In Defense of Patsy & John Ramsey [Archive] - Page 2

garrison

08-31-2006, 11:14 AM

The cops are the trained professionals here. Any parent would simply accept what ever the cops say RE: THE FIRST search in and around the house - the PARENTS would not DEMAND THE COPS to take them through just to make sure would they?

Not enough explanation is given BY THE POLIOCE ABOUT the 6-hour delay in finding the body. WHY? THERE IS NO EXCUSE! YET THEY Direct THE MYSTERY at the parents!

The cops fail to do cop “101” and secure the house - and when the dad finds the body of his dear daughter, 6 HOURS LATER - the police use innuendoes to have people look at the grieving father. THE Question is why the hell the cops failed to do its job from the beginning – not why is the father clutching his daughter’s lifeless body.

He is excused for being overwhelmed – the cops deflect the attention to the Ramsey to burry their shocking failure to discover the body first thing.

Police Negligence! So what another paedophile kills a darling girl in her home – why are we so disbelieving that an outsider did it? Our attention was diverted away from the cops err deftly and as yet have never heard a police explanation on the matter.

They have none so they point at Mrs and Mr Ramsay.

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 11:14 AM

I know I am about to post things that have been hashed and rehashed for ten years, but I need to step back and get some clarification..
I am no expert on child killers nor pedophiles, but what stands out to me about this case are two things, the ransom note and the manner in which JB's little body was found..the position of the broken paintbrush, etc. Doesn't it seem more likely that some person was trying to punish John Ramsey and posed the whole crime scene? Call me naive...the whole thing is so atypical of child molesters and child killers, isn't it? They used JB to hurt her father in the most painful way possible.

kindeekat

08-31-2006, 11:15 AM

angelskye

08-31-2006, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by trt

I am not *anti-Ramsey*, I am *pro-JonBenet* and if that means not excluding her parents from this terrible tragedy involving her because there are too many unanswered questions surrounding them, then so be it.

lol, well they've been investigated by professionals of every sort for 10 years including a Grand Jury, so it's quite doubtful that message board posters are going to uncover anything unknown or sinister about the Ramseys.

Posters "not excluding" them is highly inconsequential in reality, don't you think?

trt

08-31-2006, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by garrison
The cops are the trained professionals here. Any parent would simply accept what ever the cops say RE: THE FIRST search in and around the house - the PARENTS would not DEMAND THE COPS to take them through just to make sure would they?

Not enough explanation is given BY THE POLIOCE ABOUT the 6-hour delay in finding the body. WHY? THERE IS NO EXCUSE! YET THEY Direct THE MYSTERY at the parents!

The cops fail to do cop “101” and secure the house - and when the dad finds the body of his dear daughter, 6 HOURS LATER - the police use innuendoes to have people look at the grieving father. THE Question is why the hell the cops failed to do its job from the beginning – not why is the father clutching his daughter’s lifeless body.

He is excused for being overwhelmed – the cops deflect the attention to the Ramsey to burry their shocking failure to discover the body first thing.

Police Negligence! So what another paedophile kills a darling girl in her home – why are we so disbelieving that an outsider did it? Our attention was diverted away from the cops err deftly and as yet have never heard a police explanation on the matter.

They have none so they point at Mrs and Mr Ramsay.

The police in this case were very negligent. AS they were in the case involving OJ Simpson...it does not preclude him or them from being the perpertrators in the respective cases. Just because police screwed up which prevents a guilty finding, does not mean the parties involved are innocent, IMO.

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Paisley
Why ADMIT they fed her pineapple before bedtime if they DIDN'T?

The note was merely a decoy so the perp could buy time to get away...pretty smart actually.

Exactly, that entire ransom note was nothing but a red herring diversionary tactic all the time and guess what? It worked.

It not only pointed away from who the real killer or killers are but yeah right, some terrorist group.........when it was actually an American homegrown terrorist imo who preys on little children.

No one will ever convince me that Patsy Ramsey would EVER say HER daughter, JonBenet, was only worth a measly $118K!

What better way to throw them off track than by leaving a faux ransom note. I agree. I think the killer is very intelligent, cunning, calculating and had thoroughly deliberated his plan for sometime.

IMO

Ocean

trt

08-31-2006, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by angelskye

lol, well they've been investigated by professionals of every sort for 10 years including a Grand Jury, so it's quite doubtful that message board posters are going to uncover anything unknown or sinister about the Ramseys.

Posters "not excluding" them is highly inconsequential in reality, don't you think?

Since we are all just posting our opinion, musings, whatever, on a message board, I think it doesn't matter what we feel about this case, its pretty inconsequential. However, I find the exchange to be stimulating and interesting. I'm sure you do too, or you wouldn't be here.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 11:23 AM

HopeinTown, there is so much wrong with your post I don't know where to begin.

Truly, I wish you'd read up on this case rather than spout untruths, as so many people have given you links and corrected your misinformation along the way.

John was not the last one to see JonBenet, as Patsy is the one who dressed her and put her to bed.

Please, read up on the case, something FACTUAL like Transcripts.

You're reading someone's blog, apparently, and totally posting nothing but misinformation.

docg

08-31-2006, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Paisley
What if JB was sitting alone in the kitchen eating the pineapple and the Peeping Tom from outside saw her, waved to her at the window and she let him in because he was dressed like Santa Claus? No forced entry......

That's not Karr's scenario, but yes, it is definitely a way around the objections I mentioned above. Even if JonBenet didn't let the intruder in (unlikely, as I see it) it still could be the case that she helped herself to some pineapple after the family had gone to sleep and was surprised by the intruder afterwards. Good thinking!

Paisley

08-31-2006, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by trt

Ok, this is the rub...I have children and my oldest is 7(almost 8). This may just be me because my children have allergies, but everyone who knows me, always asks me if its ok for any of my children to have something before giving it to them. I also do this for other parents, regardless of whether or not they have allergies because a small child is not the deciding factor on what they should or should not have to eat. So even if *they* themselves didn't give it to her, why wouldn't they know if she had received pineapple from ANYONE during that night?

I am not *anti-Ramsey*, I am *pro-JonBenet* and if that means not excluding her parents from this terrible tragedy involving her because there are too many unanswered questions surrounding them, then so be it. My children have no allergies whatsoever, and my friends know that. I doubt anyone would "ask permission" to serve anything to her, but I get your point.

Paisley

08-31-2006, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by docg

That's not Karr's scenario, but yes, it is definitely a way around the objections I mentioned above. Even if JonBenet didn't let the intruder in (unlikely, as I see it) it still could be the case that she helped herself to some pineapple after the family had gone to sleep and was surprised by the intruder afterwards. Good thinking! Karr who? ;)

angelskye

08-31-2006, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by trt

Since we are all just posting our opinion, musings, whatever, on a message board, I think it doesn't matter what we feel about this case, its pretty inconsequential. However, I find the exchange to be stimulating and interesting. I'm sure you do too, or you wouldn't be here.

lol, actually that depends on whether posters post truth or rumor. Whether posters are versed on the case or not before they try to make statements that they know nothing about.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing on final guilt or innocence, but we should at least quote facts correctly and THEN look at it and decide for ourselves whether we want to believe, for example, a Federal Judge when it is determined that the evidence speaks of an intruder, etc. etc. etc.

Otherwise, all it ends up being is a chase of who is the most misinformed, and continually sending them links to Transcript materials and actual documentation.

Nothing intelligent can be gleaned from someone's personal blog IF all you're going to do is quote someone else's opinion from that blog. There really ARE, actual FACTS in this case.

Paisley

08-31-2006, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Hopeintown
[B]

I'm sure that several people have opinions on Linda Arndt, but she was in that home, she observed what was happening, she was there when JB's body was brought up form downstairs, I believed her when she described her "instincts". The one thing I do hope is that she does have police notes saved "in a safe place" as she stated, as others have disappeared when they were turned in by a fellow officer. And, I am thankful there is no statute on murder.

I remember when they were looking for Danielle, there was a man there dropping off a check to the family to help pay for the search. He was part of a "victim's assistance group" of which I can't recall the name. He then proceeded to go on CNN to blab that he thought Danielle's parents were involved in her disappearance because of they way they were acting and his "instincts" told him this...so.... for what it's worth... he was wrong...she was found ...killed by someone else....who was convicted....etc...

trt

08-31-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by angelskye

lol, actually that depends on whether posters post truth or rumor. Whether posters are versed on the case or not before they try to make statements that they know nothing about.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing on final guilt or innocence, but we should at least quote facts correctly and THEN look at it and decide for ourselves whether we want to believe, for example, a Federal Judge when it is determined that the evidence speaks of an intruder, etc. etc. etc.

Otherwise, all it ends up being is a chase of who is the most misinformed, and continually sending them links to Transcript materials and actual documentation.

Nothing intelligent can be gleaned from someone's personal blog IF all you're going to do is quote someone else's opinion from that blog. There really ARE, actual FACTS in this case.

I agree completely.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by garrison
So what another paedophile kills a darling girl in her home – why are we so disbelieving that an outsider did it?

Post above snipped for bandwidth because I'm only talking about this question.

Pedophiles don't torture children INSIDE their own home with their parents and brother sleeping upstairs.

Pedophiles don't leave ransom notes.

There was no sign of forced entry (the basement window had cobwebs on it, so no one came in that way).

There were no footprints around the house.

The probable murder weapons and the paper and pen that were used to write the ransom note all came from within the house.

Patsy Ramsey cannot be ruled out as a writer of the note.

The pineapple. JB had to have eaten it AFTER she came home, and the bowl of pineapple, which she could not reach, was on the table with only Patsy's and Burke's prints.

No stun gun was used or JB could not have eaten pineapple. Also, the stun gun mfgs. say no stun gun would have left those particular marks.

Much more, but see why so many people rule out an intruder?

JMO

Paisley

08-31-2006, 11:34 AM

Paisley

08-31-2006, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

No one will ever convince me that Patsy Ramsey would EVER say HER daughter, JonBenet, was only worth a measly $118K!

What better way to throw them off track than by leaving a faux ransom note. I agree. I think the killer is very intelligent, cunning, calculating and had thoroughly deliberated his plan for sometime.

IMO

Ocean Ya.. I think Patsy would agree that her daughter was priceless... $118,000 oh please...that amount was a dig to John so he would know the person writing the note had been snooping around his house while he was sleeping.... there are people out there who get a thrill out of this... some burglars like that thrill as well.

and yes... this perp was/is highly intelligent. I wonder who, at the time, could have had a grudge agains JR?

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by nutmeg22
I know I am about to post things that have been hashed and rehashed for ten years, but I need to step back and get some clarification..
I am no expert on child killers nor pedophiles, but what stands out to me about this case are two things, the ransom note and the manner in which JB's little body was found..the position of the broken paintbrush, etc. Doesn't it seem more likely that some person was trying to punish John Ramsey and posed the whole crime scene? Call me naive...the whole thing is so atypical of child molesters and child killers, isn't it? They used JB to hurt her father in the most painful way possible.

It's difficult for me to believe it was either parent because of the garrote, but I keep coming back to them because if it were an intruder, then:

That person would have to gain entrance to the home, go upstairs and change JB's top (from red to white), take her downstairs and give her pineapple (in all probability no stun gun was used as stun gun mfgs. said no stun gun would leave marks like that, and if one had been used, how did she eat pineapple), take her to the basement, torture her using a paintbrush from inside the home, deliver a blow to the head with a flashlight found inside the home, make sure she was dead, go upstairs and find paper and pen and write a ransom note, put that note on the back, circular stairs (and KNOW that those are the stairs the Ramseys always used), then exit the house and get away.

It seems far too implausible to me, so while I'm on the fence and willing to accept it was an intruder, I'm leaning toward John and Patsy.

The above is speculation on my part only.

JMO

angelskye

08-31-2006, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Post above snipped for bandwidth because I'm only talking about this question.

Pedophiles don't torture children INSIDE their own home with their parents and brother sleeping upstairs.

Pedophiles don't leave ransom notes.

There was no sign of forced entry (the basement window had cobwebs on it, so no one came in that way).

There were no footprints around the house.

The probable murder weapons and the paper and pen that were used to write the ransom note all came from within the house.

Patsy Ramsey cannot be ruled out as a writer of the note.

The pineapple. JB had to have eaten it AFTER she came home, and the bowl of pineapple, which she could not reach, was on the table with only Patsy's and Burke's prints.

No stun gun was used or JB could not have eaten pineapple. Also, the stun gun mfgs. say no stun gun would have left those particular marks.

Much more, but see why so many people rule out an intruder?

JMO

Again, more misinformation than actual FACT.

You're repeating this list, same old drone, off of a blog.

Blogs will NOT give you adequate information of FACT.

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I like you, too SWC! :) Let's just say it COULD mean Served With Class! ;)

SWC is a much better nic than SBTC. lol

Where were YOU on the night of 12/25/96? :D

But I agree with you guys....

people who SEEM perfect, almost never are.

I'm much more comfortable with people who seem 'normal.' Thye're not overly concerned with how other people view them.

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Paisley
Ya.. I think Patsy would agree that her daughter was priceless... $118,000 oh please...that amount was a dig to John so he would know the person writing the note had been snooping around his house while he was sleeping.... there are people out there who get a thrill out of this... some burglars like that thrill as well.

and yes... this perp was/is highly intelligent. I wonder who, at the time, could have had a grudge agains JR?

Do you remember the case about the mother that killed a young teenage girl because she got to be on the cheerleading team and this woman's daughter did not? This is what jealousy can conjure up.

I think it was someone that highly resented the Ramseys, their status and their oh so very beautiful children. What better way to crash the world of the Ramsey's good fortune and happiness than to kill what they loved most in the world?

IMO

Ocean

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

Do you remember the case about the mother that killed a young teenage girl because she got to be on the cheerleading team and this woman's daughter did not? This is what jealousy can conjure up.

I think it was someone that highly resented the Ramseys, their status and their oh so very beautiful children. What better way to crash the world of the Ramsey's good fortune and happiness than to kill what they loved most in the world?

IMO

Ocean

I could believe it was a "grudge killing" if JB had been taken out of the home. But killing her in the home, and doing all that was required, no I cannot.

JMO

angelskye

08-31-2006, 11:59 AM

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

SWC is a much better nic than SBTC. lol

Where were YOU on the night of 12/25/96? :D

But I agree with you guys....

people who SEEM perfect, almost never are.

I'm much more comfortable with people who seem 'normal.' Thye're not overly concerned with how other people view them.

I don't even think they seemed perfect. I think they seemed like a dysfunctional family.

But I do agree with you. I'm much more comfortable with people who seem "normal" and not overly concerned with how the world views them.

BTW, I was in Zuerich, Switzerland on 12/25/96. And I have witnesses! LOL

JMO

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I could believe it was a "grudge killing" if JB had been taken out of the home. But killing her in the home, and doing all that was required, no I cannot.

JMO

It is very evident to me that they had all the time they needed. When others sleep it usually is for hours not minutes.

Why take the dead child from the home? It was much more sadistic of them to let John and Patsy eventually find their own child there dead. What haunting memories that would forever be. They didn't want to take her away........oh no..........they wanted John and Patsy to see her there in death knowing that she was never coming back to them in life.

So they write the faux ransom note to be able to get further away from the scene and then they patiently wait because THEY knew that hell was fixing to break loose in that home just like THEY knew it would.

IMO

Ocean

docg

08-31-2006, 12:03 PM

No, Patsy was never ruled out, as was John. But after all this time and after all these failed attempts to figure out who dunnit isn't it time to address the possibility that the "experts" could have been mistaken and John could have written it after all?

It makes no sense for Patsy to have written it, as it never did her any good -- only cast more suspicion on her. Why write such a note, then call the police, then hand them the note with YOUR printing on it, knowing it is only a matter of time before the body will be found and your note revealed as a fraud?

There is also no reason for an intruder to have written it, as there was no kidnapping and a hand written note would have been evidence against him.

But if we consider that John could have written it without Patsy's knowledge and she, in all innocence, called the police despite the many warnings, then we might have the beginnings of a chain of inference that could lead us to a theory that might work.

I'll add one thing. The example of John's printing that's been on the internet for years, on Fausto Brugnatelli's website ( http://web.tiscali.it/faustobrugnatelli/ ) was apparently never seen by the investigators. According to well known Ramsey defender Jameson, it is NOT among the exemplars the "experts" examined. Jameson is convinced John didn't write it, but she has been unwilling to check with anyone she knows who could confirm its authenticity. See the following website for details, especially posts 30 and 31: http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=1338&forum=DCForumID61#25

Hopeintown

08-31-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by angelskye
HopeinTown, there is so much wrong with your post I don't know where to begin.

Truly, I wish you'd read up on this case rather than spout untruths, as so many people have given you links and corrected your misinformation along the way.

John was not the last one to see JonBenet, as Patsy is the one who dressed her and put her to bed.

Please, read up on the case, something FACTUAL like Transcripts.

You're reading someone's blog, apparently, and totally posting nothing but misinformation.

I didn't read anyone's "blog". I was searching for factual information. Are you now telling me that Linda Arndt's testimony is not factual?

IMO

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 12:03 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sunsplashed
[B]

It's difficult for me to believe it was either parent because of the garrote, but I keep coming back to them because if it were an intruder, then:

That person would have to gain entrance to the home, go upstairs and change JB's top (from red to white), take her downstairs and give her pineapple (in all probability no stun gun was used as stun gun mfgs. said no stun gun would leave marks like that, and if one had been used, how did she eat pineapple), take her to the basement, torture her using a paintbrush from inside the home, deliver a blow to the head with a flashlight found inside the home, make sure she was dead, go upstairs and find paper and pen and write a ransom note, put that note on the back, circular stairs (and KNOW that those are the stairs the Ramseys always used), then exit the house and get away.

It seems far too implausible to me, so while I'm on the fence and willing to accept it was an intruder, I'm leaning toward John and Patsy.

The above is speculation on my part only.
thank you, sunsplashed.
Very well put...this is why I, too, am on the fence. Has John Douglas stated anything about why he thinks an intruder managed to accomplish all this? I have only heard him say that in his opinion it had to be an intruder and not a parent.

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by trt

The police in this case were very negligent. AS they were in the case involving OJ Simpson...it does not preclude him or them from being the perpertrators in the respective cases. Just because police screwed up which prevents a guilty finding, does not mean the parties involved are innocent, IMO.

The police were not only negligent but are responsible for pointing towards the parents and ignoring the evidence of an intruder.

There is No evidence that the Ramsey's murdered their child, yet they were convicted by the media. Lots of posters here fell for it.

There is foreign "DNA tht points to an unknown male. That is a FACT. That is the killer. The rest of unknowns are a mystery, known only to the killer.

I think it is someone who knows the Ramsey's. And despises them, or at least John. There are clues in the note. The police didn't do their job. PERIOD.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

Do you remember the case about the mother that killed a young teenage girl because she got to be on the cheerleading team and this woman's daughter did not? This is what jealousy can conjure up.

I think it was someone that highly resented the Ramseys, their status and their oh so very beautiful children. What better way to crash the world of the Ramsey's good fortune and happiness than to kill what they loved most in the world?

IMO

Ocean

If you mean the Texas cheerleading incident that involved Wanda Holloway and Verna Heath and their daughters, Shanna and Amber, there was no murder committed. It was a solicitation for capital murder and one mother wanted the other mother killed, not the child.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1559721375/104-8491721-6064707?v=glance&n=283155

If you mean another case, please tell us which one.

Thank you.

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

It's difficult for me to believe it was either parent because of the garrote, but I keep coming back to them because if it were an intruder, then:

That person would have to gain entrance to the home, go upstairs and change JB's top (from red to white), take her downstairs and give her pineapple (in all probability no stun gun was used as stun gun mfgs. said no stun gun would leave marks like that, and if one had been used, how did she eat pineapple), take her to the basement, torture her using a paintbrush from inside the home, deliver a blow to the head with a flashlight found inside the home, make sure she was dead, go upstairs and find paper and pen and write a ransom note, put that note on the back, circular stairs (and KNOW that those are the stairs the Ramseys always used), then exit the house and get away.

It seems far too implausible to me, so while I'm on the fence and willing to accept it was an intruder, I'm leaning toward John and Patsy.

The above is speculation on my part only.

JMO

There were many keys to the house floating around Boulder that the Ramseys had handed out to various employees and friends. Also I have seen reference to windows unlocked for Christmas light cords.

There was no shirt changing. She wore the white shirt to the Whites, she went to bed wearing it and she was found in it the next morning.

A pathologist has said she could have eaten the pineapple as early as 4PM. Digestion times is an extremely inexact science with many variables.

No company is going to jump up and say "Yep, our product was used in the murder of a 6 year old child." Doberson has said he is ready to testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the marks were made by a stun gun. They look remarkably similar to the marks left on the test pigs.

Using items found in the home to commit a murder isn't new. The LaBiancas were killed with items from their own house. The use of the paintbrush was an opportunistic choice. Had it not been there something else would have been found.

Why would the killer need to know the Ramseys used the backstairs? Eventually they would have found the note even if it had been left under the Christmas tree.

I think the note was written in the home, prior to the Ramseys returning from the Whites.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 12:07 PM

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I don't even think they seemed perfect. I think they seemed like a dysfunctional family.

But I do agree with you. I'm much more comfortable with people who seem "normal" and not overly concerned with how the world views them.

BTW, I was in Zuerich, Switzerland on 12/25/96. And I have witnesses! LOL

JMO

Oh, I don't think they were anywhere near 'perfect' either but I think that's the way they & most of their supporters perceive(d) them.

I know YOU'RE innocent but I'm not so sure about "swc." I think I'll look through all his/her old posts & see how many exclamation points there are. lol

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

If you mean the Texas cheerleading incident that involved Wanda Holloway and Verna Heath and their daughters, Shanna and Amber, there was no murder committed. It was a solicitation for capital murder and one mother wanted the other mother killed, not the child.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1559721375/104-8491721-6064707?v=glance&n=283155

If you mean another case, please tell us which one.

Thank you.

I was in error sunsplashed sorry.

Yes I do think that was the one. It was very bizarre and shows just exactly what jealousy can do.

Again, my bad.

IMO

Ocean

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

There were many keys to the house floating around Boulder that the Ramseys had handed out to various employees and friends. Also I have seen reference to windows unlocked for Christmas light cords.

There was no shirt changing. She wore the white shirt to the Whites, she went to bed wearing it and she was found in it the next morning.

A pathologist has said she could have eaten the pineapple as early as 4PM. Digestion times is an extremely inexact science with many variables.

No company is going to jump up and say "Yep, our product was used in the murder of a 6 year old child." Doberson has said he is ready to testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the marks were made by a stun gun. They look remarkably similar to the marks left on the test pigs.

Using items found in the home to commit a murder isn't new. The LaBiancas were killed with items from their own house. The use of the paintbrush was an opportunistic choice. Had it not been there something else would have been found.

Why would the killer need to know the Ramseys used the backstairs? Eventually they would have found the note even if it had been left under the Christmas tree.

I think the note was written in the home, prior to the Ramseys returning from the Whites.

Since you are stating that the above as facts and not opinion, please provide us with credible links that show that her shirt had not been changed from a red one to a white one and that the ME said she could have eaten the pineapple as early as 4.00 in the afternoon on Christmas Day.

Without links, those are just your opinion.

Thank you.

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

As I have not scrubbed my nails this morning, and I usually do with a nail brush, and since I was out in public much of yesterday, interacting with many people, even though I washed my hands, I probably have "minute traces" of strangers DNA under my nails.

JMO

Does it match the dna in your underware?

trt

08-31-2006, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

lol, that's the whole point of grudge killing is to kill on the loved one's own turf.

Not always, but I do agree that if someone wanted to get at JR and also make him and Patsy look guilty(the ultimate revenge) then this is a plausible scenario. But then not to leave any DNA other than what was left on her body(and may not have been that according to some DNA experts). And to do all of this at the risk of being caught? I would think that someone who is known by the Ramseys would be very antsy to stay at the house to commit a crime, let alone eat pineapple with JB before taking her downstairs to murder her.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

There were many keys to the house floating around Boulder that the Ramseys had handed out to various employees and friends. Also I have seen reference to windows unlocked for Christmas light cords.

There was no shirt changing. She wore the white shirt to the Whites, she went to bed wearing it and she was found in it the next morning.

A pathologist has said she could have eaten the pineapple as early as 4PM. Digestion times is an extremely inexact science with many variables.

No company is going to jump up and say "Yep, our product was used in the murder of a 6 year old child." Doberson has said he is ready to testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the marks were made by a stun gun. They look remarkably similar to the marks left on the test pigs.

Using items found in the home to commit a murder isn't new. The LaBiancas were killed with items from their own house. The use of the paintbrush was an opportunistic choice. Had it not been there something else would have been found.

Why would the killer need to know the Ramseys used the backstairs? Eventually they would have found the note even if it had been left under the Christmas tree.

I think the note was written in the home, prior to the Ramseys returning from the Whites.

Thanks Louisa, it gets tiring to me to continually chase after her posts of misinformation.

trt

08-31-2006, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

Does it match the dna in your underware?

The dna in JB's underwear was not proven to match the one under her fingernails either. The fingernail sample had been comprimised and it could not be determined if it was a match or not.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by trt

Not always, but I do agree that if someone wanted to get at JR and also make him and Patsy look guilty(the ultimate revenge) then this is a plausible scenario. But then not to leave any DNA other than what was left on her body(and may not have been that according to some DNA experts). And to do all of this at the risk of being caught? I would think that someone who is known by the Ramseys would be very antsy to stay at the house to commit a crime, let alone eat pineapple with JB before taking her downstairs to murder her.

Because BPD botched so much of this case, and then tried to cover their own inadequacies with LIES, who knows how much DNA the killer actually left in the home?

We'll never know that for certain.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

I was in error sunsplashed sorry.

Yes I do think that was the one. It was very bizarre and shows just exactly what jealousy can do.

Again, my bad.

IMO

Ocean

No problem. I agree, it was a very bizarre case and shows what jealousy can do, but IMO only, I think that kind of jealousy is usually limited to women. The operative word being "usually."

I could accept the someone other than the Ramseys did it if JB had been taken outside the home.

Even with a grudge against John, I can't see someone doing all that had to have been done inside the home.

On the other hand, I have trouble believing any parent would use a garrote, even on a dead child's body.

JMO

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by trt

Not always, but I do agree that if someone wanted to get at JR and also make him and Patsy look guilty(the ultimate revenge) then this is a plausible scenario. But then not to leave any DNA other than what was left on her body(and may not have been that according to some DNA experts). And to do all of this at the risk of being caught? I would think that someone who is known by the Ramseys would be very antsy to stay at the house to commit a crime, let alone eat pineapple with JB before taking her downstairs to murder her.

All murderers are high risk takers! Murder is the ultimate risk imo and many times that feeds them...the excitement and risk they take. Since most murderers are not seen by eye witnesses unless it is in public areas they very often complete their deed sight unseen.

IMO

Ocean

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

Does it match the dna in your underware?

If I'm murdered today, I suppose we'll see! LOL

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

It is very evident to me that they had all the time they needed. When others sleep it usually is for hours not minutes.

Why take the dead child from the home? It was much more sadistic of them to let John and Patsy eventually find their own child there dead. What haunting memories that would forever be. They didn't want to take her away........oh no..........they wanted John and Patsy to see her there in death knowing that she was never coming back to them in life.

So they write the faux ransom note to be able to get further away from the scene and then they patiently wait because THEY knew that hell was fixing to break loose in that home just like THEY knew it would.

IMO

Ocean

IMO, you've contradicted yourself.

You said in your opinion they had all the time they needed.

Then you said they wrote a false ransom note to get farther away, i.e., buy time.

If it was someone who knew the Ramseys and who was known to them, they would probably live close by in Boulder.

How would he know someone would not wake up? People do, at all hours of the night, sometimes more than once.

Why even leave a ransom note with a sample of his handwriting, something the could conceivably be traced back to him? The Ramseys would find JB gone note or not.

JMO

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

No problem. I agree, it was a very bizarre case and shows what jealousy can do, but IMO only, I think that kind of jealousy is usually limited to women. The operative word being "usually."

I could accept the someone other than the Ramseys did it if JB had been taken outside the home.

Even with a grudge against John, I can't see someone doing all that had to have been done inside the home.

On the other hand, I have trouble believing any parent would use a garrote, even on a dead child's body.

JMO

We don't have any idea if this wasn't committed by a demented jealous woman. She very easily could have made it look like a sexual murder to throw LE off that it was a female. I keep thinking lots of females where boots too. Any woman could have contained a 6 year old child as well as a male.

I think whomever was in that home may have been in that home on previous occasions and reentered the home once the Ramseys left for the party.

To me this murder was done by someone that had watched the Ramseys and JonBenet and was a pedophile. What better prize than Little Miss Colorado? or someone with a deep seeded hatred for the Ramseys and truly hated what all they had.... that maybe this killer did not.

IMO

Ocean

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

If I'm murdered today, I suppose we'll see! LOL

:eek: My husband is in BIG trouble. lol..

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

We don't have any idea if this wasn't committed by a demented jealous woman. She very easily could have made it look like a sexual murder to throw LE off that it was a female. I keep thinking lots of females where boots too. Any woman could have contained a 6 year old child as well as a male.

I think whomever was in that home may have been in that home on previous occasions and reentered the home once the Ramseys left for the party.

To me this murder was done by someone that had watched the Ramseys and JonBenet and was a pedophile. What better prize than Little Miss Colorado? or someone with a deep seeded hatred for the Ramseys and truly hated what all they had.... that maybe this killer did not.

IMO

Ocean

A female pedophile? Who was jealous of John's business? Someone comfortable enough in the home to stay around for that long and leave a sample of her handwriting?

I can buy the supposition that John was a closet sexual sadist more. Not saying he was/is, only that it's easier for me to buy.

JMO

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by garrison

Police Negligence! So what another paedophile kills a darling girl in her home – why are we so disbelieving that an outsider did it?

<snipped>

Good question about OTHER cases. I don't know of any other cases that are similar.

What OTHER case does anyone know of which has the unique elements that this one has?

Young child murdered in the home...AND...

Family in the same house during the time of the murder...AND...

Ransom note written on stationary present in the house...AND...

Practice ransom note written before final note...AND...

Final ransom note of extraordinary length.

And that's just a few. If y'all know of any OTHER crime which has those incredibly bizarre combinations, please - tell us who/what/where, etc.

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

IMO, you've contradicted yourself.

You said in your opinion they had all the time they needed.

Then you said they wrote a false ransom note to get farther away, i.e., buy time.

If it was someone who knew the Ramseys and who was known to them, they would probably live close by in Boulder.

How would he know someone would not wake up? People do, at all hours of the night, sometimes more than once.

Why even leave a ransom note with a sample of his handwriting, something the could conceivably be traced back to him? The Ramseys would find JB gone note or not.

JMO

That is two different events.

1) Yes there was ample time for them to complete this murder from beginning to end.

2) Once completed the diversionary note would be left to insure his getaway time. He did not know the time but he was smart enough to know that when they saw a kidnapping note it implies that the child is alive and taken from the home. That right there buys them time. The time is not set in stone. He didn't need the 6 hour delay. All he needed was the diversion time he knew he would get from the note leaving. How little or great that length of time may have been he knew would be enough.

We have no clue where they lived.

And of course people wake up all the time but people enter homes and murder people too and no one even knows that it has happened. If murderers were logical instead of high risk takers there would be less murderers imo. That will not happen though as they take those risk each and every time.

Oh I am sure he thought he had disguised his handwriting well enough and seems like he has done just that.

IMO

Ocean

trt

08-31-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

All murderers are high risk takers! Murder is the ultimate risk imo and many times that feeds them...the excitement and risk they take. Since most murderers are not seen by eye witnesses unless it is in public areas they very often complete their deed sight unseen.

IMO

Ocean

Yes, but a murderer does not usually linger for fear of getting caught. Risk taker, yes, murder is a huge risk...but to up your chances of being caught by sitting down to have pineapple with the child, taking time to fashion a garrotte while *in* the house, as well as a ransom note, banking that you would find the tools necessary for a garrotte as well as to write a ransom note...all just seem too much of a risk for an already risky endeavor.

trt

08-31-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

The police were not only negligent but are responsible for pointing towards the parents and ignoring the evidence of an intruder.

There is No evidence that the Ramsey's murdered their child, yet they were convicted by the media. Lots of posters here fell for it.

There is foreign "DNA tht points to an unknown male. That is a FACT. That is the killer. The rest of unknowns are a mystery, known only to the killer.

I think it is someone who knows the Ramsey's. And despises them, or at least John. There are clues in the note. The police didn't do their job. PERIOD.

I think the parents did a pretty good job of placing an *umbrella of suspicion* on themselves. I don't haphazardly buy anything that the media puts out, but the facts of this case cause more questions and do not rule out the Ramseys. That is a conclusion I came to all my own, with no help from the media, and based on the facts of this case.

There is also evidence that the DNA in the underwear could have been left by a factory worker during production and sealing. And since there is no evidence that it matches what was under her fingernails, it could just be something that was coincidental and has sent the police on a wild goose chase for all these years. I would agree that if the fingernail DNA and the underwear DNA matched, that would provide more credence to the theory of an intruder.

I think your theory *could* be possible, but I also think that there would be much more evidence than is available if this were the case.

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

A female pedophile? Who was jealous of John's business? Someone comfortable enough in the home to stay around for that long and leave a sample of her handwriting?

I can buy the supposition that John was a closet sexual sadist more. Not saying he was/is, only that it's easier for me to buy.

JMO

LOL No, maybe I am not explaining my opinion very well.

A very jealous woman who staged this to look like a sexual murder to throw LE off onto a male suspect.

There is nothing to support that John Ramsey was/is ever anything but a truly loving and devoted father.

You are asking me? LOL I was not around John but there are always plenty of people that are highly jealous of someone's good fortunes and the lives they lead. Many people hate to see others succeed or be happy. Twisted world we live in actually.

IMO

Ocean

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

There were many keys to the house floating around Boulder that the Ramseys had handed out to various employees and friends. Also I have seen reference to windows unlocked for Christmas light cords.

There was no shirt changing. She wore the white shirt to the Whites, she went to bed wearing it and she was found in it the next morning.

A pathologist has said she could have eaten the pineapple as early as 4PM. Digestion times is an extremely inexact science with many variables.

No company is going to jump up and say "Yep, our product was used in the murder of a 6 year old child." Doberson has said he is ready to testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the marks were made by a stun gun. They look remarkably similar to the marks left on the test pigs.

Using items found in the home to commit a murder isn't new. The LaBiancas were killed with items from their own house. The use of the paintbrush was an opportunistic choice. Had it not been there something else would have been found.

Why would the killer need to know the Ramseys used the backstairs? Eventually they would have found the note even if it had been left under the Christmas tree.

I think the note was written in the home, prior to the Ramseys returning from the Whites.

Louisadelmar, good points, too. In your opinion then, who was the killer and what was the motive, just curious. I like to read all opinioins.

breezy1234

08-31-2006, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by trt

*snipped*

I think the parents did a pretty good job of placing an *umbrella of suspicion* on themselves. I don't haphazardly buy anything that the media puts out, but the facts of this case cause more questions and do not rule out the Ramseys. That is a conclusion I came to all my own, with no help from the media, and based on the facts of this case.

LOL, AND WHERE did you get the so called "facts" of the case? FROM the MEDIA. :rolleyes:

trt

08-31-2006, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

<snip>

2) Once completed the diversionary note would be left to insure his getaway time. He did not know the time but he was smart enough to know that when they saw a kidnapping note it implies that the child is alive and taken from the home. That right there buys them time. The time is not set in stone. He didn't need the 6 hour delay. All he needed was the diversion time he knew he would get from the note leaving. How little or great that length of time may have been he knew would be enough.
<snip>

How realistic is it that someone thought that they would be buying themselves *more* time by leaving a note when they could have just gotten away with noone knowing *what* had happened to JB? Why risk leaving fingerprints, or some sort of trace back to themselves when realistically, they could have been hours away by the time the Ramseys woke up and found their daughter missing or dead as the case may be? They would have *no* idea who could have done it as the killer left very little evidence. Why risk leaving something for the police to go buy by leaving a note?

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 12:57 PM

trt

08-31-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

LOL, AND WHERE did you get the so called "facts" of the case? FROM the MEDIA. :rolleyes:

I've gotten my *facts* from reading the autopsy reports, transcripts, factual accounts of the case. I wonder though, are you suggesting that only those of you who feel that the Ramseys are innocent are privy to the facts of this case? That those of us who think they may have been involved are only listening to the media? Or is it that everyone has gotten information from the media and interpreted it as they wished? I'm confused as to how *I* must have gotten my info from the media while you insinuate that yours have come from elsewhere? Help me with this.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

LOL No, maybe I am not explaining my opinion very well.

A very jealous woman who staged this to look like a sexual murder to throw LE off onto a male suspect.

There is nothing to support that John Ramsey was/is ever anything but a truly loving and devoted father.

You are asking me? LOL I was not around John but there are always plenty of people that are highly jealous of someone's good fortunes and the lives they lead. Many people hate to see others succeed or be happy. Twisted world we live in actually.

IMO

Ocean

I agree, it's a very twisted world and a dangerous one.

No, there is nothing to support the fact that John Ramsey was nothing but a hardworking man and good father.

Many people are very jealous. Few of them murder, but occasionally, it does happen. Parents sometimes murder, too.

There's no real evidence that the Ramseys did it, only things that lead to them.

There's no real evidence of an intruder, either.

There is evidence that the BPD compormised the crime scene and the case from the first minute.

People who know about the case have an opinion, but I really don't think the case will ever be solved. Sad.

JMO

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

It is not possible that the pineapple was eaten just before the murder. It was not found in her stomach - it was found in her small intestine. That is very plainly stated in the autopsy report.

But I agree with your essential point that an intruder would not be roaming all over the house for the length of time that would be required to get her from upstairs, take her downstairs, inflict her with a skull fracture, find the rope, tie her hands (loosely, over her shirt sleeve), find the paintbrush, fashion the garrote, use the garrote to strangle her, find the stationary & pen, write out a practice ransom note, then write out a ransom note so long it's the equivalent of the "war & peace" of ransom notes.

Waaaaay too much time in the house, imo.

I also don't think an intruder would risk leaving hair and fiber evidence in the house. An intruder would KNOW, with certainty, that the BPD would be so incompetent. If there were an intruder, there should have been much, much more hair and fiber evidence.

JMO

trt

08-31-2006, 01:05 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mimi428
[B]

It is not possible that the pineapple was eaten just before the murder. It was not found in her stomach - it was found in her small intestine. That is very plainly stated in the autopsy report.

<snip>

QUOTE]

So are there any estimates as to how long this process would take-(the pineapple traveling to the small intestine)? I posted some sites earlier that spoke of digestion, but this was the process that it took to empty the stomach, I guess before it gets to the small intestine, and how long would it stay there? Anyone know this?

angelskye

08-31-2006, 01:08 PM

Paisley

08-31-2006, 01:08 PM

omg..yes..that was incredible! Yikes! Do you think the cops investigated any of the parents whose children LOST to JonBenet in a beauty pageant? Holy smokes... let's open a new can of worms! Jealousy is a good motive.

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

Do you remember the case about the mother that killed a young teenage girl because she got to be on the cheerleading team and this woman's daughter did not? This is what jealousy can conjure up.

I think it was someone that highly resented the Ramseys, their status and their oh so very beautiful children. What better way to crash the world of the Ramsey's good fortune and happiness than to kill what they loved most in the world?

IMO

Ocean

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

2) Once completed the diversionary note would be left to insure his getaway time. He did not know the time but he was smart enough to know that when they saw a kidnapping note it implies that the child is alive and taken from the home. That right there buys them time. The time is not set in stone. He didn't need the 6 hour delay. All he needed was the diversion time he knew he would get from the note leaving. How little or great that length of time may have been he knew would be enough.

Ocean

Most people would assume, even after finding a ransom note that the home would be checked from top to bottom for any evidence of break-ins or any clues that might have been left behind.

It was incredibly good luck for the perp that the police did NOT conduct a proper search AND that they did not seal the home and prevent people from walking all over the place.

I don't believe the ransom note was meant to buy time.

Either the perp changed his mind & didn't want to kidnap her OR it was staging from inside the home.

If the real intent was to hurt the Ramseys (and wasn't ever a kidnapping) why pretend it was a kidnapping? Why not kill the kids & go into detail about how you tortured them? Why the nonsense about a kidnapping?

And why not kill BOTH kids if your intent was to make John Ramsey suffer?

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by trt

Yes, but a murderer does not usually linger for fear of getting caught. Risk taker, yes, murder is a huge risk...but to up your chances of being caught by sitting down to have pineapple with the child, taking time to fashion a garrote while *in* the house, as well as a ransom note, banking that you would find the tools necessary for a garrote as well as to write a ransom note...all just seem too much of a risk for an already risky endeavor.

If the occupants aren't home then why rush? Who knows maybe they even knew where the Ramseys had gone ....maybe they knew the Ramsey and had been to the White's party in previous years.

See we just don't know the answer to those questions but the killer DOES know all about everything and imo they weren't worried at all about being caught.

Now once the murder was completed they probably did get the heck out of there.

The tools he picked could have been anything......they are a gazillion things in ones home that can be used to harm someone. Maybe the garrote was an added idea and they simply looked around for something that would work for them. We just don't know the mind of this killer.

Scott Dyleski came to Pamela Vitale's door at 10 in the morning. He came in took his time......all the while knowing that Mr. Horowitz could return at any time or someone else could drive up. Did this deter him? Absolutely not. He was on a mission...he left when he wanted to go. There have been many cases when murderers do not flee the scene immediately. Why that happens I have no clue but I have no mindset of a murderer who is planning and completing their kill.

There are no manuals or handbooks that murderers must act the same or even for that fact that pedophiles must act a certain way. They, like their crimes are individual monsters.

IMO

Ocean

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Why even leave a ransom note with a sample of his handwriting, something the could conceivably be traced back to him? The Ramseys would find JB gone note or not.

JMO

<snipped>

ITA - and it begs the question: who benefits from the ransom note?

Not a murderer who is a stranger - the child is already dead. No one kidnapped her, she was not removed from the house. I don't think it's even conceivable that a person would think that money could have been delivered to them before her body was found. If the murderer really wanted money, they would have removed the corpse. If they only wanted to murder the child, there was no need for the ransom note.

trt

08-31-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

This wasn't your 'usual murder', first of all, and therefore wasn't committed by your usual killer.

"Banking that you would find the tools" is a no-brainer. As for the garrotte, 2 spoons would have sufficed just as well. So would 2 ink pens, 2 rulers, you get the point.

I think for all practical, logical purposes, it is obvious that the ransom note was written BEFORE she was killed, not after.

This is particularly true with the Ramseys being gone for so many hours that day, which left the house open for any intruder to take his time to complete tasks beforehand.

When you go over the reality in detail, there really wasn't as much "risk", as could be previously exaggerated.

Its not a usual murder, that's for sure...

As for the garrotte, I'm sure they knew that they *could* find anything in the house with which to make it. But to risk doing that, and with the detail that many here claim is necessary to make one...who would sit there and risk being walked in on by the family.

If, as you say, the ransom note was written before, why would an intruder, who does not necessarily *know* what time the family would be returning, sit at their table and write not one, but two notes?

We know in hindsight that they were gone for hours, but there is noway that an intruder would have known this. Unless it was someone who knew them and had knowledge of this(but then, being that the party that evening was for the same circle of people, wouldn't someone find it odd that someone was missing from the party? Just trying to follow some logic here) I don't think its an exaggeration to ask these questions because the reality of the situation is, known or not, the killer to a great many risks with their time in the house.

msgatorslayer

08-31-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by trt

I've gotten my *facts* from reading the autopsy reports, transcripts, factual accounts of the case. I wonder though, are you suggesting that only those of you who feel that the Ramseys are innocent are privy to the facts of this case? That those of us who think they may have been involved are only listening to the media? Or is it that everyone has gotten information from the media and interpreted it as they wished? I'm confused as to how *I* must have gotten my info from the media while you insinuate that yours have come from elsewhere? Help me with this.

In all fairness to both sides, I think that the evidence can go both ways. It all depends on how each of us, as individuals, perceive the evidence. JMO

I will never bash anyone for their opinoins. None of us know with 100% certainty who killed JBR.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by trt
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mimi428
[B]

It is not possible that the pineapple was eaten just before the murder. It was not found in her stomach - it was found in her small intestine. That is very plainly stated in the autopsy report.

<snip>

QUOTE]

So are there any estimates as to how long this process would take-(the pineapple traveling to the small intestine)? I posted some sites earlier that spoke of digestion, but this was the process that it took to empty the stomach, I guess before it gets to the small intestine, and how long would it stay there? Anyone know this?

50% of stomach contents emptied 2.5 to 3 hours
Total emptying of the stomach 4 to 5 hours
50% emptying of the small intestine 2.5 to 3 hours
Transit through the colon 30 to 40 hours

"Remember that these are estimtes of average transit times, and there is a great deal of variability among individuals and in the small person at different times and after different meals."

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/basics/transit.html

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Most people would assume, even after finding a ransom note that the home would be checked from top to bottom for any evidence of break-ins or any clues that might have been left behind.

It was incredibly good luck for the perp that the police did NOT conduct a proper search AND that they did not seal the home and prevent people from walking all over the place.

I don't believe the ransom note was meant to buy time.

Either the perp changed his mind & didn't want to kidnap her OR it was staging from inside the home.

If the real intent was to hurt the Ramseys (and wasn't ever a kidnapping) why pretend it was a kidnapping? Why not kill the kids & go into detail about how you tortured them? Why the nonsense about a kidnapping?

And why not kill BOTH kids if your intent was to make John Ramsey suffer?

He could care less if they searched that home from top to bottom. That alone would give him ample time to remove himself away from the scene and if they had found her then she would have been the focal point at that time not him. It was a no brainer for him. I think he is very intelligent but very diabolical in his thoughts.

Ah because for a fleeting moment it gave them false hope but he knew how this was all going to end.

IMO

Ocean

trt

08-31-2006, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

50% of stomach contents emptied 2.5 to 3 hours
Total emptying of the stomach 4 to 5 hours
50% emptying of the small intestine 2.5 to 3 hours
Transit through the colon 30 to 40 hours

"Remember that these are estimtes of average transit times, and there is a great deal of variability among individuals and in the small person at different times and after different meals."

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/basics/transit.html

Thank you, that does add questions to whether or not she ate the pineapple in the middle of the night.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Whites say that no pineapple was offered at their party that evening? And didn't Patsy say she didn't give JB any pineapple? So the question still is, where did she get it from?

trt

08-31-2006, 01:18 PM

Paisley

08-31-2006, 01:19 PM

cantaloupe

08-31-2006, 01:20 PM

WE keep discussing how much time the killer spent in the house and how it makes an intruder theory less plausible. I think we can trim off some time if we make these assumptions:

1. The pineapple in JBR's stomach has nothing to do with the killer feeding it to her.

my six year old son used to get up and wander around at night after we were in bed. He opened jars of peanut butter and made sandwiches. The pineapple might have been opened by JBR and eaten after her parents went to bed without a killer present.

2. The killer was in the house earlier and either took the stationery and pen to write the notes off-site, returning with them later , or wrote the notes and hid them in the house before leaving and retrieved them later.

I think those assumptions still fit into what is known about the crime and crime scene.

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Since you are stating that the above as facts and not opinion, please provide us with credible links that show that her shirt had not been changed from a red one to a white one and that the ME said she could have eaten the pineapple as early as 4.00 in the afternoon on Christmas Day.

Without links, those are just your opinion.

Thank you.

I believe it was Doberson who said she could have eaten it as early as 4 but I don't have a link to a direct quote from him. If you do research on digestion times you will find it is far from an exact science. Kind of like "How long does it take for rigor mortis to set in?"

It has been a known fact for years that she was photographed at the Whites in the white shirt she was found in the next morning.

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html

November 2000

crimeADM: Was JonBenet definitely wearing the red turtleneck at the Whites' party?
stevethomas: no, she was wearing the white top in which her body was eventually found the next day.

Paisley

08-31-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

ITA - and it begs the question: who benefits from the ransom note?

Not a murderer who is a stranger - the child is already dead. No one kidnapped her, she was not removed from the house. I don't think it's even conceivable that a person would think that money could have been delivered to them before her body was found. If the murderer really wanted money, they would have removed the corpse. If they only wanted to murder the child, there was no need for the ransom note. It (the crime) absolutely had nothing to do with money or kidnapping.

The note was a decoy... I'm repeating myself.. I know...

angelskye

08-31-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by trt

Its not a usual murder, that's for sure...

As for the garrotte, I'm sure they knew that they *could* find anything in the house with which to make it. But to risk doing that, and with the detail that many here claim is necessary to make one...who would sit there and risk being walked in on by the family.

If, as you say, the ransom note was written before, why would an intruder, who does not necessarily *know* what time the family would be returning, sit at their table and write not one, but two notes?

We know in hindsight that they were gone for hours, but there is noway that an intruder would have known this. Unless it was someone who knew them and had knowledge of this(but then, being that the party that evening was for the same circle of people, wouldn't someone find it odd that someone was missing from the party? Just trying to follow some logic here) I don't think its an exaggeration to ask these questions because the reality of the situation is, known or not, the killer to a great many risks with their time in the house.

There was no risk of the family walking in IF the intruder knew that they had gone to a party, which again, is fairly obvious for numerous reasons.

Why two notes were written? You'd have to get into the psychological screwed up mind of the killer to know what motivated them to do any of this, the note included. I think any good Psych. though, would agree that the ransom note was just one more way to inflict terror upon the Ramseys, particularly John who I believe by all indictations, was the target in this.

With the literally thousands of friends that the Ramseys had, it isn't difficult at all to imagine that the Ramseys plans for that day were broadly known, and therefore played to the hilt to the killer's advantage.

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by cantaloupe
WE keep discussing how much time the killer spent in the house and how it makes an intruder theory less plausible. I think we can trim off some time if we make these assumptions:

1. The pineapple in JBR's stomach has nothing to do with the killer feeding it to her.

my six year old son used to get up and wander around at night after we were in bed. He opened jars of peanut butter and made sandwiches. The pineapple might have been opened by JBR and eaten after her parents went to bed without a killer present.

2. The killer was in the house earlier and either took the stationery and pen to write the notes off-site, returning with them later , or wrote the notes and hid them in the house before leaving and retrieved them later.

I think those assumptions still fit into what is known about the crime and crime scene.

I actually think the reason that the ransom note is so lengthy is he was just sitting there waiting for them to return and made it longer because he had plenty of time to do so.

IMO

Ocean

GeezLouise

08-31-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer

In all fairness to both sides, I think that the evidence can go both ways. It all depends on how each of us, as individuals, perceive the evidence. JMO

I will never bash anyone for their opinoins. None of us know with 100% certainty who killed JBR.
I agree. I know my opinion is unpopular, but I still feel Patsy knew something.....

I don't think we will ever know and there will probably be a few more delusionals coming out of the woodwork attempting to take credit for this horrible incident.

jerzeegirl

08-31-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by cantaloupe
WE keep discussing how much time the killer spent in the house and how it makes an intruder theory less plausible. I think we can trim off some time if we make these assumptions:

1. The pineapple in JBR's stomach has nothing to do with the killer feeding it to her.

my six year old son used to get up and wander around at night after we were in bed. He opened jars of peanut butter and made sandwiches. The pineapple might have been opened by JBR and eaten after her parents went to bed without a killer present.

2. The killer was in the house earlier and either took the stationery and pen to write the notes off-site, returning with them later , or wrote the notes and hid them in the house before leaving and retrieved them later.

I think those assumptions still fit into what is known about the crime and crime scene.

only patsy and burkes fingerprints were found on the bowl of pineapple, ill find the link if you want, ive posted it here many times. So imo, JBR did not get out of bed and get herself pineapple without any help.

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
It (the crime) absolutely had nothing to do with money or kidnapping.

The note was a decoy... I'm repeating myself.. I know...

I think the mere mention of listing only 118K amount was to make the Ramseys think that it had to be someone unknown to them. Someone who didn't know they would have given much much more than that to get their daughter back.

Like trying to infer it was someone who thought 118K was a lot of money when in the Ramseys circle of friends it wasn't.

IMO

Ocean

trt

08-31-2006, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

There was no risk of the family walking in IF the intruder knew that they had gone to a party, which again, is fairly obvious for numerous reasons.

Why two notes were written? You'd have to get into the psychological screwed up mind of the killer to know what motivated them to do any of this, the note included. I think any good Psych. though, would agree that the ransom note was just one more way to inflict terror upon the Ramseys, particularly John who I believe by all indictations, was the target in this.

With the literally thousands of friends that the Ramseys had, it isn't difficult at all to imagine that the Ramseys plans for that day were broadly known, and therefore played to the hilt to the killer's advantage.

Possible, but even if their whereabouts were known, how would they know exactly what time the family would be back? JB had been sick correct? How would the killer know that the family or at least Patsy and JB wouldn't be back a mere hour or two after returning? Was the person watching the house to watch them leave? In a quiet town, noone noticed a strange person hanging around? Just so many unknowns to completely rule anyone out.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by trt

Thank you, that does add questions to whether or not she ate the pineapple in the middle of the night.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Whites say that no pineapple was offered at their party that evening? And didn't Patsy say she didn't give JB any pineapple? So the question still is, where did she get it from?

1. It hasn't even been established to BE pineapple.

2. As proven by the link, digestion times have such variance, particularly in a small person, that much is being made about this supposed "pineapple", when it's only but one small fragment of the entire case.

You're trying to determine something with such precision that has entirely too much Scientific variance.

It's kind of like trying to nail jello to a tree.

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
It (the crime) absolutely had nothing to do with money or kidnapping.

The note was a decoy... I'm repeating myself.. I know...

So again we come back to the question - who benefitted from the ransom note? I agree that it was decoy. If it was an intruder - how did it benefit him/her?

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by trt

Thank you, that does add questions to whether or not she ate the pineapple in the middle of the night.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Whites say that no pineapple was offered at their party that evening? And didn't Patsy say she didn't give JB any pineapple? So the question still is, where did she get it from?

Didn't the autopsy say it "could" have been pineapple..just a guess? I don't know what digested pineapple would look like so it could have been say, papaya or melon...heck, I am just guessing here..what fruit WAS served at the White's ? I think that could easily have been ascertained..canned fruit of some kind? This pineapple theory is sort of throwing people off here.

trt

08-31-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

1. It hasn't even been established to BE pineapple.

2. As proven by the link, digestion times have such variance, particularly in a small person, that much is being made about this supposed "pineapple", when it's only but one small fragment of the entire case.

You're trying to determine something with such precision that has entirely too much Scientific variance.

It's kind of like trying to nail jello to a tree.

Not really trying to determine with precision so much as trying to offer that there are more questions than answers in this scenario and that those of you who think that Ramseys are innocent(PERIOD) are denying the small quirks of the case that would lead someone to believe that they may have been involved.

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

So again we come back to the question - who benefitted from the ransom note? I agree that it was decoy. If it was an intruder - how did it benefit him/her?

Who "benefitted" from JB's murder in any way? A revengeful ex-employee? Who would want to inflict such a wound on John or Patsy? The whole murder scene makes no sense...all we have in the end is a poor dead little innocent girl. I think the killer was intelligent..doesn't that rule out Helgoth (I don't know).

angelskye

08-31-2006, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by trt

Possible, but even if their whereabouts were known, how would they know exactly what time the family would be back? JB had been sick correct? How would the killer know that the family or at least Patsy and JB wouldn't be back a mere hour or two after returning? Was the person watching the house to watch them leave? In a quiet town, noone noticed a strange person hanging around? Just so many unknowns to completely rule anyone out.

Who said that the killer knew exactly when they'd be back? All the killer had to do was get the ransom note in order, fashion the garrotte and then lay low until they returned. They were gone hours, and these 2 tasks probably took what, an hour or so to complete?

In a house that size, the killer could have been anyplace in that house writing that note and fashioning that garrotte, just in case they DID return unexpectedly.

I live in a quiet town, but with people bustling about on the Holidays, who is going to notice other people, or who "belongs there" or not? Actually though, Karr was noticed, and the tip was phoned in 10 years ago. I'm sure that others were too, as LE had thousands of tips.

Did they follow up on those tips? No, we know that they didn't, and they didn't because they were too busy focusing on the Ramseys, who 10 years later, have yielded ZERO evidence as being the killers. THAT, to me, speaks the loudest in this case.

I'm not sure that anyone has stopped to actually wrap their mind around just how much scrutiny the Ramseys have undergone, and for the 10 year duration - all the while having pristine results.

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by trt

Thank you, that does add questions to whether or not she ate the pineapple in the middle of the night.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Whites say that no pineapple was offered at their party that evening? And didn't Patsy say she didn't give JB any pineapple? So the question still is, where did she get it from?

I have always wondered if the police bothered to ask the Whites if they had any pineapple in their frig and/or if they asked Daphne if she and JonBenet had eaten any that night. I have also wondered if they asked Burke about the pineapple, bowl, etc.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by nutmeg22

Didn't the autopsy say it "could" have been pineapple..just a guess? I don't know what digested pineapple would look like so it could have been say, papaya or melon...heck, I am just guessing here..what fruit WAS served at the White's ? I think that could easily have been ascertained..canned fruit of some kind? This pineapple theory is sort of throwing people off here.

It said a "Pineapple-LIKE substance", and yes, you're right that the pineapple is throwing people off, because far too much focus is put upon something with too wide of a variance.

Someplace during the investigation it was reported that Pineapple was served at the White's. You might check the link thread, because I'm not sure where that one is.

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by trt

Not really trying to determine with precision so much as trying to offer that there are more questions than answers in this scenario and that those of you who think that Ramseys are innocent(PERIOD) are denying the small quirks of the case that would lead someone to believe that they may have been involved.

I am not following you.....how does pineapple point toward the Ramseys guilt?

We dont even know what time she ate it or even where she was when she did. Or if it was even pineapple. Hadnt JB just come from a Christmas Party?

Does that make sense to you........that on one hand you think they feed her pineapple like loving parents would do then the next minute become raving lunatics who garrote their child and brutally crack her skull open?

Somehow that seems opposing points imo.

IMO

Ocean

Paisley

08-31-2006, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

So again we come back to the question - who benefitted from the ransom note? I agree that it was decoy. If it was an intruder - how did it benefit him/her? It bought the intruder time to get away, leave town, hide... get as far away as possible from the scene.... it bought him a LOT of time...

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by trt

I've gotten my *facts* from reading the autopsy reports, transcripts, factual accounts of the case. I wonder though, are you suggesting that only those of you who feel that the Ramseys are innocent are privy to the facts of this case? That those of us who think they may have been involved are only listening to the media? Or is it that everyone has gotten information from the media and interpreted it as they wished? I'm confused as to how *I* must have gotten my info from the media while you insinuate that yours have come from elsewhere? Help me with this.

Because you are wrong about the DNA. The updated tests isolated a blood spot (on the underware) with DNA that MATCHES the fingernail dna.

So many of you are dismissing these findings. It points to an unknown white male as the killer. Not the Ramsey's.

The pineapple is a 'sideshow'. Maybe he gave her a bite of it to keep her quiet before he strangled her. (?)

Paisley

08-31-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

It said a "Pineapple-LIKE substance", and yes, you're right that the pineapple is throwing people off, because far too much focus is put upon something with too wide of a variance.

Someplace during the investigation it was reported that Pineapple was served at the White's. You might check the link thread, because I'm not sure where that one is. I don't think the pineapple is a significant clue in this case.. but... the movement of JB from her bedroom to the basement, the method of torture/death, the note, the break-in, the rummaging of the Ramsey's belongings, the DNA are...

The pineapple is just an observation by the coroner, reporting what was in the victim's stomach at the time of death, it is not a big CLUE... with all the hustle and bustle of getting ready for a visit to the White's it could be that no one noticed JB eating it before they left.... goodness knows I find random food left out around my house.

kindeekat

08-31-2006, 01:44 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DixieChick

Because you are wrong about the DNA. The updated tests isolated a blood spot (on the underware) with DNA that MATCHES the fingernail dna.

[/QUOTE

Do you have the link for that? The matching DNA info. TIA!

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
It bought the intruder time to get away, leave town, hide... get as far away as possible from the scene.... it bought him a LOT of time...

Yep worked like a charm for him and he knew all along it would.

He made sure he made them focus on JonBenet first not the "terrorist group".

IMO

Ocean

jerzeegirl

08-31-2006, 01:46 PM

I dont see how the pineappele is a side show......

Autopsy says that there is pineapple like substance in her stomache, not hotdog like substance........whether or not she ate pineapple at the whites party, There was a bowl of pinapple on the kitchen counter with patsy and burkes prints on the bowl. Noone in that house recalls eating pineapple in the kitchen that night.

Im not an investigator or anything such as that but i know that this isnt something that should be dismissed

kindeekat

08-31-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

Yep worked like a charm for him and he knew all along it would.

He made sure he made them focus on JonBenet first not him.

IMO

Ocean

I don't see how he could bank on the fact the Ramseys et al WOULDN'T search that house from top to bottom and again and again and again--that's what I would have done. Ransom note or no ransom note.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by trt

Not really trying to determine with precision so much as trying to offer that there are more questions than answers in this scenario and that those of you who think that Ramseys are innocent(PERIOD) are denying the small quirks of the case that would lead someone to believe that they may have been involved.

Every single itty-bitty question is NEVER answered for in a murder case.

I'm not sure if you followed the Dyleski trial that just concluded in a guilty verdict, but on that board, much ado was made about the Perp not being saturated in the victims blood, even though DNA PROVED him to be the killer, as the victim wore Dyleski's DNA on her foot as she kicked him in the mouth.

Ok, proven killer, yet for some, not enough satisifactory blood saturation. I mean, you're just not ever going to have every minute detail of a crime uncovered. It's just not going to happen, and expecting such is very unrealistic.

kindeekat

08-31-2006, 01:49 PM

Correct. But I don't see that not knowing WHO the murderer is is an itty bitty question? :shrug: Until we know there are some BIG unanswered questions and the Ramseys canNOT be eliminated as being involved in some way while there are HUGE questions hanging out there.

trt

08-31-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

Who said that the killer knew exactly when they'd be back? All the killer had to do was get the ransom note in order, fashion the garrotte and then lay low until they returned. They were gone hours, and these 2 tasks probably took what, an hour or so to complete?

In a house that size, the killer could have been anyplace in that house writing that note and fashioning that garrotte, just in case they DID return unexpectedly.

I live in a quiet town, but with people bustling about on the Holidays, who is going to notice other people, or who "belongs there" or not? Actually though, Karr was noticed, and the tip was phoned in 10 years ago. I'm sure that others were too, as LE had thousands of tips.

<snip>

It has been stated several times (by those who support the Ramsey's innocence) that that particular garrotte was very complicated to make, so you think that it plus the note(plus the 2 page practice note) could have realistically only taken an hour?

I agree that the intruder could have been anywhere in the house, but again, goes back to where is the forensic evidence if this were so? Does anyone know if *all* of the rooms of the house had been *comprimised* before police finally got a clue to seal off the house?

trt

08-31-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

Because you are wrong about the DNA. The updated tests isolated a blood spot (on the underware) with DNA that MATCHES the fingernail dna.

So many of you are dismissing these findings. It points to an unknown white male as the killer. Not the Ramsey's.

The pineapple is a 'sideshow'. Maybe he gave her a bite of it to keep her quiet before he strangled her. (?)

Please state your link for this to show that *updated* tests were able to match the fingernail to the underwear DNA

angelskye

08-31-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
I don't think the pineapple is a significant clue in this case.. but... the movement of JB from her bedroom to the basement, the method of torture/death, the note, the break-in, the rummaging of the Ramsey's belongings, the DNA are...

The pineapple is just an observation by the coroner, reporting what was in the victim's stomach at the time of death, it is not a big CLUE... with all the hustle and bustle of getting ready for a visit to the White's it could be that no one noticed JB eating it before they left.... goodness knows I find random food left out around my house.

lol, I used to find half-eaten sandwiches in my kid's toybox. :tongue:

I agree, the pineapple fiasco has been way overplayed in the line of importance.

Fact is, it was the holiday season and she had been to a party, undoubtedly eating-on-the-roam as most kids do.

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 01:51 PM

anais2005

08-31-2006, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
It bought the intruder time to get away, leave town, hide... get as far away as possible from the scene.... it bought him a LOT of time...

If you look at it another way,

1) He could have been caught in the act if anybody else got up in the night or heard something, no benefit from the note,

2) her body would have been found if competent homicide detectives arrived on the scene, as they would have searched the house and fpund her body right away

3) it is more evidence to use against him if he is caught,

I don't think the nots gave him any benefit if it was an intruder,

the time it took to write it put him in great danger of being caught,

and it was only the incompetency of the police on the scene not finding her body straight away that meant it was not classed as a homicide right away,

that was not down to any intruder or the ransom note that was down to the cops,

and if she was my daughter every room, every cupboard, every drawer would have been searched in that house that morning, note or no note, I would have torn my house apart looking for her, just to be sure, especially given how bizarre the note was

Paisley

08-31-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
I dont see how the pineappele is a side show......

Autopsy says that there is pineapple like substance in her stomache, not hotdog like substance........whether or not she ate pineapple at the whites party, There was a bowl of pinapple on the kitchen counter with patsy and burkes prints on the bowl. Noone in that house recalls eating pineapple in the kitchen that night.

Im not an investigator or anything such as that but i know that this isnt something that should be dismissed I'm not saying it should be dismissed, it's just that a lot of people are harping on it, and it's a minor detail amongst a lot of complicated ones.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat
Correct. But I don't see that not knowing WHO the murderer is is an itty bitty question? :shrug: Until we know there are some BIG unanswered questions and the Ramseys canNOT be eliminated as being involved in some way while there are HUGE questions hanging out there.

Actually, Lacy stated yesterday that there are NO suspects in this case as of now.

That would include the Ramseys.

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat

I don't see how he could bank on the fact the Ramseys et al WOULDN'T search that house from top to bottom and again and again and again--that's what I would have done. Ransom note or no ransom note.

He didn't care how many times they searched it kindee or even if they found her. He had the winning hand either way. Let them search............then they aren't searching for him. Let them think she is alive..........goody for him he thinks. He didn't care if they found her .........then the focal point would be shifted to that discovery. It was a win win for him all the way around. Yeah, and of course he puts out some mumbo jumbo about "terrorist". He sure wasn't going to implicate himself.

As long as he could divert the attention onto JonBenet it wasn't on him and he knew that. At that time it was ALL about her. Then he could sit back and watch it all unfold which he probably did on his tv in his own home imo.

IMO

Ocean

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 01:55 PM

It has always bothered me that the BPD was ready to release the house after just an hour and a half (PMPT) and yet we consider them competent to have done a complete and detailed search. Meaning, if they really knew what they were doing they wouldn't have initially considered 90 minutes sufficient.

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by nutmeg22

Who "benefitted" from JB's murder in any way? A revengeful ex-employee? Who would want to inflict such a wound on John or Patsy? The whole murder scene makes no sense...all we have in the end is a poor dead little innocent girl. I think the killer was intelligent..doesn't that rule out Helgoth (I don't know).

I did not suggest that anyone benefitted from the murder. You are changing the subject.

We know the child was murdered. She suffered two traumas which independently would have killed her. The garroting alone would have killed her. The skull fracture would have killed her, but slower than the garroting.

We know a ransom note was written - twice. First the practice note, then the final note.

So the question is - why write a ransom note when the corpse is in the house??? An intruder would have had NO REASON to claim a kidnapping. He/she accomplished the murder, had gotten away, the deed was done. Finis. There was no further horror to inflict on the parents beyond the murder of their child, imo.

trt

08-31-2006, 01:57 PM

YOU:I am not following you.....how does pineapple point toward the Ramseys guilt?

ME: My post stated that I was showing that these and other questions do not exclude the Ramseys. I never once said with any certainty that they were guilty or that any evidence points to their guilt. Only that it opens up questions that they may have been involved.

YOU: We dont even know what time she ate it or even where she was when she did. Or if it was even pineapple. Hadnt JB just come from a Christmas Party?

ME: Yes, but those at the Christmas party said that there was no pineapple at the party. If we go with the assertion that it may not have been pineapple, then we can see that she may have eaten it at the party. If we go with the assertion that may have(or was) pineapple, then it does beg the questions

YOU:Does that make sense to you........that on one hand you think they feed her pineapple like loving parents would do then the next minute become raving lunatics who garrote their child and brutally crack her skull open?

ME: I don't know that giving someone pineapple indicates that they are loving parents? Nor do I know that they were raving lunatics if they did do this to their child. As we keep stating, the murder itself doesn't make sense and someone(intruder or parents) feeding her pineapple then going on to do what they did to her doesn't make sense at all, IMO.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by trt

It has been stated several times (by those who support the Ramsey's innocence) that that particular garrotte was very complicated to make, so you think that it plus the note(plus the 2 page practice note) could have realistically only taken an hour?

I agree that the intruder could have been anywhere in the house, but again, goes back to where is the forensic evidence if this were so? Does anyone know if *all* of the rooms of the house had been *comprimised* before police finally got a clue to seal off the house?

Do you honestly think that the Perp waited until he was in the house to "practice" making those knots? I doubt it. And for the very reason that you mention, it being a "complicated" garrotte to make, is the very reason that it is obvious that the Perp was skilled in fashioning those knots. That isn't something that you just "happen upon" by fiddling with some rope, and suddenly by golly, you've spit out this intricate garrotte with expertise knots.

No way, not a chance.

As for the rest of the house being compromised -

lol, with the Bozo LE running about telling John to search the house for his own daughter, do you honestly think there's an answer to that?

trt

08-31-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

Every single itty-bitty question is NEVER answered for in a murder case.

I'm not sure if you followed the Dyleski trial that just concluded in a guilty verdict, but on that board, much ado was made about the Perp not being saturated in the victims blood, even though DNA PROVED him to be the killer, as the victim wore Dyleski's DNA on her foot as she kicked him in the mouth.

Ok, proven killer, yet for some, not enough satisifactory blood saturation. I mean, you're just not ever going to have every minute detail of a crime uncovered. It's just not going to happen, and expecting such is very unrealistic.

Not what I'm looking for. I'm not familiar with that case, but you are speaking of *one* detail that someone can't get past. That's understandable. In this case, there are many. IMO, those can't be ignored and just explained away as *it had to be an intruder because a parent wouldn't do that*.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
It has always bothered me that the BPD was ready to release the house after just an hour and a half (PMPT) and yet we consider them competent to have done a complete and detailed search. Meaning, if they really knew what they were doing they wouldn't have initially considered 90 minutes sufficient.

Exactly!

And here we are 10 years later with people wondering why this case hasn't been solved, or why others keep pointing the finger back to the Ramseys, as if the bumblings of BPD is THEIR fault?

This case is sick and sad, but the dysfunction of the BPD is something that's right out of Mayberry RFD with Barney Fife in control!

angelskye

08-31-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by trt

Not what I'm looking for. I'm not familiar with that case, but you are speaking of *one* detail that someone can't get past. That's understandable. In this case, there are many. IMO, those can't be ignored and just explained away as *it had to be an intruder because a parent wouldn't do that*.

I don't believe anyone has ever given the lame excuse of "it had to be an intruder because a parent wouldn't do that" without additional reasoning to back it up.

There is a plethora of logic that says that the Ramseys didn't do it, not counting the intense scrutiny, exams, tests and evaluations for 10 years.

Jadedblueeyes

08-31-2006, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by anais2005

If you look at it another way,

1) He could have been caught in the act if anybody else got up in the night or heard something, no benefit from the note,

2) her body would have been found if competent homicide detectives arrived on the scene, as they would have searched the house and fpund her body right away

3) it is more evidence to use against him if he is caught,

I don't think the nots gave him any benefit if it was an intruder,

the time it took to write it put him in great danger of being caught,

and it was only the incompetency of the police on the scene not finding her body straight away that meant it was not classed as a homicide right away,

that was not down to any intruder or the ransom note that was down to the cops,

and if she was my daughter every room, every cupboard, every drawer would have been searched in that house that morning, note or no note, I would have torn my house apart looking for her, just to be sure, especially given how bizarre the note was

Most killers fully believe they will get away with their crimes. I find this one no different except he may be right. If murderers greatly feared they would be caught then they would never do them in the first place. Most murders are not witnessed by anyone.

It didnt matter if the body was found......if that had happened everything would have been nothing but a mad dash for LE in their investigation to their discovery of her body. The "terrorists" termonolgy is quite interesting too imo. He is very smart.... whoever this killer is. When one reads terrorists we automatically think they come from overseas. Man, imo he was trying to throw the Ramseys way off.........way away from him. Making me think he is purposefully distancing himself from knowing the Ramsey family. Imo I think he does know them or of them.

IMO

Ocean

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

I did not suggest that anyone benefitted from the murder. You are changing the subject.

We know the child was murdered. She suffered two traumas which independently would have killed her. The garroting alone would have killed her. The skull fracture would have killed her, but slower than the garroting.

We know a ransom note was written - twice. First the practice note, then the final note.

So the question is - why write a ransom note when the corpse is in the house??? An intruder would have had NO REASON to claim a kidnapping. He/she accomplished the murder, had gotten away, the deed was done. Finis. There was no further horror to inflict on the parents beyond the murder of their child, imo.

I am sorry, I guess I did change the subject and I wasn't directing my question entirely at you. I was just asking a rhetorical question... my use of the word
benefit was not exactly what I meant I guess...I should have asked who had a motive to kill JB and in the sick killer's mind, this would have benefitted HIM (the killer) I did change the subject.

trt

08-31-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

Do you honestly think that the Perp waited until he was in the house to "practice" making those knots? I doubt it. And for the very reason that you mention, it being a "complicated" garrotte to make, is the very reason that it is obvious that the Perp was skilled in fashioning those knots. That isn't something that you just "happen upon" by fiddling with some rope, and suddenly by golly, you've spit out this intricate garrotte with expertise knots.

No way, not a chance.

As for the rest of the house being compromised -

lol, with the Bozo LE running about telling John to search the house for his own daughter, do you honestly think there's an answer to that?

Practice aside, if the knots were as intricate and complicated as everyone claims, they would need more than just practice to *perfect* them. And John was ex-navy and a boater, so again, there is more to this than just intruder, case closed.

Unless someone went through that house with a broom, and a vacuum, hours and hours of an intruder roaming around a house could not be erased just by someone walking through, IMO. I mean, John picked up JB, carried her upstairs next to his clothes, took tape off her mouth and tried to remove wrist binds and they were *still* able to gather some evidence off the body. Although, with the bungling of the case, I can see how maybe the police did not conduct a throrough sweep of the house for forensic evidence.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

There was no further horror to inflict on the parents beyond the murder of their child, imo.

You're forgetting that several hours passed before the parents KNEW that they had a murdered child.

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

I don't believe anyone has ever given the lame excuse of "it had to be an intruder because a parent wouldn't do that" without additional reasoning to back it up.

There is a plethora of logic that says that the Ramseys didn't do it, not counting the intense scrutiny, exams, tests and evaluations for 10 years.

angelskye, my memory is failing me and again, I go back to John Douglas because I feel he is credible. He said in his opinion a parent wouldn't do that...but has he ever offered a description or profile of who would do that...other than it NOT being a parent?
I am interested in who he thinks would have had a motive and what kind of an intruder planned this crime given all of these strange aspects...garrotte, note, etc.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by trt

Although, with the bungling of the case, I can see how maybe the police did not conduct a throrough sweep of the house for forensic evidence.

And to add insult to injury, they tried to cover up their own bunglings by fabricating lie after lie after lie, all directed toward the Ramseys.

trt

08-31-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

I don't believe anyone has ever given the lame excuse of "it had to be an intruder because a parent wouldn't do that" without additional reasoning to back it up.

There is a plethora of logic that says that the Ramseys didn't do it, not counting the intense scrutiny, exams, tests and evaluations for 10 years.

So, is it your contention that people do not get away with murder(or any other crimes) for years and years, with police having a *suspicion* that it was them without any evidence to support it? I mean, OJ killed two people according to many, yet he was acquitted for it. I'm sure there have been many other, normal, seemingly wonderful people who have done just that. I'm convinced that those with money can get away with just about anything.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by nutmeg22

angelskye, my memory is failing me and again, I go back to John Douglas because I feel he is credible. He said in his opinion a parent wouldn't do that...but has he ever offered a description or profile of who would do that...other than it NOT being a parent?
I am interested in who he thinks would have had a motive and what kind of an intruder planned this crime given all of these strange aspects...garrotte, note, etc.

lol, actually? Someone exactly like Karr, with the deranged mind of Karr.

If you read any of his emails, or listened to the tapes, he fits the profile to a T.

msgatorslayer

08-31-2006, 02:15 PM

Okay, I looked at the acandyrose.com site which shows the search warrants and autopsy findings.

A bowl, spoon, and glass are listed as taken from the home on the 26th.

The coroners report is dated the 27th.

So, the bowl of what I'm guessing to be THE pineapple, was known about before the autopsy was performed. Not saying anyone at this time knew if it was significant or not.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996warrant.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
It bought the intruder time to get away, leave town, hide... get as far away as possible from the scene.... it bought him a LOT of time...

How did leaving that note grant an intruder more time than simply leaving the corpse & hightailing it?

4 people in the house & one of them a corpse in the wine cellar...the police arrive & there is NO WAY they are going to immediately focus on looking for a stranger who has entered, committed murder & gotten away, left town, hidden, etc. They are logically going to FIRST focus on the people in the house who are alive. There attention would not be directed elsewhere until they had cleared the residents.

But with a ransom note - an intruder has immediately told LE to be on the lookout for a suspicious person OUTSIDE the house. Someone who is trying to "get away, leave town, hide", etc.

No ransom note = directs LE attention on the residents in the house.

Ransom note = directs LE attention to look for a perp OUTSIDE the house.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by trt

So, is it your contention that people do not get away with murder(or any other crimes) for years and years, with police having a *suspicion* that it was them without any evidence to support it? I mean, OJ killed two people according to many, yet he was acquitted for it. I'm sure there have been many other, normal, seemingly wonderful people who have done just that. I'm convinced that those with money can get away with just about anything.

OJ didn't go through 10 years of Professional scrutiny. I'm not talking message board posters, I'm talking Professional testing, evaluation, examinations, and a Grand Jury's year-long microscopic search for evidence.

OJ's acquittal had nothing to do with guilt or innocence, and I think you know that.

This isn't just about "the police" having a suspicion. The investigation didn't just stop at "the police".

What is the saying, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not most of the people all of the time." ?

The Ramseys have been turned inside-out, and each time, still have pristine results.

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

lol, actually? Someone exactly like Karr, with the deranged mind of Karr.

If you read any of his emails, or listened to the tapes, he fits the profile to a T.

Ok I accept that. Believe it or not, I have actually nearly forgotten about Karr! I am back to 1996!! Thank you.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Ransom note = directs LE attention to look for a perp OUTSIDE the house.

Not when it's written on the homeowner's paper, using the homeowner's pen, when in fact, the homeowner is naturally, historically and statistically going to be the main suspect to begin with.

Just as you find the ransom note to be odd, as did the BPD, therefore, more time is spent trying to decipher its meaning, which = more time for the Perp to escape, and less focus on the possibility OF a Perp.

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DixieChick

Because you are wrong about the DNA. The updated tests isolated a blood spot (on the underware) with DNA that MATCHES the fingernail dna.

[/QUOTE

Do you have the link for that? The matching DNA info. TIA!

here ya go....

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

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

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

msgatorslayer

08-31-2006, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by trt

Practice aside, if the knots were as intricate and complicated as everyone claims, they would need more than just practice to *perfect* them. And John was ex-navy and a boater, so again, there is more to this than just intruder, case closed.

Unless someone went through that house with a broom, and a vacuum, hours and hours of an intruder roaming around a house could not be erased just by someone walking through, IMO. I mean, John picked up JB, carried her upstairs next to his clothes, took tape off her mouth and tried to remove wrist binds and they were *still* able to gather some evidence off the body. Although, with the bungling of the case, I can see how maybe the police did not conduct a throrough sweep of the house for forensic evidence.

Life experience of an individual has plenty to do with how one perceives the knots. Prior to actually looking at them, I thought they were complicated because I had read that they were so many times.

But after seeing them for myself, they are not complicated to me, personally. That's because I'm an avid boater, fisherwoman, and my Husband manages a Marina. He came home last week with a 'monkey fist' knot for our dogs newest chew toy, lmao.

Not saying that I could replicate that exact knot this moment. But all the knots I do know how to make seemed very difficult when someone first tried teaching me how to make them. I'm a great First Mate now. If someone showed me how to tie the type that was on JBR a few times, I could make it.

bullmoose

08-31-2006, 02:26 PM

But it didn't, the note, that is, make the cops look for anyone outside the home. Think about it, the BPD wouldn't bring in the FBI or the DenverPD; they didn't want to share the credit for catching who they 'knew' was resposible. Bullmoose

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by trt

So, is it your contention that people do not get away with murder(or any other crimes) for years and years, with police having a *suspicion* that it was them without any evidence to support it? I mean, OJ killed two people according to many, yet he was acquitted for it. I'm sure there have been many other, normal, seemingly wonderful people who have done just that. I'm convinced that those with money can get away with just about anything.

Even OJ was found guilty in the civil trial.

I can't think of a murder case (though I'm sure there must be one) where some kind of 'history' didn't develop once LE began looking at a suspect. List certainly had one, OJ, Susan Smith, Diane Downs, Bundy all of them looked fine superficially but it quickly became apparent they were far from what they appeared.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by nutmeg22

Ok I accept that. Believe it or not, I have actually nearly forgotten about Karr! I am back to 1996!! Thank you.

I don't think Karr has been forgotten by the DA, in fact, she excluded him as the killer due to DNA, but he is being further investigated and when all is said and done, just may resurface as having played a very integral role in this crime. ;)

I'm going to lunch. :seeya:

msgatorslayer

08-31-2006, 02:32 PM

Anybody else notice that there are things crossed out on the original search warrants? Wonder what they are and if they have been made public by now.

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

here ya go....

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

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

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

conclusion....

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

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 02:37 PM

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

Not when it's written on the homeowner's paper, using the homeowner's pen, when in fact, the homeowner is naturally, historically and statistically going to be the main suspect to begin with.

Just as you find the ransom note to be odd, as did the BPD, therefore, more time is spent trying to decipher its meaning, which = more time for the Perp to escape, and less focus on the possibility OF a Perp.

But in the first hours before the corpse was found, LE was NOT actively looking at the family - they believed she had been kidnapped. And what meaning could there be at that early stage beyond "we have the child, we want money"? All of that focuses the attention AWAY from the residents. LE was inside the house, NOT looking for her there, for hours. Their attention was on the notion that somebody, somewhere had absconded with the child.

I'd really like to know what OTHER case has ever had this combination of completely bizarre elements. Where an intruder comes into a home, commits murder, leaves the corpse hidden in the house & writes & leaves a ransom note. Do y'all know of ANY other case like that?

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
But it didn't, the note, that is, make the cops look for anyone outside the home. Think about it, the BPD wouldn't bring in the FBI or the DenverPD; they didn't want to share the credit for catching who they 'knew' was resposible. Bullmoose

But Bullmoose, how was the killer to know that the bumbling Boulder PD would NOT look outside for a kidnapper? Did the killer know this ahead of time. If the killer thought that he would buy himself time, he succeeded.....but he did so by virtue of the lack of expertise of the police dept. JMO

Terpmaniac

08-31-2006, 02:44 PM

I would like to clarify my position. I am not saying Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter. But this crime scene reeks of a "staged" crime scene to hide what really happened. I have seen very little evidence pointing towards an intruder and how the intruder could do all that he or she did, going from room to room (without John, Patsy or Burke seeing him or her is amazing to me). I dont know what happened in that house the night JB was killed. But the evidence is clear(at least to me) it was NOT an intruder. JB was killed, by whom and how I dont know, but what followed the injury to her head is nothing more then a pretty poor attempt to point the figure someplace else. I also dont think this case will ever be solved, not ever!

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

But in the first hours before the corpse was found, LE was NOT actively looking at the family - they believed she had been kidnapped. And what meaning could there be at that early stage beyond "we have the child, we want money"? All of that focuses the attention AWAY from the residents. LE was inside the house, NOT looking for her there, for hours. Their attention was on the notion that somebody, somewhere had absconded with the child.

I'd really like to know what OTHER case has ever had this combination of completely bizarre elements. Where an intruder comes into a home, commits murder, leaves the corpse hidden in the house & writes & leaves a ransom note. Do y'all know of ANY other case like that?

Mimi excellent question, I would like to know that, too. What other cases would LE have with which to compare this type of murder. It has been said that this killing has all the earmarks of a sadistic child molester, a pedophile. I would like to know other cases of child murder that had the same aspects...garrotte, ransom note, just like you stated.JMO

kindeekat

08-31-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

here ya go....

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

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

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

That's just someone's claim, not proof. But I do appreciate it
!

breezy1234

08-31-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by trt

I've gotten my *facts* from reading the autopsy reports, transcripts, factual accounts of the case. I wonder though, are you suggesting that only those of you who feel that the Ramseys are innocent are privy to the facts of this case? That those of us who think they may have been involved are only listening to the media? Or is it that everyone has gotten information from the media and interpreted it as they wished? I'm confused as to how *I* must have gotten my info from the media while you insinuate that yours have come from elsewhere? Help me with this.

The ONLY transcripts are the ones from the civil trial. Did you read them? Judge Carnes said there was more evidence an intruder killed JB than her parents did. The autopsy report does NOT say who killed JonBenet. There are NO transcrttps from the GJ and the questions asked by police are not "transcripts", they are simply questions and answers and polcie were not under oath nor did they show the "evidence" they "said" they had...............so therefore you DID get your info from the media.

thewhitewitch1

08-31-2006, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat

And they think the theory that somebody already IN the house committed this atrocious crime is far fetched... :shrug: :beer:

trt

08-31-2006, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

conclusion....

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

Interesting because an article in 2006 stated this:

"The most important sample, experts appear to agree, is a piece of DNA that was mixed with a spot of JonBenet's blood on her underwear. That DNA, recovered in 1999, comes from an unidentified male, and includes 10 genetic markers, enough for it to have been submitted into an FBI database that can match unknown DNA samples with other offenders.

That piece of DNA evidence is separate from poor quality DNA recovered from underneath JonBenet's fingernails and an earlier sample, taken in 1997, from another bloody spot on JonBenet's underpants that yielded fewer genetic markers, Wood told the News on Wednesday. "

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4940501,00.html

This also holds up the logic as to why the DNA from the fingernails or the other blood spot was never entered into CODIS as this other blood spot was. The LE also stated that this information was previously compromised.

"One problem is that the DNA taken from underneath JonBenet's fingernails was compromised. The scalpel used in her autopsy contained DNA from the previous autopsy. However, Grant said that a clean DNA sample was found in JonBenet's underwear, which has never been matched."

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9709195/detail.html

bullmoose

08-31-2006, 03:05 PM

To Nutmeg, I think whoever the killer[s]? was/ were, they probably did have a pretty good idea of how the BPD was going to react. I'm going out on a limb, maybe, but I think this was a thought-out, planned crime that a much smarter than usual killer executed with deliberately contradictory evidence and clues. I of course, do not believe the Ramseys in any way involved beyond being the victims; on the other hand, I think the BPD were totally outclassed by the perpatrator of the crime. Whoever it was, he knew suspicion would land like a boat on the Ramseys, and he did the note to flummox the investigaters, something he did successfully. Like I heard last night 'pedaphiles don't leave ransom notes, kidnappers don't leave dead bodies behind.' So true,and so confusing for the BPD and everyone else who looks at the case; but if you have a spiteful psychopath with smarts, then to me it makes sense. JMO bullmoose

breezy1234

08-31-2006, 03:05 PM

Paisley

08-31-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
Anybody else notice that there are things crossed out on the original search warrants? Wonder what they are and if they have been made public by now. Lacy said there is very little, if anything that is not known to the public at this time. (You can thank certain unethical, former investigators for that.)

Paisley

08-31-2006, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

I don't think Karr has been forgotten by the DA, in fact, she excluded him as the killer due to DNA, but he is being further investigated and when all is said and done, just may resurface as having played a very integral role in this crime. ;)

I'm going to lunch. :seeya: I think it was wise to let him go as soon as the dna was not a match. They know where to find him and continue investigating... She did say though, there are no suspects at this time... is that a smokescreen?

trt

08-31-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Even OJ was found guilty in the civil trial.

I can't think of a murder case (though I'm sure there must be one) where some kind of 'history' didn't develop once LE began looking at a suspect. List certainly had one, OJ, Susan Smith, Diane Downs, Bundy all of them looked fine superficially but it quickly became apparent they were far from what they appeared.

See, but this is because someone accused him of killing their children in a civil trial and there is a preponderance of evidence needed. So we really can't say that the Ramseys would not have been convicted civilly either. They were only sued by others for slander and that's different from responsibility for a crime civilly.

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat

That's just someone's claim, not proof. But I do appreciate it
!

No... these are the crime lab findings as presented to the Grand Jury. It is documented evidence, I have seen it mentioned over and over again. It was in the findings of the Grand Jury as well. Along with the statement that the BPD was "imcompetent". Its comon knowlege.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat

That's just someone's claim, not proof. But I do appreciate it

!

You asked for the link about the DNA in her panties matching the DNA under her fingernails, and you were provided with this link.

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

In this link, Augustin and Gray, who are Detectives working for the Boulder district attorney are quoted:

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

And now you don't want to believe them because it's their claim that the DNA from her panties matches that under her fingernails.

You're making no sense!

They are Detectives working for the DA; you don't think they'd KNOW if the DNA matches or not? They wouldn't be privy to that information?

Unbelieveable! :rolleyes:

trt

08-31-2006, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

The ONLY transcripts are the ones from the civil trial. Did you read them? Judge Carnes said there was more evidence an intruder killed JB than her parents did. The autopsy report does NOT say who killed JonBenet. There are NO transcrttps from the GJ and the questions asked by police are not "transcripts", they are simply questions and answers and polcie were not under oath nor did they show the "evidence" they "said" they had...............so therefore you DID get your info from the media.

I'm confused, I didn't say the autopsy said who killed JB, I have stated plenty of times that I am inclined to believe the parents were involved but that noone knows for sure. I have even entertained that a *known* intruder did this which would explain why it made the ramsey's *seem* guilty. What info are you referring to that I got from the media? As I said, I've based my opinions on the facts(and unknown questions) surrounding this case, and have not haphazardly believed anything put out by the media.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

No... these are the crime lab findings as presented to the Grand Jury. It is documented evidence, I have seen it mentioned over and over again. It was in the findings of the Grand Jury as well. Along with the statement that the BPD was "imcompetent". Its comon knowlege.

After I got over the initial shock of her denying that this information is true, it's actually funny! :biggrin:

angelskye

08-31-2006, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
I think it was wise to let him go as soon as the dna was not a match. They know where to find him and continue investigating... She did say though, there are no suspects at this time... is that a smokescreen?

She's not about to unduly reveal her hand, put it that way.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat

That's just someone's claim, not proof. But I do appreciate it
!

And you have to remember that Augustin and Gray were PIs hired by who else? The Ramseys. So it's not likely they're going to say anything detrimental to the person paying their expenses!

JMO

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
Lacy said there is very little, if anything that is not known to the public at this time. (You can thank certain unethical, former investigators for that.)

On the other hand

Say Karr had been a viable suspect. There are things he can describe about the house that none of us know. For instance what did the chair in the doorway down-cellar look like? Items that were around the house that aren't evidence per se but one would have to have been in the house to know about.

Pruddennce

08-31-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

It said a "Pineapple-LIKE substance", and yes, you're right that the pineapple is throwing people off, because far too much focus is put upon something with too wide of a variance.

Someplace during the investigation it was reported that Pineapple was served at the White's. You might check the link thread, because I'm not sure where that one is.

hi angelskye,

actually the autopsy read: 'contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple.

'which may represent'.

it could have been vegetable.

you are right...too much of a variance....the media all these years and posters say she ate pineapple...and thats not without a doubt factual.

just like it wasnt a fact that JMK 'confessed to murder'. He never said he killed her, but wow, the media 'interpreted' his "I was there' as a confession to personally murdering her.

best regards,
Pru

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

On the other hand

Say Karr had been a viable suspect. There are things he can describe about the house that none of us know. For instance what did the chair in the doorway down-cellar look like? Items that were around the house that aren't evidence per se but one would have to have been in the house to know about.

One would think Karr would have been able to describe a LOT about that house. For example, did the Ramseys have a piano? If so, where was it located.

But Karr would probably just say he was so focused on JB he couldn't remember.

JMO

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To Nutmeg, I think whoever the killer[s]? was/ were, they probably did have a pretty good idea of how the BPD was going to react. I'm going out on a limb, maybe, but I think this was a thought-out, planned crime that a much smarter than usual killer executed with deliberately contradictory evidence and clues. I of course, do not believe the Ramseys in any way involved beyond being the victims; on the other hand, I think the BPD were totally outclassed by the perpatrator of the crime. Whoever it was, he knew suspicion would land like a boat on the Ramseys, and he did the note to flummox the investigaters, something he did successfully. Like I heard last night 'pedaphiles don't leave ransom notes, kidnappers don't leave dead bodies behind.' So true,and so confusing for the BPD and everyone else who looks at the case; but if you have a spiteful psychopath with smarts, then to me it makes sense. JMO bullmoose

I agree completely. I have always believed it was a vengeful murder by someone who knows the Ramsey's. Particularly someone who hates John. I'm not sure its a pedophile, just a sick psycopath who wanted to hurt them and destroy their lives.

msgatorslayer

08-31-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
Lacy said there is very little, if anything that is not known to the public at this time. (You can thank certain unethical, former investigators for that.)

Yeah, I watched the NC and heard her say that. Wishful thinking on my part that she may be withholding the truth and that there is something still unknown.

I wish those investigator's had kept their pie holes shut cause there are quite a few things blacked out on the original search warrants. Back in the initial days, it looks like LE kept a few things secret. :punch:

kindeekat

08-31-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

And you have to remember that Augustin and Gray were PIs hired by who else? The Ramseys. So it's not likely they're going to say anything detrimental to the person paying their expenses!

JMO

And I DID go look but saw nothing but that self-serving claim to support the allegation the DNA samples "match".

Everything I have seen exCEPT that statement has refuted it.

trt

08-31-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

You asked for the link about the DNA in her panties matching the DNA under her fingernails, and you were provided with this link.

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

In this link, Augustin and Gray, who are Detectives working for the Boulder district attorney are quoted:

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

And now you don't want to believe them because it's their claim that the DNA from her panties matches that under her fingernails.

You're making no sense!

They are Detectives working for the DA; you don't think they'd KNOW if the DNA matches or not? They wouldn't be privy to that information?

Unbelieveable! :rolleyes:

But hasn't it been stated several times here that the Boulder LE was incompetent and gave out false info constantly? The only logical explanation to the fact that there is only one *complete* DNA strain in the CODIS system for this case is that there was only one *viable* and *uncompromised* piece of DNA evidence. Or does someone else have an explanation for why they would register one piece as official and not register the other?

Paisley

08-31-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

On the other hand

Say Karr had been a viable suspect. There are things he can describe about the house that none of us know. For instance what did the chair in the doorway down-cellar look like? Items that were around the house that aren't evidence per se but one would have to have been in the house to know about. Right, but his answer is... oh I can't remember the details after she died... or some remark like that...I recall a report that the DA had interviewed family members... they were adamant he was NOT in Boulder at the time of the murder... I think they need to go back to square one.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Pruddennce

hi angelskye,

actually the autopsy read: 'contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple.

'which may represent'.

it could have been vegetable.

you are right...too much of a variance....the media all these years and posters say she ate pineapple...and thats not without a doubt factual.

just like it wasnt a fact that JMK 'confessed to murder'. He never said he killed her, but wow, the media 'interpreted' his "I was there' as a confession to personally murdering her.

best regards,
Pru

True about the pineapple, but I disagree about Karr's confession.

You're right, he continually used the term, "I was there", but he also stated AND detailed that he killed her in the emails, as well as he stated in Thailand when told of the pending charges of first degree murder, "It should be second degree, she died accidentally." - so that admits involvement in her actual murder.

breezy1234

08-31-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by trt

I'm confused, I didn't say the autopsy said who killed JB, I have stated plenty of times that I am inclined to believe the parents were involved but that noone knows for sure. I have even entertained that a *known* intruder did this which would explain why it made the ramsey's *seem* guilty. What info are you referring to that I got from the media? As I said, I've based my opinions on the facts(and unknown questions) surrounding this case, and have not haphazardly believed anything put out by the media.

YOUR posts.........Originally posted by trt

I've gotten my *facts* from reading the autopsy reports, transcripts, factual accounts of the case. I wonder though, are you suggesting that only those of you who feel that the Ramseys are innocent are privy to the facts of this case? That those of us who think they may have been involved are only listening to the media? Or is it that everyone has gotten information from the media and interpreted it as they wished? I'm confused as to how *I* must have gotten my info from the media while you insinuate that yours have come from elsewhere? Help me with this.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

I agree completely. I have always believed it was a vengeful murder by someone who knows the Ramsey's. Particularly someone who hates John. I'm not sure its a pedophile, just a sick psycopath who wanted to hurt them and destroy their lives.

It seems like many of the people who firmly believed it was Karr, before he was ruled out, are now turning to the theory that it was someone who hated John Ramsey.

It's just my opinion, but that seems like grasping at straws.

Just as there's no evidence that John and Patsy Ramsey abused their children at any time, there's no evidence that anyone hated John Ramsey.

JMO

trt

08-31-2006, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

No... these are the crime lab findings as presented to the Grand Jury. It is documented evidence, I have seen it mentioned over and over again. It was in the findings of the Grand Jury as well. Along with the statement that the BPD was "imcompetent". Its comon knowlege.

Could you link us to the grand jury testimony that stated this?

angelskye

08-31-2006, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer

Yeah, I watched the NC and heard her say that. Wishful thinking on my part that she may be withholding the truth and that there is something still unknown.

I wish those investigator's had kept their pie holes shut cause there are quite a few things blacked out on the original search warrants. Back in the initial days, it looks like LE kept a few things secret. :punch:

They couldn't keep their pie holes shut because they were attempting to do damage control.

Their OWN damage!

kindeekat

08-31-2006, 03:29 PM

trt

08-31-2006, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

YOUR posts.........Originally posted by trt

I've gotten my *facts* from reading the autopsy reports, transcripts, factual accounts of the case. I wonder though, are you suggesting that only those of you who feel that the Ramseys are innocent are privy to the facts of this case? That those of us who think they may have been involved are only listening to the media? Or is it that everyone has gotten information from the media and interpreted it as they wished? I'm confused as to how *I* must have gotten my info from the media while you insinuate that yours have come from elsewhere? Help me with this.

I don't get your point? Nothing I said in the two posts contradict each other. I am still confused as to how you believe that one *must* be listening to the media because they think the Ramsey's may have been involved?

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

After I got over the initial shock of her denying that this information is true, it's actually funny! :biggrin:

;) Some people are still living back in 1996 and swallowing the BPD bull----.

"no sign of an intruder" ..... :shrug:

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by trt

But hasn't it been stated several times here that the Boulder LE was incompetent and gave out false info constantly? The only logical explanation to the fact that there is only one *complete* DNA strain in the CODIS system for this case is that there was only one *viable* and *uncompromised* piece of DNA evidence. Or does someone else have an explanation for why they would register one piece as official and not register the other?

Augustin and Gray were hired by the Ramseys.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/17/lkl.01.html

You need to scroll down a bit.

Pruddennce

08-31-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
I dont see how the pineappele is a side show......

Autopsy says that there is pineapple like substance in her stomache, not hotdog like substance........whether or not she ate pineapple at the whites party, There was a bowl of pinapple on the kitchen counter with patsy and burkes prints on the bowl. Noone in that house recalls eating pineapple in the kitchen that night.

Im not an investigator or anything such as that but i know that this isnt something that should be dismissed

hi jerzeegirl,

actually the 'fragmented pieces that may be pineapple' were in her small intestine...light green and tan colored. Her stomach contained a viscous to green to tan thick mucous material, without particulate matter identified."

best regards,
Pru

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
Right, but his answer is... oh I can't remember the details after she died... or some remark like that...I recall a report that the DA had interviewed family members... they were adamant he was NOT in Boulder at the time of the murder... I think they need to go back to square one.

I agree. Since he wasn't there he wouldn't have been able to answer. But I think if you did have a viable perp who was confessing he would be able to answer at least some questions which one would only know if one had been in the house.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

;) Some people are still living back in 1996 and swallowing the BPD bull----.

"no sign of an intruder" ..... :shrug:

lol, you honestly have to laugh.

Add these Detectives who work directly for the DA to the list now.

You know, that ever-growing list of people that we DON'T believe so as to keep our head in the sand -

Judge Carnes, the DA, Grand Jury, several of the original BPD Detectives who have since spoken out in favor of the Ramsey's innocence, and now these 2 Detectives.

Hell yeah, they're all liars! :biggrin:

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by trt

I don't get your point? Nothing I said in the two posts contradict each other. I am still confused as to how you believe that one *must* be listening to the media because they think the Ramsey's may have been involved?

because the media convicted the Ramsey's with NO EVIDENCE.
All supplied by the incompetent BPD!

Paisley

08-31-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

I agree. Since he wasn't there he wouldn't have been able to answer. But I think if you did have a viable perp who was confessing he would be able to answer at least some questions which one would only know if one had been in the house. Exactly!

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

here ya go....

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

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

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

Augustin and Gray are as reliable as Steve Thomas. While he's pro-Ramsey guilt, A&G are pro-Ramsey innocence. John was the one providing their paycheck! He hired them!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/17/lkl.01.html

What they say can't be trusted.

JMO

Paisley

08-31-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by trt

Could you link us to the grand jury testimony that stated this? It sounds to me like you need to do some research of your own.

samsong

08-31-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Augustin and Gray were hired by the Ramseys.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/17/lkl.01.html

You need to scroll down a bit.

I know. I always have to laugh when I see this link appear. I would no more believe their spin than I would any other biased source on either side. They almost have to keep the "intruder" theory alive or the well will dry up.

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

lol, you honestly have to laugh.

Add these Detectives who work directly for the DA to the list now.

You know, that ever-growing list of people that we DON'T believe so as to keep our head in the sand -

Judge Carnes, the DA, Grand Jury, several of the original BPD Detectives who have since spoken out in favor of the Ramsey's innocence, and now these 2 Detectives.

Hell yeah, they're all liars! :biggrin:

I do find it interesting that there are many experienced experts, who have spent (in some cases) decades solving crimes or prosecuting criminals; who have seen the evidence AND interviewed the parents and have come to the conclusion the parents are innocent. Usually the explanation is the Ramseys bought them off. The Ramseys were only worth 6 million and yet people say they bought Carnes, Douglas, Smit, Boylan, Walsh, Abrams, van Susteren, etc. etc.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by samsong

I know. I always have to laugh when I see this link appear. I would no more believe their spin than I would any other biased source on either side. They almost have to keep the "intruder" theory alive or the well will dry up.

Me, too. They weren't going to bite the hand that fed them. In this case, maybe literally, since John was supplying their paycheck! LOL

IMO, they had more reason to lie than Steve Thomas did.

JMO

angelskye

08-31-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

I do find it interesting that there are many experienced experts, who have spent (in some cases) decades solving crimes or prosecuting criminals; who have seen the evidence AND interviewed the parents and have come to the conclusion the parents are innocent. Usually the explanation is the Ramseys bought them off. The Ramseys were only worth 6 million and yet people say they bought Carnes, Douglas, Smit, Boylan, Walsh, Abrams, van Susteren, etc. etc.

lol, well then, they're not only liars, they're cheap liars!

Yeah, that's it, the bunch of scoundrel, no-good Professional cheap liars, the whole bunch of 'em! :biggrin:

bullmoose

08-31-2006, 03:56 PM

:lol: Yep, probably just bought at Wallyworld.:biggrin: bullmoose

samsong

08-31-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Me, too. They weren't going to bite the hand that fed them. In this case, maybe literally, since John was supplying their paycheck! LOL

IMO, they had more reason to lie than Steve Thomas did.

JMO

I know and then when you throw in the rest of the cast of characters, it is no small wonder that this case is hyped the way it has been.

breezy1234

08-31-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Pruddennce

*snipped*
just like it wasnt a fact that JMK 'confessed to murder'. He never said he killed her, but wow, the media 'interpreted' his "I was there' as a confession to personally murdering her.

best regards,
Pru

Yes he did confess to murder and explained exactly how it was done on the phone calls.

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Augustin and Gray are as reliable as Steve Thomas. While he's pro-Ramsey guilt, A&G are pro-Ramsey innocence. John was the one providing their paycheck! He hired them!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/17/lkl.01.html

What they say can't be trusted.

JMO

Thanks for that link. Excerpt here...

JOHN ST. AUGUSTIN, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: My thoughts on the arrest, obviously, you know, Ollie and I have been working on behalf of the family for the last, you know, seven years, and our feeling is that this is a step in the right direction. We've always thought that the Ramseys were not involved in the murder of their daughter and the fact that there has been an active investigation into a possible intruder, this is definitely a good step in the right direction.

Paisley

08-31-2006, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I don't know of anyone who FIRMLY believed it was Karr. Most people I saw posting wanted to wait for the DNA.

And with regard to people who hated John Ramsey - yes, there was at least one individual who hated John Ramsey. :read: I hoped to hell it was Karr... JonBenet deserves justice and closure.

jerzeegirl

08-31-2006, 04:06 PM

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Thanks for that link. Excerpt here...

JOHN ST. AUGUSTIN, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: My thoughts on the arrest, obviously, you know, Ollie and I have been working on behalf of the family for the last, you know, seven years, and our feeling is that this is a step in the right direction. We've always thought that the Ramseys were not involved in the murder of their daughter and the fact that there has been an active investigation into a possible intruder, this is definitely a good step in the right direction.

Actually, the fact that the Ramseys are still paying for investigators after all this time is one of the facts that points towards their innocence. How many investigators and experts has OJ paid for lately?

trt

08-31-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

because the media convicted the Ramsey's with NO EVIDENCE.
All supplied by the incompetent BPD!

But THAT has nothing to with my belief that they may be involved. YOu alll have your answers to the questions surrounding this case and they lead you to the assertion that they are not guilty. I have questions which lead me to the assertion that they *MAY* be involved. To suggest that because I question their innocence, I'm only listening to the media is unfounded at best.

BTW, were you able to find the grand jury transcript that stated that the underwear DNA and the fingernail DNA were a match?

trt

08-31-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
It sounds to me like you need to do some research of your own.

I don't see why I would need to research something that was stated as fact here by another poster. I have not found this in reading what I have read, so I asked for a link. Why should I now have to research this on my own? Isn't it a rule here that you have to back up things that you state as fact?

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I don't know of anyone who FIRMLY believed it was Karr. Most people I saw posting wanted to wait for the DNA.

[...]

I agree. Even in the most avidly pro-Ramsey forum there was an initial Whoopee! and then a 'let's wait and see the evidence before we get too enthused' attitude. There was only one forum where waiting was not the general atmosphere and that forum was running around trying to put together a press release to show why it still had to be the Ramseys who were guilty.

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Actually, the fact that the Ramseys are still paying for investigators after all this time is one of the facts that points towards their innocence. How many investigators and experts has OJ paid for lately?

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I do not believe we know (or at least I don't know) how much work they have done over the years, what their compensation has been, or anything else other than they are in the Ramsey "camp" (so to speak) & are believers in the intruder theory. I seriously doubt John Ramsey is paying them to investigate the murder from beginning to end - but is paying them to investigate & follow leads which would focus on everyone OTHER than the residents of the household.

Each side has it's believers. If it is valid to point out that Thomas is biased, it is equally valid to point out that A&G are also biased.

As Upton Sinclair pointed out...

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by trt

I don't see why I would need to research something that was stated as fact here by another poster. I have not found this in reading what I have read, so I asked for a link. Why should I now have to research this on my own? Isn't it a rule here that you have to back up things that you state as fact?

Yes, it is a rule.

You assert something as factual, you provide the link.

AladaLuv

08-31-2006, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Pruddennce

hi jerzeegirl,

actually the 'fragmented pieces that may be pineapple' were in her small intestine...light green and tan colored. Her stomach contained a viscous to green to tan thick mucous material, without particulate matter identified."

best regards,
Pru

Sorry to butt in... but this made me laugh! The theory, not you!

Science can and separate two different types of DNA out of a blood spot, and yet, in your theory, they can't tell a piece of Pineapple from a Vegie? OMG... I thought I had heard it all! And if this is correct, as I am not challenging you, it leaves me dumbfounded!:confused:

:seeya:

Paisley

08-31-2006, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by trt

I don't see why I would need to research something that was stated as fact here by another poster. I have not found this in reading what I have read, so I asked for a link. Why should I now have to research this on my own? Isn't it a rule here that you have to back up things that you state as fact? Because if you really want to form your own opinion, not influenced by others, you should do your own research. The message boards are not a good place. There is a sticky at the top here though that will give you a start.

bandit's mom

08-31-2006, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Actually, the fact that the Ramseys are still paying for investigators after all this time is one of the facts that points towards their innocence. How many investigators and experts has OJ paid for lately?

Maybe in your world. In my world, I find it amazing that the same
people who write off Steve Thomas as having his own agenda,
hang onto the word of Ramsey employees as if it's gospel.
Like their annoying attorney that shows up on every show
he can. I immediately write off anything the man says. He's
an employee of the Ramsey's. Even if he KNEW they were
guilty, lawyer/client privilege would keep him from disclosing it,
so why would I care what rhetoric he wants to spill?

I'm not 100% convinced of the Ramsey's guilt, but I still
think everything points to them far more than to the
"outside" intruder theory. Basically, it's that damn common
sense gene that keeps pulling me back to that.

hohum

08-31-2006, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Yes, it is a rule.

You assert something as factual, you provide the link.

LOL I think just about everything pertaining to this case has been linked at least 100 times. Or so it seems.

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

It seems like many of the people who firmly believed it was Karr, before he was ruled out, are now turning to the theory that it was someone who hated John Ramsey.

It's just my opinion, but that seems like grasping at straws.

Just as there's no evidence that John and Patsy Ramsey abused their children at any time, there's no evidence that anyone hated John Ramsey.

JMO

It has always been my opinion that it was an intruder. When Karr surfaced and admitted to it, I was waiting to hear if there was a connection between he and the Ramsey's, maybe years back in Atlanta. And I admit I was hoping it was Karr and the case would be solved. Just because it wasn't Karr, does not mean it is the Ramsey's! That is nonsense. If DNA cleared Karr, it also clears the Ramsey's....

Paisley

08-31-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by hohum

LOL I think just about everything pertaining to this case has been linked at least 100 times. Or so it seems. Yes, but sometimes those links lead to media releases (which are not always accurate) and other message board postings.. ..

There are a few good ones that actually link to real documents though. Well, they appear to be real anyway.. Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.

Mashey46

08-31-2006, 04:58 PM

I keep thinking about what Wendy Murphy has said over and over...

She is definitive that the parents are guilty...overly outspoken...because there are old and new vaginal injuries...to this precious child...so how do they explain the old injuries? Something a peditrician should have investigated long long ago....

I, unfortunately, found the Ramsey's always incredibly truthful that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of their child...

While Patsy Ramsey couldn't be totally ruled out with regard to the handwritting analysis....I find it even MORE INCRIMINATING that the ransom note was signed 'Victory...SBTC'...so did Patsy Ramsey know JMK, or someone in his grad class, did Patsey Ramsey viewed or know someone who viewed and always remembered that unique closing to plop it down on the ransom note??????

I just can't understand how authorities have ignored this signing on the ransom note as it showed up in a year book JMK signed?

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat

That's just someone's claim, not proof. But I do appreciate it
!

Exactly!!!!

And that theory printed in an article by cbsnews has NEVER been repeated in any other article or uttered by any other person EVER, that I have ever been able to find.

I think that was an outright LIE and one that was probably disputed and died a quick death.

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
Because if you really want to form your own opinion, not influenced by others, you should do your own research. The message boards are not a good place. There is a sticky at the top here though that will give you a start.

Exactly. I provided a link regarding the DNA match. If they want to see the Grand Jury ruling they can look it up for themslves. :rolleyes:

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Exactly!!!!

And that theory printed in an article by cbsnews has NEVER been repeated in any other article or uttered by any other person EVER, that I have ever been able to find.

I think that was an outright LIE and one that was probably disputed and died a quick death.

Guess you haven't been listening to the experts on Greta, LKL, etc. discussing it.

Better brush up on the facts.

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

Exactly. I provided a link regarding the DNA match. If they want to see the Grand Jury ruling they can look it up for themslves. :rolleyes:

I don't think your link was a good source.

(See my prvious post)

bullmoose

08-31-2006, 05:16 PM

I wouldn't call it grasping at straws to theororize that the killer was someone who hated the Ramseys; to me it is a theory that I hold because its seems to me to make the most sense, considering all the facts as I know them. Others have other theories; thats fine, I read the posts and consider the arguments pro and con; but the one that makes best sense to me is a smart psychopath determined to ruin the Ramseys. It makes sense to me in large part because I have known someone of that kind of personality disorder; they seem normal until you realize, through experience, that they are anything but normal. And they are capable of any kind of evil without a second thought because they have no real conscience. bullmoose:shrug:

Paisley

08-31-2006, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
I wouldn't call it grasping at straws to theororize that the killer was someone who hated the Ramseys; to me it is a theory that I hold because its seems to me to make the most sense, considering all the facts as I know them. Others have other theories; thats fine, I read the posts and consider the arguments pro and con; but the one that makes best sense to me is a smart psychopath determined to ruin the Ramseys. It makes sense to me in large part because I have known someone of that kind of personality disorder; they seem normal until you realize, through experience, that they are anything but normal. And they are capable of any kind of evil without a second thought because they have no real conscience. bullmoose:shrug: Thank you! :seeya:

Paisley

08-31-2006, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

Exactly. I provided a link regarding the DNA match. If they want to see the Grand Jury ruling they can look it up for themslves. :rolleyes: :beer:

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by angelskye
[B]

Judge Carnes, the DA, Grand Jury, several of the original BPD Detectives who have since spoken out in favor of the Ramsey's innocence, and now these 2 Detectives.

]

Nope.

All they said was that it's more likely that an intruder did the crime than the Ramseys.

They never said an intruder DEFINITELY did the crme & they NEVER, EVER excluded the Ramseys. Not a peep about the innocence of the Ramseys.

Pruddennce

08-31-2006, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by AladaLuv

Sorry to butt in... but this made me laugh! The theory, not you!

Science can and separate two different types of DNA out of a blood spot, and yet, in your theory, they can't tell a piece of Pineapple from a Vegie? OMG... I thought I had heard it all! And if this is correct, as I am not challenging you, it leaves me dumbfounded!:confused:

:seeya:

Hi AladaLuv,

I stated word by word what the autopsy was...(not my interpretation), regarding the stomach contents and small intestine....

and yes it is amazing, isnt it? lol

best regarsd,
Pru

Pruddennce

08-31-2006, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by jerzeegirl

i read his emails, he confessed

I havent read his emails; what I was referring to was:

when he was in Thailand, and spoke to the media...he never ever said "I KILLED"....the media reported it as a 'confession' and subsequently back-peddalled that report once other tid bits were thrown their way; and one such request by the victim's father was: not to rush to judgement.

in his emails, does he say "I killed", or any other "I" regarding her murder?

I have to be honest, dont know when I wil ever get around to reading them. But at this point, I think they are unimportant regarding this case now. Im sure they will end up in a book...

best regards,
Pru

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Pruddennce

Hi AladaLuv,

I stated word by word what the autopsy was...(not my interpretation), regarding the stomach contents and small intestine....

and yes it is amazing, isnt it? lol

best regarsd,
Pru

I think it's more likely that they didn't know the signifigance of the findings when they did the autopsy.

Remember, this was done BEFORE the police had interviewed the parents formally and the doctors didn't know the EXACT stomach contents would be so important to the case.

All we know for sure is that the Ramseys claim they have NO IDEA when JB ate the pineapple. The Whites did NOT serve pineapple at their party.

taxicatz

08-31-2006, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

Have you read the handwriting analysis regarding the Ramson note? It is hours of reading, I felt like you did about the Ramsey's until I read that report. It is very damaging to Patsy. They analyize not only the handwriting but also the form in which it is written. I assure you if you read it, it will floor you. I know it floored me. But, like I said be it is very very long.

do you have a link to the ransom note?

Pruddennce

08-31-2006, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

I think it's more likely that they didn't know the signifigance of the findings when they did the autopsy.

Remember, this was done BEFORE the police had interviewed the parents formally and the doctors didn't know the EXACT stomach contents would be so important to the case.

All we know for sure is that the Ramseys claim they have NO IDEA when JB ate the pineapple. The Whites did NOT serve pineapple at their party.

I agree with you LI_Mom...the significance of precisely identifying what she ate was not addressed at autopsy.

I guess what I am hammering at is that it wasnt confirmed...yet reports keep getting passed around all these years is that she ate pineapple.

may be fruit or vegetable, may be pineapple. it was undetermined, yet it is being referred to as factual when coming up with 'theories'.

best regards,
Pru

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Mashey46
I keep thinking about what Wendy Murphy has said over and over...

She is definitive that the parents are guilty...overly outspoken...because there are old and new vaginal injuries...to this precious child...so how do they explain the old injuries? Something a peditrician should have investigated long long ago....

I, unfortunately, found the Ramsey's always incredibly truthful that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of their child...

While Patsy Ramsey couldn't be totally ruled out with regard to the handwritting analysis....I find it even MORE INCRIMINATING that the ransom note was signed 'Victory...SBTC'...so did Patsy Ramsey know JMK, or someone in his grad class, did Patsey Ramsey viewed or know someone who viewed and always remembered that unique closing to plop it down on the ransom note??????

I just can't understand how authorities have ignored this signing on the ransom note as it showed up in a year book JMK signed?

But Karr didn't really sign it S.B.T.C., did he?

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/08/smoking_gun_joh.html

He wrote "I shall be the conqueror...."

Many Southern Christians sign things S.B.T.C. meaning Saved By The Cross, so it's a toss up to me.

JMO

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by taxicatz

do you have a link to the ransom note?

Here's one link with it - & an analysis.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

AladaLuv

08-31-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Pruddennce

Hi AladaLuv,

I stated word by word what the autopsy was...(not my interpretation), regarding the stomach contents and small intestine....

and yes it is amazing, isnt it? lol

best regarsd,
Pru

Hey you!

Truely amazing if you ask me! And if it's a fact that it wasn't served at the party they attended that night... and the Ramsey's say they didn't eat any pineapple, then a bowl of pineapple is found on the kitchen table with Patsy and Burk's fingerprints on it... one would think establishing whether or not it was in FACT pineapple within her stomach would be a priority!

And if they cannot tell the difference or scientifically prove it was or was not pineapple in her stomach... I have lost all faith in our Scientists and really begin to wonder if in fact they can establish DNA and such! Yes, I'm being sarcastic!:D This subject alone is mind numbing... I mean commmmmmon, this is a murder investigation! If I wasn't so on the fense about all of this... one might think they didn't completely identify the contents of her stomach on purpose!:rolleyes:

:seeya:

All IMO

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by taxicatz

do you have a link to the ransom note?

Here's a link to one analysis of the ransom note, but I think there is a longer analysis somewhere. I've read one, but can't find it now.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

taxicatz

08-31-2006, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

I have thought about this myself. Remember I am speculating, I am a fence sitter. Patsy and John by all accounts were great parents, who would do anything for their children. Now, knowing that, if Burke accidentally killed Jonbenet, what lengths do you think they would go to in order to protect him. If they knew Jonbenet was dead, their precious baby, gone, wouldnt they do everything in their power to keep what was left of the family together? I think it is possible.

i agree, i still think burke was involved and covered up by patsy and john. does anyone know where he other boy was during the holidays, i thought he was home from college during the holidays.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Here's one link with it - & an analysis.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

Sorry, I didn't mean to duplicate your link. It wasn't there when I posted. Apologies.

I think there is a much longer analysis out there, but I can't find it right now.

taxicatz

08-31-2006, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Here's a link to one analysis of the ransom note, but I think there is a longer analysis somewhere. I've read one, but can't find it now.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

thank you sunsplashed;)

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 05:59 PM

An online textbook at Colorado State University notes that "it is difficult to state with any precision how long ingesta remains in the stomach, small intestine and large intestine. Nonetheless, there have been many studies on GI transit, and the table below presents rough estimates for transit times in healthy humans following ingestion of a standard meal (i.e. solid, mixed foods).

50% of stomach contents emptied 2.5 to 3 hours
Total emptying of the stomach 4 to 5 hours
50% emptying of the small intestine 2.5 to 3 hours
Transit through the colon 30 to 40 hours

"However, one Boulder medical examiner stated it could have been eaten as early as 4:30PM--before the Ramseys left their home for a dinner at the White's" (Schiller 1999a: 558).

taxicatz

08-31-2006, 06:01 PM

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 06:02 PM

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Pruddennce

I agree with you LI_Mom...the significance of precisely identifying what she ate was not addressed at autopsy.

I guess what I am hammering at is that it wasnt confirmed...yet reports keep getting passed around all these years is that she ate pineapple.

may be fruit or vegetable, may be pineapple. it was undetermined, yet it is being referred to as factual when coming up with 'theories'.

best regards,
Pru

I guess it hasn't been proven scientifically but we DO know there was a bowl on the table with pineapple and we do see the autopsy report mentions contents that look like pineapple so it's a very fair assumption that she ate pineapple.

IMO, even if she DIDN'T eat pineapple, the pineapple is STILL signifigant because the Ramseys themselves claim they didn't eat anything after they got home & they claim they have no idea where the pineapple came from.

So really, we'd be back to square one... would an intruder break into their home & snack on pineapple while he's waiting to kidnap a child? An intruder who picked a bowl that had Patsy's & Burke's fingerprints and a glass that only had Burke's fingerprints?

He'd be taking a chance that his/her dna would be left in the inside of the bowl with the unfinished food, wouldn't he?

The scenario is too strange to NOT suspect the Ramseys were lying.

AladaLuv

08-31-2006, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick
An online textbook at Colorado State University notes that "it is difficult to state with any precision how long ingesta remains in the stomach, small intestine and large intestine. Nonetheless, there have been many studies on GI transit, and the table below presents rough estimates for transit times in healthy humans following ingestion of a standard meal (i.e. solid, mixed foods).

50% of stomach contents emptied 2.5 to 3 hours
Total emptying of the stomach 4 to 5 hours
50% emptying of the small intestine 2.5 to 3 hours
Transit through the colon 30 to 40 hours

Thanks for the info DixieChick!

However, that doesn't negate that they found a substance within her stomach that they have not conclusively identified as pineapple (looks like). If they found anything at all, they should have conclusively identified it. Also, if the stomach is totally emptied within 4 to 5 hours... the pineapple in her stomach is even more significant... as is the fact that there is a bowl of it on the table within the house and it is confirmed that there wasn't any at the party.

Dang... this is frustrating.:seeya:

All IMO

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by taxicatz

also, does anyone have a link to a copy of the exact written note, was that ever posted? i'd like to view the handwriting.

Here is a link to a copy of the handwritten note:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

Exactly. I provided a link regarding the DNA match. If they want to see the Grand Jury ruling they can look it up for themslves. :rolleyes:

I, myself, did not find that link credible.

JMO

taxicatz

08-31-2006, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Here is a link to a copy of the handwritten note:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html

many thanks again sunsplashed, you're my hero:)

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

But Karr didn't really sign it S.B.T.C., did he?

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/08/smoking_gun_joh.html

He wrote "I shall be the conqueror...."

Many Southern Christians sign things S.B.T.C. meaning Saved By The Cross, so it's a toss up to me.

JMO

And then there is the Subic Bay Training Center possibility.

But I have no idea what the writer intended to convey with it, either.

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

And then there is the Subic Bay Training Center possibility.

But I have no idea what the writer intended to convey with it, either.

John Ramsey said himself: the plaque in his den did NOT say Subic Bay Training Center.

When John was stationed there, there was NO such thing as a Subic Bay Training Center.

taxicatz

08-31-2006, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Here is a link to a copy of the handwritten note:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html

sunsplashed, is there any handwriting notes of patsy for comparison?

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by jerzeegirl

i read his emails, he confessed

More than 200 people confessed to kidnapping Charles Lindburgh's son.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/18/false.confessions.ap/index.html

All of them couldn't have done it.

JMO

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by taxicatz

sunsplashed, is there any handwriting notes of patsy for comparison?

Yes, there is a site that gives a comparison. I'll try to find it for you. BRB

bullmoose

08-31-2006, 06:18 PM

To sunsplashed: I am curious, have you actually met Jeffery Mac Donald or are you saying that you know of him? And although he was convicted of the crime, he has always denied having done it. Did he admit to you? As far as I know he has refused parole because of the condition that he take responsibility for the murders of his family. I'm very curious. bullmoose:confused:

Mimi428

08-31-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I've met a parent (Jeffrey MacDonald) who murdered his entire family in a horrific manner.

For me, it's a stretch to assume that someone out to ruin John would also be a psychopath capable of a sadistic murder.

Most parents who kill their children seemed caring and loving prior to the murder.

JMO

Honestly, there is much about this case that reminds me of McDonald. The flying off in a rage over the bedwetting - then having to finish everything off by killing the youngest child with the ice pick (an entirely different cause of death than the 1st two died from).

To me, there are parallels in that to the theory that JonBenet was severely injured (without intent to murder) after a bedwetting incident - & when the realization hit just how badly she was hurt, the garrote was created & used to finish it.

JMO & my apologies for going sorta O/T.

hohum

08-31-2006, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I've met a parent (Jeffrey MacDonald) who murdered his entire family in a horrific manner.

For me, it's a stretch to assume that someone out to ruin John would also be a psychopath capable of a sadistic murder.

Most parents who kill their children seemed caring and loving prior to the murder.

JMO

MacDonald was having an affair while married with children.

MacDonald was taking amphetamines at the time of the slaughter of his family.

MacDonald had not slept for 30+ hours before the murders, most likely due to the amphetamines.

MacDonald exhibited a violent temper.

How does MacDonald compare to John Ramsey?

hohum

08-31-2006, 06:23 PM

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by taxicatz

sunsplashed, is there any handwriting notes of patsy for comparison?

There is a better site, but you can find examples of Patsy's handwriting here:

http://blabbieville.tripod.com/

taxicatz

08-31-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

There is a better site, but you can find examples of Patsy's handwriting here:

http://blabbieville.tripod.com/

you're priceless:)

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by hohum

MacDonald was having an affair while married with children.

MacDonald was taking amphetamines at the time of the slaughter of his family.

MacDonald had not slept for 30+ hours before the murders, most likely due to the amphetamines.

MacDonald exhibited a violent temper.

How does MacDonald compare to John Ramsey?

MacDonald was NOT having an affair prior to the murders. He admits to spending one night with a woman while away, but neither he nor the woman wanted to continue with the assignation.

It had never been proven that MacDonald was taking amphetamines at any time. Even Joe McGuiness, in the civil trial against him says he doubted that MacDonald was.

There is no evidence that MacDonald hadn't slept for more than thirty hours prior to the murders.

MacDonald never exhibited a violent temper prior to the murders. He was loved by his wife and daughters, and very, very respected by those he worked with.

My proof is from my private notes, but since I'm not going to share those, I'll have to refer people to the books Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice.

http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Justice-Reinvestigating-Macdonald-Murders/dp/0393315444/sr=8-1/qid=1157063541/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8491721-6064707?ie=UTF8&s=books

While I believe MacDonald guilty, there is NO evidence he was taking amphetamines, had a violent temper, etc.

Please stick to proven facts.

My opinion, I guess.

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 06:34 PM

Ex-detective admits withholding notes
A former Boulder detective admitted she withheld notes taken during the first two weeks of the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation and never filed a report on their contents, which a police attorney repeatedly described as critical to prosecuting the killer.
Full story

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by taxicatz

you're priceless:)

You're welcome! :) And thank you! :)

taxicatz

08-31-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

MacDonald was NOT having an affair prior to the murders. He admits to spending one night with a woman while away, but neither he nor the woman wanted to continue with the assignation.

It had never been proven that MacDonald was taking amphetamines at any time. Even Joe McGuiness, in the civil trial against him says he doubted that MacDonald was.

There is no evidence that MacDonald hadn't slept for more than thirty hours prior to the murders.

MacDonald never exhibited a violent temper prior to the murders. He was loved by his wife and daughters, and very, very respected by those he worked with.

My proof is from my private notes, but since I'm not going to share those, I'll have to refer people to the books Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice.

http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Justice-Reinvestigating-Macdonald-Murders/dp/0393315444/sr=8-1/qid=1157063541/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8491721-6064707?ie=UTF8&s=books

While I believe MacDonald guilty, there is NO evidence he was taking amphetamines, had a violent temper, etc.

Please stick to proven facts.

My opinion, I guess.

read both books several years ago, i believed he did it.

hohum

08-31-2006, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

MacDonald was NOT having an affair prior to the murders. He admits to spending one night with a woman while away, but neither he nor the woman wanted to continue with the assignation.

It had never been proven that MacDonald was taking amphetamines at any time. Even Joe McGuiness, in the civil trial against him says he doubted that MacDonald was.

There is no evidence that MacDonald hadn't slept for more than thirty hours prior to the murders.

MacDonald never exhibited a violent temper prior to the murders. He was loved by his wife and daughters, and very, very respected by those he worked with.

My proof is from my private notes, but since I'm not going to share those, I'll have to refer people to the books Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice.

http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Justice-Reinvestigating-Macdonald-Murders/dp/0393315444/sr=8-1/qid=1157063541/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8491721-6064707?ie=UTF8&s=books

While I believe MacDonald guilty, there is NO evidence he was taking amphetamines, had a violent temper, etc.

Please stick to proven facts.

My opinion, I guess.

Thank you so much but I have already read those books. You are wrong on every single point.....so look in the mirror when you talk about "facts" and then do yourself a favor and do some more reading. BTW, my trash can is full so I won't be needing your "private notes." :lol:

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To sunsplashed: I am curious, have you actually met Jeffery Mac Donald or are you saying that you know of him? And although he was convicted of the crime, he has always denied having done it. Did he admit to you? As far as I know he has refused parole because of the condition that he take responsibility for the murders of his family. I'm very curious. bullmoose:confused:

Yes, I met him many times while he was in prison on the West Coast and several times after he was moved to the East Coast.

We corresponded for ten years (1995-2005) and had many telephone calls.

No, no, he never admitted anything. He always maintained his innocence.

He applied for parole in April, I believe, and was continued by the parole board until 2025. I think he applied for parole because he married a paralegal working on his case, Kathryn Kurichh. He applied for parole still maintaining his innocence.

I've also met Jim Blackburn, the prosecutor in the case and his wife, Marcia, the now deceased judge who presided, and Joe McGuiness.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by taxicatz

read both books several years ago, i believed he did it.

Oh, I FIRMLY believe he (MacDonald) did it, no matter how much he says he's innocent.

There is just no proof that he was:

having an affair

taking amphetamines

exhibited a temper

etc.

But I firmly believe he's guilty.

JMO

bandit's mom

08-31-2006, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

John Ramsey said himself: the plaque in his den did NOT say Subic Bay Training Center.

When John was stationed there, there was NO such thing as a Subic Bay Training Center.

It's amazing to me that people are actually pondering those
initials as if they really mean something. Do the same
people also believe a "small foreign faction" is responsible
for the kidnapping, that wasn't a kidnapping? It's all nonsense and means nothing. It's, just intended to throw people off.

bullmoose

08-31-2006, 06:45 PM

To sunsplashed: I too have read up on the Macdonald case; I would say it ranks as being somewhere nearly as bizarre as the Jonbenet case; I have spent time on army bases and know from my own experiance that some really strange things go on; his story does not sound as crazy as it would seem. But this is not a thread on that subject; however since he has always denied any guilt, I really want to know if he confessed to you or did you happen to be there that night, or are you just talking in a figurative fashion? I really am curious?:confused: bullmoose