PDA

View Full Version : IDI and RDI, what do they agree upon?



Pages : [1] 2

Chiquita71
04-29-2010, 12:41 PM
Hello WS

I decided to go ahead and start this thread. If there is already one like it that I have over looked or is in any way inappropriate mods please delete. TIA. :)

Do you guys think it would be interesting to see what is agreed upon? Maybe each will have a more clear picture or at least have cleared out some information that was tripping up both sides?

:twocents:

Holdontoyourhat
04-29-2010, 07:06 PM
IDI and RDI seem to agree that the investigation was botched, according to the other thread polls.

I don't know if the belief is that the investigation is forever doomed because of failures early on. If so, then its a view that is not very forward-thinking.

Chiquita71
04-30-2010, 12:56 PM
HOTYH,

Thank you for posting on this thread. Anyone posting on this case is a great source of information for me. I appreciate anyone sharing their knowledge.

I am reading the two threads, IDI and RDI: what's your problem? There is so much information you guys are posting and I want to read it all. My pace in this case is slow.

I also want to add a realization. I look at this case without wondering if or why it was or wasn't brought to trial. I am just looking to see what happened to JonBenet. The politics that are connected to this case are beyond my understanding(at this point) completely enough to have an opinion or bring those in as factors in my "sleuthing." A realization for me and FYI for anyone else.

I think the conclusion of this thread will be: IDI and RDIs don't agree on anything! lol. At least it would be documented then... :rolleyes: Sorry mods!

...JS...just sleuthing

Holdontoyourhat
04-30-2010, 01:05 PM
HOTYH,

Thank you for posting on this thread. Anyone posting on this case is a great source of information for me. I appreciate anyone sharing their knowledge.

I am reading the two threads, IDI and RDI: what's your problem? There is so much information you guys are posting and I want to read it all. My pace in this case is slow.

I also want to add a realization. I look at this case without wondering if or why it was or wasn't brought to trial. I am just looking to see what happened to JonBenet. The politics that are connected to this case are beyond my understanding(at this point) completely enough to have an opinion or bring those in as factors in my "sleuthing." A realization for me and FYI for anyone else.

I think the conclusion of this thread will be: IDI and RDIs don't agree on anything! lol. At least it would be documented then... :rolleyes: Sorry mods!

...JS...just sleuthing

By now everybody just votes the party line.

"I am just looking to see what happened to JonBenet. "

My suggestion to avoid the politics is to start with the autopsy report, the ransom note, and the weapons, and work backwards. You're lucky if you can do that without stumbling over talk from biased hipshooters and Monday morning QB's.

The truth is probably a blend of this and that expert, though. They can't all be wrong?

Roy23
04-30-2010, 01:25 PM
I wish I could tell you what beliefs we have in common. I can tell you a few things but you have to decide for yourself because everyone has their own triggerpoint. For me, it is my understanding of DNA.


1. Like most RDI's, I believed early in the case that the theory of the parents possible being responsible was the right way to go.

2. I think many RDI's will agree to some sort of mishandling of the case the day after Christmas. For me particularly, leaks to the media eventually ruined the cooperation from the Ramsey's.

Holdontoyourhat
04-30-2010, 01:53 PM
There's probably a number of things that RDI and IDI have to agree on:



The R's went to a dinner party in the early evening.
Late at night, JBR's skull was fractured, she suffered acute injuries relating to a sexual assault, had other injuries listed in the autopsy, and died from asphyxiation due to strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.
A long ransom note is associated with the crime scene. It had information that was superfluous to a kidnapping for ransom, and included anti U.S. and anti rich remarks.
PR called 911 at 6:00 in the morning and reported a kidnapping.
Friends and neighbors were allowed into the house.
LA asked JR to search the house. Shortly thereafter, JR brought JBR up from the basement. He behaved as if JBR were still alive and attempted to remove a wrist ligature.
The coroner removed a ligature found in a deep furrow around JBR's neck.

SuperDave
04-30-2010, 03:20 PM
There's probably a number of things that RDI and IDI have to agree on:



The R's went to a dinner party in the early evening.
Late at night, JBR's skull was fractured, she suffered acute injuries relating to a sexual assault, had other injuries listed in the autopsy, and died from asphyxiation due to strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.
A long ransom note is associated with the crime scene. It had information that was superfluous to a kidnapping for ransom, and included anti U.S. and anti rich remarks.
PR called 911 at 6:00 in the morning and reported a kidnapping.
Friends and neighbors were allowed into the house.
LA asked JR to search the house. Shortly thereafter, JR brought JBR up from the basement. He behaved as if JBR were still alive and attempted to remove a wrist ligature.
The coroner removed a ligature found in a deep furrow around JBR's neck.


That would seem to be it.

DeeDee249
04-30-2010, 03:41 PM
I wish I could tell you what beliefs we have in common. I can tell you a few things but you have to decide for yourself because everyone has their own triggerpoint. For me, it is my understanding of DNA.


1. Like most RDI's, I believed early in the case that the theory of the parents possible being responsible was the right way to go.

2. I think many RDI's will agree to some sort of mishandling of the case the day after Christmas. For me particularly, leaks to the media eventually ruined the cooperation from the Ramsey's.

I feel it was more the advice of the R defense lawyers that stopped the cooperation. And yet, the Rs refused to cooperate from that DAY, supposedly before they talked to a lawyer, so I have to believe that at least one phone call went out from JR to a lawyer (most likely Mike Bynum) right after JB died.
I completely agree about the botched investigation. There was a sloppy autopsy, too, so there was plenty of fault to go around. And DA Hunter's association with the Globe reporter Jeff Shapiro was disgraceful.

Holdontoyourhat
04-30-2010, 08:29 PM
That would seem to be it.

Why would JR work on a wrist ligature and not the neck ligature?

SuperDave
04-30-2010, 09:06 PM
Why would JR work on a wrist ligature and not the neck ligature?

Best guess is he figured one needed work and the other didn't.

Holdontoyourhat
04-30-2010, 09:55 PM
Best guess is he figured one needed work and the other didn't.

Since nobody was in the basement with JR, and our thread starter is interested in what IDI and RDI agree on, maybe guesses aren't appropriate.

I'll start over: What did JR do after he brought JBR up from the basement?

SuperDave
04-30-2010, 10:05 PM
Since nobody was in the basement with JR, and our thread starter is interested in what IDI and RDI agree on, maybe guesses aren't appropriate.

Then why ask?


I'll start over: What did JR do after he brought JBR up from the basement?

Well, I know he laid her out on the rug in the living room and covered her with a blanket and sweatshirt.

Holdontoyourhat
04-30-2010, 10:13 PM
By OWEN MORITZ With News Wire Services
Thursday, August 14th 1997, 2:03AM

JonBenet Ramsey was found on her back, her head turned to one side and her arms extended when a Colorado coroner arrived at her home, an autopsy report revealed yesterday.

The 6-year-old beauty queen, who had been strangled, was clothed and covered with a blanket and Colorado Avalanche sweatshirt, according to the report.

DeeDee249
04-30-2010, 10:33 PM
I believe when JR brought her up from the basement, he laid her on the floor in the foyer. Det. Arndt, thinking this was too high-traffic (considering the number of people wandering around an unsecured crime scene), so she moved her to the living room, placing her under the Christmas tree on the rug. Then, JR covered her with a blanket, and Arndt then put a Colorado Avalanche sweatshirt over her as well. This was an unbelievable breach of proper procedure by Arndt, as not only did she allow JR to cover her with the blanket, but she then moved the body again herself and covered her with the sweatshirt.

Holdontoyourhat
04-30-2010, 10:42 PM
I believe when JR brought her up from the basement, he laid her on the floor in the foyer. Det. Arndt, thinking this was too high-traffic (considering the number of people wandering around an unsecured crime scene), so she moved her to the living room, placing her under the Christmas tree on the rug. Then, JR covered her with a blanket, and Arndt then put a Colorado Avalanche sweatshirt over her as well. This was an unbelievable breach of proper procedure by Arndt, as not only did she allow JR to cover her with the blanket, but she then moved the body again herself and covered her with the sweatshirt.

I wonder does FW know anything about JR working to remove tape or wrist ligature in the basement, when JBR was first discovered?

DeeDee249
04-30-2010, 10:49 PM
I wonder does FW know anything about JR working to remove tape or wrist ligature in the basement, when JBR was first discovered?

I would think FW would have to know whether JR did any of this. He was right behind him.
FW hasn't said much about what he saw JR do once they reached the body. But he would have seen whatever JR did.
Whatever FW saw is still unknown, at least to the public.

Holdontoyourhat
04-30-2010, 10:57 PM
I wish I could tell you what beliefs we have in common. I can tell you a few things but you have to decide for yourself because everyone has their own triggerpoint. For me, it is my understanding of DNA.


1. Like most RDI's, I believed early in the case that the theory of the parents possible being responsible was the right way to go.

2. I think many RDI's will agree to some sort of mishandling of the case the day after Christmas. For me particularly, leaks to the media eventually ruined the cooperation from the Ramsey's.

If it were up to me, there would've been two teams. An RDI team and an IDI team, because in the absense of smoking gun evidence, its only natural for this division to occur.

At least then people could work unimpeded on each respective set of ideas. One set would, over time, naturally demonstrate that it is more cohesive with reality than the other.

SuperDave
05-03-2010, 06:55 PM
I wonder does FW know anything about JR working to remove tape or wrist ligature in the basement, when JBR was first discovered?

Darn good question.

SuperDave
05-03-2010, 06:58 PM
If it were up to me, there would've been two teams. An RDI team and an IDI team, because in the absense of smoking gun evidence, its only natural for this division to occur.

At least then people could work unimpeded on each respective set of ideas. One set would, over time, naturally demonstrate that it is more cohesive with reality than the other.

Speaking for myself, I think that is an EXCELLENT idea! If memory serves, that very approach was suggested at one point.

MurriFlower
05-03-2010, 10:06 PM
This isn't particularly an RDI or IDI issue, so I'll post it here in case someone wants to comment.

I was originally prepared to believe that the head bash preceded the strangle, but I'm really struggling to understand how such a massive head injury could leave absolutely no outward signs at all. No blood, no bruise, no swelling. Every parent knows that even if a kid falls off a bike onto a hard surface, an 'egg' comes up straight away. To split the skull and leave no mark at all is amazing. The investigator present at the PM said they were surprised when they discovered the head injury. The only conclusion I can come to is that she was not alive when it happened.

SuperDave
05-03-2010, 10:12 PM
This isn't particularly an RDI or IDI issue, so I'll post it here in case someone wants to comment.

I was originally prepared to believe that the head bash preceded the strangle, but I'm really struggling to understand how such a massive head injury could leave absolutely no outward signs at all. No blood, no bruise, no swelling. Every parent knows that even if a kid falls off a bike onto a hard surface, an 'egg' comes up straight away. To split the skull and leave no mark at all is amazing. The investigator present at the PM said they were surprised when they discovered the head injury. The only conclusion I can come to is that she was not alive when it happened.

Problem with that, MurriFlower, is that most kids who fall off of their bikes usually don't go into massive shock. Severe shock can greatly lessen the functions of the body. Moreover, according to the autopsy, JB's brain was so swollen that it was pressing against the sides of her skull. That's can't happen in a dead person and it takes a fair amount of time. 10 minutes to an hour, according to most forensic estimates. What's more, someone already did comment on it: Denver neurosurgeon Kerry Brega, who said, "we see skull fractures without massive bleeding all the time, and they didn't get strangled on the way in."

MurriFlower
05-03-2010, 10:26 PM
Problem with that, MurriFlower, is that most kids who fall off of their bikes usually don't go into massive shock. Severe shock can greatly lessen the functions of the body. Moreover, according to the autopsy, JB's brain was so swollen that it was pressing against the sides of her skull. That's can't happen in a dead person and it takes a fair amount of time. 10 minutes to an hour, according to most forensic estimates. What's more, someone already did comment on it: Denver neurosurgeon Kerry Brega, who said, "we see skull fractures without massive bleeding all the time, and they didn't get strangled on the way in."

I'm not sure which part of the autopsy says that JBR's "brain was so swollen that it was pressing against the sides of her skull". Could you please point it out to me?

What I do not understand is that there was no external sign of the injury. Hey, the skin wasn't even broken! "No scalp trauma was identified". It was only on reflection of the scalp that "an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage" was noted. The autopsy revealed scratches measuring down to one-sixteenth by one-sixteenth of an inch, but there was no evidence of a skull fracture which measured 8.5 inches in length! How so?

SuperDave
05-03-2010, 11:15 PM
I'm not sure which part of the autopsy says that JBR's "brain was so swollen that it was pressing against the sides of her skull". Could you please point it out to me?

No sweat. Narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. Now, most people don't know what that means. Well, if you look at the human brain, it has a very distinct "wrinkled" appearance. Those "wrinkles" are actually where the brain has folded. The sulci are the folds themselves. "Narrowing of the sulci" means that the brain matter has swollen so that those folds have become thinner. The gyri is the brain matter itself that is folded. "Flattening of the gyri" means that the brain had swollen so that the gyri were flattening against the interior of the skull.


What I do not understand is that there was no external sign of the injury. Hey, the skin wasn't even broken! "No scalp trauma was identified". It was only on reflection of the scalp that "an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage" was noted. The autopsy revealed scratches measuring down to one-sixteenth by one-sixteenth of an inch, but there was no evidence of a skull fracture which measured 8.5 inches in length! How so?

Well, one has to do with physics, the other with bodily reaction. First of all, breaking bones without breaking the skin is relatively easy, since flesh has a lot more given than bone. So, if the object in question has a relatively large surface area and was more-or-less rounded, the chances would be fair. And if there is padding involved, that adds a whole new dimension to the game. Add to that force, angle, and any other of a hundred different factors.

Secondly, in order for an external sign to appear (whether it be a bruise or a bump or the like), one has to consider the body's defense systems at work. But what if the body were in a state of trauma-induced hibernation, known as shock? Metabolic functions would be greatly reduced.

DeeDee249
05-04-2010, 12:06 AM
When the autopsy noted "no evidence of organization", that meant that the body's usual responses to such injury (swelling, the rush of white blood cells to the area, etc.) had not had time to "organize" or proceed. This is what led noted pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht, who also felt the head bash came first, to state that he felt JB died relatively soon after that head bash. This would not have prevented the petechiae from forming due to the strangulation, there was plenty of time for the strangulation to follow the head bash, as death may have taken UP TO an hour. Not only would JB have been rendered unconscious by such a severe blow, but she may have slipped into a coma as well, slowing the body's responses even more.
If the bludgeon was the flashlight, as many (including me) feel, it probably wouldn't have broken the skin. The light itself had a rubberized coating, and the edge of the head of it wasn't sharp. If it was brought down on her in the usual way (in an arc) it was the edge that likely came into contact with her skull.

MurriFlower
05-04-2010, 12:21 AM
No sweat. Narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. Now, most people don't know what that means. Well, if you look at the human brain, it has a very distinct "wrinkled" appearance. Those "wrinkles" are actually where the brain has folded. The sulci are the folds themselves. "Narrowing of the sulci" means that the brain matter has swollen so that those folds have become thinner. The gyri is the brain matter itself that is folded. "Flattening of the gyri" means that the brain had swollen so that the gyri were flattening against the interior of the skull.

Thanks for that SD.

The quote is actually, "Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. No inflammation is identified."

Wouldn't you have thought that such an injury would induce massive swelling of the brain if nothing else?

I can see I need to do more research into this - something's not right IMO.

SuperDave
05-04-2010, 12:30 AM
Thanks for that SD.

You're most welcome.


The quote is actually, "Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. No inflammation is identified."

Wouldn't you have thought that such an injury would induce massive swelling of the brain if nothing else?

That depends on a few different factors: how soon did death overtake the victim, how shock figures into it, etc.


I can see I need to do more research into this - something's not right IMO.

You said it.

MurriFlower
05-04-2010, 12:31 AM
When the autopsy noted "no evidence of organization", that meant that the body's usual responses to such injury (swelling, the rush of white blood cells to the area, etc.) had not had time to "organize" or proceed. This is what led noted pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht, who also felt the head bash came first, to state that he felt JB died relatively soon after that head bash. This would not have prevented the petechiae from forming due to the strangulation, there was plenty of time for the strangulation to follow the head bash, as death may have taken UP TO an hour. Not only would JB have been rendered unconscious by such a severe blow, but she may have slipped into a coma as well, slowing the body's responses even more.
If the bludgeon was the flashlight, as many (including me) feel, it probably wouldn't have broken the skin. The light itself had a rubberized coating, and the edge of the head of it wasn't sharp. If it was brought down on her in the usual way (in an arc) it was the edge that likely came into contact with her skull.

Or maybe even the two were simultaneous. The other difficulty I have always had with the hitting with something (the flashlight etc) is that those sorts of injuries are rarely a 'once' thing. If you're angry enough to strike with something, then once is not enough, you don't need to strangle later to make sure! Strangling takes planning and is too slow when a few more blows will finish the job. No, I'm still thinking about this.

Holdontoyourhat
05-04-2010, 10:27 AM
Or maybe even the two were simultaneous. The other difficulty I have always had with the hitting with something (the flashlight etc) is that those sorts of injuries are rarely a 'once' thing. If you're angry enough to strike with something, then once is not enough, you don't need to strangle later to make sure! Strangling takes planning and is too slow when a few more blows will finish the job. No, I'm still thinking about this.


I believe that either this intruder thought to 'knock out' JBR with a blow to the head early on, or actually used the headblow in conjunction with the strangulation to prevent JBR from being revived after they left. This has been done before (the unsolved murder of actor Bob Crane, for example).

Chiquita71
05-04-2010, 12:14 PM
Hello WS :)

Thank you to everyone who is posting on this thread. Thank you for all the information. I was wondering if there is a statute of limitations(maybe its not called that)or anything on the Grand Jury information?

Like, after people have passed that had to do with this case, will that ever be information for the history books?

...JW...(just wondering)

Chiquita71
05-04-2010, 12:56 PM
Hello WS :)

Also, I had the idea that maybe it is both? Maybe a IDI and then for their own reasons(molestation?)the Ramsey's did their own covering up?

What if the Ramsey's found the note earlier, found JB's body and realized people would know she had been being molested(by someone in the family or whoever but it was being "allowed") and so they just did the "covering up" of that aspect but did not do the whole crime.

...js...

DeeDee249
05-04-2010, 04:12 PM
Or maybe even the two were simultaneous. The other difficulty I have always had with the hitting with something (the flashlight etc) is that those sorts of injuries are rarely a 'once' thing. If you're angry enough to strike with something, then once is not enough, you don't need to strangle later to make sure! Strangling takes planning and is too slow when a few more blows will finish the job. No, I'm still thinking about this.

Not if she immediately collapsed. That would probably have caused whoever hit her to stop. If there had been repeated blows, there would be repeated injuries, as it is unlikely that the bludgeon would contact the skull in the exact same spot each time. And if she collapsed, she would not have been standing up, as was likely the case with the first blow- so the impact would be different.

DeeDee249
05-04-2010, 04:19 PM
Hello WS :)

Thank you to everyone who is posting on this thread. Thank you for all the information. I was wondering if there is a statute of limitations(maybe its not called that)or anything on the Grand Jury information?

Like, after people have passed that had to do with this case, will that ever be information for the history books?

...JW...(just wondering)

There is no statute of limitations on murder in ANY state. But there would have to be new evidence, or old evidence that yielded new information, for the case to proceed to an arrest or indictment.
But what I think you are asking is this: (correct me if I am wrong) is there a span of time after which the Grand Jury testimony can be made public?

The information given to this GJ was sealed, and because any unsolved murder is technically considered an open case for as long as it remains unsolved, it is not likely to be made available to the public, even under the Freedom of Information Act.

Chiquita71
05-04-2010, 05:10 PM
Thank you DeeDee :)

Yes, that is what I was asking. Thank you!

So, this case is in limbo? I remember earlier when I first came to WS, some were talking about new LE working on this case? But, I may be very confused about that...

On Cold Case Files(and The Investigators), the real shows not the drama shows, when new officers come along and take the case they get to go through all of the old evidence.

Could or would or did or has that ever happened in this case? Does it have to become a "cold case" first? What makes a case an "unresolved murder" vs. a "cold case?"

I am confused all over websleuths today. I have really hit a wall in my understanding of how our LE and law deal with crime of this nature(meaning murder). Between this case, Haleigh and Caylee...

It is just an opinion I am forming but humanity needs to rethink what LE needs to do their job better(I find no fault with individual LE, I am speaking of the system in general) and to rethink the power lawyers have. I don't have any answers and I know what I have just said probably falls under the favorite adult catch-all "it's not that easy, simple" but its how I feel right now.

I know we are not in a perfect world...but, what could it hurt but to bring justice for JB: to let the information/evidence be seen by new officers, or LE outside of those that originally had the case? I'm just babbling...I don't expect you guys to answer this stuff. I get that there are answers for all of this, (I need to do more reading) but none of them seem right or fair. IMHO.

If I had been accused of hurting my daughter the way the Ramsey's did, I would beg for my day in court. I would want to show everyone in the world I did not murder my child. IMO.

:twocents:

MurriFlower
05-04-2010, 06:57 PM
I think that both RDI and IDI struggle with the pineapple.

RDI says as PR lied about JBR being asleep when she arrived home and also about her not waking during the night, so she had to also lie about the pineapple. Well, IF JBR was awake then there was no reason to lie. IF JBR awoke in the night and was hungry, that does not point to her being killed by PR/JR/BR either. So regardless of how they dismiss it, it remains a mystery.

IDI can't think of any reason why an intruder would feed pineapple. The gang of paedophiles, SFF/terrorists, disgrundled employee/neighbour/friend - none of it fits with the pineapple.

My personal theory, (not strictly IDI) of a close friend/neighbour/employee (that is someone familiar with JBR and the house) who was trying to punish JR as well as extort money (intending to drug and hide JBR in the crawl space until the money was paid) fits with the pineapple EXCEPT that it should have contained a drug or sedative. However, the autopsy report shows no drugs detected. So could there have been anything administered to JBR in the pineapple that would not show up but could render her unconscious or at least compliant? Asprin? Paracetemol? Cough mixture? Something simple and unremarkable or undetectable? Oh and as an afterthought, what about alcohol?

Chiquita71
05-04-2010, 07:39 PM
I think that both RDI and IDI struggle with the pineapple.

RDI says as PR lied about JBR being asleep when she arrived home and also about her not waking during the night, so she had to also lie about the pineapple. Well, IF JBR was awake then there was no reason to lie. IF JBR awoke in the night and was hungry, that does not point to her being killed by PR/JR/BR either. So regardless of how they dismiss it, it remains a mystery.

IDI can't think of any reason why an intruder would feed pineapple. The gang of paedophiles, SFF/terrorists, disgrundled employee/neighbour/friend - none of it fits with the pineapple.

My personal theory, (not strictly IDI) of a close friend/neighbour/employee (that is someone familiar with JBR and the house) who was trying to punish JR as well as extort money (intending to drug and hide JBR in the crawl space until the money was paid) fits with the pineapple EXCEPT that it should have contained a drug or sedative. However, the autopsy report shows no drugs detected. So could there have been anything administered to JBR in the pineapple that would not show up but could render her unconscious or at least compliant? Asprin? Paracetemol? Cough mixture? Something simple and unremarkable or undetectable?

Quote Respect MurriFlower :)

When you bring up someone trying to "frame" or get to or at John...I can go there. This might be reason the Ramsey's acted the way they did, because that person really did have something on him.

But, I don't like the idea of someone coming in that window, I saw Schmit(sp?)come through it in that video and the edits bother me. He does not show himself really entering(easily)through that window. BUT. Someone could have come through that window, it is a window and someone could have come through it. And, whoever wrote that note and got the pineapple, and killed JB had to have known the Ramsey's or have been comfortable being in their house.

Maybe John and Patsy knew the intruder did not come in the window but they wanted to make it seem like it was someone they did not know? Or, for some reason they wanted people to think it was through the window? (Going with the idea they really didn't have anything to do with JB's actual death but had to cover for the killer)

Whether I am being RDI or IDI, I think the author of the RN is a lunatic. (Excuse my lack of professional credentials or use of tactful language). Whether this person was personally involved with the Ramsey's or not, they seem to feel they know them quite well.

When I am sure I am RDI, I think about them calling 911 and if I was guilty I would not have called 911 at all. John had his own plane, they could have loaded JB's body(make it seem like she was asleep)and make a stop somewhere before meeting the older kids in Michigan(?) Maybe then they could call 911 and say she was kidnapped.

I have said before that I am RDI, but only because it is more satisfying than IDI for my needs. BUT. There are many things that I have to give/agree with IDI and so I sit in confusion.

FWIW: The pineapple and the housekeeper talking about the knife are two major things that bolster my feelings that Patsy (on accident or on purpose) hurt JB. I know there are theories and threads that discuss Patsy's mental state and I don't know if it has been said like this before but: maybe Patsy had split personalities? Like, truly had multiple personalities as in the clinical sense.

ETA: I am aware of SD's "loved to death" theory and I it makes total sense to me. It is my failing that I am not satisfied. And, so I know many people before me have informed theories regarding Patsy's mental state.

To let you know: I am wanting to see if IDI and RDI both agree that JB had previous sexual trauma. My understanding is that there is evidence of that, this does not mean it was anyone in the Ramsey family. I just feel I have never gotten "one" answer on the sexual abuse.

Just sleuthing, I am here to be corrected. TIA.

:cow:

DeeDee249
05-04-2010, 07:51 PM
No. In the case of a homicide, especially a child homicide, the toxicology tests would show everything- aspirin, over the counter meds, anything.

The pineapple was likely as much a surprise to the parents as the skull fracture was to the coroner, not that they didn't know about it, but that it showed up in the autopsy. People just don't realize how much can be determined.

MurriFlower
05-04-2010, 09:59 PM
When you bring up someone trying to "frame" or get to or at John...I can go there. This might be reason the Ramsey's acted the way they did, because that person really did have something on him.


Yes, the 'practice' RN indicates that it was JR who was the 'target', as the Mr and Mrs R was disregarded.


But, I don't like the idea of someone coming in that window, I saw Schmit(sp?)come through it in that video and the edits bother me. He does not show himself really entering(easily)through that window. BUT. Someone could have come through that window, it is a window and someone could have come through it. And, whoever wrote that note and got the pineapple, and killed JB had to have known the Ramsey's or have been comfortable being in their house.

No, I definately think the person was a trusted key holder. But JR got in that way when he lost his key and I don't expect he was agile either.


Maybe John and Patsy knew the intruder did not come in the window but they wanted to make it seem like it was someone they did not know? Or, for some reason they wanted people to think it was through the window? (Going with the idea they really didn't have anything to do with JB's actual death but had to cover for the killer)

No, I now think that the window might have just been used to pass things through. Someone with a key can come and go through doors, but wouldn't necessarily want to carry stuff all the way through the house.



Whether I am being RDI or IDI, I think the author of the RN is a lunatic. (Excuse my lack of professional credentials or use of tactful language). Whether this person was personally involved with the Ramsey's or not, they seem to feel they know them quite well.

Yes, it seems a very idiotic thing to do. I think there is no doubt that they knew JR at the very least and I suspect he probably also has a pretty good idea who wrote the RN. If author is the actual killer, or if the killer was an accomplice, I'm not sure. Perhaps they were psychotic and may have been drunk and/or on drugs as well.


When I am sure I am RDI, I think about them calling 911 and if I was guilty I would not have called 911 at all. John had his own plane, they could have loaded JB's body(make it seem like she was asleep)and make a stop somewhere before meeting the older kids in Michigan(?) Maybe then they could call 911 and say she was kidnapped.

The fact that no-one made any attempt to remove the body from the house is the main reason I don't believe RDI. Nor was it a kidnapping gone wrong.


I have said before that I am RDI, but only because it is more satisfying than IDI for my needs. BUT. There are many things that I have to give/agree with IDI and so I sit in confusion.

I think there is an alternative, somewhere between RDI and IDI. Perhaps we can think of an appropriate acronym.


FWIW: The pineapple and the housekeeper talking about the knife are two major things that bolster my feelings that Patsy (on accident or on purpose) hurt JB. I know there are theories and threads that discuss Patsy's mental state and I don't know if it has been said like this before but: maybe Patsy had split personalities? Like, truly had multiple personalities as in the clinical sense.

ETA: I am aware of SD's "loved to death" theory and I it makes total sense to me. It is my failing that I am not satisfied. And, so I know many people before me have informed theories regarding Patsy's mental state.

To let you know: I am wanting to see if IDI and RDI both agree that JB had previous sexual trauma. My understanding is that there is evidence of that, this does not mean it was anyone in the Ramsey family. I just feel I have never gotten "one" answer on the sexual abuse.

Ah yes, the housekeeper. I don't believe a word she says. I've just realised that the satisfying thing about not being RDI is that I can, if I wish, believe everything PR and JR said. In fact, aside from honest mistakes anyone can make about things that aren't important until after and accounting for the trauma of the event itself causing memory problems, I'm happy to take it as 'gospel', especially PR's and with qualifications JR's. So, where it conflicts with others, then IMO it is they that lie. Take the Swiss Army Knife for example. It seems that only LPH and PR knew where it was (and I'm not confident PR knew either), BR wouldn't have known as it was 'taken and hidden' from him by LPH, according to her due to the 'whittling'. Was the SAK found actually BR's, as his had his name on it? If you think LPH was a 'saint' read this http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3952&pp=12 which is apparently Chapter one of her 'unpublished book'. Quite a change from her 'Patsy was warm and kind. Just a sweet person' (PMPT Page 198-202). The author of this isn't someone I'd want taking care of my 6yo daughter!!


Just sleuthing, I am here to be corrected. TIA.

Yes, it's a cross we have to bear LOL.

MurriFlower
05-04-2010, 10:37 PM
I believe that either this intruder thought to 'knock out' JBR with a blow to the head early on, or actually used the headblow in conjunction with the strangulation to prevent JBR from being revived after they left. This has been done before (the unsolved murder of actor Bob Crane, for example).

Actually this Bob Crane thing is interesting. I guess it's just the movie/TV references in the RN and his death in a similar fashion. Can't help wondering though....

It's actually the reason I questioned the head bash prior to strangulation as there was no blood or outward sign on JBR, however if you see the crime scene photos of the Bob Crane murder, there is LOTS of blood.

madeleine
05-05-2010, 03:02 AM
Ah yes, the housekeeper. I don't believe a word she says. I've just realised that the satisfying thing about not being RDI is that I can, if I wish, believe everything PR and JR said. In fact, aside from honest mistakes anyone can make about things that aren't important until after and accounting for the trauma of the event itself causing memory problems, I'm happy to take it as 'gospel', especially PR's and with qualifications JR's. So, where it conflicts with others, then IMO it is they that lie. Take the Swiss Army Knife for example. It seems that only LPH and PR knew where it was (and I'm not confident PR knew either), BR wouldn't have known as it was 'taken and hidden' from him by LPH, according to her due to the 'whittling'. Was the SAK found actually BR's, as his had his name on it? If you think LPH was a 'saint' read this http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3952&pp=12 which is apparently Chapter one of her 'unpublished book'. Quite a change from her 'Patsy was warm and kind. Just a sweet person' (PMPT Page 198-202). The author of this isn't someone I'd want taking care of my 6yo daughter!!





ITA.
But she ,like Fleet White,turned out to be perfect weapons against the Ramsey's so they turned from suspects into key witnesses.Kinda hard to swallow what these kind of people have to say.I kinda changed my views after going back to try and figure out how this all started,especially who were the first ones to point fingers at the Ramsey's and based on what.I ended up completely agreeing with the fact that they lawyered up immediately.What happened there (and this is not my opinion,I can back up with links and statements everything I say here).An FBI agent arrives at the scene and instantly tells LE to look at the parents because the RN is bogus (without even being a handwriting/linguisitc expert).Then this superwoman L.Arndt looks into JR's eyes and knows who the killer is.Then ST and his crew find a pack of diapers and wonder how this can be connected to the murder.One of the suspects suddenly becomes a key witness and friends with the lead detective.I won't mention the leaks because that would be only a guess but I guess everybody can put 2 and 2 together.And there's somuch more.If I changed my views it wasn't because of the DNA but because I took a second look at things I didn't wanna see before and I was wrong so I decided to check every side of this story.

MurriFlower
05-05-2010, 03:38 AM
ITA.
But she ,like Fleet White,turned out to be perfect weapons against the Ramsey's so they turned from suspects into key witnesses.Kinda hard to swallow what these kind of people have to say.I kinda changed my views after going back to try and figure out how this all started,especially who were the first ones to point fingers at the Ramsey's and based on what.I ended up completely agreeing with the fact that they lawyered up immediately.What happened there (and this is not my opinion,I can back up with links and statements everything I say here).An FBI agent arrives at the scene and instantly tells LE to look at the parents because the RN is bogus (without even being a handwriting/linguisitc expert).Then this superwoman L.Arndt looks into JR's eyes and knows who the killer is.Then ST and his crew find a pack of diapers and wonder how this can be connected to the murder.One of the suspects suddenly becomes a key witness and friends with the lead detective.I won't mention the leaks because that would be only a guess but I guess everybody can put 2 and 2 together.And there's somuch more.If I changed my views it wasn't because of the DNA but because I took a second look at things I didn't wanna see before and I was wrong so I decided to check every side of this story.

Yes of course, if you're RDI the lawyering up just confirmed your suspicions about their guilt. If you're not - well it makes a ton of sense. I'm sure JR could see pretty early on what was happening. PR was so upset she needed advice on what to and not to say. This is great (for me) cause I suspect the lawyers advised 'now if you know something for sure, then say so. If you don't know, then say so. If you aren't sure, then don't try to say something just to please them'. That's what I mean about what she said being 'gospel'. We all say things at times, especially when under pressure, that we later wish we had thought more about. PR had been warned about this and didn't make that mistake (well not too often). This made her look to be a bit uncooperative (interpreted as lying also). While RDI look at other's statements and say 'well PR must have been lying because someone else said something different', I look at it the opposite way, cause I'm confident they didn't do it.

Now I just wish JR and PR had noticed more about what went on around them. I also wish we had more info about what BR said. You know, kids notice more than we give them credit for.

SuperDave
05-05-2010, 01:38 PM
The fact that no-one made any attempt to remove the body from the house is the main reason I don't believe RDI.

Ironically, that's one of the reasons so many people believe RDI.


I've just realised that the satisfying thing about not being RDI is that I can, if I wish, believe everything PR and JR said. In fact, aside from honest mistakes anyone can make about things that aren't important until after and accounting for the trauma of the event itself causing memory problems, I'm happy to take it as 'gospel', especially PR's and with qualifications JR's.

One of the big reasons why I switched to RDI was because it was getting more and more difficult to believe them.


If you think LPH was a 'saint' read this http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3952&pp=12 which is apparently Chapter one of her 'unpublished book'. Quite a change from her 'Patsy was warm and kind. Just a sweet person' (PMPT Page 198-202).

No one's claiming sainthood for anyone. But her change is understandable. There have been quite a few times where I had to learn the hard way that people I thought I could trust were not trustworthy.

SuperDave
05-05-2010, 01:43 PM
An FBI agent arrives at the scene and instantly tells LE to look at the parents because the RN is bogus (without even being a handwriting/linguisitc expert).

That's not what happened. He did not "instantly tell LE to look at the parents." He told them that they would find her body because this was a murder, not a kidnapping. He didn't say "look at the parents, no BS" until later on. And in both cases, he didn't need to be a handwriting/linguistics expert. He had his own experience from dealing with real kidnappings and the murders of children to draw from.

madeleine
05-05-2010, 02:24 PM
That's not what happened. He did not "instantly tell LE to look at the parents."

Yes he did,I will check for the quotewhen I have time and post it.

DeeDee249
05-05-2010, 05:07 PM
The suggestion that they could have put a dead JB on the plane and said she was sleeping is ridiculous.
A dead body STINKS without refrigeration and/or embalming. Det. Arndt already noticed an odor of decay, and this was about 12 hours after death. Rigor mortis keeps the body rigid, unbendable. She was already stiff as a board when JR carried her up, and she was held upright by the waist like a mannequin-JR was not said to be wearing gloves- where are HIS skin cells? The arms may pull up into unnatural positions (as did JB's). The skin turns blue/black. The abdomen swells as gases build, and sometimes the skin splits. Blood seeps from blisters that form on the extremities. This can happen within the first 24 hours without refrigeration and embalming.

She would NOT look like she was asleep, believe me.

BR was almost 10. Not a toddler. He would know she was not asleep. So would the pilot. This wasn't "Weekend at Bernies".

SuperDave
05-05-2010, 05:24 PM
Yes he did,I will check for the quote when I have time and post it.

No need. I already did. On page 36 of ST's book, he mentions how Walker did tell them that, but it wasn't quite how you make it out. For one thing, he didn't say it to them "instantly" upon reading the ransom note. Rather, he said it at the police station around 3:00 PM AFTER JB's body had been found (like he said it would be) and after he had witnessed the Rs desert JB at the house. And even then, he was telling the police a very unpleasant statistical fact.

So, I'm really not seeing the problem here.

SuperDave
05-05-2010, 05:27 PM
BR was almost 10. Not a toddler. He would know she was not asleep. So would the pilot. This wasn't "Weekend at Bernies".

Nice to know I'm not the only one to use that reference!

SuperDave
05-05-2010, 06:23 PM
Yes of course, if you're RDI the lawyering up just confirmed your suspicions about their guilt. If you're not - well it makes a ton of sense.

To that, allow me to say this: I'm an American. I strongly believe in the rights our Founding Fathers believed in (whether or not I agree with later interpretations is another story) and as such, I believe wholeheartedly in the right to legal counsel. There are all too may countries that demonstrate what happens without it. BUT, when a person decided to retain a lawyer, they should do it with their eyes wide open. By that I mean that they should abide by the old axiom that even if you are innocent, a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty. Because they know that most of the people they represent ARE guilty. And most people would probably agree that's what happened here.

Moreover, JR himself seems to have gone into this with his eyes wide open, only to scream "blind man" when it suited his purposes. Indeed, in one interview, he claimed that he and PR had cooperated fully with the police, only to turn and claim--practically in the same breath--that the reason they didn't cooperate was because the police were "out to get them." Can't be both. Matter of fact, the notion that a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty is the most innocent explanation I can come up with for what happened to Tom Miller.


While RDI look at other's statements and say 'well PR must have been lying because someone else said something different', I look at it the opposite way, cause I'm confident they didn't do it.

It's not her statements vs. other people's statements that bother all that much. It's her statements (and his) vs. their OWN. I used to be VERY confident they didn't do it. Obviously, those days are over.

Ravyn
05-05-2010, 06:49 PM
Now on that I agree, the R's didn't need help to look guilty.They done that just fine on their own..And in every turn they condict every statement...To find someone else that could had done this would be hard...Cause the R's actions made it difficult to really look beyond them as suspects...Now it took four months to talk to LE....If innocent why so long,and why change everything from what the said on Dec 26...

DeeDee249
05-05-2010, 07:03 PM
I don't blame the Rs for getting lawyers. They KNEW they would be suspects. I can find fault with a lot of things they did, but the lawyers were expected. It IS odd that JR would hire a lawyer for his ex-wife in Georgia. I would say that is very suspicious and to me, the only reason he would do this is so that his ex-wife (with whom his son JAR lived) would not have to talk to LE about the whereabouts of her son that day. For as much as they claimed JAR was in Atlanta with his mother that day, I believe neighbor the late Joe Barnhill was correct in saying he saw him outside the R home. He was there, and he may have been in Christmas photos or movies taken that day, which is why the Rs claimed their camera had no batteries and they didn't take any. The lawyer would also prevent his ex-wife from producing any photos that may have been taken at her own home Christmas day, which might show her son was not there.

I believe what the FBI said that morning was "You're going to be finding the body". Which of course, they did.
Now, this was the way it was portrayed in PMPT (the movie) so it may not be completely factual.

Chiquita71
05-05-2010, 07:36 PM
The suggestion that they could have put a dead JB on the plane and said she was sleeping is ridiculous.
A dead body STINKS without refrigeration and/or embalming. Det. Arndt already noticed an odor of decay, and this was about 12 hours after death. Rigor mortis keeps the body rigid, unbendable. She was already stiff as a board when JR carried her up, and she was held upright by the waist like a mannequin-JR was not said to be wearing gloves- where are HIS skin cells? The arms may pull up into unnatural positions (as did JB's). The skin turns blue/black. The abdomen swells as gases build, and sometimes the skin splits. Blood seeps from blisters that form on the extremities. This can happen within the first 24 hours without refrigeration and embalming.

She would NOT look like she was asleep, believe me.

BR was almost 10. Not a toddler. He would know she was not asleep. So would the pilot. This wasn't "Weekend at Bernies".

Respectfully Quoted DeeDee :)

DeeDee I can feel your frustration! LOL. :blushing: It was me that brought that up and thank you, I take your point. It's good for me that you are willing to explain why they wouldn't have moved the body but bad for you because I am sure I won't be the last to come along and ask...

I was thinking along those lines because people have moved bodies before, grown adults. Of course they didn't have to move them in front of a pilot, and whoever else they would have to or might encounter on their way out with JB and onto the plane. And, what do you say about JB? She's all wrapped up and stiff because she is sleeping?

I DO see your point, fully. :) And, the "weekend at Bernie's" reference was perfect. You made me snort.

:twocents:

DeeDee249
05-05-2010, 07:55 PM
Chiquita, you are always a pleasure to have a dialog with. Thanks for your comment.
On the subject of moving bodies....there are two conditions that develop soon after death which can provide information as to whether a body has been moved. The one that forms first is livor mortis. This is where the blood has stopped circulating, and gravity causes it to pool in the part of the body closest to the floor or ground. In the case of JB, she was lying on her back when found and the pattern of livor mortis confirms that she was placed on her back within approx. 15 minutes of death. For a time, livor is unfixed and will form a new pattern OVER the first one if the body is moved. For example, if JB had died in a chair, livor would form in her legs and hands only, then if she was laid on her back soon right away, a new pattern would form on her back, but the first pattern would remain. After a while, livor becomes "fixed" and at that point if the body is moved, no new pattern will form. However, by that time, rigor mortis is forming and the body's position cannot be altered without difficulty. This is why I disagree when someone mentions the possibility that JB had been hidden in the freezer, and that's why FW didn't see her when he checked the wineceller that morning. But if that was the case, her livor pattern would be different and so would the position of her body, if she'd been moved to the wineceller by JR when he "disappeared" from Det. Arndt's sight.
She had to have been placed on her back in the wineceller within 10 minutes of her death.

MurriFlower
05-05-2010, 10:21 PM
To that, allow me to say this: I'm an American. I strongly believe in the rights our Founding Fathers believed in (whether or not I agree with later interpretations is another story) and as such, I believe wholeheartedly in the right to legal counsel. There are all too may countries that demonstrate what happens without it. BUT, when a person decided to retain a lawyer, they should do it with their eyes wide open. By that I mean that they should abide by the old axiom that even if you are innocent, a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty. Because they know that most of the people they represent ARE guilty. And most people would probably agree that's what happened here.

Perhaps it's different in my country, founded on ship loads of 'convicts', but we believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Getting a lawyer does not prove guilt. I don't follow your reasoning that lawyers know that 'most of the people they represent ARE guilty'. It's probably true that only rich people can afford good lawyers and many of them do not get convicted. The ones that have lawyers appointed by the court to represent them are more likely to get convicted. I think this is quite aside from whether they are guilty or innocent, it's more a criticism of the legal system.


Moreover, JR himself seems to have gone into this with his eyes wide open, only to scream "blind man" when it suited his purposes. Indeed, in one interview, he claimed that he and PR had cooperated fully with the police, only to turn and claim--practically in the same breath--that the reason they didn't cooperate was because the police were "out to get them." Can't be both. Matter of fact, the notion that a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty is the most innocent explanation I can come up with for what happened to Tom Miller.

"12-27-96 Arndt Interviewed Ramseys. The Ramseys were interviewed by Linda Arndt
12-28-96 Ramseys Provided Forensic Samples. Ramsey family goes to Boulder police station to answer questions and give samples of hair, blood and handwriting
Date? Police interview Burke Ramsey
3-3-97 Patsy Ramsey gives third handwriting sample
4-11-97 Patsy Ramsey agrees to provide 4th handwriting sample
4-19-97 Boulder DA Alex Hunter for the first time publicly reveals Ramseys are suspects
4-30-97 Ramsey First Formal Police Interviews. John and Patsy Ramsey have first formal interviews with police at Boulder County Justice Cente
5-20-97 Patsy Ramsey provides fifth handwriting sample
6-10-98 to 6-12-98 Police question Burke Ramsey for 6 hours.
6-23-98 Police interview Patsy Ramsey.
6-26-98 Burke Ramsey Questioned. An investigator in Boulder DA office questions Burke Ramsey for 6 hour"

Hmm, doesn't seem they were uncooperative to me. No, I wouldn't wonder they thought the police were out to get them.



It's not her statements vs. other people's statements that bother all that much. It's her statements (and his) vs. their OWN. I used to be VERY confident they didn't do it. Obviously, those days are over.

Such as?

SuperDave
05-05-2010, 11:52 PM
Perhaps it's different in my country, founded on ship loads of 'convicts', but we believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Isn't that what I said?


Getting a lawyer does not prove guilt.

I didn't say it did. I said a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty.


It's probably true that only rich people can afford good lawyers and many of them do not get convicted. The ones that have lawyers appointed by the court to represent them are more likely to get convicted. I think this is quite aside from whether they are guilty or innocent, it's more a criticism of the legal system.

If you want a criticism of the legal system, MurriFlower, I can give you plenty of them. This case alone is a perfect storm of legal neuroses, many of which were long in the making.


"12-27-96 Arndt Interviewed Ramseys. The Ramseys were interviewed by Linda Arndt
12-28-96 Ramseys Provided Forensic Samples. Ramsey family goes to Boulder police station to answer questions and give samples of hair, blood and handwriting
Date? Police interview Burke Ramsey
3-3-97 Patsy Ramsey gives third handwriting sample
4-11-97 Patsy Ramsey agrees to provide 4th handwriting sample
4-19-97 Boulder DA Alex Hunter for the first time publicly reveals Ramseys are suspects
4-30-97 Ramsey First Formal Police Interviews. John and Patsy Ramsey have first formal interviews with police at Boulder County Justice Cente
5-20-97 Patsy Ramsey provides fifth handwriting sample
6-10-98 to 6-12-98 Police question Burke Ramsey for 6 hours.
6-23-98 Police interview Patsy Ramsey.
6-26-98 Burke Ramsey Questioned. An investigator in Boulder DA office questions Burke Ramsey for 6 hour"

Hmm, doesn't seem they were uncooperative to me.

The Rs themselves tried to use those examples. Trouble is, it doesn't work. For one thing, providing forensic samples isn't a voluntary proceedure. The giving of "non-testimonial" evidence is mandated. If the person does not give them up willingly, warrants will be drawn up to force them to give. So that's out. And then, there's the matter of the interviews. They refused to be interviewed until April 1997, then were not interviewed again until June 1998. And in each case, they negotiated the terms of their agreements, including being given written copies of their previous statements before they went in.

That sure doesn't sound like cooperation to me.


No, I wouldn't wonder they thought the police were out to get them.

Quite frankly, I'm amazed that anyone believes this "police out to get them" stuff. Indeed, many people, including police officers from other departments, I might add, have remarked on the kid-glove treatment that the Rs were given. Kid-glove treatment that was mandated from the top, by the way. So you'll have to forgive me if I get upset whenever I'm subjected to this "out to get us" pity routine. I didn't buy it with OJ Simpson, and I regret that I ever believed it here.


Such as?

I take it you're referring to contradictory statements that the Rs made? Be glad to. As an opener, let's go with my personal favorite: PR's attempt to explain her fibers in the garrote knots. Now, a little context is in order here. In 2000, a prosecuting attorney named Bruce Levin informed PR that fibers from her red sweater (the one she wore to the party and that morning) were found tied into the knots of the garrote. At the time she had no answer. In October of 2002, she told a CBS reporter that the fibers probably transferred when she laid down on top of JB's body after it was brought up from the basement. "I had my whole body on her body," were her exact words.

Problem is, JR wrote in their book Death of Innocence that JB's body had already been covered up by a second blanket and a sweatshirt before PR even came into the same room. So PR never even made contact with JB's body, let alone the cord around her neck.

Something like that?

MurriFlower
05-06-2010, 02:10 AM
I said a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty. then you said
Because they know that most of the people they represent ARE guilty. And most people would probably agree that's what happened here. Perhaps there is some language barrier here, but that sounds to me like you are saying, 'lawyers defend you like you are guilty because most of their clients ARE guilty and most people would probably agree that's what happened here". That certainly sounds to me like you are saying they are probably guilty because they got a lawyer.



And then, there's the matter of the interviews. They refused to be interviewed until April 1997,

12-27-96 Arndt Interviewed Ramseys. The Ramseys were interviewed by Linda Arndt

Taken from Police Press Releases:

"December 27, 1996 Commander Eller added, "The family has been cooperative and our investigation is continuing.

December 28, 1996 The family is cooperating with the investigation which is ongoing.

December 29, 1996 The family continues to cooperate with the police investigation, although police have not yet conducted interviews with the father and mother. They have been in no condition to be interviewed up to this point."




then were not interviewed again until June 1998. And in each case, they negotiated the terms of their agreements, including being given written copies of their previous statements before they went in.


Quite frankly, I'm amazed that anyone believes this "police out to get them" stuff.

I don't. It was stated that within 20 minutes of finding the body, the parents were the prime suspects. This didn't seem to change much.



Indeed, many people, including police officers from other departments, I might add, have remarked on the kid-glove treatment that the Rs were given. Kid-glove treatment that was mandated from the top, by the way.

Many other unspecified people and police officers might have disagreed.


So you'll have to forgive me if I get upset whenever I'm subjected to this "out to get us" pity routine. I didn't buy it with OJ Simpson, and I regret that I ever believed it here.

Don't bring OJ into this.


I take it you're referring to contradictory statements that the Rs made? Be glad to. As an opener, let's go with my personal favorite: PR's attempt to explain her fibers in the garrote knots. Now, a little context is in order here. In 2000, a prosecuting attorney named Bruce Levin informed PR that fibers from her red sweater (the one she wore to the party and that morning) were found tied into the knots of the garrote. At the time she had no answer. In October of 2002, she told a CBS reporter that the fibers probably transferred when she laid down on top of JB's body after it was brought up from the basement. "I had my whole body on her body," were her exact words.

Problem is, JR wrote in their book Death of Innocence that JB's body had already been covered up by a second blanket and a sweatshirt before PR even came into the same room. So PR never even made contact with JB's body, let alone the cord around her neck.



I'm not sure this is true, Wolf v Ramsey 2003 Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home.
(SMF 181; PSMF 181. )

If there were fibers from the red/black/grey coat in the paint tote and the killer made the garotte from one of the paintbrushes in there, that explains it. The fibers could have gotten there at any time. It was their house remember and the basement is where the washer/dryer was.

This is probably one instance where a witness tried to explain something that didn't exist. It's what I wrote earlier: if you know it, say so; if you don't know it, don't say anything; don't speculate about something that may have never happened. She was probably just sucked into trying to come up with an explanation, because that's what they asked her to do.

WHITEFANG
05-06-2010, 03:01 AM
I take it you're referring to contradictory statements that the Rs made? Be glad to. As an opener, let's go with my personal favorite: PR's attempt to explain her fibers in the garrote knots. Now, a little context is in order here. In 2000, a prosecuting attorney named Bruce Levin informed PR that fibers from her red sweater (the one she wore to the party and that morning) were found tied into the knots of the garrote. At the time she had no answer. In October of 2002, she told a CBS reporter that the fibers probably transferred when she laid down on top of JB's body after it was brought up from the basement. "I had my whole body on her body," were her exact words.

Problem is, JR wrote in their book Death of Innocence that JB's body had already been covered up by a second blanket and a sweatshirt before PR even came into the same room. So PR never even made contact with JB's body, let alone the cord around her neck.

Something like that?[/QUOTE]

There is no possibility that as Patsy covered her baby's body with hers that microscopic fibers drifted onto/into this material? That these blankets didn't have those fibers on them, nor did the sweatshirt? What about the carpeting or the floor in the basement?

If my daughter was found in similar condition as JonBenet Ramsey, and the cops suspected and interrogated me, well, let's put it this way. Have you heard about the extreme danger of approaching a mother bear when her cubs are present? How about stumbling upon and surprising a wounded Polar Bear? Have you seen a rabid wolverine?

madeleine
05-06-2010, 03:07 AM
No need. I already did. On page 36 of ST's book, he mentions how Walker did tell them that, but it wasn't quite how you make it out. For one thing, he didn't say it to them "instantly" upon reading the ransom note. Rather, he said it at the police station around 3:00 PM AFTER JB's body had been found (like he said it would be) and after he had witnessed the Rs desert JB at the house. And even then, he was telling the police a very unpleasant statistical fact.

So, I'm really not seeing the problem here.

"Look at the parents.No bull****,that's where you need to be."
+
I looked into his eyes and knew who the killer is.
+
"We had to determine if that was somehow related to her death" (diapers hanging halfway off the shelf) -this after talking to someone who was still a suspect (LHP)
+all the RDI leaks


I see LOTS of problems here.
This is how it started.

WHITEFANG
05-06-2010, 03:20 AM
Problem with that, MurriFlower, is that most kids who fall off of their bikes usually don't go into massive shock. Severe shock can greatly lessen the functions of the body. Moreover, according to the autopsy, JB's brain was so swollen that it was pressing against the sides of her skull. That's can't happen in a dead person and it takes a fair amount of time. 10 minutes to an hour, according to most forensic estimates. What's more, someone already did comment on it: Denver neurosurgeon Kerry Brega, who said, "we see skull fractures without massive bleeding all the time, and they didn't get strangled on the way in."

By definition that means bruising should be seen on her scalp, doesn't it? Brain swelling, as described, necessarily means that blood vessels burst like mad inside her skull from what seems to be blunt force trauma. Corresponding hemorrhaging of vessels within and around the skull would reveal evidence of contusions to the exterior surface.

madeleine
05-06-2010, 04:15 AM
16 Q. What would be forensic evidence

17 that could clear someone in the JonBenet

18 Ramsey investigation?

19 A. Handwriting.
20 Q. Anything else?

21 MR. DIAMOND: You're saying

22 standing by itself?

23 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Standing by itself,

24 if I were going to say, well, John Doe has

25 been eliminated as a suspect in the JonBenet



96



1 Ramsey investigation based on forensic

2 evidence, what is the only forensic evidence

3 that you were aware of that could have itself

4 eliminated someone from being involved?

5 A. Besides the handwriting?

6 Q. I want the answer. If it's

7 handwriting, if there was anything else, let

8 me know that.

9 A. Well, I know the big controversy

10 -- thank you very much -- was whether or not

11 DNA was clearing people in this case.

12 Q. And ultimately it was not, was it?

13 A. I don't know. I certainly don't

14 hold myself out as a DNA expert.

15 Q. No, but I mean, you knew the

16 approach the investigation was taking from the

17 time of your involvement through August of

18 '98 and the DNA either quite simply either

19 eliminated everybody or it eliminated nobody

20 if it wasn't a match, true?

21 A. There was a huge controversy about

22 the DNA.

23 Q. So it was not in and of itself

24 viewed as a forensic piece of evidence that

25 eliminated anyone, was it?



97



1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Other than handwriting, what else

3 was the basis for a forensic evidence that

4 would eliminate someone as a suspect in the

5 Ramsey case?

6 A. May I have just a moment?

7 Q. Sure.

8 (Discussion off the record between

9 the deponent and Mr. Diamond.)

10 A. Mr. Wood, unless I'm missing

11 something entirely obvious, no, the

12 handwriting, the ransom note, et cetera, was

13 the sort of cornerstone piece of evidence in

14 this case and I think that's how most people

15 were being cleared.


:banghead:

madeleine
05-06-2010, 04:18 AM
LE checked out all the leads,YEAH RIGHT.People were cleared based on handwriting because ST just "KNEW" that PR wrote the note and she killed her child over a bed-wetting issue.

And you all wonder why this is a cold case.........

madeleine
05-06-2010, 04:24 AM
Le should go back and check everybody on the suspect list.The name/s of the killer/killers is/are in those files somewhere.
If people were cleared based on handwriting (:banghead:) I am sure their alibis weren't properly checked either.(duh why check Wolf further,his gf is a nutso and we know PR did it,right?-that's probably how they "checked" the CA woman's story as well)But I guess it's kinda late for that now.

madeleine
05-06-2010, 04:43 AM
9 Q. Are you familiar that Mr. Ubowski

10 stated that he had never reached the

11 conclusion that 24 of her letters out of the

12 26 letters of the alphabet were matched with

13 the ransom note?

14 A. No, I have not heard that.

15 Q. And you stated to the contrary in

16 your book, didn't you?

17 A. Yeah, I stated what I was told by

18 my detective sergeant.


---------------

re the fibers

2 Q. All right. So you never

3 personally saw a report with that result or

4 that conclusion?

5 A. I'm relying on a fellow officer.


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


Open your eyes.
This is the RDI "evidence" in this case.hear-say and bias.

madeleine
05-06-2010, 05:14 AM
14 Q. Well, did all the experts agree

15 that JonBenet Ramsey was alive at the time of

16 the injury to her vagina?

17 A. Again, I don't know what experts

18 you're referring to but we had --

19 Q. The ones that you listened to.

20 A. Let me finish, Mr. Wood.

21 Q. The ones that your department

22 hired?

23 A. At times there was, among experts,

24 as was to be expected, there was conflict of

25 opinion. But regarding the prior vaginal



301



1 trauma if that's what you're asking about,

2 this blue ribbon panel of pediatric medical

3 experts they brought in seemed to me to be

4 in agreement on some other conclusions.

5 Q. I'm talking about the acute

6 vaginal trauma she suffered at the time of

7 her murder. The agreement was unanimous that

8 she was alive at the time that that vaginal

9 trauma was inflicted, true?

10 A. Yes, I believe that's correct.

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

madeleine
05-06-2010, 05:26 AM
14 Q. Was there any test done on the

15 duct tape that would establish the imprint of

16 JonBenet's lip prints on that tape?

17 A. Was there any test that would

18 establish that?

19 Q. Did you all to your knowledge, did

20 the Boulder Police Department conduct any test

21 that would establish that the duct tape that

22 was pulled off of her mouth by John Ramsey

23 that was then picked up by Fleet White was

24 found somehow to contain a perfect set of

25 JonBenet's lip prints, was any test performed



359



1 that made that finding?

2 A. There was an examination apparently

3 done at some point which was reported back to

4 a detective briefing at which I was present

5 and I believe that was Wickman or Trujillo

6 that shared that information.
7 Q. Who conducted that examination?

8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Was it an expert of some type?

10 A. I don't know that there is such a

11 thing as an expert examination and there is

12 no testing that I'm aware of. I think

13 that's more common sense observation.

joeskidbeck
05-06-2010, 12:11 PM
It's pretty obvious that RDI/IDI's dont agree on very much here. I am RDI all the way
(it was an accident), but there is ONE thing that would change me to IDI. If John Ramsey were still actively seeking his daughter's murderer and being very vocal about it as almost anyone else would be in his position. His inaction speaks to the fact that he is very relieved to be out from under that umbrella.

madeleine
05-06-2010, 12:16 PM
John Ramsey doesn't have access to the police files.What can he work with??Interview the suspects?Check their alibi's?Collect fibers and DNA?

SuperDave
05-06-2010, 12:18 PM
then you said Perhaps there is some language barrier here, but that sounds to me like you are saying, 'lawyers defend you like you are guilty because most of their clients ARE guilty and most people would probably agree that's what happened here". That certainly sounds to me like you are saying they are probably guilty because they got a lawyer.

Sorry. You're right, I was not as clear as I wanted to be. I meant to say that people would agree that the lawyers defended the Rs like they were guilty. LW himself has said as much. I was not trying to imply that the Rs hiring a lawyer automatically points to guilt. I was trying to point out how difficult it can be for a person who is truly innocent when a lawyer gets involved. Either way, my point is that a person should go into something like this with their eyes open.

I'll give you an example. Tom Miller was clearly innocent, and he hired a lawyer. Darn good thing, too, even though Miller himself was a lawyer.


12-27-96 Arndt Interviewed Ramseys. The Ramseys were interviewed by Linda Arndt

Taken from Police Press Releases:

"December 27, 1996 Commander Eller added, "The family has been cooperative and our investigation is continuing.

December 28, 1996 The family is cooperating with the investigation which is ongoing.

December 29, 1996 The family continues to cooperate with the police investigation, although police have not yet conducted interviews with the father and mother. They have been in no condition to be interviewed up to this point."


I'm not arguing that. It was after the CNN interviews that the cops began to wise up. I believe ST wrote something to the effect of "they're not in any shape to talk to us, but they can go on CNN?"


I don't. It was stated that within 20 minutes of finding the body, the parents were the prime suspects. This didn't seem to change much.

I honestly don't know who stated that.


Many other unspecified people and police officers might have disagreed.

I'm not aware of any. I know plenty of hard-left defense lawyers who have, though. But that's how they make their living.


Don't bring OJ into this.

Why not?


I'm not sure this is true,

I can guarantee it is. You ask around, MurriFlower. Opinions about me may differ greatly, but one thing everyone agrees on: I'm no liar.


Wolf v Ramsey 2003 Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home.
(SMF 181; PSMF 181. )

I wouldn't rely on that too much, considering the one-sided nature of it.


If there were fibers from the red/black/grey coat in the paint tote and the killer made the garotte from one of the paintbrushes in there, that explains it. The fibers could have gotten there at any time. It was their house remember and the basement is where the washer/dryer was.

There's just one thing wrong with that. PR admitted she never painted with those clothes on or went into that room with them on. It's in the 2000 interviews.


This is probably one instance where a witness tried to explain something that didn't exist.

Highly doubtful.


It's what I wrote earlier: if you know it, say so; if you don't know it, don't say anything; don't speculate about something that may have never happened. She was probably just sucked into trying to come up with an explanation, because that's what they asked her to do.

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. For one thing, she couldn't explain it when they told her about it; it took two full years to come up with an explanation, and it was not made to a policeman or attorney, but to a news reporter. It's like I say in the book: I hope she asked her lawyer for her money back. Truth be told, she would have been better off following your advice.

SuperDave
05-06-2010, 12:22 PM
There is no possibility that as Patsy covered her baby's body with hers that microscopic fibers drifted onto/into this material?

Which material are you referring to?


That these blankets didn't have those fibers on them, nor did the sweatshirt? What about the carpeting or the floor in the basement?

This didn't happen in the basement, Fang. It happened in the living room. And she hadn't even been in that room until after JB was covered. See the problem?


If my daughter was found in similar condition as JonBenet Ramsey, and the cops suspected and interrogated me, well, let's put it this way. Have you heard about the extreme danger of approaching a mother bear when her cubs are present?

That's another problem, Fang: the way the Rs were so willing to leave the house with the body still there. As ST wrote, you have to DRAG most parents away.

madeleine
05-06-2010, 12:25 PM
Re Patsy on CNN.Did she seem in a good shape to you?Capable of answering questions that require a clear head?I wouldn't have allowed her to answer LE questions in that shape either.Imagine what would have said the likes of ST THEN.

madeleine
05-06-2010, 12:26 PM
As ST wrote, you have to DRAG most parents away.

Being different doesn't make you guilty.But I know how much ST loves statistics.

SuperDave
05-06-2010, 12:27 PM
"Look at the parents.No bull****,that's where you need to be."
+
I looked into his eyes and knew who the killer is.
+
"We had to determine if that was somehow related to her death" (diapers hanging halfway off the shelf) -this after talking to someone who was still a suspect (LHP)
+all the RDI leaks


I see LOTS of problems here.
This is how it started.

Look, I won't give you any argument about Linda Arndt. And as for the leaks, that was pretty much a free-for-all. Everybody bears some blame there. But as for Walker, what was he supposed to do? He knew these things from experience. I can't say that I would have done any differently. If anyone deserves blame, it's John Eller.

SuperDave
05-06-2010, 12:29 PM
By definition that means bruising should be seen on her scalp, doesn't it? Brain swelling, as described, necessarily means that blood vessels burst like mad inside her skull from what seems to be blunt force trauma. Corresponding hemorrhaging of vessels within and around the skull would reveal evidence of contusions to the exterior surface.

The problem there, fang, is that when deep shock sets in, it draws blood AWAY from the skin to better support the internals.

SuperDave
05-06-2010, 12:32 PM
LE checked out all the leads,YEAH RIGHT.People were cleared based on handwriting because ST just "KNEW" that PR wrote the note and she killed her child over a bed-wetting issue.

And you all wonder why this is a cold case.........

Oh, come on, madeleine. Don't waste time with that. You talk as if he was the only person working the case or if he had everyone else hypnotized. For Odin's sake, they were interviewing convicts in North Carolina. So don't tell me they weren't following every lead. Henry Lee himself has said several times that every possible scenario was examined in the DA's office. I honestly don't know what more there is to give.

joeskidbeck
05-06-2010, 12:33 PM
John Ramsey doesn't have access to the police files.What can he work with??Interview the suspects?Check their alibi's?Collect fibers and DNA?

I don't believe he should be investigating the case. He should use the media and be very vocal about his daughter and the fact that someone is getting away with an atrocious murder. It really bugged me when he expressed sympathy for JMK when they took him into custody. Sympathy? Because he didn't want to speculate on his innocence or guilt? I dont think that would have been the first thought on any parents mind. This man has money and if he expressed the desire to find the real murderer, msm would line up at his door with lights and cameras blazing. I have no doubt he could be on every tv channel any time he desired. He does not desire. He does not care. It's exactly as Patsy wanted things to be, they got on with their lives. End of a really sad story. I wish.

madeleine
05-06-2010, 12:33 PM
Look, I won't give you any argument about Linda Arndt. And as for the leaks, that was pretty much a free-for-all. Everybody bears some blame there. But as for Walker, what was he supposed to do? He knew these things from experience. I can't say that I would have done any differently. If anyone deserves blame, it's John Eller.

I guess I blame others for interpreting what Walker told them and using it as an excuse for what they did or didn't do.I don't think that he even knew who he's dealing with,I bet he would have explained them in a different manner what he meant.If you take what he said out of the big picture maybe his intentions were good and he wanted to help those newbies out.But look what came out of it and if you add Arndt and Thomas to the bowl you end up with the reason why this is still a cold case.

SuperDave
05-06-2010, 12:35 PM
Open your eyes.
This is the RDI "evidence" in this case.hear-say and bias.

I can tell you from personal experience that's not so.

madeleine
05-06-2010, 12:38 PM
For Odin's sake, they were interviewing convicts in North Carolina.

I know they were,or better said they just pretended to do that...
I am sorry Dave,I just don't trust the way it was done anymore.
Take the house-keeper for example.They spent all the time with building a theory based on LHP's claims but they never bothered to talk to the other one who had nothing bad to say about the Ramsey's. (sorry forgot her name now).Maybe she would have told them something about another suspect who knew the family/house,you never know,but they never asked or insisted.

madeleine
05-06-2010, 12:44 PM
I can tell you from personal experience that's not so.

How do you explain the sexual assault when even ST confirms that all the experts agreed she was ALIVE when it happened?She was ALIVE when she was strangled (the autopsy report says so).You can't say that these were parts of a staging anymore.What proof of staging is there,Dave?

madeleine
05-06-2010, 12:48 PM
There are experts who say that PR wrote the note,experts who say that JMK wrote the note,experts who can't eliminate some other suspects,experts who state that pr definitely DIDN'T write the note.What is this mess?
And the ones claiming that PR wrote it were hired for the Wolf suit so it's a bit different if you ask me.It was a civil case where a suspect blamed another suspect.Andthey didn't even analyze the originals.Please let me have my doubts re this.

Roy23
05-06-2010, 02:28 PM
How do you explain the sexual assault when even ST confirms that all the experts agreed she was ALIVE when it happened?She was ALIVE when she was strangled (the autopsy report says so).You can't say that these were parts of a staging anymore.What proof of staging is there,Dave?


I wish you were deposing Steve Thomas. Another homerun Maddy.

BOESP
05-06-2010, 06:17 PM
I wish you were deposing Steve Thomas. Another homerun Maddy.

Please remind everyone that to the layman JonBenet likely appeared to be dead or near death from the blunt trauma to the head. At that point, a ligature device as a staging instrument is in the realm of possibility.

It also seems obvious to me that whoever is responsible for that trauma suspected she was dead or so near death as to render survival as little more than being in a vegetative state. It is highly unlikely she would have survived such trauma and I suspect the offender could have thought so too.

DeeDee249
05-06-2010, 08:03 PM
Patsy did not cover her daughter's body. JR and Det.Arndt did. The knot, which contained the fibers, was at the BACK of her neck. She was face up when found and laid face up when brought upstairs.
It would be incomprehensible for Patsy's jacket fibers, which she claimed she never wore in the basement, to be simply floating around in the basement and land in ONLY in the garrote knot and inside of the tape. That piece of tape, according to IDI, did not belong to the house and was removed from JB in the basement. Patsy says she did not see JB after she went to bed the previous night, and allegedly did not see the body in the basement. The tape never left the basement, it was removed from JB's lips by JR before he brought her up. How did her fibers get there?

MurriFlower
05-06-2010, 08:09 PM
It's pretty obvious that RDI/IDI's dont agree on very much here. I am RDI all the way
(it was an accident), but there is ONE thing that would change me to IDI. If John Ramsey were still actively seeking his daughter's murderer and being very vocal about it as almost anyone else would be in his position. His inaction speaks to the fact that he is very relieved to be out from under that umbrella.

"12 JOHN RAMSEY: We are comfortable with that.
13 We never objected to being looked at. We
14 understand that, logically, we were in the house.
15 Okay. We accept that in an objective
16 investigation. What became concerning to us is,
17 our investigators, you know, had a tip line;
18 they'd get calls, you know. I tried to call the
19 Boulder police for five days for a month. They
20 won't return my call. I have a lead, you know. I'm
21 anxious to tell someone.
22 I lost count of the number of times that happened.
23 It started to occur to us that they're just
24 blowing off the other inputs on this. You know,
25 they're so focused on the Ramseys that nothing
0025
1 else is getting looked at. We said early on,
2 (Look, you're spending too much time on us. Look
3 elsewhere as well and we'll be fine.̃ But we never
4 got comfortable that there was anything going on
5 but a 100 percent focus on the Ramseys."

Beck if he couldn't even get the investigators to return his calls days after JBR was killed, (when he tried to give them a lead), then do you think he would be still trying to call them 14 years later? I'm sure that a stage is reached when you just have to try to get on with it, you can't continue to do TV interviews without any new evidence. Don't think of what you call his 'inaction' as being uncaring or relief at being no longer a suspect so much as his Christian acceptance of the events.

DeeDee249
05-06-2010, 08:30 PM
Again, this is JR's say-so. Their own lawyers would not let them talk to LE. We really don't know if he did try to talk to police, and of course, we haven't had JR's claims confirmed by LE.
ANY parents whose dead child was found in their home would automatically be suspect until another perp could be identified. That's not just the Rs, that is across the board.
For myself, I don't want to focus on the parents by default, just because there has not been any other identifiable perp. I try to look at what I see as the evidence pointing to them, as well as their behavior, that day and subsequently.
And for me, it always comes down to just a few things that I can't ignore or explain away. The note, which to me, is nearly a perfect match to Patsy's writing, and the lie about the pineapple, including Patsy's inane comments about not owning the bowl and box of tissues. And the wiped -down flashlight batteries. (even more than the wiped-down flashlight).

MurriFlower
05-06-2010, 09:15 PM
And for me, it always comes down to just a few things that I can't ignore or explain away. The note, which to me, is nearly a perfect match to Patsy's writing, and the lie about the pineapple, including Patsy's inane comments about not owning the bowl and box of tissues. And the wiped -down flashlight batteries. (even more than the wiped-down flashlight).

Not sure about the "not owning the bowl and box of tissues", this is what she said about the bowl and pineapple:

5 PATSY RAMSEY: Somebody else did this,

6 because I would never put a spoon that big in a bowl

7 like that, and I can't tell what that is, whether that

8 is grits or apples or cereal or -- I can't tell what

9 that is.

10 TRIP DEMUTH: Inside the bowl you are saying?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: Inside the bowl.

12 TRIP DEMUTH: Do you recognize the bowl?

13 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

14 TRIP DEMUTH: Where do you keep them?

15 PATSY RAMSEY: In the kitchen.

16 TRIP DEMUTH: Where in the kitchen?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, in like a cupboard over

18 to -- there is kind of big sinks over here. There is

19 an island in the middle and big sinks and above that,

20 the cupboard with dishwear in it.

8 TOM HANEY: Okay. The contents of the bowl,

9 does that appear to be pineapple to you?

10 PATSY RAMSEY: Could be. Could be.

11 TOM HANEY: That is what has been described

12 as --

13 PATSY RAMSEY: Is it? It could be.

14 TOM HANEY: Do you eat or does anybody in the

15 family eat a bowl of pineapple?

16 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, the kids both ate

17 pineapple, but I would never serve a bowl like that of

18 pineapple. I would think I would put two or three

19 pieces on their plate with the rest of their food or

20 something, because, I mean, it looks weird to set out a

21 bowl like that.

I think PR says that the bowl is hers but she did not put the pineapple out in the bowl with the spoon in that way. Can't see that is inane at all, just a coment on how she would serve food. This is not her way to serve food, especially to the children.

WHITEFANG
05-06-2010, 10:00 PM
[QUOTE=MurriFlower;5156013]
"12 JOHN RAMSEY: We are comfortable with that.
13 We never objected to being looked at. We
14 understand that, logically, we were in the house.
15 Okay. We accept that in an objective
16 investigation. What became concerning to us is,
17 our investigators, you know, had a tip line;
18 they'd get calls, you know. I tried to call the
19 Boulder police for five days for a month. They
20 won't return my call. I have a lead, you know. I'm
21 anxious to tell someone.
22 I lost count of the number of times that happened.
23 It started to occur to us that they're just
24 blowing off the other inputs on this. You know,
25 they're so focused on the Ramseys that nothing
0025
1 else is getting looked at. We said early on,
2 (Look, you're spending too much time on us. Look
3 elsewhere as well and we'll be fine.̃ But we never
4 got comfortable that there was anything going on
5 but a 100 percent focus on the Ramseys."

It is a possibility that he is telling the truth, which would reveal alot of character on his part. "Look, I am innocent as can be, but of course you don't know that. I understand that. And you must consider us suspects given we were in the house at the time, etc. Got it. That is fine. However, you did set up a tip line and when I tried to use it, I got zero. That made me feel uncomfortable. Real uncomfortable. It told me you were focusing your efforts on us, alone. Her murderer is out there somewhere and obviously you will not pursue that seriously." Imagine his frustration.

WHITEFANG
05-06-2010, 10:14 PM
Which material are you referring to?



This didn't happen in the basement, Fang. It happened in the living room. And she hadn't even been in that room until after JB was covered. See the problem?

No, but Patsy lived in that house. She moved around from room to room. I am sure you know what kinds of components/materials/items make dust.



That's another problem, Fang: the way the Rs were so willing to leave the house with the body still there. As ST wrote, you have to DRAG most parents away.


Personal preference. I would not want to be near the scene, either, ever.

MurriFlower
05-06-2010, 10:21 PM
[QUOTE=MurriFlower;5156013]
"12 JOHN RAMSEY: We are comfortable with that.
13 We never objected to being looked at. We
14 understand that, logically, we were in the house.
15 Okay. We accept that in an objective
16 investigation. What became concerning to us is,
17 our investigators, you know, had a tip line;
18 they'd get calls, you know. I tried to call the
19 Boulder police for five days for a month. They
20 won't return my call. I have a lead, you know. I'm
21 anxious to tell someone.
22 I lost count of the number of times that happened.
23 It started to occur to us that they're just
24 blowing off the other inputs on this. You know,
25 they're so focused on the Ramseys that nothing
0025
1 else is getting looked at. We said early on,
2 (Look, you're spending too much time on us. Look
3 elsewhere as well and we'll be fine.̃ But we never
4 got comfortable that there was anything going on
5 but a 100 percent focus on the Ramseys."

It is a possibility that he is telling the truth, which would reveal alot of character on his part. "Look, I am innocent as can be, but of course you don't know that. I understand that. And you must consider us suspects given we were in the house at the time, etc. Got it. That is fine. However, you did set up a tip line and when I tried to use it, I got zero. That made me feel uncomfortable. Real uncomfortable. It told me you were focusing your efforts on us, alone. Her murderer is out there somewhere and obviously you will not pursue that seriously." Imagine his frustration.

No, my understanding of this is actually it was the R's investigators who set up the tip line, not the Police! The R's were doing everything in their power to help find the killer. When they got tips on this line and JR tried to pass them on to the Police, they don't take his calls and they don't call back!

It's part of the RDI thing to assume that any 'leads' to anyone else are in fact simply attempts by the R's to deflect the investigation away from them.

WHITEFANG
05-06-2010, 10:29 PM
"There's just one thing wrong with that. PR admitted she never painted with those clothes on or went into that room with them on. It's in the 2000 interviews."

There were a washer and dryer in the basement. Guess how far tiny particles of clothing fibers can float in the warm, light air from a dryer vent? Patsy's clothing fibers and hair fibers should be present in every crack and crevice of the structure of the house and the items within it.

WHITEFANG
05-06-2010, 11:20 PM
The problem there, fang, is that when deep shock sets in, it draws blood AWAY from the skin to better support the internals.

Yet, there should be some indication on the scalp of leaking blood.
Did she have a CAT Scan?

DeeDee249
05-06-2010, 11:32 PM
The problem there, fang, is that when deep shock sets in, it draws blood AWAY from the skin to better support the internals.

Yet, there should be some indication on the scalp of leaking blood.
Did she have a CAT Scan?


No cat scan is usually done on a dead person. They did an autopsy. There was nothing noted at the autopsy that there was bruising of the scalp or any indication that there was bleeding inside the skull. According to those present at the autopsy (which included Det. Arndt and I believe Det. Trujillo and another medical examiner besides Mayer) Mayer was surprised to find the skull fracture, and didn't find it until he peeled back her scalp to remove the skull cap (standard procedure). Then, he saw the subdural bleeding and bleeding into the subarachnoid space.
There WAS note made of "tan mucous" in her nostrils, and the dried fluid on her cheek had been described as "tan" also. To me, "tan" means blood-tinged because blood turns brownish when it dries. Had she lived longer, there would almost surely been more blood coming from her nose, ears and mouth.

BTW, Patsy told LE she didn't buy "that kind of tissue" when shown a picture of the tissue box on the table with the pineapple bowl, and I believe at one point in the beginning she claimed the bowl looked unfamiliar. Then, of course, her prints turned up on it.

WHITEFANG
05-06-2010, 11:48 PM
Thank you DeeDee :)

Yes, that is what I was asking. Thank you!

So, this case is in limbo? I remember earlier when I first came to WS, some were talking about new LE working on this case? But, I may be very confused about that...

On Cold Case Files(and The Investigators), the real shows not the drama shows, when new officers come along and take the case they get to go through all of the old evidence.

Could or would or did or has that ever happened in this case? Does it have to become a "cold case" first? What makes a case an "unresolved murder" vs. a "cold case?"

I am confused all over websleuths today. I have really hit a wall in my understanding of how our LE and law deal with crime of this nature(meaning murder). Between this case, Haleigh and Caylee...

It is just an opinion I am forming but humanity needs to rethink what LE needs to do their job better(I find no fault with individual LE, I am speaking of the system in general) and to rethink the power lawyers have. I don't have any answers and I know what I have just said probably falls under the favorite adult catch-all "it's not that easy, simple" but its how I feel right now.

I know we are not in a perfect world...but, what could it hurt but to bring justice for JB: to let the information/evidence be seen by new officers, or LE outside of those that originally had the case? I'm just babbling...I don't expect you guys to answer this stuff. I get that there are answers for all of this, (I need to do more reading) but none of them seem right or fair. IMHO.

If I had been accused of hurting my daughter the way the Ramsey's did, I would beg for my day in court. I would want to show everyone in the world I did not murder my child. IMO.

:twocents:

that's some excellent babbling! if that's what it's called.

rethinking the power lawyers have is or should be at the top of the list, along with the power and corruption of judges and the meaningless paths available to hold their fat butts accountable.


"This would not have prevented the petechia from forming due to the strangulation, there was plenty of time for the strangulation to follow the head bash, as death may have taken UP TO an hour. Not only would JB have been rendered unconscious by such a severe blow, but she may have slipped into a coma"

HMMM Which is it? Should there have been a visible contusion on her scalp or not? If this statement is true, then yes.

"If I had been accused of hurting my daughter the way the Ramsey's did, I would beg for my day in court. I would want to show everyone in the world I did not murder my child. IMO."

I held this point of view my whole life. Come hell or high water, I'll show 'em. In court, I'll have my opportunity to tell it like it really is. No one can stop me from having my day in court, when I know I'm right. One of the most disturbing and saddest events in my life involve our judiciary. If I told you in detail what happened as I worked with two lawyers, one federal judge and three agencies of the federal government, you would not believe it. I still can't believe it.

It would be exceedingly dangerous for the Ramseys to go to court to prove they are innocent, even if they are 100% free of any/all guilt associated with anything to do with this horror. A court of law is a lot like hell. Truth is immaterial. Evidence can be what skillful/deceptive legal maneuvering allows it to be. Judges turn out to be nothing more than what they really are, many times, lawyers in black gowns.

MurriFlower
05-06-2010, 11:50 PM
BTW, Patsy told LE she didn't buy "that kind of tissue" when shown a picture of the tissue box on the table with the pineapple bowl, and I believe at one point in the beginning she claimed the bowl looked unfamiliar. Then, of course, her prints turned up on it.

No I couldn't find any reference to the tissue or to her not claiming the bowl, but I haven't read everything written on this case, and as you refuse to 'share' it makes it hard to find the source for some of the things you claim.

Would it have been possible that the housekeeper bought things for the house occasionally? I don't think it's mentioned anywhere, but it would be a normal thing to do. I was thinking of this earlier, perhaps PR even let LHP have her store/credit/debit card to make these purchases?

DeeDee249
05-07-2010, 12:42 AM
No I couldn't find any reference to the tissue or to her not claiming the bowl, but I haven't read everything written on this case, and as you refuse to 'share' it makes it hard to find the source for some of the things you claim.

Would it have been possible that the housekeeper bought things for the house occasionally? I don't think it's mentioned anywhere, but it would be a normal thing to do. I was thinking of this earlier, perhaps PR even let LHP have her store/credit/debit card to make these purchases?

Just go and read Patsy's interviews for yourself. It's not a matter of sharing. I read for a year before I even joined here, and I'd rather you read for yourself than simply source it for you. You can read all of Patsy's interviews word for word, on acandyrose. There were at least 4 with Patsy and about the same with JR. The one where she discussed the tissue box MIGHT be the 98 or the 97, but scroll down each one till you find the line of questioning about the pineapple. That is the one where she discussed the bowl, spoon and tissue box.
These are the actual transcripts of the interviews and not someone's opinion or memories about what was said. I feel these interviews are the most important reading material on the case for all of us, RDI or IDI.

MurriFlower
05-07-2010, 01:10 AM
Just go and read Patsy's interviews for yourself. It's not a matter of sharing. I read for a year before I even joined here, and I'd rather you read for yourself than simply source it for you. You can read all of Patsy's interviews word for word, on acandyrose. There were at least 4 with Patsy and about the same with JR. The one where she discussed the tissue box MIGHT be the 98 or the 97, but scroll down each one till you find the line of questioning about the pineapple. That is the one where she discussed the bowl, spoon and tissue box.
These are the actual transcripts of the interviews and not someone's opinion or memories about what was said. I feel these interviews are the most important reading material on the case for all of us, RDI or IDI.

Might this be the reference you were thinking of?

15 TRIP DEMUTH: Look at all those pictures,

16 242, 43 and 44 and 45 together.

17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is the little bathroom in

18 the basement.

19 TOM HANEY: Anything out of place or unusual

20 in those photos?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, the bathroom we hadn't

22 utilized very much. These little Christmas decorations

23 were left over from -- I had put those there when we

24 had the home tour two years earlier, because the

25 volunteers used this area and I had a bathroom

0408

1 available.

2 TRIP DEMUTH: That photo 244 was shut, is

3 that how you left them?

4 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that, yes. I would have

5 left that. I left it like that.

6 Now this, I don't know what that is -- why

7 that would be there.

8 TRIP DEMUTH: Pointing to like tissue.

9 PATSY RAMSEY: It is like tissue something,

10 because I remember I specifically asked Linda some time

11 in the not-so-distant future to go down and clean that

12 bathroom because I think one of the boys had used the

13 bathroom and not flushed it. It was kind of yucko, so

14 she had gone down there. So I don't know if that is

15 her cleaning rag she left there or what.

16 TOM HANEY: Do you know for a fact that she

17 did clean it, could she have been in there since?

18 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I don't remember that too

19 much about that bathroom.

20 TOM HANEY: When you were present she wasn't

21 in there?

22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. The door was usually

23 closed because that -- that door opens right when you

24 came down those steps. (Inaudible). There are a bunch

25 of smears on here.

0409

or maybe this one?

"23 TOM HANEY: We left off, I think, with 376,

24 the bible. Now 377.

25 PATSY RAMSEY: That looks like the counter

0456

1 top of the basement bathroom (inaudible). Tissue or

2 something. I don't know what that would be.

3 (Inaudible).

4 TOM HANEY: That is which bathroom?

5 PATSY RAMSEY: I think this is the basement,

6 the little bathroom there in the basement. I mean, it

7 is the only one that had -- the other ones had

8 different counter tops.

9 TOM HANEY: Okay. So would that be normal or

10 be expected there?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I just -- I just told

12 you, you know, the boys usually -- it looks like Burke

13 has been in there or somebody was there with an

14 airplane in there. But I don't know what would be

15 blue. I just -- I didn't go down there much, if ever.

If so, I'm not sure it was a 'box of tissues' because I remember seeing a photo of the bathroom on ACR with something that looks like clothes or rags on the floor. I'm wondering if that's what was shown to PR. I believe that PR referred to toilet paper as "tissue". There are a couple of other references in that interview but I think they all refer to toilet paper.

madeleine
05-07-2010, 02:59 AM
Please remind everyone that to the layman JonBenet likely appeared to be dead or near death from the blunt trauma to the head. At that point, a ligature device as a staging instrument is in the realm of possibility.

It also seems obvious to me that whoever is responsible for that trauma suspected she was dead or so near death as to render survival as little more than being in a vegetative state. It is highly unlikely she would have survived such trauma and I suspect the offender could have thought so too.

If it was an accident and not planned that means they did love their daughter so I guess they would have been sane enough to CHECK if she's dead or not before putting a cord around her neck and pulling it!!!Or inserting a paintbrush in her vagina!Wouldn't you NEED to be sure?God this is getting ridiculous.

madeleine
05-07-2010, 03:01 AM
It's not obvious to me at all that a parent (not a sick one,remember,we are talking about an accident) would become so brutal and put a cord around a child's neck and pull it ,then sexually assault her WITHOUT making S U R E she IS dead!

BOESP
05-07-2010, 07:31 AM
"There's just one thing wrong with that. PR admitted she never painted with those clothes on or went into that room with them on. It's in the 2000 interviews."

There were a washer and dryer in the basement. Guess how far tiny particles of clothing fibers can float in the warm, light air from a dryer vent? Patsy's clothing fibers and hair fibers should be present in every crack and crevice of the structure of the house and the items within it.

Do you know whether or not Patsy dry-cleaned the garment in question or home-laundered it?

BOESP
05-07-2010, 07:36 AM
If it was an accident and not planned that means they did love their daughter so I guess they would have been sane enough to CHECK if she's dead or not before putting a cord around her neck and pulling it!!!Or inserting a paintbrush in her vagina!Wouldn't you NEED to be sure?God this is getting ridiculous.

Self preservation causes humans to do strange things.

Perhaps you don't understand clinical death versus a layman's observation.

madeleine
05-07-2010, 07:43 AM
Self preservation causes humans to do strange things.

Perhaps you don't understand clinical death versus a layman's observation.

Perhaps I don't,yeah.
Even so ,PR finishing JB off by pulling that garrote not knowing she was still alive is pure SPECULATION.No proof or even suggestion whatsoever that this is what happened there.

madeleine
05-07-2010, 07:49 AM
How can you even say PR bashed her head,you don't even know which came frist,head blow or strangulation,you don't even know what she was hit with or whether she fell or was pushed,you don't know where it happened nor when it happened.What are you basing this theory on anyway?LHP saying JB wet the bed and ST finding some diapers on a shelf?

BOESP
05-07-2010, 08:09 AM
Perhaps I don't,yeah.
Even so ,PR finishing JB off by pulling that garrote not knowing she was still alive is pure SPECULATION.No proof or even suggestion whatsoever that this is what happened there.

I do agree that most of what is posted is pure speculation and sometimes wild speculation.

madeleine
05-07-2010, 08:26 AM
I do agree that most of what is posted is pure speculation and sometimes wild speculation.

We are just posters on a forum,it probably doesn't matter much with respect to JB ever getting justice.We can change our minds,speculate,have wild theories.I guess what bothers me most is that the people who could have solved this behaved exactly like we do!It's not a big deal that we have ego's and stick to our theory and maybe don't wanna see both sides of the story sometimes and it's not our job to find the killer but it's frustrating to see that those who should have done this in a serious manner were only into playing games.

madeleine
05-07-2010, 08:37 AM
The so-called evidence against the Ramsey's sounds more like evidence a defence lawyer would use when defending an intruder than evidence a prosecutor would/COULD use against a Ramsey.Does this make sense?

joeskidbeck
05-07-2010, 09:03 AM
The so-called evidence against the Ramsey's sounds more like evidence a defence lawyer would use when defending an intruder than evidence a prosecutor would/COULD use against a Ramsey.Does this make sense?

Absolutely and vice versa.

BOESP
05-07-2010, 09:29 AM
We are just posters on a forum,it probably doesn't matter much with respect to JB ever getting justice.We can change our minds,speculate,have wild theories.I guess what bothers me most is that the people who could have solved this behaved exactly like we do!It's not a big deal that we have ego's and stick to our theory and maybe don't wanna see both sides of the story sometimes and it's not our job to find the killer but it's frustrating to see that those who should have done this in a serious manner were only into playing games.

I don't agree with the above statement but I respect the right to express your opinion, differing or not.

In my opinion, those assigned to investigate this case are the best capable of forming an opinion that is accurate, however, it seems to have become a hobby to kill the messenger. Having an IDI opinion based on saying LE were incompetent scumbags who were playing games and didn't do their job is not going to sway my opinion.

Reading the autopsy, studying various photographs, reading the depositions (albeit derivative copies), ransom note and reading Steve Thomas's and the Ramsey books are the "sources" on which I base my opinion. We all have one.

madeleine
05-07-2010, 09:44 AM
I don't agree with the above statement but I respect the right to express your opinion, differing or not.

In my opinion, those assigned to investigate this case are the best capable of forming an opinion that is accurate, however, it seems to have become a hobby to kill the messenger. Having an IDI opinion based on saying LE were incompetent scumbags who were playing games and didn't do their job is not going to sway my opinion.

Reading the autopsy, studying various photographs, reading the depositions (albeit derivative copies), ransom note and reading Steve Thomas's and the Ramsey books are the "sources" on which I base my opinion. We all have one.

I am not killing the messenger,he does a pretty good job at that himself.LE were incompetent scumbags and I can say the same thing you say about me making it a hobby about others whose hobby was and still is to call people killers without proof.
You say one thing you base your opinion on is ST's book .Well most of the things he says in his book prove to be lies.He admits it in his depo and he settled with the Ramsey's.
I am not having an IDI opinion based on saying they were incompetent,I am just not willing to believe RDI anymore,based on saying/believing and seeing they were incompetent.So if it's not RDI,it has to be IDI.

BOESP
05-07-2010, 09:51 AM
I am not killing the messenger,he does a pretty good job at that himself.LE were incompetent scumbags and I can say the same thing you say about me making it a hobby about others whose hobby was and still is to call people killers without proof.
You say one thing you base your opinion on is ST's book .Well most of the things he says in his book prove to be lies.He admits it in his depo and he settled with the Ramsey's.
I am not having an IDI opinion based on saying they were incompetent,I am just not willing to believe RDI anymore,based on saying/believing and seeing they were incompetent.So if it's not RDI,it has to be IDI.

Bold #1: I didn't say any such thing about you. I made a general comment. Slamming people with differing opinions has become a hobby on this board. If that shoe fits and you want to wear it, that's your choice.

Bold #2: Not exactly. This has also been covered ad nauseum. Basically, the Ramsey's sued, the publisher settled out of court because it's cheaper to do it that way than disprove the allegations; the book was not recalled nor were reprints changed in any way. Nothing changed except the Ramseys took their money and ran all the way to the bank, in my opinion.

DeeDee249
05-07-2010, 11:08 AM
Might this be the reference you were thinking of?

15 TRIP DEMUTH: Look at all those pictures,

16 242, 43 and 44 and 45 together.

17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is the little bathroom in

18 the basement.

19 TOM HANEY: Anything out of place or unusual

20 in those photos?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, the bathroom we hadn't

22 utilized very much. These little Christmas decorations

23 were left over from -- I had put those there when we

24 had the home tour two years earlier, because the

25 volunteers used this area and I had a bathroom

0408

1 available.

2 TRIP DEMUTH: That photo 244 was shut, is

3 that how you left them?

4 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that, yes. I would have

5 left that. I left it like that.

6 Now this, I don't know what that is -- why

7 that would be there.

8 TRIP DEMUTH: Pointing to like tissue.

9 PATSY RAMSEY: It is like tissue something,

10 because I remember I specifically asked Linda some time

11 in the not-so-distant future to go down and clean that

12 bathroom because I think one of the boys had used the

13 bathroom and not flushed it. It was kind of yucko, so

14 she had gone down there. So I don't know if that is

15 her cleaning rag she left there or what.

16 TOM HANEY: Do you know for a fact that she

17 did clean it, could she have been in there since?

18 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I don't remember that too

19 much about that bathroom.

20 TOM HANEY: When you were present she wasn't

21 in there?

22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. The door was usually

23 closed because that -- that door opens right when you

24 came down those steps. (Inaudible). There are a bunch

25 of smears on here.

0409

or maybe this one?

"23 TOM HANEY: We left off, I think, with 376,

24 the bible. Now 377.

25 PATSY RAMSEY: That looks like the counter

0456

1 top of the basement bathroom (inaudible). Tissue or

2 something. I don't know what that would be.

3 (Inaudible).

4 TOM HANEY: That is which bathroom?

5 PATSY RAMSEY: I think this is the basement,

6 the little bathroom there in the basement. I mean, it

7 is the only one that had -- the other ones had

8 different counter tops.

9 TOM HANEY: Okay. So would that be normal or

10 be expected there?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I just -- I just told

12 you, you know, the boys usually -- it looks like Burke

13 has been in there or somebody was there with an

14 airplane in there. But I don't know what would be

15 blue. I just -- I didn't go down there much, if ever.

If so, I'm not sure it was a 'box of tissues' because I remember seeing a photo of the bathroom on ACR with something that looks like clothes or rags on the floor. I'm wondering if that's what was shown to PR. I believe that PR referred to toilet paper as "tissue". There are a couple of other references in that interview but I think they all refer to toilet paper.


No. I am talking about the one where they are showing her photos and discussing the bowl of pineapple, glass and things on the table.

DeeDee249
05-07-2010, 11:20 AM
Do you know whether or not Patsy dry-cleaned the garment in question or home-laundered it?

In one of her interviews posted at ACR, Patsy is questioned at length about that jacket/sweater and LE had originally thought it was wool, and is corrected and told it is acrylic. Patsy spoke of it being laundered, mentioning that although she didn't recall washing it in the basement laundry, perhaps LHP had.
We have all seen this type of fleece- Patagonia shirts and Old Navy Performance Fleece. I have a top made of that, too. It is easy to see how it can be confusing as to whether it is a jacket or sweater, as it is soft and unconstructed. I'd describe it as a soft jacket. It was meant to be worn over another top, and I believe Patsy wore it over a red sweater, with black velvet jeans. It was why she wanted JB to wear the red turtleneck that day, because JB was also wearing black velvet jean and matching vest. JB refused, wanting to wear the white top with the silver sequin star. The whole outfit came from the Gap Kids and JB wanted to wear the outfit together. Patsy relented and she wore the white top.
As usual, LW dances all around the questions, and tries to prevent Patsy from answering on the grounds that she had already been asked these questions. As the interview progresses, LE makes it clear that the reason they are asking about the jacket is because they have information that the fibers identical to that jacket were found in (their words) "three places related to the crime"- the paint tote, tape and garrote knot.
This interview too place in 2000, about 5 years after the death of JB.

madeleine
05-07-2010, 12:43 PM
Bold #1: I didn't say any such thing about you. I made a general comment. Slamming people with differing opinions has become a hobby on this board. If that shoe fits and you want to wear it, that's your choice.



Look,I am not trying to sway your opinion.It would be like trying to convince HOTYH to take in consideration that a Ramsey did it.What happened to me is that I based my RDI theories on stuff that proves to be hear-say and gossip and leaks.Stuff like fibers and handwriting and when trying to get to the bottom of it I realized there were no reports who confirmed such things.ST admits that everything he put in his book he heard from X and Y,Beckner's answers are I dont' know,I have no idea.

Please show me an official report that states that those fibers are a match or that PR wrote the note.
JB was alive when strangled and sexually assaulted(it's confirmed by the autopsy report and ST),your only explanation is that PR thought she was dead when she did the staging.I am sorry,not good enough.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 04:18 PM
Re Patsy on CNN.Did she seem in a good shape to you?Capable of answering questions that require a clear head?I wouldn't have allowed her to answer LE questions in that shape either.Imagine what would have said the likes of ST THEN.

Judging from his reactions, I think JR was regretting letting her go on as well.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 04:22 PM
But I know how much ST loves statistics.

Not just him.


I guess I blame others for interpreting what Walker told them and using it as an excuse for what they did or didn't do. I don't think that he even knew who he's dealing with,I bet he would have explained them in a different manner what he meant.

That I can understand.


If you take what he said out of the big picture maybe his intentions were good and he wanted to help those newbies out. But look what came out of it and if you add Arndt and Thomas to the bowl you end up with the reason why this is still a cold case.

There are a lot of reasons why this is a cold case, madeleine. That ain't one of them.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 04:25 PM
I know they were,or better said they just pretended to do that...

I guess all I have to go on is what Henry Lee and Jeff Merrick have said.


I am sorry Dave,

I'm sorry, too. More than you know.


I just don't trust the way it was done anymore.

I don't either. Far as I go, this case is Patient Zero for how a murder investigation is not supposed to work. But I believe my own eyes and ears.


Take the house-keeper for example. They spent all the time with building a theory based on LHP's claims

First I've heard that she had any influence over what they did.


but they never bothered to talk to the other one who had nothing bad to say about the Ramsey's. (sorry forgot her name now).

Linda Wilcox? She didn't do them any favors either.

Holdontoyourhat
05-07-2010, 04:45 PM
I don't either. Far as I go, this case is Patient Zero for how a murder investigation is not supposed to work. But I believe my own eyes and ears.


Far as you go, I'm sure it seems that way.

There is now enough evidence to indicate an intruder did it. This evidence was not available at the time (1997) as a result there was much erroneous speculation.

Now, here in 2010 its pretty clear that the parental links that were taken for granted back in 1997 were never actually known. LE now acknowledges this, as evidenced by their willingness to test new people outside the family, and their unwillingness to cling to the old RDI lines.

Its possible that its worse to convict an innocent person than it is to let a killer go free. This means the investigation has been working correctly.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 04:50 PM
How do you explain the sexual assault when even ST confirms that all the experts agreed she was ALIVE when it happened?

Quite easily. Just because she was alive doesn't mean that they knew it. A person is technically alive as long as their heart is beating, but that's far and away different from what the Rs are trying to suggest. Let me give you an example. My father--RIP--was a Marine in Vietnam. He saw things no man should ever see. One night his squad came upon a Montagnard man lying along a path. His head was blown half-off. The blood was congealed; bugs were crawling on him. He'd been lying there for some time. They all thought he was dead. He wasn't. He was still technically alive. He "lived" for another two hours.

Now, with that in mind, let's remember one important thing: the vaginal lips of a child this age have to be manually separated. That means that whomever inserted the brush handle (and I believe that was what it was) would have had to hold her open with the other hand. Now, how would they have been strangling her at the same time as that was going on? And do you really think she would have just lay there docile when the pain of the intrusion set in?

THAT's how!


She was ALIVE when she was strangled (the autopsy report says so). You can't say that these were parts of a staging anymore.

Oh, can't I? Where are the signs that she fought? The mark on her neck was a completely unbroken line. There was no sign of struggle against it at all. Her mouth was completely free of bite marks. So, unless you're trying to argue that she was used to playing choking games and this one just went too far, I don't see how a child who was in any shape to resist would not resist.

It's too bad Ames isn't here. She could tell you firsthand what it's like to be strangled!


What proof of staging is there, Dave?

What proof is there? Where would you like me to start? The fact that the person who assaulted her would have to use both hands in order to insert the paintbrush? The fact that her hair was tied into the garrote knot, which means that it had to be made on her body? That there were no defensive wounds on her hands or arms? That the mark on her neck was completely neat? No damage to her neck muscles, no damage to her tongue? That the cord tied around her wrists wouldn't restrain a baby?

Madeleine, I've told you all of this before. And you agreed with it then! Your newly discovered distrust of the police doesn't change ANY of these factors.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 05:01 PM
There are experts who say that PR wrote the note,experts who say that JMK wrote the note,experts who can't eliminate some other suspects,experts who state that pr definitely DIDN'T write the note.What is this mess?

It's a mess, all right. Problem is, I'm not aware of any expert who said that PR definitely did not write the note.


It was a civil case where a suspect blamed another suspect.

No argument, here. Civil cases aren't much in terms of pursuing truth.


And they didn't even analyze the originals. Please let me have my doubts re this.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about doubts, but what I will say is that it probably wouldn't make any difference in this particular instance whether they were originals or not, since the writings were done with such an imprecise writing implement.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 05:03 PM
Please remind everyone that to the layman JonBenet likely appeared to be dead or near death from the blunt trauma to the head. At that point, a ligature device as a staging instrument is in the realm of possibility.

It also seems obvious to me that whoever is responsible for that trauma suspected she was dead or so near death as to render survival as little more than being in a vegetative state. It is highly unlikely she would have survived such trauma and I suspect the offender could have thought so too.

Thank you!

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 05:08 PM
"12 JOHN RAMSEY: We are comfortable with that.
13 We never objected to being looked at. We
14 understand that, logically, we were in the house.
15 Okay. We accept that in an objective
16 investigation. What became concerning to us is,
17 our investigators, you know, had a tip line;
18 they'd get calls, you know. I tried to call the
19 Boulder police for five days for a month. They
20 won't return my call. I have a lead, you know. I'm
21 anxious to tell someone.
22 I lost count of the number of times that happened.
23 It started to occur to us that they're just
24 blowing off the other inputs on this. You know,
25 they're so focused on the Ramseys that nothing
0025
1 else is getting looked at. We said early on,
2 (Look, you're spending too much time on us. Look
3 elsewhere as well and we'll be fine.̃ But we never
4 got comfortable that there was anything going on
5 but a 100 percent focus on the Ramseys."

You'll have to forgive me if I don't naively swallow that propaganda whole.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 05:13 PM
[quote=WHITEFANG;5156365]The R's were doing everything in their power to help find the killer.

Give me a break! JR admitted that he never even read the reports of his own investigators.

Tell me something: how does sabotaging potential witnesses help find the killer? Because I've got one hell of an example for you!


It's part of the RDI thing to assume that any 'leads' to anyone else are in fact simply attempts by the R's to deflect the investigation away from them.

It's NOT an assumption. JR stated himself that the private investigators were hired solely to build a defense in case he or PR were ever charged. "To keep us out of jail."

I was an IDI when I first read that, MurriFlower. What kind of effect do you think that had on me? There's a reason I'm like I am now.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 05:15 PM
"There's just one thing wrong with that. PR admitted she never painted with those clothes on or went into that room with them on. It's in the 2000 interviews."

There were a washer and dryer in the basement. Guess how far tiny particles of clothing fibers can float in the warm, light air from a dryer vent? Patsy's clothing fibers and hair fibers should be present in every crack and crevice of the structure of the house and the items within it.

I figured you'd say that. Problem is, there's no evidence I'm aware of that those items were laundered along with that blanket.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 05:18 PM
The problem there, fang, is that when deep shock sets in, it draws blood AWAY from the skin to better support the internals.

Yet, there should be some indication on the scalp of leaking blood.

The autopsy describes an extensive scalp hemorrhage, Fang. What more do you want?

Look, I realize this isn't the kind of answer you want, especially from me, but head wounds are EXTREMELY quirky. They're the most unpredictable kind of wound there is. There's no real explanation as yet for why one head wound does A and another does B.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 05:28 PM
If it was an accident and not planned that means they did love their daughter so I guess they would have been sane enough to CHECK if she's dead or not before putting a cord around her neck and pulling it!!!Or inserting a paintbrush in her vagina!Wouldn't you NEED to be sure?

Assuming that they had a chance to check before too much time had passed, that's no guarantee they would have found anything. It's hard enough to know where to look and what to look for when you're perfectly calm, much less in whatever emotional state they might have been in.

BOESP is right: we have to understand the difference between clinical death and what a layperson would think.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 05:32 PM
The so-called evidence against the Ramsey's sounds more like evidence a defence lawyer would use when defending an intruder than evidence a prosecutor would/COULD use against a Ramsey.Does this make sense?

I don't agree, but I understand what you mean.

DeeDee249
05-07-2010, 05:35 PM
I figured you'd say that. Problem is, there's no evidence I'm aware of that those items were laundered along with that blanket.

The jacket couldn't have been. Patsy was wearing the jacket and the blanket was on her dead daughter. If Patsy pulled the blanket out of the dryer while WEARING that jacket, then of course....
This could only have happened after JB's death.
The crime photos from that morning show a bed with the bottom still made, no blanket on the bed, and no blanket could have been pulled off that bed without disturbing it. LE discussed this very thing with Patsy when they showed her the photo.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 05:37 PM
There is now enough evidence to indicate an intruder did it.

Not unless you can place someone there.


LE now acknowledges this, as evidenced by their willingness to test new people outside the family, and their unwillingness to cling to the old RDI lines.

ONE DA does not constitute LE. Far from it.

BOESP
05-07-2010, 06:05 PM
...
Please show me an official report that states that those fibers are a match or that PR wrote the note.
JB was alive when strangled and sexually assaulted(it's confirmed by the autopsy report and ST),your only explanation is that PR thought she was dead when she did the staging.I am sorry,not good enough.

Sorry, I don't do free research for others. Websleuths has a great search engine. I just explained "consistent with" yesterday so that one, especially, shouldn't be hard to find.

MurriFlower
05-07-2010, 07:24 PM
Sorry, I don't do free research for others. Websleuths has a great search engine. I just explained "consistent with" yesterday so that one, especially, shouldn't be hard to find.


Ok, well this fiber business is bogging us down, but as it is the basis upon which many people formed their RDI theory, I think it needs to be addressed.

If any of you are prepared to accept testimony over heresay, here are some quotes.

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
STEVEN THOMAS
September 21, 2001 9:07 a.m.

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

Addressing my questioning of actual evidence being produced showing the results of fiber testing on the duct tape:

"14 Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Well, you know
15 what, I'm just confusing the issue. I'm
16 going to drop that line of questioning and
17 just ask you, did you have occasion to
18 actually see the CBI report that indicated
19 that there was a likely match for Patsy's
20 blazer with the acrylic fiber found on the
21 duct tape?
22A. Not that I recall. Detective
23 Trujillo, who was in charge of all the
24 evidence and forensic testing in this case,
25 he and Wickman verbally offered that to the
159
1 rest of the detective team.
2 Q. All right. So you never
3 personally saw a report with that result or
4 that conclusion?
5 A. I'm relying on a fellow officer.
"

Now to the evidence about any of PR's clothing fibers found on JBR's clothes:

"4 Q. Yeah, when JonBenet Ramsey was
5 found she was wearing I don't know what other
6 word there is for it but panties and there
7 was a question as to whether or not there
8 were substances found in that panty area.
9 What I'm asking you is do you know if there
10 was ever any forensic evidence indicating that
11 any article of clothing that Patsy wore was
12 found as a particle in that panty area of
13 JonBenet?
14 A. No, I am unaware of any forensic
15 or fiber evidence from Patsy Ramsey's clothing
16 to the victim's under clothing or underwear.
17 Q. Do you know if there was any
18 forensic evidence of Patsy Ramsey's clothing
19 at all besides the duct tape area on
20 JonBenet?
21 A. As we sit here now, no, I don't
22 recollect any other fiber evidence, other than
23 what we have discussed linking the mother to
24 JonBenet.
"

Now, to the fibers found on the duct tape (four in all!), said to be consistent with PRs jacket.

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

And as to whether these were actually from PR's jacket:

"10 Q. Were you aware of the fact that
11 Priscilla White owned an identical jacket,
12 that in fact Patsy Ramsey bought her jacket
13 because she liked Priscilla White's so much?
14 A. Until you told me that right now,
15 no.
16 Q. So I assume that no request, that
17 you're aware of, was ever made for the Whites
18 to give articles of clothing with respect to
19 this investigation?
20 A. They may have been asked to give
21 clothing; I'm unaware of that.
"

Now to the other fibres found:

''24 Q. How about brown cotton fibers that
25 were found on the duct tape, the cord and
416
1 her body that were consistent but no source
2 found? Is that accurate?
3 A. That were consistent with what?
4 Q. They were consistent with each
5 other, those fibers, the brown cotton fibers
6 that were consistent with fibers found on
7 duct tape, cords and her body?
8 A. That's beyond the scope of what I
9 know and just to educate you, if you allow
10 me.
11 Q. Sure.
12 A. Anything hair and fiber related,
13 Trujillo knows.
"

and

"
25 Q. And, you know, without going and I
246
1 guess we could do it if we need to, maybe
2 we'll do it later but let's just for a
3 moment see if we can't generally agree, that
4 there were a considerable number of fibers
5 found on JonBenet Ramsey's body and articles
6 of clothing that were not in fact sourced by
7 the investigation, true?
8 A. Whether artifact or evidence, yeah,
9 there were a number of hair and fiber pieces
10 in this case that I know they, Trujillo and
11 CBI, were trying to source.
12 Q. And as of August of '98 had not
13 been able to do so, true?
14 A. That's my understanding.
"

I'm not sure at all that I would form an opinion of PR's guilt based on four red fibres found on the tape (which were 'consistent' with the type of jacket PR wore and which was similar to PW's) amongst many other 'unsourced' fibres found in and around JBR's body and on the tape and on the garrotte.

Even if Trujillo produced the report, I'm not sure it would mean much based on what was said above.

SuperDave
05-07-2010, 07:49 PM
Ok, well this fiber business is bogging us down, but as it is the basis upon which many people formed their RDI theory, I think it needs to be addressed.

If any of you are prepared to accept testimony over heresay, here are some quotes.

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
STEVEN THOMAS
September 21, 2001 9:07 a.m.

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

Addressing my questioning of actual evidence being produced showing the results of fiber testing on the duct tape:

"14 Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Well, you know
15 what, I'm just confusing the issue. I'm
16 going to drop that line of questioning and
17 just ask you, did you have occasion to
18 actually see the CBI report that indicated
19 that there was a likely match for Patsy's
20 blazer with the acrylic fiber found on the
21 duct tape?
22A. Not that I recall. Detective
23 Trujillo, who was in charge of all the
24 evidence and forensic testing in this case,
25 he and Wickman verbally offered that to the
159
1 rest of the detective team.
2 Q. All right. So you never
3 personally saw a report with that result or
4 that conclusion?
5 A. I'm relying on a fellow officer.
"

Now to the evidence about any of PR's clothing fibers found on JBR's clothes:

"4 Q. Yeah, when JonBenet Ramsey was
5 found she was wearing I don't know what other
6 word there is for it but panties and there
7 was a question as to whether or not there
8 were substances found in that panty area.
9 What I'm asking you is do you know if there
10 was ever any forensic evidence indicating that
11 any article of clothing that Patsy wore was
12 found as a particle in that panty area of
13 JonBenet?
14 A. No, I am unaware of any forensic
15 or fiber evidence from Patsy Ramsey's clothing
16 to the victim's under clothing or underwear.
17 Q. Do you know if there was any
18 forensic evidence of Patsy Ramsey's clothing
19 at all besides the duct tape area on
20 JonBenet?
21 A. As we sit here now, no, I don't
22 recollect any other fiber evidence, other than
23 what we have discussed linking the mother to
24 JonBenet.
"

Now, to the fibers found on the duct tape (four in all!), said to be consistent with PRs jacket.

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

And as to whether these were actually from PR's jacket:

"10 Q. Were you aware of the fact that
11 Priscilla White owned an identical jacket,
12 that in fact Patsy Ramsey bought her jacket
13 because she liked Priscilla White's so much?
14 A. Until you told me that right now,
15 no.
16 Q. So I assume that no request, that
17 you're aware of, was ever made for the Whites
18 to give articles of clothing with respect to
19 this investigation?
20 A. They may have been asked to give
21 clothing; I'm unaware of that.
"

Now to the other fibres found:

''24 Q. How about brown cotton fibers that
25 were found on the duct tape, the cord and
416
1 her body that were consistent but no source
2 found? Is that accurate?
3 A. That were consistent with what?
4 Q. They were consistent with each
5 other, those fibers, the brown cotton fibers
6 that were consistent with fibers found on
7 duct tape, cords and her body?
8 A. That's beyond the scope of what I
9 know and just to educate you, if you allow
10 me.
11 Q. Sure.
12 A. Anything hair and fiber related,
13 Trujillo knows.
"

and

"
25 Q. And, you know, without going and I
246
1 guess we could do it if we need to, maybe
2 we'll do it later but let's just for a
3 moment see if we can't generally agree, that
4 there were a considerable number of fibers
5 found on JonBenet Ramsey's body and articles
6 of clothing that were not in fact sourced by
7 the investigation, true?
8 A. Whether artifact or evidence, yeah,
9 there were a number of hair and fiber pieces
10 in this case that I know they, Trujillo and
11 CBI, were trying to source.
12 Q. And as of August of '98 had not
13 been able to do so, true?
14 A. That's my understanding.
"

I'm not sure at all that I would form an opinion of PR's guilt based on four red fibres found on the tape (which were 'consistent' with the type of jacket PR wore and which was similar to PW's) amongst many other 'unsourced' fibres found in and around JBR's body and on the tape and on the garrotte.

Even if Trujillo produced the report, I'm not sure it would mean much based on what was said above.

There's just one big problem, MurriFlower: all of his information and the questions that he was asked were based on what he knew back in 1998 when he left the police force, not necessarily what was known afterwards. Just take it with a grain of salt.

MurriFlower
05-07-2010, 07:54 PM
There's just one big problem, MurriFlower: all of his information and the questions that he was asked were based on what he knew back in 1998 when he left the police force, not necessarily what was known afterwards. Just take it with a grain of salt.

Oh really SD, and they found other evidence after 1998 that contradicts this?

MurriFlower
05-08-2010, 12:42 AM
Quite frankly, I'm amazed that anyone believes this "police out to get them" stuff.
I don't. It was stated that within 20 minutes of finding the body, the parents were the prime suspects. This didn't seem to change much.
I honestly don't know who stated that.

I was wrong, actually the police officer at the scene formed the opinion JR was guilty at the same time that he found the body.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO3 Civil Action No. 98-WY-1198-WD4
DEPOSITION OF LINDA ARNDT, VOL. I

Q. When did you first arrive at this opinion relative to the incident?
A. Which opinion?
Q. As to who killed JonBenet?
A. When John Ramsey came up with the steps with JonBenet in his arms
Q. I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. When John Ramsey came up the stairs with JonBenet
A. In his arms.
Q. That's when you formed the opinion?
A. That's when many things that had not made sense and were disturbing during the morning made sense
Q. All right. So you formed the conclusion he had done it?
A. It was clear that John had killed JonBenet.

DeeDee249
05-08-2010, 01:10 AM
However, the FBI, who were there before Det. Arndt and left before she arrived, DID suspect the parents right away. They told police "You're going to be finding her body".

Holdontoyourhat
05-08-2010, 01:35 AM
However, the FBI, who were there before Det. Arndt and left before she arrived, DID suspect the parents right away. They told police "You're going to be finding her body".

Thats cheery. What creep said that?

madeleine
05-08-2010, 04:27 AM
Sorry, I don't do free research for others. Websleuths has a great search engine. I just explained "consistent with" yesterday so that one, especially, shouldn't be hard to find.

I didn't ask you to do any research for me,I guess I showed I can do it by myself.I asked you something else and you know what I meant.But let's forget it.Yeah I know Beckner said "consistent with" but that was also hear-say,I've never seen any report.Maybe you have.

joeskidbeck
05-08-2010, 04:40 AM
I was wrong, actually the police officer at the scene formed the opinion JR was guilty at the same time that he found the body.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO3 Civil Action No. 98-WY-1198-WD4
DEPOSITION OF LINDA ARNDT, VOL. I

Q. When did you first arrive at this opinion relative to the incident?
A. Which opinion?
Q. As to who killed JonBenet?
A. When John Ramsey came up with the steps with JonBenet in his arms
Q. I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. When John Ramsey came up the stairs with JonBenet
A. In his arms.
Q. That's when you formed the opinion?
A. That's when many things that had not made sense and were disturbing during the morning made sense
Q. All right. So you formed the conclusion he had done it?
A. It was clear that John had killed JonBenet.


BBM
Does anyone know if she ever elaborated on that, and if so, where I can read that information? Thanks!

MurriFlower
05-08-2010, 05:00 AM
BBM
Does anyone know if she ever elaborated on that, and if so, where I can read that information? Thanks!

Linda Arndt's Deposition - Forums For Justice

madeleine
05-08-2010, 09:23 AM
Linda Wilcox? She didn't do them any favors either.

No.

7 Q. Did you ever interview Shirley

8 Brady, who had been a housekeeper for the

9 Ramseys for almost four years?

10 A. The name sounds familiar and if

11 it's the person I'm thinking of who resided

12 in Georgia I think Harmer or Gosage conducted

13 that interview.

14 Q. They would have prepared a report?

15 A. I would think so.

16 Q. Shirley Brady tells me that she

17 got a phone call and about a five-minute

18 interview and when she said she made it

19 pretty clear that the Ramseys weren't in any

20 way the type of people that could be involved

21 in this, that the interview ended and she

22 never heard from anybody again. Does that

23 sound like a thorough investigation if that's

24 true?

25 A. It depends on what the detectives

295

1 were doing. I don't know what they were

2 doing.

3 Q. Well, you know if you have got to

4 -- if you're spending a lot of time with

5 Linda Hoffmann-Pugh who had worked for them

6 less than two years and only worked part time

7 and you want to know all about this family's

8 background, a thorough investigation, wouldn't

9 you believe, sir, from your experience as a

10 police officer that you're going to spend

11 more than five minutes on the phone with

12 someone who was a housekeeper for three

13 years?

14 A. For some reason in my mind, and I

15 may be wrong, I don't think Mrs. Brady was

16 ever in Colorado with the family. There was

17 apparently nothing that the detective who

18 interviewed her felt was worth more than

19 their five minutes. You would have to ask

20 them.

Holdontoyourhat
05-08-2010, 11:42 AM
Linda Arndt's Deposition - Forums For Justice (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5650)


A small child carried up the stairs by an adult...the adult has to bend his knees while climbing, and pass thru a doorway. The only way to do that and carry a 6 1/2 year old at the same time is in front of you, upright, facing you, and held high to clear the knees. This is the way he did it. Held higher in front of him.

And a police detective doesn't understand that?

BOESP
05-08-2010, 11:54 AM
A small child carried up the stairs by an adult...the adult has to bend his knees while climbing, and pass thru a doorway. The only way to do that and carry a 6 1/2 year old at the same time is in front of you, upright, facing you, and held high to clear the knees. This is the way he did it. Held higher in front of him.

And a police detective doesn't understand that?

I understand that most parents would hold the child against them with both arms wrapped around the child in a protective stance. Forget the arms-length, up-and-away stance. That is called "distancing."

madeleine
05-08-2010, 12:55 PM
http://www.acandyrose.com/05312000larrykinglive.htm


KING: Are they looking at other suspects, by the way?


THOMAS: Yes, they -- it's interesting. The Ramseys at this point -- of course, the Boulder police will look at any legitimate suspect that's brought to them. But at this point, until the Ramseys satisfy the Boulder Police Department that they are not involved in this case...

KING: You're asking them to prove their innocence?

----------------------


THANK YOU ST :clap: for confirming once again that the BPD didn't look at other suspects

madeleine
05-08-2010, 01:02 PM
http://www.acandyrose.com/05312000larrykinglive.htm

THOMAS: My theory is quite simple: Whoever authored the ransom note killed the child, absent some great conspiracy, that they think this intruder came into the house.

At least there were some other people in the same camp trying to explain to the like of ST that the author of the RN isn't necessarily the killer.

madeleine
05-08-2010, 01:14 PM
I can understand his line of thinking now.In his mind,the RN author was the killer.What now.Let's bring in some experts for hire who will say that PR wrote the note.PR wrote the note>PR is the killer,I solved the case,my, was it easy.


Thank God this man was kicked.....ops,"resigned".

Holdontoyourhat
05-08-2010, 01:38 PM
I understand that most parents would hold the child against them with both arms wrapped around the child in a protective stance. Forget the arms-length, up-and-away stance. That is called "distancing."

Smother someone who isn't breathing? Interesting strategy for a complete moron.

PR throwing herself on JBR: Is that also called "distancing"? Give it up.

JR wouldn't hold JBR or anything that heavy with arms outstretched for very long. He was probably still assessing what was happening re: breathing.

Holdontoyourhat
05-08-2010, 01:43 PM
http://www.acandyrose.com/05312000larrykinglive.htm


KING: Are they looking at other suspects, by the way?


THOMAS: Yes, they -- it's interesting. The Ramseys at this point -- of course, the Boulder police will look at any legitimate suspect that's brought to them. But at this point, until the Ramseys satisfy the Boulder Police Department that they are not involved in this case...

KING: You're asking them to prove their innocence?

----------------------


THANK YOU ST :clap: for confirming once again that the BPD didn't look at other suspects

ST gave up a position that actually could've solved the murder, and instead wrote a book.

Don't know who did it? Write a book.

BOESP
05-08-2010, 01:53 PM
Smother someone who isn't breathing? Interesting strategy for a complete moron.

PR throwing herself on JBR: Is that also called "distancing"? Give it up.

JR wouldn't hold JBR or anything that heavy with arms outstretched for very long. He was probably still assessing what was happening re: breathing.

My response was to your comments on how John Ramsey brought JonBenet upstairs and, yes, holding her away from his body as we are told that he did is called "distancing." I don't see where I used the word "smother."

"PR throwing herself on JBR" is called "theatrics."

madeleine
05-08-2010, 02:01 PM
"PR throwing herself on JBR" is called "theatrics."

Were you there?

WHITEFANG
05-08-2010, 06:53 PM
My response was to your comments on how John Ramsey brought JonBenet upstairs and, yes, holding her away from his body as we are told that he did is called "distancing." I don't see where I used the word "smother."

"PR throwing herself on JBR" is called "theatrics."

Now, excuse me, as I clear my throat. You are stating this as a fact, is that right? I want to be clear. The mother of JonBenet throwing herself on her corpse was theatrics? Theatrics? Bold, straightforward, clear indictment that Patsy feigned her anguish over JonBenet?

WHITEFANG
05-08-2010, 07:04 PM
Bold #1: I didn't say any such thing about you. I made a general comment. Slamming people with differing opinions has become a hobby on this board. If that shoe fits and you want to wear it, that's your choice.

Bold #2: Not exactly. This has also been covered ad nauseum. Basically, the Ramsey's sued, the publisher settled out of court because it's cheaper to do it that way than disprove the allegations; the book was not recalled nor were reprints changed in any way. Nothing changed except the Ramseys took their money and ran all the way to the bank, in my opinion.

Basically, the Ramsey's sued, the publisher settled out of court because it's cheaper to do it that way than disprove the allegations;

Not true. The loser often pays attorneys' fees and the Ramseys had the means to pay, too. Remember, truth trumps claims of defamation.

WHITEFANG
05-08-2010, 07:19 PM
No.

7 Q. Did you ever interview Shirley

8 Brady, who had been a housekeeper for the

9 Ramseys for almost four years?

10 A. The name sounds familiar and if

11 it's the person I'm thinking of who resided

12 in Georgia I think Harmer or Gosage conducted

13 that interview.

14 Q. They would have prepared a report?

15 A. I would think so.

16 Q. Shirley Brady tells me that she

17 got a phone call and about a five-minute

18 interview and when she said she made it

19 pretty clear that the Ramseys weren't in any

20 way the type of people that could be involved

21 in this, that the interview ended and she

22 never heard from anybody again. Does that

23 sound like a thorough investigation if that's

24 true?

25 A. It depends on what the detectives

295

1 were doing. I don't know what they were

2 doing.

3 Q. Well, you know if you have got to

4 -- if you're spending a lot of time with

5 Linda Hoffmann-Pugh who had worked for them

6 less than two years and only worked part time

7 and you want to know all about this family's

8 background, a thorough investigation, wouldn't

9 you believe, sir, from your experience as a

10 police officer that you're going to spend

11 more than five minutes on the phone with

12 someone who was a housekeeper for three

13 years?

14 A. For some reason in my mind, and I

15 may be wrong, I don't think Mrs. Brady was

16 ever in Colorado with the family. There was

17 apparently nothing that the detective who

18 interviewed her felt was worth more than

19 their five minutes. You would have to ask

20 them.

Is there anything you did know? Anything you do know? Anything at all? Is there anything you learned on your own? Is there anything you learned third hand, where you documented the sources and the specific information gleaned? Did you double and triple check your facts before publishing them in a book, even once? Did you do anything to yield the impression that you had more than two neurons? No? Didn't think so. But, don't quote me. I only have a vague memory that someone once may have told me that, in a meeting maybe, or was it a live studio audience where someone may have said something to someone who called in, no, it was LKL, no. Wait a minute! That's right, I had a premonition as a child and a little Deja Vu when I began writing my masterpiece for big bucks. Little bucks? Hardly any bucks? Oh, you know what I mean.

WHITEFANG
05-08-2010, 07:32 PM
"In the three years I was in that house, there was never an argument, never voices raised,'' Brady said.

That's why Brady, 72, says she never has wavered in her belief that the Ramseys are innocent - even though they have always been suspects in the girl's murder.

In Lawrence Schiller's book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town,'' friends are quoted saying that JonBenet's life was more than her beauty-pageant competitions...

Landscaper Brian Scott told Schiller how the little girl used to follow him around the family's Boulder yard asking numerous questions.

"Do roses know their thorns can hurt?'' she asked him one day.

Scott also remembers how JonBenet started to cry one day when she said she missed her father when he went on trips. But in the next minute, her playful side emerged.

"I saw JonBenet was scooping up the leaves from the top of the barrel and hurling them over her head into the wind,'' Scott recalled.

Barbara Kostanick's daughter attended school with JonBenet.

"I remember the first time I saw them together - they looked so cute playing on the monkey bars,'' she recalled in Schiller's book.

Pam Griffin, a seamstress who made JonBenet's pageant costumes, said the Ramseys had a loving relationship with their daughter.

"And then there was all the love in JonBenet's eyes when she spoke to her father,'' Griffin said. "Everything he said was important to her.''

Those kinds of memories don't surprise Brady. She said the Ramsey family were thoughtful of each other and very loving."The public never met the Ramseys, so they jump to these horrible conclusions that just aren't true,'' Brady said. "They were a loving family who never could have hurt each other. I know that is the truth.''

"They were a loving family who never could have hurt each other. I know that is the truth.''

Funny. I thought she was pure evil from what I've read.

Mysteeri
05-08-2010, 07:39 PM
Just a little comment. To a layperson it might not be obvious at all that JB was dead after an accidental head blow, since there were no visible injuries (as has been pointed out in this thread). Was she breathing after the blow? Did she have a pulse? I think a layperson would check those and a normal parent would of course call the ambulance.

WHITEFANG
05-08-2010, 07:58 PM
Thats cheery. What creep said that?

I say that because something just occurred to me that should have been obvious a long time ago.

Boulder Colorado has to be the greatest place on earth if you aspire to become a bank robber. Imagine, while yera holding up a great big old bank downtown, you get a little thirsty and bored. Hey, man, I know! I'll just give them friendly cops a holler. Yea, that's it, just call 'em cops up. Tell 'em yer thirsty and they'll rush right over with some soft drinks, chips, throw some burgers on the grill. We'll sit down together, chew the fat a bit I imagine, maybe watch them damn Nuggets a spell and then hell, we'll grab this here gold a while and head for them hills.

DeeDee249
05-08-2010, 10:13 PM
By the time JR carried JB up from the basement, she was very obviously dead, and not just to LE. She was grayish, ice cold, stiff as a board (literally) in full rigor mortis, mouth agape (the rigor again) and arms held up and out with no means of support. There was an odor of decay. She must have looked like a macabre store mannequin. This many hours after death (about 12) she couldn't have been cradled anyway.
Anyone would know she was dead at that point.

Holdontoyourhat
05-08-2010, 10:26 PM
By the time JR carried JB up from the basement, she was very obviously dead, and not just to LE. She was grayish, ice cold, stiff as a board (literally) in full rigor mortis, mouth agape (the rigor again) and arms held up and out with no means of support. There was an odor of decay. She must have looked like a macabre store mannequin. This many hours after death (about 12) she couldn't have been cradled anyway.
Anyone would know she was dead at that point.

In that case, carrying JBR upright and in front would be the ONLY way to climb the stairs and pass thru the doorway.

What RDI claims is inappropriate behavior was really the only practical way.

Typical smear campaign tactics that used to work but are no longer working.

BOESP
05-08-2010, 10:56 PM
Now, excuse me, as I clear my throat. You are stating this as a fact, is that right? I want to be clear. The mother of JonBenet throwing herself on her corpse was theatrics? Theatrics? Bold, straightforward, clear indictment that Patsy feigned her anguish over JonBenet?

Throwing yourself across your dead child's body and asking Jesus to raise up your baby like he raised Lazarus from the dead is, in my book, theatrics.

I did not say she was not anguished over her daughter's death. I am saying she acted in a dramatic way. If you want to take as fact my opinion of Patsy's reported behavior, please feel free to do so.

WHITEFANG
05-08-2010, 11:36 PM
"Throwing yourself across your dead child's body and asking Jesus to raise up your baby like he raised Lazarus from the dead is, in my book, theatrics."

Theatrics, n. "Overemotional exaggerated behavior calculated for effect"

"I did not say she was not anguished over her daughter's death. I am saying she acted in a dramatic way."

In your opinion, do you believe she was anguished in the referenced scene?

I want to understand what you meant and what you mean by this statement, "Throwing yourself across your dead child's body and asking Jesus to raise up your baby like he raised Lazarus from the dead is, in my book, theatrics."

"If you want to take as fact my opinion of Patsy's reported behavior, please feel free to do so."

WHITEFANG
05-08-2010, 11:44 PM
Double blind, controlled writing analysis by the cream of the crop in the field should be undertaken, if it hasn't already, to apply a scientific credibility factor to the opinions these folks offer.

Personally, I am convinced that the beauty queen pageantry participation, by this six year old, blond cutie and her millionaire parents encouraging her to do her best, have done more to warp the perception we have of this family than anything else. Make her parents working class, high school grads and sweethearts, struggling to get by, as the deceased enjoyed her activities as a Daisy Scout and the nation would have turned its lonely eyes on them, and wept with them.

BOESP
05-08-2010, 11:52 PM
"Throwing yourself across your dead child's body and asking Jesus to raise up your baby like he raised Lazarus from the dead is, in my book, theatrics."

Theatrics, n. "Overemotional exaggerated behavior calculated for effect"

"I did not say she was not anguished over her daughter's death. I am saying she acted in a dramatic way."

In your opinion, do you believe she was anguished in the referenced scene?

I want to understand what you meant and what you mean by this statement, "Throwing yourself across your dead child's body and asking Jesus to raise up your baby like he raised Lazarus from the dead is, in my book, theatrics."

"If you want to take as fact my opinion of Patsy's reported behavior, please feel free to do so."

I suppose Patsy was anguished but I also am of the opinion she was feeling a lot of other emotions.

The statement/scene came from Patsy as reported in Schiller, Thomas, and the Ramsey books. It was overly dramatic and irrational in my opinion.

WHITEFANG
05-09-2010, 01:54 AM
I suppose Patsy was anguished but I also am of the opinion she was feeling a lot of other emotions.

The statement/scene came from Patsy as reported in Schiller, Thomas, and the Ramsey books. It was overly dramatic and irrational in my opinion.


You say you suppose she was anguished. May I ask you why you suppose so?

She was overly dramatic and irrational? Are you able to describe what in your opinion would have been a more realistic or genuine reaction? Do you suspect she may have been pouring it on a little thick?

SuperDave
05-09-2010, 08:59 PM
Oh really SD, and they found other evidence after 1998 that contradicts this?

As far as I know, they did! Like I've told you, there's a reason I'm like I am now.

SuperDave
05-09-2010, 09:00 PM
I was wrong, actually the police officer at the scene formed the opinion JR was guilty at the same time that he found the body.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO3 Civil Action No. 98-WY-1198-WD4
DEPOSITION OF LINDA ARNDT, VOL. I

Q. When did you first arrive at this opinion relative to the incident?
A. Which opinion?
Q. As to who killed JonBenet?
A. When John Ramsey came up with the steps with JonBenet in his arms
Q. I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. When John Ramsey came up the stairs with JonBenet
A. In his arms.
Q. That's when you formed the opinion?
A. That's when many things that had not made sense and were disturbing during the morning made sense
Q. All right. So you formed the conclusion he had done it?
A. It was clear that John had killed JonBenet.


Like I said, MurriFlower: I won't argue about Linda Arndt.

SuperDave
05-09-2010, 09:02 PM
Thats cheery. What creep said that?

That would be Ron Walker. And as for being a creep, you've obviously confused him with Lin Wood.

SuperDave
05-09-2010, 09:07 PM
http://www.acandyrose.com/05312000larrykinglive.htm

THOMAS: My theory is quite simple: Whoever authored the ransom note killed the child, absent some great conspiracy, that they think this intruder came into the house.

At least there were some other people in the same camp trying to explain to the like of ST that the author of the RN isn't necessarily the killer.

THAT is something we all can agree on! Thus, the cross-fingerpointing defense problem!

SuperDave
05-09-2010, 09:12 PM
ST gave up a position that actually could've solved the murder, and instead wrote a book.

I'm forced to agree. I understand the frustration (BOY, do I understand!) but I would not have given up. I'd have kept fighting.

SuperDave
05-09-2010, 09:15 PM
Basically, the Ramsey's sued, the publisher settled out of court because it's cheaper to do it that way than disprove the allegations;

Not true. The loser often pays attorneys' fees and the Ramseys had the means to pay, too. Remember, truth trumps claims of defamation.

Your argument might have more merit, Fang, if not for the fact that Lin Wood has a habit of seeking settlements. BOESP is right.

SuperDave
05-09-2010, 09:20 PM
Just a little comment. To a layperson it might not be obvious at all that JB was dead after an accidental head blow, since there were no visible injuries (as has been pointed out in this thread). Was she breathing after the blow? Did she have a pulse? I think a layperson would check those and a normal parent would of course call the ambulance.

I'm DAMN glad you brought that up! Assuming that they did check, there's a difference between someone who is knocked out (who would still have a discernable pulse and breathing) and someone in deep shock near death, whose pulse would be so weak and breathing so shallow that a layperson might miss them altogether.

It's times like this I'm grateful for being friends with an EMT, just in case any of you were wondering.

SuperDave
05-09-2010, 09:23 PM
Funny. I thought she was pure evil from what I've read.

Speaking purely for myself, Fang, if I left you with that impression, that was not my intent. I never thought that.

That said, I'm not very big on the whole "this person says" bit. If I had a nickel for every time a killer was described as the ideal parent of family person, I could retire early.

Take me, for example. Could I kill someone? I'm ashamed to say it, but yes. But I'm a great guy! Ask anyone who isn't related to me!

SuperDave
05-09-2010, 09:25 PM
Personally, I am convinced that the beauty queen pageantry participation, by this six year old, blond cutie and her millionaire parents encouraging her to do her best, have done more to warp the perception we have of this family than anything else. Make her parents working class, high school grads and sweethearts, struggling to get by, as the deceased enjoyed her activities as a Daisy Scout and the nation would have turned its lonely eyes on them, and wept with them.

You may be right.

DeeDee249
05-09-2010, 10:04 PM
I'm DAMN glad you brought that up! Assuming that they did check, there's a difference between someone who is knocked out (who would still have a discernable pulse and breathing) and someone in deep shock near death, whose pulse would be so weak and breathing so shallow that a layperson might miss them altogether.

It's times like this I'm grateful for being friends with an EMT, just in case any of you were wondering.

Actually, that's why they probably hook people like this up to EEGs. They can determine if they are still alive by brain wave activity.

WHITEFANG
05-09-2010, 11:50 PM
Your argument might have more merit, Fang, if not for the fact that Lin Wood has a habit of seeking settlements. BOESP is right.


I Don't get it. All other things being equal, you don't settle when you can win.

SuperDave
05-10-2010, 12:36 AM
I Don't get it. All other things being equal, you don't settle when you can win.

True enough.

Not that it ties in with anything, Fang, but let us speak hypothetically now. If I were to tell you that I knew of someone who bragged about how much money they've made on this case, what would you say?

WHITEFANG
05-10-2010, 01:12 AM
Super, appreciate the effort to address my request.

Didn't mean to humiliate or demean you. I hoped to expose fallacy. And, I agree with you. The dark side of human nature sucks (and it is easy for me to overlook it.)

If you would, try again to posit your theory by describing in the present tense-exactly-the moment by moment conscious thinking and feeling as Patsy experienced/thought/felt them (or the R, DeeDee) as she chose the method to simulate the execution and as she carried it out, "There is something that might work...I need more light...is that the sound of her straining... this is taking too long, damn what am I going to do? etc."

WHITEFANG
05-10-2010, 01:35 AM
True enough.

Not that it ties in with anything, Fang, but let us speak hypothetically now. If I were to tell you that I knew of someone who bragged about how much money they've made on this case, what would you say?

I would say, no doubt about it. And in this context, it would still make more sense to take the case at least to the courthouse steps. The client has to give the okay (hypothetically) to the terms, too.

As the family sustained huge, enormous, obscene legal costs, they needed every dime from a favorable decision on a contingency fee arrangement.

I bet the Ramseys still have massive debts from their legal expenses. May be why the JonBenet Memorial Fund didn't thrive.

WHITEFANG
05-10-2010, 01:45 AM
Actually, that's why they probably hook people like this up to EEGs. They can determine if they are still alive by brain wave activity.

Could you help me to understand what you believe she was thinking as she came to the conclusion that she was in all probability dead? Include, if you can, her thinking as to the application of the garrote in light of her belief that Joni was gone, ie., "I know this won't hurt her as I slip this around..."

SuperDave
05-10-2010, 02:23 AM
Super, appreciate the effort to address my request.

Didn't mean to humiliate or demean you. I hoped to expose fallacy. And, I agree with you. The dark side of human nature sucks (and it is easy for me to overlook it.)

I figured you were a good guy, Fang.


If you would, try again to posit your theory by describing in the present tense-exactly-the moment by moment conscious thinking and feeling as Patsy experienced/thought/felt them (or the R, DeeDee) as she chose the method to simulate the execution and as she carried it out, "There is something that might work...I need more light...is that the sound of her straining... this is taking too long, damn what am I going to do? etc."

Well, this may not be what you're after, but here goes:

The Ramseys get home from the party at the Whites'. Burke asks for a bedtime snack. Patsy sees a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen counter and gives him some, telling him not to paw at it. Both children have some.
JOHN: "Come on, honey. Let's get you to bed. Be with you in a minute, son."
BURKE: "I'll wait for you there, Dad."
PATSY: "Just a quick check to see if I missed anything."
Patsy is now alone. She's doing her thing. John puts JonBenet in bed. They speak for a minute. Maybe something else. He goes down to the basement.
Patsy's catching her breath in the living room. John and Burke come up.
JOHN: Head on up to bed, son.
BURKE: "Okay, Dad."
The parents are alone.
JOHN: "Come on up to bed."
PATSY: "No, I'm not done yet."
JOHN: "You shouldn't take so much on yourself."
PATSY (irritated at him): "I have to. I do everything around here."
JOHN: "Sorry I mentioned it."
John goes upstairs. Soon, JonBenet is back down.
PATSY: "What do you want now, honey," with a little irritation in her voice.
JONBENET: "I did it again."
PATSY: "Oh, God. Come on."
Up to JonBenet's room.
PATSY: "I don't see anything."
JONBENET: "I didn't go to bed yet."
PATSY: "Can't you do anything I ask?"
JONBENET: "I'm sorry."
PATSY: "Get in there."
Into the bathroom. Patsy cleans her up.
PATSY: "Here, don't tell you're father."
JONBENET: "You and Daddy tell me secrets."
PATSY: "Secrets?"
JONBENET: "Yeah, Daddy tells me to keep secrets."
PATSY: "Like what?"
JONBENET (suddenly sullen): "It wouldn't be a secret then."
PATSY (now more irritated): "Fine."
Patsy becomes rough.
JONBENET: "OW! Mommy, that hurts! Daddy's nicer."
PATSY: "I didn't think your father cleaned you up."
JONBENET: "He doesn't. He calls it our special game."
PATSY's head snaps up. Their eyes meet.
JONBENET (whispering): "I told the secret."
PATSY (in a rage): "YOU ROTTEN LITTLE LIAR!!!"
JONBENET (almost in a panic): "I'm sorry, Mommy!"
PATSY: "I'll teach you a lesson you won't forget!"
JonBenet tries to run away, but her pants are still around her knees. She tries to pull them up, but trips. As she gets up, Patsy grabs her collar and begins to struggle with her. She MEANS to toss JonBenet onto the bed face-first and spank the daylights out of her. But during the fight, JonBenet takes a hard blow that cracks her skull.
Patsy sees JonBenet crumpled on the floor.
PATSY: "That won't work, you little faker. You're in big trouble."
She picks JonBenet up and lays her on the bed. But she's so limp.
PATSY: "I said, cut it out."
Nothing. JonBenet is in shock and doesn't seem to be breathing.
PATSY (anger replaced by worry): "JonBenet Patricia Ramsey, you cut that out right now. Baby? (Now panicked): BABY?! PLEASE say something! Oh, GOD, I didn't mean to! No, oh, God, no! Not my baby!"
John comes in.
JOHN: "What the hell is going on in here?!"
Patsy turns. Her eyes are full of tears and hate. She blitzes him.
PATSY: "YOU *******!"
He grabs her wrists. "Are you crazy?!" He sees JonBenet. "What did you do?!"
PATSY: "Me?! You couldn't get it from me, so you took her! And I believed YOU!"
JOHN: "You stupid, crazy *****! I have to save her!"
PATSY: "It's too late now! She's dead!"
JOHN: "NO! That's impossible!" (Keep in mind, John's lost Beth.)
PATSY: "I'll see you rot for this!"
JOHN: "How?! You killed her."
Patsy fights until she's fought-out. She collapses to the floor, sobbing.
JOHN: "Honey..."
PATSY: "We can't leave her like this. She's so beautiful. like an angel. She deserves better."
JOHN: "I can't believe this. Burke...what will happen to him?"
PATSY: "He can't ever know about this. He can't think we killed JonBenet."
JOHN: "How do we make this right?"
PATSY: "I thought you were the big expert!"
JOHN: "Shut up! I'm trying to think."
PATSY: "What kind of person would do this?"
JOHN: "The kind we saw in the Navy. Damn, I wish I could remember who they were."
And it just spirals from there. Putting anything they can think of into a possible scenario, they stage a scene. But Patsy's dramatic flair puts it over the top. John, wracked with guilt, knows she hangs by a hair, so he says nothing. He also knows that the truth will put them in prison where the inmates will do horrible things to them...
PATSY: "What kind of knot do we use?"
JOHN: "Do it yourself."
Patsy ties a sloppy noose and sloppier wrist ties.
JOHN: "I can't even look at her like that."
They think about bundling her up to dump, but it's too risky. In the basement.
PATSY: "Wouldn't she have been messed with down there?"
JOHN: "Don't ask me to--"
PATSY: "You already DID! That's how we got into this mess."
JOHN: "I can't touch her like this." He uses the brush to avoid touching her privates. His fibers end up on her, having scuffed off his sleeve on her clothing when he pulls his arm back. "Can you write left-handed?"
PATSY: "Yeah, but--"
JOHN: "Come on."
John dictates part of the note, she writes. At this point, she's caught up in this. Her greatest pageant, her greatest adventure. It's exhilarating.

Fang, I have to ask: what is the purpose of this exercise?

SuperDave
05-10-2010, 02:29 AM
I would say, no doubt about it. And in this context, it would still make more sense to take the case at least to the courthouse steps. The client has to give the okay (hypothetically) to the terms, too.

As the family sustained huge, enormous, obscene legal costs, they needed every dime from a favorable decision on a contingency fee arrangement.

That's kind of my point, Fang. Wood wasn't talking about how much money he made for them. He was talking about how much money he had made toward his personal finances. Now, I admit it's been a while since I cracked a law book, but last I knew, filing lawsuits for the purpose of enriching one's own personal finances is called barratry, and it grounds for having one's law license pulled.


I bet the Ramseys still have massive debts from their legal expenses. May be why the JonBenet Memorial Fund didn't thrive.

Judging from the available tax records, my guess is that "fund" was purely for their own use. Pretty despicable, any way you slice it.

WHITEFANG
05-10-2010, 02:42 AM
And it just spirals from there. Putting anything they can think of into a possible scenario, they stage a scene. But Patsy's dramatic flair puts it over the top. John, wracked with guilt, knows she hangs by a hair, so he says nothing. He also knows that the truth will put them in prison where the inmates will do horrible things to them...
PATSY: "What kind of knot do we use?"
JOHN: "Do it yourself."
Patsy ties a sloppy noose and sloppier wrist ties.


What does she do next? She has made a noose and knots.




JOHN: "I can't even look at her like that."
They think about bundling her up to dump, but it's too risky. In the basement.
PATSY: "Wouldn't she have been messed with down there?"
JOHN: "Don't ask me to--"
PATSY: "You already DID! That's how we got into this mess."
JOHN: "I can't touch her like this." He uses the brush to avoid touching her privates. His fibers end up on her, having scuffed off his sleeve on her clothing when he pulls his arm back. "Can you write left-handed?"
PATSY: "Yeah, but--"

SuperDave
05-10-2010, 02:54 AM
And it just spirals from there. Putting anything they can think of into a possible scenario, they stage a scene. But Patsy's dramatic flair puts it over the top. John, wracked with guilt, knows she hangs by a hair, so he says nothing. He also knows that the truth will put them in prison where the inmates will do horrible things to them...
PATSY: "What kind of knot do we use?"
JOHN: "Do it yourself."
Patsy ties a sloppy noose and sloppier wrist ties.


What does she do next? She has made a noose and knots.

I was getting to that. She most likely gave the noose a single, hard pull, maybe a few seconds. Once she saw how deeply it went in, and that it wasn't coming out, she most likely stopped. It's likely it wouldn't come out again because of JB's almost-nonexistant breathing. Her windpipe didn't expand enough to loosen it. The knot wouldn't allow it, either.

As for the other knots, they went over the wrists, as I said.

WHITEFANG
05-10-2010, 03:20 AM
Super-- are you sure this is your very best effort on this assignment? Is this your best shot? Remember, the task is not to say what you know, but to become Patsy in real time and to "think out loud" (on this site) with us as you deal with this situation. Is this really your very best effort to describe what Patsy was thinking/feeling as she slipped the garrote around her neck?

What were her thoughts as she searched for something that would work? Was it cold down there? Was there plenty of light? Did her muscles get tense?

SuperDave
05-10-2010, 03:30 AM
Super-- are you sure this is your very best effort on this assignment? Is this your best shot?

Sorry, Fang, but it's very late and I've had a lousy day. I'll give it another go when I'm more up for it.


Remember, the task is not to say what you know, but to become Patsy in real time and to "think out loud" (on this site) with us as you deal with this situation. Is this really your very best effort to describe what Patsy was thinking/feeling as she slipped the garrote around her neck?

What were her thoughts as she searched for something that would work? Was it cold down there? Was there plenty of light? Did her muscles get tense?

Ah, method acting. Now I get it.

MurriFlower
05-10-2010, 05:14 AM
I figured you were a good guy, Fang.



Well, this may not be what you're after, but here goes:

The Ramseys get home from the party at the Whites'. Burke asks for a bedtime snack. Patsy sees a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen counter and gives him some, telling him not to paw at it. Both children have some.
JOHN: "Come on, honey. Let's get you to bed. Be with you in a minute, son."
BURKE: "I'll wait for you there, Dad."
PATSY: "Just a quick check to see if I missed anything."
Patsy is now alone. She's doing her thing. John puts JonBenet in bed. They speak for a minute. Maybe something else. He goes down to the basement.
Patsy's catching her breath in the living room. John and Burke come up.
JOHN: Head on up to bed, son.
BURKE: "Okay, Dad."
The parents are alone.
JOHN: "Come on up to bed."
PATSY: "No, I'm not done yet."
JOHN: "You shouldn't take so much on yourself."
PATSY (irritated at him): "I have to. I do everything around here."
JOHN: "Sorry I mentioned it."
John goes upstairs. Soon, JonBenet is back down.
PATSY: "What do you want now, honey," with a little irritation in her voice.
JONBENET: "I did it again."
PATSY: "Oh, God. Come on."
Up to JonBenet's room.
PATSY: "I don't see anything."
JONBENET: "I didn't go to bed yet."
PATSY: "Can't you do anything I ask?"
JONBENET: "I'm sorry."
PATSY: "Get in there."
Into the bathroom. Patsy cleans her up.
PATSY: "Here, don't tell you're father."
JONBENET: "You and Daddy tell me secrets."
PATSY: "Secrets?"
JONBENET: "Yeah, Daddy tells me to keep secrets."
PATSY: "Like what?"
JONBENET (suddenly sullen): "It wouldn't be a secret then."
PATSY (now more irritated): "Fine."
Patsy becomes rough.
JONBENET: "OW! Mommy, that hurts! Daddy's nicer."
PATSY: "I didn't think your father cleaned you up."
JONBENET: "He doesn't. He calls it our special game."
PATSY's head snaps up. Their eyes meet.
JONBENET (whispering): "I told the secret."
PATSY (in a rage): "YOU ROTTEN LITTLE LIAR!!!"
JONBENET (almost in a panic): "I'm sorry, Mommy!"
PATSY: "I'll teach you a lesson you won't forget!"
JonBenet tries to run away, but her pants are still around her knees. She tries to pull them up, but trips. As she gets up, Patsy grabs her collar and begins to struggle with her. She MEANS to toss JonBenet onto the bed face-first and spank the daylights out of her. But during the fight, JonBenet takes a hard blow that cracks her skull.
Patsy sees JonBenet crumpled on the floor.
PATSY: "That won't work, you little faker. You're in big trouble."
She picks JonBenet up and lays her on the bed. But she's so limp.
PATSY: "I said, cut it out."
Nothing. JonBenet is in shock and doesn't seem to be breathing.
PATSY (anger replaced by worry): "JonBenet Patricia Ramsey, you cut that out right now. Baby? (Now panicked): BABY?! PLEASE say something! Oh, GOD, I didn't mean to! No, oh, God, no! Not my baby!"
John comes in.
JOHN: "What the hell is going on in here?!"
Patsy turns. Her eyes are full of tears and hate. She blitzes him.
PATSY: "YOU *******!"
He grabs her wrists. "Are you crazy?!" He sees JonBenet. "What did you do?!"
PATSY: "Me?! You couldn't get it from me, so you took her! And I believed YOU!"
JOHN: "You stupid, crazy *****! I have to save her!"
PATSY: "It's too late now! She's dead!"
JOHN: "NO! That's impossible!" (Keep in mind, John's lost Beth.)
PATSY: "I'll see you rot for this!"
JOHN: "How?! You killed her."
Patsy fights until she's fought-out. She collapses to the floor, sobbing.
JOHN: "Honey..."
PATSY: "We can't leave her like this. She's so beautiful. like an angel. She deserves better."
JOHN: "I can't believe this. Burke...what will happen to him?"
PATSY: "He can't ever know about this. He can't think we killed JonBenet."
JOHN: "How do we make this right?"
PATSY: "I thought you were the big expert!"
JOHN: "Shut up! I'm trying to think."
PATSY: "What kind of person would do this?"
JOHN: "The kind we saw in the Navy. Damn, I wish I could remember who they were."
And it just spirals from there. Putting anything they can think of into a possible scenario, they stage a scene. But Patsy's dramatic flair puts it over the top. John, wracked with guilt, knows she hangs by a hair, so he says nothing. He also knows that the truth will put them in prison where the inmates will do horrible things to them...
PATSY: "What kind of knot do we use?"
JOHN: "Do it yourself."
Patsy ties a sloppy noose and sloppier wrist ties.
JOHN: "I can't even look at her like that."
They think about bundling her up to dump, but it's too risky. In the basement.
PATSY: "Wouldn't she have been messed with down there?"
JOHN: "Don't ask me to--"
PATSY: "You already DID! That's how we got into this mess."
JOHN: "I can't touch her like this." He uses the brush to avoid touching her privates. His fibers end up on her, having scuffed off his sleeve on her clothing when he pulls his arm back. "Can you write left-handed?"
PATSY: "Yeah, but--"
JOHN: "Come on."
John dictates part of the note, she writes. At this point, she's caught up in this. Her greatest pageant, her greatest adventure. It's exhilarating.

Fang, I have to ask: what is the purpose of this exercise?

I cannot believe you guys can make up this stuff, accusing two people, (one of them still alive) of murder and get away with it without being sued! Incredible!!!

Mysteeri
05-10-2010, 08:55 AM
I'm DAMN glad you brought that up! Assuming that they did check, there's a difference between someone who is knocked out (who would still have a discernable pulse and breathing) and someone in deep shock near death, whose pulse would be so weak and breathing so shallow that a layperson might miss them altogether.

It's times like this I'm grateful for being friends with an EMT, just in case any of you were wondering.

Okay, I`d still like a second opinion, but I`m willing to believe yours is valid. :) She died of asphyxiation so she was breathing while being strangled. I don`t believe Patsy and/or John would have made a quick decision to determine JB`s dead, nothing you can do about it, move on to staging and garroting. But that`s just imo.

DeeDee249
05-10-2010, 10:36 AM
I cannot believe you guys can make up this stuff, accusing two people, (one of them still alive) of murder and get away with it without being sued! Incredible!!!


That's why at the bottom of every post should appear the words that appear below mine. Anyone can THINK anything they want. These are not accusations. They are theories.

There were plenty of innocent people accused publicly by the Rs.

DeeDee249
05-10-2010, 10:41 AM
Okay, I`d still like a second opinion, but I`m willing to believe yours is valid. :) She died of asphyxiation so she was breathing while being strangled. I don`t believe Patsy and/or John would have made a quick decision to determine JB`s dead, nothing you can do about it, move on to staging and garroting. But that`s just imo.

Keep in ind through all this, adrenaline was pumping hard. When that hormone surges, it kind of puts you on automatic pilot.

I'd like to see the OTHER side have a chance here. Let's hear a blow-by-blow from IDI with suspects that were already questioned/or gave DNA/hair/saliva/writing samples.
Remember to use initials only except for those who have died. (Libel laws do not apply to the deceased).

BOESP
05-10-2010, 11:22 AM
I Don't get it. All other things being equal, you don't settle when you can win.

Settling instead of winning happens every day. It is cheaper (and less stressful) in the long run.

SuperDave
05-10-2010, 11:36 AM
I cannot believe you guys can make up this stuff, accusing two people, (one of them still alive) of murder and get away with it without being sued! Incredible!!!

Well, thereby hangs a tale, MurriFlower. Number one, where I live we have something called the first amendment.

Number two, at this point, it would be quite difficult to sue me on their behalf because one is dead and the other is a public figure. Actually, scratch that. You could make a case that he's a public figure.

Number three, they're very reticent to sue when certain issues are raised. I wonder why...

Number four, and perhaps most pregnant of all, it's not like it hasn't occured to me. In fact, if and when I get published, I wouldn't be too shocked. Lin Wood's Internet lapdog has already threatened me with that. But I'm not afraid.

SuperDave
05-10-2010, 11:41 AM
Okay, I`d still like a second opinion, but I`m willing to believe yours is valid. :)

Thank you.


She died of asphyxiation so she was breathing while being strangled. I don`t believe Patsy and/or John would have made a quick decision to determine JB`s dead, nothing you can do about it, move on to staging and garroting. But that`s just imo.

I guess it depends on your definition of "quick."

SuperDave
05-10-2010, 12:22 PM
Super-- are you sure this is your very best effort on this assignment? Is this your best shot? Remember, the task is not to say what you know, but to become Patsy in real time and to "think out loud" (on this site) with us as you deal with this situation. Is this really your very best effort to describe what Patsy was thinking/feeling as she slipped the garrote around her neck?

What were her thoughts as she searched for something that would work? Was it cold down there? Was there plenty of light? Did her muscles get tense?

I have to be honest with you, Fang: if I thought it was just one person responsible, it would be a lot easier. But since I think it was a joint effort, that adds a whole new dimension of difficulty, because there you have to consider conflicts, what did one person want to do vs. what the other wanted, differing motivations and so on.

Moreover, I still don't understand what the purpose of this exercise is.

Also, I didn't want it to sound like a badly written thriller novel. But I'm of the mind that it's going to end up that way no matter WHAT the scenario is or who's writing it. So, if you want to know what was most likely going through her head, here goes:

"It's just a body...it's just a body...I have to do it this way. I won't have to touch her or look at her face. God, I wish John would shut up! It's his fault we're in this trouble! He says if we don't do this, we'll both die in prison, but I can't bear the thought of ruining her little face. This way, at least she'll have a decent funeral where the world can see her for the angel she is and we all can remember her as forever young, forever beautiful. It doesn't make any difference now for me now. I might not live that long anyway. I can at least do this for her and for my son. He can't lose BOTH of us in one day..."

She yanks back on it.

"Oh, God, oh God, oh God! Please just let it be over! I can't pull anymore. I hope that's good enough. PLEASE let it be good enough. Why can't I breathe? Damn it, what demon from hell could do this?! I have to get it out of me! I have to make the demon real so I can face it."

So she does. She writes, making the demon a thing of reality. It's not her that did it, it was "the other." And that's who's writing this: "the other," the THING that took hold of her soul.

Wow. That was easier than I thought. MUCH easier than I'm comfortable with. Just because I can face the darkness doesn't mean I like it. Getting inside the heads of killers is a god-awful business, and I any idea that it's easy or amusing or fun. There isn't enough soap in the world to get me clean again. Those stains won't come out.

WHITEFANG
05-10-2010, 08:57 PM
I cannot believe you guys can make up this stuff, accusing two people, (one of them still alive) of murder and get away with it without being sued! Incredible!!!

1. It is hypothetical.

2. That is what is done on this website day and night.

DeeDee249
05-10-2010, 09:04 PM
1. It is hypothetical.

2. That is what is done on this website day and night.

This and other websites as well, and not just this crime.

WHITEFANG
05-10-2010, 09:08 PM
The motive? To avoid prison.

"It doesn't make any difference now for me now. I might not live that long anyway."

The killer said to herself.

Holdontoyourhat
05-10-2010, 09:19 PM
I cannot believe you guys can make up this stuff, accusing two people, (one of them still alive) of murder and get away with it without being sued! Incredible!!!


1. It is hypothetical.

2. That is what is done on this website day and night.

LOL you're right WF.

Not only does IDI represent the more contemporary documented official statements, but it also doesn't falsely accuse.

WHITEFANG
05-10-2010, 09:26 PM
Your argument might have more merit, Fang, if not for the fact that Lin Wood has a habit of seeking settlements. BOESP is right.


If the Ramseys didn't have a case, the publisher would be foolish to settle. When they defend themselves successfully, they bill the Ramseys for their all legal costs. The Ramseys have the means to pay. Why settle?

MurriFlower
05-10-2010, 09:54 PM
Well, thereby hangs a tale, MurriFlower. Number one, where I live we have something called the first amendment.

Number two, at this point, it would be quite difficult to sue me on their behalf because one is dead and the other is a public figure. Actually, scratch that. You could make a case that he's a public figure.

Number three, they're very reticent to sue when certain issues are raised. I wonder why...

Number four, and perhaps most pregnant of all, it's not like it hasn't occured to me. In fact, if and when I get published, I wouldn't be too shocked. Lin Wood's Internet lapdog has already threatened me with that. But I'm not afraid.

1. Ah, so the first amendment allows you to say anything about anyone and get away with it? Now I understand.

2. Dead people and public figures have no rights in the USA?

3. Hmm I thought there were several lawsuits against tabloids?

4. Perhaps they are just waiting until you sell a few books and accumulate a few $$ and they something to sue for?

DeeDee249
05-10-2010, 10:03 PM
1. Ah, so the first amendment allows you to say anything about anyone and get away with it? Now I understand.

2. Dead people and public figures have no rights in the USA?

3. Hmm I thought there were several lawsuits against tabloids?

4. Perhaps they are just waiting until you sell a few books and accumulate a few $$ and they something to sue for?

1. The First Amendment allows Free Speech.
2. Actually, dead people don't. Their "rights" ended when they died. Pubic figures have rights, but because of their status as public figures opinions about them can be stated publicly. FALSE statements can be challenged, but the public figure has to be sure they are actually false.
3. The lawsuits I am familiar with involved stolen autopsy photos, not accusations against the Rs. If you have knowledge of others, please post.
4. Maybe, but SD is still entitled to write his OPINION about the case. I am sure he will not be presenting his opinion and/or theory as fact. But I am also sure his book will contain a lot of factual information.

MurriFlower
05-10-2010, 10:05 PM
1. It is hypothetical.

2. That is what is done on this website day and night.

This is the only forum I've been on in Websleuths, but I know of one other (which I think is suspended) MMcC.

So what I think you are saying is that it would be quite in order for someone on that forum to post a 'hypothetical' scenario which names the parents of that child as murders, child molesters and liars, who fabricated her disappearance and corrupted the investigation?

Holdontoyourhat
05-10-2010, 10:29 PM
1. Ah, so the first amendment allows you to say anything about anyone and get away with it? Now I understand.

2. Dead people and public figures have no rights in the USA?

3. Hmm I thought there were several lawsuits against tabloids?

4. Perhaps they are just waiting until you sell a few books and accumulate a few $$ and they something to sue for?

:clap:

Holdontoyourhat
05-10-2010, 10:31 PM
If the Ramseys didn't have a case, the publisher would be foolish to settle. When they defend themselves successfully, they bill the Ramseys for their all legal costs. The Ramseys have the means to pay. Why settle?

A win is a win...

WHITEFANG
05-10-2010, 11:13 PM
SuperDave said, "Secondly, in order for an external sign to appear (whether it be a bruise or a bump or the like), one has to consider the body's defense systems at work. But what if the body were in a state of trauma-induced hibernation, known as shock? Metabolic functions would be greatly reduced."

As soon as blood vessels rupture, blood leaks from them. A blow to the head which caused a fracture several inches long and a comminuted fracture broke many, many blood vessels on the scalp which would be visible.

WHITEFANG
05-10-2010, 11:19 PM
[QUOTE=Holdontoyourhat;5169753]A win is a win..



The publisher caved. If the R's didn't have a powerful case, they wouldn't have, IMO. So, they did win, in a sense. If their lawyer preferred settling, it doesn't necessarily follow they didn't have an excellent chance to win. Maybe it was the Ramseys who wanted to settle more than their lawyer. We don't know. The only point I want to make is that given what we know, I think the Ramseys may have been on solid ground when they brought suit against the defendants.

WHITEFANG
05-10-2010, 11:34 PM
This is the only forum I've been on in Websleuths, but I know of one other (which I think is suspended) MMcC.

So what I think you are saying is that it would be quite in order for someone on that forum to post a 'hypothetical' scenario which names the parents of that child as murders, child molesters and liars, who fabricated her disappearance and corrupted the investigation?

Let's try it from a different perspective for a second. Did you, by framing your question as you just did, imply that certain individuals on this website made untrue, malicious statements of fact with the intent to harm others-who are not public figures? Does your question receive protection under the law?

MurriFlower
05-11-2010, 12:12 AM
Let's try it from a different perspective for a second. Did you, by framing your question as you just did, imply that certain individuals on this website made untrue, malicious statements of fact with the intent to harm others-who are not public figures? Does your question receive protection under the law?

Not sure if I understand your question WF.

What I'm asking is, is what happened here (posting a 'hypothetical script' naming the parents as murderers) considered acceptible behaviour on other forums?

WHITEFANG
05-11-2010, 01:12 AM
I cannot believe you guys can make up this stuff, accusing two people, (one of them still alive) of murder and get away with it without being sued! Incredible!!!


Don't know.

I thought you were asking how we could accuse people of murder without being sued.

MurriFlower
05-11-2010, 01:23 AM
I cannot believe you guys can make up this stuff, accusing two people, (one of them still alive) of murder and get away with it without being sued! Incredible!!!


Don't know.

I thought you were asking how we could accuse people of murder without being sued.

Oh OK, you quoted my subsequent post (below) in your question and that's why I was confused.

Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
This is the only forum I've been on in Websleuths, but I know of one other (which I think is suspended) MMcC.

So what I think you are saying is that it would be quite in order for someone on that forum to post a 'hypothetical' scenario which names the parents of that child as murders, child molesters and liars, who fabricated her disappearance and corrupted the investigation?

Yes, absolutely, I my originally question was how people can accuse others without fear. Apparently it's to do with something in your constitution!!

WHITEFANG
05-11-2010, 01:38 AM
Yep. Our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech. Does that mean we can shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater, when no fire exists? No. There are limits on what can be said and you raise a good point about what can be said here.

Where are you from? Can you say?

MurriFlower
05-11-2010, 06:30 AM
Yep. Our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech. Does that mean we can shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater, when no fire exists? No. There are limits on what can be said and you raise a good point about what can be said here.

Where are you from? Can you say?

Does it really matter? I don't think that some of the people on this forum are particularly up front on their motives. Funnily enough I joined because I thought I could perhaps add some new thoughts and ideas, without having very much prior knowledge of the case to influence me, but it appears that there is a domination of people who have vested interest in the RDI theory. They turn each thread into a knit-picking DNA, fibre or sexual abuse argument (the only thing they have to 'support' their theory), which diverts attention from the 'big picture', and that is the solving of this killing. It appears one can say pretty much what ever one likes without having to suffer the consequences, if one just writes 'I'm protected by the constitution' at the end of their posts. References to hitting IDI's in the head with the 'baseball bat of truth' are amusing to say the least. Perhaps we'd be better to bash our own heads up against a wall. Sadly it appears there is an endless supply of people who hope to profit from this child's death.

Mysteeri
05-11-2010, 09:19 AM
Keep in ind through all this, adrenaline was pumping hard. When that hormone surges, it kind of puts you on automatic pilot.

I'd like to see the OTHER side have a chance here. Let's hear a blow-by-blow from IDI with suspects that were already questioned/or gave DNA/hair/saliva/writing samples.
Remember to use initials only except for those who have died. (Libel laws do not apply to the deceased).

True. Actually now that I think about it, itīs possible that the mental shock lasted for hours and included detachment and denial. In traumatic or life threatening situations, people can act rationally/on autimatic pilot but not remember much afterwards.

Hmm.

For your writing request I don`t have enough imagination or knowledge. I think intruder was a disturbed individual who was obsessed with the R family and perhaps had been in contact with them, at least with JB. He enjoyed being alone in the R house and writing the peculiar RN, adrenalin rush and all. But his kidnapping plan went somehow wrong, perhaps JB got away and/or recognized his identity and ran to the basement, where things took an unexpected turn and he killed her. Being disturbed he did a little more than necessary (it could be, that he was planning to kill and molest her anyway, but not in the R house). He attempted to leave through the basement window but realized it was too difficult, so he used the Butlerīs door instead.

How he got inside etc.? Well, to make a decent theory, I`d have to fit in some details, but it doesn`t belong to this topic. Perhaps I`ll dig in to this case again in the summer (time sure does fly, I remember last summer and me reading and wondering about this case).

SuperDave
05-11-2010, 03:46 PM
The motive? To avoid prison.

"It doesn't make any difference now for me now. I might not live that long anyway."

The killer said to herself.

That's right.

I'm not sure what you're doing here, Fang. If you're trying to say that this is a contradiction, I can tell you that it is most assuredly not. They're mutually reinforcing. In fact, I'm convinced that if charges were brought against her, she would have died from the stress before the trial ended or committed suicide. I'm not the only person who thinks that, either. Far from it.


But, to speak to this specifically, if I thought that I might not have very long to live, then sure as the gods made little green apples I wouldn't want to spend the time I had left in a rotten, stinking prison cell surrounded by people who want to torture and kill me! I'd rather spend at least some of it with the child I have left. I think there's a much broader context here. I admit I didn't do much to outline it. I accept responsibility for that.

SuperDave
05-11-2010, 03:53 PM
If the Ramseys didn't have a case, the publisher would be foolish to settle. When they defend themselves successfully, they bill the Ramseys for their all legal costs. The Ramseys have the means to pay. Why settle?

Whether it's foolish or not, Fang, it's common practice. Companies like this are insured to a certain amount against lawsuits. And the only thing they care about is bottom line. Most of them don't want to devote any attention to--as they see it--tiny issues like this. Better to just settle and go on with life.

And before you ask, I don't like it either.

SuperDave
05-11-2010, 04:10 PM
1. Ah, so the first amendment allows you to say anything about anyone and get away with it? Now I understand.

The First Amendment allows freedom of speech. There's no right to not be offended. Sadly, too many people in this country think there is.


2. Dead people and public figures have no rights in the USA?

Not quite that simple. A dead person truly does have no rights. There's a moral injunction, because we're taught not to speak ill of the dead, but there's no legal check on it. As for a public figure, that's where it gets interesting. They CAN sue for slander/libel, but the law accepts that because they made the decision to draw attention to themselves (which John did when he ran for public office), they have to expect that certain people won't like them. Thus, the standard for a public figure to prove defamation in court is much higher than it is for a private person. Thus, it's rare that public figures ever win. In fact, in John's case, it might be even harder because he went into politics, and political speech rights in America are considered inviolate. (At least by the courts.)


3. Hmm I thought there were several lawsuits against tabloids?

Yes, there were, but most of them were on behalf of BR. Which I agree with, by the way. What I was referring to was the fact that people like Cyril Wecht and Wendy Murphy have written about the Ramseys in MUCH worse terms than most people and no one ever sues them. In fact, the closest Wendy Murphy came was in 2006 when she got a threatening call from Lin Wood. She basically told him to kiss her butt and has since not backed off one bit.

In other words, when suing corporations, who treat nuisance lawsuits as little worse than burning toast, they get quick settlements and call it victory. When the target is someone who knows what they're doing in court, the Ramseys and their lapdogs turn tail faster than French soldiers in the face of a Panzer charge.


4. Perhaps they are just waiting until you sell a few books and accumulate a few $$ and they something to sue for?

No fear, no regrets, MurriFlower.

SuperDave
05-11-2010, 04:13 PM
4. Maybe, but SD is still entitled to write his OPINION about the case. I am sure he will not be presenting his opinion and/or theory as fact. But I am also sure his book will contain a lot of factual information.

Right on both counts. I make DOUBLY sure to separate fact from (INFORMED) speculation.

SuperDave
05-11-2010, 04:16 PM
A win is a win...

Yes, I'm positive that's how Wood sees it too!

DeeDee249
05-11-2010, 04:18 PM
Does it really matter? I don't think that some of the people on this forum are particularly up front on their motives. Funnily enough I joined because I thought I could perhaps add some new thoughts and ideas, without having very much prior knowledge of the case to influence me, but it appears that there is a domination of people who have vested interest in the RDI theory. They turn each thread into a knit-picking DNA, fibre or sexual abuse argument (the only thing they have to 'support' their theory), which diverts attention from the 'big picture', and that is the solving of this killing. It appears one can say pretty much what ever one likes without having to suffer the consequences, if one just writes 'I'm protected by the constitution' at the end of their posts. References to hitting IDI's in the head with the 'baseball bat of truth' are amusing to say the least. Perhaps we'd be better to bash our own heads up against a wall. Sadly it appears there is an endless supply of people who hope to profit from this child's death.

I fail to see where any of us are attempting to profit from this child's death. We are not selling tickets to this forum. This forum, and many other crime forums like it, are a place to post OPINIONS. And we are told upon joining not to use names (except for deceased persons). Rarely is a name spelled out. ANYONE can think ANY person in Boulder that night may have killed JB. And free speech allows us to say what we think. IDI does the same things RDI does, they just approach from the other viewpoint. I don't think the two viewpoints will ever converge unless a NAME can be linked to the crime, and PROVEN to have been the killer.

BTW, no one HERE will ever solve this crime. To quote Dr. Henry Lee on this specific case "Rice already cooked". BY that he meant all the mistakes in procedure, and the contamination of the crime scene from the first moments LE arrived.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue a dialog (on both sides). Because one day, hopefully, something or someone WILL be made known- some new evidence to shine a light on this case. And then, there is a chance.

DeeDee249
05-11-2010, 04:22 PM
Does it really matter? I don't think that some of the people on this forum are particularly up front on their motives. Funnily enough I joined because I thought I could perhaps add some new thoughts and ideas, without having very much prior knowledge of the case to influence me, but it appears that there is a domination of people who have vested interest in the RDI theory. They turn each thread into a knit-picking DNA, fibre or sexual abuse argument (the only thing they have to 'support' their theory), which diverts attention from the 'big picture', and that is the solving of this killing. It appears one can say pretty much what ever one likes without having to suffer the consequences, if one just writes 'I'm protected by the constitution' at the end of their posts. References to hitting IDI's in the head with the 'baseball bat of truth' are amusing to say the least. Perhaps we'd be better to bash our own heads up against a wall. Sadly it appears there is an endless supply of people who hope to profit from this child's death.

I fail to see where any of us are attempting to profit from this child's death. We are not selling tickets to this forum. This forum, and many other crime forums like it, are a place to post OPINIONS. When we put that at the end of our posts, that means that what we say is NOT to be considered FACT (unless we are using known facts in the case, depositions, the autopsy, etc.) As I have said before, none of was THERE when JB was killed (as far as I know) so none of us KNOWS what happened. We KNOW what we have been told, and are free to form an opinion on it. And we are told upon joining not to use names (except for deceased persons). Rarely is a name spelled out. ANYONE can think ANY person in Boulder that night may have killed JB. And free speech allows us to say what we think. I don't know what you expected of the crime forums. That's what they ARE. A place to post opinions on the crime. You may not like what you read- well, I don't like a lot of it either, even the stuff I agree with. But it is still productive to think, research dissect, and form your own theory. Otherwise, what's the point of being here?

BTW, no one HERE will ever solve this crime. Not with the limited evidence we have access to. To quote Dr. Henry Lee on this specific case "Rice already cooked". By that he meant all the mistakes in procedure, and the contamination of the crime scene from the first moments LE arrived.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue a dialog (on both sides). Because one day, hopefully, something or someone WILL be made known- some new evidence to shine a light on this case. And then, there is a chance.

SuperDave
05-11-2010, 04:46 PM
SuperDave said, "Secondly, in order for an external sign to appear (whether it be a bruise or a bump or the like), one has to consider the body's defense systems at work. But what if the body were in a state of trauma-induced hibernation, known as shock? Metabolic functions would be greatly reduced."

That's right. I did say that.


As soon as blood vessels rupture, blood leaks from them. A blow to the head which caused a fracture several inches long and a comminuted fracture broke many, many blood vessels on the scalp which would be visible.

Fang, pardon me if I come off as a bit testy, but you're killing the messenger here. I'm not the one you need to be arguing with. It's not a question for you or me; it's a question for the pathologists. And they've already made their ruling: JB was alive when she was struck and continued to live, in deep shock, for anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before she was strangled to death. Werner Spitz even said in these exact words: "someone took time to stage strangulation and sexual assault after she was unconscious." These people are on record in various places as saying this.

As for me, I've spent a lot of time on this talking to doctors, surgeons, EMTs, ER nurses. They agree with me. Look, I said it once already: head wounds are the quirkiest injuries the body can sustain. We have a Denver neurologist on record as saying that there's really no rhyme or reason why one head wound bleeds tremendously and another one hardly at all.

If all of that's not enough for you, then I don't know what to tell you, Fang. I've spent 13-1/2 years on this case in almost constant research. I've even conducted painful experiments on myself in the name of justice. A few years ago, I had myself zapped repeatedly with a stun gun to see if I could replicate what IDI claims to have happened to JB. The results were very strongly on my side. A few days ago, in response to what madeleine said about the lip prints on the tape, I taped up my own mouth twice with duct tape to study a struggling pair of lips against a non-struggling pair. Again, the results favor me.

But for this, the only thing I can think of it to shave my head with a fine razor and have someone smash me in the head with a baseball bat. I'm sorry, but as dedicated as I am, I have to draw the line someplace.

I'm sorry, Fang. I didn't mean to yell at you or anyone else. It's just that I've given until it hurts, Fang. LITERALLY. I've asked things of myself no one should ask of anyone. I honestly don't know how much there is left to give. And it's STILL NOT ENOUGH.

SuperDave
05-11-2010, 05:01 PM
Does it really matter?

Depends. Sometimes people from other countries don't fully appreciate the nuances of American law.


I don't think that some of the people on this forum are particularly up front on their motives.

What is that supposed to mean?


Funnily enough I joined because I thought I could perhaps add some new thoughts and ideas, without having very much prior knowledge of the case to influence me,

The danger of going off half-cocked is you can shoot yourself in the foot.


but it appears that there is a domination of people who have vested interest in the RDI theory.

I would go out on a limb and say that every single believer in the RDI theory would be quite happy to be wrong.


They turn each thread into a knit-picking DNA, fibre or sexual abuse argument (the only thing they have to 'support' their theory), which diverts attention from the 'big picture', and that is the solving of this killing.

That strikes me as an ironic condemnation, since we're the ones who stress the need to look at the big picture and see how the things we "nitpick" make up that broader canvas. And as for solving this killing, let me ask you this, MurriFlower: can you unscramble an egg? No. And this egg got scrambled, burnt and scraped out into the waste can a long time ago.


It appears one can say pretty much what ever one likes without having to suffer the consequences, if one just writes 'I'm protected by the constitution' at the end of their posts.

It beats the he** out of the alternative.


References to hitting IDI's in the head with the 'baseball bat of truth' are amusing to say the least.

My INTENT was to be amusing! Sadly, I think it went over most people's heads.


Perhaps we'd be better to bash our own heads up against a wall.

As opposed to what we've BEEN doing?


Sadly it appears there is an endless supply of people who hope to profit from this child's death.

Lin Wood formost among them. Trust me, MurriFlower: that's an area you don't want to pursue too deeply.

WHITEFANG
05-11-2010, 09:30 PM
True. Actually now that I think about it, itīs possible that the mental shock lasted for hours and included detachment and denial. In traumatic or life threatening situations, people can act rationally/on autimatic pilot but not remember much afterwards.

Hmm.

For your writing request I don`t have enough imagination or knowledge. I think intruder was a disturbed individual who was obsessed with the R family and perhaps had been in contact with them, at least with JB. He enjoyed being alone in the R house and writing the peculiar RN, adrenalin rush and all. But his kidnapping plan went somehow wrong, perhaps JB got away and/or recognized his identity and ran to the basement, where things took an unexpected turn and he killed her. Being disturbed he did a little more than necessary (it could be, that he was planning to kill and molest her anyway, but not in the R house). He attempted to leave through the basement window but realized it was too difficult, so he used the Butlerīs door instead.

How he got inside etc.? Well, to make a decent theory, I`d have to fit in some details, but it doesn`t belong to this topic. Perhaps I`ll dig in to this case again in the summer (time sure does fly, I remember last summer and me reading and wondering about this case).


I was merely curious about your location. Just ignore.

You did a very good job on this. Thanks for it. Can see the "rush" you refer to, as well. Disturbed is a good adjective for this *********. Would love to get my hands on him.

WHITEFANG
05-11-2010, 09:41 PM
Super
Awesome stuff. Talk about determination! Amazing.

Once blood vessels burst, blood begins to leak from them immediately. It occurs instantly and bruising is noticeable as the blood discolors and pools. Shock or not, there will be evidence that rupturing of her circulatory system took place.

MurriFlower
05-11-2010, 10:13 PM
BTW, no one HERE will ever solve this crime. Not with the limited evidence we have access to. To quote Dr. Henry Lee on this specific case "Rice already cooked". By that he meant all the mistakes in procedure, and the contamination of the crime scene from the first moments LE arrived.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue a dialog (on both sides). Because one day, hopefully, something or someone WILL be made known- some new evidence to shine a light on this case. And then, there is a chance.

Well I think it IS possible to come up with the correct answer. You are right of course, then someone would need to investigate, gather the evidence, charge the suspect, so we can't follow through to a conclusion. But if I thought it was just endless discussion without a resolution I wouldn't have joined and if that becomes obvious in future then I expect I will retire from the forum.

"Rice already cooked", I like that one LOL. I also have done a bit of genealogical research and one thing I've come to realise is that despite the passage of time and the amount of evidence that is lost, sufficient evidence is usually still there and sometimes access to information actually improves with age. One example is that WWI service records are now on line (free), and these would not have been available 5-10 years ago.

So, as this is only 14 years ago (not 90) and some people have passed on, a whole lot of others are still here. They still know what they know and we also have a wonderful resource in all the on-line information gathered, as well as a large number of people who have researched this over time. Future testing and examination may turn up new evidence as science improves the technologies.

My one area of concern is that it appears that many cling to their 'theories' and defend them endlessly without considering that there might be alternatives, or heaven forbid, they could be 'wrong'. Still, even people who hold theories I do not agree with, have given serious thought to the evidence and they turn up little 'gems' occasionally that help me along with the development of my theory.

WHITEFANG
05-11-2010, 11:10 PM
That's kind of my point, Fang. Wood wasn't talking about how much money he made for them. He was talking about how much money he had made toward his personal finances. Now, I admit it's been a while since I cracked a law book, but last I knew, filing lawsuits for the purpose of enriching one's own personal finances is called barratry, and it grounds for having one's law license pulled.



Judging from the available tax records, my guess is that "fund" was purely for their own use. Pretty despicable, any way you slice it.


Can you tell us what the tax records say? If not, where can we find them? Do they itemize expenditures for legal costs? I wouldn't think so. Thanks

WHITEFANG
05-12-2010, 12:01 AM
It IS odd that JR would hire a lawyer for his ex-wife in Georgia. I would say that is very suspicious and to me, the only reason he would do this is so that his ex-wife (with whom his son JAR lived) would not have to talk to LE about the whereabouts of her son that day.

Her lawyer would block LE from finding out where JAR was that day?

For as much as they claimed JAR was in Atlanta with his mother that day, I believe neighbor the late Joe Barnhill was correct in saying he saw him outside the R home. He was there, and he may have been in Christmas photos or movies taken that day, which is why the Rs claimed their camera had no batteries and they didn't take any.

That's the reason they lied about batteries? Joe Barnhill was a pretty solid citizen who knew JAR, or least could have picked him out of a line-up?

You mean to say that J wouldn't want JAR to be a suspect and eventually convicted of the murder?

The lawyer would also prevent his ex-wife from producing any photos that may have been taken at her own home Christmas day, which might show her son was not there.

How would her lawyer do that?
Pictures of Christmas at her house that didn't include JAR "might show" he wasn't there.

WHITEFANG
05-12-2010, 12:13 AM
BTW, no one HERE will ever solve this crime. Not with the limited evidence we have access to. To quote Dr. Henry Lee on this specific case "Rice already cooked". By that he meant all the mistakes in procedure, and the contamination of the crime scene from the first moments LE arrived.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue a dialog (on both sides). Because one day, hopefully, something or someone WILL be made known- some new evidence to shine a light on this case. And then, there is a chance.[/QUOTE]

no one here will solve this crime? I beg your pardon? Speak for yourself

Holdontoyourhat
05-12-2010, 01:13 AM
BTW, no one HERE will ever solve this crime. Not with the limited evidence we have access to. To quote Dr. Henry Lee on this specific case "Rice already cooked". By that he meant all the mistakes in procedure, and the contamination of the crime scene from the first moments LE arrived.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue a dialog (on both sides). Because one day, hopefully, something or someone WILL be made known- some new evidence to shine a light on this case. And then, there is a chance.

There are many assumptions made here, and thats probably got just as much to do with solving or not solving the case as does access to the evidence.

First off, we are not all on equal ground. Put simply, some of our theories are going to be better, or closer to the truth, than others. It doesn't depend exclusively on access to evidence. It also depends on perspective and information.

The light will start to go on for anyone who is able to recognize the huge difference between what we know happened and what we just think happened.

madeleine
05-12-2010, 02:55 AM
Didn't know where to put this so here it goes.

PMPT,page 239

"CBI told the Boulder police that no prints had been found on the black duct tape that John Ramsey said he removed from his daughter's mouth.."


Isn't it weird,cause both JR and FW admit touching it.

MurriFlower
05-12-2010, 03:55 AM
Didn't know where to put this so here it goes.

PMPT,page 239

"CBI told the Boulder police that no prints had been found on the black duct tape that John Ramsey said he removed from his daughter's mouth.."


Isn't it weird,cause both JR and FW admit touching it.

Perhaps they couldn't find an elephant in a broom closet either!

Mysteeri
05-12-2010, 05:27 AM
I was merely curious about your location. Just ignore.

You did a very good job on this. Thanks for it. Can see the "rush" you refer to, as well. Disturbed is a good adjective for this *********. Would love to get my hands on him.

I`ve actually read John Karr`s writings to try and understand how a disturbed individual explains what happened that night (a sexual game gone wrong). I felt a bit disturbed myself..

SuperDave wrote:
"And they've already made their ruling: JB was alive when she was struck and continued to live, in deep shock, for anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before she was strangled to death. Werner Spitz even said in these exact words: "someone took time to stage strangulation and sexual assault after she was unconscious." These people are on record in various places as saying this."

Quite a statement from Spitz, on what basis did he determine it was staging? The fact is that she was strangled and there were signs of sexual assault, staging is speculation.

Or am I missing something? This is soo frustrating, where is a list of the uncontroversial facts of this case? What did IDI and RDI agree upon again?

BOESP
05-12-2010, 09:55 AM
... Quite a statement from Spitz, on what basis did he determine it was staging? The fact is that she was strangled and there were signs of sexual assault, staging is speculation. ...

I do not know Dr. Spitz but training in crime scene investigation often includes how to recognize staging and, certainly, crime scene reconstruction. When successfully trained, it is as easy to recognize staging as it is for a forensic pathologist to recognize ligature strangulation.

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 10:41 AM
Super
Awesome stuff. Talk about determination! Amazing.

Thank you for your generosity. If nothing else, I do it so nobody else will have to do it.


Once blood vessels burst, blood begins to leak from them immediately. It occurs instantly and bruising is noticeable as the blood discolors and pools. Shock or not, there will be evidence that rupturing of her circulatory system took place.

There is. It all took place inside. The autopsy report speaks of extensive scalp hemorrhage.

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 10:44 AM
"Rice already cooked", I like that one LOL. I also have done a bit of genealogical research and one thing I've come to realise is that despite the passage of time and the amount of evidence that is lost, sufficient evidence is usually still there and sometimes access to information actually improves with age. One example is that WWI service records are now on line (free), and these would not have been available 5-10 years ago.

At this point, the best thing I can come up with is to turn the case over to an independent special prosecutor. The investigation cannot be fixed. It's time to start over.

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 10:46 AM
Can you tell us what the tax records say? If not, where can we find them? Do they itemize expenditures for legal costs? I wouldn't think so. Thanks

Your best bet is the Ramsey case archive at www.thesmokinggun.com

That's where I found it.

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 10:53 AM
SuperDave wrote:
"And they've already made their ruling: JB was alive when she was struck and continued to live, in deep shock, for anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before she was strangled to death. Werner Spitz even said in these exact words: "someone took time to stage strangulation and sexual assault after she was unconscious." These people are on record in various places as saying this."

Quite a statement from Spitz, on what basis did he determine it was staging?

Well, if the article he said this in is accurate at all, he conducted a series of forensic experiments. Plus, by that time he'd been involved with the investigation for a while and had access to autopsy findings through which he could apply his 30+ years of experience.


Or am I missing something?

Maybe.

madeleine
05-12-2010, 12:26 PM
At this point, the best thing I can come up with is to turn the case over to an independent special prosecutor. The investigation cannot be fixed. It's time to start over.

ITA.Even if I think it's too late for this as well.It's been a long time,people forgot things,you can't check their alibis,if you interview them they probably don't remember much.Some of the evidence can't be tested anymore,some suspects are dead.And so on...

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 12:54 PM
ITA.Even if I think it's too late for this as well.It's been a long time,people forgot things,you can't check their alibis,if you interview them they probably don't remember much.Some of the evidence can't be tested anymore,some suspects are dead.And so on...

True enough. It was a long shot at best. Problem is, I'm fresh out of ideas.

WHITEFANG
05-12-2010, 02:32 PM
Perhaps they couldn't find an elephant in a broom closet either!


I`ve actually read John Karr`s writings to try and understand how a disturbed individual explains what happened that night (a sexual game gone wrong). I felt a bit disturbed myself..

SuperDave wrote:
"And they've already made their ruling: JB was alive when she was struck and continued to live, in deep shock, for anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before she was strangled to death. Werner Spitz even said in these exact words: "someone took time to stage strangulation and sexual assault after she was unconscious." These people are on record in various places as saying this."

Quite a statement from Spitz, on what basis did he determine it was staging? The fact is that she was strangled and there were signs of sexual assault, staging is speculation.

Or am I missing something? This is soo frustrating, where is a list of the uncontroversial facts of this case? What did IDI and RDI agree upon again?


I do not know Dr. Spitz but training in crime scene investigation often includes how to recognize staging and, certainly, crime scene reconstruction. When successfully trained, it is as easy to recognize staging as it is for a forensic pathologist to recognize ligature strangulation.


Thank you for your generosity. If nothing else, I do it so nobody else will have to do it.

Absolutely, Super. Vince Lombardi would be impressed. Can't be much more dedicated than what you've described.

There is. It all took place inside. The autopsy report speaks of extensive scalp hemorrhage.

Super, don't try this! But, if a person takes a razor blade and cuts himself on his head, will it bleed onto the surface area of the skin/scalp where it would be visible?

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 03:28 PM
Super, don't try this! But, if a person takes a razor blade and cuts himself on his head, will it bleed onto the surface area of the skin/scalp where it would be visible?

Relax, Fang. I have no intention of any further self-abuse.

As to your question, if someone were to be cut on the head, then yes, it would bleed onto the skin. But I fail to see the importance of that. JB's head was not cut open. It was what is called a closed head injury. The blood had no way out.

WHITEFANG
05-12-2010, 03:56 PM
Just kidding Super. (Although we do seem to be driving you out of your mind!)



It would bleed because it was cut and.....

there are blood vessels present.

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 04:08 PM
Just kidding Super. (Although we do seem to be driving you out of your mind!)

I'm glad you noticed, Fang.


It would bleed because it was cut and.....

there are blood vessels present.

Yes, I know that. But that doesn't really contraindicate me.

WHITEFANG
05-12-2010, 07:19 PM
Super, is it your belief that JonBenet had very little or no observable bruising on her head?

MurriFlower
05-12-2010, 07:54 PM
At this point, the best thing I can come up with is to turn the case over to an independent special prosecutor. The investigation cannot be fixed. It's time to start over.

I think HOTYH summed it up. I suspect that RDI would believe that the case needs more evidence, whereas IDI probably thinks it needs more investigation and based on this more evidence. In other words, there was not enough investigation on the alternative suspects to the R's. In fact, some people, who I would have thought were suspects, were apparently only asked some very superficial questions about themselves and their movements on the night, but were closely questioned about what they knew about the R's.

Again, I don't think we can prove a case against the killer, but there is probably enough evidence to come up with a scenario that leads to the solving of the case. If the authorities choose to take it from there is another question.

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 08:08 PM
Super, is it your belief that JonBenet had no or very little observable bruising on her head?

Hang on a minute. You've spent the last few days telling me unequivocally that there wasn't. Now you're asking me if I believe it? I just don't get it!

Okay, let's take a different tack. The first page of my copy of the autopsy report specifically says "Scalp contusion." "Contusion" is medical-speak for a bruise. But when I read the section described as skull and brain, I notice that it mentions a few bruises on the brain itself. A scalp "hemorrhage" is mentioned specifically. Now, since a bruise is bleeding under the skin, and the hemorrhage itself is the only thing mentioned, could that be it? Since no one knew there was a head injury until the scalp was peeled back from the skull, there was no reason to check the exterior surface of the skull for any bruising. It's possible any bruising could have been hidden by JB's ponytailed hair.

Hmm...

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 08:12 PM
I think HOTYH summed it up. I suspect that RDI would believe that the case needs more evidence, whereas IDI probably thinks it needs more investigation and based on this more evidence.

I can only speak for myself, MurriFlower. But for my money, it's not a question of needing more evidence; it's a question of having a DA in office who actually knows what to do with it.


In other words, there was not enough investigation on the alternative suspects to the R's. In fact, some people, who I would have thought were suspects, were apparently only asked some very superficial questions about themselves and their movements on the night, but were closely questioned about what they knew about the R's.

Again, I don't think we can prove a case against the killer, but there is probably enough evidence to come up with a scenario that leads to the solving of the case. If the authorities choose to take it from there is another question.

HOTYH said something else, and I agree with it completely: if it were up to me, I'd put together two investigative teams. One would focus on the Rs; the other would focus on everyone else.

Holdontoyourhat
05-12-2010, 08:42 PM
I think HOTYH summed it up. I suspect that RDI would believe that the case needs more evidence, whereas IDI probably thinks it needs more investigation and based on this more evidence. In other words, there was not enough investigation on the alternative suspects to the R's. In fact, some people, who I would have thought were suspects, were apparently only asked some very superficial questions about themselves and their movements on the night, but were closely questioned about what they knew about the R's.

Again, I don't think we can prove a case against the killer, but there is probably enough evidence to come up with a scenario that leads to the solving of the case. If the authorities choose to take it from there is another question.

Whether IDI or RDI, more evidence would be helpful.

Where to get more evidence? The RN is destroyed and JBR is buried, so maybe the rice is partially cooked. For IDI, the RN comes off as political/socioeconomic with fat cats, SBTC, and Victory! For IDI these become more important leads.

DeeDee249
05-12-2010, 08:58 PM
Whether IDI or RDI, more evidence would be helpful.

Where to get more evidence? The RN is destroyed and JBR is buried, so maybe the rice is partially cooked. For IDI, the RN comes off as political/socioeconomic with fat cats, SBTC, and Victory! For IDI these become more important leads.

Did the entire RN get destroyed? I know some of the testing methods were destructive, but that note was three pages. I'd have hoped they'd have saved some of it. The cord, too. That was a LONG cord. I would hope they didn't destroy all of it. It could yield skin cells with the new technology- the tape, too.

I thought a special prosecutor had been requested at some point (and denied). Anyone else remember this?

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 09:02 PM
Whether IDI or RDI, more evidence would be helpful.

You have a point.


Where to get more evidence? The RN is destroyed and JBR is buried, so maybe the rice is partially cooked.

That would be the situation!

MurriFlower
05-12-2010, 10:11 PM
Whether IDI or RDI, more evidence would be helpful.

Where to get more evidence? The RN is destroyed and JBR is buried, so maybe the rice is partially cooked. For IDI, the RN comes off as political/socioeconomic with fat cats, SBTC, and Victory! For IDI these become more important leads.


I asked you (but so far haven't received a reply) if you knew anything about what countries Access Graphics sold to.

I was wondering if you had considered that the words "the country it serves" may not be referring to the USA, but to another country with whom Access had business dealings? Could it be that the "small foreign faction" was an anti-government faction within another country?

Now I'm really suspicious. A quick Google or two makes me wonder about the risk to personal safety of delving too deeply into Access Graphics business!!

DeeDee249
05-12-2010, 10:19 PM
I asked you (but so far haven't received a reply) if you knew anything about what countries Access Graphics sold to.

I was wondering if you had considered that the words "the country it serves" may not be referring to the USA, but to another country with whom Access had business dealings? Could it be that the "small foreign faction" was an anti-government faction within another country?

Now I'm really suspicious. A quick Google or two makes me wonder about the risk to personal safety of delving too deeply into Access Graphics business!!

Well... Access Graphics had an office in Amsterdam, though I don't know if it was a country they sold to or had business dealings with. It may just have been another location for an office. Amsterdam allegedly is a large pornography center, and I believe I read that the Access Graphics computers there were searched for kiddie porn.
I don't recall ever reading whether JR was questioned about why his company had offices there. I would think it was a relevant question, as any intruder suspect would involve a sexual assault on a child.

Holdontoyourhat
05-12-2010, 10:42 PM
I asked you (but so far haven't received a reply) if you knew anything about what countries Access Graphics sold to.

I was wondering if you had considered that the words "the country it serves" may not be referring to the USA, but to another country with whom Access had business dealings? Could it be that the "small foreign faction" was an anti-government faction within another country?

Now I'm really suspicious. A quick Google or two makes me wonder about the risk to personal safety of delving too deeply into Access Graphics business!!



Re: what AC does (or did):

http://www.mdlcorp.com/Insoft/news/CN24.html

Based in Boulder, Colorado, Access Graphics is the leader in channel sales and support of UNIX-based distributed computing solutions. Access sells through value-added resellers who target workgroup computing, Internet communications, digital media markets, computer-telephony integrations (CTI), migration and rightsizing applications, computer-aided design (CAD) and document imaging. The company has sales offices throughout the U.S., Canada and Europe. Press announcement and other information about Access are available on the Internet via the World Wide Web at the location http://www.access.com. (http://www.access.com/) Access is a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland

Re: the country that it serves

I believe the RN author is socialist. The single business within a socialist system can have a very different role than in the west. In hard core socialism, businesses are owned by, and therefore serve, the country...period. I'm not surprised by the expression 'country that it serves' at all. In a socialist country, thats what businesses do!

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 10:48 PM
Now I'm really suspicious. A quick Google or two makes me wonder about the risk to personal safety of delving too deeply into Access Graphics business!!

That might explain why the DA was so reluctant to take on someone who was connected with them...

SuperDave
05-12-2010, 10:52 PM
In hard core socialism, businesses are owned by, and therefore serve, the country...period. I'm not surprised by the expression 'country that it serves' at all. In a socialist country, thats what businesses do!

I don't know, HOTYH. I've met some socialists, even communists in my time, and to hear them tell it, in any country that is NOT socialist, the governments are slaves to the corporations. That's the whole basis of communism's antipathy to capitalism.

Tell you what. Don't take my word for it. Do a Google search and type in "The History of Stuff." Then get back to me.

MurriFlower
05-12-2010, 10:59 PM
That might explain why the DA was so reluctant to take on someone who was connected with them...

It answers a lot of questions.

Holdontoyourhat
05-12-2010, 11:15 PM
I don't know, HOTYH. I've met some socialists, even communists in my time, and to hear them tell it, in any country that is NOT socialist, the governments are slaves to the corporations. That's the whole basis of communism's antipathy to capitalism.

Tell you what. Don't take my word for it. Do a Google search and type in "The History of Stuff." Then get back to me.

This makes no sense. I agree its possible for governments to be slaves to corporations AND its possible for businesses to be owned by countries. Where's your argument?

Besides, I'm too busy typing in "fat cat bonuses" and "news from 1996."