin:

Yapping puppy. Too bad you can't see the light and quit being a pesty little pup. :rolleyes: :seeya:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Solace

We understand Breezy. Don't worry.:biggrin:

They do this to play, to get attention and because they are teething. Puppies are a lot like babies The good news is that this is a puppy behavior that almost all will grow out of naturally.

You understand nothing IMO. I don't want to play silly puppy or childish games. :seeya: When you want to act like an adult and discuss the case like an adult, let me know.

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 11:32 AM

Breezy hasn't even read two of the three main books written on this case, yet she wants to act like she knows the facts and what anyone says is just "opinion".

I came to this board with the intention of discussing the case and the evidence with people who believe in IDI and all I found was one bitter angry person who doesn't know the facts and won't discuss the evidence and her two buddies who back her up no matter what.

Where is the forensic evidence of anyone other than the Ramseys having been in that house Christmas night?

Patsy's jacket fibers are TIED into the knot at the back of JonBenet's neck. Patsy's jacket fibers are in the paint tray that the paintbrush that became the handle of the "garotte" was taken from. Patsy's jacket fibers are on the back of the tape that was over JonBenet's mouth - the tape that shows no indication of having been on her mouth when she was alive.

Patsy cannot be excluded as the author of the ransom note.

Both Ramseys are heard by both police and friends to have said they made sure all doors were locked Christmas night, only to change their story later.

John and Patsy Ramsey did not take the ransom note seriously and ended jeopardizing both the lives of both of their children, as if they knew there was no reason to worry - despite the dire warning that JonBenet's head would CUT OFF if they called anyone, police, friends, family, ANYONE.

And there is no forensic evidence of an intruder in that house that night.

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Breezy hasn't even read two of the three main books written on this case, yet she wants to act like she knows the facts and what anyone says is just "opinion".

I came to this board with the intention of discussing the case and the evidence with people who believe in IDI and all I found was one bitter angry person who doesn't know the facts and won't discuss the evidence and her two buddies who back her up no matter what.

Where is the forensic evidence of anyone other than the Ramseys having been in that house Christmas night?

Patsy's jacket fibers are TIED into the knot at the back of JonBenet's neck. Patsy's jacket fibers are in the paint tray that the paintbrush that became the handle of the "garotte" was taken from. Patsy's jacket fibers are on the back of the tape that was over JonBenet's mouth - the tape that shows no indication of having been on her mouth when she was alive.

Patsy cannot be excluded as the author of the ransom note.

Both Ramseys are heard by both police and friends to have said they made sure all doors were locked Christmas night, only to change their story later.

John and Patsy Ramsey did not take the ransom note seriously and ended jeopardizing both the lives of both of their children, as if they knew there was no reason to worry - despite the dire warning that JonBenet's head would CUT OFF if they called anyone, police, friends, family, ANYONE.

And there is no forensic evidence of an intruder in that house that night.

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

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

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

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

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

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

.................................................. .................................................. ..

KING: Patsy's clothing fibers -- the biggest one they claim is the fibers from her jacket. They say from what she was wearing were found in the paint tray where the garot used to strangle Jon Benet was found. Fibers were also found on Jon Benet's body, and the duct tape Jon Benet's mouth. And what we are going to show now is the tape of her responding to that charge, right?

Here is Jon Benet's mother, Patsy, responding to that charge about the evidence of the fibers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have found, and I want you to help us, maybe you can offer an explanation. We have found fibers in the paint tray that appear to come off of the coat in the photograph we showed you.

P. RAMSEY: In the paint tray?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

P. RAMSEY: What's a paint...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... ask his question. What's your question?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll rephrase the question, maybe this will satisfy -- Mrs. Ramsey, I have no evidence from any scientist to suggest that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on. What other sources did they test? How many other red jackets and red and black jackets did they test? That's an unfair question on the face of it, Bruce. Did they test anything other than that red and black jacket? I mean, they can't have information that it could come from another source if they didn't test another source for gosh sakes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And how, Lin were they -- would you go out and test every red jacket ever made?

WOOD: No, no -- but let me make a couple of points. Number one, police interrogations do not have to be fair, and they don't have to be truthful. So when they ask a question and say they've got evidence that says that fibers from her jacket appear to be consistent with fibers found in the paint tray, that may or may not be true.

I know they asked John Ramsey about fibers during his interrogation, and I know for a fact that the information was not true in terms of the location of those fibers.

Patsy was wearing a red and black and gray jacket, as I recall, and there were red fibers alleged to have been found on the duct tape, and on Jon Benet's body and in the paint tray.

That's what they say.

There were no black fibers. There were no gray fibers. We know that there are brown fibers that have never been sourced. We know that there are blue fibers that have never been sourced.

So the fiber evidence is, I think, extremely weak and besides, she lived in the home. She put Jon Benet to bed that night. There's any one of many innocent explanations for why the fibers might be consistent with something Patsy was wearing.

KING: Now concerning John's clothing fibers. They say there's evidence of fibers from John's clothing on Jon Benet. Here is the father's response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Ramsey, it is our belief, based on forensic testing that there are hairs that are associated -- that the source is the collared black shirt that you sent to us that are found in your daughter's underpants, and I want to refute...

J. RAMSEY: Bull (EXPLETIVE DELETED). I don't believe that. I don't buy it. If you're trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Ramsey, I'm not trying to...

J. RAMSEY: Well, I don't believe it. That's ridiculous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think you are too, Bruce. Let's move on. Why don't you move on.

J. RAMSEY: That's disgusting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I am not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, you are.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's move to something else, maybe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's move to another topic.

J. RAMSEY: The question is, how did fibers of your shirt get in your daughter's underwear? I say that is not possible. I don't believe it. That's ridiculous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: So you're saying police invent things to try to get respondents to respond?

WOOD: That was invented. We know that there were black fibers found, they claim, but there were no black fibers found in the areas of Jon Benet's underwear, as claimed in that question. The Boulder Police Department did not even ask for the Ramseys to provide the department with the clothes they were wearing the night of Jon Benet's murder for over one year. They couldn't even remember what they had worn. They had to go back and look at photographs to try and reconstruct what they wore that night.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/12/lkl.00.html

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 12:04 PM

Excerpts:

D.Pugh: OK thank you, uh, the next question is from "MantisGruP" In you opinion , how should Parents conduct themselves , in dealing with police , FBI , media, in the investigation of a missing / murdered child?

Ressler: how should they cooperate?

D. Pugh: How should they conduct themselves?

Ressler: conduct themselves,,,,well, uh, are they speaking from the standpoint of assisting Law enforcement, or are they talking from the standpoint of being a suspect in the case ,or .

D. Pugh: Well , I think kind of relates to the Ramsey case, the Sabrina Aisenberg case, the Joline Witt case--cases where parents have kind of been victims of what you refer to as the Richard Jewel syndrome--when initially the parents cooperate-- and the a police --seems to try to--a-- screw you against the wall.

Ressler: Well, it think if that's the direction of that question I would say that uh, there have been a number of cases , uh, and two which you just mentioned --Ramsey and Jewel. Where in fact, uh--uh-- people y'know have-- have really been a more or less targeted --uh--without adequate investigation beyond that-- that family. Now in the ---there's two main differences here because in the Richard--in the Ramsey case ,the Ramseys from the very onset have been --uh--have more or less built a wall around themselves with attorneys and experts-- uh-- who y'know , who have really obstructed the Law Enforcement from getting the necessary information that uh-- that Law Enforcement needs to either identify or eliminate the Ramseys --they haven't been cooperative enough they've--they've really been holding back information. Where in the Richard Jewel case on the other hand, Richard Jewel--a--went all out . He gave the --uh --the FBI and the Law enforcement people in Atlanta everything they needed to include consensual search of his apartment--uh--only to find--that uh-- that they then nailed him and targeted him as a suspect. A major suspect in the case. That fact was is that --uh- uh--in--in the focusing on Richard Jewel-- uh-- even when there was no forensic evidence at all to support their investigation. What the FBI and Local authorities ending up doing was missing the opportunity to get to the real killer--uh--real bomber. Uh--they wasted a lot of time with Richard Jewel and I think in that case it's largely a focus that was brought upon the FBI, the Atlanta Police authorities, and the prosecutors by the -uh - political pressure that was being put on them by the Department of Justice and the White House. Uh--in other words they wanted somebody so bad that they were willing -- willing to take short cuts that blew up in their face. And I think it's a stern warning to all people in the prosecutorial field --and the Law Enforcement field --is-- make sure you know what your doing --don't take short cut in serious cases --or any cases for that matter.

D. Pugh: Mm-Hmm, and that's kind of our lead in question into our Ramsey related questions. Uh--Mr. Ressler, Internet and public opinion divides the Rams case into two different theories on what happened on December 26th in the death of JonBenet Ramsey. First, the scenario that the death was accidental and one or both the parents were involved in the murder and cover-up. And the second, the scenario when an intruder entered the Rams home, murdered JonBenet, and staged the crime scene. Please comment on both scenarios.

Ressler: Yeah, I've been to Boulder on two occasions. I've talked to a number of people in the law enforcement field, the medical field, the prosecutor, one of the prosecutors out there, even some of the domestic help of uh, the Ramseys and uh, some media people as well. I do not-- uh, I've been to the location of the house, I've been around the house, I've looked at the neighborhood and I do not ascribe at all to the concept that a stranger broke into the house and, uh, in an attempt to kidnap or abduct JonBenet, killed her and wrote the note, and then left. I believe it was some sort of an internal--- uh-- situation that occurred that-- uh--I believe the Ramseys-- Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, possibly their son-- uh-- Burke, have more information available that they could provide police than they've held back-- uh-- in their non-cooperation they've put themselves in a position of being major suspects. It's very likely they're going to be indited in the Grand Jury here in April-- uh-- and whether or not there's enough to prosecute-- uh-- them to the point of conviction remains to be seen. But I think-- uh-- I've always believed that JonBenet was killed as a result of an accident that was being covered up-- I'm not saying whether or not Ramsey's parents or the brother were involved in the actual killing, but I think--as I say--I think that the entire-- uh-- elaborate staging was done to conceal the true facts of what really happened to that child.

D. Pugh: Okay, thank you. Uh, this next question is from KathyK. In the Ramsey crime scene, there is an unexplained shoe print next to the body, unmatched pubic hair on her blanket, unidentified DNA mixed with her blood stain in her panties, fibers on the genital area, and a palm on the door to the room she was found. Is this evidence proof positive that an intruder was involved?

Ressler: No, I don't think it is, because-- uh-- again, forensic evidence is--is only-- can only be as important as the investigators can link it to a-- a theory that would lead to a suspect. A palm print on the door, a shoe print down in the family room, things of this nature-- uh-- one has to consider the very basic fact that the police--one thing--that is --the policemen criticize for severely in this case--is they did not control the crime scene. Uh, they did not-- uh-- protect the crime scene, that being the entire house--uh--uh-- for many, many hours people were running around that house, neighbors, friends, relatives, a minister-- uh-- attorneys, God knows who else-- a number of police officers, and the palm print and the shoe print could have very well been left by one of these people who contaminated the crime scene. Uh, when we get down to DNA evidence, when we get down to --uh-- pubic hair, stains, things of that nature-- none of this has been collaborated to the extent that its been actually--uh--uh-- y'know, verified, in a-- in a court situation. So, until that information is given to the Grand Jury-- uh-- we really don't know what all that means at this stage.

---

D. Pugh: Bye-bye. Um-- next is --uh--is from "River" Why were the Police looking for the Santa Bear, and what value could it have to the investigation.

Ressler: Uh-- the only thing I know about the Santa Bear is what I read in the media. I Mean uh-when I was out in Boulder I had--I never came across that --uh- concept. Uh--I really have no idea -uh --what significant that Santa bear would have to this particular case. Uh--I know that the Ramsey Family --have , through their Publicist now put out information that is not always--uh--accurate or--uh--uh--relevant to this case. That--uh--y'know--uh--really don't know much about that.

D. Pugh: Well the DA requested --uh-- put a post on the internet

Ressler:Yeah they----requested it --but again-- the official request could have come from information from the family.

The full interview is here:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/ressler.html

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 12:08 PM

The boots are NOT a positive sign that an intruder killed JB.

Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots.

His parents 'forgot' all about those boots but both Burke AND a friend of Burke's testified that Burke used to own those boots.

And we know that Burke played in the basement.

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
The boots are NOT a positive sign that an intruder killed JB.

Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots.

His parents 'forgot' all about those boots but both Burke AND a friend of Burke's testified that Burke used to own those boots.

And we know that Burke played in the basement.

Of course they aren't proof but it IS evidence of a possiblility. Possibliities are all you offer as proof. WHEN did you hear Burke or anyone else testify? You did NOT. PROOF Burke owned a pair of the same shoe,same size. ?

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

WOOD: That was invented. We know that there were black fibers found, they claim, but there were no black fibers found in the areas of Jon Benet's underwear, as claimed in that question.[/B]

This is where it would have helped if you had read Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. Coroner Meyer noted those dark fibers and picked them off JonBenet's underwear for study with tweezers.

As for your other points, I have countered all of those before.

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Solace

If you had done your research, which I am afraid to point out to you once again, you have not, you would KNOW that the Boulder police officers often wore hi-tec boots. They were in the house and the basement. The print was more than likely left by them.:biggrin:

But we can't lose sight of the fact that the Ramseys lied and led the investigators to believe the footprint had to be left by an intruder since they knew it wasn't matched to any of the detectives on the scene. Oh, that MUST be an intruder.

Just as they claimed the flashlight left in the kitchen might be theirs BUT they didn't think it was. Oh, that MUST be an intruder.

Just as they claimed to have no knowledge of a late night snack of pineapple. Oh, that MUST be an intruder.

Just as they claimed they never saw the Santa Bear. Oh, that MUST be an intruder.

They were very careful to promote their 'intruder theory' whenever the opportunity presented itself.

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 12:52 PM

I'd like to point out that there is no way to date that boot print that was found in the basement. The Ramseys renovated extensively and workmen in and out of the house many times in the years that they lived there.

That print could have been made by anyone at any time.

Burke's Hi Tecs:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4770

13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this
14 as a fact. There are two people who have
15 provided us with information, including your
16 son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the
17 murder of your daughter.
18 MR. WOOD: You are stating that
19 Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec
20 shoes?
21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
22 MR. WOOD: He used the phrase
23 Hi-Tec?
24 MR. LEVIN: Yes.

http://www.courttv.com/archive/news/2002/0823/benet_ap.html

BOULDER, Colo. (AP) â€” Investigators have concluded that both a palm print and a footprint found in the home of JonBenet Ramsey were actually made by family members, not an intruder as some have suggested, the Rocky Mountain News reported Friday.

Investigators believe the prints found in the basement of the home were not related to the unsolved killing of the 6-year-old beauty queen, whose body was found Dec. 26, 1996.

Investigators have known the answers for some time, the newspaper reported.

A footprint found in mold on the floor of the Ramseys' wine cellar, near where the girl's body was found, was linked by investigators to her then-9-year-old brother, Burke. Burke, now 15, has long since been cleared by authorities.

Investigators also said a long-unidentified palm print on the door leading to the wine cellar is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half sister, who was in Georgia at the time of the girl's death. The technician who originally ruled her out as the source of the print had made an error, the newspaper said.

But what's this? An earlier report saying Burke had no Hi Tecs?

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/31aside.html

"We've had other boots that looked like they matched as well," he said. The footprint remains one of the mysteries of the unsolved December 1996 beating and strangulation death of JonBenÃ©t Ramsey.

Police found a partial footprint with the words "Hi Tec" in the basement of the Ramsey home.

Police cannot say whom it belongs to or when it was left. The Ramseys did not own a similar shoe.

Some say the footprint could have been left behind by a construction worker or plumber when the house was under renovation, or inadvertently by a police officer who worked the crime scene. Others, including the Ramseys, have said they believe it could have been from an intruder who killed their daughter.

Yet more contradicting stories from the Ramseys. They say he had no Hi Tecs, he says he did.

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Hegoth owned boots also. Interesting read on him...... JMO

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

His DNA did NOT match.

It's hard to imagine that the 'real killer' would leave no forensic evidence in the basement that matches but the parents would.

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Speaking of which there is a new documentary coming out on OJ Simpson and he is threatening to sue.

The best defense is an offense. Not to mention the monetary gains that some murder suspects seem to think they're entitled to considering they feel like the real victims.

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Do your own reading.

If a person makes a statement it is up to THEM to explain their line of reasoning &/or to back up their own theories.

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by hohum

The parents lived in the house and went down to the basement quite frequently.

But Patsy said she didn't go down there in that jacket - or at all that day.

So how did the fibers from her jacket get on the tape, in the paint tray, and tied into the garotte knot? TIED into the knot?

Next you'll try to say that the intruder put on Patsy's jacket.

Jayelles

08-07-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Hegoth owned boots also. Interesting read on him...... JMO

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

What percentage of the US population do you think owned HiTecs?

There is absolutely NO evidence to link Michael Helgoth to the Ramsey family or home. Some people have said he committed suicide on 14th February 1997 because Alex Hunter made his speech on 13th. However, Helgoth's friends have stated that he was broken hearted after his girlfriend ended their long-term relationship and THAT was why he killed himself on Valentine's Day. Which sounds more likely? You also have to consider the source for Helgoth even being a suspect in the first place - John Kenady - convicted child molester with a rap sheet as long as your arm. He broke into the Helgoth home and stole some documents, a cheque and some artwork. He ended up achieving his 15 minutes of fame on Michael Tracey's documentary of misinformation.

If it weren't for John Kenady, we would never have heard of Michael Helgoth.

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 01:29 PM

Cook also notes that a large number of Boulder residents are hikers, so Hi-Tech boots could be matched to probably thousands of people; the fact that Helgoth happened to own a pair therefore is not significant.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Acquaintance%20Intruder%20Theories

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by hohum

I never did understand why a mother thought it was cute to have her children and she dress alike.

Because she sees her daughter as an extension of herself. Patsy was clearly living out her own dreams through her daughter with the pageant circuit.

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 01:47 PM

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by hohum

It's a mystery as to why certain posters like to cloud the investigation with half truths. Perhaps to keep the real killer from being found. But why?

Yeah, why do you do that, hohum?

Because they don't want to believe the Ramseys may have been involved. Sadly, all of the evidence points to that and not to an intruder.

Pretty hard to beat Patsy's jacket fibers being tied into the garotte knot. Less wealthy and affluent people have been convicted on less evidence than that.

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by hohum
About the rope.

"Rope in JAR Bedroom. "a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet." (Carnes 2003:93-94)."

The rope in the bag did not match the rope used in the garrote.

The rope did look like rope used by JB in one of her pageant pictures. (I'm guessing it was for a lasso?)

Furthermore, why would a stealthy intruder leave his bag of rope in John Andrew's bedroom & not take it with him? If it was found in JB's room or in the basement, it would be more likely to be tied to the actual crime.

Why do we have to assume someone touched the bag AND the body? One of the many people in the house could have examined the bag and then touched the bed.

And if the BODY BAG was also contaminated... how reliable is this forensic evidence? Unless the killer hung around to touch the body bag also, I don't know what Carnes is getting at. :biggrin:

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by hohum

OK let's make it simple for you. Show us the proof that Patsy did not previously wear the outfit that "matched" the fibers.

Are you suggesting Patsy wore that jacket three days in a row, and that's how those fibers got in the basement? The 24th, 25th, and 26th?

As if the wife of a mutli-millionaire and former winning beauty pageant contestant would wear the same outfit more than once. She must have had a closet FULL of seasonal outfits and dressy Christmas clothes. Friends of hers didn't believe she'd wear the same outfit two days in a row, much less any more than that. Appearances were everything to Patsy. She'd no sooner be seen in the same outfit that many times than be seen naked.

Why in God's name would she wear a nice dressy Christmas jacket downstairs to the basement to wrap gifts?

And if she did, how does that mean you even conclude that some intruder tied a knot around JonBenet's neck and Patsy's jacket fibers - from two days before - drifted over and settled in...but there was NO forensic evidence left the intruder tying the knot anywhere in the house?

This is just ridiculous. I can't believe a rational person would go THAT far to make Patsy's fibers arrive in knot strangling her daughter innocuously.

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by hohum

It's a mystery as to why certain posters like to cloud the investigation with half truths. Perhaps to keep the real killer from being found. But why?

Posters at CourtTv have the ability to keep the real killer from being found? :confused:

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

The rope in the bag did not match the rope used in the garrote.

The rope did look like rope used by JB in one of her pageant pictures. (I'm guessing it was for a lasso?)

Furthermore, why would a stealthy intruder leave his bag of rope in John Andrew's bedroom & not take it with him? If it was found in JB's room or in the basement, it would be more likely to be tied to the actual crime.

Why do we have to assume someone touched the bag AND the body? One of the many people in the house could have examined the bag and then touched the bed.

And if the BODY BAG was also contaminated... how reliable is this forensic evidence? Unless the killer hung around to touch the body bag also, I don't know what Carnes is getting at. :biggrin:

I know what Carnes is getting at. The answer is in PMPT. The coroner's office puts paper bags over the hands and feet of the deceased when they load them into body bags to preserve the evidence, and they did that for JonBenet. Carnes obviously did not know that.

There's an awful lot of stuff Judge Carnes didn't know about. I can't believe anyone would try to use her as a credible source.

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Why don't we just say that Patsy wore the same clothes from November on.:biggrin:

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Reminder - tonight 10:00 p.m. eastern - Anatomy of a Cold Case- CTV.........

Thanks Rosy, I HAD forgotten.

(If anyone wants to tape the show, it's also on Aug. 8 at 2:00 AM.)

Breezy, I'll check out that case, I'll probably be going to the library in the next couple of days. Thanks.

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

If a person makes a statement it is up to THEM to explain their line of reasoning &/or to back up their own theories.

Tell it to solace. :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by hohum

It speaks for itself in many of their posts. And is posted for all to see who are familiar with the facts. If they can't read what is written about the case, including the interrogation transcripts, then it's not up to you to keep linking and explaining facts to them.

I agree, I have posted links over and still they nip at my heels and yap, yap, yap with the gossip.

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Because Joan Crawford and Wacko Patsy liked to do those kinds of things. They also liked to beat the #$% out of their children.

Another childish post with NOTHING to back it up. :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Because she sees her daughter as an extension of herself. Patsy was clearly living out her own dreams through her daughter with the pageant circuit.

Clearly? To who? You? Proof? Oh yeah, because you say so is enough, huh? :rolleyes:

Jayelles

08-07-2006, 03:29 PM

For those of you who don't think the size 12/14 Bloomies would have been too bad - look for yourself:-

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Unfortunately, I agree with you. Breezy has not read any of the books that have been written although considerable research went into both. Both books name their sources and back up the sources.

If everyone felt as Breezy does re books, we would be in one sorry state. There would be no written history, there would be no plays, there would be no biographies and therefore no recorded history of the great battles, deeds, works of art, etc., etc. etc. BECAUSE ACCORDING TO BREEZY, THIS IS ALL GOSSIP.

Are you sure you want to continue this route Breezy. It is bordering on the absurd. :biggrin:

Your statement that I said what you said I did is not only "bordering on the absurd, it IS absurd. Go back and READ what I said about books about this or any MURDER case. If you don't know the difference between opinions in a book and "history or biographies" you are in sad shape. Didn't they teach you how to read with understanding in school yet? Maybe next year, huh? :shrug:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Are you suggesting Patsy wore that jacket three days in a row, and that's how those fibers got in the basement? The 24th, 25th, and 26th?

As if the wife of a mutli-millionaire and former winning beauty pageant contestant would wear the same outfit more than once. She must have had a closet FULL of seasonal outfits and dressy Christmas clothes. Friends of hers didn't believe she'd wear the same outfit two days in a row, much less any more than that. Appearances were everything to Patsy. She'd no sooner be seen in the same outfit that many times than be seen naked.

Why in God's name would she wear a nice dressy Christmas jacket downstairs to the basement to wrap gifts?

And if she did, how does that mean you even conclude that some intruder tied a knot around JonBenet's neck and Patsy's jacket fibers - from two days before - drifted over and settled in...but there was NO forensic evidence left the intruder tying the knot anywhere in the house?

This is just ridiculous. I can't believe a rational person would go THAT far to make Patsy's fibers arrive in knot strangling her daughter innocuously.

Hohum asked for proof, not your opinion.

"Originally posted by hohum

OK let's make it simple for you. Show us the proof that Patsy did not previously wear the outfit that "matched" the fibers."

You don't even know IF there were fibers from anything in the knot.

IF Patsy Ramsey was so concerned about "appearances" then why did she appear on TV with no hair or no eyebrows? She didn't have to appear if "appearances" was all that mattered to her. :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Breezy, there you go with your anger again. I hit the proverbial nerve. Yes you did say books are gossip. When you are caught on something, you just basically deny saying it.

Oh grow up, you couldn't hit the board side of a barn.

Quit making things up and show some proof. You act more and more like a child with the silly accusations that anyone can go back on the Ramsey threads here and can see for themselves you are full of hot air. It's all there for everyone to see as well as your constant nipping at my heels. :seeya:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Breezy, do you read your posts before you post them. This one for example. Are you sure you were born in 1969. Looks more like the writing of someone born in 1999.

You are losing it. :seeya:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Poor Breezy, everyone is nipping at your heals asking you to back up your posts. Breezy, you just can't go through life or forums basically saying whatever comes into your head at the moment without backing it up. And when you do back it up, using people like Gelb do not help your case.:lol:

LOL I do back up what I say unlike you and your childsih accusations. I really think it is time for me to quit giving you your way by giving you attention. Say whatever you wsih about me, I will not answer you again. It's all there for all to see if they choose to see who posts links and who doesn't. This is my final :seeya: to you, enjoy trashing me, Patsy and anyone who doesn't agree with your childish accusations all you want. I for one will just consider the source and laugh at your constant trying to get attention.

Jayelles

08-07-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Of course they aren't proof but it IS evidence of a possiblility. Possibliities are all you offer as proof. WHEN did you hear Burke or anyone else testify? You did NOT. PROOF Burke owned a pair of the same shoe,same size. ?

We know that there was barely 1/2 inch difference in Burke's shoe size and the alleged size of the partial Hi-Tec print.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1101508&postcount=1

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

We know that there was barely 1/2 inch difference in Burke's shoe size and the alleged size of the partial Hi-Tec print.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1101508&postcount=1

NOT proof, grand jury testimoney was NOT released. :rolleyes:

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

NOT proof, grand jury testimoney was NOT released. :rolleyes:

Are you saying the information is false &/or inaccurate?

Btw, does anyone know if the footprint they found was a complete print or whether it was a partial?

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 05:15 PM

:D :D

Maybe Breezy should define what she considers "proof?"

Maybe she thinks the Grand Jury was out to victimize the Ramseys also?

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Are you saying the information is false &/or inaccurate?

Btw, does anyone know if the footprint they found was a complete print or whether it was a partial?

I'm saying we don't KNOW

It was a partial footprint.

"Then there is the partial footprint, left by someone wearing Hi-Tec shoes, on the floor of the room where JonBenet’s body was found.

“This is a very fresh print,” says Smit. “It shows somebody was in that room with JonBenet. The logo on the bottom of the shoe, it says Hi-Tec. And it’s quite distinctive.”

This past August, the Rocky Mountain News reported that investigators believe the Hi Tec footprint was left, not by an intruder but by the Ramsey’s own son, Burke.

Smit is not buying into any of it: “All of the shoes in that house were checked by the Boulder Police Department. None of those shoes match any of the prints there.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523884.shtml

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
:D :D

Maybe Breezy should define what she considers "proof?"

Maybe she thinks the Grand Jury was out to victimize the Ramseys also?

You really don't know what proof means? OMG, what on earth are you doing discussing a murder case then?

Yeah of course the GJ was out to victimize the Ramseys' and that is why the did NOT indict. :rolleyes:

The GJ was and still is secret so we do not know what was testified there EXCEPT they did NOT indict.

Jayelles

08-07-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

I'm saying we don't KNOW

It was a partial footprint.

"Then there is the partial footprint, left by someone wearing Hi-Tec shoes, on the floor of the room where JonBenet’s body was found.

“This is a very fresh print,” says Smit. “It shows somebody was in that room with JonBenet. The logo on the bottom of the shoe, it says Hi-Tec. And it’s quite distinctive.”

This past August, the Rocky Mountain News reported that investigators believe the Hi Tec footprint was left, not by an intruder but by the Ramsey’s own son, Burke.

Smit is not buying into any of it: “All of the shoes in that house were checked by the Boulder Police Department. None of those shoes match any of the prints there.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523884.shtml

I believe that even John Ramsey confirmed that Burke owned a pair of boots with a compass on them. Such footwear was made by Hi-Tec.

Just because the boots weren't found in the house does NOT mean they were never there. The print in the basement could have been months old. Despite what some Ramsey supporters have claimed, the mould in the masement was not "fast growing" but slow growing. The Legendary Why_Nut has posted photos taken many months apart and the spread of mould is identical on both.

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

I'm saying we don't KNOW

It was a partial footprint.

"Then there is the partial footprint, left by someone wearing Hi-Tec shoes, on the floor of the room where JonBenet’s body was found.

“This is a very fresh print,” says Smit. “It shows somebody was in that room with JonBenet. The logo on the bottom of the shoe, it says Hi-Tec. And it’s quite distinctive.”

This past August, the Rocky Mountain News reported that investigators believe the Hi Tec footprint was left, not by an intruder but by the Ramsey’s own son, Burke.

Smit is not buying into any of it: “All of the shoes in that house were checked by the Boulder Police Department. None of those shoes match any of the prints there.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523884.shtml

Smit knows for sure that the print was "very fresh?" IF the print was "very fresh" I would expect to find more than one print that was left by the 'intruder.'

They only checked "all the shoes in the house" but not the Hi-Tec boot that the Ramseys completely 'forgot' Burke even owned.

Oh and btw, Smit's OPINION is not "proof" of anything either. It's just a theory.

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by hohum

I wondered why you were so hostile toward the Ramsey's and now you have come forward, finally, with a forthright post. You resent the Ramsey's wealth.

I said no such thing and you have no right to twist my words into saying I did.

You don't know what my personal life is like so you are no position to make claims like that.

It figures that you would resort to such tactics. I have a very low opinion of you, hohum. Are you here to discuss the case, or are you here to antagonize others with inflammatory posts?

A half of an inch difference is size is a big deal to you when discussing a partial shoe print that cannot be dated, but Patsy's fibers being tied into the cord on JonBenet's neck mean nothing.

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

In the course of the interview with Patsy Ramsey, prosecutors asserted that investigators had found:

* Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

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

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 06:53 PM

From the same source

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

THE PAINT TRAY - Photographs show the paint tray was located outside the door to the wine cellar in which JonBenet's body was found, and thus well removed from the blanket that creates the possible contamination problem with the fibers on the duct tape. The fibers were put in the paint tray sometime before or during the time a brush in the tray was used to tighten the cord around JonBenet's neck, because Patsy didn't have access to the tray thereafter. Patsy told prosecutors she had never worn the red sweater-jacket while painting. So there is no readily apparent explanation for how the fibers could have gotten there in a manner that doesn't implicate Patsy in the use of the brush in the paint tray around the time of her daughter's death.

THE LIGATURE - This was an instrument fashioned for the apparent purpose of controlling JonBenet (it was like a collar and leash used on a dog), strangling her, or "staging" the crime scene to make it look like there had been an intruder. In any case, the only way fibers from ANY type of Patsy's clothing could make their way innocently onto this instrument would be if the fibers attached themselves to the paint brush used to make the ligature at some prior time, when it was simply a paint brush. Thus an innocent explanation runs into the same problems as does the explanation of how the fibers from Patsy's sweater/jacket came to be in the paint tray (why THAT piece of clothing when Patsy never wore it while painting?), and it runs into the additional problems created by the switch from the innocent use of a paint brush to the felonious use of the ligature. Patsy told investigators there were no broken brushes in her paint tray prior to the night JonBenet was killed. So the brush in question was broken the night JonBenet died by someone trying to control or kill her, or stage the crime scene.

THE PANTIES - John Ramsey told investigator Smit in his 1998 interview that while he had carried a sleeping JonBenet to bed after the family returned from their Christmas Day outing, he did not undress her. Patsy did. Patsy confirmed that. There is, therefore, no obvious way to explain why fibers from the type of shirt John was wearing when he says he put her to bed were found in her underpants and "crotch area."

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Why is it better to play with Barbie dolls for hours and hours than to practice something useful and develop talents? It's the difference in the ordinary child and the exceptional child and not something the average person would understand.

Links to back that up?

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by hohum

What a hoot. The police wait for the Ramsey's to get in touch. Like it's their responsibility rather than the BPD to investigate the case. This discussion just gets stranger and stranger.

It's their moral responsibility to their murdered daughter to assist police in the investigation to solve the crime and find the killer any way they can, not hide behind attorneys and put the interviews off until they can't anymore. Other parents of murdered children have not taken the course of action the Ramseys took. Strange that you don't realize that.

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by hohum

I don't need to twist your words, you do such a good job of that yourself.
I'm not worried. Anyone here can see what you're trying to do.

rashomon

08-07-2006, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by hohum

What fantasy was Patsy trying to live out through children's beauty pageants? Patsy had already been Miss WV years before.
The future Miss America crown for her daughter JonBenet.

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

*snipped"

Oh and btw, Smit's OPINION is not "proof" of anything either. It's just a theory.

READ my post REAL slow and let it sink in. When someone says "we don't' know" that means there is no proof. :rolleyes:

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

Are you saying the information is false &/or inaccurate?

I'm saying we don't KNOW

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

I believe that even John Ramsey confirmed that Burke owned a pair of boots with a compass on them. Such footwear was made by Hi-Tec.

Just because the boots weren't found in the house does NOT mean they were never there. The print in the basement could have been months old. Despite what some Ramsey supporters have claimed, the mould in the masement was not "fast growing" but slow growing. The Legendary Why_Nut has posted photos taken many months apart and the spread of mould is identical on both.

:rolleyes: You "believe" LOL

Yep, the boots just walked out of the house by themselves.

Nice that"why-nut" got pictures of the mold months apart. Did why-nut also have pictures of the books months apart? :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

*snipped*

In the course of the interview with Patsy Ramsey, prosecutors asserted that investigators had found:

* Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

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

You are so VERY wrong. They did NOT say the fibers were "identical" to the fibers in Patsy's sweater................WHY lie about it? Police can lie to "suspects" but WHY are you lying here? Even police said to the ramseys without showing them any proof of course "consistant" with not "identical"..............BIG difference!

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Where is that CTV rule posted?

"If a person makes a statement it is up to THEM to explain their line of reasoning &/or to back up their own theories."

Well I guess according to the forum rules, a person is free to state things without explaining what they meant or why they feel the way they do.

You have to admit though, that's not very conducive to worthwhile communications though.

My feeling is that if a person is sure enough about something to say it in the first place, and someone asks them to clarify or expound on their thoughts, they should not be reluctant to continue the conversation.

If you won't defend your OWN opinions or thoughts, why should anyone else have any faith in what you said?

(And I use the word 'you' in a general sense)

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Links to back that up?

I think Hohum was saying some little girls spend countless hours playing with Barbies & that's the same as spending countless hours practicing for pageants.

Except playing with Barbies does not mean your mother drags you to have your hair bleached & permed or your teeth capped. You aren't stuck having a bunch of costumes fitted until they fit just right. And you aren't sitting while your nails are done & your makeup is applied.

In essence, the pageant girl has BECOME the Barbie doll. And the mother is the one who's playing.

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
From the same source

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

THE PAINT TRAY - Photographs show the paint tray was located outside the door to the wine cellar in which JonBenet's body was found, and thus well removed from the blanket that creates the possible contamination problem with the fibers on the duct tape. The fibers were put in the paint tray sometime before or during the time a brush in the tray was used to tighten the cord around JonBenet's neck, because Patsy didn't have access to the tray thereafter. Patsy told prosecutors she had never worn the red sweater-jacket while painting. So there is no readily apparent explanation for how the fibers could have gotten there in a manner that doesn't implicate Patsy in the use of the brush in the paint tray around the time of her daughter's death.

THE LIGATURE - This was an instrument fashioned for the apparent purpose of controlling JonBenet (it was like a collar and leash used on a dog), strangling her, or "staging" the crime scene to make it look like there had been an intruder. In any case, the only way fibers from ANY type of Patsy's clothing could make their way innocently onto this instrument would be if the fibers attached themselves to the paint brush used to make the ligature at some prior time, when it was simply a paint brush. Thus an innocent explanation runs into the same problems as does the explanation of how the fibers from Patsy's sweater/jacket came to be in the paint tray (why THAT piece of clothing when Patsy never wore it while painting?), and it runs into the additional problems created by the switch from the innocent use of a paint brush to the felonious use of the ligature. Patsy told investigators there were no broken brushes in her paint tray prior to the night JonBenet was killed. So the brush in question was broken the night JonBenet died by someone trying to control or kill her, or stage the crime scene.

THE PANTIES - John Ramsey told investigator Smit in his 1998 interview that while he had carried a sleeping JonBenet to bed after the family returned from their Christmas Day outing, he did not undress her. Patsy did. Patsy confirmed that. There is, therefore, no obvious way to explain why fibers from the type of shirt John was wearing when he says he put her to bed were found in her underpants and "crotch area."

My God, don't you realize that police always tell the suspect untrue things to get them to confess and in this case they admitted it. You are spreading EVIL gossip as if it is a proven fact and it is NOT!

"Police can lie to you about evidence they say they have in order to get you to talk to them and to get you to confess. Courts have said that while this lying is not condoned, it is not "illegal" unless an investigator's use of artifice or some other forms of deception is likely to produce an untrue confession.

For example, police can lie to you about finding your fingerprints on some object at the scene of the crime. They can try to trick you into admitting involvement in an incident by telling you that several eyewitnesses saw you, that they have you on video tape, or that your license plate number was recorded. They can tell you that several people overheard you make incriminating statements already, when it is not true. Often, the evidence against you is weak, and there may not be enough evidence to charge you unless you admit to doing something. As long as the law enforcement tactics are not so outrageous that they overbear your ability to voluntarily give up your rights, they may be used. Because these tactics are effective on even the smartest people, you should not give a statement to police until after you have talked to a defense attorney.

http://www.apg.army.mil/APGHome/sites/installation/Staff_Judge/html/Trial%20Defense%20Services/Suspect_rights.html

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

I think Hohum was saying some little girls spend countless hours playing with Barbies & that's the same as spending countless hours practicing for pageants.

Except playing with Barbies does not mean your mother drags you to have your hair bleached & permed or your teeth capped. You aren't stuck having a bunch of costumes fitted until they fit just right. And you aren't sitting while your nails are done & your makeup is applied.

In essence, the pageant girl has BECOME the Barbie doll. And the mother is the one who's playing.

There is NO proof Patsy "dragged" JB to have ger hair bleached & permed or her teeth capped. You also have no proof JB herself didn't want her nails done and make up put on. I know many little girls who are not in pageants and love putting on make up, playing dress up and having their nails done.

http://www.gifts.com/search/product/Ladies-Dress-Up-Trunk-and-Free-Make-Up-Kit?ideaID=1855&prodID=63413

http://www.jcpenney.com/products/C032764.jsp

http://www.toydirectory.com/monthly/Nov2003/PretendPlay_Cosmetic_TS.asp

You really think all little girls who like to dress up and play with make up are "pageants girls" "Barbie dolls or dragged to do it? :rolleyes:

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 09:13 PM

You're spreading the evil intruder theory AS IF it's a proven fact and it is NOT!

And I see very little difference between saying consistent or identical because the bottom line is that Patsy was NOT excluded.

breezy1234

08-07-2006, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
You're spreading the evil intruder theory AS IF it's a proven fact and it is NOT!

And I see very little difference between saying consistent or identical because the bottom line is that Patsy was NOT excluded.

The "evil intruder theory" has no name and I am not making things up about him personally. :rolleyes:

What you "see" makes no difference to proof of evidence.

Let me TRY to explain it to you.

If fibers from your clothing are found in your home or on your child it means nothing as far as a crime.

If fibers from another sweater were tested they too would be consistant with but they would not be IDENTICAL to patsys sweater. For all we know if another sweater of one of the suspects and (he were guilty) were tested they would be identical to the fibers found on JD but the fibers from Patsys sweater would STILL only be consitant with. See the difference now?

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 09:41 PM

Why do you take everything so literally?

No, I don't think ALL little girls would hate preparing for the pageants, just as I don't think ALL little children would hate practicing the piano for 3 hours a day.

Some children ARE the exceptions to the rule.

The average child would rather 'play' than spend hours on their physical appearance, not to mention a whole day devoted to the pageant.

I can go along with the pageants where little girls look like regular little girls but when they are all glammed up with teased hair & makeup, it really turns my stomach.

And no, I'm not drawing a line between the pageants & Patsy. I'm just saying, I don't like the pageants that forget little girls are just children.

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 09:54 PM

And unexplained fibers are NOT proof of an intruder.

We ALL have unexplained fibers in our homes & in our cars. And if tested, they would NOT all be able to be identified.

nuisanceposter

08-07-2006, 11:05 PM

It always makes me laugh about how Ramsey supporters want to dismiss the whole business with the child beauty pageants as nothing.

JonBenet spent a minimum of an hour a day three days a week rehearsing dancing with Boulder dance instructor Kit Andre. In PMPT, he describes how Patsy was a pain in the neck, insisting in being in the same room with them during rehearsal even though he asked her to stay out, and insisting in being involved in teaching JonBenet to dance the way she wanted JonBenet to dance. She even brought her mother Nedra Paugh down to sit in on sessions, and he said Nedra spent the entire time talking about Patsy and pageants.

The truth is, close friends of Patsy's were planning to sit her down and have a talk with her about the whole pageant scene and how it was a "mega JonBenet thing" after the holidays when the Rs were back from their cruise.

Friends of Patsy's were concerned about Patsy's obsession with the pageants and how it was affecting JonBenet.

No one is saying a woman who enters her daughter in pageants is in danger of being a murderer, and no one is saying Patsy is a monster because she entered her daughter in pageants.

A lot of people question the lengths she went to with JonBenet and why it was so important to her to have her daughter doing pageants - and why she tried to downplay it after Jonbenet was dead and the story and pics of Jonbenet dressed up like anything other than a child with heavy make up and teased hair and shw costumes with the coy and sexy moves hit the telly - and incidentally, Kit Andre said he never taught Jonbenet those dance moves and was shocked when he saw her on tv doing them.

His direct quote in PMPT is "I've looked at that pageant video several times. They made Jonbenet look like a clown. Someone else taught her the pseudo-adult movements, the provocative walk, the poses, all of it.

The pageants were Patys's gig. JonBenet was her alter ego. Patsy had the money, she had the costumes, and she had the kid. She could relive her own pageant thing. You got the picture right there. Patsy didn't have a sense of proportion about how this should fit her child's life. What I saw on the pageant video...you don't do that to a sic year old."

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by hohum

If a person is serious about discussing a case they won't mind doing a little research about facts that are new to them. The internet is a wonderful resource. I don't mind linking for serious posters but for those just here to stir the pot what would be the point.

This is not a question of research.

You made a statement & were asked to expound on what YOU said.

I would never expect another person to go research a point I was trying to make. Although, I might ask someone where I can find information I need or whether they know the answer to a question I have.

LI_Mom

08-07-2006, 11:38 PM

Burke?

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
It always makes me laugh about how Ramsey supporters want to dismiss the whole business with the child beauty pageants as nothing.

JonBenet spent a minimum of an hour a day three days a week rehearsing dancing with Boulder dance instructor Kit Andre. In PMPT, he describes how Patsy was a pain in the neck, insisting in being in the same room with them during rehearsal even though he asked her to stay out, and insisting in being involved in teaching JonBenet to dance the way she wanted JonBenet to dance. She even brought her mother Nedra Paugh down to sit in on sessions, and he said Nedra spent the entire time talking about Patsy and pageants.

The truth is, close friends of Patsy's were planning to sit her down and have a talk with her about the whole pageant scene and how it was a "mega JonBenet thing" after the holidays when the Rs were back from their cruise.

Friends of Patsy's were concerned about Patsy's obsession with the pageants and how it was affecting JonBenet.

No one is saying a woman who enters her daughter in pageants is in danger of being a murderer, and no one is saying Patsy is a monster because she entered her daughter in pageants.

A lot of people question the lengths she went to with JonBenet and why it was so important to her to have her daughter doing pageants - and why she tried to downplay it after Jonbenet was dead and the story and pics of Jonbenet dressed up like anything other than a child with heavy make up and teased hair and shw costumes with the coy and sexy moves hit the telly - and incidentally, Kit Andre said he never taught Jonbenet those dance moves and was shocked when he saw her on tv doing them.

His direct quote in PMPT is "I've looked at that pageant video several times. They made Jonbenet look like a clown. Someone else taught her the pseudo-adult movements, the provocative walk, the poses, all of it.

The pageants were Patys's gig. JonBenet was her alter ego. Patsy had the money, she had the costumes, and she had the kid. She could relive her own pageant thing. You got the picture right there. Patsy didn't have a sense of proportion about how this should fit her child's life. What I saw on the pageant video...you don't do that to a sic year old."

:rolleyes: This one said and that one said BUT those who said JB did far less pageants that most girls do and that she loved doing them, including judges who could tell if a kid was enjoying herself or was being forced of course are not to be believed because you find it better to believe what was said in a "book". How sad that you would rather believe the worst instead of the better both without any proof. IMO that says more about you than Patsy. IMO it is so disgusting that a fun thing JB enjoyed is turned into something sinister and evil by dirty minds and people repeat gossip AND even add to it without knowing the real truth.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

It's their moral responsibility to their murdered daughter to assist police in the investigation to solve the crime and find the killer any way they can, not hide behind attorneys and put the interviews off until they can't anymore. Other parents of murdered children have not taken the course of action the Ramseys took. Strange that you don't realize that.

It's VERY strange you don't understand the best way to end up in jail even if innocent is to talk to cops when you are the suspect. Get out of la la land and get in the real world.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by hohum

So do you make some connection between the type pageants that you personally do not like and a mother murdering her child? Is a mother who supports her daughter in "pageants that forget little girls are just children" more likely to murder her daughter? What is the point of this ongoing harping on pageants unless you are trying to link pageant mothers to murderers. The personal likes and dislikes of pageants does not help solve the case. It is discussed to make Patsy look like some monster mother to perpetuate the theory that she killed JonBenet.

:patriot: Exactly, a bunch of nothing to do with murder.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Did you watch the CTV program tonight? Guess who was so conspicuous by his absence in the program?

I didn't watch it but I can guess, the loud mouth know it all Thomas. ????

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
And unexplained fibers are NOT proof of an intruder.

We ALL have unexplained fibers in our homes & in our cars. And if tested, they would NOT all be able to be identified.

On dead bodies? Are you saying when somone is killed cops should forget about collecting fibers on or around that dead body because "We ALL have unexplained fibers in our homes & in our cars"? You better let every police department know about that. :rolleyes:

Jayelles

08-08-2006, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

:rolleyes: You "believe" LOL

Yep, the boots just walked out of the house by themselves.

Nice that"why-nut" got pictures of the mold months apart. Did why-nut also have pictures of the books months apart? :rolleyes:

I "believe" I was correct:-

10 Q. But you do have some recollection

11 that he had some type of footwear that had

12 compasses attached to them?

13 A. I don't, I don't specifically

14 remember them, but my impression is that he

15 did, in my mind, yeah. But my impression

16 was that they were tennis shoes

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

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Jayelles

I "believe" I was correct:-

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

Do you recall -- if you don't

2 recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you

3 remember Burke having boots that had a

4 compass on the laces?

5 A. Vaguely. I don't know if they

6 were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is

7 they were tennis shoes, but that is very

8 vague. He had boots that had lights on them

9 and all sorts of different things.

10 Q. But you do have some recollection

11 that he had some type of footwear that had

12 compasses attached to them?

13 A. I don't, I don't specifically

14 remember them, but my impression is that he

15 did, in my mind, yeah. But my impression

16 was that they were tennis shoes.

17 Q. Sneakers?

18 A. Sneakers. Yeah. Ask Burke if he

19 remembers it.

20 I said, ask Burke, perhaps he --

21 well, we could certainly ask Burke.

Doesn't sound like a sure thing to me. Boots with lights on them? Sneakers??

It's great you think you are correct but a defense attorney would laugh this kind of stuff out of court. The shoes were not found and we do NOT KNOW what Burke said about the shoes. No where that we KNOW of did Burke testify he had a pair of those shoes and until or unless he does your thinking you are correct means nothing.

Do you understand .........Police can lie to you about evidence they say they have in order to get you to talk to them and to get you to confess. Courts have said that while this lying is not condoned, it is not "illegal" unless an investigator's use of artifice or some other forms of deception is likely to produce an untrue confession.

For example, police can lie to you about finding your fingerprints on some object at the scene of the crime. They can try to trick you into admitting involvement in an incident by telling you that several eyewitnesses saw you, that they have you on video tape, or that your license plate number was recorded. They can tell you that several people overheard you make incriminating statements already, when it is not true. Often, the evidence against you is weak, and there may not be enough evidence to charge you unless you admit to doing something. As long as the law enforcement tactics are not so outrageous that they overbear your ability to voluntarily give up your rights, they may be used. Because these tactics are effective on even the smartest people, you should not give a statement to police until after you have talked to a defense attorney.

http://www.apg.army.mil/APGHome/sit...ect_rights.html

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

It's VERY strange you don't understand the best way to end up in jail even if innocent is to talk to cops when you are the suspect. Get out of la la land and get in the real world.

Let's ask all the other parents of murdered children how much they had to fear from the cops investigatiing their child's death.

Let's ask the Walshes and the Van Dams and the Groenes and the Lunsfords and the Runnions.

The Rasmeys had a responsibility to JonBenet and they completely let her down for their own selfish needs.

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

:rolleyes: This one said and that one said BUT those who said JB did far less pageants that most girls do and that she loved doing them, including judges who could tell if a kid was enjoying herself or was being forced of course are not to be believed because you find it better to believe what was said in a "book". How sad that you would rather believe the worst instead of the better both without any proof. IMO that says more about you than Patsy. IMO it is so disgusting that a fun thing JB enjoyed is turned into something sinister and evil by dirty minds and people repeat gossip AND even add to it without knowing the real truth.

I knew you'd be sure to put in your bit about gossip.

Kit Andre knew JonBenet and Patsy personally. He was JonBenet's dance instructor. What he has to say holds a lot more weight with a great deal more people than your biased opinion, breezy.

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

The cases you mentioned with the exception of the Van Dams aren't comparable with the circumstances of JonBenet's murder........

Fine. Stick with the Van Dams. They had a lot more to fear from the cops than the Ramseys did in terms of skeletons in the closet, and they cooperated far more than the Ramseys ever did.

Today we know who killed Danielle and he has been taken off the streets, making it safe for other children.

The Ramseys don't seem to care much if other kids, including their own son Burke, are targeted by JonBenet's killer.

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

And it always makes me laugh when people use their personal prejudices/likes/dislikes as "evidence" that Patsy murdered her daughter. JMO, of course.

BTW, who were these friends that were going to talk to Patsy about JonBenet's participation in pageants?

I never said it was evidence that Patsy murdered her daughter.

The only friends listed by name are the Fernies. Apparently they and some other friends were planning an intervention.

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

And their LE was much more compotent and experienced than the Boulder police dept....... While they took a long, hard look at the Van Dams it was obvious that they hadn't stopped looking for other suspects. Another thing Danielle wasn't found in the home.....That made a big difference, too. JMO

Yes, experts like CASKU know that when a child turns up dead in her parents home the first people to investigate are the parents and anyone in the home at the time the child was murdered.

They tend to keep investigating the parents when there's a bogus ransom note in the mother's handwriting and the parents behave suspiciously, such immediately hiring defense attorneys as refusing to interview for months.

That investigation pays off when they discover the fibers from the mother's jacket all over the crime scene - but no forensic evidence of an intruder.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Let's ask all the other parents of murdered children how much they had to fear from the cops investigatiing their child's death.

Let's ask the Walshes and the Van Dams and the Groenes and the Lunsfords and the Runnions.

The Rasmeys had a responsibility to JonBenet and they completely let her down for their own selfish needs.

Let's ask David Dowaliby.

Illinois State Police and the FBI also failed to investigate the principal alternative suspect in the case, a mentally ill relative, who offered a dubious alibi that witnesses who eventually came forward disputed.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/Dowaliby.htm

ASk the Aisenbergs and see how far and LOW cops will go to "make a case" with their LIES.

"But, as Correspondent Troy Roberts reports, it was just the beginning of the nightmare for the Aisenbergs, whose behavior was being examined and analyzed.

With permission from the Aisenbergs, the FBI tapped their phone so that any call from a kidnapper could be traced. One of the first calls was from Steve’s brother, Dave, a lawyer, who warned Steve to be wary of the police.

Twenty-four hours after Sabrina was reported missing, the Aisenbergs were frustrated with the police response. They say police ignored tips about possible Sabrina sightings.

"They tried to find a body," says Marlene.

"The investigators never really got past Mr. and Mrs. Aisenberg," says Graham Brink, a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times. He's written extensively about the case. "In their minds, they could never rule them out as prime suspects."

But ugly gossip was spreading. Meanwhile, the Aisenbergs continued to cooperate with the investigation. Sheriff's detectives gave the Aisenbergs lie detector tests and then leaked information that some of Marlene's answers were "deceptive," even though Marlene says both tests were inconclusive.

The investigation was now three days old, and Steve heeded his brother’s advice. He hired Barry Cohen, one of the most high-profile and combative lawyers in Florida.

Cohen says there is nothing that points to his clients' guilt, but he says detectives had one mission, to prove the Aisenbergs were involved. "When I saw the police were acting in bad faith and that they were destined to try to frame Marlene and Steve, that’s when we stopped cooperating," says Cohen.

At the couple's bail hearing, a federal prosecutor told a judge she had heard Steve on tape saying, "I wish I hadn't harmed her. It was the cocaine.”

The damning evidence was nowhere to be found. "All lies, just all lies. We knew there was nothing on those tapes," says Marlene.

All of this was enough to make Cohen suspect the worst, that the Aisenbergs were framed. "They wanted a quick confession, clear this case, and look good," says Cohen. "But the only problem was they didn't have any facts, so they had to make them."

The prosecution's case against the couple began collapsing. Now, it was the feds who had some tough questions to answer.

In fact, two judges appointed to review the prosecution's case found the Aisenberg tapes were "largely unintelligible." They called some of the statements false, and pure fiction. In a stunning blow to the prosecution, the recordings were ruled inadmissible.

One week later, all charges were dropped.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/13/48hours/main666740.shtml

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Solace

Hohum

You are misinformed about just about everything. The police were trying to get the Ramseys in for interviews since the finding of the body, but their lawyers saw to it that they did not go in. So your twisting of the statement that the Ramseys finally get in touch after 4 months is just another example of your being here to inflame and spin.

As far as pageants go, I am sure JB was born with that joker like smile and loved practicing for hours upon hours.

Your post is absurd.

Everything these Ramsey supporters say is absurd. I can't believe people would refuse to see the evidence right in front of them and still cling to the belief that the lying Rs had nothing to do with killing JonBenet and covering it up. They even think expertly-trained professionals recognized globally as competent experts are wrong.

Everyone's wrong except for the Ramseys, who can't keep to one story if their lives depend on it, Lou Smit, who is questioned by his own colleagues, Mary Keenan-Lacy, a proven biased official, and Judge Carnes, proven to not have had all of the evidence when she made a ruling in a barely related civil suit.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

*snipped*

That investigation pays off when they discover the fibers from the mother's jacket all over the crime scene - but no forensic evidence of an intruder.

More lying gossip................with NO proof. Shame!

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 09:20 AM

In a little more than a day, 18-year-old Peter Reilly went from grieving son to confessed murderer in the gruesome death of his mother in late September 1973.

Reilly returned to his Connecticut home from a church meeting to find his mother's battered and bloody body on the floor of the small bedroom the two shared. State police brought him in for questioning later that night.

At first, the frightened teen denied any involvement in the brutal crime. But interrogators pressed on for eight hours, eventually telling Reilly he had failed an infallible lie detector test. Slowly, his story changed.

"Well, it really looks like I did it," Reilly told police at one point.

There was no physical evidence linking Reilly to the scene nor did he readily remember committing the crime. But he signed a full confession implicating himself and was convicted of first-degree manslaughter, done in by his own words.

But three years later a judge cleared Reilly, citing new evidence and a false confession coerced by investigators.

The debate over police interrogation tactics is fueled by stories like the Reilly case and the case of Michael Crowe, a California teen charged with the murder of his sister in 1998 based on a confession that was later thrown out. In New York, the Central Park jogger rape case was reopened a few months ago more than a decade after five teenagers were convicted of the crime based on videotaped confessions.

Twelve-year-old Stephanie Crowe was found stabbed to death on the floor of her bedroom in Escondido, Calif., on Jan. 21, 1998. Within weeks her 14-year-old brother Michael and two teenage friends were charged with conspiring to kill her, largely due to their confessions.

After confronting Crowe with some troubling lie detector evidence, lead Escondido police investigator Ralph Claytor told the teen of physical evidence linking him to his sister's murder.

"Its very difficult for the person who did it not to get blood on them and not transfer that blood to other parts of the house," Claytor told Crowe during the videotaped interrogation. "We found blood in your room already."

"God," Michael responded, beginning to cry. "Where did you find it?"

Actually, no blood was found. Investigators later testified that they thought they saw blood but, as the Supreme Court has ruled, there was no need for them to explain their tactic. A judge did find other problems with the ways the confessions were obtained, however, and tossed out all three statements.

During pretrial hearings San Diego Superior Court Judge John M. Thompson ruled that police made illegal promises of leniency to Michael, telling him on several occasions that he would get "help" if he confessed but would go to jail if he didn't. The confessions of the other two teens were excluded because one suspect was denied sleep and food and the other was not properly read his rights.

Later, DNA evidence that pointed to a transient seen in the neighborhood the night of the killing finally destroyed the case against Michael and his friends.

http://www.courttv.com/archive/movie/crowe/fear.html

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

More lying gossip................with NO proof. Shame!

I've linked in the source.

All you ever do is accuse others of lying and gossiping, breezy. I guess that's the best you can do.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I've linked in the source.

All you ever do is accuse others of lying and gossiping, breezy. I guess that's the best you can do.

You did NOT link the source.

"nuisanceposter quote:

Yes, experts like CASKU know that when a child turns up dead in her parents home the first people to investigate are the parents and anyone in the home at the time the child was murdered.

They tend to keep investigating the parents when there's a bogus ransom note in the mother's handwriting and the parents behave suspiciously, such immediately hiring defense attorneys as refusing to interview for months.

That investigation pays off when they discover the fibers from the mother's jacket all over the crime scene - but no forensic evidence of an intruder.

WHERE is the link?

When all you do is gossip, yes that's the best I can do is say it IS gossip. You prove it is fact, it is NOT a fact!! :rolleyes:

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Solace

Nuisanceposter: You could have a video showing her swinging away and they would deny it just for the sake of denying it. Hohum is here to defend Breezy not to speak about the case or post a well thought out argument backing the Ramsey's innocence.

We have just about countered everything they have to say for the past week, and if they cannot reply, they ignore it or all come to each other's defense with run of the mill insults. I know exactly what to expect with the next post from Ho-Hum. Pretty much no information and lots of insults.

I've noticed that about hohum. She and rosyred seem to be here solely to back up breezy and make jabs at anyone who disagrees with breezy. They have the same issue with being unwilling to discuss the case as breezy does also.

This board and Jameson's board are the only JBR boards out of about 7 or 8 total that I have been on where I see this type of tactic. On any other JBR board I have been to people are polite and considerate, even when disagreeing, and readily post information and links that get discussed. Rarely do they take it to a personal level like these people do here.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 09:55 AM

The suspect is locked in the "interview room"–as it is called in most police stations– and often told over hours, days, nights that it is only by confessing that he can be released to ordinary life. It takes a radical effort of the will for the suspect to refuse to talk in this situation–we all tend to believe that silence equals guilt.

His interrogators claim to know he is guilty. They know what happened. They control the interrogation room, spinning out a story which they demand that the suspect confirm. It is actually legal for them to use tricks and lies to entrap the suspect–false results of polygraph tests, false reports of confessions by confederates, false evidence (fingerprints, blood, semen) from the crime scene. Playing on the consoling effects of confession in religion or psychotherapy, they urge that things will be easier for the suspect if he confesses: if he puts the crime behind him, he can get on with his life, be reintegrated with the rest of humankind.

http://www.courttv.com/archive/movie/crowe/cultural.html

It didn't work with the Ramsey's because they were not going to confess to something they did not do. :shrug:

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

You did NOT link the source.

"nuisanceposter quote:

Yes, experts like CASKU know that when a child turns up dead in her parents home the first people to investigate are the parents and anyone in the home at the time the child was murdered.

They tend to keep investigating the parents when there's a bogus ransom note in the mother's handwriting and the parents behave suspiciously, such immediately hiring defense attorneys as refusing to interview for months.

That investigation pays off when they discover the fibers from the mother's jacket all over the crime scene - but no forensic evidence of an intruder.

WHERE is the link?

When all you do is gossip, yes that's the best I can do is say it IS gossip. You prove it is fact, it is NOT a fact!! :rolleyes:

I linked it earlier in this thread, or in the other one. Did you miss it, or did you just dismiss it?

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

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

And it always makes me laugh when people use their personal prejudices/likes/dislikes as "evidence" that Patsy murdered her daughter. JMO, of course.

BTW, who were these friends that were going to talk to Patsy about JonBenet's participation in pageants?

You really expect the gossips to produce evidence? LOL He said, she said, I think, he thinks, she thinks, they think............it's all gossip from "books" or their own wild imagainations but NO evidence. :shrug:

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I linked it earlier in this thread, or in the other one. Did you miss it, or did you just dismiss it?

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

Firrst off that is NOTHING more than an internet tabloid. Second WHERE does it even say what you said it did......... "That investigation pays off when they discover the fibers from the mother's jacket all over the crime scene"?

You make it up as you go along and/or follow tabloid "journalism".
It's really hard for you to accept facts and do some critical thinking, isn't it?

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Solace

Once again Breezy is all over the place. I am sure these are very interesting cases, but they have zero to do with what we are discussing. Maybe we can throw in the Lindburgh kidnapping while you are at it and I am sure there are some innocents from as far back as the 1600s. Lets get right on it because the similarities of the injustice are just too much too overlook and have a direct relevance to the Ramsey case.

By the way, Melinda's boyfriend, Steward Long, in a tape recorded conversation with Steve Thomas said that John climbed into the van when they (Melinda and Stewart and John Andrews) arrived shortly after 1:00 p.m. on December 26th and John Ramsey told them that he had found JB's body at 11:00 that morning. ON TAPE, MY FRIENDS.

So, now we have John saying he found JB at 11:00, around the time he was missing form Det. Arndn't view. And when he returned he was extremely nervous and their was a marked difference in his demeanor.

Oh, that's right. That's when John went to basement around 10 in the morning, didn't say a single word to Detective Ardnt about it despite the fact that the people in the house had been told to stay in the sunroom. Sauntered on downstairs and didn't say anything at all - even when he supposedly found a window open an 1/8 of an inch. Didn't tell police about it for four months.

Please. If your daughter has been kidnapped, and you find an open window, you're going to yell for police in the house to come downstairs and check it out right away.

The marked change in behavior is suspicious as well. WHY didn't he say something? When asked about it later, his reply was, "I don't know." WHAT??? Your daughter has been kidnapped, and you found an open window, and SAID NOTHING for four months, and then say you don't know why?

Despite this admission from Stewart Long being on tape, I'm certain that breezy will be sure to accuse this fact of being lies and gossip, especially because you dared to mention the man she hates with an unabiding passion - Detective Steve Thomas. The man who worked harder than anyone else to serve JonBenet justice - even doing more for her than her own parents did.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

And I suppose you don't call your post above insulting?

Evidence, you say - I guess the GJ who listened to - what was it - 13 months of testimony.....just disregarded all of the "evidence."

JMO, of course.

Didn't you see them say that the GJ, Hunter, Carnes, Keenan, DeMuth, Smit or ANYONE who is willing to look at the evidnece instead of gossip is "biased". :lol:

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Oh, that's right. That's when John went to basement around 10 in the morning, didn't say a single word to Detective Ardnt about it despite the fact that the people in the house had been told to stay in the sunroom. Sauntered on downstairs and didn't say anything at all - even when he supposedly found a window open an 1/8 of an inch. Didn't tell police about it for four months.

Please. If your daughter has been kidnapped, and you find an open window, you're going to yell for police in the house to come downstairs and check it out right away.

The marked change in behavior is suspicious as well. WHY didn't he say something? When asked about it later, his reply was, "I don't know." WHAT??? Your daughter has been kidnapped, and you found an open window, and SAID NOTHING for four months, and then say you don't know why?

Despite this admission from Stewart Long being on tape, I'm certain that breezy will be sure to accuse this fact of being lies and gossip, especially because you dared to mention the man she hates with an unabiding passion - Detective Steve Thomas. The man who worked harder than anyone else to serve JonBenet justice - even doing more for her than her own parents did.

Gossip.

Jayelles

08-08-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Do you recall -- if you don't

2 recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you

3 remember Burke having boots that had a

4 compass on the laces?

5 A. Vaguely. I don't know if they

6 were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is

7 they were tennis shoes, but that is very

8 vague. He had boots that had lights on them

9 and all sorts of different things.

10 Q. But you do have some recollection

11 that he had some type of footwear that had

12 compasses attached to them?

13 A. I don't, I don't specifically

14 remember them, but my impression is that he

15 did, in my mind, yeah. But my impression

16 was that they were tennis shoes.

17 Q. Sneakers?

18 A. Sneakers. Yeah. Ask Burke if he

19 remembers it.

20 I said, ask Burke, perhaps he --

21 well, we could certainly ask Burke.

Doesn't sound like a sure thing to me. Boots with lights on them? Sneakers??

It's great you think you are correct but a defense attorney would laugh this kind of stuff out of court. The shoes were not found and we do NOT KNOW what Burke said about the shoes. No where that we KNOW of did Burke testify he had a pair of those shoes and until or unless he does your thinking you are correct means nothing.

Do you understand .........Police can lie to you about evidence they say they have in order to get you to talk to them and to get you to confess. Courts have said that while this lying is not condoned, it is not "illegal" unless an investigator's use of artifice or some other forms of deception is likely to produce an untrue confession.

For example, police can lie to you about finding your fingerprints on some object at the scene of the crime. They can try to trick you into admitting involvement in an incident by telling you that several eyewitnesses saw you, that they have you on video tape, or that your license plate number was recorded. They can tell you that several people overheard you make incriminating statements already, when it is not true. Often, the evidence against you is weak, and there may not be enough evidence to charge you unless you admit to doing something. As long as the law enforcement tactics are not so outrageous that they overbear your ability to voluntarily give up your rights, they may be used. Because these tactics are effective on even the smartest people, you should not give a statement to police until after you have talked to a defense attorney.

http://www.apg.army.mil/APGHome/sit...ect_rights.html

You are right - John Ramsey's response is absurd - why on earth would anyone need compasses on a pair of tennis shoes? LOL

Let's clear this up - apparently, they were hiking boots. That makes much more sense. This is from Patsy's interview.

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

14 Q. Do you recall a period of time,

15 prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased

16 a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on

17 the shoelaces? And if it helps to

18 remember --

19 A. I can't remember.

20 Q. Maybe this will help your

21 recollection. They were shoes that were

22 purchased while he was shopping with you in

23 Atlanta.

24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that

25 as a fact?

0123

1 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as

2 a fact.

3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Does that help

4 refresh your recollection as to whether he

5 owned a pair of shoes that had compasses on

6 them?

7 A. I just can't remember. Bought so

8 many shoes for him.

9 Q. And again, I will provide, I'll

10 say, I'll say this as a fact to you, that,

11 and maybe this will help refresh your

12 recollection, he thought that -- the shoes

13 were special because they had a compass on

14 them, his only exposure for the most part to

15 compasses had been in the plane and he kind

16 of liked the idea of being able to point

17 them different directions. Do you remember

18 him doing that with the shoes?

19 A. I can't remember the shoes. I

20 remember he had a compass thing like a

21 watch, but I can't remember about the shoes.

4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Does it

5 jog your memory to know that the shoes with

6 compasses were made by Hi-Tec?

7 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that

8 as a fact?

9 MR. LEVIN: Yes. I am stating

10 that as a fact.

11 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know

12 that.

13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this

14 as a fact. There are two people who have

15 provided us with information, including your

16 son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the

17 murder of your daughter.

18 MR. WOOD: You are stating that

19 Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec

20 shoes?

21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.

22 MR. WOOD: He used the phrase

23 Hi-Tec?

24 MR. LEVIN: Yes.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Obviously, the GJ didn't buy any of this. JMO, of course.

But, but, books, tabloids and internet posters have all the evidence, not the GJ. :lol:

I am really amazed some people are so willing to believe gossip that has not been proven simply because they seem to WANT to think the worst of someone. Is it jealousy, hate, superiority, their own sad lives or what..............very odd. :shrug:

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Gossip.

Documented by official police reports, and talked about by the Ramseys themselves in DOI.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Jayelles

You are right - John Ramsey's response is absurd - why on earth would anyone need compasses on a pair of tennis shoes? LOL

Let's clear this up - apparently, they were hiking boots. That makes much more sense. This is from Patsy's interview.

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

The debate over police interrogation tactics is fueled by stories like the Reilly case and the case of Michael Crowe, a California teen charged with the murder of his sister in 1998 based on a confession that was later thrown out. In New York, the Central Park jogger rape case was reopened a few months ago more than a decade after five teenagers were convicted of the crime based on videotaped confessions.

For critics, the cases are classic examples of powerful interrogation techniques gone wrong: vulnerable suspects interrogated for hours on end, confronted with false promises and even lies.

In 1977 the Supreme Court reviewed the case of Carl Mathiason, who was convicted in Oregon of first-degree burglary based largely on a confession. The state's highest court tossed the conviction, in part because an investigator falsely told Mathiason that his fingerprints were found at the scene. The Supreme Court, however, did not object to the deception and upheld the conviction.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Documented by official police reports, and talked about by the Ramseys themselves in DOI.

Proof?

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 10:26 AM

Breezy, I don't think anyone WANTS to believe the Ramseys killed JonBenet and then covered it up.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Solace

There is the link Breezy. Try reading it.

I told you yesterday I am though with your childish BS. I will not read another blog or tabloid you suggest. Why should I waste my time on opinions that have been proven wrong. You can make all the mud pies you wish to throw at the Ramseys, me and anyone that doesn't agree with you all you wish, but I will stick to real facts. :seeya:

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Breezy, I don't think anyone WANTS to believe the Ramseys killed JonBenet and then covered it up.

By the posts here and by the Thomas book I think they do. All these theories with no facts to back them up with except other opinions and theoies is NOT wanting to learn facts of the case. Saying anyone who thinks they may be innocent is "biased" it's clear to me they actually WANT to believe the worst of these parents.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Solace

Nuisanceposter suggested it Breezy, so try reading and learning.

I will not read another blog or tabloid you suggest. Why should I waste my time on opinions that have been proven wrong.

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

By the posts here and by the Thomas book I think they do. All these theories with no facts to back them up with except other opinions and theoies is NOT wanting to learn facts of the case. Saying anyone who thinks they may be innocent is "biased" it's clear to me they actually WANT to believe the worst of these parents.

Just because you don't want to accept the evidence as fact doesn't mean it isn't. There are plenty of people more qualified than you who think the evidence indicates Ramsey involvement. You think anyone who thinks the Rs did this is spreading gossip and lies, no matter who they are.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Just because you don't want to accept the evidence as fact doesn't mean it isn't. There are plenty of people more qualified than you who think the evidence indicates Ramsey involvement. You think anyone who thinks the Rs did this is spreading gossip and lies, no matter who they are.

The EVIDENCE was presented to a GJ and they did NOT indict. That, the fact that big mouth Thomas did NOT prove his theories in court when he had the chance and plenty of more qualified people are NOW finally doing some real investigation of the case is enough for me. Police lies are NOT evidence. Pageants are NOT evidence. Blogs and opinions are not evidence and certainly gossip is not evidence. :shrug:

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 10:48 AM

Did you even click on the link I gave you, breezy, and read through it, or did you immediately dismiss it as "tabloid lies and gossip"?

It's impossible to discuss this case with you because you are bent on sticking to your own ideas and refuse to read up on the case.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Did you even click on the link I gave you, breezy, and read through it, or did you immediately dismiss it as "tabloid lies and gossip"?

It's impossible to discuss this case with you because you are bent on sticking to your own ideas and refuse to read up on the case.

Yes I read the link and have read it before. WHY should I read the same old tired unrpoven crap over and over to make you happy? If there was any proof as those blogs say the Ramseys' would have been indicted by the GJ and prosecuted a long time ago. Really not that difficult to understand, is it?

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 11:03 AM

CASKU, a globally recognized and respected panel of experts agreed that there was definite reason to believe the Rs and not an intruder were responsible for what happened to Jonbenet. They do not believe the Ramseys version of events. They were NOT going on gossip and lies.

Obviously you don't click on any of the links.

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Yes I read the link and have read it before. WHY should I read the same old tired unrpoven crap over and over to make you happy? If there was any proof as those blogs say the Ramseys' would have been indicted by the GJ and prosecuted a long time ago. Really not that difficult to understand, is it?

Did you read that link I provided last week about how a DA can persuade a GJ based on what he presents? Or about how Hunter was known to be a really soft DA and let people off easy?

Everything from you - nothing but LIES and GOSSIP!!!

Do some reading, breezy! You might LEARN something!!!

Jayelles

08-08-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

The debate over police interrogation tactics is fueled by stories like the Reilly case and the case of Michael Crowe, a California teen charged with the murder of his sister in 1998 based on a confession that was later thrown out. In New York, the Central Park jogger rape case was reopened a few months ago more than a decade after five teenagers were convicted of the crime based on videotaped confessions.

For critics, the cases are classic examples of powerful interrogation techniques gone wrong: vulnerable suspects interrogated for hours on end, confronted with false promises and even lies.

In 1977 the Supreme Court reviewed the case of Carl Mathiason, who was convicted in Oregon of first-degree burglary based largely on a confession. The state's highest court tossed the conviction, in part because an investigator falsely told Mathiason that his fingerprints were found at the scene. The Supreme Court, however, did not object to the deception and upheld the conviction.

We know that police have "interrogation tactics" which involve bluffing about the evidence - Lou Smit admits to using such tactics. However, I think it is fair to say that Lin Wood was aware of the possibility that such tactics were being used when he repeatedly asked Levin "are you stating that as a fact?".

In doing so, Wood was geting Levin to commit to record that he was stating FACTS -and Levin did.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
CASKU, a globally recognized and respected panel of experts agreed that there was definite reason to believe the Rs and not an intruder were responsible for what happened to Jonbenet. They do not believe the Ramseys version of events. They were NOT going on gossip and lies.

Obviously you don't click on any of the links.

"Thomas wrote that the FBI team said the crime "did not fit an act of sex or revenge or one in which money was the motivation. Taken alone, they said, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evidentiary granite."

Thomas reported that "CASKU observed that they had never seen anything like the Ramsey ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as 'We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you.' From a kidnapper's point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on."

The FBI, according to Thomas, "believed that the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship."

Thomas said the FBI deemed the entire crime "criminally unsophisticated," citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramsey, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting.

CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenét's body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They also stated, according to Thomas, that the ligatures "indicated staging rather than control, and the garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim." Thomas said the profilers had the gut feeling that "no one intended to kill the child." This would mean that the severe blow to the head was done in a thoughtless rage and that all the subsequent assault on JonBenét and the writing of the ransom note was staged to cover up the unintentional murder."

A one way presentation as I see it and WERE going on the Thomas lies or maybe even Thomas reported it wrong in his "book". Wont' be the first time Thomas misstated the facts or downright LIED in his book.

If you have a link showing exactly what CASKU said and what their stats are I would be happy to read it. Not a blog and not what Thomas said they said but their actual report.