Take the IDI & RDI consistancy challenge ! [Archive] - Page 4

shill

11-27-2006, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Apparently its you who does not realize what we are saying. I am saying if the violation took place exactly as you claim. Her panties being completely removed and not put back on. Yes your right, not a lot of evidence would be found if we found those panties. However if they were slipped down enough to violate her. Knees ankles whatever. My understanding she was not violated in full by an adult male penis. Then those panties following the violation were pulled back up into position. Then the perp realizing for instance that a good deal of blood and other fluid was seeping out on to the undies....would it not be as plausible that at that juncture the perp found something to wipe her down with and totally removed the original underwear . My scenario vs yours be the case....... I'd sure like for the proper authorities to gain possession of the original underwear, there could potentially be alot more evidence on that that pair.

Shill you need to know that all you have is your own theory that the underware were totally removed prior to digital and paintbrush handle violation. You couldn't possibly know your theory on this is absolute, anymore than I know mine is. I have no way of knowing for fact as I was not there....neither were you. Your theory is as speculative as any presented. What I've said all along is that she was wearing those big panties before she was attacked, he pulled them down and then he pulled them back up. Simple, just like taking a pee, down then up.

You're talking about a mystery pair of panties, pulling them down and then up and then down and off (which means taking off her long johns and pants completely), going to her room for a new pair of matching panties(Wednesday and rosebuds) redressing her, panties, long johns, and pants and keeping or disposing of the mystery pair. Very convoluted explanation. But I guess I'm not smart enough to come up with explanations like that.

shill

11-27-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Now thats the question isn't it what happened to those panties. Good luck with that answer!

Coloradokares

11-27-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by shill
What I've said all along is that she was wearing those big panties before she was attacked, he pulled them down and then he pulled them back up. Simple, just like taking a pee, down then up.

You're talking about a mystery pair of panties, pulling them down and then up and then down and off (which means taking off her long johns and pants completely), going to her room for a new pair of matching panties(Wednesday and rosebuds) redressing her, panties, long johns, and pants and keeping or disposing of the mystery pair. Very convoluted explanation. But I guess I'm not smart enough to come up with explanations like that.

Regarding the underwear...lets table that and opt for more cruicial
discourse For all we know she may well have had a pull up on. The pull up pkg being half off the shelf in disarray after all. No I hope this does not get into a 23 page discussion on the pullups. vs the bloomer size panties from Bloomingdales or her normal underwear. I think the underwear is all wore out.

Ames

11-27-2006, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by shill
O.K. CK admitted that she couldn't explain why there would be evidence on the alleged mystery panties, but according to your post you can.

So let's here how IYO these alleged panties became "full of evidence."

The orginal panties would have had the killers DNA all over them.

Ames

11-27-2006, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Just my humble opinion but if posts are being moderated ....Shills would be a place to start. I am tired of being called and idiot.

I am with you on this one. I feel like it is my fault....I was TRYING to be nice to him (or her), and PM'd him with the link to the new boards, because it was hard to find. I started not to let him in on it, but...did anyway, because I wanted to contact all of the regular posters. I am sure that he would have wormed his way back in, even if I hadn't of pm'd the link to him, though. I am seriously thinking about formally adding him to my ignore list.

Ames

11-27-2006, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by shill
They had to be removed enough to violate her and there would be no more evidence on them then the long johns and pants would have, and since they are not in contact with her body at that point, what would get on them.

How do you know that the killer didn't molest her, pull up her panties, and then decide later to put in the paintbrush as an afterthought? The size 6 panties, could have even been soiled...from fecal matter. There are several different scenarios for the original panties to have gotten soiled, or full of dna, and therefore, removed and disposed of...and then the size 12 panties were put on her. I am guessing that a MAN re-dressed her. (IMO)

Athena

11-27-2006, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Is this a picture of the actual undies taken from the Ramsey home? If not, it means nothing. How do we know the pkg in JBR's drawer hadn't been opened at least partially?

Linda - valid point. No mention of whether the package was placed in her drawer sealed or open. Also children at age 6 do know how to use scissors. It is just a plastic "string" that alot of new garments have on them.

http://tinyurl.com/yxfc84

Ames

11-27-2006, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by shill
What I've said all along is that she was wearing those big panties before she was attacked, he pulled them down and then he pulled them back up. Simple, just like taking a pee, down then up.

There were only a few drops of blood on the crotch of the panties that she was found in....don't you think that if the killer had of inserted a paintbrush (a BROKEN ONE), there would have been ALOT more blood? Where is that blood? Its on her size 6 "Bloomie's " Panties. (IMO) And those panties are unaccounted for. Good old Auntie Pam, could have taken them out along with the hundreds of other items that she took out, for the "funeral". (IMO) Patsy could have had them hidden in her long fur coat, that she wore that morning, when she left the house (while JB's body was still there!), there are numerous ways to get rid of size 6 panties...they are not that big anyway. They would be really easy to hide. (IMO)

Coloradokares

11-28-2006, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I am with you on this one. I feel like it is my fault....I was TRYING to be nice to him (or her), and PM'd him with the link to the new boards, because it was hard to find. I started not to let him in on it, but...did anyway, because I wanted to contact all of the regular posters. I am sure that he would have wormed his way back in, even if I hadn't of pm'd the link to him, though. I am seriously thinking about formally adding him to my ignore list.

No one is responsible for the nature of Shill's posts beside Shill. No one is capable of provoking such behavior. Each and every time he has a choice. He chooses to be degrading and demeaning and insulting with little to offer the forum by way of information. I am seriously thinking if I even would choose to participate in a forum whose members that alone moderators allow name calling to become the order of business for the day. Its one thing to disagree its another to be intentionally argumentative and insulting. Its not that I care what he thinks its just so juvenille . Its like how do we feel better about our selves Oh I got it I'll call someone else stupid .... :no: Not cool!

shill

11-28-2006, 03:27 AM

The simplest explanation is more then often the correct explenation.

shill

11-28-2006, 03:31 AM

I don't have to create make believe evidence and call the witnesses liars to make my theories work.

shill

11-28-2006, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Ames

There were only a few drops of blood on the crotch of the panties that she was found in....don't you think that if the killer had of inserted a paintbrush (a BROKEN ONE), there would have been ALOT more blood? Where is that blood? Its on her size 6 "Bloomie's " Panties. (IMO) And those panties are unaccounted for. (IMO) Blood on the white blanket, nightgown, and shirt that we know of. How did that happen if she is wearing the mystery panties that gobbled up the DNA evidence?
Paint brush handles are tapered and usually rounded at the end. That piece is missing. It was smaller in diameter then a tampon.

LindaA

11-28-2006, 06:52 AM

Funny thing, Shills posts on another JBR board and his/her "behavior" is just fine. Perhaps Shill could explain what it it about this board that causes such sarcasm. Could it be the sarcasma nd condescension he/she finds here? I wonder.

nuisanceposter

11-28-2006, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
Funny thing, Shills posts on another JBR board and his/her "behavior" is just fine. Perhaps Shill could explain what it it about this board that causes such sarcasm. Could it be the sarcasma nd condescension he/she finds here? I wonder.

So the other people here are to blame for Shill's inability to behave himself on this board? I think not.

Coloradokares

11-28-2006, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
Funny thing, Shills posts on another JBR board and his/her "behavior" is just fine. Perhaps Shill could explain what it it about this board that causes such sarcasm. Could it be the sarcasma nd condescension he/she finds here? I wonder.

And other boards under other names where the behavior has been about the same or worse.

Ames

11-28-2006, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
Funny thing, Shills posts on another JBR board and his/her "behavior" is just fine. Perhaps Shill could explain what it it about this board that causes such sarcasm. Could it be the sarcasma nd condescension he/she finds here? I wonder.

This post was directly under the quote from me, and then Shill's reply. What exactly did I say, that was sarcastic?

LindaA

11-28-2006, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Ames

This post was directly under the quote from me, and then Shill's reply. What exactly did I say, that was sarcastic?

I was speaking generally, Ames, not specifically about that particular post. But I do find an air of condescension on the part of most of the RDIs towards the IDIs. I think Shill feels that gives him license for the comments he/she makes.

Ames

11-28-2006, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

I was speaking generally, Ames, not specifically about that particular post. But I do find an air of condescension on the part of most of the RDIs towards the IDIs. I think Shill feels that gives him license for the comments he/she makes.

Oh okay....sorry about that. I thought that I had done something wrong...LOL But, I wonder why shill feels the need to pepper almost every single post that he makes, with insults....regardless if the other poster was being condecending or not? I guess that I need to ask him/her that question, huh?

LindaA

11-28-2006, 12:36 PM

Ames, I do think it would be nice if he would respond, but I doubt he/she will. I don't defend his/her remarks, but I do thik I understand them. Most of the RDIs seem to think that the IDIS are feeble minded, stupid, or ignorant. I see it over and over again in their posts with such comments as " the IDIs need to take a good look at themselves" as if there is something wrong with the IDIs. I think Shill finds that offensive and is retaliatinig. I would agree with CK that being civil to each other would make for a much more helpful debate, but that was not happening before Shill started to stir the stuff.

Personally, I don't see how any one person can be so sure either way that he/she refuses to consider the other alternative. The evidence is just too ambiguous. Therefore, I don't understand the RDIs attitude I have described above.

We should also remember that other posters here have insulted and even cussed out people on this board. Shill's behavior has not even come close to that, rude as it is.

Ames

11-28-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
Ames, I do think it would be nice if he would respond, but I doubt he/she will. I don't defend his/her remarks, but I do thik I understand them. Most of the RDIs seem to think that the IDIS are feeble minded, stupid, or ignorant. I see it over and over again in their posts with such comments as " the IDIs need to take a good look at themselves" as if there is something wrong with the IDIs. I think Shill finds that offensive and is retaliatinig. I would agree with CK that being civil to each other would make for a much more helpful debate, but that was not happening before Shill started to stir the stuff.

Personally, I don't see how any one person can be so sure either way that he/she refuses to consider the other alternative. The evidence is just too ambiguous. Therefore, I don't understand the RDIs attitude I have described above.

We should also remember that other posters here have insulted and even cussed out people on this board. Shill's behavior has not even come close to that, rude as it is.

Yes, I am the one that cussed someone out....because they were being extremely rude to me...and offended me and personally attacked me. And, I ALSO APOLOGIZED...which I do not see shill doing. At least, I am a big enough person to admit when I am wrong. Shill just makes it hard to read anything that he/she has to say...with all of those insults. It makes the point that he is trying to make, get lost in the post. People are starting to just ignore him/her completely...and what good does THAT do? I could see an insult here, and an insult there....but, in almost every single post? It makes it hard to post and be civil to him/her. IMO

Zoey

11-28-2006, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
Ames, I do think it would be nice if he would respond, but I doubt he/she will. I don't defend his/her remarks, but I do thik I understand them. Most of the RDIs seem to think that the IDIS are feeble minded, stupid, or ignorant. I see it over and over again in their posts with such comments as " the IDIs need to take a good look at themselves" as if there is something wrong with the IDIs. I think Shill finds that offensive and is retaliatinig. I would agree with CK that being civil to each other would make for a much more helpful debate, but that was not happening before Shill started to stir the stuff.

Personally, I don't see how any one person can be so sure either way that he/she refuses to consider the other alternative. The evidence is just too ambiguous. Therefore, I don't understand the RDIs attitude I have described above.

We should also remember that other posters here have insulted and even cussed out people on this board. Shill's behavior has not even come close to that, rude as it is.

Not that anyone pays attention, what with me being new on here, but I stopped posting for a couple of days because I got tired of the insults being flung back and forth between Ames, Coloradokares and Shills. I personally have no problem with Shills remarks, in that he/she is trying to make the RDI's understand and has had to resort to what he/she has to get their attention. Seems like if you are an IDI, you are constantly being mocked, ridiculed and made to feel stupid. Of course, this is JMHO.

Ames

11-28-2006, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Zoey

Not that anyone pays attention, what with me being new on here, but I stopped posting for a couple of days because I got tired of the insults being flung back and forth between Ames, Coloradokares and Shills. I personally have no problem with Shills remarks, in that he/she is trying to make the RDI's understand and has had to resort to what he/she has to get their attention. Seems like if you are an IDI, you are constantly being mocked, ridiculed and made to feel stupid. Of course, this is JMHO.

I know that there were insults being thrown between Shill and CK....(and my recollection is that Shill started it). But, please go back and find any of my posts where I have directed insults at shill. There may be one or two....but, they were in response to something that shill threw out at me first.

Athena

11-28-2006, 01:13 PM

All I have to say is that the ignore feature works very well. It's a shame what this board is coming to. :shrug:

thewhitewitch1

11-28-2006, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Zoey

Not that anyone pays attention, what with me being new on here, but I stopped posting for a couple of days because I got tired of the insults being flung back and forth between Ames, Coloradokares and Shills. I personally have no problem with Shills remarks, in that he/she is trying to make the RDI's understand and has had to resort to what he/she has to get their attention. Seems like if you are an IDI, you are constantly being mocked, ridiculed and made to feel stupid. Of course, this is JMHO.

Would it surprise you to know that some of us RDIs feel IDIs do the same to us? We are mocked plenty with the freakin' eye roll icons etc. I think we are about even as far as that goes.
I don't let it bother me. I can dish out as well as I can take. Maybe if you don't have the intestinal fortitude for this kind of thing, you should be somewhere else.
And for the record....I respect pretty much everyone in here, whether we agree or not and I don't think any of you are "stupid."

shill

11-28-2006, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

And other boards under other names where the behavior has been about the same or worse. And you were there too, being a problem posting under a different name. But you sang a whole different tune just a month ago. You flip flop like a fish out of water. You bait people with knowledge of friends on the inside and you're a local, like that gives you street cred.
And now you're rallying the troops for your own personal vindetta against me.

Why don't you tell the truth about all your make believe sick friends you create, and see how much they side with you.

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by shill
And you were there too, being a problem posting under a different name. But you sang a whole different tune just a month ago. You flip flop like a fish out of water. You bait people with knowledge of friends on the inside and you're a local, like that gives you street cred.
And now you're rallying the troops for your own personal vindetta against me.

Why don't you tell the truth about all your make believe sick friends you create, and see how much they side with you.

What in heavens name are you rambling on about now Shill. I listened to your theory Shill. You might be right but I highly doubt it. If the Ramseys are proven innocent of this....possible but I won't hold my breath. I got no bait for people. Personally I could give a whistle in Dixie less if they want to listen to me or not. I have never once said I got friends on the inside. Inside of what Shill. The police ...no I don't. I do know some people I could name names. But why....leave them their private lives. I am on this forum. They are not. Does not mean they don't exist. If they want they can come on themselves tell you who they are what they know. And as for the others....Our friendships have endured across the years because I can sit down and we can have our discussions and I can walk away and leave it there. I know what I know and I am not so insecure as to feel the need to prove anything to you.... Does that mean the friendships are make believe. Far more real than you know.......Who cares what you think anyhow..... like you are someone to have to prove anything to or impress.....

There is no credibility in being local, there is perspective however. I have no vindetta against you. Rallying what troops? Nope you deserve all the credit for ticking people off at you Shill. You alone earned it with your beligerence. As for my friends you honestly think you can even shake the foundations of friendships forged 20, 30 years plus. Dream on ........... Not even ..... You want to discuss this murder fine. You want to hurl insults .... just realize your hurting no ones credibility but your own. I am not going to argue with you Shill you are not worth it. The case deserves better than such a waste of time.

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 03:56 AM

I'd like to direct comment to RDI's feeling IDI's are ignorant. I don't think thats so. I think there has been enough mud slung the last days from both sides. I think you have to look at both sides and weigh the evidence. Which is hard to do if you have only read one view or account of what the evidence is.

I got an e mail sitting in my inbox as we speak that would go a very long way to showing that maybe I have more credibility than has been implied by some in the last day or so. It'd prove I am who I say and know some names you might regonize. But Big Deal. I want to end the speculation that because I live in Colorado in the Boulder Valley I think that makes me some kind of expert. Not even. I don't have contacts in the Police Department or any specific special pull.

Would you all betray the trust of a friend just to go nannie nannie poo poo. Nope I don't think so. Nor will I.

If the board does not come to some sort of civilized and less defensive and argumentative stance, minus all the rancor and name calling its a total waste of all our time.

You can believe me or not. Things are heating up hot hot hot out here in the Boulder Valley. Be it still from the Karr thing, or the 10 year anniversary. Even before Karr though, maybe Patsy's death stirred the pots so to speak. But if we are to be taken seriously at all. Shouldn't we, regardless of what our personal beliefs about IDI vs RDI are, shouldt we be trying to have some sensible and informed discourse. John is out on tv making the circuts again in response I believe to all this hitting the forefront again. For a very long time all the reporters went away. They are back....

For all I think I know, each day I take away something to go research further or run past a source I feel is more knowledgeable, or check into. I don't think any of us have so much spare time that we can just waste our days arguing do we.....Lets set all that aside and see what we can do to discuss the facts ... Just my wooden nickles worth.....

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 10:31 AM

Ck, from what you've posted I think your source/friend is probably Julie Hayden.....thus your interest in other media people like Craig Silverman? JMO

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Ck, from what you've posted I think your source/friend is probably Julie Hayden.....thus your interest in other media people like Craig Silverman? JMO

That is one possibility..there are also others. I will not confirm or deny anything for the sole reason that my friendships are my own. Would you? Not if you value your relationships. One day when the murder has been solved and prosecuted I'd be more than happy to sit down and if all parties were amenable I'd make introductions. Till then please respect that I will not confirm or deny anything. I'd leave the forum long before I'd do that.

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 10:56 AM

Actually, CK, I think you are making a bigger deal out of who your friends/sources are than most of the posters on here. I don't really care, but you are the one who - IMO - keeps bringing it up.

JMO

LindaA

11-29-2006, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

That is one possibility..there are also others. I will not confirm or deny anything for the sole reason that my friendships are my own. Would you? Not if you value your relationships. One day when the murder has been solved and prosecuted I'd be more than happy to sit down and if all parties were amenable I'd make introductions. Till then please respect that I will not confirm or deny anything. I'd leave the forum long before I'd do that.

No, and in that case I could not have brought it up in the first place. You seem to enjoy these veiled references and the attention they bring...IMO.

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Actually, CK, I think you are making a bigger deal out of who your friends/sources are than most of the posters on here. I don't really care, but you are the one who - IMO - keeps bringing it up.

JMO

Actually that would be Shill and trying to say they are all made up in my mind. That and a couple posters who keep thinking I got some kind of dog in the fight. I must cause I live in the area right? I frankly am tired of reanswering the questions politely vs placing posters who I'd otherwise value on ignore. I try to respectfully answer, you'd of thought my declining once would have been adequate.

I know you think my opinion is worth less since you feel you can label me as an RDI. I don't feel yours or anyother IDI's is less just because your compelled to veiw the evidence differently. Perhaps I am an RDI. However I do have one other theory I kick around from time to time, which still has participation at some level by the Ramseys in staging and admittedly it is being eliminated quickly in my own mind. We all have our opinions. Who do you feel the intruder was Sweet. Do you have a name in mind. I ask this most sincerely. Gime me someone to look at.

To me living in the area may give us who live here a locally influenced opinion. Perhaps unique and perhaps no longer so. You Sweet Charlotte can believe whatever you wish your entitiled to view it however you wish eith no offense taken on my part. Believe me its a privelege to be from Colorado. It can be a pain to admit your from the Boulder Valley.

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 12:32 PM

These are people who haven't been cleared IMO.....

Helgoth and his roommate
Chris Wolf
The Whites
The MacReynolds
Linda Hoffman-Pugh's relatives
Former workers in the Ramsey house
JMK/ alone or with accomplice
Ninjas who had broken into homes in the neighborhood
Jeff Merrick
Someone who toured the home during the Christmas Parade of Homes
A college student
Someone that knew John through work - past and/or present

The possibilities are endless.

JMO

thewhitewitch1

11-29-2006, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
These are people who haven't been cleared IMO.....

Helgoth and his roommate
Chris Wolf
The Whites
The MacReynolds
Linda Hoffman-Pugh's relatives
Former workers in the Ramsey house
JMK/ alone or with accomplice
Ninjas who had broken into homes in the neighborhood
Jeff Merrick
Someone who toured the home during the Christmas Parade of Homes
A college student
Someone that knew John through work - past and/or present

The possibilities are endless.

JMO

Why would you state something like this and then say IMO?
Most of the people you mentioned were investigated and their DNA didn't match. So, if the Ramseys were "cleared" through the DNA, why wouldn't the others have been?

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Why would you state something like this and then say IMO?
Most of the people you mentioned were investigated and their DNA didn't match. So, if the Ramseys were "cleared" through the DNA, why wouldn't the others have been?

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 03:44 PM

nuisanceposter

11-29-2006, 03:46 PM

Half those people on her list have been cleared. Helgoth, the Whites, the Pughs, the McReynolds, Karr, Merrick...all cleared.

And the Parade of Homes Tour was in 1995...did an intruder tour the house and then wait over a year to come back and kill JonBenet? How did he know things would look the same as they had when he toured? The Rs had renovation going on between Christmas 95 and Christmas 96.

The possibilities are NOT endless, and they keep getting fewer and fewer as time goes by.

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Half those people on her list have been cleared. Helgoth, the Whites, the Pughs, the McReynolds, Karr, Merrick...all cleared.

And the Parade of Homes Tour was in 1995...did an intruder tour the house and then wait over a year to come back and kill JonBenet? How did he know things would look the same as they had when he toured? The Rs had renovation going on between Christmas 95 and Christmas 96.

The possibilities are NOT endless, and they keep getting fewer and fewer as time goes by.

I'm right here. You don't have to refer to me as "her." I don't think anyone has been cleared in this case. I think if good case came up for any of the people on "her" (my) list to be looked at again they would be re-investigated in a heartbeat. Don't you - and wouldn't you want that to be the case?

With regard to the Tour of Homes if was my understanding they participated December 23, 1996 in the Tour of Homes - but hey - I'm subject to being wrong.

Any yes, IMO - the possibilites are endless.

Can I say - IMO - or will you want to know why I said IMO?

JMO

nuisanceposter

11-29-2006, 04:40 PM

They were cleared for a reason, SC. That's because they were investigated and found to not be involved in this crime through said investigation. Not so for John and Patsy Ramsey, though.

If there was ever reason to investigate anyone again, I would be all for it, but there would have to be valid cause, not just JR wanting to publicly deflect the suspicion from him onto anyone else, as was the case in this past 48 Hours episode. They pimped the idea that there was some new evidence and there wasn't. That was pretty dishonest, and an affront to JonBenet. Way to make money and earn fame off of a dead child. JR, Smit, Tracey, De Muth, all of them can be so proud that JonBenet's murder has gotten their faces on the telly once again.

The Parade of Homes Tour may have been in 1994. In DOI, pb, pg 96, Patsy recalls, "In 1994, shortly after we had remodeled our Boulder home, the Boulder Historical Society asked if John and I would be willing to open our house at Christmas for the public tours they put on to raise money.".

12/23/96 is when the Rs held their Christmas party where someone called 911.

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 04:48 PM

I sent you a PM.

bullmoose

11-29-2006, 06:42 PM

The others were cleared by the BPD but not the Ramseys because of one reason; and one reason only,IMO, that being that the only suspects the BPD had were the Ramseys, from the beginning. On that show the other night, when the camera panned some of the papers, one thing jumped out at me; on one page dated 12-27-96 there was a category listed as suspects--only the Ramseys names were on it. Also mentioned on that show was a coil of rope, found at the Ramsey home, but not theirs and unexplained as yet. To me, this was startling new evidence, so saying there is new evidence is misleading at best. What explanation is there for the rope? And the attorney for the DA that was removed from the case; the mere fact that he had big questions about the case as it was being pursued; that too was new information to me; I mean, if in January 1997 he was able to make a case for an intruder, then the DA and the BPD come off in my mind as being highly prejudiced in their approach to the case.

LindaA

11-29-2006, 07:33 PM

Bullmoose, I believe the standard RDI answer to the rope is that it was left over from trimming a Christmas tree with a cowboy theme.

Athena

11-29-2006, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Because it is my opinion? Do we know that most of these peoples' DNA did not match?

LOL - There were suspects that never even submitted DNA or handwriting samples so they couldn't have been "cleared". There were also several people's handwriting that were above the scale of matching more so than Patsy's could have ever been -- why is that always left out when talking about other suspects? And what about Barnhill's DNA? They had a potential match but it was never followed up because they said he couldn't have written the note cause he was crippled??? And let us not forget McReynolds who Thomas wouldn't even investigate further because he had heart surgery. What about Wolf who refused to give DNA OR handwriting and didn't have an alibi. His own girlfriend turned him in. What a joke. The killer could have been under their very nose and they let him get away. And those are just a couple from the top of my head and there were many more, JMO

Athena

11-29-2006, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
Bullmoose, I believe the standard RDI answer to the rope is that it was left over from trimming a Christmas tree with a cowboy theme.

Yea - and the duct tape came from a doll or a painting and was the very last piece.

Athena

11-29-2006, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
They were cleared for a reason, SC. That's because they were investigated and found to not be involved in this crime through said investigation. Not so for John and Patsy Ramsey, though.

If there was ever reason to investigate anyone again, I would be all for it, but there would have to be valid cause, not just JR wanting to publicly deflect the suspicion from him onto anyone else, as was the case in this past 48 Hours episode. They pimped the idea that there was some new evidence and there wasn't. That was pretty dishonest, and an affront to JonBenet. Way to make money and earn fame off of a dead child. JR, Smit, Tracey, De Muth, all of them can be so proud that JonBenet's murder has gotten their faces on the telly once again.

The Parade of Homes Tour may have been in 1994. In DOI, pb, pg 96, Patsy recalls, "In 1994, shortly after we had remodeled our Boulder home, the Boulder Historical Society asked if John and I would be willing to open our house at Christmas for the public tours they put on to raise money.".

12/23/96 is when the Rs held their Christmas party where someone called 911.

Didn't Fleet call 911 and claim he had meant to dial 411?

I don't remember the exact dates but according to PM/PT 600 people toured the home within the past 6 months of JBR's death. JMO

shill

11-29-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
Bullmoose, I believe the standard RDI answer to the rope is that it was left over from trimming a Christmas tree with a cowboy theme. That rope, a flashlight with zero prints on the batteries, and a couple of crime novels written in Dutch.

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Because it is my opinion? Do we know that most of these peoples' DNA did not match?

Other than a random Ninja....yes we do know that.

Athena

11-29-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Other than a random Ninja....yes we do know that.

No you don't know that DNA did not match unless they were "random Ninjas". As I posted above there were many suspects that did not even submit DNA samples so please explain to me how you know they didn't match. :shrug:

Athena

11-29-2006, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Half those people on her list have been cleared. Helgoth, the Whites, the Pughs, the McReynolds, Karr, Merrick...all cleared.

And the Parade of Homes Tour was in 1995...did an intruder tour the house and then wait over a year to come back and kill JonBenet? How did he know things would look the same as they had when he toured? The Rs had renovation going on between Christmas 95 and Christmas 96.

The possibilities are NOT endless, and they keep getting fewer and fewer as time goes by.

Merrick and McReynolds were NOT cleared. As a matter of fact Merrick refused to give DNA and the BPD believed he wrote the note much moreso that Patsy did. Merrick retained a lawyer and that was that. There were several suspects who did not submit DNA and/or handwriting samples -- and the BPD didn't press for them.

thewhitewitch1

11-29-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
The others were cleared by the BPD but not the Ramseys because of one reason; and one reason only,IMO, that being that the only suspects the BPD had were the Ramseys, from the beginning. On that show the other night, when the camera panned some of the papers, one thing jumped out at me; on one page dated 12-27-96 there was a category listed as suspects--only the Ramseys names were on it. Also mentioned on that show was a coil of rope, found at the Ramsey home, but not theirs and unexplained as yet. To me, this was startling new evidence, so saying there is new evidence is misleading at best. What explanation is there for the rope? And the attorney for the DA that was removed from the case; the mere fact that he had big questions about the case as it was being pursued; that too was new information to me; I mean, if in January 1997 he was able to make a case for an intruder, then the DA and the BPD come off in my mind as being highly prejudiced in their approach to the case.

Why is the rope "startling new evidence?" That rope has been public knowledge for a very long time.
Just because the Ramseys say it isn't theirs, does that make it true? It's quite obvious from their many interviews that they weren't very certain of what items they actually owned.
How or why would the rope have been used? It wasn't used in the murder. Some have speculated that it was used to climb up to JBs balconey. That seems very farfetched to me. I wonder if fibers from that rope were found on or near JB.
Does anyone have any theories on what the significance of the rope might be besides using it to climb up to her balcony?

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Merrick and McReynolds were NOT cleared. As a matter of fact Merrick refused to give DNA and the BPD believed he wrote the note much moreso that Patsy did. Merrick retained a lawyer and that was that. There were several suspects who did not submit DNA and/or handwriting samples -- and the BPD didn't press for them.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/behavior.html?200620

This is to a taped interview with Merrick. Word of advice my opinion only. Jeff Merrick has little tolerance with the wheels of the bus running over the top of him. JMO

Coloradokares

11-30-2006, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Merrick and McReynolds were NOT cleared. As a matter of fact Merrick refused to give DNA and the BPD believed he wrote the note much moreso that Patsy did. Merrick retained a lawyer and that was that. There were several suspects who did not submit DNA and/or handwriting samples -- and the BPD didn't press for them.

Try this link for an interview with Jeff Merrick with PeterBoyles on Khow 630 radio and also Norm Early.

http://dimwit.byethost5.com/jeff%20merr

Hope this work ....I try bringing it up and it automatically starts to play on Windows media. yet to copy and paste the http: line it reverts on my paste feature to the link sent prior to this? I don't know about computers enough to figure out that one. :shrug:

Coloradokares

11-30-2006, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/behavior.html?200620

This is to a taped interview with Merrick. Word of advice my opinion only. Jeff Merrick has little tolerance with the wheels of the bus running over the top of him. JMO

link correction try

http://dimwit.byethost5.com/jerff%20merr

Not sure why it threw up a prior pasted link instead of the one I copied and pasted from the link that carries the radio interview. I am no computer whiz kid.... sorry I am red in the face

Coloradokares

11-30-2006, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Athena

No you don't know that DNA did not match unless they were "random Ninjas". As I posted above there were many suspects that did not even submit DNA samples so please explain to me how you know they didn't match. :shrug:

Here is my humble opinion there are only 10 markers to match. Minium to take to court is 13. It can rule out not rule in .....be it what it is however .....ever heard of CODIS? No hits yet not on sexual predators criminals or anyone dna tested listed to CODIS. thats alot of potential hits beyond even those tested. I know you believe in that one hit will come and prove the Ramseys innocent. I just don't have the same level of faith you do in that.

shill

11-30-2006, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

I know you believe in that one hit will come and prove the Ramseys innocent. I just don't have the same level of faith you do in that. If it happens it will prove several suspects innocent.

And you say you're not bias.:patriot:

shill

11-30-2006, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

No hits yet not on sexual predators criminals In the USA, but they don't have International records for sex offenders.

Athena

11-30-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Here is my humble opinion there are only 10 markers to match. Minium to take to court is 13. It can rule out not rule in .....be it what it is however .....ever heard of CODIS? No hits yet not on sexual predators criminals or anyone dna tested listed to CODIS. thats alot of potential hits beyond even those tested. I know you believe in that one hit will come and prove the Ramseys innocent. I just don't have the same level of faith you do in that.

That is not true CK. 13 markers are just the standard number recommended by the FBI. World Trade Center victims were ID'd with as few as 4 markers. There are certain markers within the 13 that can ID a perp as long as the necessary ones are there. For paternity testing it is required that there are 13 are more because of the blood relationship to make it more accurate.

Just because there are no hits in CODIS doesn't mean squat. Not everyone's DNA that has even been arrested are in CODIS which is why JR is pushing for a law that would require all felons' DNA to be taken. This could have been a first offense for the perp as well. JMO

Athena

11-30-2006, 08:21 AM

[B]quote:Originally posted by Athena

Merrick and McReynolds were NOT cleared. As a matter of fact Merrick refused to give DNA and the BPD believed he wrote the note much moreso that Patsy did. Merrick retained a lawyer and that was that. There were several suspects who did not submit DNA and/or handwriting samples -- and the BPD didn't press for them.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/...ior.html?200620

quote originally posted by coloradokares:

This is to a taped interview with Merrick. Word of advice my opinion only. Jeff Merrick has little tolerance with the wheels of the bus running over the top of him. JMO [/B[

Just copied so I can edit and say this was according to PM/PT. Thanks CK.
JMO

sweetcharlotte

11-30-2006, 10:19 AM

One thing I found interesting - according to PM/PT - is that McReynolds was cleared because of his recent surgery and the notion that he would not have had the physical strength - not thoughts of an accomplice???? and that Mrs. McReynolds was only interviewed one time. And then there is the son....

JMO

Coloradokares

11-30-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by shill
If it happens it will prove several suspects innocent.

And you say you're not bias.:patriot:

Hey just because I try to be objective does not mean that regarding the DNA I have any faith it will be a case for DNA
If its a factory workers sneeze .....the chances ....are slim that a hit ever will happen and it'd be worthless if it ever did if its a factory workers sneeze. Opinion was Dr. Henry Lee's which he proved with different package of underwear. Tell him he is biased.

bullmoose

11-30-2006, 05:10 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I seem to remember hearing that the DNA was from the bloodspots and had been identified as being of caucasian origin. Wouldn't that sort of rule out Asian factory workers?

Coloradokares

11-30-2006, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I seem to remember hearing that the DNA was from the bloodspots and had been identified as being of caucasian origin. Wouldn't that sort of rule out Asian factory workers?

I have not heard that at all. Infact when JMK thing was in progress I heard on tv that it was asian dna. But I discounted that part of what I heard. I would require a link that proves it not just claims it to consider that valid in any way. I had heard it was male as well. At the same time as the tv reporter said believed to be asian.