The Pineapple Issue

[User615]

If you mean would I gamble my life on it...then no, anything in this crazy world is possible.

But I have reasons that JR wouldnt have written it like that. It reads to me like someone nasty, of low education, and of unstable emotions wrote that note. Its just brimming with nasty jibes & changes its tone throughout. Its either written by a multiple personality, or it had two people throwing in their 2 cents.

The first bit of the rn talks about respect for Js business & then it degenerates into stuff like `dont grow a brain` etc. I think it is quite a gruesome rn.

But, if you are saying the parents deliberately strangled their daughter & cracked her skull open....then I guess believing they wrote a rn would not be a stretch. This puts them into being phsycopaths imo.

I personally cant see them doing this out of the blue. They appear to be normal parents in the normal meaning of the word. I need to see more evidence that they are phsycopaths.
jmo

First, I don't believe the note was written with someone of low education. No words are spelled wrong, and there are some words the average person would not use. While it is full of drama from movie lines, it's still grammatically correct for the most part.

As far as out of the blue, this goes back to my theory that they were covering up for their son. It's bad enough they have lost a daughter, but can you imagine the ramifications if it was their son that did it? I believe they were trying to cut their losses, and avoid any more tragedy. JMO

[andU]

Thanks, Carnie. I should write a book on Mama-lies.... she had so many cute little things that just seemed to roll out of her mouth. She was a hoot and I miss her dearly! Sorry for the disruption of the board, guys.
Edited: that is read: momily(s), not mama lies...

[SnarkyCow]

If you mean would I gamble my life on it...then no, anything in this crazy world is possible.

But I have reasons that JR wouldnt have written it like that. It reads to me like someone nasty, of low education, and of unstable emotions wrote that note. Its just brimming with nasty jibes & changes its tone throughout. Its either written by a multiple personality, or it had two people throwing in their 2 cents.

The first bit of the rn talks about respect for Js business & then it degenerates into stuff like `dont grow a brain` etc. I think it is quite a gruesome rn.

But, if you are saying the parents deliberately strangled their daughter & cracked her skull open....then I guess believing they wrote a rn would not be a stretch. This puts them into being phsycopaths imo.

I personally cant see them doing this out of the blue. They appear to be normal parents in the normal meaning of the word. I need to see more evidence that they are phsycopaths.
jmo

SNARKYCOW'S DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT ACCUSING JOHN OR PATSY OR BURKE RAMSEY OF HAVING A MENTAL DISORDER. I AM NOT A DOCTOR NOR DO I PLAY ONE ON TV. I AM ONLY POSTING THIS BECAUSE THE TERM "PSYCHOPATH" WAS BROUGHT UP & I'VE OFTEN WONDERED HOW A PSYCHOPATHIC OR SOCIOPATHIC PERSONALITY WOULD FIT INTO THIS CRIME. THIS POST IS ONLY MY OPINION & I AM NOT, REPEAT, AM NOT SAYING THAT I BELIEVE, KNOW OR HAVE ANY PROOF THAT EITHER JOHN OR PATSY RAMSEY FIT INTO ONE OF THE PROFILES LISTED IN THE FOLLOWING LINK.

You bring up an interesting point regarding "psychopaths." I have wondered if and how personality disorders, such as sociopathic & psychopathic, fit into the murder of JonBenet. From what I've read sociopathic & psychopathic individuals live by different rules and emotions than the status quo. I'm wondering how hard it'd be to lie about a crime or justify a crime if it was committed by someone with a psychological/personality disorder?

Manipulation, not feeling guiltly, able to lie & convince people ~ ease in making people believe what you want them to believe? Of course, it is probably hard to fit any person perfectly into a profile by matching every single symptom or trait.

Sorry, I am rambling.... just thinking out loud. Does anyone know if there were any reputable, reliable psychological profiles released on the Ramseys, their friends, or the people who were close to the family?

Click here (http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html) for a link on the traits that define certain psychological/personality disorders

[LindaA]

Not that I know of, Snarks. Their mental health records would be confidential.

[SnarkyCow]

Not that I know of, Snarks. Their mental health records would be confidential.

Duh ~ Of course they would - :o I kind of didn't think about that part.

[LindaA]

They would be interesting reading, though. I'm tryiing to fit the Rs into the "sociopath" mold. As I work with offenders, I've run across quite a few in my day. They are often charming, often like to live dangerously, often abuse alcohol and drugs. They are "social engineers" who manipulate people, They are interested in a person only so far as that person can do them some good. Then they drop them and move on. As they are very narcissistic they seldom spend their time volunteering and helping others -- they're only in anything for what they can get out of it. They lack remorse and are unable to empathize. Other than that they are lovely people. ;)

[Zoey]

First, I don't believe the note was written with someone of low education. No words are spelled wrong, and there are some words the average person would not use. While it is full of drama from movie lines, it's still grammatically correct for the most part.

As far as out of the blue, this goes back to my theory that they were covering up for their son. It's bad enough they have lost a daughter, but can you imagine the ramifications if it was their son that did it? I believe they were trying to cut their losses, and avoid any more tragedy. JMO


There were indeed words that were spelled wrong in the ransom note. Just copy it into a word program and then hit spell check. IMO, they were done intentionally.

[thewhitewitch1]

There were indeed words that were spelled wrong in the ransom note. Just copy it into a word program and then hit spell check. IMO, they were done intentionally.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that the words misspelled were done so intentionally. This would imply that the person writing the note was not of low intellect, as most words were spelled correctly. IMO

[andU]

They would be interesting reading, though. I'm tryiing to fit the Rs into the "sociopath" mold. As I work with offenders, I've run across quite a few in my day. They are often charming, often like to live dangerously, often abuse alcohol and drugs. They are "social engineers" who manipulate people, They are interested in a person only so far as that person can do them some good. Then they drop them and move on. As they are very narcissistic they seldom spend their time volunteering and helping others -- they're only in anything for what they can get out of it. They lack remorse and are unable to empathize. Other than that they are lovely people. ;)


Gee, sounds like Fleet, to me

[Sprocket]

They would be interesting reading, though. I'm tryiing to fit the Rs into the "sociopath" mold. As I work with offenders, I've run across quite a few in my day. They are often charming, often like to live dangerously, often abuse alcohol and drugs. They are "social engineers" who manipulate people, They are interested in a person only so far as that person can do them some good. Then they drop them and move on. As they are very narcissistic they seldom spend their time volunteering and helping others -- they're only in anything for what they can get out of it. They lack remorse and are unable to empathize. Other than that they are lovely people. ;)

I'm very interested in those types, but only from my armchair to review. I feel there is a strong possibility that Patsy exhibited traits of Borderline personality disorder. Of course I have no "proof" of this. It's just my own suspicions. Sociopaths (Antisocial Personality Disorder), Narcissists and Borderlines all fall into that Axis II cluster B category (along with Histronics).

Since you work with offenders, I'm wondering if you are familiar with the groundbreaking research of Dr. Lonnie Athens, Ph. D. He's been described as a "maverick criminalist." Author Robert Rhodes did a biography on Dr. Athens called "WHY THEY KILL." Dr. Athen's outlines a four step "violentization" process that he feels all violent individuals go through (in sequence) on their way to becoming extremely violent.

I highly recommend it to anyone studying true crime.

[Louisadelmar]

Given all the money the tabs spent trying to dig up dirt on the Ramseys, don't you think they'd have found something if she'd had Borderline Personality Disorder. I knew someone who had it and she left behind a wide path of personal mayhem and destruction.

Emphasis mine:
http://www.stanford.edu/~corelli/borderline.html
Symptoms
Relationships with others are intense but stormy and unstable with marked shifts of feelings and difficulties in maintaining intimate, close connections. The person may manipulate others and often has difficulty with trusting others. There is also emotional instability with marked and frequent shifts to an empty lonely depression or to irritability and anxiety. There may be unpredictable and impulsive behavior which might include excessive spending, promiscuity, gambling, drug or alcohol abuse, shoplifting, overeating or physically self-damaging actions such as suicide gestures. The person may show inappropriate and intense anger or rage with temper tantrums, constant brooding and resentment, feelings of deprivation, and a loss of control or fear of loss of control over angry feelings. There are also identity disturbances with confusion and uncertainty about self-identity, sexuality, life goals and values, career choices, friendships. There is a deep-seated feeling that one is flawed, defective, damaged or bad in some way, with a tendency to go to extremes in thinking, feeling or behavior. Under extreme stress or in severe cases there can be brief psychotic episodes with loss of contact with reality or bizarre behavior or symptoms. Even in less severe instances, there is often significant disruption of relationships and work performance. The depression which accompanies this disorder can cause much suffering and can lead to serious suicide attempts.

[Sharon]

First, I don't believe the note was written with someone of low education. No words are spelled wrong, and there are some words the average person would not use. While it is full of drama from movie lines, it's still grammatically correct for the most part.

As far as out of the blue, this goes back to my theory that they were covering up for their son. It's bad enough they have lost a daughter, but can you imagine the ramifications if it was their son that did it? I believe they were trying to cut their losses, and avoid any more tragedy. JMO

Yes, I was incorrect to use the term low education. I have since read some other interpretations from another board that were pretty interesting and tried to profile the writer.

One idea that popped up was that it could have been written by a younger male adult/ student. There was student accomodation nearby apparantly. Sometimes that type of cheap accomodation attracts the wrong sort.

jmo.

[Zoey]

Yes, I was incorrect to use the term low education. I have since read some other interpretations from another board that were pretty interesting and tried to profile the writer.

One idea that popped up was that it could have been written by a younger male adult/ student. There was student accomodation nearby apparantly. Sometimes that type of cheap accomodation attracts the wrong sort.

jmo.

They lived a hop, skip and a jump from the University. I too, have always wondered about a college student, perhaps someone that knew JAR, knew of the parent's wealth, the company that JR owned, the beautiful home they lived in.

[Athena]

They lived a hop, skip and a jump from the University. I too, have always wondered about a college student, perhaps someone that knew JAR, knew of the parent's wealth, the company that JR owned, the beautiful home they lived in.

Not sure if you read John Douglas' "Cases That Haunt Us" but his opinion on the profile of the perp was a possible college student.

Re: the note. I had thrown the note into Word some time ago. I posted it here before but it's been awhile. This was the scoring (with correct spelling):

Words 353
Characters 1582
Paragraphs 8
Sentences 29

Sentences Per Paragraph 4.1
Words per Sentence 12.1
Characters per Word 4.3

Passive sentences 13
Flesch Reading Ease 67.3%
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.8

Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level

An obvious use for readability tests is in the field of education. The "Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level Formula" translates the 0–100 score to a U.S. grade level, making it easier for teachers, parents, librarians, and others to judge the readability level of various books and texts. It can also mean the number of years of education required to understand this text, relevant when the formula results in a number greater than 12.[1] The grade level is calculated with the following formula:

0.39 \left ( \frac{\mbox{total words}}{\mbox{total sentences}} \right ) + 11.8 \left ( \frac{\mbox{total syllables}}{\mbox{total words}} \right ) - 15.59

The result is a number that corresponds with a grade level. For example, a score of 6.1 would indicate that the text is understandable by an average student in 6th grade.

[Zoey]

Thanks Athena. I have not read that book, but will check with the local library and see if they have it.

[LindaA]

No, Sprocket, I am not familiar with the authors you mentioned. Thanks for the info; I will check them out. I have read and attended lectures by Stanton Samenow and find his work to be very helpful.

[shill]

It's also because JR said he read the kids a book, meaning JonBenet was awake to hear it, only to contradict his statements of 12/26 and claim he'd been misunderstood...by three different officers at different times.

Would you please provide a link to those three officers transcripts.
I have not found any source of police reports or transcripts and those would be great to read.

[Sprocket]

No, Sprocket, I am not familiar with the authors you mentioned. Thanks for the info; I will check them out. I have read and attended lectures by Stanton Samenow and find his work to be very helpful.
I don't know if you will find the book WHY THEY KILL relevant to this particular case, but I this it's a fabulous resource of understanding the process of how and why individuals become extremely violent.

[Tober]

They dug their own hole and you are so right the innocent don't need to lie. That's right. Take the pineapple, for instance. Think of all that would be required for the Ramseys to actually be telling the truth about it. They lied. And that they lied is dictated not by my opinion or anyone else's, but by the evidence itself. JonBenet didn't let us down. She left us a clue in the pineapple, saying "I was awake when I got home." By lying, the Ramseys dishonored their daughter. If they would dare do that, then everything they say becomes suspect. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

That's right. Take the pineapple, for instance. Think of all that would be required for the Ramseys to actually be telling the truth about it. They lied. And that they lied is dictated not by my opinion or anyone else's, but by the evidence itself. JonBenet didn't let us down. She left us a clue in the pineapple, saying "I was awake when I got home." By lying, the Ramseys dishonored their daughter. If they would dare do that, then everything they say becomes suspect. This post is my opinion.

They didn't lie.
Did LE make a statement that the Ramseys lied about the pineapple, because I'm not seeing it? All I'm seeing is a bias statement being claimed by posters.

[andU]

That's right. Take the pineapple, for instance. Think of all that would be required for the Ramseys to actually be telling the truth about it. They lied. And that they lied is dictated not by my opinion or anyone else's, but by the evidence itself. JonBenet didn't let us down. She left us a clue in the pineapple, saying "I was awake when I got home." By lying, the Ramseys dishonored their daughter. If they would dare do that, then everything they say becomes suspect. This post is my opinion.

Hey, Tober.... YOU take the pineapple, PLEASE!

[Sharon]

That's right. Take the pineapple, for instance. Think of all that would be required for the Ramseys to actually be telling the truth about it. They lied. And that they lied is dictated not by my opinion or anyone else's, but by the evidence itself. JonBenet didn't let us down. She left us a clue in the pineapple, saying "I was awake when I got home." By lying, the Ramseys dishonored their daughter. If they would dare do that, then everything they say becomes suspect. This post is my opinion.

Please dont talk about JBR like that. I find it offensive that you have to argue that JBR didnt let you down. I think you can make your point without uttering such rubbish about a murdered girl. Its disrespectful imo.

[Tober]

Please dont talk about JBR like that. I find it offensive that you have to argue that JBR didnt let you down. I think you can make your point without uttering such rubbish about a murdered girl. Its disrespectful imo.

My remark was meant as an expression, and not in offense. I apologize if you were offended by it. The point I was trying to make is, that in a sense, JonBenet left us two clues through the pineapple evidence. She was awake when she got home, which is how she was able to consume the pineapple. And, she didn't get the pineapple for herself, which is why none of the fingerprints on the bowl were her's. Burke or Patsy (most likely Patsy) got the pineapple for her, that's why their fingerprints were on the bowl. This post is my opinion.

[Tober]

Hey, Tober.... YOU take the pineapple, PLEASE!

I have "taken the pineapple." I have tried every-which-way to work in an intruder giving it to her or caterers leaving it, whatever. Any such scenario simply contradicts the evidence. The only logical answer for the pineapple, that fits perfectly with the evidence, is that a Ramsey (Burke or Patsy) placed the bowl of pineapple on the table and JonBenet was awake after they got home to be able to consume it. This post is my opinion.

[nuisanceposter]

Please dont talk about JBR like that. I find it offensive that you have to argue that JBR didnt let you down. I think you can make your point without uttering such rubbish about a murdered girl. Its disrespectful imo.

Wow, Tober isn't the only person who has spoken like this. I read a lot of true crime books and many times detectives and pathologists refer to clues in this manner - as if the voice of the victim hasn't been silenced by death after all and is telling us what happened to him or her through forensic evidence.

I just got done reading A Voice For the Dead by James Starrs, and he talked about each of people he exhumed in his investigations in the same manner as Tober did about JonBenet - Alfred Packer's victims, Jesse James, Dr Carl Weiss, Meriwether Lewis, all of them...it's not rubbish, nor is it meant to be disrespectful. People can only find out what happened by listening to what the forensic evidence tells them - in some aspect, the voice of the dead.

[bullmoose]

Please dont talk about JBR like that. I find it offensive that you have to argue that JBR didnt let you down. I think you can make your point without uttering such rubbish about a murdered girl. Its disrespectful imo.Read the Twisterpiece by Steve Thomas and hear the echo when Tober posts:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

Read the Twisterpiece by Steve Thomas and hear the echo when Tober posts:biggrin:


I have never read the Twisterpiece by Steve Thomas and I believe exactly what Tober believes.

[andU]

You are both entitled to that.

[thewhitewitch1]

You are both entitled to that.

So why are we constantly berated for it?

[andU]

I guess the same reason IDI's are.

[bullmoose]

I have never read the Twisterpiece by Steve Thomas and I believe exactly what Tober believes.
Its not about believing what he is saying that I take issue with; it is the eerie echo of Synthroid Stevie's book that is annoying. Its almost as if it were the same person speaking. I don't mind the opinion, I disagree with it, but respect the idea; maybe its just when queried to explain things that IMO contradict his view of the case, he offers no real discussion or explanations.
Thomas' book is written in such a manner; it even contradicts itself at times, and is long on Thomas' theories but short on facts. JMHO

[andU]

I don't mean to distract, but I wanted to share with you all that the murder trial of the Marcus Weisel (the foster child that was murdered in Cincinnati) is now in the hands of the jury for the foster mother... her husband is still awaiting his turn to go to trial.

[shill]

It's a good thing JB ate the pineapple because now we know she got up in the middle of the night and went down stairs to the kitchen wrapped in her blanket to stay warm and ate some pineapple with her fingers that Burke left sitting out, and there in the kitchen the intruder hit her in the head with a flashlight before she ate any more pineapple to knock her out, leaving the flashlight behind in the kitchen and then carrying her down stairs to tie her up and strangle her.
But he hit her to hard and killed her.

[thewhitewitch1]

It's a good thing JB ate the pineapple because now we know she got up in the middle of the night and went down stairs to the kitchen wrapped in her blanket to stay warm and ate some pineapple with her fingers that Burke left sitting out, and there in the kitchen the intruder hit her in the head with a flashlight before she ate any more pineapple to knock her out, leaving the flashlight behind in the kitchen and then carrying her down stairs to tie her up and strangle her.
But he hit her to hard and killed her.

Hmmm...is that why there were fibers from the ligature found on her bed?
Shill...it's amusing to see how you present your theory as fact. You have no proof at all that what you described is what actually happened.

[shill]

Shill...it's amusing to see how you present your theory as fact. You have no proof at all that what you described is what actually happened.

Why is it acceptable for Tober to claim what ever he wants but not I?

And I'm tired of you ww1 berating me and telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. I have proved it as fact.

Why is it that RDI always resort to claiming IDI are wrong and do not present the facts when we do?

I looked RDI up in the dictionary and it was defined as: Hypocrite.

[aussiesheila]

On another note to Aussiesheila...

If Patsy knows who killed her daughter, why did she never tell anyone? Why did the Ramseys shell out all that money to hire PIs? She could have had them all in prison from the get-go and spared her family all of the "trauma" they've endured over the last decade.Yes I'm sure she could have got them all in prison if she had done that. But what would have been the cost for her? Just think about it. My guess is that if she had told she would have lost both John and Burke as well, not to mention all her friends and her standing in the community. She would have been left with nothing.

The reason why I think Patsy never told anyone who killed her daughter was (and I have stated this many times both here and at Websleuths, so I am surprised you are not familiar with it whitewitch), is that while 'persuading' Patsy to write the ransom note, the coverup mastermind pointed out to her that if she did not write it, he would let John know just what her involvement had been in enabling the sexual abuse I believe JonBenet had endured for half her short life, to continue. In making it clear to Patsy just what he would tell John, I think the mastermind so distorted and exaggerated the extent of what she had done, that she realised he could and would paint her as a totally neglectful and abusive mother. IMO the mastermind would have convinced Patsy that after hearing this, John would be so appalled and angered that he would immediately file for divorce and custody of Burke and would most likely win on both cases. Anyone who has been the target of one of these ruthless, manipulative individuals knows just what outrageous lies they are prepared to feed to people as a way of achieving their ends, and IMO the mastermind was just one of these people.

So IMO it was get involved in the coverup and lie for the rest of her life for Patsy, otherwise she would lose everything she had. I don't think Patsy had a choice.

[Sharon]

Yes I'm sure she could have got them all in prison if she had done that. But what would have been the cost for her? Just think about it. My guess is that if she had told she would have lost both John and Burke as well, not to mention all her friends and her standing in the community. She would have been left with nothing.

The reason why I think Patsy never told anyone who killed her daughter was (and I have stated this many times both here and at Websleuths, so I am surprised you are not familiar with it whitewitch), is that while 'persuading' Patsy to write the ransom note, the coverup mastermind pointed out to her that if she did not write it, he would let John know just what her involvement had been in enabling the sexual abuse I believe JonBenet had endured for half her short life, to continue. In making it clear to Patsy just what he would tell John, I think the mastermind so distorted and exaggerated the extent of what she had done, that she realised he could and would paint her as a totally neglectful and abusive mother. IMO the mastermind would have convinced Patsy that after hearing this, John would be so appalled and angered that he would immediately file for divorce and custody of Burke and would most likely win on both cases. Anyone who has been the target of one of these ruthless, manipulative individuals knows just what outrageous lies they are prepared to feed to people as a way of achieving their ends, and IMO the mastermind was just one of these people.

So IMO it was get involved in the coverup and lie for the rest of her life for Patsy, otherwise she would lose everything she had. I don't think Patsy had a choice.

This is the first time Ive read your theory with PR as a key player. I always just get the peds angle part.

So what has PR done for 3 years that facilitated these peds to be able to freely molest her girl. Why did she do this in the first place? Why do you think she had this secret life from JR? Do you think she let them molest JBR even when P. was recovering from cancer?

I have to give you the dubious award of being both RDI AND IDI.

To be honest, in my mind, if I have to believe that PR wrote the note for some peds to protect her `position` I may as well believe she commited the murder with her own hands.

Some reasons (1) If she were truely writing a rn to protect others but against her will, wouldnt she have cracked at some stage before she died herself.

(2) Wouldnt there be tears on the note?

(3) Wouldnt she feel that it directly pointed to her being her paper, pen, hand, and then crack under interigation?

(4) Do you really think she would have the ability to live with the guilt after?
(5) Is she a phsycopath?

Just some of my thoughts & opinions here!

[thewhitewitch1]

Why is it acceptable for Tober to claim what ever he wants but not I?

And I'm tired of you ww1 berating me and telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. I have proved it as fact.

Why is it that RDI always resort to claiming IDI are wrong and do not present the facts when we do?

I looked RDI up in the dictionary and it was defined as: Hypocrite.

Tober ends his posts with "Just my opinion" or something similar. You don't.
I never said that it wasn't "acceptable for you to claim what you want" but your claims are just your opinion and you present them as facts. You have not "proven" anything to me. Your scenerio of JB wrapped in her blanket getting pineapple by herself late at night is a product of your imagination. Unless you were there, you can't know that it actually happened that way.
Your presentation of the "facts" are woven into scenerios of the way you think things happened.
Of course RDIs argue with IDIs...and vice versa. It's called a discussion. We ask questions and find holes in each others theories...because we have opposing view points. Thought that was the purpose of this forum
Definition of a hypocrite would be You. You complain about me "berating you" (which I do not believe I have done) but yet you seem to have no qualms about berating Tober or anyone else who doesn't believe everything you claim to be "a fact". In fact, you insult and berate people more than anyone else in this forum.
You may as well get over it. I don't buy your theory and you have not proven a thing to me. I know it's hard on your ego to accept that, but please try.

[thewhitewitch1]

Too late to edit but wanted to add:

I am not saying that your scenerio regarding the pineapple isn't plausible. And I am not saying that Tobers scenerio is correct either. I am just saying that it could have happened one of these ways or neither. We have no way of actually knowing. That's why it irritates me when you state your ideas as a fact instead of an opinion. (Shill)

[shill]

It's a good thing JB ate the pineapple because now we know she got up in the middle of the night and went down stairs to the kitchen wrapped in her blanket to stay warm and ate some pineapple with her fingers that Burke left sitting out, and there in the kitchen the intruder hit her in the head with a flashlight before she ate any more pineapple to knock her out, leaving the flashlight behind in the kitchen and then carrying her down stairs to tie her up and strangle her.
But he hit her to hard and killed her.
This post is my opinion.

[shill]

JB was asleep when they got home and J&P put her to bed and she did not eat pineapple when she arrived home.
This post is not my opinion.

[andU]

What does the darn pineapple prove anyway? Either she ate or she didn't ... how does it solve who killed her?

[Tober]

Shill, whenever I'm stating something that is my opinion, I usually note that at the end of my post. I don't claim to be absolutely correct about the pineapple (boy will that statement cause some to go checking through my previous posts). Anyway, I usually try to give the reader an idea of how I arrived at my inference, so they know where I'm coming from. For example, if I say that Burke or Patsy placed the bowl of pineapple on the table, that is supported by the fact (not my opinion) that only Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl. This post is my opinion.

[Zoey]

Shill, whenever I'm stating something that is my opinion, I usually note that at the end of my post. I don't claim to be absolutely correct about the pineapple (boy will that statement cause some to go checking through my previous posts). Anyway, I usually try to give the reader an idea of how I arrived at my inference, so they know where I'm coming from. For example, if I say that Burke or Patsy placed the bowl of pineapple on the table, that is supported by the fact (not my opinion) that only Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl. This post is my opinion.

The problem is Tober, when you don't/didn't put This post in my opinion and you were asked for links, not one did your provide. You also state the same thing over and over and over and over, like we are all supposed to take it as being fact because you have posted it 20 times.

It is not a fact the Pasty or Burke placed the bowl of pineapple on the table. What is a fact is their fingerprints were found on the bowl. As of yet, there has been nothing posted that proves how that bowl got on the table.

We can all infer that it got there by either Burke or Patsy, or we can infer that Patsy put it in the cupboard after washing it, hence the reason her prints were on it and then Burke got it down. Or we can infer that Burke put dishes away, (as we have nothing anywere that states for a fact that Burke did not have chores), and that is how his prints got on it. Or we can infer that Burke set the bowl on the counter after removing it from the dishwasher, and Patsy put it away because Burke can't reach.

There are a number of inferences that can be made. There is not, however, fact provided by you that states exactly how that bowl got on the table with the pineapple. This post is my opinion.

[bullmoose]

Shill, whenever I'm stating something that is my opinion, I usually note that at the end of my post. I don't claim to be absolutely correct about the pineapple (boy will that statement cause some to go checking through my previous posts). Anyway, I usually try to give the reader an idea of how I arrived at my inference, so they know where I'm coming from. For example, if I say that Burke or Patsy placed the bowl of pineapple on the table, that is supported by the fact (not my opinion) that only Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl. This post is my opinion.Tober, whenever you infer your inferrent opinions, I can only infer that the inferrer[you] is inferring to some kind of inside inference or
knowledge that you are not sharing with the rest of us[the inferrents]. Yes, everybody knows whose fingerprints were on the bowl; whose house was it? Veiled inferrences fail to infer inferrents with confidence that the inferrer has anything meaningful to infer. Just my inferrent opinion.:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

JB was asleep when they got home and J&P put her to bed and she did not eat pineapple when she arrived home.
This post is not my opinion.


This post is your opinion in that you believe the Ramseys were telling the truth. Not everyone believes them and they have good reason not to.
Your post is a fact in that the Ramseys said she was asleep when they got home, put her to bed and she did not eat pineapple when she got home and that is the only factual thing about it. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

What does the darn pineapple prove anyway? Either she ate or she didn't ... how does it solve who killed her?


I can't believe you asked that.
Of course it's important "if" she ate it (she did eat it. Fact.)
It's important when she ate it. It could make the difference between whether the Ramseys killed her or if an intruder did. The big mystery is how the bowl of pineapple got on the table and when JB ate it. It's a huge piece of the puzzle.

[Tober]

It is not a fact the Pasty or Burke placed the bowl of pineapple on the table. Then how else did it arrive on the table? It can be inferred that either Burke or Patsy virtually had to have placed it there on the basis that only their fingerprints were on the bowl. If one contends that a glove-wearing intruder placed it there, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny on the basis that the flashlight and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints. If the alleged intruder wore gloves, why did he/she need to wipe the flashlight and its batteries of fingerprints? This post is my opinion.

[zippo]

IMHO the pineapple issue represents a major discrepancy in the Ramsey's original story. I realize that there are some experts who say that she could have eaten the pineapple the day before, but this seems impossible to me and I have done some medical research on this.

I find it hard to imagine that Jonbenet got up and ate pineapple with an intruder who didn't kill her for several hours after their snack. But again, I will try to remain open minded on this and welcome any other perspective.

[bullmoose]

Then how else did it arrive on the table? It can be inferred that either Burke or Patsy virtually had to have placed it there on the basis that only their fingerprints were on the bowl. If one contends that a glove-wearing intruder placed it there, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny on the basis that the flashlight and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints. If the alleged intruder wore gloves, why did he/she need to wipe the flashlight and its batteries of fingerprints? This post is my opinion.I find it interesting to infer that the bowl had to have been placed on the table by Patsy or Burke because of their fingerprints on the bowl. Don't twist the facts, Tober; as you know they lived there; if it was placed there by a glove wearing intruder, he/she/they wouldn't have left any fingerprints on it,right? Can't that be reasonably inferred?If their fingerprints were already present on the bowl, as from washing or moving it at a earlier point in time, cannot it be reasonably inferred that they person/s wearing gloves wouldn't have disturbed older, prior prints? When you state that the maglite and it's batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints, on what basis do you say that? On what basis can you state that there were fingerprints to wipe? Or do you just infer that because no fingerprints were found on it or the batteries? You have to to know that a glove wearing person would leave no prints, or at least it can be reasonably inferred; any prior prints on a Maglite would be smeared off by gloves, right? So it seems reasonable to infer that the lack of fingerprints on the Maglite tends to back up the gloved intruder theory, right?JMHO:biggrin:

[zippo]

I find it interesting to infer that the bowl had to have been placed on the table by Patsy or Burke because of their fingerprints on the bowl. Don't twist the facts, Tober; as you know they lived there; if it was placed there by a glove wearing intruder, he/she/they wouldn't have left any fingerprints on it,right? Can't that be reasonably inferred?If their fingerprints were already present on the bowl, as from washing or moving it at a earlier point in time, cannot it be reasonably inferred that they person/s wearing gloves wouldn't have disturbed older, prior prints? When you state that the maglite and it's batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints, on what basis do you say that? On what basis can you state that there were fingerprints to wipe? Or do you just infer that because no fingerprints were found on it or the batteries? You have to to know that a glove wearing person would leave no prints, or at least it can be reasonably inferred; any prior prints on a Maglite would be smeared off by gloves, right? So it seems reasonable to infer that the lack of fingerprints on the Maglite tends to back up the gloved intruder theory, right?JMHO:biggrin:

I have a question: what is the difference between 'no fingerprints' and finger prints wiped clean? I am not a forensic investigator, but I always thought there were finger prints or there weren't (please correct me if I'm wrong). Can the investigators tell if fingerprints were wiped clean or do they just say that because no fingerprint evidence was found?

Also I can understand Patsy's fingerprints on the dishes, but from everything I have read, Burke did not do chores. Did he offer an explanation for his fingerprints on the bowl?

[bullmoose]

IMHO the pineapple issue represents a major discrepancy in the Ramsey's original story. I realize that there are some experts who say that she could have eaten the pineapple the day before, but this seems impossible to me and I have done some medical research on this.

I find it hard to imagine that Jonbenet got up and ate pineapple with an intruder who didn't kill her for several hours after their snack. But again, I will try to remain open minded on this and welcome any other perspective.To me, the whole issue of the pineapple is a strange one; what if she got up after being put to bed, ate the pineapple she found, went back to bed and was attacked and murdered hours later? The fact that the Ramseys did not admit to the pineapple is what is seized upon as 'proof' of the Ramseys' being liars and murderers. But the BPD also seized upon the cord and the duct tape and did their best to try to link Patsy to them. Hundreds of manhours going through receipts and chargeslips turned up nothing, mind you the info was in the papers and tabloids, because that was the way the BPD ran the case. I believe strongly that the BPD did the same with the pineapple, trying to tie it to the Ramseys through itemized receipts and chargeslips at the local Safeway, where it apparently originated. The BPD felt that if they could prove the Ramseys liars on the issue of the pineapple that things would fall into place; but no evidence was ever found tying them to the pineapple. Where did it come from? The Ramseys disclaimed any knowledge of it, so what was its significance? What would have been the big deal, if they had acknowledged the pineapple's presence? Okay, a timeline for Jonbenet's last food; so why lie? I don't have a clue, I just don't see why they would, and I don't think they lied about it. To me, it is another red herring in this case, maybe a false lead to throw suspicion on the Ramseys. If it was, it surely worked.JMHO

[Sharon]

I have a question: what is the difference between 'no fingerprints' and finger prints wiped clean? I am not a forensic investigator, but I always thought there were finger prints or there weren't (please correct me if I'm wrong). Can the investigators tell if fingerprints were wiped clean or do they just say that because no fingerprint evidence was found?

Also I can understand Patsy's fingerprints on the dishes, but from everything I have read, Burke did not do chores. Did he offer an explanation for his fingerprints on the bowl?

Interesting. I would also like to know if the bowl had other fingerprints (but of a smeared variety, unidentifiable), or if it was totally devoid of any other prints, save B & P`s.???

[thewhitewitch1]

To me, the whole issue of the pineapple is a strange one; what if she got up after being put to bed, ate the pineapple she found, went back to bed and was attacked and murdered hours later? The fact that the Ramseys did not admit to the pineapple is what is seized upon as 'proof' of the Ramseys' being liars and murderers. But the BPD also seized upon the cord and the duct tape and did their best to try to link Patsy to them. Hundreds of manhours going through receipts and chargeslips turned up nothing, mind you the info was in the papers and tabloids, because that was the way the BPD ran the case. I believe strongly that the BPD did the same with the pineapple, trying to tie it to the Ramseys through itemized receipts and chargeslips at the local Safeway, where it apparently originated. The BPD felt that if they could prove the Ramseys liars on the issue of the pineapple that things would fall into place; but no evidence was ever found tying them to the pineapple. Where did it come from? The Ramseys disclaimed any knowledge of it, so what was its significance? What would have been the big deal, if they had acknowledged the pineapple's presence? Okay, a timeline for Jonbenet's last food; so why lie? I don't have a clue, I just don't see why they would, and I don't think they lied about it. To me, it is another red herring in this case, maybe a false lead to throw suspicion on the Ramseys. If it was, it surely worked.JMHO


It certainly would be helpful if someone would claim knowledge of that pineapple...be it a caterer, Burke...anyone.
It's not unreasonable to believe that JB got up and ate it by herself, though the Ramseys have said that she wouldn't do that. She probably could not have gotten the bowl out of the refridgerator herself, as JR thought that she could not even open the door to it herself...and even expressed doubt over whether Burke could open it.
To believe that an outside person (the intruder) brought pineapple into their home really is not believeable. What would his reason be? He'd have to go through cupboards and drawers to find the bowl and spoon, which would risk taking more time and making more noise. That's why some people (myself included) believe that at some point, Patsy got the bowl out and Burke must have touched it or ate some and JB had some. I don't understand why others don't see how the fingerprints on the bowl and glass and the fact that JB ate pineapple add up to the real possibility that she was not asleep when the family arrived home that night.
Why won't the Ramseys admit it? Because if you keep the story short and sweet - "she was asleep and she never woke up" - the less questions you have to answer that may trip up your story and get you caught in a lie. IMO
Their first statements to the LE was that she was asleep when they got home. How were they later going to "suddenly remember" that "oops, she wasn't asleep because we ate some pineapple"? I don't believe they thought anyone was ever going to think twice about that pineapple and they probably even forgot about it until it was later brought up. If you've just killed your kid (accidentally or otherwise), you aren't going to stop and think about what they had to eat before it happened. Why would you? And especially not if you are in a panic and not thinking clearly but most likely they did not know that stomach contents can help determine a persons time of death. IMO

[Zoey]

Then how else did it arrive on the table? It can be inferred that either Burke or Patsy virtually had to have placed it there on the basis that only their fingerprints were on the bowl. If one contends that a glove-wearing intruder placed it there, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny on the basis that the flashlight and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints. If the alleged intruder wore gloves, why did he/she need to wipe the flashlight and its batteries of fingerprints? This post is my opinion.

How else did it arrive on the table? Easy, someone put it there. We just don't have the facts to point to who it was. You don't, I don't, the BPD doesn't. There is not fact one to prove Patsy put that bowl on the table. The only fact is, her fingerprints and Burke's were on the bowl. Fact is, that bowl belonged in the Ramsey household, therefore it would be expected to contain family member's fingerprints. I would be more suspicious of Patsy feeding JB the pineapple if there were no fingerprints on it. IMO.

How do we know for a fact that the flashlight and the batteries were wiped clean? Because the BPD says so? Could this not be information that is being held, in that they have fingerprints, they just are not saying? I still would like to believe, and do believe that there is information that has not been released to the public. IMO.

If the flashlight was wiped clean, was it wiped clean because the intruder, although they/he/she may have been wearing gloves, that there could be DNA, hair, or anything else for that matter not only from themselves/himself/herself, but if it was indeed the murder weapon, from JB as well? IMO.

[Zoey]

It certainly would be helpful if someone would claim knowledge of that pineapple...be it a caterer, Burke...anyone.
It's not unreasonable to believe that JB got up and ate it by herself, though the Ramseys have said that she wouldn't do that. She probably could not have gotten the bowl out of the refridgerator herself, as JR thought that she could not even open the door to it herself...and even expressed doubt over whether Burke could open it.
To believe that an outside person (the intruder) brought pineapple into their home really is not believeable. What would his reason be? He'd have to go through cupboards and drawers to find the bowl and spoon, which would risk taking more time and making more noise. That's why some people (myself included) believe that at some point, Patsy got the bowl out and Burke must have touched it or ate some and JB had some. I don't understand why others don't see how the fingerprints on the bowl and glass and the fact that JB ate pineapple add up to the real possibility that she was not asleep when the family arrived home that night.
Why won't the Ramseys admit it? Because if you keep the story short and sweet - "she was asleep and she never woke up" - the less questions you have to answer that may trip up your story and get you caught in a lie. IMO
Their first statements to the LE was that she was asleep when they got home. How were they later going to "suddenly remember" that "oops, she wasn't asleep because we ate some pineapple"? I don't believe they thought anyone was ever going to think twice about that pineapple and they probably even forgot about it until it was later brought up. If you've just killed your kid (accidentally or otherwise), you aren't going to stop and think about what they had to eat before it happened. Why would you? And especially not if you are in a panic and not thinking clearly but most likely they did not know that stomach contents can help determine a persons time of death. IMO

How do we know that Burke did not admit to getting out the pineapple for a snack? He very well could have told the Grand Jury the whole story behind the pineapple issue. We are just not privy to this information. At least I am not.

[shill]

This post is your opinion in that you believe the Ramseys were telling the truth. Not everyone believes them and they have good reason not to.
Your post is a fact in that the Ramseys said she was asleep when they got home, put her to bed and she did not eat pineapple when she got home and that is the only factual thing about it. IMO

That's exactly what I posted.
It in no way is my opinion but a fact. There is no statement by LE or DA that contradicts their statements. That's why I said it wasn't my opinion.

But feel free to express your unproven opinions that they are lying.
I prefer to stick to the facts.

[shill]

Then how else did it arrive on the table? It can be inferred that either Burke or Patsy virtually had to have placed it there on the basis that only their fingerprints were on the bowl. If one contends that a glove-wearing intruder placed it there, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny on the basis that the flashlight and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints. If the alleged intruder wore gloves, why did he/she need to wipe the flashlight and its batteries of fingerprints? This post is my opinion.


So you think Patsy put the bowl there, wiped down the flashlight but not the bowl?

You wipe your B&E tools down before you set out to the crime scene, not when your there.
What would be the point of wearing gloves, if for instance, you got in a scuffle and dropped the flashlight full of your fingerprints as you fled?

[shill]

I find it hard to imagine that Jonbenet got up and ate pineapple with an intruder who didn't kill her for several hours after their snack. But again, I will try to remain open minded on this and welcome any other perspective.

Then don't try and imagine it.
Imagine instead, JB got up by herself and found the pineapple out. A few hours later an intruder came for her and killed her.

[shill]

How do we know that Burke did not admit to getting out the pineapple for a snack? He very well could have told the Grand Jury the whole story behind the pineapple issue. We are just not privy to this information. At least I am not.
If those of you believe Patsy fed JB pineapple, then Burke would know of it because he is known to have been up and his fingerprints are present on the bowl and glass indicating he would also know about the pineapple in the bowl, even if he wasn't witness to the actual feeding of JB.

Why hasn't Burke said that Patsy fed JB pineapple or that JB was awake and didn't go upstairs but into the kitchen with Patsy?
Burke was up for what, a half hour or more? He is an eye witness to the time most are claiming Patsy fed JB the pineapple.

Of course the simple explanation would be Burke got the bowl of pineapple out after his parents went to bed and this was made known to the GJ and not the public

[Kor]

So you think Patsy put the bowl there, wiped down the flashlight but not the bowl?

You wipe your B&E tools down before you set out to the crime scene, not when your there.
What would be the point of wearing gloves, if for instance, you got in a scuffle and dropped the flashlight full of your fingerprints as you fled?

That makes sense; I believe the intruder entered the house while the Ramsey were at White's. That was when the intruder accessed to their flashlight and put batteries inside as the killer took stroll around the house. It shows how the killer prepared him/herself before Ramsey got home, by writing the note, figuring out the plans about basement for JB, probably did put suitcase under window in case if need to get out quickly rather than using doors on first floor. I believe the killer was in JB's room snooping around, probably did put equipments on bed, such as cords which may explain why the fibers from it found on her bed. Its normal that Ramsey's fingerprints were all over their things, everywhere inside their home, but their flashlight and its batteries were wiped off which indicated it was intruder, not Ramsey since it was John’s flashlight, not intruder’s. If John or Patsy got rid of duct tape roll, paintbrush stick, leftovers of cords, then why didn’t they got rid of their own flashlight which they should expect BPD to point it back at Ramsey. After all it seems the killer knew where the Ramsey were at and when they will be home. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

If those of you believe Patsy fed JB pineapple, then Burke would know of it because he is known to have been up and his fingerprints are present on the bowl and glass indicating he would also know about the pineapple in the bowl, even if he wasn't witness to the actual feeding of JB.

Why hasn't Burke said that Patsy fed JB pineapple or that JB was awake and didn't go upstairs but into the kitchen with Patsy?
Burke was up for what, a half hour or more? He is an eye witness to the time most are claiming Patsy fed JB the pineapple.

Of course the simple explanation would be Burke got the bowl of pineapple out after his parents went to bed and this was made known to the GJ and not the public

Well, there is the original account of Burke saying that JB was awake when the family got home and "slowly walked up the stairs".
And then, of course, you have Burke lying to the police early in the case about being asleep during the 911 call and then later, during the GJ admitting that he had actually been awake. So...he has already lied once about the events of that morning and recanted what he said about her being awake that night. What else do you suppose he may have lied about?
Of course he would have been an eye witness to Patsy giving JB the pineapple but do you think he would tell anyone this if the R's warned him not to? Suppose they told him they could be sent to prison...you don't think that wouldn't strike fear in him?
Someone asked why would they wipe off the flashlight and not the bowl of pineapple. Simple. As I said before, they probably did not even imagine that the bowl of pineapple could come back to haunt them.
You are right that we don't know what Burke said to the GJ. What we do know is that there was a bowl on the table with fingerprints on it belonging to two of the Ramseys. You give Burke a pass for having his prints on it but make excuses for Patsys being there. Why?

[Zoey]

Well, there is the original account of Burke saying that JB was awake when the family got home and "slowly walked up the stairs".
And then, of course, you have Burke lying to the police early in the case about being asleep during the 911 call and then later, during the GJ admitting that he had actually been awake. So...he has already lied once about the events of that morning and recanted what he said about her being awake that night. What else do you suppose he may have lied about?
Of course he would have been an eye witness to Patsy giving JB the pineapple but do you think he would tell anyone this if the R's warned him not to? Suppose they told him they could be sent to prison...you don't think that wouldn't strike fear in him?
Someone asked why would they wipe off the flashlight and not the bowl of pineapple. Simple. As I said before, they probably did not even imagine that the bowl of pineapple could come back to haunt them.
You are right that we don't know what Burke said to the GJ. What we do know is that there was a bowl on the table with fingerprints on it belonging to two of the Ramseys. You give Burke a pass for having his prints on it but make excuses for Patsys being there. Why?

If we don't know what Burke said to the GJ about the pineapple, how do we know what he said to the GJ about being awake or asleep?

[nuisanceposter]

If we don't know what Burke said to the GJ about the pineapple, how do we know what he said to the GJ about being awake or asleep?

We know what Burke told investigators in a video-taped police interview in Atlanta of June 1999, as described by Steve Thomas on pages 316-317 of his book. Burke said that JonBenet had been asleep in the car but woke up when they stopped at the house of a friend, and was still awake when the family returned home, walking up the spiral staircase to her bedroom ahead of their mother, Patsy.

[Zoey]

We know what Burke told investigators in a video-taped police interview in Atlanta of June 1999, as described by Steve Thomas on pages 316-317 of his book. Burke said that JonBenet had been asleep in the car but woke up when they stopped at the house of a friend, and was still awake when the family returned home, walking up the spiral staircase to her bedroom ahead of their mother, Patsy.

Haven't seen the video taped interview in Atlanta in June of 1999. I don't think any of us on this forum have seen that video. Steve Thomas also said he thought Burke was confused about JB being awake.

What I questioned was TWW saying Burke told the Grand Jury JB was awake. We are not privy to that information either.

[nuisanceposter]

Well...reeeowr. And don't want to forget that IMO. I might get more hate mail.

[bullmoose]

Well, there is the original account of Burke saying that JB was awake when the family got home and "slowly walked up the stairs".
And then, of course, you have Burke lying to the police early in the case about being asleep during the 911 call and then later, during the GJ admitting that he had actually been awake. So...he has already lied once about the events of that morning and recanted what he said about her being awake that night. What else do you suppose he may have lied about?
Of course he would have been an eye witness to Patsy giving JB the pineapple but do you think he would tell anyone this if the R's warned him not to? Suppose they told him they could be sent to prison...you don't think that wouldn't strike fear in him?
Someone asked why would they wipe off the flashlight and not the bowl of pineapple. Simple. As I said before, they probably did not even imagine that the bowl of pineapple could come back to haunt them.
You are right that we don't know what Burke said to the GJ. What we do know is that there was a bowl on the table with fingerprints on it belonging to two of the Ramseys. You give Burke a pass for having his prints on it but make excuses for Patsys being there. Why? As you doubtless are aware 911 tapes are taped over and over; I have never heard anyone but the Twister make the claim that they could hear Burke on the end of the 911 call; to me calling Burke a liar on the issue of the 911 tape is like the tape of the second gunman in the JFK case; if you choose to believe in it, it opens all kinds of assumptive statements:he's already lied, he recanted,what else did he lie about,of course he would have been an eyewitness to Patsy giving Jonbenet the pineapple, Suppose they told him he could be sent to prison,etc.
All based on a fallacious assumption that it was Burke's voice; remember, too, that the upholders of the law, the BPD were hoping to have a quick and easy solution to the case and so questioned Burke illegally at Fleet White's house that morning to see what they could squeeze from the child. The BPD claimed his 'grandmother' gave permission which was and still is a baldfaced lie. Apparently nothing damning about his parents came out in the illegal questioning and I would contend that nothing damning came out in the grand jury questioning, because, as we all know, the grand jury, after taking evidence and testimony for a year, declined to indict the Ramseys or anybody. And has been said before, we don't know what Burke or anybody else said, nor will we to the GJ. JMHO:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

We know what Burke told investigators in a video-taped police interview in Atlanta of June 1999, as described by Steve Thomas on pages 316-317 of his book. Burke said that JonBenet had been asleep in the car but woke up when they stopped at the house of a friend, and was still awake when the family returned home, walking up the spiral staircase to her bedroom ahead of their mother, Patsy.And the Twister wouldn't lie---would he? Maybe just tweak the facts a little bit,as I spotted when I read his Twisterpiece. Actually, if Synthroid Stevie says it, I'll have to hear the taped interview myself to believe it. Something about his behavior on the case infers to me the need for extreme caution when he infers a fact that cannot be independently verified, only inferred. JMHO:biggrin:

[aussiesheila]

Aussiesheila...I don't have time to answer all of your comments and I am sorry if I forgot details of your very long and involved theory.That's OK I'll forgive you, I don't remember details of anyone else's theories either. It's just that, when replying to one of my posts, I wish you would confine your criticism to what I stated in that specific post and not throw a whole lot of things at me that I have never actually said. That would save a lot of confusion.

My theory about all of the details that you mentioned can cover the Ramseys involvement just as well as yours covers this Santa Pedo fantasy.Well that's great, why don't you post details of your theory more often. I'm sure you'll get alot more takers for it than I do for mine. Actually, I think that everyone who has a theory should start a new thread with it, that way everyone would have the opportunity of discussing and criticising it as well as discussing and defending their own. Why don't you go ahead whitewitch and start the ball rolling?


For example...that Barbie nightgown that you keep mentioning...it was NOT JBs "favorite" nightgown. When asked about it, the Rs seemed quite confused about it. I believe they later stated that it may have been clothing that went on JBs lifesize Barbie. Please explain why Patsy would want to "redress" JB in a dolls clothing.I have never stated that the Barbie nightgown was JBs "favorite" nightgown. Nor have I stated that Patsy wanted to "redress" JB in a dolls clothing. I think the idea that it was clothing for a doll was found to be incorrect. It is my belief that the Barbie nightgown was so named, not because it was a nightgown for a Barbie, but because it had a picture of Barbie on the front and that it was a nightgown made for a 6 year old child.

I think that after the ransom note had been written Patsy still had an hour or so to wait before she was to go downstairs and 'find' the ransom note and ring the Whites. I think she would have been beside herself with grief an unable to sleep. I think she noticed the nightgown lying on a chair in the breakfast room where she had left it and the idea came to her to redress JonBenet's body in more appropriate clothing than the longjohns and yesterday's shirt. So I think she got the Maglite from the kitchen drawer took the nightgown down to the cellar, but on actually seeing the body and the hideousness of the state it was in she dropped the nightgown and fled in horror.


How do you know the extent that Santa McReynolds was investigated?I don't know whether, apart from giving handwriting and DNA samples, Santa was investigated further. But then you don't either. My guess is that if he was, it was more than 5 months after the murder by which time he would have gotten rid of every bit of incriminating evidence that I believe was originally at his house and so investigators found nothing.


Where is the evidence that 5 other people were in the basement abusing JB? Where is their hair, fiber, fingerprints, DNA? Do you really believe that all of this could occur without them leaving some of the above mentioned evidence behind? Do you think they vacuumed the entire basement before they left?There was evidence that at least one intruder was there in the basement. You know that. The fact that there was only one lot of foreign DNA, means to me that 3 (I think I said only 4 all together) of them didn't leave any. The fact that not many hairs were found but an abundance of dark fibres were, indicates to me that they wore dark coloured balaclavas over their heads. The fact that no fingerprints were found but some brown fibres were, indicates to me that they all wore gloves and one of the pairs of gloves was brown. The fact that only one pubic hair was found suggests to me that some of them had previously shaved theirs all off.

[aussiesheila]

If the Ramseys didn't make their last stop to drop off gifts because it was late, why do you think Patsy would keep JB up to be photographed?Maybe it was John's idea to hurry home because he wanted everyone to get a good night's sleep. Maybe it was Patsy's idea because she wanted to get John and Burke soundly asleep before Santa arrived with Charles Kuralt at 11 pm.


Are a shirt and long-johns something Patsy would want JB to be photgraphed in?No, I don't think so and that is why IMO, she brought the Barbie nightgown downstairs because she intended re-dressing JonBenet in it for the photographer.


Do you think Patsy wanted JB photographed with her hair in two pony-tails?I think JonBenet went to bed with only one ponytail and I feel sure that Patsy would have brought a hairbrush downstairs as well to brush her hair for the photographer. I think the second ponytail was added by the abusers to get her hair out of the way of the garotte because while it was hanging loose it kept getting in the way of it.


Have you ever even looked at the professional photos done of JB? The word "studio" comes to mind. Do you really think that Patsy would let her precious daughter be photographed without herself being present?Yes I have, but I don't think that was the kind of photography Charles Kuralt did. I think Santa had told Patsy that Charles wanted 'homesy' photographs of an innocent sweet and oh so beautiful child in her own home all so carefully decorated for Christmas. Just a few quick shots for an article he was writing. And Patsy would have been able to hang around, Charles might even want to include her in a few shots and mention in the article that she was a former Miss whatever state it was. That IMO, would have been an irresitable offer to Patsy.


There is no way in hell that Patsy would cover for anyone outside her family for 10 years. I forgot what you said made Patsy involved with the pedos that she could be blackmailed for but unless she consented for this group of people to molest her daughter and these alledged peds have proof of it, no way would she continue to cover for them.Why wouldn't she if she knew FW was prepared to tell all kinds of lies, about her to John, who would immediately file for divorce and custody of Burke and would in all probability win? It doesn't matter that what FW was going to tell John bore little resemblance to what Patsy HAD done, she knew FW could make John believe his lies and that was what was important. And besides, as the years went on I think she would have still been to afraid to tell John about what she did really know, because he still would have been angry and it would have caused a huge rift in their marriage. I think Patsy was more comfortable with letting things stay as they were, even if it meant not facing up to ugly truths. After all, that is the way she had dealt with ugly truths all her life IMO.


If Santa was going to bring in a food to entice JB, do you really think it would be pineapple? Wouldn't cookies, cake, brownies...anything sweet be easier to carry and offer more appeal to a child than pineapple?Why not pineapple? Apparently it was one of her favorite foods. The whole idea IMO was to add some drug in liquid form to the food. Wet pineapple was suitable, cookies, cake, brownies would not have been. What is difficult about carrying a sealed plastic bag with pineapple in it?


How could the peds know that Patsy would "fall asleep" so they could carry out their plans? What if she didn't?They couldn't, and if she hadn't they would have all had to walk or drive back home again without having had any of their planned 'fun' with JonBenet and no-one would have been any the wiser.


What if she sat there and watched the "photo session" the entire time?If she had kept sitting there waiting for Charles Kuralt then at some point Santa would have had to say "oh, he must have been unable to make it". And would have had to leave and go home. And the others lurking outside in bushes and in cars in the alleyway would have had to as well.


Why would peds even choose Christmas night to have their secret molestation party especially in the Ramseys own home? Were they idiots?It's not like an opportunites for Santa were popping up all the time. He was already aged, ill and feeble. He was probably thinking "If I don't get time alone with my darling JonBenet, I'll die". So IMO this opportunity presented itself and he went for it. For the house guest at the White's house he would have had to wait another 12 months until next Christmas. For Santa's student whom Santa approached offering him a chance to 'perv' on the proceedings if he would drive him from his home outside of Boulder to the Ramseys that night. And wouldn't Christmas night be 'ideal' in that there was a fair chance that both parents would have been exhausted and would sleep soundly after the hectic leadup to Christmas and the Christmas Day activities themselves.


I am sorry if I have missed details that you've already provided but your theory reads like a bad mystery novel and I have a hard time getting through those too.Well I hope you managed to get though all of this.

[thewhitewitch1]

Haven't seen the video taped interview in Atlanta in June of 1999. I don't think any of us on this forum have seen that video. Steve Thomas also said he thought Burke was confused about JB being awake.

What I questioned was TWW saying Burke told the Grand Jury JB was awake. We are not privy to that information either.


You are right about that one.

[Athena]

Is there a bioscience major in the house?

I did some research on pineapple. It is not going to prove or disprove anything in this case. However, what I found interesting is that pineapple is considered an insoluble fiber and remains LARGELY INTACT when passing through the digestive system. IMO this means that the pineapple as having been described not well chewed and sharp edges remained, etc. would have nothing to do with how long the pineapple was in her system. Also if eaten after a meal it is an aid to the digestion of the OTHER foods which would have been in her stomach and would stand to reason it would be the last food expelled.

What is fiber?
Fiber is a substance found only in plants, such as fruits, vegetables, and grains. The part of the plant fiber that you eat is called dietary fiber and is an important part of a healthy diet. Dietary fiber is made up of two main types--insoluble and soluble.

What is the difference between insoluble and soluble fiber?
Soluble fiber forms a gel when mixed with liquid, while insoluble fiber does not. Insoluble fiber passes through your digestive tract largely intact. Both types of fiber are important in the diet and provide benefits to the digestive system by helping to maintain regularity. Soluble fiber has some additional benefits to heart health.

http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/nutrition_5440_ENU_HTML.htm

Pineapple contains a mixture of enzymes called bromelain. Bromelain blocks the production of kinins that form when there is inflammation. Test have shown that this blocking property of Bromelain in pineapple helps reduce swelling brought about by arthritis, gout, sore throat and acute sinusitis. This also helps accelerate the healing of wounds due to injury or surgery. To help reduce inflammation, eat pineapple in between meals. If eaten during or after meals, the enzymes will be utilized for digesting food.

http://herbal-medicine.philsite.net/pineapple.htm

This is not a comprehensive list of insoluble fiber foods by any means but it should give you the general idea.

Whole wheat flour, whole wheat bread, whole wheat cereal
Wheat bran
Whole grains, whole grain breads, whole grain cereals
Granola
Meusli
Seeds
Nuts
Popcorn
Beans and lentils (mashed or pureed they're much safer)
Berries (blueberries, strawberries, blackberries, cranberries, etc.)
Grapes and raisins
Cherries
Pineapple

http://www.helpforibs.com/diet/fiber2.asp

[thewhitewitch1]

As you doubtless are aware 911 tapes are taped over and over; I have never heard anyone but the Twister make the claim that they could hear Burke on the end of the 911 call; to me calling Burke a liar on the issue of the 911 tape is like the tape of the second gunman in the JFK case; if you choose to believe in it, it opens all kinds of assumptive statements:he's already lied, he recanted,what else did he lie about,of course he would have been an eyewitness to Patsy giving Jonbenet the pineapple, Suppose they told him he could be sent to prison,etc.
All based on a fallacious assumption that it was Burke's voice; remember, too, that the upholders of the law, the BPD were hoping to have a quick and easy solution to the case and so questioned Burke illegally at Fleet White's house that morning to see what they could squeeze from the child. The BPD claimed his 'grandmother' gave permission which was and still is a baldfaced lie. Apparently nothing damning about his parents came out in the illegal questioning and I would contend that nothing damning came out in the grand jury questioning, because, as we all know, the grand jury, after taking evidence and testimony for a year, declined to indict the Ramseys or anybody. And has been said before, we don't know what Burke or anybody else said, nor will we to the GJ. JMHO:biggrin:


I said nothing about Burkes voice being heard on the 911 tape. What I said was, he originally told LE that he was asleep that morning through the 911 call and it came out later during the GJ that he was, in fact, awake. The Rs gave an interview with The National Enquirer and disclosed this tidbit.
I do believe his voice was heard on that tape, even though we don't have access to it. You can believe Burke laid in his bed while his mother was screaming and all of that commotion was going on but I don't. Most kids would be a bit scared and get up to find out what was going on. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Aussiesheila....thanks for taking the time to type all of that out. I am not going to argue with you. All I am going to say is that I don't believe one bit of it but you are entitled to believe what you want and if it turns out to be true, I will personally send you a handwritten apology. :biggrin:

[shill]

Well, there is the original account of Burke saying that JB was awake when the family got home and "slowly walked up the stairs".Yes, the account is of her walking up the stairs, not going to the kitchen for some pineapple.
What else do you suppose he may have lied about?That he didn't get the bowl of pineapple out.
What we do know is that there was a bowl on the table with fingerprints on it belonging to two of the Ramseys. You give Burke a pass for having his prints on it but make excuses for Patsys being there. Why?

Patsy's prints are not on the glass, which implies Burke is able to get a glass out by himself, which implies that Burke could have gotten the glass and the bowl out by himself with out Patsy's knowledge.

[bullmoose]

I said nothing about Burkes voice being heard on the 911 tape. What I said was, he originally told LE that he was asleep that morning through the 911 call and it came out later during the GJ that he was, in fact, awake. The Rs gave an interview with The National Enquirer and disclosed this tidbit.
I do believe his voice was heard on that tape, even though we don't have access to it. You can believe Burke laid in his bed while his mother was screaming and all of that commotion was going on but I don't. Most kids would be a bit scared and get up to find out what was going on. IMOWe do not have access to the GJ records to verify whether that even happened; as you surely understand, the Ramseys were not called in front of the grand jury and never heard any of Burkes' testimony,whether he was in fact awake during the 911 call or not. How then could the Ramseys disclose this tidbit, since they couldn't have heard him say it to the GJ? And I flatly do not believe that the Ramseys actually had a interview with the National Enquirer; I'm sure you have a link to an interview, but I think it took place entirely in the mind of the writer.Tabloids are known for that. Think about it, you think them guilty ,right? Do you also think them so stupid as to admit to a sleezy rag like the NE something so potentially damaging to their position? I don't;until I see the video of the interview where Patsy and John tell the sleezoid reporter that Burke was awake and that his voice was definitely on the 911 tape I will continue to consider it a base fraud and fabrication by the tabloid trolls.

[rashomon]

We do not have access to the GJ records to verify whether that even happened; as you surely understand, the Ramseys were not called in front of the grand jury and never heard any of Burkes' testimony,whether he was in fact awake during the 911 call or not. How then could the Ramseys disclose this tidbit, since they couldn't have heard him say it to the GJ? And I flatly do not believe that the Ramseys actually had a interview with the National Enquirer; I'm sure you have a link to an interview, but I think it took place entirely in the mind of the writer.Tabloids are known for that. Think about it, you think them guilty ,right? Do you also think them so stupid as to admit to a sleezy rag like the NE something so potentially damaging to their position? I don't;until I see the video of the interview where Patsy and John tell the sleezoid reporter that Burke was awake and that his voice was definitely on the 911 tape I will continue to consider it a base fraud and fabrication by the tabloid trolls.
You bet that if the NE had made up an interview with the Ramseys, they would have sued the hell out of the tabloid. They did give this interview, never denied having given it. I'm sure posters who have collected a lot of case info can direct you to the source.

[Tober]

Can the investigators tell if fingerprints were wiped clean or do they just say that because no fingerprint evidence was found? That's an inference based on the batteries containing no fingerprints. What are the odds the Ramseys would have worn gloves while putting batteries into their own flashlight? This inference is further supported by the flashlight body containing no fingerprints. What are the odds the Ramseys would have worn gloves each time they handled the flashlight? I think wiping the flashlight and its batteries of fingerprints represents "distancing." Wouldn't it have been easier for an intruder to have just taken the flashlight with him, rather than take the time to wipe it and its batteries of fingerprints? Some contend the alleged intruder gave JonBenet the pineapple and didn't leave fingerprints on the bowl because he wore gloves. If he wore gloves, why then did he need to wipe the Ramsey's flashlight and its batteries of fingerprints? Why would an intruder care about wiping the Ramsey's fingerprints (which we'd expect to be on their batteries in their own flashlight) off of their batteries? (IMO)

[rashomon]

It's a good thing JB ate the pineapple because now we know she got up in the middle of the night and went down stairs to the kitchen wrapped in her blanket to stay warm and ate some pineapple with her fingers that Burke left sitting out, and there in the kitchen the intruder hit her in the head with a flashlight before she ate any more pineapple to knock her out, leaving the flashlight behind in the kitchen and then carrying her down stairs to tie her up and strangle her.
But he hit her to hard and killed her.
This post is my opinion.
The only thing we know is that JB ate the pineapple one to two hours before her death - everything else is speculation.
We also know that Patsy said JB would not have gone downstairs in the middle of the night.
Aside from that: do you think an intruder would have sat there in the kitchen for hours, knowing the child would come down to snack pineapple?
Also, in your scenario, you forgot to take into account that JB was alive for one to two hours after eating the pineapple.

[thewhitewitch1]

We do not have access to the GJ records to verify whether that even happened; as you surely understand, the Ramseys were not called in front of the grand jury and never heard any of Burkes' testimony,whether he was in fact awake during the 911 call or not. How then could the Ramseys disclose this tidbit, since they couldn't have heard him say it to the GJ? And I flatly do not believe that the Ramseys actually had a interview with the National Enquirer; I'm sure you have a link to an interview, but I think it took place entirely in the mind of the writer.Tabloids are known for that. Think about it, you think them guilty ,right? Do you also think them so stupid as to admit to a sleezy rag like the NE something so potentially damaging to their position? I don't;until I see the video of the interview where Patsy and John tell the sleezoid reporter that Burke was awake and that his voice was definitely on the 911 tape I will continue to consider it a base fraud and fabrication by the tabloid trolls.


Here you go: http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm
If I'm not mistaken, they mentioned the interview in DOI. I don't have the book so I could be blowing smoke out my arse. :biggrin:

[Athena]

I've seen the NE interview before and I will say the same thing I said then. I'm not disputing the facts but I do wonder why an article from any newspaper has to be "edited"

I am actually going to attempt to purchase a copy of that if possible from NE

[zippo]

That's an inference based on the batteries containing no fingerprints. What are the odds the Ramseys would have worn gloves while putting batteries into their own flashlight? This inference is further supported by the flashlight body containing no fingerprints. What are the odds the Ramseys would have worn gloves each time they handled the flashlight? I think wiping the flashlight and its batteries of fingerprints represents "distancing." Wouldn't it have been easier for an intruder to have just taken the flashlight with him, rather than take the time to wipe it and its batteries of fingerprints? Some contend the alleged intruder gave JonBenet the pineapple and didn't leave fingerprints on the bowl because he wore gloves. If he wore gloves, why then did he need to wipe the Ramsey's flashlight and its batteries of fingerprints? Why would an intruder care about wiping the Ramsey's fingerprints (which we'd expect to be on their batteries in their own flashlight) off of their batteries? (IMO)


Highly unlikely that anyone would wear gloves for any reason while changing the batteries in their own flashlight! And I agree with your other points as well.

What I am asking is this: is it possible to tell for sure that prints have been wiped clean or is that just a supposition based on the lack of prints? Just curious.

[Zoey]

Here you go: http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm
If I'm not mistaken, they mentioned the interview in DOI. I don't have the book so I could be blowing smoke out my arse. :biggrin:

That's strange. The link you provided says the story was from a NE article published 4/3/2001. If you go to National Enquirer.com and do a seach, the article was published on 3/22/2001. Kind of makes me wonder about the authenticity of the contents of the article posted on acandyrose.

[Tober]

What I am asking is this: is it possible to tell for sure that prints have been wiped clean or is that just a supposition based on the lack of prints? Just curious.
Based on wipe marks on the flashlight and batteries, the most a forensic examiner could state is that they had been wiped. Why they were wiped clean would have to be inferred. Just the fact that the flashlight was wiped clean suggests it was part of the crime. This is supported by the fact that it fits JonBenet's head injury perfectly. From that, we can infer that the flashlight was wiped clean to remove fingerprints and/or incriminating bodily fluids/trace evidence. We have a supporting factor that the flashlight was wiped clean to remove fingerprints, that being that the batteries were wiped clean. The "flashlight issue" is very similar to the pineapple issue, for why in the world would an intruder care about removing the Ramsey's fingerprints from their batteries? (IMO)

[bullmoose]

Here you go: http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm
If I'm not mistaken, they mentioned the interview in DOI. I don't have the book so I could be blowing smoke out my arse. :biggrin: As Patsy was quoted in that deposition, she looked at the NE as the vilest of the tabloids; okay, she talked to a NE reporter knowingly, I still do not believe for a second that the interview was accurate or truthful as printed. I think I would take the Twister's word over that of somebody from the NE; nah, I guess they're pretty even in in believability. If the interview was videotaped and I could see and hear it, then I'll believe it. I seem to remember ColoradoKares using the NE as source material to prove to me that Patsy had a beaver coat; it was from 98 or 99 and it claimed that Patsy and John would be arrested very shortly; I'm still waiting for cooroboration on the beaver coat and the imminent arrest of the Ramseys. I thank you, tww1 for the link, but the NE is a scabrous pimple on the hindside of humanity that I think prints lies on purpose and the truth by accident.JMHO:biggrin:

[Zoey]

Based on wipe marks on the flashlight and batteries, the most a forensic examiner could state is that they had been wiped. Why they were wiped clean would have to be inferred. Just the fact that the flashlight was wiped clean suggests it was part of the crime. This is supported by the fact that it fits JonBenet's head injury perfectly. From that, we can infer that the flashlight was wiped clean to remove fingerprints and/or incriminating bodily fluids/trace evidence. We have a supporting factor that the flashlight was wiped clean to remove fingerprints, that being that the batteries were wiped clean. The "flashlight issue" is very similar to the pineapple issue, for why in the world would an intruder care about removing the Ramsey's fingerprints from their batteries? (IMO)


Do we know for a fact that the flashlight that was supposedly wiped clean was the Ramseys? I thought this had not been established on who belonged to the flashlight. So one could infer that the intruder did not wipe the Ramsey's prints off, since they had never touched said flashlight, but instead, wiped any trace of himself off the flashlight, IMO.

[thewhitewitch1]

As Patsy was quoted in that deposition, she looked at the NE as the vilest of the tabloids; okay, she talked to a NE reporter knowingly, I still do not believe for a second that the interview was accurate or truthful as printed. I think I would take the Twister's word over that of somebody from the NE; nah, I guess they're pretty even in in believability. If the interview was videotaped and I could see and hear it, then I'll believe it. I seem to remember ColoradoKares using the NE as source material to prove to me that Patsy had a beaver coat; it was from 98 or 99 and it claimed that Patsy and John would be arrested very shortly; I'm still waiting for cooroboration on the beaver coat and the imminent arrest of the Ramseys. I thank you, tww1 for the link, but the NE is a scabrous pimple on the hindside of humanity that I think prints lies on purpose and the truth by accident.JMHO:biggrin:


It may be a "pimple" but the Ramseys gave that interview to the "pimple."
Here is more on the interview and I will see what else I can dig up.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03282001hoffmanoncrier.htm

Also, Rashomon is right. If they had been misquoted in any way or that interview was fabricated, the sue-happy Ramseys would have had their lawyers on the Enquirer in a heartbeat. So, I guess whether you like it or not or believe it or not...they did give that interview and there is no reason to believe they were misquoted or their words twisted. IMO

[rashomon]

As Patsy was quoted in that deposition, she looked at the NE as the vilest of the tabloids; okay, she talked to a NE reporter knowingly, I still do not believe for a second that the interview was accurate or truthful as printed. I think I would take the Twister's word over that of somebody from the NE; nah, I guess they're pretty even in in believability. If the interview was videotaped and I could see and hear it, then I'll believe it. I seem to remember ColoradoKares using the NE as source material to prove to me that Patsy had a beaver coat; it was from 98 or 99 and it claimed that Patsy and John would be arrested very shortly; I'm still waiting for cooroboration on the beaver coat and the imminent arrest of the Ramseys. I thank you, tww1 for the link, but the NE is a scabrous pimple on the hindside of humanity that I think prints lies on purpose and the truth by accident.JMHO:biggrin:
In her deposition Patsy verbatim stated that they agreed to be interviewed by the NE:
2 THE WITNESS: I agreed to the
3 interview because, I mean, we are not afraid to
4 face even our most vile opponent, of which I
5 consider The National Enquirer to be one of the
6 most vile.

[bullmoose]

Based on wipe marks on the flashlight and batteries, the most a forensic examiner could state is that they had been wiped. Why they were wiped clean would have to be inferred. Just the fact that the flashlight was wiped clean suggests it was part of the crime. This is supported by the fact that it fits JonBenet's head injury perfectly. From that, we can infer that the flashlight was wiped clean to remove fingerprints and/or incriminating bodily fluids/trace evidence. We have a supporting factor that the flashlight was wiped clean to remove fingerprints, that being that the batteries were wiped clean. The "flashlight issue" is very similar to the pineapple issue, for why in the world would an intruder care about removing the Ramsey's fingerprints from their batteries? (IMO)I'm just curious but when and where did the/a forensic examiner state that the batteries had been wiped clean? Or for that matter, the flashlight; the fact that there were no fingerprints on the batteries means/infers nothing. A Maglite can be loaded with fresh batteries out of a battery container easily without leaving prints; yup, just did it with my 19 inch Maglite; so I think it proves/infers noyhing whatsoever that the batteries were found without fingerprints.If the Maglite was used to bash Jonbenet, it strikes me more than a little strange that the flashlite was wiped down so well that no trace evidence from the violent blow was found, yet wipe marks were. Maybe the flashlight means nothing at all; but if it was wiped by the killer, if,I'm saying if, it would be to remove his/their trace evidence, sweat, etc to avoid being identified; it wouldn't be to wipe the Ramseys prints.JMHO:biggrin:

[Zoey]

It may be a "pimple" but the Ramseys gave that interview to the "pimple."
Here is more on the interview and I will see what else I can dig up.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03282001hoffmanoncrier.htm

Also, Rashomon is right. If they had been misquoted in any way or that interview was fabricated, the sue-happy Ramseys would have had their lawyers on the Enquirer in a heartbeat. So, I guess whether you like it or not or believe it or not...they did give that interview and there is no reason to believe they were misquoted or their words twisted. IMO


Are you saying that everything published in the NE is the truth?

[thewhitewitch1]

Are you saying that everything published in the NE is the truth?


Of course not. The fact is, the Ramseys granted an interview to NE. Are you saying they didn't?

[Zoey]

Of course not. The fact is, the Ramseys granted an interview to NE. Are you saying they didn't?


No, not at all. I am saying that the link you provided to the story showed a totally different published date than what the NE website shows that story running, so I doubt the validity of that particular poster's posting.

Maybe the reason the Ramsey's did not sue the NE for that particular story is because what is posted is not what ran in the NE. IMO. The NE website does not give all the story.

[bullmoose]

In her deposition Patsy verbatim stated that they agreed to be interviewed by the NE: That being fairly said, it still does not make the article any more believable or accurate. In my eperience in life, pathological liars lie when the truth would serve them better; I consider the NE to be one of worst kind of institutional liars; I would not even use it on the bottom of my birdcages as my parakeets have a level of standards they defecate by; the NE is not worthy of their crap, even birdbrains have limits of what they will read. JMHO:biggrin:

[Zoey]

Why I don't believe anything written in the National Enquirer:


2005-05-19 00:00:00-04 -- JonBenet's Mom in Brain Cancer Nightmare
2005-12-30 00:00:00-05 -- New JonBenet Evidence: Santa Was Her Killer
2004-05-14 00:00:00-04 -- JonBenet's Killer Commits Suicide!
His identity revealed


These are just three headlines I found that go to show what lies the NE will put on their front covers to sell their magazine.

[bullmoose]

It may be a "pimple" but the Ramseys gave that interview to the "pimple."
Here is more on the interview and I will see what else I can dig up.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03282001hoffmanoncrier.htm

Also, Rashomon is right. If they had been misquoted in any way or that interview was fabricated, the sue-happy Ramseys would have had their lawyers on the Enquirer in a heartbeat. So, I guess whether you like it or not or believe it or not...they did give that interview and there is no reason to believe they were misquoted or their words twisted. IMO On the contrary, IMO, there is no reason for me to believe that any substantive part of that interview was not fabricated by the NE unless I see outside corroboration[unedited video of the interview]. Yes, they apparently gave the interview, just the one; but it is, IMO totally fallacious reasoning to assume that the Ramseys could sue if they were misquoted or had their words twisted by the bottom-feeding NE. Unless they taped the interview themselves in its entirety it is a matter of he said she said. And the laws on slander are predicated upon the premise of proving deliberate intent of injury; that is even if it can be proven a lie, if it did not substantially damage the reputation of the aggrieved parties and cannot be proven to be an intentional slander for that purpose, there is really no case. Since nobody I know believes anything they read in the tabloid press, their reputations were not injured. Lies printed by the tabloid trolls do not IMHO have much impact on sentient creatures.:biggrin: JMHO

[Sprocket]

On the contrary, IMO, there is no reason for me to believe that any substantive part of that interview was not fabricated by the NE unless I see outside corroboration[unedited video of the interview].

Here's the main problem with this logic. Find something that shows the Ramseys refuted the interview.

Yes, they apparently gave the interview, just the one;

You can't deny the interview and what it says, so your only recourse is to question its veracity. But you don't have anything to support your questioning of how accurate it is. Nothing from the Ramsey's that is. So you deny it and say it's fabricated.

You actually think the Ramseys, (who kept Woody in business for years just by all the lawsuits he filed on behalf of the Ramseys) would not immediately have generated some type of public statement that the NE, ~whom the Ramseys went to in good faith to give an interview~ falsified that content of that interview, or immediately sued them for misrepresenting what they actually said?

I mean, come on. Look at all the individuals they did not hesitate to sue. It's a long list. What in the world makes you think they would not have done the same thing in this case?

I'll send a notice to A CANDY ROSE, notifying her that there is a discrepancy in the dates of publication for this article on her site with the NE's publication dates. Just because (someone says) there is a discrepancy in the dates doesn't negate the accuracy of the information in the article. Far from it. Find me something, anywhere, where Patsy Ramsey, John Ramsey, publicly denounced the accuracy of the interview they gave.

Unless you can find something that supports your conclusion, http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/whistle.gifit's not based on anything that holds up under closer scrutiny. You know, logic and deductive reasoning.

[Athena]

That's strange. The link you provided says the story was from a NE article published 4/3/2001. If you go to National Enquirer.com and do a seach, the article was published on 3/22/2001. Kind of makes me wonder about the authenticity of the contents of the article posted on acandyrose.

I too noticed that when I attempted to purchase the article and then got distracted with family matters.

Does anyone know how to purchase an archived article. I tried everything on their site but can't find anything. I will call them on Monday but the only number that seems to be published to report a "tip".

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/crime/10427

[Athena]

Here's the main problem with this logic. Find something that shows the Ramseys refuted the interview.



You can't deny the interview and what it says, so your only recourse is to question its veracity. But you don't have anything to support your questioning of how accurate it is. Nothing from the Ramsey's that is. So you deny it and say it's fabricated.

You actually think the Ramseys, (who kept Woody in business for years just by all the lawsuits he filed on behalf of the Ramseys) would not immediately have generated some type of public statement that the NE, ~whom the Ramseys went to in good faith to give an interview~ falsified that content of that interview, or immediately sued them for misrepresenting what they actually said?

I mean, come on. Look at all the individuals they did not hesitate to sue. It's a long list. What in the world makes you think they would not have done the same thing in this case?

I'll send a notice to A CANDY ROSE, notifying her that there is a discrepancy in the dates of publication for this article on her site with the NE's publication dates. Just because (someone says) there is a discrepancy in the dates doesn't negate the accuracy of the information in the article. Far from it. Find me something, anywhere, where Patsy Ramsey, John Ramsey, publicly denounced the accuracy of the interview they gave.

Unless you can find something that supports your conclusion, http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/whistle.gifit's not based on anything that holds up under closer scrutiny. You know, logic and deductive reasoning.

Well the reason I question the article is because it specifically shows it was edited. If you are copying an article the way it appears why should it be edited? What was edited in the article? We don't know if that article is a true copy of what appeared in the paper. The second issue I have with it; it was dated 4/1/01 when in fact the interview occurred on 3/22/01.

[Sprocket]

Well the reason I question the article is because it specifically shows it was edited. If you are copying an article the way it appears why should it be edited? What was edited in the article? We don't know if that article is a true copy of what appeared in the paper. The second issue I have with it; it was dated 4/1/01 when in fact the interview occurred on 3/22/01.

I'll also add your concerns to my email. Maybe A CANDY ROSE can answer why her site says the article was edited. When you have a question about source material on a web site, it's a good idea to ask the web site owner.

[rashomon]

That being fairly said, it still does not make the article any more believable or accurate. In my eperience in life, [B]pathological liars lie when the truth would serve them better; I consider the NE to be one of worst kind of institutional liars; I would not even use it on the bottom of my birdcages as my parakeets have a level of standards they defecate by; the NE is not worthy of their crap, even birdbrains have limits of what they will read. JMHO:biggrin:

Maybe the pathological liars here were the Ramseys themselves? Who agreed to be interviewed by the NE because they wanted to reach a large public to sell their concocted story to?

[rashomon]

Well the reason I question the article is because it specifically shows it was edited. If you are copying an article the way it appears why should it be edited? What was edited in the article? We don't know if that article is a true copy of what appeared in the paper. The second issue I have with it; it was dated 4/1/01 when in fact the interview occurred on 3/22/01.
Was 4/1/01 the publishing date of the article? For in that case, the interview itself having occurred on 3/22/01 would be normal, since interviews have to be conducted some time before an issue is printed.

[thewhitewitch1]

Here's the main problem with this logic. Find something that shows the Ramseys refuted the interview.



You can't deny the interview and what it says, so your only recourse is to question its veracity. But you don't have anything to support your questioning of how accurate it is. Nothing from the Ramsey's that is. So you deny it and say it's fabricated.

You actually think the Ramseys, (who kept Woody in business for years just by all the lawsuits he filed on behalf of the Ramseys) would not immediately have generated some type of public statement that the NE, ~whom the Ramseys went to in good faith to give an interview~ falsified that content of that interview, or immediately sued them for misrepresenting what they actually said?

I mean, come on. Look at all the individuals they did not hesitate to sue. It's a long list. What in the world makes you think they would not have done the same thing in this case?

I'll send a notice to A CANDY ROSE, notifying her that there is a discrepancy in the dates of publication for this article on her site with the NE's publication dates. Just because (someone says) there is a discrepancy in the dates doesn't negate the accuracy of the information in the article. Far from it. Find me something, anywhere, where Patsy Ramsey, John Ramsey, publicly denounced the accuracy of the interview they gave.

Unless you can find something that supports your conclusion, http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/whistle.gifit's not based on anything that holds up under closer scrutiny. You know, logic and deductive reasoning.


Well said! :beer:

[Sprocket]

I finally find the article myself on A CANDY ROSE. And I see the "edited" reference that is causing some posters such a problem. http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/clap.gif

Oh my. This is so funny. http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/funnypost.gif It really is! http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/saythat.gif

Here is the text that is at the very end of the article:
Edited by Thor on 10/20/02 12:53 PM."

Now, it should be noted that the edited by line is actually the SAME INDIVIDUAL who actually transcribed the article, because this appears at the very top, before the transcription:


Thor

10/20/02 12:53 PM
4/3/01 Natl. Enquirer interviews Rams [Post#: 61546 ]

Gee! Could it possibly be that Thor, who just posted this transcription originally on CrimeNews2000 (a link to CN2000 appears just before the copy of the post) and immediately after he posted it, he made an edit to his transcription. My oh my! That Thor must be one heck of an editor because all those things he supposedly changed about the article, all that text that must be wrong because there's and "edit" noted, he did it in less than one minute of posting. I've got to bow down to Thor on how much he was able to change in just that one "Edit."

ROFLMAO!

Geez sporkin' louise, get a grip bullmoose, lol!

[bullmoose]

Here's the main problem with this logic. Find something that shows the Ramseys refuted the interview.



You can't deny the interview and what it says, so your only recourse is to question its veracity. But you don't have anything to support your questioning of how accurate it is. Nothing from the Ramsey's that is. So you deny it and say it's fabricated.

You actually think the Ramseys, (who kept Woody in business for years just by all the lawsuits he filed on behalf of the Ramseys) would not immediately have generated some type of public statement that the NE, ~whom the Ramseys went to in good faith to give an interview~ falsified that content of that interview, or immediately sued them for misrepresenting what they actually said?

I mean, come on. Look at all the individuals they did not hesitate to sue. It's a long list. What in the world makes you think they would not have done the same thing in this case?

I'll send a notice to A CANDY ROSE, notifying her that there is a discrepancy in the dates of publication for this article on her site with the NE's publication dates. Just because (someone says) there is a discrepancy in the dates doesn't negate the accuracy of the information in the article. Far from it. Find me something, anywhere, where Patsy Ramsey, John Ramsey, publicly denounced the accuracy of the interview they gave.

Unless you can find something that supports your conclusion, http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/whistle.gifit's not based on anything that holds up under closer scrutiny. You know, logic and deductive reasoning. Just like I said, its JMHO; my logic is based on the source of the interview, the NE, an emergency toilet paper replacement tabloid, and the fact that, as a sentient creature, I can deductively reason between horseplop and reality.;) JMHO,again

[Sprocket]

If I'm remembering correctly, I believe Thor is a female poster. My apologies to Thor for not correctly remembering their gender.

[bullmoose]

I finally find the article myself on A CANDY ROSE. And I see the "edited" reference that is causing some posters such a problem. http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/clap.gif

Oh my. This is so funny. http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/funnypost.gif It really is! http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/saythat.gif

Here is the text that is at the very end of the article:


Now, it should be noted that the edited by line is actually the SAME INDIVIDUAL who actually transcribed the article, because this appears at the very top, before the transcription:



Gee! Could it possibly be that Thor, who just posted this transcription originally on CrimeNews2000 (a link to CN2000 appears just before the copy of the post) and immediately after he posted it, he made an edit to his transcription. My oh my! That Thor must be one heck of an editor because all those things he supposedly changed about the article, all that text that must be wrong because there's and "edit" noted, he did it in less than one minute of posting. I've got to bow down to Thor on how much he was able to change in just that one "Edit."


!Geez sporkin' louise, get a grip bullmoose, lol! I think you have mixed Athena and me up; I haven't made any issue of the fact it was edited at some point, Athena mentioned it. Ill just believe that the interview to be the actual statements of the Ramseys when I see the unedited videotape of the interview, not before. The NE is a crew of liarmouth tabloid trolls that would rather fabricate than report the truth.Edit, who said anything about edit? JMHO

[Sprocket]

I think you have mixed Athena and me up; I haven't made any issue of the fact it was edited at some point, Athena mentioned it.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/oops.gif

[Zoey]

Was 4/1/01 the publishing date of the article? For in that case, the interview itself having occurred on 3/22/01 would be normal, since interviews have to be conducted some time before an issue is printed.


3/22/01 was the date the NE website says the article ran in their magazine.

[Zoey]

I too noticed that when I attempted to purchase the article and then got distracted with family matters.

Does anyone know how to purchase an archived article. I tried everything on their site but can't find anything. I will call them on Monday but the only number that seems to be published to report a "tip".

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/crime/10427

I couldn't find any link or anything either to get an archived article. Will do some searching later tonight and see if I can find anything and I will let you know.:)

[Zoey]

Here's the main problem with this logic. Find something that shows the Ramseys refuted the interview.



You can't deny the interview and what it says, so your only recourse is to question its veracity. But you don't have anything to support your questioning of how accurate it is. Nothing from the Ramsey's that is. So you deny it and say it's fabricated.

You actually think the Ramseys, (who kept Woody in business for years just by all the lawsuits he filed on behalf of the Ramseys) would not immediately have generated some type of public statement that the NE, ~whom the Ramseys went to in good faith to give an interview~ falsified that content of that interview, or immediately sued them for misrepresenting what they actually said?

I mean, come on. Look at all the individuals they did not hesitate to sue. It's a long list. What in the world makes you think they would not have done the same thing in this case?

I'll send a notice to A CANDY ROSE, notifying her that there is a discrepancy in the dates of publication for this article on her site with the NE's publication dates. Just because (someone says) there is a discrepancy in the dates doesn't negate the accuracy of the information in the article. Far from it. Find me something, anywhere, where Patsy Ramsey, John Ramsey, publicly denounced the accuracy of the interview they gave.

Unless you can find something that supports your conclusion, http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r266/kimonokat/smilies/whistle.gifit's not based on anything that holds up under closer scrutiny. You know, logic and deductive reasoning.


I am not disputing that the Ramseys gave an interview to the NE. I am disputing what an internet poster put up on the internet saying this is what was said. The red flag for me was the incorrect date, IMO.

[thewhitewitch1]

I am not disputing that the Ramseys gave an interview to the NE. I am disputing what an internet poster put up on the internet saying this is what was said. The red flag for me was the incorrect date, IMO.

Did you read the other link I gave? http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03282001hoffmanoncrier.htm

This seems to verify that what Thor posted was what was actually said in the interview.
Also, Dr. Henry Lee seems to believe that the 911 tape has Burkes voice on it and he was actually working on the case.
If that's true, then the Ramseys were lying about Burke being asleep and it's crap that they didn't know he was awake until it came out in the GJ, which seems to be the case. If they lied about that, how much more did they lie about and why?
Also, in Dr. Lees book, he says the LE went through the Ramseys house and tried to reinact certain things, such as Patsy stepping over the ransom note. He said that it couldn't be done with out performing acrobatics. There was no way she could have stepped over that note without stepping on it and there were no footprints on it. Sounds like another lie to me.
Someone is going to say that her memory is bad because of the trauma. I am not buying that because she stated the "stepping over the note" story many times. I don't believe the ransom note was on the stairs at all. But that's another thread. :shrug:

[bullmoose]

Did you read the other link I gave? http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03282001hoffmanoncrier.htm

This seems to verify that what Thor posted was what was actually said in the interview.
Also, Dr. Henry Lee seems to believe that the 911 tape has Burkes voice on it and he was actually working on the case.
If that's true, then the Ramseys were lying about Burke being asleep and it's crap that they didn't know he was awake until it came out in the GJ, which seems to be the case. If they lied about that, how much more did they lie about and why?
Also, in Dr. Lees book, he says the LE went through the Ramseys house and tried to reinact certain things, such as Patsy stepping over the ransom note. He said that it couldn't be done with out performing acrobatics. There was no way she could have stepped over that note without stepping on it and there were no footprints on it. Sounds like another lie to me.
Someone is going to say that her memory is bad because of the trauma. I am not buying that because she stated the "stepping over the note" story many times. I don't believe the ransom note was on the stairs at all. But that's another thread. :shrug:TWW1: Come on now, this was a Ramseyhater hatefest; what do you suppose ever happened to the bombshell information that was shortly to be revealed about Alex Hunter. I don't recall it being in the news, ever; also I only see the same drivel and lies being spread about the Ramseys here, not one sign of any evidence of anything beyond the tabloid trolls pathological plopfest.This gaggle of hired guns discussing the NE interview as Gospel Truth was not impressive or convincing to me in the least,IMO. I did note that the suit against the Twister was mentioned here; again I don't think the 'real truth about what happened on12/25-6/96 came out as Synthroid Stevie defended his right to publish a Twisterpiece, but for which the Caped Crusader of Colorado ended up settling the lawsuit; yeah,yeah, his publisher paid, our fearless crimefighter never actually paid a penny, yeah, yeah,I'm so impressed.If my MS ever turns into a thyroid condition,he'll be my hero. If on that program there had been a Ramsey lawyer, maybe the show wouldn't have been seemingly so one-sided. Of course,if a Ramsey lawyer had been on that program, they might not have been able to say what they did, perhaps a Ramsey lawyer would have disputed the veracity of the NE article.But there wasn't and the show was IMHO on a level with NE or the Globe in its believability.IMHO, just more unproven propoganda.:biggrin:

[Zoey]

Did you read the other link I gave? http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03282001hoffmanoncrier.htm

This seems to verify that what Thor posted was what was actually said in the interview.
Also, Dr. Henry Lee seems to believe that the 911 tape has Burkes voice on it and he was actually working on the case.
If that's true, then the Ramseys were lying about Burke being asleep and it's crap that they didn't know he was awake until it came out in the GJ, which seems to be the case. If they lied about that, how much more did they lie about and why?
Also, in Dr. Lees book, he says the LE went through the Ramseys house and tried to reinact certain things, such as Patsy stepping over the ransom note. He said that it couldn't be done with out performing acrobatics. There was no way she could have stepped over that note without stepping on it and there were no footprints on it. Sounds like another lie to me.
Someone is going to say that her memory is bad because of the trauma. I am not buying that because she stated the "stepping over the note" story many times. I don't believe the ransom note was on the stairs at all. But that's another thread. :shrug:

Sorry TWW, but I just cannot take the word of a lawyer who is representing someone who is suing the Ramseys nor a scum magazine like the NE to bring me the facts on this case.

[shill]

Also, in your scenario, you forgot to take into account that JB was alive for one to two hours after eating the pineapple.

I said, "this post is my opinion" so it can't be wrong!:biggrin:
I realized that part was wrong too late to edit, my bad.

But to bottom line it;
Tell me if I'm wrong, but Burke was up when they got home for some time, yes?
And as far as I know, I have never seen one statement that Burke said JB stayed up or went to the kitchen with or without Patsy when they got home,
or
that Burke has said that he did not get the bowl of pineapple out.
If and when that statement can be shown, the opinion that Patsy fed JB pineapple when they got home is hogwash.

[shill]

* The Ramseys - who still staunchly proclaim their innocence - broke their silence about what Burke knows of the murder and revealed fears their son will explode emotionally from keeping "a lot inside."

[shill]

Based on wipe marks on the flashlight and batteries, the most a forensic examiner could state is that they had been wiped. Why they were wiped clean would have to be inferred. Just the fact that the flashlight was wiped clean suggests it was part of the crime. This is supported by the fact that it fits JonBenet's head injury perfectly. From that, we can infer that the flashlight was wiped clean to remove fingerprints and/or incriminating bodily fluids/trace evidence. We have a supporting factor that the flashlight was wiped clean to remove fingerprints, that being that the batteries were wiped clean. The "flashlight issue" is very similar to the pineapple issue, for why in the world would an intruder care about removing the Ramsey's fingerprints from their batteries? (IMO)
An intruder wouldn't care at all about removing the Ramsey's fingerprints from their flashlight batteries. What a ridiculous suggestion?

An intruder would care if his flashlight had any of his fingerprints on it, so he wiped down his flashlight before the crime. That is why the flashlight they took into evidence had no fingerprints on it.

This post is my can't be wrong opinion.

[shill]

It may be a "pimple" but the Ramseys gave that interview to the "pimple."
Here is more on the interview and I will see what else I can dig up.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03282001hoffmanoncrier.htm

Also, Rashomon is right. If they had been misquoted in any way or that interview was fabricated, the sue-happy Ramseys would have had their lawyers on the Enquirer in a heartbeat. So, I guess whether you like it or not or believe it or not...they did give that interview and there is no reason to believe they were misquoted or their words twisted. IMO

I thought they did sue the Enquirer.

[Zoey]

Based on wipe marks on the flashlight and batteries, the most a forensic examiner could state is that they had been wiped. Why they were wiped clean would have to be inferred. Just the fact that the flashlight was wiped clean suggests it was part of the crime. This is supported by the fact that it fits JonBenet's head injury perfectly. From that, we can infer that the flashlight was wiped clean to remove fingerprints and/or incriminating bodily fluids/trace evidence. We have a supporting factor that the flashlight was wiped clean to remove fingerprints, that being that the batteries were wiped clean. The "flashlight issue" is very similar to the pineapple issue, for why in the world would an intruder care about removing the Ramsey's fingerprints from their batteries? (IMO)


Do you have the statement made by this forensic examiner that states the flashlight had been wiped clean? I have searched and all I come up with is a "source."

The flashlight was taken as evidence on the initial search warrant and was then lost for over a year, so when was it tested for prints? Could it have been wiped clean inadvertently when someone found it in the evidence room, gathering dust? IMO.

[Zoey]

I thought they did sue the Enquirer.


I thought they did too, but as of yet have been unable to confirm this. I am sure someone else knows and will post a reply.

[Athena]

I believe the Ramseys did file a lawsuit against the NE that was dismissed but it had something to do with a neighbor photographer. I think the details may be acandyrose site and it was earlier than when this article appeared 2001.

I do believe they gave that interview -- I just question its authenticity as I posted previously due to the date 4/1/01 and the fact that it carries the notation "edited". The actual article appeared in the NE on 3/22/01. I am going to try to purchase it tomorrow as perhaps I can be referred to where I can get it by the phone# listed on their site for tips so sit tight. :)

I do believe that it is very possible they found out Burke was awake after the GJ hearing. He could have pretended to be asleep and was so traumatized he didn't talk about it or know how to bring it up.

We had something happen in our home between my husband and I where by son pretended to be asleep, never came downstairs, never mentioned it but discussed it with his sister who did come downstairs to find out what all the hoopla was about only we sent her back upstairs to her room but not before she got the gist of what the argument was about. I can't go into personal details -- but no my husband did not beat me up or threaten me but we did have the biggest fight we had ever had in our marriage -- and my son NEVER brought it up to us. He was 10 at the time and my daughter 13.

[Zoey]

I believe the Ramseys did file a lawsuit against the NE that was dismissed but it had something to do with a neighbor photographer. I think the details may be acandyrose site and it was earlier than when this article appeared 2001.

Would that have been Judith Phillips?

I do believe they gave that interview -- I just question its authenticity as I posted previously due to the date 4/1/01 and the fact that it carries the notation "edited". The actual article appeared in the NE on 3/22/01. I am going to try to purchase it tomorrow as perhaps I can be referred to where I can get it by the phone# listed on their site for tips so sit tight. :)

I totally agree with this. It is just hard for others to understand there is a difference in someone posting that this article being published on 4/1/01 and the NE website stating the article ran on 3/22/01.

I do believe that it is very possible they found out Burke was awake after the GJ hearing. He could have pretended to be asleep and was so traumatized he didn't talk about it or know how to bring it up.

They very well may have found out from Burke, but I don't feel they found out this information by hearing it from the GJ. IMO

[Athena]

They did not attend the GJ hearings so I doubt they heard it from the GJ but I do believe the info was leaked to their attorneys who told them. It is also possible that Burke did tell them afterwards but according to that interview he did not??? Just a thought...

[thewhitewitch1]

I believe the Ramseys did file a lawsuit against the NE that was dismissed but it had something to do with a neighbor photographer. I think the details may be acandyrose site and it was earlier than when this article appeared 2001.

I do believe they gave that interview -- I just question its authenticity as I posted previously due to the date 4/1/01 and the fact that it carries the notation "edited". The actual article appeared in the NE on 3/22/01. I am going to try to purchase it tomorrow as perhaps I can be referred to where I can get it by the phone# listed on their site for tips so sit tight. :)

I do believe that it is very possible they found out Burke was awake after the GJ hearing. He could have pretended to be asleep and was so traumatized he didn't talk about it or know how to bring it up.

We had something happen in our home between my husband and I where by son pretended to be asleep, never came downstairs, never mentioned it but discussed it with his sister who did come downstairs to find out what all the hoopla was about only we sent her back upstairs to her room but not before she got the gist of what the argument was about. I can't go into personal details -- but no my husband did not beat me up or threaten me but we did have the biggest fight we had ever had in our marriage -- and my son NEVER brought it up to us. He was 10 at the time and my daughter 13.

To my knowledge, the Ramseys have never sued or tried to sue the NE; however, the NE and John Ramsey were being sued by Stephen Miles (the photographer you mentioned) for an article published about him accusing him of being a pedophile and murdering JB.

[thewhitewitch1]

Does this sound like the Ramseys are disputing anything printed in their interview with the Enquirer?

Patsy Ramsey Deposition - December 11, 2001

The following is only a partion of the deposition by Patsy Ramsey that relates to both John and Patsy Ramsey's interview with the National Enquirer. Click the link above to read the complete deposition.

Page 155
21 MR. WOOD: That question went to
22 making inquiry of her as to why she and her
23 husband granted an interview to The National
24 Enquirer.
25 Since the last thing I want to do is

Page 156
1 to fight a motion battle over that, and because I
2 have been consistent throughout in my
3 representation of the Ramseys, as I think they
4 have been even before I was involved in terms of
5 trying to answer every question, if you will
6 agree that we are not waiving any right to the
7 question of relevancy in allowing her to answer
8 that question, I am going to let her answer it,
9 and effectively withdraw with that understanding
10 my objection and instruction. Is that okay?
11 MR. HOFFMAN: That is fine.
12 MR. WOOD: So with that agreement, if
13 you would like to ask her; and if, Patsy, you
14 would answer the question for him, please.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to formally
16 ask it.
17 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, I
18 showed you a document that was identified as
19 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. I am going to show that
20 document to you again. Could you identify what
21 it is that that document purports to be?
22 A. They are copies from a tabloid
23 article, National Enquirer tabloid article.
24 Q. Would you characterize the statements
25 that you made in this article as being statements

Page 157
1 that were made in the course of an interview,
2 formal interview with The National Enquirer?
3 A. It was an interview in conjunction
4 with some litigation for Burke that we were
5 involved with.
6 Q. If it was --
7 MR. HOFFMAN: See, this is why it is
8 a tricky area because for litigation, I don't
9 want to go into what the litigation was about,
10 and, naturally, if she gave it for the purposes
11 of the litigation, then she is required to by
12 law.
13 MR. WOOD: No, it was not given as a
14 requirement of the litigation as a matter of law.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, okay.
16 MR. WOOD: But I think what she is
17 saying is that the issue about the interview came
18 up in connection with actually the resolution of
19 some of Burke's claims.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Because I don't want to
21 get into it if this is part of the settlement.
22 If that is really what she is going to say, that
23 she agreed to this interview because it was part
24 of a settlement agreement --
25 MR. WOOD: I don't think that is

Page 158
1 what she said.
2 THE WITNESS: I agreed to the
3 interview because, I mean, we are not afraid to
4 face even our most vile opponent, of which I
5 consider The National Enquirer to be one of the
6 most vile.
7 And, you know, we have faced Steve
8 Thomas. We have faced The National Enquirer. We
9 have nothing to hide. And I am facing you
10 today, Mr. Hoffman.
11 I did not kill my daughter, I did
12 not write the ransom note, and I don't know who
13 did either of those things. And I am not afraid
14 to answer any questions from either you or from
15 them or from the police department or from anyone
16 else, for that matter. And that is why the
17 interview was taken.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
19 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) The only reason I
20 had asked it was in relation to a statement that
21 was made in the book about how disapproving you
22 were of the tabloids, and --
23 A. And to this day I disapprove of the
24 tabloids.
25 Q. And also, I believe Mr. Ramsey once

Page 159
1 stated that it was his intention to see that, if
2 anything came out of this case, it would be a
3 change in the way in which the media reported
4 certain news.
5 And I was just wondering why, after
6 these strong statements of principle, that you
7 basically were willing to give a tabloid an
8 interview. That is all, my only reason for
9 asking that.
10 A. Because we wanted to prove that we
11 have nothing to hide and that we can sufficiently
12 face our most vile opponent.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you very
14 much.

It seems they weren't in the least bit worried about the Enquirer twisting their words around, doesn't it.
They had the opportunity in this depo to say something if the interview was inacurate.
I don't believe this Thor poster changed anything in that interview that was on acandyrose. Why would they when someone somewhere surely has that issue of the Enquirer and could come back and accuse them and prove it?
Geeze, with all this debate over the interview, I've completely forgotten what it actually was in the interview that some of you are disputing!

[Zoey]

Does this sound like the Ramseys are disputing anything printed in their interview with the Enquirer?

Patsy Ramsey Deposition - December 11, 2001

The following is only a partion of the deposition by Patsy Ramsey that relates to both John and Patsy Ramsey's interview with the National Enquirer. Click the link above to read the complete deposition.

Page 155
21 MR. WOOD: That question went to
22 making inquiry of her as to why she and her
23 husband granted an interview to The National
24 Enquirer.
25 Since the last thing I want to do is

Page 156
1 to fight a motion battle over that, and because I
2 have been consistent throughout in my
3 representation of the Ramseys, as I think they
4 have been even before I was involved in terms of
5 trying to answer every question, if you will
6 agree that we are not waiving any right to the
7 question of relevancy in allowing her to answer
8 that question, I am going to let her answer it,
9 and effectively withdraw with that understanding
10 my objection and instruction. Is that okay?
11 MR. HOFFMAN: That is fine.
12 MR. WOOD: So with that agreement, if
13 you would like to ask her; and if, Patsy, you
14 would answer the question for him, please.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to formally
16 ask it.
17 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, I
18 showed you a document that was identified as
19 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. I am going to show that
20 document to you again. Could you identify what
21 it is that that document purports to be?
22 A. They are copies from a tabloid
23 article, National Enquirer tabloid article.
24 Q. Would you characterize the statements
25 that you made in this article as being statements

Page 157
1 that were made in the course of an interview,
2 formal interview with The National Enquirer?
3 A. It was an interview in conjunction
4 with some litigation for Burke that we were
5 involved with.
6 Q. If it was --
7 MR. HOFFMAN: See, this is why it is
8 a tricky area because for litigation, I don't
9 want to go into what the litigation was about,
10 and, naturally, if she gave it for the purposes
11 of the litigation, then she is required to by
12 law.
13 MR. WOOD: No, it was not given as a
14 requirement of the litigation as a matter of law.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, okay.
16 MR. WOOD: But I think what she is
17 saying is that the issue about the interview came
18 up in connection with actually the resolution of
19 some of Burke's claims.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Because I don't want to
21 get into it if this is part of the settlement.
22 If that is really what she is going to say, that
23 she agreed to this interview because it was part
24 of a settlement agreement --
25 MR. WOOD: I don't think that is

Page 158
1 what she said.
2 THE WITNESS: I agreed to the
3 interview because, I mean, we are not afraid to
4 face even our most vile opponent, of which I
5 consider The National Enquirer to be one of the
6 most vile.
7 And, you know, we have faced Steve
8 Thomas. We have faced The National Enquirer. We
9 have nothing to hide. And I am facing you
10 today, Mr. Hoffman.
11 I did not kill my daughter, I did
12 not write the ransom note, and I don't know who
13 did either of those things. And I am not afraid
14 to answer any questions from either you or from
15 them or from the police department or from anyone
16 else, for that matter. And that is why the
17 interview was taken.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
19 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) The only reason I
20 had asked it was in relation to a statement that
21 was made in the book about how disapproving you
22 were of the tabloids, and --
23 A. And to this day I disapprove of the
24 tabloids.
25 Q. And also, I believe Mr. Ramsey once

Page 159
1 stated that it was his intention to see that, if
2 anything came out of this case, it would be a
3 change in the way in which the media reported
4 certain news.
5 And I was just wondering why, after
6 these strong statements of principle, that you
7 basically were willing to give a tabloid an
8 interview. That is all, my only reason for
9 asking that.
10 A. Because we wanted to prove that we
11 have nothing to hide and that we can sufficiently
12 face our most vile opponent.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you very
14 much.

It seems they weren't in the least bit worried about the Enquirer twisting their words around, doesn't it.
They had the opportunity in this depo to say something if the interview was inacurate.
I don't believe this Thor poster changed anything in that interview that was on acandyrose. Why would they when someone somewhere surely has that issue of the Enquirer and could come back and accuse them and prove it?
Geeze, with all this debate over the interview, I've completely forgotten what it actually was in the interview that some of you are disputing!

TWW, neither Athena or I are disputing that the Ramsey's gave an interview to the NE, or that they approved of it or not. What we both questioned, having not seen the article in the NE ourselves, is the fact that Thor posted a date that is not the date that article ran in the NE.

Also, the fact that at the end of the post, she (?) went back in and edited. Edited what?

I think you have misunderstood both of us, IMO.

[Athena]

TWW, neither Athena or I are disputing that the Ramsey's gave an interview to the NE, or that they approved of it or not. What we both questioned, having not seen the article in the NE ourselves, is the fact that Thor posted a date that is not the date that article ran in the NE.

Also, the fact that at the end of the post, she (?) went back in and edited. Edited what?

I think you have misunderstood both of us, IMO.

Exactly; nothing to add.

[nuisanceposter]

Right, you guys were disputing what had been edited in the article and whether or not the edited part was fabrication or not.

Personally, I find it very interesting that the Rs gave the interview and stated that Burke had been awake that morning after the 911 tape allegedly with Burke on it became news. Like they are aware Burke actually can be heard on the tape, so they decided to go ahead and tweak their story a bit by admitting that he had been awake after all. It sounds like Burke was up and JR saw him - he claims that Burke had tears in his eyes. Very interesting, indeed.

[Athena]

Right, you guys were disputing what had been edited in the article and whether or not the edited part was fabrication or not.

Personally, I find it very interesting that the Rs gave the interview and stated that Burke had been awake that morning after the 911 tape allegedly with Burke on it became news. Like they are aware Burke actually can be heard on the tape, so they decided to go ahead and tweak their story a bit by admitting that he had been awake after all. It sounds like Burke was up and JR saw him - he claims that Burke had tears in his eyes. Very interesting, indeed.

And that is what exactly doesn't make sense in that article. The statements are in direct conflict so which is it either he was seen with tears in his eyes; was it when JR went into the room or when he was leaving the house? or they did not find out until two and a half years later that he was awake? This doesn't make sense.

"Burke was frightened. He had tears in his eyes. He knew something very, very wrong was going on."

* Even though it's almost inconceivable that John and Patsy wouldn't talk to Burke about the murder, they say they didn't find out Burke was awake the morning of the tragedy until he testified before a grand jury nearly two and a half years later!

[bullmoose]

Right, you guys were disputing what had been edited in the article and whether or not the edited part was fabrication or not.

Personally, I find it very interesting that the Rs gave the interview and stated that Burke had been awake that morning after the 911 tape allegedly with Burke on it became news. Like they are aware Burke actually can be heard on the tape, so they decided to go ahead and tweak their story a bit by admitting that he had been awake after all. It sounds like Burke was up and JR saw him - he claims that Burke had tears in his eyes. Very interesting, indeed.I stand in awe of the number of posters here that believe what they read in tabloids verbatim; if any of you are interested in making a great investment, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that can be had at a bargain price. Trust me, I own it and will sell it cheap; why would I lie? Of course I have the title deed,yeah, sure the ink may seem not to be dry on it, but its the real deal, I promise.:lol: JMHO ;would I lie to you, never,never, never!

[zippo]

I stand in awe of the number of posters here that believe what they read in tabloids verbatim; if any of you are interested in making a great investment, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that can be had at a bargain price. Trust me, I own it and will sell it cheap; why would I lie? Of course I have the title deed,yeah, sure the ink may seem not to be dry on it, but its the real deal, I promise.:lol: JMHO ;would I lie to you, never,never, never!

ANYONE, whether IDI or RDI, who puts any stock in TABLOIDS is foolish. All these tabloid posters are very Jerry Springer imo. If you know anything about tabloids, you would know that the truth is not their priority. They want to sell papers to all the dopes who believe that space aliens have hypnotized Britney Spears into believing that she is Hulk Hogan. Tabloids are trash, and you folks who buy whatever they say are showing your lack of intelligence.

There are plenty of VALID reasons to believe the Ramseys killed their daughter. You fools who use tabloids as proof just detract from the facts and make the RDI perspective a laughing stock!!

[nuisanceposter]

<snip>

There are plenty of VALID reasons to believe the Ramseys killed their daughter. You fools who use tabloids as proof just detract from the facts and make the RDI perspective a laughing stock!!

Just as bad as the IDI who seek to make themselves look better by insulting those who hold an opposing view with name-calling and put-downs?

Just because a source is a tabloid does not mean the information therein is not factual. And just because a source is not a tabloid does not mean the information therein is factual, either. That's where one needs to do their own research, and present their argument with their sources so others can decide for themselves what they think.

[thewhitewitch1]

Just as bad as the IDI who seek to make themselves look better by insulting those who hold an opposing view with name-calling and put-downs?

Just because a source is a tabloid does not mean the information therein is not factual. And just because a source is not a tabloid does not mean the information therein is factual, either. That's where one needs to do their own research, and present their argument with their sources so others can decide for themselves what they think.


I don't give tabloids credit normally but when someone has consented to be interviewed by one...well, that's a different story.
We know the Rs gave the interview and nowhere have they ever disputed what was printed in that interview, so why is it so hard for people to believe what they said in that interview?
Athena...can't you retain the least possibility that the Ramseys were lying about not knowing Burke was awake? It just seems a little odd that when they were told that his voice was on the tape that they suddenly decided to do this interview with a tabloid that they claim to loathe to tell the world that they "didn't know he was awake until it came out in the GJ". The timing is just a little too coincidental. I think they heard the tape and know it's true that Burke can be heard on it. I think that's why Burke admitted being awake to the GJ. IMO

[bullmoose]

I don't give tabloids credit normally but when someone has consented to be interviewed by one...well, that's a different story.
We know the Rs gave the interview and nowhere have they ever disputed what was printed in that interview, so why is it so hard for people to believe what they said in that interview?
Athena...can't you retain the least possibility that the Ramseys were lying about not knowing Burke was awake? It just seems a little odd that when they were told that his voice was on the tape that they suddenly decided to do this interview with a tabloid that they claim to loathe to tell the world that they "didn't know he was awake until it came out in the GJ". The timing is just a little too coincidental. I think they heard the tape and know it's true that Burke can be heard on it. I think that's why Burke admitted being awake to the GJ. IMOI like you a lot tww1, but until I watch an unedited videotape of the interview I'm going to remain totally skeptical of the veracity of the NE interview.The record of the NE and all the other tabloids in this case has been to sell their rags, never to tell the truth. This is my unshakable opinion.:tongue:

[shill]

Just a bunch of stupid crazy moronic posters.

[Tober]

An intruder wouldn't care at all about removing the Ramsey's fingerprints from their flashlight batteries. That's exactly my point. Only the Ramseys would care about removing their fingerprints from their own batteries. (IMO)

[Sharon]

That's exactly my point. Only the Ramseys would care about removing their fingerprints from their own batteries. (IMO)

Its the opposite......they would have to be crazy to remove their own fingerprints from their own batteries. That would be pointless because it would be expected that their fingerprints would quite innocently be on their own things.

For arguments sake, even if they did hit JBR with a torch.....why would they need to wipe down the batteries.

IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

I like you a lot tww1, but until I watch an unedited videotape of the interview I'm going to remain totally skeptical of the veracity of the NE interview.The record of the NE and all the other tabloids in this case has been to sell their rags, never to tell the truth. This is my unshakable opinion.:tongue:


For the most part, I agree with you, though I think the NE is probably the least raggy of the rag mags. Not everything they print are lies. They printed exerpts from the police interviews with the Ramseys and didn't alter anything.
Really, I don't expect anyone to believe the National Enquirer is a viable source but I do believe that the interview the Rs gave to them is actual. That's just my personal opinion.
Actually, a little life story....when I was pregnant with my daughter in 1979, I read an article in the Enquirer that the drug my Dr. had prescribed for nausea caused birth defects. Even though it was the Enquirer, I took heed and stopped taking the drug and shortly afterwards, the same information came out in the newspaper or on television. So I gotta give the NE credit for that or I may have kept taking the drug and who knows what could have happened to my daughter.
I hope Athena can locate the issue that interview with the Ramseys was in. I've searched on-line with no luck.

[Tober]

Its the opposite......they would have to be crazy to remove their own fingerprints from their own batteries.

Not if they were trying to "distance" themselves from the flashlight because it was used to inflict JonBenet's head injury. (IMO)

[Tober]

For arguments sake, even if they did hit JBR with a torch.....why would they need to wipe down the batteries.

IMO Wiping down the torch body and its batteries "distanced" them from it. Leaving it out on the counter where they allege it didn't belong "suggested" that an intruder placed it there. (IMO)

[bullmoose]

For the most part, I agree with you, though I think the NE is probably the least raggy of the rag mags. Not everything they print are lies. They printed exerpts from the police interviews with the Ramseys and didn't alter anything.
Really, I don't expect anyone to believe the National Enquirer is a viable source but I do believe that the interview the Rs gave to them is actual. That's just my personal opinion.
Actually, a little life story....when I was pregnant with my daughter in 1979, I read an article in the Enquirer that the drug my Dr. had prescribed for nausea caused birth defects. Even though it was the Enquirer, I took heed and stopped taking the drug and shortly afterwards, the same information came out in the newspaper or on television. So I gotta give the NE credit for that or I may have kept taking the drug and who knows what could have happened to my daughter.
I hope Athena can locate the issue that interview with the Ramseys was in. I've searched on-line with no luck.Okay, on that point you've got me; I 've seen stuff like that myself. But it hurts to say it, I'm sure you understand. JMHO:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

Wiping down the torch body and its batteries "distanced" them from it. Leaving it out on the counter where they allege it didn't belong "suggested" that an intruder placed it there. (IMO)IMO, the flashlight was left out because it was used as a headlight on you and rashoman's flying carpet of imaginary fibers, it all seems so clear to me now.JMHO:biggrin:

[shill]

Wiping down the torch body and its batteries "distanced" them from it. Leaving it out on the counter where they allege it didn't belong "suggested" that an intruder placed it there. (IMO)
I just have to laugh every time I read that the evidence was manipulated to suggest an intruder, and yet those same posters claim there is no proof of an intruder.

Why would the Ramsey's wipe down an intruders flashlight Tober?

[nuisanceposter]

Why would the Ramsey's wipe down an intruders flashlight Tober?


Because the flashlight belonged to them and not an intruder. Do your homework, Shill, learn the case before you run your mouth about it.

[bullmoose]

Because the flashlight belonged to them and not an intruder. Do your homework, Shill, learn the case before you run your mouth about it.Actually, NP, I think the Ramseys only said that it looked like one they owned, I do not believe they ever embraced it as absolutely theirs; I've several maglites of the same model, if somebody showed me a picture of a maglite of the same model, all I could say is that it looks like mine. At a shopping center a while back, I was frustrated that my key was not opening my car and I was carrying a bunch of stuff. Next row over, a gal was having the same problem; after a minute or so we laughed and swapped the cars we were trying to get into; same year and model Fords. Similar, even identical in appearance doesn't always mean its a match. Just a thought and JMHO

[Tober]

Also, in Dr. Lees book, he says the LE went through the Ramseys house and tried to reinact certain things, such as Patsy stepping over the ransom note. He said that it couldn't be done with out performing acrobatics.
This is such an important point. Patsy's very first action as she alleges to have found the ransom note is disputable, requiring a stretch to believe. (IMO)

[Zoey]

Because the flashlight belonged to them and not an intruder. Do your homework, Shill, learn the case before you run your mouth about it.


Please provide a link that states that the flashlight that was wiped clean belonged to the Rameys. Since you did not state this as your opinion, it must be a fact. TIA.

[Zoey]

This is such an important point. Patsy's very first action as she alleges to have found the ransom note is disputable, requiring a stretch to believe. (IMO)

Was Dr. Lee the exact same height, weight, structure as Patsy; otherwise, his reinactment would not be valid. It's like the RDI's claiming an intruder could not have gotten through the basement window the same way Lou Smit did because he was a scrawny little man; therefore a normal sized man could not have gotten through there.

Unless Dr. Lee was the exact same replica of Patsy, there is no way he could duplicate her action of stepping over the ransom note, IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

Let me guess, Zoey...you're a stickler for the IMO? The Rs said that flashlight in the pictures didn't look like theirs. They said it was not the same color, looked darker, dirtier. It turns out that the flashlight's color had been altered by the fingerprint powder. And curiously the flashlight just like it that the Rs kept in the bar drawer wasn't where it was supposed to be. I can go find links to back all this up if you need, but I thought this info was basic.

[Zoey]

Let me guess, Zoey...you're a stickler for the IMO? The Rs said that flashlight in the pictures didn't look like theirs. They said it was not the same color, looked darker, dirtier. It turns out that the flashlight's color had been altered by the fingerprint powder. And curiously the flashlight just like it that the Rs kept in the bar drawer wasn't where it was supposed to be. I can go find links to back all this up if you need, but I thought this info was basic.


No nuisanceposter, I am not a stickler for the IMO. And I apologize if I came across that way. It is just that this forum is starting to turn into WS, which I do not belong to, just read the garbage over there. Everyone over there posts information as though it is fact, and it is not, and that is what I see happening here.

I never have liked the IMO, JMO, MOO that is required, due to the fact that opinions are just that, opinions. Yet people argue for post after post after post that their opinion is the only one that is correct because they posted it. For me, it is frustrating. Maybe it is not for anyone else.

Stating the flashlight found in the Ramsey home, lost for over a year, found again and tested for prints is theirs in a post does not make it a fact. It is an opinion unless there is something backing it up. It is not basic.

[nuisanceposter]

It so happens many of my links are from WS. It's true, people don't always use IMO, etc, over there, and rarely post links...which can get frustrating, especially if you want to relay information elsewhere but don't have a link to refer to and see the info firsthand...but many of the posters there are very knowledgeable on this case and know facts vs opinion without needing IMOs and links. FFJ is even worse for that, but they all trust each other from the years of posting together and knowing each other, so I totally understand.

Just to be clear, Zoey, what was it you were looking for definitive information on? I didn't state anything about it being lost for a year.

[Zoey]

It so happens many of my links are from WS. It's true, people don't always use IMO, etc, over there, and rarely post links...which can get frustrating, especially if you want to relay information elsewhere but don't have a link to refer to and see the info firsthand...but many of the posters there are very knowledgeable on this case and know facts vs opinion without needing IMOs and links. FFJ is even worse for that, but they all trust each other from the years of posting together and knowing each other, so I totally understand.

Just to be clear, Zoey, what was it you were looking for definitive information on? I didn't state anything about it being lost for a year.

Thank you NP. I was asking for you to provide the link that states as a fact the flashlight belonged to the Ramseys. You stated the following, and I quote:

Because the flashlight belonged to them and not an intruder. Do your homework, Shill, learn the case before you run your mouth about it.

IMO, there has been nothing stated as fact that the flashlight belonged to them. They had one somewhat similar and this was not the only flashlight removed from their home.

[thewhitewitch1]

Was Dr. Lee the exact same height, weight, structure as Patsy; otherwise, his reinactment would not be valid. It's like the RDI's claiming an intruder could not have gotten through the basement window the same way Lou Smit did because he was a scrawny little man; therefore a normal sized man could not have gotten through there.

Unless Dr. Lee was the exact same replica of Patsy, there is no way he could duplicate her action of stepping over the ransom note, IMO.

Dr. Lee didn't reinact the "stepping over the ransom note", the LE did. Why would they have to be the same height and weight as Patsy? You'd think a man would be taller and it would be easier to step over it, having longer legs and all. Have you seen pictures of that staircase? Of course you have. The question would be, why would you contort yourself to step over something and risk hurting yourself. I'd just try to step inbetween the sheets of paper and if I stepped on them, so what? Also, let's not forget that she didn't pick the RN up but "went running up the stairs". Please tell me how that would be possible without jumping over the note (highly unlikely) or stepping on it? There were no footprints on the note and she would have more than likely slipped on the note if she had stepped on it and fallen. It did not happen the way she claims it did. IMO It couldn't have.

[shill]

Because the flashlight belonged to them and not an intruder. Do your homework, Shill, learn the case before you run your mouth about it.


Doesn't matter how much homework some people do, they're still not smart enough to get a passing grade.

[Zoey]

Dr. Lee didn't reinact the "stepping over the ransom note", the LE did. Why would they have to be the same height and weight as Patsy? You'd think a man would be taller and it would be easier to step over it, having longer legs and all. Have you seen pictures of that staircase? Of course you have. The question would be, why would you contort yourself to step over something and risk hurting yourself. I'd just try to step inbetween the sheets of paper and if I stepped on them, so what? Also, let's not forget that she didn't pick the RN up but "went running up the stairs". Please tell me how that would be possible without jumping over the note (highly unlikely) or stepping on it? There were no footprints on the note and she would have more than likely slipped on the note if she had stepped on it and fallen. It did not happen the way she claims it did. IMO It couldn't have.


Sorry TWW, I totally misunderstood your post about Dr. Lee and LE. Second Monday this week for me.

IMO, from the pictures I have seen, I don't see where it would be that hard to be going down the stairs, notice something on one, step over it to the next stair and go on my way down. I have to do that all the time with the kids leaving toys and clothes on the stairs.

What am I missing that you are insisting Patsy was lying about the note on the stairs?

[Tober]

Stating the flashlight found in the Ramsey home, lost for over a year, found again [...]
The flashlight was never lost. http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3648&Itemid=0

[Zoey]

The flashlight was never lost. http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3648&Itemid=0


Well gee Tober, here's a link to a story that says it was. I have two more. So, which is true and which isn't? IDI - flashlight lost. RDI - flashlight never lost.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987696,00.html

[Tober]

Well gee Tober, here's a link to a story that says it was.

The link you've provided is to a media story. Notice that in the official City of Boulder link that I've provided it states that media reports that the flashlight was lost and then found aren't correct and that it has never been missing. Mark Beckner is also on record as saying that the flashlight was never lost.

[thewhitewitch1]

Sorry TWW, I totally misunderstood your post about Dr. Lee and LE. Second Monday this week for me.

IMO, from the pictures I have seen, I don't see where it would be that hard to be going down the stairs, notice something on one, step over it to the next stair and go on my way down. I have to do that all the time with the kids leaving toys and clothes on the stairs.

What am I missing that you are insisting Patsy was lying about the note on the stairs?


The fact that the LE tried to reinact stepping over the ransom note on the stairs as Patsy said she did. They couldn't do it. The stairway is narrow and winding. It isn't like a normal stairway where it would be easy to step over a step. I can't verify this because I've never been to the Ramseys home but this is what Dr. Lee stated in his book "Cracking More Cases". There is video out there of the staircase somewhere where you could probably look and judge for yourself how difficult it would be.
I still think that ransom note was never on the stairs. Everything the Ramseys have said about it, from Patsy first seeing it and stepping over it, to her bending over to read it, to John reading it on the floor on his knees to their conflicting stories of where it was when the LE arrived...it's just a confused mess. For example, one of the Rs claimed that they "handed" the RN to the officer at the door; yet when John Fernie arrived after the police, he says it was laying on the floor by the glass door and even read part of it through the door.
I wonder why Patsy and/or John wouldn't have read the entire note before notifying the police. I wonder why Patsy maintained years afterwards that she never read the entire note. I'd be searching that note for clues - I would know it by heart. I wonder about a lot of things they did and/or didn't do. I try to be unemotional about this case. I don't look at the Ramseys as victims, which some of you do to the extent that you can't be objective. At the same time, I do try to put myself in their place and ask myself what I think I would do under those circumstances, and though I know you can't really know unless it's happened to you, I am pretty sure I would have done pretty much everything the exact opposite of what they did. JMO

[Athena]

The link you've provided is to a media story. Notice that in the official City of Boulder link that I've provided it states that media reports that the flashlight was lost and then found aren't correct and that it has never been missing. Mark Beckner is also on record as saying that the flashlight was never lost.

Link please to Mark Beckner stating this on record.
TIA

[thewhitewitch1]

I'm sure many of you have seen this show or read this transcript before, but please read it again...and especially read it if you've never seen it.
Most of us are well versed in the facts of this case so keep an open mind and count how many lies the Ramseys tell in this interview.
Tell me how they think a pedophile killed their daughter but they don't know if she was sexually abused, just for starters.
Then the lie about John handing the note to Officer French. Then the one about telling Linda Arndt about the open window and suitcase. Your turn.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/20/lkl.01.html

[shill]

The flashlight was never lost. http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3648&Itemid=0

You do realize the flashlight they are talking about is the one they found in the kitchen and had taken into evidence.
This flashlight is not proven to be the Ramseys.

So where is your proof that the Ramseys still owned a similar flashlight at the time of the murder?

[shill]

The fact that the LE tried to reinact stepping over the ransom note on the stairs as Patsy said she did. They couldn't do it. The stairway is narrow and winding. It isn't like a normal stairway where it would be easy to step over a step.This was the most used stairway in the house. They have gone up and down it hundreds and hundreds of times unlike the LE agents who tried it a few times.

For example, one of the Rs claimed that they "handed" the RN to the officer at the door; yet when John Fernie arrived after the police, he says it was laying on the floor by the glass door and even read part of it through the door.Police records would have exposed this alleged lie by John. The question is how did Fernie read the note when it was in LE's possession?
I wonder why Patsy and/or John wouldn't have read the entire note before notifying the police. I wonder why Patsy maintained years afterwards that she never read the entire note. I'd be searching that note for clues- I would know it by heart. That's such an ignorant statement.

[bullmoose]

Dr. Lee didn't reinact the "stepping over the ransom note", the LE did. Why would they have to be the same height and weight as Patsy? You'd think a man would be taller and it would be easier to step over it, having longer legs and all. Have you seen pictures of that staircase? Of course you have. The question would be, why would you contort yourself to step over something and risk hurting yourself. I'd just try to step inbetween the sheets of paper and if I stepped on them, so what? Also, let's not forget that she didn't pick the RN up but "went running up the stairs". Please tell me how that would be possible without jumping over the note (highly unlikely) or stepping on it? There were no footprints on the note and she would have more than likely slipped on the note if she had stepped on it and fallen. It did not happen the way she claims it did. IMO It couldn't have.tww1: When the prosecution in the Scott Peterson case tried to re-enact the crime as they perceived it to have happened, they used a policewoman of the same height and weight and proportions to try to get an accurate re-enactment. A man trying to do that is by nature got an entirely different center of gravity and and is topheavy. Of course, it was in the BPD's interest to say that from the beginning the evil Ramseys were lying about everything, including the note's placement on the stairs, since Colorado's Caped Crusaders had already decided that the wicked Ramseys had written the note, as part of their devilishly clever cover-up. I don't suppose any of those Sherlockian geniuses ever had Patsy show them how she did it, nor do I suppose, did they attempt to re-enact it with a non-cop woman of Patsy's height and weight. At least I've never heard of them doing anything besides whispering--Patsy did it Patsy did it Patsy did it to their tabloid buddies.JMHO:biggrin:

[shill]

The LE could have just asked Patsy to re-enact it.

[aussiesheila]

I always read your posts and they are always worth the read!!!Thank you Sharon.

I think most people know too little about peds to understand what they would or wouldnt do in a case like this....(well, speaking for myself maybe).I tell myself that this is why so many people reject my theory outright. Of course I might be quite wrong there, but I just don't think that most people are aware of what pedophiles get up to. Of course, this is the way pedophiles like things to be, the more people that do know, the less able they are to practice their hideous crimes.

This case gets more unlikely no matter which angle you take. If it didnt really happen I would think it impossible to have happened (ie everything)You mean truth is strange than fiction.

Do you think the R. were in on it? This is the angle that stops me thinking it was an ongoing ped ring. It does seem bazaar that they would allow this in their basement while everyone else slept???I am quite sure John knew absolutely nothing whatsoever about it. He was away alot on business and I think this is when most of the abuse took place. I think it was Patsy's father who started abusing JonBenet first and I think he had also abused Patsy when she was a little girl. I think it was because she had been abused herself and been psychologically damaged by it and had never had therapy but had just buried it deep within. So that when she suspected JonBenet was being abused, she wasn't able to deal with it and turned a blind eye to it, so to speak. In a way I think she just kind of accepted it as 'normal', that was the way the world worked. I think some time later on FW started abusing JonBenet as well. I don't think any one who was there the night of the murder had abused her before. I think it was the first time for all of them. I think Santa had been dying to get his hands on JonBenet for years, but this was the first opportunity he got. I think he had organised for that former student of his, CW to come and pick him up from his home in the mountains, telling him he could join in the activities if he would drive him to the Ramseys on Christmas night. I think then talked to some others at the Ramsey party on the 23rd about what he was planning for Christmas night. I think he arranged for CG (one of FW's house guests) and GM (the boarder from the house across the street) to join him and CW. I don't think FW was there that night because IMO he thought it was too risky and therefore a stupid idea, so he did not want to join in, besides, he had plenty of time alone with JonBenet in the safety of his own house during parties or when she came to play with Daphne.

By now I hope you've come across one of the posts where I've described how I think Santa tricked Patsy into letting him come to visit late that night.

But I dont particularly think anything was staged in terms of the murder weapons. I think what was there was used to murder JBR.I agree, I think one of the pedophiles bashed her over the head at the same time as another one was tightening the garotte. I also think they used a stun gun on her.

I think the duct tape and the ransom note were used for the kidnapping coverup scenario.

[Sharon]

Thank you Sharon.

I tell myself that this is why so many people reject my theory outright. Of course I might be quite wrong there, but I just don't think that most people are aware of what pedophiles get up to. Of course, this is the way pedophiles like things to be, the more people that do know, the less able they are to practice their hideous crimes.

You mean truth is strange than fiction.

I am quite sure John knew absolutely nothing whatsoever about it. He was away alot on business and I think this is when most of the abuse took place. I think it was Patsy's father who started abusing JonBenet first and I think he had also abused Patsy when she was a little girl. I think it was because she had been abused herself and been psychologically damaged by it and had never had therapy but had just buried it deep within. So that when she suspected JonBenet was being abused, she wasn't able to deal with it and turned a blind eye to it, so to speak. In a way I think she just kind of accepted it as 'normal', that was the way the world worked. I think some time later on FW started abusing JonBenet as well. I don't think any one who was there the night of the murder had abused her before. I think it was the first time for all of them. I think Santa had been dying to get his hands on JonBenet for years, but this was the first opportunity he got. I think he had organised for that former student of his, CW to come and pick him up from his home in the mountains, telling him he could join in the activities if he would drive him to the Ramseys on Christmas night. I think then talked to some others at the Ramsey party on the 23rd about what he was planning for Christmas night. I think he arranged for CG (one of FW's house guests) and GM (the boarder from the house across the street) to join him and CW. I don't think FW was there that night because IMO he thought it was too risky and therefore a stupid idea, so he did not want to join in, besides, he had plenty of time alone with JonBenet in the safety of his own house during parties or when she came to play with Daphne.

By now I hope you've come across one of the posts where I've described how I think Santa tricked Patsy into letting him come to visit late that night.

I agree, I think one of the pedophiles bashed her over the head at the same time as another one was tightening the garotte. I also think they used a stun gun on her.

I think the duct tape and the ransom note were used for the kidnapping coverup scenario.

I certainly think more than one person killed her simultaneously.
Aussie, your explaination may be close....who knows.
Im at the stage of acceptance that we know so little about what happened. How can we work it out when so much evidence is with held from us, and what evidence we do have is questionable.

Sorry for rambling, but your theory is consistent with one thing that irks me. Why & how did FW get to the R. so quickly at such an ungodly early hour of the morning. ie was he waiting for the call??? jmo

[thewhitewitch1]

The LE could have just asked Patsy to re-enact it.

Her lawyer would have instructed her not to. :punch:
Shill...in response to you saying my statement was ignorant...I will take that to heart since you've been shown to be an expert on making ignorant statements.

[thewhitewitch1]

I certainly think more than one person killed her simultaneously.
Aussie, your explaination may be close....who knows.
Im at the stage of acceptance that we know so little about what happened. How can we work it out when so much evidence is with held from us, and what evidence we do have is questionable.

Sorry for rambling, but your theory is consistent with one thing that irks me. Why & how did FW get to the R. so quickly at such an ungodly early hour of the morning. ie was he waiting for the call??? jmo


Sharon, FW lived quite close to the Ramseys. How would he know that Patsy would call him? The ransom note instructed them not to talk to anyone about it. How would he know she would disregard it? Do you think he's psychic? You people bash FW for doing things the Ramseys asked him to do.
Has anyone read the link to the interview I provided? You will see JR saying that he thinks they are still "friends" with the Whites...even though we know that isn't true. Why is he lying about that? Because he wants to make the Whites look like "the bad guys", that's why.
All of that bru-haha about the big fight they had in Atlanta, and then later JR denies it ever happened. What's up with that crap? Is he afraid of something? Like the fact that the Whites know the truth about who killed JB? Yeah, I know. Toss that out. Not even a possibility. :rolleyes:
Better to accuse FW based on absolutely NO evidence, physical or otherwise than to open your mind and allow for the possibility that the Ramseys may very well have killed their daughter.

[andU]

WWI:
Hope you feel better now that you have that out of your system.

[nuisanceposter]

Actually, andU, TWW is expressing an opinion held by more than just her on this board, especially with this statement:

Better to accuse FW based on absolutely NO evidence, physical or otherwise than to open your mind and allow for the possibility that the Ramseys may very well have killed their daughter.

It's like people who profile the killer as a young man who is addicted to drugs and alcohol and porn without any evidence of that whatsoever, just reading into the RN and seeing what they want to see - as long as it isn't a Ramsey, no matter how many experts couldn't eliminate Patsy.

It's like people are so convinced that the Rs are this perfect sunshine pure Christian family that never had a cross word with each other ever that there's no possible way they could have been involved - so the fiber evidence is all a lie, and people who can't be placed in the house that night and had little to no opportunity (much less motive) to kill JB except by elaborate speculation are much more likely to have been the killers than the people we know were in the house and have heard left forensic evidence on the body and in the crime scene.

People who don't believe the Rs could have done it generally do not allow for the possibility that they did at all, and prefer to come up with any other scenario, no matter how far off the evidence we know, than consider the Rs did it. Example: Shill with his photo theory. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone took any pictures of murdering JonBenet that night, but Shill has decided that idea fits the crime, even though there is no evidence to support it at all, and now seems to want to work it in to the crime and that it happened like it's a fact. I wonder why the IDI don't say something to him about it.

Like Aussiesheila with the pedo ring theory. No proof that all those men were pedophiles. No proof they all knew each other and planned to get together to molest JB. No proof they ever had a rabbit with them. No proof she was fed drugged pineapple. No proof there was ever a Charles Kuralt lie to trick Patsy. No proof Patsy ever had any photo session planned in secret, or was coerced by this pedo ring to write the RN.

But that theory gets more credibilty from the IDI than an RDI theory does, no matter how fantastical or not based on the evidence it is, because it means the Rs didn't kill JB. "Oh, it certainly fits all the evidence." No, it doesn't.

[andU]

NP, I would have been disapointed if you hadn't chimed in ... I'm well aware of your stance, both of you. We 'see' it differently and you are welcome to that just as I have a right to what I 'see'.

[bullmoose]

Her lawyer would have instructed her not to. :punch:
Shill...in response to you saying my statement was ignorant...I will take that to heart since you've been shown to be an expert on making ignorant statements. Of course, to get around the intractable Ramseys and their all-powerful dreamteam of lawyers and the corrupt DA's office, doubtless the wise and canny LE geniuses had a re-enactment done by a non-LE woman whose height/weight was very close to Patsy to definitively demonstrate the impossibility of the wicked and lying killer to have stepped over the ransom note on her own home's stairs. Not to have done this to prove to the world how shameless the Ramseys were with their lies about the ransom note would have evidenced criminal stupidity by the proud members of
the BPD, who had figured out who the guilty killers were before they had even processed the crime scene. This taped re-enactment could be easily shown to prove how the Ramsey story was a lie from the start. What? They didn't? OMIGOD, they were a bunch of criminally stupid idiots, wheren't they?JMHO:biggrin:

[andU]

:D Of course, to get around the intractable Ramseys and their all-powerful dreamteam of lawyers and the corrupt DA's office, doubtless the wise and canny LE geniuses had a re-enactment done by a non-LE woman whose height/weight was very close to Patsy to definitively demonstrate the impossibility of the wicked and lying killer to have stepped over the ransom note on her own home's stairs. Not to have done this to prove to the world how shameless the Ramseys were with their lies about the ransom note would have evidenced criminal stupidity by the proud members of
the BPD, who had figured out who the guilty killers were before they had even processed the crime scene. This taped re-enactment could be easily shown to prove how the Ramsey story was a lie from the start. What? They didn't? OMIGOD, they were a bunch of criminally stupid idiots, wheren't they?JMHO:biggrin:

:D Sure wish I could think of stuff like that to say when I get frustrated with other posts!

[Zoey]

The link you've provided is to a media story. Notice that in the official City of Boulder link that I've provided it states that media reports that the flashlight was lost and then found aren't correct and that it has never been missing. Mark Beckner is also on record as saying that the flashlight was never lost.


The Official City of Boulder link. Give me a break Tober. That is no more a reliable link than what I provided.

And as Athena asked, your link please to Mark Beckner saying on record that the flashlight was never lost.

[shill]

Shill...in response to you saying my statement was ignorant...I will take that to heart since you've been shown to be an expert on making ignorant statement.

"I wonder why Patsy and/or John wouldn't have read the entire note before notifying the police. I wonder why Patsy maintained years afterwards that she never read the entire note. I'd be searching that note for clues- I would know it by heart".

Unless you have had a child kidnapped with a ransom note left, then your statement about how you would of reacted is pure ignorance by definition.
Don't take it so personal.
You are certainly not ignorant about this case history, but you have no prior knowledge of how you would react to this set of circumstances.

[andU]

The Official City of Boulder link. Give me a break Tober. That is no more a reliable link than what I provided.

And as Athena asked, your link please to Mark Beckner saying on record that the flashlight was never lost.

I don't agree with Tober's viewpoint, but the link he listed does say it is from the City of Boulder and is a media release page. Did you look at it? There are no quotes, but it is a media release.

[shill]

Sharon, FW lived quite close to the Ramseys. How would he know that Patsy would call him? The ransom note instructed them not to talk to anyone about it. How would he know she would disregard it? Do you think he's psychic? You people bash FW for doing things the Ramseys asked him to do.
Has anyone read the link to the interview I provided? You will see JR saying that he thinks they are still "friends" with the Whites...even though we know that isn't true. Why is he lying about that? Because he wants to make the Whites look like "the bad guys", that's why.
All of that bru-haha about the big fight they had in Atlanta, and then later JR denies it ever happened. What's up with that crap? Is he afraid of something? Like the fact that the Whites know the truth about who killed JB? Yeah, I know. Toss that out. Not even a possibility. :rolleyes:
Better to accuse FW based on absolutely NO evidence, physical or otherwise than to open your mind and allow for the possibility that the Ramseys may very well have killed their daughter.

You're missing the point about FW.
If we open are minds to allow for the possibility that the Ramseys may very well have killed their daughter, then by default we have to open up your mind to allow for the possibility that the Fleet White and others may very well have killed JB based on the type of reasoning you are using to attempt to prove the RDI.
RDI reasoning can be used to show many people are guilty.

[bullmoose]

[QUOTE=shill;8821983]You're missing the point about FW.
If we open are minds to allow for the possibility that the Ramseys may very well have killed their daughter, then by default we have to open up your mind to allow for the possibility that the Fleet White and others may very well have killed JB based on the type of reasoning you are using to attempt to prove the RDI.
RDI reasoning can be used to show many people are guilty.[/QUOTE
I agree; if I am to open my mind to the idea that the Ramseys murdered their daughter by strangulation and crushing her skull, the I must let be open to other scenarios, that Fleet, you know, Synthroid Stevie's breakfast buddy, might be responsible;he knew the family better than well, left a dinner party to go singing on Christmas Day night, has acted more than slightly odd since; what would his motive be? Aussiesheila has given a complete theory of what it could be. IMO it makes at least as much sense as her parents putting a bedwetter to death by strangulation and clubbing. As for the idea that Fleet and his wife "knowing the truth" about who killed Jonbenet, of course that being the Ramseys, what kind of pond scum would the White's be if they could bring justice for Jonbenet and 'chose' not to? Until a trial they won't say; oh, how noble and selfless that is; I'm surprised Fleet wasn't nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize based on that. JMHO:biggrin:

[aussiesheila]

Does anyone ever get the feeling about the ransom note that one person was writing it and another dictating it to them?Yes I do, User. I am convinced Patsy wrote the note but that she did so under duress. I have always thought that the first part of the note was dictated to her by FW, who I think was the mastermind of the cover up and that she was left to finish it by herself which was why what should have been a half page ransom note ended up a two and a half page one.

I think FW told her over the phone the essential details of what to put in the first few sentences, which included putting a ransom amount of $118,000. I think he knew of the bonus for that amount that John had received and that his idea for including it in the note was an attempt to pin the kidnapping on someone from Access Graphics, not a pedophile, but rather someone who wanted to 'get at' John, someone else who might have known of the bonus amount as well.

I don't think there was time for him to dictate the entire note to Patsy, so he told her she must finish it herself but that she must include threats that would stop John from calling the police. This Patsy did with a vengeance, and then she went completely overboard with an emotional tirade where she lashed out at John. No doubt she was highly distraught, and I think she was initially feeling a huge amount of guilt for her role in the circumstances leading up to JonBenet’s death but that as she continued writing the note she became angrier and angrier towards John.

What I see towards the ending of the note is her descent into shifting blame for what had happened away from her self and on to John. In her mind I think she was absolving herself from having ignored the signs of sexual abuse in JonBenet and having accepted Dr Beuf’s explanations for her health and behavioral problems as due to bubble baths etc and normal for her age. I think she was attempting to transfer all of her guilt onto John by neglecting to care for the wellbeing of his family due to his spending little time with the family either because he was working long hours or away on one of his many business trips, which resulted in his minimal input into family life.

I think the S.B.T.C. at the end of the note stood for Saved by the Cross and was Pasy's desperate plea to her Christian God for her own redemption.

[Athena]

The link you've provided is to a media story. Notice that in the official City of Boulder link that I've provided it states that media reports that the flashlight was lost and then found aren't correct and that it has never been missing. Mark Beckner is also on record as saying that the flashlight was never lost.

And the City of Boulder will admit that their keystone cops lost a flashlight .....not. A publicist still had to write the article and had to have a source just as a journalist would. One is no better than the other but of course we know that government officials never lie. :rolleyes:

[Tober]

The LE could have just asked Patsy to re-enact it.

Oh boy, would that have been quite the spectacle. If LE got the rise out of Patsy that they did when certain things were mentioned during her interviews/interrogations, then imagine her reaction upon being put on the spot with "OK, you say this is how it happened, now show us." (IMO)

[Athena]

I don't agree with Tober's viewpoint, but the link he listed does say it is from the City of Boulder and is a media release page. Did you look at it? There are no quotes, but it is a media release.

And we know that government officials never lie. Bad enough the keystone kops blew it and then to admit they lost evidence?? I'm sure bullmoose could come with a name beyond keystone kops. LOL

[thewhitewitch1]

Unless you have had a child kidnapped with a ransom note left, then your statement about how you would of reacted is pure ignorance by definition.
Don't take it so personal.
You are certainly not ignorant about this case history, but you have no prior knowledge of how you would react to this set of circumstances.



Well, I'll tell you what - I know myself and I do know that I would have read the entire note and yes, I would have read it many times afterwards until I knew it line for line. Why? Because if someone murdered my child, I'd want to know everything and I would disect every clue over and over again for the rest of my life trying to find the person who did it. You can call me ignorant all you want. I know myself and I know what I would do.
This is not my opinion. It is a fact.

[shill]

Well, I'll tell you what - I know myself and I do know that I would have read the entire note and yes, I would have read it many times afterwards until I knew it line for line. Why? Because if someone murdered my child, I'd want to know everything and I would disect every clue over and over again for the rest of my life trying to find the person who did it. You can call me ignorant all you want. I know myself and I know what I would do.
This is not my opinion. It is a fact.
Well, I'll tell you what - I know myself and I do know that I would not have read the entire note. I would have read the first line of the note, dropped it and ran to JB's room. When I found her missing I would have alerted my spouse and then I would have went straight to the phone and called 911. You can call me ignorant all you want. I know myself and I know what I would do.
This is not my opinion. It is a fact.

Well seems what we would do is a fact. Patsy didn't react to differently then I did so she must not be guilty.
And by the way, if you had memorized the note, that would lead me to believe you wrote it because you know it so well.

[thewhitewitch1]

You're missing the point about FW.
If we open are minds to allow for the possibility that the Ramseys may very well have killed their daughter, then by default we have to open up your mind to allow for the possibility that the Fleet White and others may very well have killed JB based on the type of reasoning you are using to attempt to prove the RDI.
RDI reasoning can be used to show many people are guilty.

Here is something you don't know.
When I first started studying this case, I knew very little about the details. When it happened, without reading all of the media hoopla, I had a gut feeling that the Ramseys were guilty.
When I started studying the case after the JMK fiasco, I was very interested in the other suspects - FW, Santa McReynolds etc and I studied all I could about them as well...with an open mind. I still read all I can about the "cast of characters" who have been either named as suspects or whom seem like likely ones. I've even entertained doubts about the Ramseys guilt but when I think about all of the things I've read about them (from reputable sources) and by them, I keep coming back to the same thing. Something just isn't right. You can excuse and dismiss the things they've done or didn't do and you can ignore their contradictions and lies but I can't.
Did you read the link I gave to their interview on Larry King? You know this case as well as I do so what they lied about in that interview should be obvious to you. No IDI has made a comment yet about that link or what was said by the Ramseys in that interview. Why?

[thewhitewitch1]

Well, I'll tell you what - I know myself and I do know that I would not have read the entire note. I would have read the first line of the note, dropped it and ran to JB's room. When I found her missing I would have alerted my spouse and then I would have went straight to the phone and called 911. You can call me ignorant all you want. I know myself and I know what I would do.
This is not my opinion. It is a fact.

Well seems what we would do is a fact. Patsy didn't react to differently then I did so she must not be guilty.
And by the way, if you had memorized the note, that would lead me to believe you wrote it because you know it so well.


Now that is an ignorant statement.
And what do you mean by "Patsy didn't react too differently than I did so she must not be guilty"? Was you child kidnapped and murdered and a ransom note left for you to read? Or were you with Patsy when she found the note?
That made no sense to me. Explain, please.

[Sharon]

Sharon, FW lived quite close to the Ramseys. How would he know that Patsy would call him? The ransom note instructed them not to talk to anyone about it. How would he know she would disregard it? Do you think he's psychic? You people bash FW for doing things the Ramseys asked him to do.
Has anyone read the link to the interview I provided? You will see JR saying that he thinks they are still "friends" with the Whites...even though we know that isn't true. Why is he lying about that? Because he wants to make the Whites look like "the bad guys", that's why.
All of that bru-haha about the big fight they had in Atlanta, and then later JR denies it ever happened. What's up with that crap? Is he afraid of something? Like the fact that the Whites know the truth about who killed JB? Yeah, I know. Toss that out. Not even a possibility. :rolleyes:
Better to accuse FW based on absolutely NO evidence, physical or otherwise than to open your mind and allow for the possibility that the Ramseys may very well have killed their daughter.

Am I allowed to wonder why he arranged for his wife & her sister to also go to the R. ? Its just another thing in this whole saga that seems to defy any logic. Also why he was so unsupportive to his friends both at the start of this tragedy & to the end.

Keep in mind that he is a person of interest to me anyway.

If we are only allowed to discuss the R. as suspects, then what more is there left to say. You probably think that the parents did it and got away with it. And who knows. However, I wouldnt want to swap with them for anything.
They lost their daughter, their self made fortune, their privacy and life as they knew it. They were on the top of the world, what a fall. And, Im sure B. has issues of being the son of infamous parents with suspision & guilt hanging over everyones head. To me the R. lost everything that they held dear and that they strove to achieve.

Now, you can think that that is only fair payback for what they did.

But I think it`s added punishment after loosing their daughter to intruders. jmo

[bullmoose]

Here is something you don't know.
When I first started studying this case, I knew very little about the details. When it happened, without reading all of the media hoopla, I had a gut feeling that the Ramseys were guilty.
When I started studying the case after the JMK fiasco, I was very interested in the other suspects - FW, Santa McReynolds etc and I studied all I could about them as well...with an open mind. I still read all I can about the "cast of characters" who have been either named as suspects or whom seem like likely ones. I've even entertained doubts about the Ramseys guilt but when I think about all of the things I've read about them (from reputable sources) and by them, I keep coming back to the same thing. Something just isn't right. You can excuse and dismiss the things they've done or didn't do and you can ignore their contradictions and lies but I can't.
Did you read the link I gave to their interview on Larry King? You know this case as well as I do so what they lied about in that interview should be obvious to you. No IDI has made a comment yet about that link or what was said by the Ramseys in that interview. Why?I don't want to offend you, TWW1, but I didn't comment on the Larry King interview that you gave the link for because I was unimpressed with what you state as obvious. In your opinion it was obvious, but not mine. On this issue we will never agree so I didn't comment, but don't think you carried the point, I just didn't feel like arguing it at that moment. Thats all. JMHO

[shill]

[/B]


Now that is an ignorant statement.
And what do you mean by "Patsy didn't react too differently than I did so she must not be guilty"? Was you child kidnapped and murdered and a ransom note left for you to read? Or were you with Patsy when she found the note?
That made no sense to me. Explain, please.

I'm surprised it didn't make sense to you. Most of the wording should have seemed familiar.

You imply that the way Patsy reacted is suspicious because that is not the way you would react.
I am saying that the way Patsy reacted is not suspicious because that is the way I would react.
It is a mirror image of your reasoning, it should make perfect sense to you.

[shill]

I don't want to offend you, TWW1, but I didn't comment on the Larry King interview that you gave the link for because I was unimpressed with what you state as obvious. In your opinion it was obvious, but not mine. On this issue we will never agree so I didn't comment, but don't think you carried the point, I just didn't feel like arguing it at that moment. Thats all. JMHO

I didn't get the time to even look at it yet, but I'm betting that I will probably have the same opinion as Bullmmose, sorry.

[bullmoose]

Well, I'll tell you what - I know myself and I do know that I would have read the entire note and yes, I would have read it many times afterwards until I knew it line for line. Why? Because if someone murdered my child, I'd want to know everything and I would disect every clue over and over again for the rest of my life trying to find the person who did it. You can call me ignorant all you want. I know myself and I know what I would do.
This is not my opinion. It is a fact.TWW1: You know what you'd do, you are clear on that, but if you haven't been through it in actuality then all you know is what you think you'd do. You cannot condemn Patsy Ramsey for not reacting as you think you would or how you think she should have reacted in those circumstances; you are not her and you were not there and she reacted the way she did because of who she was. It does not imply any guilt upon her or prove any culpability to me. JMHO

[Tober]

No IDI has made a comment yet about that link or what was said by the Ramseys in that interview. Why?
Good question.

[shill]

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1 View Post
No IDI has made a comment yet about that link or what was said by the Ramseys in that interview. Why?Good question.

I've asked a number of questions that have gone unanswered by RDI.
You still haven't showed me a transcript that shows Burke denied getting the bowl of pineapple out for example.

[bullmoose]

Yes I do, User. I am convinced Patsy wrote the note but that she did so under duress. I have always thought that the first part of the note was dictated to her by FW, who I think was the mastermind of the cover up and that she was left to finish it by herself which was why what should have been a half page ransom note ended up a two and a half page one.

I think FW told her over the phone the essential details of what to put in the first few sentences, which included putting a ransom amount of $118,000. I think he knew of the bonus for that amount that John had received and that his idea for including it in the note was an attempt to pin the kidnapping on someone from Access Graphics, not a pedophile, but rather someone who wanted to 'get at' John, someone else who might have known of the bonus amount as well.

I don't think there was time for him to dictate the entire note to Patsy, so he told her she must finish it herself but that she must include threats that would stop John from calling the police. This Patsy did with a vengeance, and then she went completely overboard with an emotional tirade where she lashed out at John. No doubt she was highly distraught, and I think she was initially feeling a huge amount of guilt for her role in the circumstances leading up to JonBenet’s death but that as she continued writing the note she became angrier and angrier towards John.

What I see towards the ending of the note is her descent into shifting blame for what had happened away from her self and on to John. In her mind I think she was absolving herself from having ignored the signs of sexual abuse in JonBenet and having accepted Dr Beuf’s explanations for her health and behavioral problems as due to bubble baths etc and normal for her age. I think she was attempting to transfer all of her guilt onto John by neglecting to care for the wellbeing of his family due to his spending little time with the family either because he was working long hours or away on one of his many business trips, which resulted in his minimal input into family life.

I think the S.B.T.C. at the end of the note stood for Saved by the Cross and was Pasy's desperate plea to her Christian God for her own redemption. I really think that even if your whole theory should turn out to be true that the explanation for the letters SBTC would turn out to be other than yours; JMHO, but your explanation doesn't fit;the SBTC is not in a prayer or plea to God form. IMO, its fails the criteria of being" Patsy's desperate plea to her Christian God for her own redemption".

[andU]

I don't want to offend you, TWW1, but I didn't comment on the Larry King interview that you gave the link for because I was unimpressed with what you state as obvious. In your opinion it was obvious, but not mine. On this issue we will never agree so I didn't comment, but don't think you carried the point, I just didn't feel like arguing it at that moment. Thats all. JMHO

Amen. Same reason I didn't comment. We could argue our 'gut feelings' until the Lord returns, it wouldn't solve anything.

[thewhitewitch1]

I don't want to offend you, TWW1, but I didn't comment on the Larry King interview that you gave the link for because I was unimpressed with what you state as obvious. In your opinion it was obvious, but not mine. On this issue we will never agree so I didn't comment, but don't think you carried the point, I just didn't feel like arguing it at that moment. Thats all. JMHO

I'm not offended but I'm not surprised either. Better to avoid reading it than to have to make up excuses for why (among other things):

Why the Ramseys told Larry King that no one from the FBI came to their house that morning or ever. Blatant lie.

That they placed no "conditions" on being interviewed by the police. Blatant lie and King even gives them examples of the conditions they placed.

That no one except themselves were questioned or suspects. Lie.

The entire interview was self-serving bull****. Of course, you will excuse their lies and defend them til the end so I guess that is your right. I just don't understand it, that's all.

[thewhitewitch1]

Amen. Same reason I didn't comment. We could argue our 'gut feelings' until the Lord returns, it wouldn't solve anything.


Excuse me but I said nothing about "gut feelings". If you choose to ignore an interview with the Ramseys where you can see their lies for yourself, well I guess I can't stop you from burying your head in the sand. You don't see their lies because you don't [I]want/I] to.
This goes for Shill and Bullmoose too.
I figured you all would respond like this. Better not to read it than to have to entertain the possibility that the "saints" told lies. :shrug:

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1 View Post
No IDI has made a comment yet about that link or what was said by the Ramseys in that interview. Why?

I've asked a number of questions that have gone unanswered by RDI.
You still haven't showed me a transcript that shows Burke denied getting the bowl of pineapple out for example.

Dr. Henry Lee states that when questioned about the pineapple, Burke said that he "didn't remember". Apparently amnesia is hereditary.

[Zoey]

I'm not offended but I'm not surprised either. Better to avoid reading it than to have to make up excuses for why (among other things):

Why the Ramseys told Larry King that no one from the FBI came to their house that morning or ever. Blatant lie.

That they placed no "conditions" on being interviewed by the police. Blatant lie and King even gives them examples of the conditions they placed.

That no one except themselves were questioned or suspects. Lie.

The entire interview was self-serving bull****. Of course, you will excuse their lies and defend them til the end so I guess that is your right. I just don't understand it, that's all.

I remember reading on this forum that the FBI never did go to the Ramsey home, that they set everything up from BPD, and then they would told they were not needed.

[andU]

Excuse me but I said nothing about "gut feelings". If you choose to ignore an interview with the Ramseys where you can see their lies for yourself, well I guess I can't stop you from burying your head in the sand. You don't see their lies because you don't [I]want/I] to.
This goes for Shill and Bullmoose too.
I figured you all would respond like this. Better not to read it than to have to entertain the possibility that the "saints" told lies. :shrug:

WWI, as I have stated before I am not going to argue with you. How many links have you visited that were posted by IDI? I didn't say that you did say anything about 'gut feelings' I said it. IMO there have been many untruths told about this case, from all sides, including Fleet White, the great pretender.

[thewhitewitch1]

I remember reading on this forum that the FBI never did go to the Ramsey home, that they set everything up from BPD, and then they would told they were not needed.


Yes, the FBI was there that afternoon. FBI agent Ron Walker arrived at the house around 1:25 p.m. (Dr. Henry Lee - "Cracking More Cases"). I believe it is also mentioned in PMPT and other various sources.
The FBI was told later that they weren't needed.

[andU]

I remember reading on this forum that the FBI never did go to the Ramsey home, that they set everything up from BPD, and then they would told they were not needed.


That is true, Zoey. They may have gone to the home after the body was found, I think. But, because they found a body, they were technically off the case.

[thewhitewitch1]

WWI, as I have stated before I am not going to argue with you. How many links have you visited that were posted by IDI? I didn't say that you did say anything about 'gut feelings' I said it. IMO there have been many untruths told about this case, from all sides, including Fleet White, the great pretender.

I visit every link posted whether IDI or RDI.
Please tell me an untruth that was told by Fleet White.

[andU]

I visit every link posted whether IDI or RDI.
Please tell me an untruth that was told by Fleet White.

His wonderful friendship to the Ramseys is a lie. He mooched from them. Also, why did he ask that his depo be sealed? He didn't want the Ramsey's to know that he had betrayed them, that's why. He sure didn't want them to know that he'd had a past with allegations of child mosestation against him.

[thewhitewitch1]

That is true, Zoey. They may have gone to the home after the body was found, I think. But, because they found a body, they were technically off the case.

They may have gone to the home after the body was found but in the LK interview, the Rs stated that the FBI never came, which is a lie.
Now, tell me about how they were "confused" and may not have known Ron Walker was from the FBI.
These people were shown virtually all information concerning this case. There is no reason for them NOT to know that the FBI was there that day. Self-serving lies is all they spew. IMO

[andU]

They may have gone to the home after the body was found but in the LK interview, the Rs stated that the FBI never came, which is a lie.
Now, tell me about how they were "confused" and may not have known Ron Walker was from the FBI.
These people were shown virtually all information concerning this case. There is no reason for them NOT to know that the FBI was there that day. Self-serving lies is all they spew. IMO

I think you are looking for someone to argue with, that's not what the board is for. Can you for one moment imagine how many people they were introduced to that day? Could you keep them all straight, who was who and which branch they were affliated with? No, I don't think so.

[Louisadelmar]

Dr. Henry Lee states that when questioned about the pineapple, Burke said that he "didn't remember". Apparently amnesia is hereditary.

Or maybe contagious? Didn't Fleet White have memory problems too?

[thewhitewitch1]

His wonderful friendship to the Ramseys is a lie. He mooched from them. Also, why did he ask that his depo be sealed? He didn't want the Ramsey's to know that he had betrayed them, that's why. He sure didn't want them to know that he'd had a past with allegations of child mosestation against him.


He mooched from them according to who? Oh...that's right. The self-righteous "never tell a lie" Ramseys. Of course you will take their word when there is nothing else to back up this accusation.
He didn't want the Ramseys to know he "betrayed them"? Give me a break. Why did he write all of those open letters to the newspapers and such, then?
I think everyone was aware of the past allegations of child molestation since it was made public...and let's not forget that those same allegations were made against JR by the same source. So FW is guilty of it but JR is not?
FW behaved as he did because he had reason to believe the Rs killed their daughter. Why is that so hard for you to believe?
Also, why did JR later deny that there was any big fight between he and FW in Atlanta?
Are you going to deny that J and P tried to implicate the Whites several times over? Yeah, I guess the wonderful friendship was a lie...on the Rs behalf.
I think FWs depo is sealed because there is damning testimony against the Ramseys in it and if, some day JR is ever brought to trial, it will come out. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

I think you are looking for someone to argue with, that's not what the board is for. Can you for one moment imagine how many people they were introduced to that day? Could you keep them all straight, who was who and which branch they were affliated with? No, I don't think so.


They've had plenty of time to do the research on their case before they go public and state a thing like that. I knew that would be someones excuse.
Argue? Well, it would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything.
Discuss/debate/argue...yes, that is what this board is for.

[andU]

Debate and discuss ... yes. Argue, no. Arguement is pointless and I won't do it. You and NP become too agressive and I am not putting myself in a position where I will be attacked. You have a right to your position, so do I. I would love to be able to see your face on the day that John and Patsy are exonerated!

[nuisanceposter]

Debate and discuss ... yes. Argue, no. Arguement is pointless and I won't do it. You and NP become too agressive and I am not putting myself in a position where I will be attacked. You have a right to your position, so do I. I would love to be able to see your face on the day that John and Patsy are exonerated!

Gosh, I wonder why I don't see you saying things like this to Shill, who engages in far more aggressive, argumentative, and outright rude behavior than TWW and I have ever exhibited on this board.

I don't want to speak for TWW, but my impression is that she and I have spent time studying this case and know it well enough to debate it with a strong stance, not that we are interested in creating negative emotion amongst the members for amusement or out of meanness as I see another doing - on a daily basis, and with no apology whatsoever. I guarantee you if anyone told me that I had been rude and I thought they were sincere, I would publicly apologize to them on the board. One time I snapped at LindaA, and apologized afterward. She was very kind about it, and I have seen TWW do that same thing with someone else.

IMO - John and Patsy will never be exonerated. They'll always be the prime suspects, and officially, this case will never be solved.

[Zoey]

Gosh, I wonder why I don't see you saying things like this to Shill, who engages in far more aggressive, argumentative, and outright rude behavior than TWW and I have ever exhibited on this board.

I don't want to speak for TWW, but my impression is that she and I have spent time studying this case and know it well enough to debate it with a strong stance, not that we are interested in creating negative emotion amongst the members for amusement or out of meanness as I see another doing - on a daily basis, and with no apology whatsoever. I guarantee you if anyone told me that I had been rude and I thought they were sincere, I would publicly apologize to them on the board. One time I snapped at LindaA, and apologized afterward. She was very kind about it, and I have seen TWW do that same thing with someone else.

IMO - John and Patsy will never be exonerated. They'll always be the prime suspects, and officially, this case will never be solved.

I disagree with this. I believe this case will be solved. I believe the killer will be found.

As I have said before, many a time, I do not feel even one bit that Patsy or John had anything to do with this murder, but, if they found evidence that proved me wrong, that would be great, because at least this case would be over and little JB could rest in peace. That is all I have wanted since this horrific crime came out on the news. Just get it solved.

[andU]

I'm just beginning to feel that it has all been debated and there isn't much left to say. Perhaps you are right, it may never be solved. My opinion remains that intruders (at least one of which was not a stranger to the family) entered the home and waited for the family to return, either bringing the already written note with them or writing it while waiting. I hope the person/s are caught and repay his/her debt to a society that has mourned this little girl. Of course he/she can do nothing to bring JB back, and who would bring her back into a world full of hatred and betrayal when she is at peace in what awaits each of us. But, having that person caught and the Ramseys vindicated, would bring peace to a great many people.

[rashomon]

I'm just beginning to feel that it has all been debated and there isn't much left to say. Perhaps you are right, it may never be solved. My opinion remains that intruders (at least one of which was not a stranger to the family) entered the home and waited for the family to return, either bringing the already written note with them or writing it while waiting. I hope the person/s are caught and repay his/her debt to a society that has mourned this little girl. Of course he/she can do nothing to bring JB back, and who would bring her back into a world full of hatred and betrayal when she is at peace in what awaits each of us. But, having that person caught and the Ramseys vindicated, would bring peace to a great many people.
What can't be ignored: The forensic (fibers) and other circumstanial evidence (ransom note in all probablility written by Patsy) connects both Ramseys to the staging of the scene.

[rashomon]

It's like people are so convinced that the Rs are this perfect sunshine pure Christian family that never had a cross word with each other ever that there's no possible way they could have been involved - so the fiber evidence is all a lie, and people who can't be placed in the house that night and had little to no opportunity (much less motive) to kill JB except by elaborate speculation are much more likely to have been the killers than the people we know were in the house and have heard left forensic evidence on the body and in the crime scene.

People who don't believe the Rs could have done it generally [B]do not allow for the possibility that they did at all, and prefer to come up with any other scenario, no matter how far off the evidence we know, than consider the Rs did it. Example: Shill with his photo theory. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone took any pictures of murdering JonBenet that night, but Shill has decided that idea fits the crime, even though there is no evidence to support it at all, and now seems to want to work it in to the crime and that it happened like it's a fact. I wonder why the IDI don't say something to him about it.

Like Aussiesheila with the pedo ring theory. No proof that all those men were pedophiles. No proof they all knew each other and planned to get together to molest JB. No proof they ever had a rabbit with them. No proof she was fed drugged pineapple. No proof there was ever a Charles Kuralt lie to trick Patsy. No proof Patsy ever had any photo session planned in secret, or was coerced by this pedo ring to write the RN.

But that theory gets more credibilty from the IDI than an RDI theory does, no matter how fantastical or not based on the evidence it is, because it means the Rs didn't kill JB. "Oh, it certainly fits all the evidence." No, it doesn't.
Excellent points, NP! You said it all.
Many IDIs so vehemently reject the idea that the Ramseys could have done it that they prefer to visualize fantasy scenarios instead which in their opinion 'fit the evidence'.
The result of such thinking are absurd "explanations" like:
"A beaver hair was found at the crime scene: it seems the pedophiles brought a beaver with them - this would fit the evidence". :)

[Tober]

What can't be ignored: The forensic (fibers) and other circumstanial evidence (ransom note in all probablility written by Patsy) connects both Ramseys to the staging of the scene.

Which is a very, very important point. In ten years, no intruder theorist has been able to produce a single piece of evidence that shows an intruder was in that home on the night of the murder. Even if someone could show that there was an intruder in that home and that the intruder killed JonBenet, you would still have to explain why the Ramseys staged the crime scene. (IMO)

[Louisadelmar]

[bolding mine]

Excellent points, NP! You said it all.
Many IDIs so vehemently reject the idea that the Ramseys could have done it that they prefer to visualize fantasy scenarios instead which in their opinion 'fit the evidence'.
The result of such thinking are absurd "explanations" like:
"A beaver hair was found at the crime scene: it seems the pedophiles brought a beaver with them - this would fit the evidence". :)


Are you quoting someone's post? Or are you talking about Aussiesheila's theory? Though I don't think her theory is correct I don't recall her suggesting a beaver was brought in. I thought she said a rabbit.

Could you give a source for your quote as I can't remember reading it anywhere.

[bullmoose]

I'm not offended but I'm not surprised either. Better to avoid reading it than to have to make up excuses for why (among other things):

Why the Ramseys told Larry King that no one from the FBI came to their house that morning or ever. Blatant lie.

That they placed no "conditions" on being interviewed by the police. Blatant lie and King even gives them examples of the conditions they placed.

That no one except themselves were questioned or suspects. Lie.

The entire interview was self-serving bull****. Of course, you will excuse their lies and defend them til the end so I guess that is your right. I just don't understand it, that's all.tww1: It is the height of ego for you to read into my response that I didn't read the linked interview; I did, but as with so many aspects of this case I came to a view not at all in agreement with yours.I most certainly disagree with all your statements above; please do not lie yourself about what I have previously posted. That , too, is self-serving horseplop, not discourse.:punch:

[bullmoose]

What can't be ignored: The forensic (fibers) and other circumstanial evidence (ransom note in all probablility written by Patsy) connects both Ramseys to the staging of the scene.What can be reasonably ignored: Nonexistant fibers found in flying carpets piloted by Rashoman; also ignorant claims of circumstantial evidence as being proof of fond fantasies held by RDI's. You can ignore this stuff, many do.:biggrin:

[andU]

[bolding mine]

Excellent points, NP! You said it all.
Many IDIs so vehemently reject the idea that the Ramseys could have done it that they prefer to visualize fantasy scenarios instead which in their opinion 'fit the evidence'.
The result of such thinking are absurd "explanations" like:
"A beaver hair was found at the crime scene: it seems the pedophiles brought a beaver with them - this would fit the evidence". :)

It is very unfair to catagorize IDI's and lump us into people who have not looked at the idea that the Ramseys could have done it. As I have stated more than once, I used to be an RDI. I believed that Patsy did it. Then, I started looking at the other logic and as I researched and read I came to believe that it was an intruder. So, don't say that I have not looked at the other side. I am not going to explain anything else to any of you who wish to argue. There is a difference in arguments and debates or discussions. It sounds from all of you that you have an anger problem and you are ready to fling it onto anyone who is an IDI, today. Get a grip, we don't have to agree about it.

[Athena]

What can't be ignored: The forensic (fibers) and other circumstanial evidence (ransom note in all probablility written by Patsy) connects both Ramseys to the staging of the scene.

Patsy was not the ONLY one to not be excluded from writing that note. It's so funny that I honestly entered this case as a FS and it was because of the repeated misinformation that I read that made me side with the IDI's. When anyone speaks of the writing and this ransom note it is only fair to include the others that have never been cleared from writing that note - some that were even closer matches.

Did you know that even McReynolds and Barnhill's DNA was believed to have been found in that spot of blood? Unfortunately they did not have all the markers so could not come up with a positive match but they were NOT EXCLUDED. The DNA is also believed to come from two or more people so the manufacturer DNA is BS as well.

You also cannot just include fibers that were found -- but the ones that WERE NOT sourced. As far as those black fibers allegedly coming from JR's shirt - it is BS. EVERY SINGLE PERSON that takes on a role of interrogator are taught to lie, subtly and with confidence so as not to create doubt in the suspect's mind that they really don't have anything. And that is EXACTLY what Levin did. It is part of Interrogation 101 -- called Reid's technique and is permissible and encouraged. It is a KNOWN fact and I don't understand how anyone can dispute this whether IDI or RDI. It happens ALL THE TIME.

Many RDI's twist the facts to fit their theory no matter what the evidence says. JMO

(CAPS) used for emphasis not yelling.

[shill]

Gosh, I wonder why I don't see you saying things like this to Shill, who engages in far more aggressive, argumentative, and outright rude behavior than TWW and I have ever exhibited on this board.


You forgot to say, "in my opinion"

Don't lump yourself in with TWW1, you are doing her a great dishonor.

[Tober]

When anyone speaks of the writing and this ransom note it is only fair to include the others that have never been cleared from writing that note - some that were even closer matches.
But those individuals were cleared of the crime based on other factors. No evidentiary element eliminates Patsy as having murdered JonBenet. Patsy can't be eliminated using the behavioral, circumstantial, or physical evidence. Each of these evidentiary elements suggests her involvement, the forensic evidence confirms it. (IMO)

[shill]

Yes, the FBI was there that afternoon. FBI agent Ron Walker arrived at the house around 1:25 p.m. (Dr. Henry Lee - "Cracking More Cases"). I believe it is also mentioned in PMPT and other various sources.
The FBI was told later that they weren't needed.

So how do you know for a fact that the Ramseys were aware of this FBI visit when they did the interview?

For them to be lying about it, you would have to know for a fact that they knew about it.

I take it you are just assuming they knew about the FBI at the time of the interview or else you would have provided a link showing the Ramseys knowledge of the FBI at the house before they did the interview.

[Tober]

Patsy was not the ONLY one to not be excluded from writing that note.
You're stretching. What are the odds that an intruder could enter that home (without bringing anything with him, mind you) and be able to mimic Patsy's handwriting so well under the stress of such a situation? Possible? You bet. Probable? No way. And remember, the totality of evidence must be considered. The hanwriting evidence is just one part. Based on the totality of evidence, Patsy can't be eliminated as having killed JonBenet. Not only that, but the totality of evidence implicates Patsy in the murder of JonBenet. (IMO)

[Athena]

Who said anything about someone "mimicing" Patsy's handwriting. It was printed and I will guarantee that the posters on this board can submit handwriting samples with a felt pen and would not be excluded.

And the totality of the evidence is 4 red fibers found on the duct tape which JR AND FW touched. It could have just been secondary transfer - I would bet that both JR AND FW hugged Patsy with her jacket on.

The fibers ALLEGEDLY found in the paint tray and garrotte were part of the interrogation and I'm not going to repeat what interrogators are taught in Criminal Interrogations 101. JMO

[Athena]

Actually you can read it yourself but I KNOW this from first-hand experience:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oBmQHScADQ4C&dq=Criminal+Interrogation+101&pg=PR4&ots=C-_uv0TUrl&sig=1HcrDQtfsnslhGzIUljeDCWT1U0&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DCriminal%2BInterrogation%2B 101%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2#PPR14,M1

[thewhitewitch1]

What can be reasonably ignored: Nonexistant fibers found in flying carpets piloted by Rashoman; also ignorant claims of circumstantial evidence as being proof of fond fantasies held by RDI's. You can ignore this stuff, many do.:biggrin:


I'm not got to get into the fibers in the paint tray and the garrote, but 4 black (and this source says red also) fibers were found on the duct tape that were consistant with Patsys jacket. (Dr. Lee's "Cracking More Cases) They could have gotten there by secondary transfer or not.
Here's a thought: If the blanket JB was found in wasn't on her bed that night and was in the dryer (as evidenced by the crime scene photos of JBs bed), how would the duct tape be able to pick up fibers from Patsys jacket unless it was she who took the blanket out of the dryer and wrapped JBs dead body in it?

[thewhitewitch1]

It is very unfair to catagorize IDI's and lump us into people who have not looked at the idea that the Ramseys could have done it. As I have stated more than once, I used to be an RDI. I believed that Patsy did it. Then, I started looking at the other logic and as I researched and read I came to believe that it was an intruder. So, don't say that I have not looked at the other side. I am not going to explain anything else to any of you who wish to argue. There is a difference in arguments and debates or discussions. It sounds from all of you that you have an anger problem and you are ready to fling it onto anyone who is an IDI, today. Get a grip, we don't have to agree about it.


You are a very sensitive person. Please stop taking everything so personally.
I'm laughing about your comment about the RDI's anger problem. Now whos lumping who into one category?
Look at the (sometimes) mean sarcasm Bullmoose displays towards Tober and Rashomon. Look at any one of Shills posts, especially and then tell me again who has a problem. Then there's Whiskey.
The "regular" RDIs in this forum have been pretty decent, despite some of the nasty comments thrown at them over and over again.
I don't see Rashomon or Tober getting all bent out of shape.
Of course you have a right to your opinion. I guess the purpose here is to discuss and debate the evidence as we know it. And that's what we're trying to do.
Bullmoose....I'm sorry. I must have misread your post and thought you didn't read my link.

[thewhitewitch1]

So how do you know for a fact that the Ramseys were aware of this FBI visit when they did the interview?

For them to be lying about it, you would have to know for a fact that they knew about it.

I take it you are just assuming they knew about the FBI at the time of the interview or else you would have provided a link showing the Ramseys knowledge of the FBI at the house before they did the interview.

Yep...I am assuming. Just like you assume Burke got up and got the pineapple for JB and all of the other things you assume and lay out as facts.
You are grasping at straws.
These people who were so "hell bent" on catching the killer of their daughter that they don't even bother to find out the facts of who was working on the case that day and had every access to find out the details if they really cared and wanted to know. Instead, they speak on national television and speak an untruth just to make themselves look like victims. That's exactly what they were doing when they told LK that the LE never checked out any other suspects because we all know that that is a lie.
Maybe if the Ramseys would have co-operated with the LE and spent time working with them, they would know what was going on...if, in fact, for some odd reason they didn't. I guess they were too busy feeling indignant and pursecuted to be bothered in helping to find the "real" killer.
So...the FBI issue has been addressed and excused...how about the lie about not setting conditions to their interviews with LE? Please feel free to explain that one away now.
IMO

[Louisadelmar]

Is thisthe quote you'retalking about?

KING: The police say -- the police say that you were only -- you accept -- you put guidelines up to the interviews. You'd only be interviewed together. Why?

J. RAMSEY: I don't remember.

P. RAMSEY: I don't remember any guidelines.

KING: Is that not true?

J. RAMSEY: I don't remember.

KING: You didn't give them any guidelines?

J. RAMSEY: The only guideline I remember, the only request that we made -- and this was after a huge gap of mistrust developed -- the police withheld JonBenet's body for burial to try to force us to submit to their terms.

KING: Which were?

J. RAMSEY: We were -- that the three of us be interrogated in the police station before we buried our daughter, and we were horribly offended at that. And this huge gap of distrust developed.

KING: Let me tell you what develops as a father and what other people say, and the reason that I think that you're under this cloud. Most people would say, if I didn't do it and my daughter was killed -- I'm talking as a father, and I don't like to bring myself into it. One, I'll answer any question, I'll take any test, I'll meet with you. I'll be there first thing in the morning. Catch the killer. I'd go nuts. I'd cooperate in every way. As I'd go out with the cops. I'd give them my fingers. I'd give them my...

P. RAMSEY: If you thought... J. RAMSEY: We did do that, Larry.

P. RAMSEY: We did do that.

KING: You cooperated fully in every way?

J. RAMSEY: We met with them on the 26th, we met with them on the 27th. We gave hair, blood, fiber samples on the 28th. We left...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Then why did they say...

J. RAMSEY: ... to bury our daughter.

P. RAMSEY: We stayed in Boulder, Colorado. We stayed there for testing for, you know, until...

KING: Why did they say you were uncooperative? Or some of them?

J. RAMSEY: I don't know. This is a -- it's -- it's a -- what we need to do is get down to the objective here. The objective is to find the killer. I can say a lot of things about what the police did and didn't do. They can say a lot of things about what we didn't do. But let's put that aside. Let's put politics aside. Let's put egos aside. There is a dangerous killer loose, we believe. This killer, if he's still alive, will kill again. It's time to get on with that.

[Athena]

I'm not got to get into the fibers in the paint tray and the garrote, but 4 black (and this source says red also) fibers were found on the duct tape that were consistant with Patsys jacket. (Dr. Lee's "Cracking More Cases) They could have gotten there by secondary transfer or not.
Here's a thought: If the blanket JB was found in wasn't on her bed that night and was in the dryer (as evidenced by the crime scene photos of JBs bed), how would the duct tape be able to pick up fibers from Patsys jacket unless it was she who took the blanket out of the dryer and wrapped JBs dead body in it?

Here's another thought: secondary transfer via JR and/or FW who touched the duct tape and who both at one point or another probably hugged Patsy.

[thewhitewitch1]

Is thisthe quote you'retalking about?

KING: The police say -- the police say that you were only -- you accept -- you put guidelines up to the interviews. You'd only be interviewed together. Why?

J. RAMSEY: I don't remember.

P. RAMSEY: I don't remember any guidelines.

KING: Is that not true?

J. RAMSEY: I don't remember.

KING: You didn't give them any guidelines?

J. RAMSEY: The only guideline I remember, the only request that we made -- and this was after a huge gap of mistrust developed -- the police withheld JonBenet's body for burial to try to force us to submit to their terms.

KING: Which were?

J. RAMSEY: We were -- that the three of us be interrogated in the police station before we buried our daughter, and we were horribly offended at that. And this huge gap of distrust developed.

KING: Let me tell you what develops as a father and what other people say, and the reason that I think that you're under this cloud. Most people would say, if I didn't do it and my daughter was killed -- I'm talking as a father, and I don't like to bring myself into it. One, I'll answer any question, I'll take any test, I'll meet with you. I'll be there first thing in the morning. Catch the killer. I'd go nuts. I'd cooperate in every way. As I'd go out with the cops. I'd give them my fingers. I'd give them my...

P. RAMSEY: If you thought... J. RAMSEY: We did do that, Larry.

P. RAMSEY: We did do that.

KING: You cooperated fully in every way?

J. RAMSEY: We met with them on the 26th, we met with them on the 27th. We gave hair, blood, fiber samples on the 28th. We left...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Then why did they say...

J. RAMSEY: ... to bury our daughter.

P. RAMSEY: We stayed in Boulder, Colorado. We stayed there for testing for, you know, until...

KING: Why did they say you were uncooperative? Or some of them?

J. RAMSEY: I don't know. This is a -- it's -- it's a -- what we need to do is get down to the objective here. The objective is to find the killer. I can say a lot of things about what the police did and didn't do. They can say a lot of things about what we didn't do. But let's put that aside. Let's put politics aside. Let's put egos aside. There is a dangerous killer loose, we believe. This killer, if he's still alive, will kill again. It's time to get on with that.

Yes, that's the quote. Correct me if I am wrong, also, but JBs body was never withheld. There was talk of doing it but it didn't happen. So, there you go...yet another lie.
I don't care if they were interviewed on those days mentioned either. They were not formal police interviews and they were not interviewed seperately. They placed way more conditions on being formally interviewed than they gave on LKL. Talk about twisting the truth. I see a lot of "hedging" and avoidance of direct answers to the questions in that interview.

[shill]

You're stretching. What are the odds that an intruder could enter that home (without bringing anything with him, mind you) and be able to mimic Patsy's handwriting so well under the stress of such a situation? (IMO)

What are the odds that Patsy would be able to mimic an intruders handwriting so well under the stress of such a situation as to be able to come up inconclusive as the writer? (IMO)

[shill]

Here's a thought: If the blanket JB was found in wasn't on her bed that night and was in the dryer (as evidenced by the crime scene photos of JBs bed), how would the duct tape be able to pick up fibers from Patsys jacket unless it was she who took the blanket out of the dryer and wrapped JBs dead body in it?
The blanket was on JB's bed.
(didn't you mean blanket, not the duct tape?)

[thewhitewitch1]

The blanket was on JB's bed.
(didn't you mean blanket, not the duct tape?)

I meant the duct tape picking up fibers from Patsys jacket off of the blanket when JR dropped the tape.
You have no proof that the blanket was on the bed. The way Patsy described how it was usually on the bed doesn't fit with the crime scene photos. The fact that the nightgown was in the blanket also indicates that the blanket had come from the dryer. IMO

[shill]

Yes, that's the quote. Correct me if I am wrong, also, but JBs body was never withheld. There was talk of doing it but it didn't happen. So, there you go...yet another lie.

Obviously your definition of a "lie" is way different then mine.

So if you’re wrong, you’re a liar or if you don't know about something, you’re a liar?
Or if someone tells you they are going to do something and you tell someone they told you they were going to do something and they don't, then you are a liar and they aren't?

I can see it's pointless to argue with you anymore because you’re a liar and who could believe anything you say?

[thewhitewitch1]

Obviously your definition of a "lie" is way different then mine.

So if you’re wrong, you’re a liar or if you don't know about something, you’re a liar?

I can see it's pointless to argue with you anymore because you’re a liar and who could believe anything you say?

Hmmm...how is it possible that almost everyone in here knows that the FBI was at the Ramseys house that day but they don't?
I find that beyond believable. Det. Mason and FBI agent Ron Walker arrived at the Ramsey house at approximately the same time. Do you really think that the FBI agent would not have identified himself to the Ramseys and talked to them? Ok...you will say that you believe it, but I don't.

2000 March 18 - John and Patsy Ramsey book "Death of Innocence"

DOI (HB) Page 23:

"A person comes up and says he's Detective Mason. I assume he is with the FBI. Finally, the police will get help. I think. Later I will learn that Mason is another Boulder PD detective and that the police, in fact, have kept the FBI at bay, not letting them inside the house."

"I try to focus on what we are going to do next. Boulder isn't really our home. Atlanta is. We need to go home now. To our parents, to your family, to my brother, Jeff. That what we should do."

"Detective Mason asks me what our plans are, and I tell him we will go to Atlanta. He says something about staying around for a few days, and I agree."

[shill]

The fact that the nightgown was in the blanket also indicates that the blanket had come from the dryer. IMO

I've never heard it was in the blanket only near it.
I do not recognize your claim that it is a FACT without a link.

[shill]

Hmmm...how is it possible that almost everyone in here knows that the FBI was at the Ramseys house that day but they don't?
I find that beyond believable. Det. Mason and FBI agent Ron Walker arrived at the Ramsey house at approximately the same time. Do you really think that the FBI agent would not have identified himself to the Ramseys and talked to them? Ok...you will say that you believe it, but I don't.

2000 March 18 - John and Patsy Ramsey book "Death of Innocence"

DOI (HB) Page 23:

"A person comes up and says he's Detective Mason. I assume he is with the FBI. Finally, the police will get help. I think. Later I will learn that Mason is another Boulder PD detective and that the police, in fact, have kept the FBI at bay, not letting them inside the house."

"I try to focus on what we are going to do next. Boulder isn't really our home. Atlanta is. We need to go home now. To our parents, to your family, to my brother, Jeff. That what we should do."

"Detective Mason asks me what our plans are, and I tell him we will go to Atlanta. He says something about staying around for a few days, and I agree."
And when was the LK interview?

[nuisanceposter]

The point is, Shill, that John Ramsey had every opportunity and every obligation to his daughter and her murder investigation to find out if FBI had in fact been on the case and participated in the investigation and to what degree, and to make sure that what he told in his audience in his book was factual.

The FBI responded to the call from the Boulder police that there was a kidnapping by 9 am on 12/26, and Agent Walker went to BPD HQ with a four man kidnapping team, that set up taps and traps on the Ramsey house. The FBI stopped being an active part of the investigation when JonBenet's body was found, because the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide. Then Sgt Mason of the BPD drove Agent Walker out to the Ramsey house, and they toured the crime scene, discussing it. JR claims that BPD never called FBI (then how did FBI know a kidnapping occurred?) and were being kept at bay by BPD (Mason drove Walker over, and Walker didn't need to be there to set up the taps and traps.)

That was 12/26/96. My copy of DOI was published in 2000. John Ramsey should have found out exactly to what extent the FBI was involved in his daughter's murder investigation, if only to honor his daughter and make sure he knew what they had done for her. He had plenty of time and every opportunity between 1997 and 2000 to find out what the truth was and make sure that he was giving out factual information in the book he wrote defending himself.

Instead of doing the research and find out personally what FBI had done in regards to crimes committed against his daughter, JR chooses to print misleading and incorrect information in DOI. Real nice. Way to honor your daughter by making yourself look like the victim and not even bother to learn who did what for her. IMO.

[Louisadelmar]

Yes, that's the quote. Correct me if I am wrong, also, but JBs body was never withheld. There was talk of doing it but it didn't happen. So, there you go...yet another lie.
I don't care if they were interviewed on those days mentioned either. They were not formal police interviews and they were not interviewed seperately. They placed way more conditions on being formally interviewed than they gave on LKL. Talk about twisting the truth. I see a lot of "hedging" and avoidance of direct answers to the questions in that interview.

I suspect he was so offended that Eller tried to ransom JonBenet's body that memory-wise it really doesn't make much difference whether they did or not.

I've read quite a lot on memory particularly memory under stress and where you see lies I see failures of memory brought on by stress. When Dorothy Moxley's testimony at the trial didn't match what she'd told police earlier I didn't consider it a lie. When Lindy Chamberlain's story wasn't consistent I didn't immediately assume she was lying. There are numerous cases where people's memories are not constant. In fact, I would find it suspicious if they were word perfect everytime.

They had been through about the worst trauma a parent can imagine. They were then immediately subjected to a huge accusatory media onslaught aided and abetted by LE. And they were taking prescription medicines that are known to cause problems with memory. Was John telling a lie in the interview where he can't remember his stepmother's current last name? Maybe because I have my own problems with memory I recognize it and am more sympathetic.

We got rid of my daughter's first horse last spring. She went to a good home. My clear memory is we gave her away. My husband remembers firmly that we sold her. I wonder which one of us is telling a "lie"? :-)

[thewhitewitch1]

And when was the LK interview?

2000. Plenty of time to review and get the facts straight.

Can you explain why the Rs lied about telling Arndt about the open/broken window and the suitcase too?

1999 February 18 - Lawrence Schillers book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town

Page 295 (Referencing John and Patsy Interviews by Steve Thomas and Tom Trujillo in April 1997):

"John Ramsey said that he had gone down to the basement at around 10:00am that morning. It was the first the police had heard about this. None of Det. Arndt's reports indicated that Ramsey had visited the basement before the body was found. Ramsey now told the detectives for the first time about his finding the broken window open, which had surprised him. Taken aback by the revelation of Ramsey's visit to the basement, Thomas asked him why he didn't report what he found to Det. Arndt since someone could have entered through the window. Ramsey said he didn't know why. He just didn't know, he said a second time. When asked if he also went into the boiler room and checked the wine cellar. He didn't go into that area of the basement, he said."


2000 March 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
NBC News Today Show
Interview with John and Patsy Ramsey

COURIC: Detective Linda Arndt was assigned to the Ramsey home during those long hours. Sometime that morning, John Ramsey headed for the basement. Why did you go there?

Mr. RAMSEY: We had a basement window that was under a--a grate, a removable grate that I had used the past summer to get into the house when I'd lost my keys. I--I wanted to check that window. I went down to that room. The window was open. It was broken. I went back upstairs and reported that to Detective Arndt.

COURIC: You did tell her about the...

Mr. RAMSEY: Yes.

COURIC: ...open window?

Mr. RAMSEY: I did.

COURIC: And what did she say?

Mr. RAMSEY: I don't recall that she said anything.

[shill]

Instead of doing the research and find out personally what FBI had done in regards to crimes committed against his daughter, JR chooses to print misleading and incorrect information in DOI. Real nice. Way to honor your daughter by making yourself look like the victim and not even bother to learn who did what for her. IMO.

John's not a detective. John's not a book editor. John did not have access to a wealth of publications on his daughter's murder. John did not have access to the police records of what went on that day, and I doubt the police filled him in on all the comings and goings of the LE that day.
And John is not a kook like all of us, scrutinizing every little detail and debating it's meaning.

[thewhitewitch1]

John's not a detective. John's not a book editor. John did not have access to a wealth of publications on his daughter's murder. John did not have access to the police records of what went on that day, and I doubt the police filled him in on all the comings and goings of the LE that day.
And John is not a kook like all of us, scrutinizing every little detail and debating it's meaning.

If every one of us had access to these things, then so did John.
It's his child that was murdered...he should have been a "kook" like us, scrutinizing every little detail and debating its meaning. Isn't it his lifes mission to find the killer? IMO

[bullmoose]

The point is, Shill, that John Ramsey had every opportunity and every obligation to his daughter and her murder investigation to find out if FBI had in fact been on the case and participated in the investigation and to what degree, and to make sure that what he told in his audience in his book was factual.

The FBI responded to the call from the Boulder police that there was a kidnapping by 9 am on 12/26, and Agent Walker went to BPD HQ with a four man kidnapping team, that set up taps and traps on the Ramsey house. The FBI stopped being an active part of the investigation when JonBenet's body was found, because the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide. Then Sgt Mason of the BPD drove Agent Walker out to the Ramsey house, and they toured the crime scene, discussing it. JR claims that BPD never called FBI (then how did FBI know a kidnapping occurred?) and were being kept at bay by BPD (Mason drove Walker over, and Walker didn't need to be there to set up the taps and traps.)

That was 12/26/96. My copy of DOI was published in 2000. John Ramsey should have found out exactly to what extent the FBI was involved in his daughter's murder investigation, if only to honor his daughter and make sure he knew what they had done for her. He had plenty of time and every opportunity between 1997 and 2000 to find out what the truth was and make sure that he was giving out factual information in the book he wrote defending himself.

Instead of doing the research and find out personally what FBI had done in regards to crimes committed against his daughter, JR chooses to print misleading and incorrect information in DOI. Real nice. Way to honor your daughter by making yourself look like the victim and not even bother to learn who did what for her. IMO.You do of course realize that setting up phone taps and traps are not done at the house or anywhere near it; but my main question for you is if you have the DOI, 2000 edition, did you actually read it? I do not see any sign of it in your post; just what seems to be a attitude of condescending ignorance. On page 27 John states that only the next day was he made aware the FBI wasn't even on the case yet; he had assumed they already were.Could you please tell me where in the book you got your second paragragh from? I got the book, too, I see where Mason comes up to JR, but I fail to see any indication that JR was introduced to Walker, who was not on the case, having been called off by the Boulder Bandit Busters. When you speak of JR's responsility to find out what the FBI had been doing in the case, who are you suggesting he go to? The Caped Crusaders of Colorado; or even better the Boulder Blatherers? Or the FBI? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Try to get information from the FBI on an open case, or any police force, for that matter. You'll sooner get a link from Tober. JMHO:biggrin:

[shill]

If every one of us had access to these things, then so did John.
It's his child that was murdered...he should have been a "kook" like us, scrutinizing every little detail and debating its meaning. Isn't it his lifes mission to find the killer? IMO

We have a wealth of access to info after everyone published everything.
You're ripping on John for not knowing everything before that material was available.
And most of the accounts were tabloid reports back then. In the last 7-8 years the internet has changed and grown. It wasn't all Google this and that and everything that was known about the case had been downloaded and linked for the public.

[bullmoose]

If every one of us had access to these things, then so did John.
It's his child that was murdered...he should have been a "kook" like us, scrutinizing every little detail and debating its meaning. Isn't it his lifes mission to find the killer? IMOtww1: Leave my Napoleanic Hat[kook]out of this; seriously though just because we don't have him on this board doesn't mean he isn't doing that. I would be, too, if something like that happened to my daughter, but I wouldn't be on a public board like this. You must know that sometimes people can guess other posters real identities by the inside information they disclose while showing off their immense knowledge of the case sometimes, ya know what I mean?JMHO:biggrin:

[icedtea4me]

Here's a thought: If the blanket JB was found in wasn't on her bed that night and was in the dryer (as evidenced by the crime scene photos of JBs bed), how would the duct tape be able to pick up fibers from Patsys jacket unless it was she who took the blanket out of the dryer and wrapped JBs dead body in it?
This is Patsy from DOI pg. 274 (hb version)- Then they turned to her Barbie nightgown, which had been in the windowless room where she was found. I had no idea how it could have gotten there. It certainly was not supposed to be there. I couldn't say for sure if the blanket had been on her bed that night. Often we wash our bedding in the large washer and dryer, which were in the basement, rather than use the smaller stackable unit on the second floor. Could the blanket and nightgown have been removed from that dryer?


-Tea

[thewhitewitch1]

tww1: Leave my Napoleanic Hat[kook]out of this; seriously though just because we don't have him on this board doesn't mean he isn't doing that. I would be, too, if something like that happened to my daughter, but I wouldn't be on a public board like this. You must know that sometimes people can guess other posters real identities by the inside information they disclose while showing off their immense knowledge of the case sometimes, ya know what I mean?JMHO:biggrin:

Well, if he was "doing that", he'd know that the FBI was at his home that day, wouldn't he?
So...what is your opinion on why he lied about telling Arndt about the window and suitcase?