Please explain RDI's

[shill]

My money stays on the truth.

You can't handle the truth!

[bullmoose]

My money stays on the truth.Oh, I see on another thread where the horseplop came from: drum rolll: THE BONITA PAPERS; I have from a very good source that the author of the Bonita Papers was the same pranskter that wote the Morman Will, where Howard Hughes gave his fortune to Melvin Dumars, Right? What the heck, you say it was thrown out of court as a fraud? Unbelievable!! Next you'll be saying that the Howard Hughs Autobiography was a fraud? OMIGOD, it was? What are we left to believe? That the Bonita Papers was anything but the righteous truth of God about the Ramsey case strains my credulity, oops, yep just strained to the bursting point,here it comes---drum roll: horseplop. I would love to play a real game of poker with you, rashoman, if you can look at the Bonita Papers and think you've got a hand to play, good luck at the poker tables in the real world. JFYI: the bonita papers do not constitute proof that there even was a BonitaJMO:chicken:

[shill]

Just like "Watching You" said on ForumForJustice:


Because I have been able to separate real evidence from non-evidence, I can see clearly that there was no evidence of an intruder in the Ramsey home on the night of JB’s murder. Because I am wise enough not to blindly accept that the faces the Ramseys presented to the public were, without question, the same as their private faces when behind closed doors (as the RST blindly accepts), I do not block out the possibility they were involved. I have been able to see evidence of obstruction by the Ramsey family, and because I know what the evidence is, I am aware of the false information that has been distributed via henchmen like jameson, Tracey, Smit, Wood, and others.

This is just someone's claim that they are smarter then everyone else because they think they are.

They might as well have just said everyone that doesn't agree with me are idiots.

[Zoey]

Just like "Watching You" said on ForumForJustice:


Because I have been able to separate real evidence from non-evidence, I can see clearly that there was no evidence of an intruder in the Ramsey home on the night of JB’s murder. Because I am wise enough not to blindly accept that the faces the Ramseys presented to the public were, without question, the same as their private faces when behind closed doors (as the RST blindly accepts), I do not block out the possibility they were involved. I have been able to see evidence of obstruction by the Ramsey family, and because I know what the evidence is, I am aware of the false information that has been distributed via henchmen like jameson, Tracey, Smit, Wood, and others.

Always and forever, will be a Believer Of Ramsey Girl


I thought Watching You told you very clearly to stop bringing his/her posts over here without his/her permission. I see no where in your post where permission was asked for and permission was given for you to do so.

[bullmoose]

Just like "Watching You" said on ForumForJustice:


Because I have been able to separate real evidence from non-evidence, I can see clearly that there was no evidence of an intruder in the Ramsey home on the night of JB’s murder. Because I am wise enough not to blindly accept that the faces the Ramseys presented to the public were, without question, the same as their private faces when behind closed doors (as the RST blindly accepts), I do not block out the possibility they were involved. I have been able to see evidence of obstruction by the Ramsey family, and because I know what the evidence is, I am aware of the false information that has been distributed via henchmen like jameson, Tracey, Smit, Wood, and others.

Always and forever, will be a Believer Of Ramsey GirlWas this quote written by Wily E Coyote, of the Roadrunner Cartoon series? It seems to display the same clarity of vision and outstanding GENIUS that Wily always entertained us with.:lol:

[Zoey]

And what is that to you? You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands to sit down and break your neck to find any small thing to say to me.

Break my neck? What the heck does that mean?

It is to me, because as a fellow poster, I believe the rules of this forum should be followed by all and I believe that if a poster from another board signs on to this board in defense of his/her own posts, you should be called on it. What you are doing is wrong, and you need to stop.

To be honest BO, I think the best thing for me to do as far as you are concerned, is put you on ignore. That way I don't have to read the garbage you are slinging in this forum.

[shill]

That's all you're doing begging me to speak.

That's funny how you get that impression when all along we have been begging you to shut up!

[shill]

Ignorance is bliss!

[Louisadelmar]

The lack of communication or comfort between John and Patsy that day is extremely interesting, as it implies that they were very angry with each other. I find that very odd in light of the fact they at that point shouldn't have even known she was dead.

Plagiarized from Sue-Marilynn..

Bullmoose, LouisaDelmar, Miss_Marple how do you explain their lack of communication?

No need to explain it because according to the Victim's Advocates, Jedamus and Morelock (PMPT)who were at the house that morning, there was no lack of communication. They were seen holding and comforting each otherand nothing was thought to be out of the ordinary.

[elvislives]

Are you a lawyer? I freely concede I am not, so defer to your judgment if you are.

While some argue that investigators deliberately falsely claimed to have found such fibers to see how John would react, the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/John%20Ramsey#IncriminatingEvidenceRelatedtoJohnRa msey



I am not a lawyer, MM, but I think the operative word in the above statement is "knowingly" which can be very difficult to prove.
In my experience, attorneys routinely make misleading statements on behalf of their clients, even in court. I distinctly remember during the OJ Simpson trial that the defense attorneys made what I would consider to be misleading statements right in the courtroom in front of the jury, and those statements were not stricken. One that comes to mind is when Mark Fuhrman was on the stand and had already invoked his fifth amendment rights. It was obvious at that point that he was not going to answer any questions. His mantra became something to the effect of "under advice of council I wish to assert my fifth amendment privilege".
So the very shrewd defense attorney (Lee Bailey if memory serves), KNOWING what his response would be asked him "Did you plant or manufacture the evidence in this case?" (I shouldnt have put that in quotes as I am going off memory, but I think I'm close). And his response OF COURSE was to plead the fifth, the amendment that protects against self-incrimination!!
IMO that tactic was clearly intended to deceive the jury to believe that Mark Fuhrman had planted the glove evidence, when he in fact was pleading the 5th to avoid a perjury charge for lying about having used the term "******".
I am sure that if Lee Bailey was charged with violating the rules of professional conduct (provided California has similar rules) that his defense would be "I didn't knowingly mislead the jury. It is my belief that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove'. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence of this, OJ's defense team is certainly entitled to their theory and thus the loophole in the statute.

[Louisadelmar]

I am not a lawyer, MM, but I think the operative word in the above statement is "knowingly" which can be very difficult to prove.
In my experience, attorneys routinely make misleading statements on behalf of their clients, even in court. I distinctly remember during the OJ Simpson trial that the defense attorneys made what I would consider to be misleading statements right in the courtroom in front of the jury, and those statements were not stricken. One that comes to mind is when Mark Fuhrman was on the stand and had already invoked his fifth amendment rights. It was obvious at that point that he was not going to answer any questions. His mantra became something to the effect of "under advice of council I wish to assert my fifth amendment privilege".
So the very shrewd defense attorney (Lee Bailey if memory serves), KNOWING what his response would be asked him "Did you plant or manufacture the evidence in this case?" (I shouldnt have put that in quotes as I am going off memory, but I think I'm close). And his response OF COURSE was to plead the fifth, the amendment that protects against self-incrimination!!
IMO that tactic was clearly intended to deceive the jury to believe that Mark Fuhrman had planted the glove evidence, when he in fact was pleading the 5th to avoid a perjury charge for lying about having used the term "******".
I am sure that if Lee Bailey was charged with violating the rules of professional conduct (provided California has similar rules) that his defense would be "I didn't knowingly mislead the jury. It is my belief that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove'. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence of this, OJ's defense team is certainly entitled to their theory and thus the loophole in the statute.

I always thought if the prosecution had any sense they would have stood up and asked Fuhrman if he caused the sinking of the Titanic or some other equally absurd question to illustrate how taking the Fifth works.

[elvislives]

I always thought if the prosecution had any sense they would have stood up and asked Fuhrman if he caused the sinking of the Titanic or some other equally absurd question to illustrate how taking the Fifth works.

That would have been brilliant.

[bullmoose]

That would have been brilliant.By that point in that trial the prosecution was not going to do anything that would have given any aid or comfort to Mark Fuhrman. Why the Prosecution did not prepare him for that line of questioning was indefensible; however if OJ had been filmed stabbing and hacking his victims, I think that jury would still have brought back the same verdict; IMO the not -guilty verdict was a payback to a justice system where lying cops and planted evidence was an everyday happenstance in the lives of the jurors.

[createthis]

really? huh...how about them apples

[Athena]

By that point in that trial the prosecution was not going to do anything that would have given any aid or comfort to Mark Fuhrman. Why the Prosecution did not prepare him for that line of questioning was indefensible; however if OJ had been filmed stabbing and hacking his victims, I think that jury would still have brought back the same verdict; IMO the not -guilty verdict was a payback to a justice system where lying cops and planted evidence was an everyday happenstance in the lives of the jurors.

Honestly I followed that entire trial. While I believe OJ is definitely guilty, there was some serious doubt put into the minds of the jurors re: the blood evidence. The LAPD tried to frame a guilty man. Then using the "n" word was the icing on the cake. I specifically remember spots on the gate where blood appeared on the 16th of June that photos showed were not on the 13th. VanAtter (sp?) carrying that blood vial in his possession and some of it missing didn't help at all. And let us not forget the glove didn't fit -- LOL

But you are definitely correct re: payback. Jurors are human and bring to that jury box their own life experiences. The same life experience that leads me to believe that it is certainly possible that the evidence was misrepresented in the interviews with the Ramsey. Just ask the Central Park Joggers 5 victims in NY. Some serious prosecutorial misconduct in that case and the prosecutors nor law enforcement were not held accountable as most aren't anyway.

Too bad ColoradoKares doesn't post here anymore. I did not realize that Craig Silverman her CO hero was charged with Prosecutorial misconduct until I was doing some research on it recently.

[Athena]

That would have been brilliant.

Good to seeya here again Elvis..... :seeya:

Louisa, I agree that would have been brilliant as well.

[aussiesheila]

Well, they weren't flaming other posters. I've never seen you be rude to other posters, aussiesheila. No offense intended, but I think and think others may think that a good bit of your theory rests on things that have in no way been anywhere near proven - things such as FW, CW, GM, and Santa Bill were all not only pedophiles, but pedos that all knew each other and further knew that each other were pedos, and conspired to have an orgy starring JonBenet. That speculation with no basis in fact or evidence may be reason to delete your posts. That's flaming those men pretty hard, with no proof to back up such allegation.

But I don't know, this is just IMO. Last time I checked, your posts from when you were there on a regular basis are still there.

ETA: I'd also think they'd PM you if they thought your posts were in need of deletion.You are quite right nuisanceposter, my theory does rest on things that in no way been anywhere near proven. I am not aware though, that being near proven is a prerequisite for any theory. As far as I can see, for a theory to be reasonable enough for it to be considered there has to be some evidence to suggest it might be possible, it has to fit together, and there has to be no evidence that totally rules it to be impossible. My theory fits all these criteria.

In the case of three of the four people you mention, you know there have been murmurs that they have been involved in pedophilia. There is also a belief by some experts that JonBenet suffered prior sexual abuse, so just as RDIs see Patsy and John as prime murder suspects because of their proximity to her that night, I see DP, FW and JR as prime suspects in possible prior sexual abuse because of their proximity as carers to JonBenet in the years prior to her death. Since JR was intensively investigated by BPD and nothing was found that leaves only DP and FW as the suspect pedophiles. There was a sexual element to the murder. So all in all, I think there is enough to suggest that my theory just might be possible. My theory certainly fits all the known evidence and there has been no evidence come to light that rules it impossible. I just can't see where the problem is, other than some people just don't like it.

Santa and CW did know one another from the University and GM gatecrashed the Ramsey party that Santa attended and so had the opportunity to discuss things with him. Why there being no visible evidence that they conspired to have an orgy should rule out my theory I fail to see, it would obviously have been done in absolute secrecy.

I know there are some posts of mine still at Websleuths, but the thread on Fleet White that I began has been deleted. And I was not PMed.

[aussiesheila]

I wasn't aware links to your theory had died. FWIW, the JBR wiki uses wiki "technology" nearly identical to that used at Wikipedia, but it has no formal connection to that site. There is an article on JBR at Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey but most posters here would already know that basic information and the most expert posters will recognize various statements that are not completely accurate. So wikis aren't perfect, but anyone who's read the various books, newspaper articles and even legal documents related to this case knows those sources are not entirely error-free either.

Anyway, please email me at marple.miss@gmail.com and I will send you the pw to post your theory directly on the JBR Case Encyclopedia wiki. I can't speak for motivations at WS, but can assure you there was no behind-the-scenes plot to bury your theory at the wiki. Any theory is welcome, including some Jayelles would characterize as "speculative" but as you'll see from the layout, the idea is to even-handedly consider the evidence for AND against every theory poster. It's not my goal to libel anyone nor to suppress theories that may only attract a small minority of enthusiasts, but I would prefer that those who post theories cite the evidence on which they are based.
Best wishes,
Miss MarpleThank you Miss Marple, I'll take you up on that. I'll have to write up my theory again though and it will take a little time.

[andU]

And what is that to you? You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands to sit down and break your neck to find any small thing to say to me.

BO, JB was not killed in a mansion. If that is your opinion, you are sadly mistaken. A fine house, indeed, but not a mansion.

[aussiesheila]

Of course, for any of this to be true, Patsy must have written the RN, but as you well know, not a single handwriting examiner who looked at ORIGINALS reached that conclusion and these were expert that Darnay Hoffman's own expert conceded were absolutely at the top of their field.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Patsy%20Ramsey%20as%20RN%20Author
Any theory forced to completely ignore such expert findings is on very shaky ground.
Best wishes,
Miss MarpleDear Miss Marple,

I have to say I disagree strongly with your conclusion regarding which expert to believe on the handwriting issue. I think some of the experts who came out on the side of Patsy having written the note, and I am thinking particularly of Gideon Epstein, were in fact well qualified and highly experienced.

I am all for throwing out the opinions of experts whose credentials are not up to scratch or whose reasoning looks a bit off, but I don't think you can do this with all the experts in the handwriting analysis.

The other thing that came across as interesting to me in Epstein's methodology was that he came at the problem from a different angle, at least as far as I could see. While the other examiners had backgrounds in looking at documents to see whether they were forged or not, Epstein was used to looking at documents to see who had written them, so his analysis had more of an emphasis on the content of the note, rather than the handwriting itself. Because of his method of analysis, I don't think it is important that he was not working from the original note.

(Actually I read his stuff about 2 years ago, so I hope what I am saying is reasonably close to correct. I just don't have the time to go back over and double check. Maybe others who haven't read Epstein's deposition would be prepared to look.)

[aussiesheila]

Thanks, I missed that post. Maybe the perp was just lucky, but I don't think the perp "wanted" lots of blood to deal with. If he'd wanted an extremely bloody scene, it would have been straightforward to produce it. The wiping down of body but not face has always puzzled me: if the perp was trying to remove forensic evidence, he appears to have failed. But I can't picture a parent who would wash their own child's body and then desist from cleaning up the face as well.
Best wishes,
Miss MarpleMiss Marple, I don't believe it has been firmly established that the body was in fact, wiped down. As far as I am aware 'the body was wiped down' came from the Byfield affadavit and I think he got it from Linda Arndt who was present at the autopsy and was apparently told by Meyer when he saw the black fibres around the crotch area that the body appeared to have been wiped down. If you are aware of the existence of more info than that I am happy to be corrected.

[aussiesheila]

You are right - there was mucous all over her face but this raises a point to me.

1) We know she had a cold but she wasn't "ill" the day she died.

2) A child of JonBenet's age doesn't normally end up with mucous all over her face because she has acquired the ability to sniff and to wipe her nose.

3) However there was mucous all over her face - right down to her ear and in her hairline.

A young baby with a cold could end up with snot all over its face like this because they tend to cry more when they have a cold and crying causes the nose to run more and then the tears intermingle with the snot and it gets everywhere.

Bottom line - I think the fact that JonBenet had snot all over her face, ears and hair suggests that she was crying before she died. I find that heartbreaking.I have never read this before. I thought the autopsy report stated only 'a small amount of tan mucous material' in the nostrils. Jayelles could you please give the reference of where you read this?

[Jayelles]

I have never read this before. I thought the autopsy report stated only 'a small amount of tan mucous material' in the nostrils. Jayelles could you please give the reference of where you read this?


Certainly - my source is the autopsy report.

On the right cheek is a pattern of dried saliva and mucous material which does not appear to be hemorrhagic.

However, you can see it quite clearly in the photos:-

http://zyberzoom.com/JonBenet.html

There is another photo which I don't have time to look for on your behalf but it is a closer view of the mark on her cheek and you can see the mucous in her hairline in that one.

[aussiesheila]

Certainly - my source is the autopsy report.



However, you can see it quite clearly in the photos:-

http://zyberzoom.com/JonBenet.html

There is another photo which I don't have time to look for on your behalf but it is a closer view of the mark on her cheek and you can see the mucous in her hairline in that one.Thanks Jayelles, I did read through the autopsy report again for the zillionth time, but I've never picked up on that bit you posted. Maybe I've got an incomplete copy of the autopsy report or maybe I'm just missing what is right in front of my face.

I find it difficult to reconcile the coroner having found 'a small amount of tan mucous material' in her nostrils with your saying there was mucous all over her face. What I am trying to say is if she did have mucous all over her face don't you think that what was left in her nostrils have been less tan and more like yellowish/white?

What is coming from her mouth in that autopsy photo looks more like saliva to me. Anyway I'm not sure why I am posting about this. I guess I have never considered the possibility that she was crying before. It is all so horrible. I think she was subjected to some pretty ghastly stuff in the hours leading up to her death. I hope she was drugged. It is just hideous.

[Miss Marple]

Miss Marple, I don't believe it has been firmly established that the body was in fact, wiped down. As far as I am aware 'the body was wiped down' came from the Byfield affadavit and I think he got it from Linda Arndt who was present at the autopsy and was apparently told by Meyer when he saw the black fibres around the crotch area that the body appeared to have been wiped down. If you are aware of the existence of more info than that I am happy to be corrected.

No Semen on Thighs. "Since the autopsy, the police had thought there was semen on JonBenet's upper thighs. Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenet's body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the fluorescent light at the autopsy" (Schilling 1999:132)
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/DNA%20Evidence#BloodEvidence

I wasn't aware of Arndt alleged assertion about this: you may be right, but what Schiller alludes to above appears to be additional information that both corroborates her original speculation and elaborates more definitively on why it is reasonable to infer her body indeed was wiped down.

Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Athena]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiesheila
Miss Marple, I don't believe it has been firmly established that the body was in fact, wiped down. As far as I am aware 'the body was wiped down' came from the Byfield affadavit and I think he got it from Linda Arndt who was present at the autopsy and was apparently told by Meyer when he saw the black fibres around the crotch area that the body appeared to have been wiped down. If you are aware of the existence of more info than that I am happy to be corrected.

Hi Aussie,

MM answered the "wiped down" statement re: smeared blood originally thought to have been semen. But where does it say anything about black fibers? No colors were mentioned and Arndt reported the findings of the fibers to Byfield and the only colors she mentioned was the green fiber found in her hair. No other colors were identified.