Possible Murderer Profiles

[Ames]

Originally posted by andU


<snipped>

I think the pay back was a long time coming and John had forgotten the person, until he read the rn... hints told John who the perp is/was...

If "hints told John who the perp is/was", then why hasn't John told police? Why would he continue to be harrassed by the media, and have accusing fingers pointing at him, IF he knew who the perp was? Unless you are saying that the hints were given, and that John didn't pick up on them. Then...that would make more sense. IMO

[rashomon]

Originally posted by bullmoose
To rashoman: The fiber evidence and handwriting analysis that you speak of are just tabloid trash; I just finished rereading Twisting Thomas' deposition in the lawsuit that the Ramseys had brought against him after his book came out; his so-called handwriting expert had written a letter to the Ramseys a year before he came out with his "analysis" of the ransom note; in his letter he swore that he knew they were innocent and that he could prove it with his expetise at handwriting analysis. As for the fiber "evidence" that you mention; is that the vampire fibers that the cops questioned John Ramsey about but then dropped the question when Lin Wood asked to see whether there was any such evidence? I call the fibers in question vampire fibers because they keep arising from the casket of Dracula, undead and more importantly--unreal. I do agree that whoever jabbed a paintbrush into Jonbenet's vagina is a sexual psycopath, but I do not think that there is any evidence to point a finger at her parents for such a monstrous act. As for the housekeepers' recollection, whether accurate or not, I know of one very good reason for her to make something that that up: she was one of the first people suggested to the BPD as acting strange in the days before Jonbenet's murder. She had financial troubles and had asked Patsy for a $2500 loan which Patsy was going to leave for her when the Ramseys left for Michigan. I am quite sure that the BPD told her that the Ramseys had fingered her and did she have any information that would reflect badly on the Ramseys? This is standard police procedure in a murder case, to get all the suspects to make damaging statements about each other. And it quite often works to flush out the facts that suspects are concealing ffrom the cops; in this case it has only fed the tabloids. Of course, since Steve Thomas' 'special friend' was a tabloid reporter, the tabloids were feeding at the BPD's table, begging for and receiving all the tasty tidbits which of course were then printed as gospel truth.
Bullmose: I'd suggest you stick to forensic and circumstantial evidence facts instead of going on a rant. For ranting won't lead you anywhere, no matter if you are an RDI or IDI.

FACT: the forensic evidence is NOT tabloid trash, no matter how you'd like it to be. It is in the documented record, i. e. in the officially conducted interviews of the Ramseys, where lawyer Levin confronts them with it.
Or do you think the CBI lab forged evidence because the lab guys wanted to frame the poor innocent Ramseys? :)

And don't forget that it was the CBI's conclusion that Patsy Ramsey could not be eliminated as the writer of the RN.

Therefore the CBI's handwriting comparisons had nothing to do with Don Foster's linguistic ruminations about Patsy being the author of the note.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Sorry it has been suggested out here by some early on long before the internet forums. I have no idea if it was diagnosed or treated. But the behaviors that could point to it were in books even. Charming as can be yet an instant firebrand..... Depression medications....and while I won't reveal my local sources for good reason...... it was said more than once. Your believing it or not your preference does not make it never spoken. More gossip CK? Please, enough is enough.

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon

Bullmose: I'd suggest you stick to forensic and circumstantial evidence facts instead of going on a rant. For ranting won't lead you anywhere, no matter if you are an RDI or IDI.

FACT: the forensic evidence is NOT tabloid trash, no matter how you'd like it to be. It is in the documented record, i. e. in the officially conducted interviews of the Ramseys, where lawyer Levin confronts them with it.
Or do you think the CBI lab forged evidence because the lab guys wanted to frame the poor innocent Ramseys? :)

And don't forget that it was the CBI's conclusion that Patsy Ramsey could not be eliminated as the writer of the RN.

Therefore the CBI's handwriting comparisons had nothing to do with Don Foster's linguistic ruminations about Patsy being the author of the note. You should take some of your own advice.
The fact that someone says something, just means that it is FACT they said it.
It does not mean what they said is FACT

[shill]

Man: I was wondering…how many people do you think you’ve seriously looked at, over the years as potential suspects in the JonBenet Ramsey case and how did John Karr’s story fit into all this and did he rank up there as a serious suspect compared to the other ones?

Mary Lacy: Uhm…I’m guessing between the BPD and our office, we’ve probably looked seriously at 200 people.

Man: Seriously?

Mary Lacy: Seriously. At 200 people. Uhm and done investigation into those 200 people. That’s not saying that we’ve done buccal swabs on all of them. We haven’t. There are DNA samples taken on a lot of different suspects . How …I just can’t rank them with Mr Karr. This was so different by the…his being in Thailand and the complications…that, if he had been here. We probably would have treated him very similarly and you never would have heard about it as the other suspects that we looked at.

[bullmoose]

To Rashoman: But this is place I go to rant; if you can do it, why can't I? I agree that the forensic evidence that actually exists; outside the imagination of the questiner, is relevant to the case. But vampiric evidence doesn't impress me. I also don't think CBI forged evidence at all, I think Levin simply lied about what the evidence was; after all, as I've pointed out before, this is SOPwhen cops interrogate suspects. Also, as you are doubtless aware with your keen knowledge of the case, that the CBI experts did not match Patsy to the note, they just couldn't exclude her. There is a difference between CBI's nonmatch, nonexclusion report and Foster's claims; you must have noticed which one I was referring to, I questioned Foster's reliability and veracity ,not CBI's. Just as an aside, I used to think that handwriting analysis was an established science; but now the more I read about dueling experts at trials, I have come to see it as being very inexact, perhaps no more reliable than lie detector information.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by shill
You should take some of your own advice.
The fact that someone says something, just means that it is FACT they said it.
It does not mean what they said is FACT

Hmm, Shill, crucial point. Just think of the Ramseys:
It is a fact that the Ramseys said they were innocent, but the fact that they said it does not mean what they said is FACT.

Really good point, Shill! :)

[rashomon]

Originally posted by bullmoose
To Rashoman: But this is place I go to rant; if you can do it, why can't I? I agree that the forensic evidence that actually exists; outside the imagination of the questiner, is relevant to the case. But vampiric evidence doesn't impress me. I also don't think CBI forged evidence at all, I think Levin simply lied about what the evidence was; after all, as I've pointed out before, this is SOPwhen cops interrogate suspects. Also, as you are doubtless aware with your keen knowledge of the case, that the CBI experts did not match Patsy to the note, they just couldn't exclude her. There is a difference between CBI's nonmatch, nonexclusion report and Foster's claims; you must have noticed which one I was referring to, I questioned Foster's reliability and veracity ,not CBI's. Just as an aside, I used to think that handwriting analysis was an established science; but now the more I read about dueling experts at trials, I have come to see it as being very inexact, perhaps no more reliable than lie detector information.
Bullmoose: of course we all can rant and have done so on forums, but my point was that ranting in true crime discussion does not change forensic evidence. Therefore your calling Steve Thomas names like 'Twisting Thomas' is a mere rant, nothing more.

Some IDIs here for example have completely distorted what Thomas said in his depo about the bedsheet, and boldly claimed that there was no urine on the sheets and that Thomas lied. Totally wrong. These IDIs should take a good look at themselves before accusing ST of twisting facts.

It also has been pointed out here many times that Levin is not a cop, but a lawyer, and unlike the police, lawyers are NOT allowed to lie in interrogations.

I did notice you were referring to Foster's claims, but pointed out the CBI's non-exclusion report as an additional info to provide a more complete picture for newbies reading here (for the CourtTV true crime forums have a very large number of readers who aren't posters, which for example makes their JBR forum one of the biggest forums on the net).

Patsy was one of the few people who could not be excluded as the author of the note, so it narrows it down pretty much as to who wrote the note, don't you think so?

[bullmoose]

Rashoman: Calling Steve Thomas Twisting Thomas is my way of showing my disdain for his actions. I came to that nickname as a result of reading his book. I have dealt with self-righteous cops like him before in my life; IMO he fits the pattern of a petulant cop who skirts the edges of propriety as a cop[the constant leaks to the Globe] and who believes his judgement about how the case should be handled trumps the established legal system of Colorado. I never referred in any way to his testimony about any pissy sheets; why do you bring it up? Yes, I know Levin is not a cop; so the way he phrased the question that Lin Wood challenged was not technically a lie, but was deceptive in its basis; that is was there any innocent explanation how fibers from John's shirt could have gotten into Jonbenet's genital area; a clssic trapping question which needs no answer if the fibers didn't match. Any answer to the question would have been twisted and used to try to gain an admission of guilt. That is what cops do to suspects. When Lin Wood challenged Levin to show him proof of a match of the fibers, they did not because they didn't match. My own experience with law enforcement makes me wary of what they do when questioning suspects.I think that there was more than a few people who could not be excluded on the basis of their handwriting samples; if you have a link more specific about what you claim about how narrow the narrowing down was, I would like to see it.

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon


Hmm, Shill, crucial point. Just think of the Ramseys:
It is a fact that the Ramseys said they were innocent, but the fact that they said it does not mean what they said is FACT.

Really good point, Shill! :) rashomon,
You're innocent of killing JonBenet, but the fact that I said it, does not mean what I said is FACT.

[bullmoose]

To shill and rashoman:You are both innocent of murdering Jonbenet, but the mere fact that I said that does not make what I said a Fact.:biggrin:

[shill]

Since the government denies there are UFOs, there must be UFOs or the government wouldn't have anything to deny.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

Bullmoose: of course we all can rant and have done so on forums, but my point was that ranting in true crime discussion does not change forensic evidence. Therefore your calling Steve Thomas names like 'Twisting Thomas' is a mere rant, nothing more.

Some IDIs here for example have completely distorted what Thomas said in his depo about the bedsheet, and boldly claimed that there was no urine on the sheets and that Thomas lied. Totally wrong. These IDIs should take a good look at themselves before accusing ST of twisting facts.

It also has been pointed out here many times that Levin is not a cop, but a lawyer, and unlike the police, lawyers are NOT allowed to lie in interrogations.

I did notice you were referring to Foster's claims, but pointed out the CBI's non-exclusion report as an additional info to provide a more complete picture for newbies reading here (for the CourtTV true crime forums have a very large number of readers who aren't posters, which for example makes their JBR forum one of the biggest forums on the net).

Patsy was one of the few people who could not be excluded as the author of the note, so it narrows it down pretty much as to who wrote the note, don't you think so?

I know we've been round and round on this but lawyers/prosecutors do lie during interrogations. It is in FRONT OF A JUDGE that they cannot lie or face sanctions and if bad enough disbarrment. I don't understand why you keep insisting they can't. In addition to that the BPD submitted the list of questions to be asked not Levin.

Out of the six QUALIFIED experts that would have been allowed to testify all six of them gave Patsy a HIGH PROBABILITY that she did not write the note.



Those experts that attributed the writing of the note to Patsy none of them had viewed the original documents. That would make ANY testimony they attempted to give NULL and VOID.

You can choose to believe Twisting Thomas re: the urine. The fact is he said JBR wet the bed when there is absolutely no proof that she did.
JMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
More gossip CK? Please, enough is enough.

Since when is National Affliate News reported on TV gossip.... we are not talking tabloids... we are taking ABC CBS NBC etc. One of the segements more than alluded to crumbling facade of the perfect family .....Patsy went through a LOT with cancer. Maybe that is what triggered it. But you say what you will Shill at least out here it was not reported just as gossip or only by the tabloids. I can't tell you what made the news or didn't nationally. Perhaps we are in some kind of vacuum. I thought since it was national Affiliate that other channels carried it and this information was already out in the mainstream.

Books were written on this subject matter. I have not read the books. Tried to stay away from them as I was told they were full of speculation etc. Hodges I think was but one of the authors. But NO Shill this isn't local gossip chitter chat. Maybe some of us will never know exactly how the pressure of a life threating illness and all the medications effected her. Or if it was a problem even before the cancer. I mean till there is a family tragedy some things are just kept in the family circle so to speak.

Actually, I am not at all trying to spread rumor or gossip. Actually I am more than sympathetic towards this having a close family member that is BP etc. Why I am telling you this I have no idea, but to let you know if anything I'd treat this particular subject matter with alot more digniry and discretion than most, as I happen to have cared very much about this family member since they were a teen and am very much an active support sytem to them. No one can continue live in denial as to possiblity this played a huge part in this case. Its something to be dealt with. What I will tell you is reading accounts of many things like the chaos behind the perfect facade in their home....Its like reading description of what its actually like to have this touch your family. And if you don't see that, its ignorance on your part as to the daily lives of those so affected and their families. Thats as honest as I know to be.

Yup your right sure you are you bet the only thing I know about the JonBenet murder investigation is rumor and gossip. Yep, you bet rumor and gossip is all us locals know. Hicks and local yokels one and all. Do you envision us as burned out hippies from the 60's sitting around with our essential oils, munching granola eating organic if not vegan and chanting in our half million dollar homes ..... Educated idiots and simpletons. Rumor and Gossip mongers. What vision is it you have of the Boulder Valley people? Oh yeah we are all Twisted Thomas' . Yup, nothing better to do than but sit on forums and spin out volumes of rumor and gossip...

Your so obviously blinded by your need to show your expertise on knots and length of cord and how that would restrict yet not abraise you have lost sight that was only one aspect of the case.
Most likely staged.....JMHO

[LindaA]

CK, yes I do think a lot of what is reported on national news is in error. Remember when the JMK debacle first surfaced? They were reporting that JMK had said he had picked JBR up from school that day and brought her home where he molested and killed her. It was at least 24 hours before that was retracted. In the rush to be the first with a story lots of errors are always perpetrated and the priginal reporting of this case was no exception being local or national. Remeber that much was intentionally leaked by the BPD.

Someone asked you long ago what you dog in the race was, and now we know -- your relative in the BPD. That right there accounts for a lot.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by LindaA
CK, yes I do think a lot of what is reported on national news is in error. Remember when the JMK debacle first surfaced? They were reporting that JMK had said he had picked JBR up from school that day and brought her home where he molested and killed her. It was at least 24 hours before that was retracted. In the rush to be the first with a story lots of errors are always perpetrated and the priginal reporting of this case was no exception being local or national. Remeber that much was intentionally leaked by the BPD.

Someone asked you long ago what you dog in the race was, and now we know -- your relative in the BPD. That right there accounts for a lot.

Linda A. Wrong race. No Dog! I don't have any relatives in the BPD. Where in the world did you get that idea . The only relation I have discussed ...other my grandaughter being the same age as JonBenet ......is one with BiPolar and other issues. BP stands for Bi Polar not Boulder Police...Goodness!!!!!

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Linda A. Wrong race. No Dog! I don't have any relatives in the BPD. Where in the world did you get that idea . The only relation I have discussed ...other my grandaughter being the same age as JonBenet ......is one with BiPolar and other issues. BP stands for Bi Polar not Boulder Police...Goodness!!!!! Sorry to here BP runs in the family.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Sorry to here BP runs in the family.

Not on our side though. So don't worry about genetics or whatever .... don't even think to imply. Married into the family and thats ok. They can be charming and brilliant, the danger is being hooked into feeling that we bear all the responsibility that goes with it. We have learned to try to step back from much of the manipulation and yet to be a support sytem. Without taking total responsibility .....its a balancing act. Many BP's loose every valuable relationship and support in their lives because frankly they can wear you out. However the suicide statistics alone .. scare the living daylights out of us. I only opened myself up for this to help educate that there are patterns you can see if you know and recognize.

[bullmoose]

CK: I'm always sorry to hear that someone has Bi-Polarism; what is amazing is that sometimes, like my one sister-in-law who is on SSD because of having it, sometimes its not brought on by drug use. Most certainly they are manipulative of those around them; its like having a constant crisis that is trying to suck you in. On another note, a tabloid is a published printed pile of lies, half-lies with a rare occasional fact thrown in. The networks are slightly more trustworthy than tabloids, but not much. Are you saying you have not read the books on this case? I thought a month or so ago you stated that you had read Steve Thomas' book; does my memory serve me on this?

[LindaA]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did think you meant you had a relative with the Boulder Police.

Speaking of BP -- the mental condition-- I wasn listening to Nancy Grace last night talking about Deb Lafave, the beautiful 23-year-old middle school teacher who had an affair with a 14 year old student. She apparently was bi-polar. Her ex said she could be absolutely charming, but talk about your high-risk behavior. Drug use is another high-risk behavior common among victims of this condition. So I didn't think it was caused by drug use, but a symptom or an associated behavior.

CK, I really think you should read the books on the case. They are valuable for two reasons: 1.) They are written after all the dust has settled and 2.) They help refresh your memory, and human memory is not very accurate.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Athena


I know we've been round and round on this but lawyers/prosecutors do lie during interrogations. It is in FRONT OF A JUDGE that they cannot lie or face sanctions and if bad enough disbarrment. I don't understand why you keep insisting they can't. In addition to that the BPD submitted the list of questions to be asked not Levin.

Out of the six QUALIFIED experts that would have been allowed to testify all six of them gave Patsy a HIGH PROBABILITY that she did not write the note.



Those experts that attributed the writing of the note to Patsy none of them had viewed the original documents. That would make ANY testimony they attempted to give NULL and VOID.

You can choose to believe Twisting Thomas re: the urine. The fact is he said JBR wet the bed when there is absolutely no proof that she did.
JMO


Again: Chet Ubowski from the CBI said that Patsy Ramsey probably wrote the note. Patsy was one of the few people who could not be eliminated as the author. It's no use trying to throw sand into people's eyes.

The same goes for the IDIs trying to discredit Steve Thomas. I'd encourage everyone to read his depo themselves, for it is fascinating to find out how the IDIs, who call ST 'Twisting Thomas', are the ones who are twisting his words.
But their arguments don't hold any water, at least not with people who have researched the case and studied the sources themselves.
Thomas said in his depo that the sheets had urine on them, but by the time they were finally collected, all what was found on the sheets was dry urine.

As for his theory: he said that it might have been toilet rage which caused Patsy to snap and lose it. It is a theory, and an investigator has the right to present as many theories as he likes, for the Ramseys have never been cleared as suspects.
And btw, a wetting accident needn't always be a 'bed'wetting accident. Another thing to consider.

I don't believe that it was toilet rage, but this doesn't mean that Steve Thomas is a liar. Even Patsy Ramsey had to admit that he wanted justice for JonBenet. A person wanting justice doesn't falsify info. People who distort info have another agenda.

In his book Steve quoted the CBI lab's fiber test results, and lawyer Levin confronted the Ramseys with the fiber evidence too. But in your opinion they all must have lied: the lab techs, Steve Thomas, and Levin.
They all lied because they wanted to frame the poor innocent Ramseys. Yeah, right.

[LindaA]

Rashomon, there is so much misinformation in your post I don't know where to start! For one, saying PR could not be ruled out as the writer of the RN is NOT the same as saying she probably wrote it. And Ubowski is far outnumbered by experts who do not agree with him.

It is not ST's deposition that the IDIs have the problem with; it it, rather the conflicts between his depo and his book.

Why do you assume the IDI's haven't studied the case and the original sources? No one has studied more than Athena.

And what do you mean by this cryptic remark? "And btw, a wetting accident needn't always be a 'bed'wetting accident. Another thing to consider." Are you saying she could have wet something other than the bed? Then how did the sheets get urine on them as you are so insistent?

No one says the lab tech lied. Actually, I don't believe we know what they said as the reports are not public. Talk about twisting words!!


"A person wanting justice doesn't falsify info." Since when?

"People who distort info have another agenda. " And since when do we know that ST didn't have other agendas? He seemed pretty interested in his 15 minuts of fame and the $$$ that went with it.

JMO.

[Zoey]

Originally posted by bullmoose
CK: I'm always sorry to hear that someone has Bi-Polarism; what is amazing is that sometimes, like my one sister-in-law who is on SSD because of having it, sometimes its not brought on by drug use. Most certainly they are manipulative of those around them; its like having a constant crisis that is trying to suck you in. On another note, a tabloid is a published printed pile of lies, half-lies with a rare occasional fact thrown in. The networks are slightly more trustworthy than tabloids, but not much. Are you saying you have not read the books on this case? I thought a month or so ago you stated that you had read Steve Thomas' book; does my memory serve me on this?

I must have misread your post as well Coloradokares, as I am sure you mentioned you had read PM/PT, and had taken it back to the library and was now on a waiting list. And now you are saying you haven't read any of the books on this case. I am confused. :confused:

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon



Again: Chet Ubowski from the CBI said that Patsy Ramsey probably wrote the note. Patsy was one of the few people who could not be eliminated as the author. It's no use trying to throw sand into people's eyes.

The same goes for the IDIs trying to discredit Steve Thomas. I'd encourage everyone to read his depo themselves, for it is fascinating to find out how the IDIs, who call ST 'Twisting Thomas', are the ones who are twisting his words.
But their arguments don't hold any water, at least not with people who have researched the case and studied the sources themselves.
Thomas said in his depo that the sheets had urine on them, but by the time they were finally collected, all what was found on the sheets was dry urine.

As for his theory: he said that it might have been toilet rage which caused Patsy to snap and lose it. It is a theory, and an investigator has the right to present as many theories as he likes, for the Ramseys have never been cleared as suspects.
And btw, a wetting accident needn't always be a 'bed'wetting accident. Another thing to consider.

I don't believe that it was toilet rage, but this doesn't mean that Steve Thomas is a liar. Even Patsy Ramsey had to admit that he wanted justice for JonBenet. A person wanting justice doesn't falsify info. People who distort info have another agenda.

In his book Steve quoted the CBI lab's fiber test results, and lawyer Levin confronted the Ramseys with the fiber evidence too. But in your opinion they all must have lied: the lab techs, Steve Thomas, and Levin.
They all lied because they wanted to frame the poor innocent Ramseys. Yeah, right.

"People who distort info have another agenda".

I agree and you can start by looking in your own mirror.

I have read and actually printed out every single page of Thomas' depo and had his book. There are several statements of conflicting info he gives in his depo v his book. Noone has access to the CBI reports so you don't know if what was said is true, do you but yet you say we say they are lying??? It is a fact that Levin did not personally review the evidence and was given questions by the BPD. I've posted links to that before and obviously you chose not to read or ignore them. He also makes a statement in his depo that says "we didn't know if there was urine on the sheets" and in the same depo says he was told that info??? So which is it?

I also notice on other forums that statements are made as fact and noone seems to bother to question them but just accept them. I don't. I research statements made and confirum and verify. There is absolutely NO proven evidence that those sheets were wet.

What Chet Ubowski of CBI said was he could not eliminate Patsy as the author and concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. That does not mean he concluded she wrote the note.

There are several examples of Thomas "spinning the facts" to fit his theory. He is also the one who told Schiller that the fibers found on the duct tape were red and black and contradicts that in his depo. He also said she must have worn the red turtleneck and in his book says it was urine stained but admits is was part of his "theory" in the depo. I could go on and on but just don't have the time. He also makes a statement in his depo that says "we didn't know if there was urine on the sheets" and in the same depo says he was told that info???

From the Steve Thomas deposition in the Wolf v Ramsey case:

Q. Did anybody tell you that they found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?
A. No, this is what I am surmising in the hypothesis.
Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into evidence?
A. I certainly believe it was.
Q. Did it have any type of urine stain on it?
A. Not that I'm aware of. I never have looked at it personally.
Q. Where did you get the statement that it got wet; did you just manufacture that out of whole cloth?
A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a reasonable explanation for the final resting place of this red turtleneck of which she may have indeed worn home.
Q. But you had no evidence to support that statement about the turtleneck being wet, true?
A. No, I don't know that it was urine stained.
Q. Or wet?
A. Or wet.

22 Q. There were no black fibers that
23 were found on the duct tape that were said
24 to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy
25 Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?
252
1 A. It's my understanding that the
2 four fibers were red in color.


19 Q. Reading on. "Were there
20 corresponding stains on the bed sheets? We
21 didn't know, although when the crime became a
22 murder instead of a kidnapping, those sheets
23 should have been promptly collected for
24 testing." Have I read that correctly?
25 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what tests were performed on
273
1 them?
2 A. I don't know. Detective Trujillo
3 had that assignment.
4 Q. Was there any test that you're
5 aware of that indicated the presence of urine
6 on those sheets?
7 A. Detective Trujillo imparted to me
8 that he had learned or believed that there
9 was not a presumptive test for urine
10 according to the CBI.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Athena


"People who distort info have another agenda".

I agree and you can start by looking in your own mirror.

I have read and actually printed out every single page of Thomas' depo and had his book. There are several statements of conflicting info he gives in his depo v his book. Noone has access to the CBI reports so you don't know if what was said is true, do you but yet you say we say they are lying??? It is a fact that Levin did not personally review the evidence and was given questions by the BPD. I've posted links to that before and obviously you chose not to read or ignore them. He also makes a statement in his depo that says "we didn't know if there was urine on the sheets" and in the same depo says he was told that info??? So which is it?

I also notice on other forums that statements are made as fact and noone seems to bother to question them but just accept them. I don't. I research statements made and confirum and verify. There is absolutely NO proven evidence that those sheets were wet.

What Chet Ubowski of CBI said was he could not eliminate Patsy as the author and concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. That does not mean he concluded she wrote the note.

There are several examples of Thomas "spinning the facts" to fit his theory. He is also the one who told Schiller that the fibers found on the duct tape were red and black and contradicts that in his depo. He also said she must have worn the red turtleneck and in his book says it was urine stained but admits is was part of his "theory" in the depo. I could go on and on but just don't have the time. He also makes a statement in his depo that says "we didn't know if there was urine on the sheets" and in the same depo says he was told that info???

From the Steve Thomas deposition in the Wolf v Ramsey case:

Q. Did anybody tell you that they found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?
A. No, this is what I am surmising in the hypothesis.
Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into evidence?
A. I certainly believe it was.
Q. Did it have any type of urine stain on it?
A. Not that I'm aware of. I never have looked at it personally.
Q. Where did you get the statement that it got wet; did you just manufacture that out of whole cloth?
A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a reasonable explanation for the final resting place of this red turtleneck of which she may have indeed worn home.
Q. But you had no evidence to support that statement about the turtleneck being wet, true?
A. No, I don't know that it was urine stained.
Q. Or wet?
A. Or wet.

22 Q. There were no black fibers that
23 were found on the duct tape that were said
24 to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy
25 Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?
252
1 A. It's my understanding that the
2 four fibers were red in color.


19 Q. Reading on. "Were there
20 corresponding stains on the bed sheets? We
21 didn't know, although when the crime became a
22 murder instead of a kidnapping, those sheets
23 should have been promptly collected for
24 testing." Have I read that correctly?
25 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what tests were performed on
273
1 them?
2 A. I don't know. Detective Trujillo
3 had that assignment.
4 Q. Was there any test that you're
5 aware of that indicated the presence of urine
6 on those sheets?
7 A. Detective Trujillo imparted to me
8 that he had learned or believed that there
9 was not a presumptive test for urine
10 according to the CBI.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm
Do you seriously believe think the CBI would have idly stood by and said nothing if Steve Thomas had misquoted their lab findings in his book?

In his book, Thomas did not say the fibers were red and black. That's what copunts, and not what Schiller alleges Thomas told him. Schiller was the far more sloppy writer of the two, and himself later admitted to several inaccuracies in his book PMPT. And what Schiller said about the fibers is probably just another of these inaccuracies. Schiller didn't know the case first-hand like Thomas.
Thanks for putting ST's depo here, so that everoyone can read it.
Now where did Thomas say these sheets were wet? That's what you are trying to put in ST's mouth.
What ST said was that the sheets should have been promptly collected, but that was never done.
Nice cut-and-paste job on your part by leaving out the section in ST's depo where he says that there was in fact urine found on the sheets, but by the time the sheets were tested, all possibly fresh urine on them had dried. Now who is distorting info here?

[shill]

rashomon putaspinon,
Why don't you start a church to worship Steve Thomas.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
CK: I'm always sorry to hear that someone has Bi-Polarism; what is amazing is that sometimes, like my one sister-in-law who is on SSD because of having it, sometimes its not brought on by drug use. Most certainly they are manipulative of those around them; its like having a constant crisis that is trying to suck you in. On another note, a tabloid is a published printed pile of lies, half-lies with a rare occasional fact thrown in. The networks are slightly more trustworthy than tabloids, but not much. Are you saying you have not read the books on this case? I thought a month or so ago you stated that you had read Steve Thomas' book; does my memory serve me on this?

Bullmoose Our daughter in laws is most likely genetic as she has had 3 indivicuals in her family that have exhibited much the same or similar. I have read all the books....except Hodges I was told it really was not worth the read at all. Have you a different opinion on that. As for the National Affliates. I know you could be right. But a personal friend of mine has worked above the pale ethically and tirelessly since this murder her and I have sat and really had some chats, heart to heart I have seen her level of dedication to the truth. So some reporters are not about the ratings but are truth seekers. Count on it.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by rashomon

Do you seriously believe think the CBI would have idly stood by and said nothing if Steve Thomas had misquoted their lab findings in his book?

In his book, Thomas did not say the fibers were red and black. That's what copunts, and not what Schiller alleges Thomas told him. Schiller was the far more sloppy writer of the two, and himself later admitted to several inaccuracies in his book PMPT. And what Schiller said about the fibers is probably just another of these inaccuracies. Schiller didn't know the case first-hand like Thomas.
Thanks for putting ST's depo here, so that everoyone can read it.
Now where did Thomas say these sheets were wet? That's what you are trying to put in ST's mouth.
What ST said was that the sheets should have been promptly collected, but that was never done.
Nice cut-and-paste job on your part by leaving out the section in ST's depo where he says that there was in fact urine found on the sheets, but by the time the sheets were tested, all possibly fresh urine on them had dried. Now who is distorting info here?
To all: this is the section Athena left out in ST's depo, for obvious reasons:

24 A. I have been told that they were

25 urine stained.

274

1 Q. Who told you they were urine

2 stained?

3 A. Detective Trujillo, Detective

4 Wickman.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

To all: this is the section Athena left out in ST's depo, for obvious reasons:

24 A. I have been told that they were

25 urine stained.

274

1 Q. Who told you they were urine

2 stained?

3 A. Detective Trujillo, Detective

4 Wickman.

LOL; I specifically prefaced the excerpt I posted about the urine with this statement from the post you are responding to (reposted below) So answer the question, which was it: either "we didn't know (BPD) OR they did know? Then he goes on to say there were no tests that could be done. Admit it - the man spinned the evidence - thus the nickname "Tiwsted Thomas".

I have no qualms about posting Thomas' depo links and have done so all along. So again - you missed the point: he has so many contradictory statements you don't know what is actually fact or what he said to make the evidence fit his theory. He was a PO. Mistakes like should NOT happen especially when he had one of the roles as lead detective.

"He also makes a statement in his depo that says "we didn't know if there was urine on the sheets" and in the same depo says he was told that info??? So which is it?"

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by LindaA
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did think you meant you had a relative with the Boulder Police.

Speaking of BP -- the mental condition-- I wasn listening to Nancy Grace last night talking about Deb Lafave, the beautiful 23-year-old middle school teacher who had an affair with a 14 year old student. She apparently was bi-polar. Her ex said she could be absolutely charming, but talk about your high-risk behavior. Drug use is another high-risk behavior common among victims of this condition. So I didn't think it was caused by drug use, but a symptom or an associated behavior.

CK, I really think you should read the books on the case. They are valuable for two reasons: 1.) They are written after all the dust has settled and 2.) They help refresh your memory, and human memory is not very accurate.

I have read all the books I think. I did not read Hodges book I was told it wasn't accurate enough to make it worth the read. I might just read it anyway. Most of who have told me not to read it was IDI's or those who would say to read this as it proves Patsys guilt, so they must think this is definitely a book written to portray Patsy as the killer. That is why I didn't read it. I want facts not bias. Other than that I think I have read them all and not just one reading either. I can tell you PMPT had some inaccuracies in it but overall I think you gain from reading most all of the books.

Maybe its not as easy if you didn't live with it over your bowl of granola in the mornings but we can pretty much pick out what we know just wasn't so. Not saying we were not fed media hype. We were. However it helps when you know people who knew the Ramseys. I will tell you some of our friends who lived right in that neighborhood swear by all that is within them that the Ramseys could not have done this thing regardless of how damning the evidence looks. That has always weighed heavy with me. Once again I am left to say. My dog in the fight is to get this into a court so all the evidence can be seen and heard and verdict rendered. That is our system of justice in this country. I don't feel a need to thwart this established system. However its is a miscarriage of justice to leave this case as it is.

[Athena]

rashomon: You also know that I posted Thomas depo before re: the urine and you responded to it previously -- yet YOU now try to twist my intent. Birds of a feather... LOL

Also re: the fibers on Patsy's jacket. Thomas admits he knew her jacket was red and black -- yet he only talks about the red fibers. So pray tell where are the black or gray fibers since the jacket was checked with red, gray and black?

I'll say it again -- there was absolutely NO evidence that JBR wet the bed nor that those fibers were in fact from Patsy's jacket. If the same thing was presented in a court of law -- it would mean absolutely nothing. JMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Zoey


I must have misread your post as well Coloradokares, as I am sure you mentioned you had read PM/PT, and had taken it back to the library and was now on a waiting list. And now you are saying you haven't read any of the books on this case. I am confused. :confused:

I have read all the books. more than once even yet. I did not read HODGES book. I was told it was very biased and presented Patsy Ramsey as the killer. That was the only book that I know of so far I have not read.

[shill]

rashomon putaspinon,
Work your magic oh great one.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Once again I am left to say. My dog in the fight is to get this into a court so all the evidence can be seen and heard and verdict rendered. That is our system of justice in this country. I don't feel a need to thwart this established system. However its is a miscarriage of justice to leave this case as it is. Don't you need a suspect to take a case to court?

[Athena]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Sorry it has been suggested out here by some early on long before the internet forums. I have no idea if it was diagnosed or treated. But the behaviors that could point to it were in books even. Charming as can be yet an instant firebrand..... Depression medications....and while I won't reveal my local sources for good reason...... it was said more than once. Your believing it or not your preference does not make it never spoken.

Oh geez. Here we go again with insider info. Again their behavior was scrutinized for several years and nothing came up re: any psychopathic behavior. Sounds like Boulder is a rea gossip town - if you don't know just make it up. :shrug:

As far as depression meds go -- so what? Millions of Americans take meds for depression especially when possibly dying of cancer. Depression meds does not a murderer make. JMO

[Coloradokares]

I think I need to clarify part of something I posted. I have included it here for reference from one of my posts.

.Books were written on this suject matter. I have not read the books. Tried to stay away from them as I was told they were full of speculation etc. Hodge I think was but one of the authors.

Let me clarify the subject matter I was referring to was not the broader subject of the murder itself. But the subject of mental health and depression and personality issues regarding Patsy. In other words I was trying to say this is more than just local gossip like Shill was making it sound. Once again I think I have read all of the books PMPT JonBenet Investigation into a murder. Steve Thomas. I have read Steve Singulars book Death of Innocence. Which was Ramseys Book. Even the forensic one by Wecht. However the book I didn't read because I was told it was garbage was Hodges book in which he portrays Patsy as the murderer and how she has confessed that to his way of seeing things.

Hope this clarifications ends speculation on if I have read the normal course of books on the Murder itself.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Athena


Oh geez. Here we go again with insider info. Again their behavior was scrutinized for several years and nothing came up re: any psychopathic behavior. Sounds like Boulder is a rea gossip town - if you don't know just make it up. :shrug:

As far as depression meds go -- so what? Millions of Americans take meds for depression especially when possibly dying of cancer. Depression meds does not a murderer make. JMO

You have a six year old little girl killed in your town in the way JonBenet was and have it make the national news and see if neighbors and acquaintances don't talk. People who knew them. People who thought the pagents were getting over the top with the sexual undertones. Nothing huh....Believe as you will. We were not a gossip town . We were a town in total SHOCK!!! and HORROR. A murder happened out here with sexual issues showing up in the autopsy. Yes millions of Americans take meds for depression . Or other mental health issues. Kids die at the hands of these parents and then thats when it comes out. Post Partum depression or Schizophrenia etc etc etc. Bipolar you name it. I even said how much cancer had to do with it who knows. But more than one person who knew them personally.... thought things were not all as perfect as they tried to make them seem. That has come out in the police investigations . You can believe it or stick your head in the sand and prove that denial is not just a river in Egypt. Just know this. Ritter is now the governor elect. You can feel things heating up out here again. You might be shocked at some of what would come out in a trial. You can believe it or not.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Don't you need a suspect to take a case to court?

Ah the winds of change they be a blowin like the Schinooks across the Boulder Valley. .....Could be they might have a name in mind. Wouldn't surprise me... The Ramseys were never exonerated. Ever heard of our new Governor elect. Bill Ritter....name ring a bell? Let me go get you a link ok.....

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Athena


LOL; I specifically prefaced the excerpt I posted about the urine with this statement from the post you are responding to (reposted below) So answer the question, which was it: either "we didn't know (BPD) OR they did know? Then he goes on to say there were no tests that could be done. Admit it - the man spinned the evidence - thus the nickname "Tiwsted Thomas".

I have no qualms about posting Thomas' depo links and have done so all along. So again - you missed the point: he has so many contradictory statements you don't know what is actually fact or what he said to make the evidence fit his theory. He was a PO. Mistakes like should NOT happen especially when he had one of the roles as lead detective.

"He also makes a statement in his depo that says "we didn't know if there was urine on the sheets" and in the same depo says he was told that info??? So which is it?"
Where did you preface the excerpt you posted with this statement I was responding to? Show me please.
You started your post with the red turtleneck, that was your 'preface'.

And I suppose you know very well that ST spoke about 'corresponding' stains on the bedsheet, which referred to the urine which was found on JB's underwear.
And he answered that they didn't know at that time because the sheets were not prompltly collected.
His following statement that they were later told that there was in fact urine on the sheets does not contradict what he previously said.
Are you simply a sloppy reader or is it intentional on your part?

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Ah the winds of change they be a blowin like the Schinooks across the Boulder Valley. .....Could be they might have a name in mind. Wouldn't surprise me... The Ramseys were never exonerated. Ever heard of our new Governor elect. Bill Ritter....name ring a bell? Let me go get you a link ok.....

So......who is the suspect?

[Coloradokares]

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail99.asp?ID=25
Here is an somewhat dated article. Which will show that Bill Ritter was more or less part of the Thomas support team. At the time he was the Denver DA consulted on the case. He is now our governor elect. Forums for justice also seems to have the opinion things could start back on the Ramsey Investigation now. I won't go so far as to say for sure an office of special prosecutor will in fact be appointed. However the way all this is firing up again since JMK I would not be surprised. If you need a link for more info regards Ritter of FFJ....I'll help you all out. You are all pretty serious researchers though right.

[rashomon]

rashomon putaspinon,
Work your magic oh great one.
I prefer working with facts and not with magic (unlike many IDIs with their 'magic' intruder, lol). Still waiting for you to back up your allegation that Pats'y fibers were "all over JB" with officially documented record.

Originally posted by shill
rashomon putaspinon,
Why don't you start a church to worship Steve Thomas.
I'm not the type to put a spin on things. I want to find out what happened on that fatal night and why, that's the reason why I am posting here.
It seems that some IDIs nerves' are a bit frazzled at the moment, hence their resort to name calling. ;)
But that's their problem, not mine.

I don't 'worship' Steve Thomas. In fact I don't agree with many parts of his theory. I don't believe it was toilet rage, nor can I understand why he thinks John Ramsey was not involved in this, only Patsy, and why he thought the garrote with its clumsily done knots was actually constructed to kill JB, and not done for staging purposes.

But to infer from this that ST was a "liar" is a total non-sequitur. I'm convinced that if ST had known about the fiber evidence implicating John at the time he wrote his book, he would not have eliminated John.
ST was committed to finding justice for JB, and disagreeing with his theory does not imply that he distorted facts. That's what you IDIs refuse to accept.

And from what I have read here, it is the IDIs, not the RDIs, who are the 'worshippers' here, taking everything which the Ramseys said for gospel and blindy believing them.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


So......who is the suspect?

Not sure I have one definite name in mind for you. However if the Office of Special Prosecutor is appointed in this matter the suspect will be who they say not DA Lacy. To my knowledge the outcry for this office to be appointed has been going on since the grand jury only offered their recommendation. Note the Ramseys were not exonerated in any way....I think that would leave that door open if the Office is appointed and that is the way things go down. Once again I am not saying that Ramsey's killed JonBenet. I don't know. What I want ....my dog in the fight. Is a total objective review of all evidence. By an Office of special Prosecutor sworn to go where all evidence follows. Get it into court let a jury decide. I have an opinion.....but whats that worth....IdI's think they know it. RDI's do too. Let a jury decide.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Athena
[B
<snip>

I'll say it again -- there was absolutely NO evidence that JBR wet the bed nor that those fibers were in fact from Patsy's jacket. If the same thing was presented in a court of law -- it would mean absolutely nothing. JMO [/B]

Page 506 - PMPT

"Now the CBI reported that the fibers were not consistent with the slacks or the sweater but were consistent with the jacket. The CBI could not say for sure that the fibers didn't come from some other piece of clothing made of the same material, but this important evidence would be included in the police presentation."

Interesting - IMO - nothing from Patsy's slacks, nothing from her sweater, but fibers that were "consistent with" fibers from her jacket. Wonder how many other articles of clothing could be found that would be "consistent with."

A good defense attorney (and probably a not so good one) would rip this apart in court.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

Where did you preface the excerpt you posted with this statement I was responding to? Show me please.
You started your post with the red turtleneck, that was your 'preface'.

And I suppose you know very well that ST spoke about 'corresponding' stains on the bedsheet, which referred to the urine which was found on JB's underwear.
And he answered that they didn't know at that time because the sheets were not prompltly collected.
His following statement that they were later told that there was in fact urine on the sheets does not contradict what he previously said.
Are you simply a sloppy reader or is it intentional on your part?

rashomon: here is my EXACT post:

Originally posted by Athena

"People who distort info have another agenda".

I agree and you can start by looking in your own mirror.

I have read and actually printed out every single page of Thomas' depo and had his book. There are several statements of conflicting info he gives in his depo v his book. Noone has access to the CBI reports so you don't know if what was said is true, do you but yet you say we say they are lying??? It is a fact that Levin did not personally review the evidence and was given questions by the BPD. I've posted links to that before and obviously you chose not to read or ignore them. He also makes a statement in his depo that says "we didn't know if there was urine on the sheets" and in the same depo says he was told that info??? So which is it?

I also notice on other forums that statements are made as fact and noone seems to bother to question them but just accept them. I don't. I research statements made and confirum and verify. There is absolutely NO proven evidence that those sheets were wet.

What Chet Ubowski of CBI said was he could not eliminate Patsy as the author and concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. That does not mean he concluded she wrote the note.

There are several examples of Thomas "spinning the facts" to fit his theory. He is also the one who told Schiller that the fibers found on the duct tape were red and black and contradicts that in his depo. He also said she must have worn the red turtleneck and in his book says it was urine stained but admits is was part of his "theory" in the depo. I could go on and on but just don't have the time. He also makes a statement in his depo that says "we didn't know if there was urine on the sheets" and in the same depo says he was told that info???

From the Steve Thomas deposition in the Wolf v Ramsey case:

Q. Did anybody tell you that they found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?
A. No, this is what I am surmising in the hypothesis.
Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into evidence?
A. I certainly believe it was.
Q. Did it have any type of urine stain on it?
A. Not that I'm aware of. I never have looked at it personally.
Q. Where did you get the statement that it got wet; did you just manufacture that out of whole cloth?
A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a reasonable explanation for the final resting place of this red turtleneck of which she may have indeed worn home.
Q. But you had no evidence to support that statement about the turtleneck being wet, true?
A. No, I don't know that it was urine stained.
Q. Or wet?
A. Or wet.

22 Q. There were no black fibers that
23 were found on the duct tape that were said
24 to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy
25 Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?
252
1 A. It's my understanding that the
2 four fibers were red in color.


19 Q. Reading on. "Were there
20 corresponding stains on the bed sheets? We
21 didn't know, although when the crime became a
22 murder instead of a kidnapping, those sheets
23 should have been promptly collected for
24 testing." Have I read that correctly?
25 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what tests were performed on
273
1 them?
2 A. I don't know. Detective Trujillo
3 had that assignment.
4 Q. Was there any test that you're
5 aware of that indicated the presence of urine
6 on those sheets?
7 A. Detective Trujillo imparted to me
8 that he had learned or believed that there
9 was not a presumptive test for urine
10 according to the CBI.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm [/B][/QUOTE]

[Athena]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


You have a six year old little girl killed in your town in the way JonBenet was and have it make the national news and see if neighbors and acquaintances don't talk. People who knew them. People who thought the pagents were getting over the top with the sexual undertones. Nothing huh....Believe as you will. We were not a gossip town . We were a town in total SHOCK!!! and HORROR. A murder happened out here with sexual issues showing up in the autopsy. Yes millions of Americans take meds for depression . Or other mental health issues. Kids die at the hands of these parents and then thats when it comes out. Post Partum depression or Schizophrenia etc etc etc. Bipolar you name it. I even said how much cancer had to do with it who knows. But more than one person who knew them personally.... thought things were not all as perfect as they tried to make them seem. That has come out in the police investigations . You can believe it or stick your head in the sand and prove that denial is not just a river in Egypt. Just know this. Ritter is now the governor elect. You can feel things heating up out here again. You might be shocked at some of what would come out in a trial. You can believe it or not.

People who think child beauty pageants have "sexual undertones" needs to examine themselves. I just see little girls playing dressup.

Seems to me they named all of their friends so just how much did your "friend" personally know the Ramseys and again nothing negative was "officially" reported about their background.

What I think of my neighbors have no legal standing in a court of law unless I am privy to confidential information that I have first-hand knowledge of. You cannot get in someone's head -- and would be considered hearsay. :shrug: JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail99.asp?ID=25
Here is an somewhat dated article. Which will show that Bill Ritter was more or less part of the Thomas support team. At the time he was the Denver DA consulted on the case. He is now our governor elect. Forums for justice also seems to have the opinion things could start back on the Ramsey Investigation now. I won't go so far as to say for sure an office of special prosecutor will in fact be appointed. However the way all this is firing up again since JMK I would not be surprised. If you need a link for more info regards Ritter of FFJ....I'll help you all out. You are all pretty serious researchers though right.

I don't see anything in the article that implies Ritter was a part of Thomas' support team.

I believe at the time of JonBenet's murder Bill Ritter was DA in Denver and served on Alex Hunter's task force.........and was the one who recommended Michael Kane as the "finest grand jury expert he's ever worked with" to head up the JBR grand jury investigation.

What is it exactly you are trying to say about Bill Ritter?

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


I don't see anything in the article that implies Ritter was a part of Thomas' support team.

I believe at the time of JonBenet's murder Bill Ritter was DA in Denver and served on Alex Hunter's task force.........and was the one who recommended Michael Kane as the "finest grand jury expert he's ever worked with" to head up the JBR grand jury investigation.

What is it exactly you are trying to say about Bill Ritter?

Funny I don't either. Seems to me that he would have been charged with "conflict of interest" along with Hunter had it gone that far:

`Once they had the tape, (Hunter) may have been in a conflict of interest,'' Silverman said. ``He may have been at their mercy.''

Silverman said prosecutors, in the face of such improprieties, are ``duty bound to withdraw from a case because of conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict.''

He said if Hunter is removed from the case, his entire office would also be forced off, as would metro-area DAs such as Adams County's Bob Grant and Denver's Bill Ritter. Both serve as consultants in the case.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Athena


rashomon: here is my EXACT post:

Originally posted by Athena

"People who distort info have another agenda".

I agree and you can start by looking in your own mirror.

I have read and actually printed out every single page of Thomas' depo and had his book. There are several statements of conflicting info he gives in his depo v his book. Noone has access to the CBI reports so you don't know if what was said is true, do you but yet you say we say they are lying??? It is a fact that Levin did not personally review the evidence and was given questions by the BPD. I've posted links to that before and obviously you chose not to read or ignore them. He also makes a statement in his depo that says "we didn't know if there was urine on the sheets" and in the same depo says he was told that info??? So which is it?

I also notice on other forums that statements are made as fact and noone seems to bother to question them but just accept them. I don't. I research statements made and confirum and verify. There is absolutely NO proven evidence that those sheets were wet.

What Chet Ubowski of CBI said was he could not eliminate Patsy as the author and concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. That does not mean he concluded she wrote the note.

There are several examples of Thomas "spinning the facts" to fit his theory. He is also the one who told Schiller that the fibers found on the duct tape were red and black and contradicts that in his depo. He also said she must have worn the red turtleneck and in his book says it was urine stained but admits is was part of his "theory" in the depo. I could go on and on but just don't have the time. He also makes a statement in his depo that says "we didn't know if there was urine on the sheets" and in the same depo says he was told that info???

From the Steve Thomas deposition in the Wolf v Ramsey case:

Q. Did anybody tell you that they found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?
A. No, this is what I am surmising in the hypothesis.
Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into evidence?
A. I certainly believe it was.
Q. Did it have any type of urine stain on it?
A. Not that I'm aware of. I never have looked at it personally.
Q. Where did you get the statement that it got wet; did you just manufacture that out of whole cloth?
A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a reasonable explanation for the final resting place of this red turtleneck of which she may have indeed worn home.
Q. But you had no evidence to support that statement about the turtleneck being wet, true?
A. No, I don't know that it was urine stained.
Q. Or wet?
A. Or wet.

22 Q. There were no black fibers that
23 were found on the duct tape that were said
24 to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy
25 Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?
252
1 A. It's my understanding that the
2 four fibers were red in color.


19 Q. Reading on. "Were there
20 corresponding stains on the bed sheets? We
21 didn't know, although when the crime became a
22 murder instead of a kidnapping, those sheets
23 should have been promptly collected for
24 testing." Have I read that correctly?
25 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what tests were performed on
273
1 them?
2 A. I don't know. Detective Trujillo
3 had that assignment.
4 Q. Was there any test that you're
5 aware of that indicated the presence of urine
6 on those sheets?
7 A. Detective Trujillo imparted to me
8 that he had learned or believed that there
9 was not a presumptive test for urine
10 according to the CBI.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm
You obviously fail to grasp what ST meant by 'corresponding' stains, and that he said he didn't know "what tests" were performed on the sheets, which is something else that saying there was no urine on them.
I have addressed in my previous posts every single point you brought up - Schiller admitting to inacurracies in his book, for example.
ST initially did not know if there was urine on the sheets or not because the sheets were not promptly collected, and as I hope you know, ST was NOT part of the initially botched investigation.
And he was later told that there was in fact urine on them.
What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Athena


Funny I don't either. Seems to me that he would have been charged with "conflict of interest" along with Hunter had it gone that far:

`Once they had the tape, (Hunter) may have been in a conflict of interest,'' Silverman said. ``He may have been at their mercy.''

Silverman said prosecutors, in the face of such improprieties, are ``duty bound to withdraw from a case because of conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict.''

He said if Hunter is removed from the case, his entire office would also be forced off, as would metro-area DAs such as Adams County's Bob Grant and Denver's Bill Ritter. Both serve as consultants in the case.

http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenetdocs.htm

This is the link to the Ramsey documents. In it you will see reference again to Ritter and Hunter. I think its listed in Letter two of the Whites letters. What I am trying to say is Ritter was instrumental in getting Hunter to use the Grand Jury as and investigative tool. Opps I just see what I said wrong. I had Thomas on the brain and his ref to Ritter in his book. Not Thomas team...Hunter team of advisors. I apologize. :punch: That had to be confusing. I am tired I guess. Anyway Ritter has a track record of utilizing Grand Juries and being amenable to Office of Special Prosecutors as investigative tools. As Governor its a case he is personally familiar with and wants to see resolved. I think he might appoint the Office of special prosecutor. That is all I have asked. Lets lay it out and get the hard questions asked and proved by experts.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

You obviously fail to grasp what ST meant by 'corresponding' stains, and that he said he didn't know "what tests" were performed on the sheets, which is something else that saying there was no urine on them.
I have addressed in my previous posts every single point you brought up - Schiller admitting to inacurracies in his book, for example.
ST initially did not know if there was urine on the sheets or not because the sheets were not promptly collected, and as I hope you know, ST was NOT part of the initially botched investigation.
And he was later told that there was in fact urine on them.
What is so difficult to understand about that?

Oh I grasped it. Either there were urine stains or not. He said he did not know and later on says Trujillo and Wckman said there were. So if the sheets allegedly had urine on them that morning but were not collected until days later and there are not tests that can be conducted, exactly what proof is there that those sheets were in fact stained with urine? They certainly don't show up in the photos -- sorry but Trujillo and Wickman would be laughed out of court making any statements that there was urine on them but were not collected and didn't show up in photos. I've seen no official reports saying there was urine on those sheets. Not even mentioned in the warrants though you would think if they believed they were wet they would have been taken out with the initial warrant.

Again absolutely no proof - it is a moot issue. JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenetdocs.htm

This is the link to the Ramsey documents. In it you will see reference again to Ritter and Hunter. I think its listed in Letter two of the Whites letters. What I am trying to say is Ritter was instrumental in getting Hunter to use the Grand Jury as and investigative tool. Opps I just see what I said wrong. I had Thomas on the brain and his ref to Ritter in his book. Not Thomas team...Hunter team of advisors. I apologize. :punch: That had to be confusing. I am tired I guess. Anyway Ritter has a track record of utilizing Grand Juries and being amenable to Office of Special Prosecutors as investigative tools. As Governor its a case he is personally familiar with and wants to see resolved. I think he might appoint the Office of special prosecutor. That is all I have asked. Lets lay it out and get the hard questions asked and proved by experts.

OK -- now it makes sense. The Thomas connection was what confused me. LOL

[LadyFisher]

I tried to post this on another thread, but it stated the link was invalid??? So I will post it here.....all this talk from many posters about a special prosecutor...comes across to me, that they would like to see the Ramseys convicted for the murder of their daughter when there is not sufficient evidence of it.....I want to see the true murderer of JonBenet brought to justice just as much as everyone else, but not someone that is innocent of the crime just to appease some folks! jmho Don't forget about the special tonight! :seeya:

[bullmoose]

I think with the tenth anniversary of Jonbenet's murder coming up that the whole case is going to be dragged out again and reexamined in minute detail by the media. I am looking foward to the special tonight as its promising to be interesting. I hope our power stays on[big, big snow storm] to let me see it. As for the insider info, the scuttlebutt, that CK keeps talking about, that would come out in a trial; I say, let justice take its course; if the new governer appoints a special prosecuter to take a fresh look at the evidence, the street talk, the scuttlebutt will not be part of what he or she examines. It will be the evidence collected by the BPD, in their initial and follow-up investigation, and the information gathered by the prosecuter's office that will be looked at. And IMO, the DNA evidence will be pivotal. With all of Twisting Thomas' grand theory in hand, it is still impossible to ignore the matching DNA samples, which, IMHO blows Strained Stevie's theory into Chubby Checkerland. It doesn't match anyone yet tested,does it?

[sweetcharlotte]

People are still critical of Mary Lacy and the handling of the JMK situation, but IMO - had she not taken the action she did and something came up later about JMK people would forever talk about the "opportunity she missed in 2006."

I think Mary Lacy is in a no win situation - so who knows? Maybe she would welcome the opportunity to turn the investigation over to a special prosecutor.

And ten years have passed so maybe they could get individuals on the team who could look at the evidence without bias.

JMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
People are still critical of Mary Lacy and the handling of the JMK situation, but IMO - had she not taken the action she did and something came up later about JMK people would forever talk about the "opportunity she missed in 2006."

I think Mary Lacy is in a no win situation - so who knows? Maybe she would welcome the opportunity to turn the investigation over to a special prosecutor.

And ten years have passed so maybe they could get individuals on the team who could look at the evidence without bias.

JMO

I agree with you on this. Mary Lacy, IMO..had no choice but to handle the JMK situation the way that she did. You are right, if she had of missed an opportunity, she would still be talked about..regardless. Its one of those damned if you do..damned if you don't kinda situations. IMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Page 506 - PMPT

"Now the CBI reported that the fibers were not consistent with the slacks or the sweater but were consistent with the jacket. The CBI could not say for sure that the fibers didn't come from some other piece of clothing made of the same material, but this important evidence would be included in the police presentation."

Interesting - IMO - nothing from Patsy's slacks, nothing from her sweater, but fibers that were "consistent with" fibers from her jacket. Wonder how many other articles of clothing could be found that would be "consistent with."

A good defense attorney (and probably a not so good one) would rip this apart in court.

Fact: It will not be the book Perfect Murder Perfect Town on trial or its accuracy. It will be the evidence and its experts and its expert witness testimony regards the fiber evidence. And that may not be quite as easy to rip apart ..... You do know that the author did say regarding his own book some things were found to be in error. I am willing to wait to see if the fiber evidence withstands the scruitiny. Till then all I have is opinion. But its worth as much to me as yours is to you.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Athena


OK -- now it makes sense. The Thomas connection was what confused me. LOL

Yeah I am pretty tired I think. I stayed up baking the pies and all that the other night now the effect is hitting me. The pies were good though. :D

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rashomon

<snip>

And from what I have read here, it is the IDIs, not the RDIs, who are the 'worshippers' here, taking everything which the Ramseys said for gospel and blindy believing them.

Absolutely, and in spite of the multitude of times the Rs have been caught contradicting themselves or outright lying.

What is it about John and Patsy Ramsey that makes people believe every word they say without question, and to the point of making an endless number of excuses (no matter how implausible) that get the Rs off the hook when it comes to relating information accurately with consistency?

[Coloradokares]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231921,00.html

Not sure where this should go this is the coverage by fox news on John Mark Karr still a suspect. Pay particular attention to what Craig Silverman. Former DA for Denver had to say. Not only about Karr but DA Lacey.... He did not stutter at all

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231921,00.html

Not sure where this should go this is the coverage by fox news on John Mark Karr still a suspect. Pay particular attention to what Craig Silverman. Former DA for Denver had to say. Not only about Karr but DA Lacey.... He did not stutter at all

Nothing in article about Craig Silverman/Mary Lacy?

[Coloradokares]

Darn ......the link is not showing the transcript of the interview with Silverman yet. It always posts up after airing and it was under the Karr heading that Silverman was a fox guest. Maybe the transcipt hasn't posted up yet on the link. I'll look in more detail for it. If you are into staying up they usually replay the fox news and I think midnight....midnight Colorado time.... I know your and IDI Charlotte however this is worth the watching cause Silverman has a lot more clout than you think out here. He may seem harmless and laughable to you. But so does a stick of dynamite ..... till it blows up and he was fired up and HOT tonight. He really blasted DA Lacy.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Coloradokares

<snip>

He really blasted DA Lacy.

Yes, I am an IDI. I have watched a lot that has been on TV about Mary Lacy and so far I haven't seen anything but criticism of her.......and yet no one seems to say what they would have done had they been in her shoes. (And I have to think that the citizens of Boulder did not elect her because of her pretty face :)
so she must have done/be doing something right.) All of this criticism of her sounds like sour grapes to me.


JMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Yes, I am an IDI. I have watched a lot that has been on TV about Mary Lacy and so far I haven't seen anything but criticism of her.......and yet no one seems to say what they would have done had they been in her shoes. (And I have to think that the citizens of Boulder did not elect her because of her pretty face :)
so she must have done/be doing something right.) All of this criticism of her sounds like sour grapes to me.


JMO
You know something I think Mary Lacy did the right thing in spending the time and money to bring back Karr. For one thing he was stalking a little girl over there. That is worth every single dime if nothing else. It really isnt about sour grapes is about you cannot get personally involved at any level with any suspect or their council. Mary Lacy has done little to show Boulder that she has maintained the objectivity to do her job regarding this case. Simple as that. Just my opinion. I 'd feel the same way if she hounded them half to insanity. Once you loose objectivity your of no value in that position. Its a job someone has to do. It shouldn't be a launching pad for political positioning. Look at the new case as well. I'll mispell the name ...Midyette? Little baby. We need prosecution from a DA's office. I happen to agree with Silverman. But as to her doing what she did to bring back Karr on this case. I'll give her an At on that. She saved a little girl.

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon

Still waiting for you to back up your allegation that Pats'y fibers were "all over JB" with officially documented record.

You're one of those people who can never figure out why bad things happen to them, aren't you rashomon putaspinon?

You're so far down the path of deception there is no coming back.

Riddle me this, 4 fibers on the tape and a few fibers from Patsy's jacket twined into the knot of the garrote.
How did she get the fibers from her jacket to only be on those objects and no where else on JonBenets body?

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon


And from what I have read here, it is the IDIs, not the RDIs, who are the 'worshippers' here, taking everything which the Ramseys said for gospel and blindy believing them. I've based all my theories on the evidence available. But my what a coincidence that the Ramsey's testimonies and interviews have correlated with my theories.

It's the RDIs that seem to base their arguments heavily on what the Ramseys said and not the evidence.

[sweetcharlotte]

When I see people accusing others of being "worshippers" or "enamored" with the Ramseys I figure they're down to their last argument. Kinda like if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

JMO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Fact: It will not be the book Perfect Murder Perfect Town on trial or its accuracy. It will be the evidence and its experts and its expert witness testimony regards the fiber evidence. And that may not be quite as easy to rip apart ..... You do know that the author did say regarding his own book some things were found to be in error. I am willing to wait to see if the fiber evidence withstands the scruitiny. Till then all I have is opinion. But its worth as much to me as yours is to you. Well, let's see the evidence scrutinized.....ex. the stun gun marks on the body of JB, the DNA that has already ruled out the Ramseys as well as many of their friends,.....and let's get dna from every single person that ever worked in that Boulder home even in the smallest capacity! Let's see where it leads....let's find the remaining duct tape, cord, etc...and exactly why there were two sets of footprints in that basement or both still unidentified? jmho

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Well, let's see the evidence scrutinized.....ex. the stun gun marks on the body of JB, the DNA that has already ruled out the Ramseys as well as many of their friends,.....and let's get dna from every single person that ever worked in that Boulder home even in the smallest capacity! Let's see where it leads....let's find the remaining duct tape, cord, etc...and exactly why there were two sets of footprints in that basement or both still unidentified? jmho

The stun gun hasn't been proven. The DNA may very well have been there before Patsy even bought that package of underwear. There may not be any remaining tape or cord. Those footprints have not been dated and could have been there way before Christmas night 1996.

If that's all you have to show there was an intruder, that isn't enough.

There's no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night, and there's the pesky issue of the Rs fiber evidence...

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


The stun gun hasn't been proven. The DNA may very well have been there before Patsy even bought that package of underwear. There may not be any remaining tape or cord. Those footprints have not been dated and could have been there way before Christmas night 1996.

If that's all you have to show there was an intruder, that isn't enough.

There's no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night, and there's the pesky issue of the Rs fiber evidence...

NP: What about the evidence that has not been explained including other fibers found on JBRs body that did NOT match the Ramseys.

Again - I leave room that the Ramseys may have been involved but I have seen/heard no real evidence that connects them to this horrific crime other than being in their own house.

I also keep reading about the Ramseys' lies and have not seen any proof of that either. Minor inconsistencies in their statements can easily be explained away.

Fiber evidence alone especially coming from the same house one lives in would not stand up in a court of law.

[rashomon]

[Sweetcharlotte] When I see people accusing others of being "worshippers" or "enamored" with the Ramseys I figure they're down to their last argument. Kinda like if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
[/B]
That was a retort of mine, SC. Read the thread and you'll see who first brought up the 'worshipping' issue: it was Shill.
And imo it is people like Shill who, like a kid in a sandbox resorting to name-calling, have run out of arguments. They can't come up with anything else, so that's all they have left.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rashomon

That was a retort of mine, SC. Read the thread and you'll see who first brought up the 'worshipping' issue: it was Shill.
And imo it is people like Shill who, like a kid in a sandbox resorting to name-calling, have run out of arguments. They can't come up with anything else, so that's all they have left.

Oooh, Rashomon just laid down a healthy dose of TRUTH! *applause*

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon

That was a retort of mine, SC. Read the thread and you'll see who first brought up the 'worshipping' issue: it was Shill.
And imo it is people like Shill who, like a kid in a sandbox resorting to name-calling, have run out of arguments. They can't come up with anything else, so that's all they have left. Yes I resorted to name calling.
You just don't get anything at all no matter how it's explained. And you'll never get it.
You keep asking me for a link to show that Patsy's Jacket fibers were all over JB, that's how clueless you are.
You can regurgitate what people said verbatim all day long, but it doesn't mean you know what your talking about.
Your opinion isn't worth responding to except to point out how clueless you are, and that has got old and tiresome.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
Yes I resorted to name calling.
You just don't get anything at all no matter how it's explained. And you'll never get it.
You keep asking me for a link to show that Patsy's Jacket fibers were all over JB, that's how clueless you are.
You can regurgitate what people said verbatim all day long, but it doesn't mean you know what your talking about.
Your opinion isn't worth responding to except to point out how clueless you are, and that has got old and tiresome.

It is customary and part of da rulez of this forum to provide links, especially when asked. Most of us do take the time to search for and provide these links to back up what we are saying so is there any reason you are exempt?
Name calling just makes you look like the clueless one.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
When I see people accusing others of being "worshippers" or "enamored" with the Ramseys I figure they're down to their last argument. Kinda like if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

JMO

Well goll-eee I thought the same thing when an IDI said we should worship Steve Thomas.....I kind of figured they were
down to the last argument not much left. Kinda like if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger...... JMO That was how that thread got started after all....

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


It is customary and part of da rulez of this forum to provide links, especially when asked. Most of us do take the time to search for and provide these links to back up what we are saying so is there any reason you are exempt?
Name calling just makes you look like the clueless one. It's not about customary responses. This is about deductive reasoning. If any of you had some, you would not need a link.
You're basically saying that there is nothing you can learn about this case unless someone in authority has written about it. You know less then they do and you expect to solve this case? We should be looking for what they missed, because that is why the case is unsolved.
I'd like to have seen an ounce of deductive powers from you people, and so far you have shown none. You're just one big data base of evidence, statements and hearsay that's already known. Try figuring out the unkown.
Funny thing is, the answer to my question supports RDI theory more then IDI.
Sadly, I have learned nothing new from you people and can no longer stand your maniacal rhetoric.
I have better things to do then respond to you, and I will leave you to your pat on the back party.:beer:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by shill
Yes I resorted to name calling.
You just don't get anything at all no matter how it's explained. And you'll never get it.
You keep asking me for a link to show that Patsy's Jacket fibers were all over JB, that's how clueless you are.
You can regurgitate what people said verbatim all day long, but it doesn't mean you know what your talking about.
Your opinion isn't worth responding to except to point out how clueless you are, and that has got old and tiresome.

Shill, it is quite amusing to watch your tap-dance around the truth because you simply don't want to admit that you don't HAVE a link to where it says that Patsy's fibers were "all over Jon Benet".
For if such info should exist, just about every IDI here would long since have mentioned it to the RDIs with relish and provided the link, don't you think so?

So unless you come up with a link (or direct us to where we can look it up), I think "Patsy's fibers all over JB" exist merely in your own imagination.

[nuisanceposter]

Lol, rash, as well as the idea that JonBenet wasn't strong enough to have left marks on her wrists fighting for her life or that her shirt sleeves were made of some kind of supersoft fabric that doesn't allow chafing or bruising to occur on a wrist when a child struggles against it.

Shill can't admit that there's no evidence that JonBenet fought against her attacker at all, and nothing supports his "hands restrained above her head while she was strangled" theory. Her hands could be in that position from having been dragged, Shill, and IMO that's the most likely answer for why her arms were in an upraised position.

Patsy's fibers being all over JonBenet is one thing, but Patsy's fibers being in the knot, on the tape, and in the paint tray when she never wore that jacket in the basement is another thing. The absence of anyone else's forensic evidence (hair, prints, fibers) on the body and/or crime scene is making it look even worse.

Other than the artifact DNA which appears to have nothing to do with this murder due to its degradation, there is no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey being involved in killing JonBenet and staging the crime scene.

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon


Shill, it is quite amusing to watch your tap-dance around the truth because you simply don't want to admit that you don't HAVE a link to where it says that Patsy's fibers were "all over Jon Benet".
For if such info should exist, just about every IDI here would long since have mentioned it to the RDIs with relish and provided the link, don't you think so?

So unless you come up with a link (or direct us to where we can look it up), I think "Patsy's fibers all over JB" exist merely in your own imagination. Typical, all regurgitation and no thinking.
How about you supply a link that says none of her jacket fibers were on JB's body genius.
I only tap dance around to flesh out how clueless you are.

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill


<snipped>
You just don't get anything at all no matter how it's explained. And you'll never get it.
You can regurgitate what people said verbatim all day long, but it doesn't mean you know what your talking about.
Your opinion isn't worth responding to except to point out how clueless you are, and that has got old and tiresome.


The same can be said for you, shill.

[Ames]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Oooh, Rashomon just laid down a healthy dose of TRUTH! *applause*


Woooo Hoooo.....yahhhh.....you GO Rashomon!!!

[shill]

It's obvious Patsy didn't kill JB or the red fibers from her jacket would be all over JB's body.
The only explanation is an intruder came in contact with those red fibers when he had the rope and tape on him, and that's why they are the only red fibers from her jacket found on those two items in proximity to JB's body. Patsy was never in contact with JB's body.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by Ames



The same can be said for you, shill.


No, actually it can't. Shill, rude as he/she may be relies on deductive thinking. That's where most of the rest of us fall down -- the IDIs - "PR just couldn't ahve done this to her daughter" adn the RDI - "anyone who would put theire child in a beauty pageant and was such a careless housekeeper is natuarlly suspect in her murder."

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LindaA



No, actually it can't. Shill, rude as he/she may be relies on deductive thinking. That's where most of the rest of us fall down -- the IDIs - "PR just couldn't ahve done this to her daughter" adn the RDI - "anyone who would put theire child in a beauty pageant and was such a careless housekeeper is natuarlly suspect in her murder."

Just who are you accusing of not relying on deductive reasoning?

Shill might put some thought into what he says, but come on, be fair...we all do. The cheap shots Shill makes at people in every post he makes detracts from whatever point he's trying to make. You'd think if he wanted to be taken seriously, he'd rely on deductive reasoning to figure out that he's alienating himself and lessening the impact of his statements by being insulting.

There's no call to be continually rude and condescending to others on a message board, especially when they've come right out and told you more than once that they don't appreciate it.

Shill may be in your camp, Linda, but excusing his continued rude behavior isn't going to help promote a open and polite atmosphere on this board (and I thought we were doing a real good job of that.) We all need to be adults here and put on a smile and be pleasant and polite to each other, even when we disagree. There's no need to make personal jabs and insults at each other. We can do better than that, and I think the gravity of this case deserves it.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Just who are you accusing of not relying on deductive reasoning?

Shill might put some thought into what he says, but come on, be fair...we all do. The cheap shots Shill makes at people in every post he makes detracts from whatever point he's trying to make. You'd think if he wanted to be taken seriously, he'd rely on deductive reasoning to figure out that he's alienating himself and lessening the impact of his statements by being insulting.

There's no call to be continually rude and condescending to others on a message board, especially when they've come right out and told you more than once that they don't appreciate it.

Shill may be in your camp, Linda, but excusing his continued rude behavior isn't going to help promote a open and polite atmosphere on this board (and I thought we were doing a real good job of that.) We all need to be adults here and put on a smile and be pleasant and polite to each other, even when we disagree. There's no need to make personal jabs and insults at each other. We can do better than that, and I think the gravity of this case deserves it. We IDIs have taken our share of insults on this board, we've been called moronic to unchristian....most of the time we've ignored the remarks and continued with our posting.....I think most of shills statements have been light in comparison....most of us have tried to use what everyone so bandies around here as deductive reasoning...and it's obvious we've come to different concusions on this case....I for one, see the entire murder scene as an intruder did it, the fibers were never proven to be Patsy's, they were only suggested they were consistent with her jacket, what other object of clothing perhaps from the killer could they have been consistent with? What were they only red, when the jack was multi color...not enough evidence there to convict PR of murdering her daughter....this was not accident this was murder of a 6 y/o child....there were reports, and no I don't have links..that there were many fibers not that could not even be linked to anything in that home, who do they belong to? The DNA you keep saying is degraded, but there are 9 or 10 markers out of 13 that could point to the true killer imho at some point in time. Have a great day, folks.....just remember, we've all endured the insults here...some we've even had to laugh about ourselves....we do need a little humor on the board occasionally! :seeya:

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Just who are you accusing of not relying on deductive reasoning?

Shill might put some thought into what he says, but come on, be fair...we all do. The cheap shots Shill makes at people in every post he makes detracts from whatever point he's trying to make. You'd think if he wanted to be taken seriously, he'd rely on deductive reasoning to figure out that he's alienating himself and lessening the impact of his statements by being insulting.

There's no call to be continually rude and condescending to others on a message board, especially when they've come right out and told you more than once that they don't appreciate it.

Shill may be in your camp, Linda, but excusing his continued rude behavior isn't going to help promote a open and polite atmosphere on this board (and I thought we were doing a real good job of that.) We all need to be adults here and put on a smile and be pleasant and polite to each other, even when we disagree. There's no need to make personal jabs and insults at each other. We can do better than that, and I think the gravity of this case deserves it.

I totally agree 200% with everything stated above. There is no justification ever to lower yourself to those demeaning standards. Shill's posts are insulting himself far more than anyone else he is trying to debase. Other forums are being interviewed for their respected opinion and taken seriously. Mainly that is due to the thoughtful posts either side of the aisle.
No rancor or hostilities. Just respectful thought provoking posting that can be taken seriously vs sandbox insults that make no sense at all for adults. If shill wants his message heard then he needs to present it where it does not fall on ears to offended to hear.

[Ames]

Originally posted by LindaA



No, actually it can't. Shill, rude as he/she may be relies on deductive thinking. That's where most of the rest of us fall down -- the IDIs - "PR just couldn't ahve done this to her daughter" adn the RDI - "anyone who would put theire child in a beauty pageant and was such a careless housekeeper is natuarlly suspect in her murder."

I am not talking about Shill's "deductive thinking"....I am talking about his/her rudeness to other people, because he/she is trying to be funny. The name calling, sarcastic remarks, cut-downs....all because he/she is trying to be funny, is uncalled for. You wouldn't be taking up for him/her....if they were directed at you, now would you?

[Ames]

Originally posted by LadyFisher


<snipped>
Have a great day, folks.....just remember, we've all endured the insults here...some we've even had to laugh about ourselves....we do need a little humor on the board occasionally! :seeya:

HUMOR? Shill's CONTINUOUS insults are not funny....if you are the one that he is directing them toward. There is a difference in a wise crack every once in awhile, and peppering every single post with one. I am going to start reporting him/her to the mods, if he/she doesn't lay off.

[LindaA]

Ames, Shill posted <snipped>

You just don't get anything at all no matter how it's explained. And you'll never get it.
You can regurgitate what people said verbatim all day long, but it doesn't mean you know what your talking about.
Your opinion isn't worth responding to except to point out how clueless you are, and that has got old and tiresome.


Originally posted by Ames



The same can be said for you, shill.

My response was to your reply to him/her. Shill may be rude, but he/she is not clueless. He thinks things through and that's more than I see a lot of us doing.

[sweetcharlotte]

You know - I get aggravated when people post something without a link or just simply stating "IMO."

If it's someone's opinion, how am I going to "debate" (or argue with) that?

We're all entitled to our opinions - but we aren't entitled to post them as facts (except common knowledge statements - as in "the sun rises in the east") unless we have something to back up what we say.

JMO, MOO and all that..........

[Zoey]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
You know - I get aggravated when people post something without a link or just simply stating "IMO."

If it's someone's opinion, how am I going to "debate" (or argue with) that?

We're all entitled to our opinions - but we aren't entitled to post them as facts (except common knowledge statements - as in "the sun rises in the east") unless we have something to back up what we say.

JMO, MOO and all that..........

Or the link they provide has absolutely nothing to do with what they rambled on about in their posts. imo, JMHO, MOO, etc.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
It's obvious Patsy didn't kill JB or the red fibers from her jacket would be all over JB's body.
The only explanation is an intruder came in contact with those red fibers when he had the rope and tape on him, and that's why they are the only red fibers from her jacket found on those two items in proximity to JB's body. Patsy was never in contact with JB's body.

Isn't this an IMO statement?
Where is your proof that the fibers from Patsys jacket were only found on the tape, garrote and paint tray?
Pretty darn lucky of that intruder to come into contact with those fibers and transfer them to those particular items only, if that's what you're saying. What is the probability of that? Not very, I'd say.

[shill]

Other poster have attacked, insulted, and been rude to me.
As usual, they only see what they want to see, that I'm the only guilty one.
Such hypocrites.

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1



Where is your proof that the fibers from Patsys jacket were only found on the tape, garrote and paint tray?
LOL:lol:

[rashomon]

How about you supply a link that says none of her jacket fibers were on JB's body genius.
I only tap dance around to flesh out how clueless you are.

Trying to muddy the waters again, Shill?
For it's your turn first, bud. For it was YOU who alleged that Patsy's fibers were found 'all over JonBenet', so please give us your source for that.

And in terms of your question why the multicolored jacket didn't shed multicolored fibers: it is a myth to believe that garments have to shed fibers equally. For example, in a fiber mix, some fiber types may shed more easily than others, and I think that's what happened with the fibers from Patsy's jacket.