Questions that I have

[MrsMush99]

Hello Everyone,

I've never posted on the JBR forum. This will be my first. One of the reasons is because I know only the basics of this case. I really interested in learning more. I really don't have a strong opinion as to what happened because I don't think I have all the facts. I would love to be a part of this forum, but I feel I should get some of my facts straight.

One questions that I have is who is Susan Stine?

The other one that I have is has the man who was playing Santa Clause been looked at closely and eliminated?

Thank to all of you who respond. I hope to be a part of this forum.

:D

[sissi]

Welcome! I do not represent the majority on this forum,as I believe Jonbenet was killed by an intruder,however I read and give consideration to all ideas. If the Ramseys are one day found to be the killers,everything I have read and studied about criminal behaviors is wrong and I have wasted years on bad information.
The story begins with lies,twisted truths,innuendo and theories presented by a team of law enforcement officers that were covering their tracks for bungling the biggest case of their lives.
The media took it from there and ran with the stories that would sell,neglecting any exculpatory evidence that would benefit the Ramseys.


Santa was looked at by this police department, yet never cleared publicly ,to my knowledge. There were problems with santa,his wife had written a play based on a true story ,the Sylvia Likens story, yet in her play the girl was murdered in a basement,(not the manner in which the real child was murdered)
Santa's own child was abducted 20 yrs to the day of Jonbenet's murder,she was unharmed ,however her friend was molested. There have been suggestions that this unidentified abductor was possibly in disguise. There was another unsolved murder of a child in the area where santa lived,years old,as well.
Santa himself seemed to love Jonbenet,saying so,saying how special she was. This hit some as odd,he had children of his own,and normally grown men do not call other's children angels and dote on them. He did however keep a harp on which he engraved the names of dead children,many found this strange.

He had associations with others, that were suspect,perhaps because of his position at the university,perhaps for other reasons never uncovered.

His own child ,a felon,was at one time incarcerated for kidnapping and abduction. It is felt in some circles that genetics weigh heavily on the behaviors of children.

Santa was sickened ,and saddened by the death of Jonbenet,and by his being seen at times as a suspect. His health,which was an ongoing problem sent him to the northeast to establish a new residence. Some saw this as curious,that he would leave his long time home . If he did not kill Jonbenet his story is sad,as he was never cleared,and in the minds of a few remained a suspect til the day he died.
JMO IMO

[Ivy]

Welcome, MrsMush :)

Below is a link to a site that will acquaint you with some of the players in the Ramsey case. The info about Susan Stine hasn't been updated, I see. She, like her husband, relocated to Atlanta, GA, where the Ramseys had moved. Susan was an adamant defender of Patsy's and was nicknamed "Patsy's pitbull." Interestingly, the Stines and Ramseys weren't close friends until after JonBenet's death. The Ramseys even moved in with them.

Who's Who (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer1_fam.html)

Below is a link to a news article about Susan Stine pretending to be Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner and sending bogus emails to people affiliated with the JonBenet case.

Rocky Mtn news article (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ramsey/article/0,1299,DRMN_1296_2009831,00.html)

Below is a link to an old article written about the case that includes a description of an incident involving Susan Stine and one her pranks.

Feeding Frenzy (http://thehistoryvault.tripod.com/02291999feedingfrenzy-bw.htm)

Have you read Perfect Murder, Perfect town by Lawrence Schiller? We refer to it often here at the JonBenet forum.

Santa Bill McReynolds was cleared, though he is still a target for the RST (Ramsey Spin Team) because he is now dead and can't defend himself. Lots of people have been thrown under the bus by the RST, including Ramsey friends.

[Britt]

Good post, Ivy... and welcome, MrsMush :)

Santa Bill McReynolds was cleared in December, 1999.

Here's a quote from Lawrence Schiller, author of Perfect Murder Perfect Town, from the Geraldo Rivera Show Live, March 16, 2000:

...Bill McReynolds was cleared in December by Alex Hunter's office publicly.

Geraldo Live (http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03162000geraldoriveralive.htm)

BTW, from the same interview, here's an interesting Schiller quote about the Ramseys' book:

Now Patsy I can't still figure out through the book. She doesn't come across to me as being somebody who's believable or is being honest through those pages. John Ramsey does come across as being honest, as much as his lawyers will allow him to be...

Schiller thinks Patsy is a liar. Interesting. This supports my belief that Schiller is a PDI theorist.

[sissi]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_908882,00.html
pretty recent article and they didn't mention being cleared?

Burke has been officially cleared,however,that doesn't stop many from discussing him as a suspect.
Santa ,I do not believe was cleared as Schiller stated,I do not remember his being on the list,I believe this was an error on schillers part. I think Santa should have been cleared in the same manner the Whites were,as a courtesy.
IMO JMO

BTW,who has the power to clear,Hunters office? the BPD,Judge Carnes?
http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,6247457,00.html

[Ivy]

In 2000 Lin Wood tried to get Alex Hunter to sign a statement under oath stating that "all questions related to" Burke's "possible involvement" in JonBenet's death "were resolved to the satisfaction of investigators." Hunter refused to sign the statement. He also refused to sign a statement that Wood drew up stating that Burke "has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect." Hunter also would not sign anything stating that Burke "has not been and is not a suspect."

Hunter did agree to sign a statement saying that "no evidence has ever been developed ... to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from witness to suspect."

Hunter may have had suspicions about Burke but had no hard evidence to prove he was involved in his sister's death. At any rate, Burke was never officially cleared.

[Casshew]

MrsMush... I found it so hard to believe it was the parents or their son burke that murdered JonBenet but after seeing the handwriting on the ransom note compared to Patsy Ramsey's handwriting I got chills. :confused:

When you have a chance..... be sure to look at the handwriting analysis thread posted on this forum... it's an eye-opener.

Cass....

[sissi]

Rocky Mountain News:

The stories prompted Boulder DA Alex Hunter's office to make an unprecedented statement. In May 1998, Hunter publicly announced that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect in his sister's death

let's not split hairs with "clearing" suspects,we all know stories where many offenders have been cleared

Burke should never have been a suspect in the mind of anyone. IMO JMO

[SisterSocks]

Hi Cass , actually Patsy scored low on the handwriting lingustics

I don't think Pats actually Killed JB but , although she scored low I do think she could have written the RN=(


I am also FENCE SITTER .

[Britt]

Originally posted by sissi
BTW,who has the power to clear,Hunters office? the BPD,Judge Carnes?
All of the above, except Judge Carnes.

[Maxi]

Officially, no one is a suspect in this case. People come and go under the umbrella of suspicion. At least, some people come and go. The Ramseys stayed under it because the BPD was unable to put anyone else in the house at the time of the murder. They were also unable to eliminate either Ramsey by means such as DNA, lack of physical capability to do the crime, alibi, etc. That was the statement of BPD Chief Beckner.

Beckner also said that anyone who had been cleared could be uncleared. That leaves us a pretty wide range of theories and potential suspects to discuss.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by SisterSocks
Hi Cass , actually Patsy scored low on the handwriting lingustics

I don't think Pats actually Killed JB but , although she scored low I do think she could have written the RN=(


I am also FENCE SITTER .

http://www.reversespeech.com/enquirer.htm

ENQUIRER ARTICLE ON THE RAMSEYS

Note the amasing similarities with this report and some of the reversals posted on the Ramseys, calling Jon Benet a "manequin" backwards, and the reversed references to "Fantasy" etc.

Patsey Ramsey has secretly confessed to the murder of her daughter, JonBenet, says a top forensic psychologist. Dr. Judianne Dense-Gerber, an expert on the criminal mind, says unmistakeable evidence of Patsey's guilt is written in her own words in "The Death of Innocence", the new book penned by Patsey and her husband John. In their book JonBenet's parents point accusatory fingers at former friends and employees, mysterious pedophiles and midnight cat burglars.

And during numerous appearances on TV, the couple continue to stanchly declare their innocence. But Dr. Densen-Gerber, a congressional mental health advisor, said years of experience have shown her that the spoken and written words of killers subconsiously reveal hidden clues to their guilt.

And she finds plenty of clues that show the Ramseys are secretly confessing their guilt in the book.

"The more you say, the more you reveal" Dr. Densen-Gerber explained. to The Enquirer. "What the Ramsey's say, especially Patsey, is:"Catch me if you can- please catch me".

Dr. Densen-Gerber, 65, is an acclaimed therapist and lawyer who has studied the case from the very beginning. And she says that JonBenet's mom points a finger of guilt at herself in her description of a panic attack she had about a month after the christmas 1996 murder in Boulder, CO.

Patsey writes that her mind suddenly filled with the image of jonBenet's murderer slowly tightening a dog leash-like noose around the childs neck. Her body trembled and her heart pounded as she fought to breathe - "as if someone were strangling me. I desperately gasped for air".

Dr. Densen-Gerber was stunned by Patsey's description of the attack.

"In all my years, I've never heard someone use the word 'strangling' to describe an anxiety attack". "Its one important clue from Patseys subconscious that clearly indicates the guilt she is feeling." Another important clue revealed is, says the expert, when Patsy indicates she has created a fantasy world to hide in - a world where the former Miss America contestant puts herself on par with Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and even the Virgin Mary. She writes that she chose to wear a black veil to JonBenet's funeral because a picture of Jackie wearing a veil 'flashed across my mind'.

And while examining a figure of the Virgin Mary on a cross she wore, she 'had this immediate empathy' with the mother of Jesus Christ because 'she watched them kill her child' Patsy writes.

These images are clear signs that Patsey is searching for a way to deal with guilt, said the Dr.

"Its called restitutive fantasy - a fake world a parental killer creates to restore the feeling of innocence, a place where you come to believe you really didn't do it."

And Dr. Densen-Gerber pointed to even more passages in the book where she finds hidden meaning. Patsy's writing shows that to cope with her guilt, she has convinced herself that JonBenet wasn't a real person and instead imagines the little beauty queen as a playdoll, the expert disclosed. Patsy tells of a special present that she gave JonBenet that fateful Christmas day: A 24-inch specially crafted doll fashioned to look like JonBenet all done up as a beauty queen. "Patsy dwells a lot on that doll," said Dr.

D-G. "I beleive she thinks of JonBenet as a toy. After all, Patsy was entering her in these pageants, dressing her up in differant outfits, making her sing and dance, like a little girl would do with a doll."

And the doll could explain how a mother like patsy ramsey could do the unthinkable - murder her own child.: By turning JonBenet into an inanimate object in her miond. "She imagines she's only killing a plaything, a toy she used to dress up and order around without a peep of complaint." Said Dr. D-G.

Patsy goes on to say that after she gave JonBenet the doll beneath the christmas tree where her body would later be placed, she asked the girl: "Well now, doesn't she look like you?" JonBenet picked up the doll and held it away from her. "I really don't think she looks that much like me," she said as she laid the doll to one side and ignored it.

In a 1997 interview with the Enquirer, Patsy also mentioned that JonBenet didn't like the doll and indicated that her daughter thought the done-up doll was "too much". Dr. D-G is convinced tha JonBenets rejection of the doll shows that, deep inside, she was rebelling more and more against the beauty pagaent life patsy had chosen for her. "She was wetting the bed. She was soiling the bed, don't tell me thats not a sign of abuse, physical or mental, going on here."

In fact, Dr. D-G believes that JonBenet's rejection of the doll that holiday morning may have been the trigger that sent patsy into a killing rage hours later!

Also in their book, the Ramseys blast the Boulder cops as incompetent, although they offer no new clues to the identity of the intruder they say wrote a ransom note and murdered their daughter in a kidnapping-gone-wrong.

But Dr. D-G believes their writing reveals far more than they intended. A scenario for how the phony ransom note was actualy written. The rmaseys drew investigators attention when they used the expression 'and hence' in a christmas message a year after the murder. Thats because the very same uncommon expression also appeared in the ransom note! In the book, Patsy writes that "John and I had each written a version of the holiday greeting they posted on a family website the internet. With both copies in hand, John dictated and I typed at the computer as we merged the two into one." Patsy says they may have chosen the expression 'and hence' for their holiday greeting because they'd written the ransom note over and over again for police as samples of their handwriting.

Dr. -G sees a deeper meaning, a direct parallel to the way John and Patsy composed the fake ransom note together. "In trying to explain it, I'm convinced they are revealing how they actually wrote that note" she explained. "The more you say, the more you reveal!"



Ramsey reversals page


AND your thoughts regarding the above URL are ... ???

[MrsMush99]

Thank you everyone for all the information. I will be sure to look at all the links and the handwriting thread. It will take me some time because there is sooooo much information so bear with me please:D

I have not read Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. I did see the movie last week when it was on. I thought I had the book, but when I went to look for it I couldn't find it. Anyway, I will purchase it sometime this week.

I know that there were some fibers, hairs and sperm that was found on JonBenet. To my knowledge they were never linked to anyone in the house. Is this correct?


Thanks again everyone. I'll do my best to keep up!;)

[Shylock]

Originally posted by sissi
Burke has been officially cleared,however,that doesn't stop many from discussing him as a suspect.
Old news, Sissi. Burke was cleared by the OLD investigation and the idiot Hunter even issued a public memo stating so.

HOWEVER, we have no idea if the NEW investigation has also cleared Burke. Burke, as discussed here and on other forums, is a VERY valid suspect since he had both the opportunity and ability to cause the death of his sister.

BUT, those who believe Burke is involved don't hold out much hope that the new investigation will even consider him, since the new DA is nothing but a bimbo who learned her ethics and job function from her previous boss, Hunter. (The more things change in Boulder--the more they remain the same...)

IMO

[Shylock]

Originally posted by sissi
Burke should never have been a suspect in the mind of anyone. This is the perfect time to settle this once and for all!

Know any 10-year old boys, Sissi?

Go out and buy a few small pumpkins, then have the boy bash them with a baseball bat.

Then come back here and try telling us that Burke shouldn't be at the top of the suspect list...

[sissi]

In the first days following the crime it was reported that sperm was found on the body,later it was retracted,and reported as semen no sperm,and even later it was reported no semen,no sperm. Whatever glowed under the luminol test has been suspected as anything from gel soap to saliva,I don't believe we have this information,the BPD may,but we don't.
The recent depositions involving Wood, have certainly suggested
it was saliva. However, we have to be careful as so much information that we trust as truth clearly isn't the truth at all.




JMO

[MrsMush99]

About Burke, what would his motive be? Is anyone of the belief that it was an accident and then it was covered up?

BTW, I'm so lost on this case that I didn't even know Santa Clause died!

[Sabrina]

Sissi, IF it was saliva you better bet they would have had the 12 markers. What Wood said was that MAYBE the DNA mixed with JBR's blood in her panties was saliva.

I say there is no "maybe". If it's a viable sample, the lab analysists would be able to tell.


Mrs Mush,

There were no hairs found on JonBenet, I think you are thinking about what was reported as a "public" hair found on the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in. This was later changed to "a body hair". It was only ONE hair.

I could be wrong, but the fibers mostly all match up to Patsy and John. Fibers matching Patsy's jacket were on the duct tape. Patsy was nowhere near that duct tape so they must have jumped out from John and got on the duct tape when he pulled it off JonBenet's mouthn There may have been some unidentified fibers, but since her body was wiped down I would bet they came from a towel that probably was never collected.

[Ivy]

MrsMush, here is a link to an informative Crime Magazine article I consider a Must Read. The author, Ryan Ross, a Denver legal affairs expert, discusses various aspects of the case and theorizes that JonBenet's death was accidental.

Solving the JonBenet Case (http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm)

[Toth]

Originally posted by MrsMush99
I know that there were some fibers, hairs and sperm that was found on JonBenet. The substance initially thought to be sperm was not. One axiliary hair was found but it is not known to be from the perpetrator necessarily. Some fibers were found in the immediate area of the crime that were found no where else in the house, giving rise to a suspicion they may be from the intruder, but this is not known.

[sissi]

Let's consider Burke for a moment,just as an exercise.
He is angry at his sister,gives her a wallop to the head.
He calls his mom,"Mom,I killed Jonbenet",mom panics,and
A. calls an ambulance
B.decides to cover up by staging an accident
C.decides to create an elaborate staging of murder by
crazed pedophile that's into bondage

Is anyone really comfortable with C?
And in reply to the question ,I have raised sons, and certainly a mother knows if her son is capable of causing severe damage to a sibling. With children,as well as with adults,there would be a history of temper episodes, it would be a highly unlikely scenario to have an incident this severe without that history.
Accidents happen, as with a baseball bat and a swing,a golf club and a swing,if an accident occurs,parents call for an ambulance.

JMO IMO

[Maxi]

Blaze, please edit your post above so that it has some excerpts from the original story and a link for those who want to read the whole thing. Thanks.

[Barbara]

Welcome MrsMush99,

You will find a variety of opinions on this forum. I admit, most of the opinions stated here are of the "one of the Ramseys did it".

To form one for yourself, the best suggestion I can give you to become more familiar with many of the details would be to read the books written. My suggestions would be to read PMPT, and Steve Thomas' book. AFTER reading those books, I suggest you read DOI (if you have a strong stomach).


And most important, ALWAYS ask for a source to back up ANY statements. If the poster cannot provide that, take it with a grain of salt.

You should also know about A Candy Rose. She has a site that has so much information and background on this case, you could almost skip the books, but be prepared to spend some time there.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/acandyrose2/start

You will have to register with delphi, but that is quite simple.

Again, welcome

[sissi]

Toth;Some fibers were found in the immediate area of the crime that were found no where else in the house, giving rise to a suspicion they may be from the intruder, but this is not known.

Among these fibers were beaver hairs,one found on the tape covering the child's mouth,and others found in her hands.
No beaver items were ever found in the home,not in vacuuming,not in a closet,and certainly not in "boots" that have become one of the legends surrounding this case.

JMO

[Maxi]

Barbara, please remove the two paragraphs about Toth in your post. No attacking the general credibility of other posters. It's too much of an argument ad hominem.

[sissi]

Barbara ,what the heck kind of disclosure was that? No offense,but Toth's information is no different than anyone's on this forum,it is a forum of opinion based on what we have read. We all have access to the same sources and the same information we just use our own logic to decide what sources seem more valid than others.
IMO

If we are to believe the Ramseys did it,we first must believe they are the world's best liars.

[Jayelles]

Sissi:-
Among these fibers were beaver hairs,one found on the tape covering the child's mouth,and others found in her hands.


I am aware that a beaver hair was found at the scene, but could you please cite your source for the beaver hairs in her hands? It is my understanding that the 'animal hairs' found in her hands were not identified as belonging to a particular animal.

[Jayelles]

Sissi:-
We all have access to the same sources and the same information we just use our own logic to decide what sources seem more valid than others.

I think we all have a responsibility to provide information that can be backed up.

I happen to think the Ramseys are innocent, but I think it does them no favours to paint them as paragons of virtue. They have made mistakes and they have acted in ways that many people find distasteful. To pretend otherwise will only serve to make people more suspicious. Most folks aren't daft and when John Ramsey is repeatedly caught out in lies, it serves no purpose to insist that he is an honest man. The person who does will only be perceived by others as terribly naive ... or a liar himself.

It is my belief that the Ramseys will only rescue their public image when they, and their supporters start to acknowledge their mistakes (and I am NOT talking about 'sleeping too soundly that night').

[Barbara]

Originally posted by sissi
Barbara ,what the heck kind of disclosure was that? No offense,but Toth's information is no different than anyone's on this forum,it is a forum of opinion based on what we have read. We all have access to the same sources and the same information we just use our own logic to decide what sources seem more valid than others.
IMO

If we are to believe the Ramseys did it,we first must believe they are the world's best liars.

No offense taken, but Toth's information is quite different than anyone else, in that he presents a statement or his opinion as fact and refuses to back it up. I understand that it can sound like a personal attack, but it is not. It was a piece of advice that someone brand new should heed. I also stated that ALL statements should be backed up unless it is clearly stated that it is an OPINION. Most posters do just that.

Believe it or not, I think Toth is an intelligent poster with a very strong and respectable opinion, but it should be based, like all opinions on their "interpretation" of the evidence and not present "facts" without the proper documentation. Facts aren't based on things like "unramseylike", or "they wouldn't do that".

As far as the Ramseys being the world's best liars, no, I don't believe that for a minute. Liars, yes, world's best, no.

Believing the Ramseys are involved and are not in jail, is based NOT on their ability to lie; I base that on the corruption in the DA's office (I believe it continues to this day), combined with initially poor police work.

Again, no offense meant and none taken :)

[sissi]

Jayelles...could you please cite your source for the beaver hairs in her hands? It is my understanding that the 'animal hairs' found in her hands were not identified as belonging to a particular animal.

Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Yet, nothing in defendants' home matches the hair (SMF 183; PSMF 183.), thereby suggesting either that the duct tape had been obtained from outside the home or that it had been carried outside the home at some point. Dark animal hairs were also found on JonBenet's hands that have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PS

the animal hairs are described as "alleged beaver",doesn't mean they were.. The way I read it,is hairs,not two different kinds of hair,this is JMO as it didn't say, "and"different animal hairs

[Ivy]

sissi, one fact you failed you mention in your exercise is that JonBenet had incurred vaginal injury right before she died, and the opinion of at least several experts is that she was also the victim of chronic sexual abuse. The Ramseys had no choice but to try to point the finger at someone outside the family. Otherwise, how would they explain the vaginal trauma?

I believe that JonBenet and Burke were playing a sexual exploration game that included a cord being placed around JonBenet's neck, perhaps as a lead-the-prisoner device, and that the segment of the broken art brush found tied on the end of the cord was used as a handle. I believe that the acute vaginal injury happened when Burke inserted another portion of the broken art brush into JonBenet's vagina. Crying out in pain, she tried to get up. Afraid she would tell, Burke panicked, and in a knee-jerk reaction, yanked on the neck cord. With his free hand, he immediately grabbed up the Maglite and struck her on the head, then yanked the neck cord again and kept pulling.

John and/or Patsy may have been awakened by the commotion. When they discovered the body (or were led to it by Burke) they too panicked. They sent Burke to his room and set about staging the coverup.

Btw, sissi, the entire house was not vacuumed. Also, the hairs were never positively identified as beaver hairs. I wonder if hairs from the bristle end of the art brush were ever examined to see if they matched the mystery hairs.

[sissi]

Ivy
I wonder if hairs from the bristle end of the art brush were ever examined to see if they matched the mystery hairs.


That sounds like a logical explanation for the hairs,however the statement said they didn't match anything in the house.


I do not believe there was prior abuse,

so many,including Meyers,who were involved in the scientific findings never suggested this. There was no chronic damage,the damage was acute and current,the mention of chronic inflamation matches to the reports of vaginitis.

IMO this was no child's play

[Ivy]

sissi, the fact remains that there was definitely acute vaginal injury. How would the Rs be able to explain away that in an accident scenario?

[Jayelles]

Sissi:-
Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Yet, nothing in defendants' home matches the hair (SMF 183; PSMF 183.), thereby suggesting either that the duct tape had been obtained from outside the home or that it had been carried outside the home at some point. Dark animal hairs were also found on JonBenet's hands that have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PS

the animal hairs are described as "alleged beaver",doesn't mean they were.. The way I read it,is hairs,not two different kinds of hair,this is JMO as it didn't say, "and"different animal hairs

Thank you. You have confimed what I believe to be the case - that there has been no official statement saying that the hairs on her hands were beaver and that it is just your assumption that they were.

[sissi]

IVY:How would the Rs be able to explain away that in an accident scenario?

Why would they need to explain something that didn't happen?
First one would have to assume the Burke did it theory,then one would have to guess the mother decided JonBenet would be better off dead so she hit her on the head to finish her off...I can't buy into this,this was a brutal murder committed by a brutal adult IMO

[sissi]

Jayelles,it wasn't my assumption it was said they were "alleged" beaver hairs. If you choose to think dark animal hair on tape was from a beaver,and dark animal hair on hands was from a bear,that would be your assumption. No where did it say,as it seemed no more than an effort to not repeat "alleged beaver",that the hairs were from a different animal.
As I said,we all take in the same information,my logic tells me one thing,yours another,does this prove one of us is wrong? We don't have enough information to determine that.
IMO

It doesn't matter to me at all what kind of animal hair was on her,it only suggests that there was an intruder,as none of these hairs has been identified elsewhere in the home. The "alleged" beaver is another blunder by the BPD,they can't source hairs and provide us with a definitive answer?

[Shylock]

Originally posted by sissi
A. calls an ambulance
B.decides to cover up by staging an accident
C.decides to create an elaborate staging of murder by
crazed pedophile that's into bondage
How can you go with A or B if Burke was playing sexual games with his sister BEFORE he bashes her head in? How do you explain that? What if he also strangled her and there were marks on her neck that would have to be explained?

At that point John Ramsey had lost two daughters, do you think he was going to take the chance of losing a son to "the system"? How would Burke then be known for the rest of his life, as the "sex crazed kid who murdered his beauty queen sister"? Sounds like great fodder for decades of tabloid articles.

What you don't realize sissi, is that if Burke was the perp, and the parents staged the elaborate coverup to save him. They effectively pulled the wool over the eyes of thousands of people like you who bought into their outlandish scheme.
The job they set out to do that night worked perfectly, didn't it...

IMO

[Shylock]

Originally posted by sissi
Toth's information is no different than anyone's on this forum,it is a forum of opinion based on what we have read. Not so sissi. Toth gets most of his information from the Swamp, where lies and false information are fabricated almost daily and fed to mindless twits. False case information such as the pineapple actually being "lemon", and the mystery DNA being "caucasian" are just a couple examples of the lies the Skank has come up with. That kind of crap needs to say where it was born and not propagated to this forum by any of the Skank's stooges.

[Ivy]

sissi, your last post has me scratching my head. It doesn't appear to make sense.

I asked you how the Ramseys could explain away the acute sexual trauma in an accident scenario. Although there are differences of opinion as to whether JonBenet had been abused before that night, there is NO doubt she suffered vaginal trauma that night. The damage was minimal, with little bleeding, but it was there and it was obvious. How would they explain it away in an accident scenario? Answer: They couldn't. That is why they invented the Intruder.

I see you didn't bother to read the rest of my post in which I explained my BDI theory. If you had, you would know that in my opinion, Burke was responsible for everything that was done to JonBenet. I do not believe Patsy or John struck her or strangled her before or after her death. Nor do I believe that John or Patsy sexually assaulted JonBenet before or after her death. I believe Patsy wrote the note with John's input, and that they staged the crime scene in various ways, but they did not abuse JonBenet or her dead body in any way.

[TLynn]

Personally, I slide right by Toth's posts. They are always stated as fact and too many times WRONG. The posts are a waste of my time as they are never sourced.

Did the White's have any animal? Also, wasn't Patsy wearing beaver hair boots (lining?) that evening - or is that a rumor?

I would sure love to see the pictures from the White's that night. One thing I truly wish would be revealed.

[Jayelles]

Jayelles,it wasn't my assumption it was said they were "alleged" beaver hairs. If you choose to think dark animal hair on tape was from a beaver,and dark animal hair on hands was from a bear,that would be your assumption. No where did it say,as it seemed no more than an effort to not repeat "alleged beaver",that the hairs were from a different animal.

Ehm, Sissi, I don't think I mentioned bear anywhere. I don't believe I mentioned ANY animal for the hairs on her hands. In the absence of that information from an officila source, I would choose to leave them as 'unknown animal' hairs rather than fill the unknown with an assumption that since a single beaver hair was found elsewhere, then all animal hairs must therefore be beaver!

You posted as FACT that the hairs on her hands were beaver. Now you admit that it is actually your assumption/opinion. Even if your assumption is reasonable, it doesn't make it a FACT! I am not making an assumption, I am working with what we know to be FACTS.

[sissi]

Shylock ...They effectively pulled the wool over the eyes of thousands of people like you who bought into their outlandish scheme.

hmmm...interesting comment,are we aiming to discuss the findings and the facts or are we buying into theories here

Can anyone honestly give ONE piece of evidence that would lead anyone to believe Burke committed this crime. What are these ideas based upon? This is a homicide, maybe we should follow the facts. I will be the first to admit,the facts are difficult to distinguish from the lies,as many were deliberately planted factoids designed to increase the media attack on the Ramseys.
I think we heard they were "leaks".

I will concede the mention in the press of the male caucasion was based,likely on two findings,male dna,(as I don't suspect the dna was tested under the newer test),and the caucasion body hair.
JMO IMO

[sissi]

Jayelles,I'm sorry,I understood what I meant, maybe I wasn't clear. It said "alleged beaver" ,it never said there was an identified beaver hair. The writing suggests to me,it was the same source of hair,dark animal hair, not from two sources,as I believe there would have been a comment. "Animal hairs from two unknown sourced animals was found on Jonbenet"

I don't suggest you thought bear,I was only pointing out that there was no comment that the hair was different.
In fact I could believe a teddy bear that was made out of beaver fur,easily. I've seen such items for sale.
http://www.alaskrafts.com/beaver-bear.htm

IMO

also an article about the clearing of the Ramseys by the judge

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:zbwfefybG3IJ:www.talkleft.com/archives/002849.html+identified+animal+hair+on+jonbenet+han ds&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Barbara]

Originally posted by sissi
Jayelles...could you please cite your source for the beaver hairs in her hands?

Exactly my point above Sissi. See how quickly you asked Jayelles for her source for her statements?

Statements made should be sourced.

[Imon128]

That info came from the Good Gudge/Keenan when they got their hands on the case. Correct?

Edited to say that I have not read that the hairs on JB's hands were beaver hairs. I guess I just didn't read carefully enough. :-(

[Ivy]

sissi, when Judge Carnes ruled in the Wolf case, she knew ZERO, ZILCH, ZIP about the Ramsey case except what she'd been fed by the Ramseys and Lin Wood. In fact, she's probably still in the dark.

Judge Carnes did not have access to the police files. She also didn't know that Burke Ramsey and his friend had both testified before the grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tec shoes, which means that the logo print found near the body was more than likely Burke's and not an intruder's.

Carnes also couldn't give a logical, sensible explanation for an intruder writing a looooong ransom letter while in the Ramseys' house, nor could Carnes explain why the intruder would kill instead of kidnap JonBenet and why he left the body behind, along with the ransom letter.

For more on Judge Carnes's bogus ruling click here (http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-carnes.htm)

[Jayelles]

Jayelles,I'm sorry,I understood what I meant, maybe I wasn't clear. It said "alleged beaver" ,it never said there was an identified beaver hair. The writing suggests to me,it was the same source of hair,dark animal hair, not from two sources,as I believe there would have been a comment. "Animal hairs from two unknown sourced animals was found on Jonbenet"

I think you misunderstand the point I am making. Firstly, you didn't say 'alleged beaver' until I asked you to cite your source. Your initial post claimed that a beaver hair was found on the duct tape and that beaver hairs were found on her hands:-

Sissi>>
Among these fibers were beaver hairs,one found on the tape covering the child's mouth,and others found in her hands.
No beaver items were ever found in the home,not in vacuuming,not in a closet,and certainly not in "boots" that have become one of the legends surrounding this case.

Now we knew about the single beaver hair, but the first we knew about the hairs in her hands was in Judge Carne's high school essay. However, she didn't specify which animal these came from and I don't think we should ass-u-me that they were also beaver.

You are now backtracking and saying that the hair is only 'allegedly' beaver - as though that were the issue here. It isn't, the issue is that you claimed the hairs in her HANDS were beaver and you stated it as though it were an established fact - when it is not.

Also, don't you realise that if you are now backtracking about whether the hair really was beaver, you don't really have room to criticise others for theorising about whether Patsy's boots were or were not beaver. If the hair wasn't definitely beaver, then surely that puts patsy's non-beaver boots firmly back in the frame? Similarly, by claiming as fact your assumption about the hairs in her hands being beaver, you are creating your own legend/myth?

****

I happen to believe that the animal hairs in her hands are very crucial evidence. Hairs don't stick to skin (unless the skin is sticky). This would suggest that the hairs got onto her hands at or around the time of her death. It is possible that the investigators are deliberately withholding information about these hairs.

[Jayelles]

Sissi:-
I don't suggest you thought bear,I was only pointing out that there was no comment that the hair was different.

And there is no comment that they are the same - only your ass-umption. My stance is that we don't know and shouldn't speculate.

[Britt]

Originally posted by sissi
hmmm...interesting comment,are we aiming to discuss the findings and the facts or are we buying into theories here
Sissi, perhaps it would save a lot of discussion time if you could first define what should be considered "findings" and "facts."

Which sources are we supposed to believe?

Whose "fact" is really a fact?

Who is credible/correct and who is not?

[MrsMush99]

Barbara,

Thanks for the welcome. I'm already registered at Delphi Forums, but don't visit much. I have a lot of reading and catching up to do so it might take me a while to get into the swing of things. Between this case and Laci, I'm going to be pretty busy! I did not read PMPT but I did see the movie when it was on last weekend. I'm going to buy it this week and start reading! And can you please tell me what DOI is? I see it all over here but have no idea what it is.

Thanks

[Ivy]

MrsMush, DOI is the book the Ramseys wrote, called The Death of Innocence.

[MrsMush99]

Thanks Ivy! I'll be sure to pick that one up also.

[sissi]

Whewwwww..I sure didn't mean to make anyone's bp rise,I have read in many an article that animal hairs were found on the tape and on the hands,in articles not mentioning beaver at all,just stating the facts,animal hairs. I did not realize it was such an important issue that some have decided the hairs were not the same. I will certainly be more careful in the future,to use the words "allege",as I wish ST would have been when he was spouting about Patsy owning Beaver shoes. It was ST,I believe ,that first said the one on the tape was "beaver".

Now moving right along,oh how interesting that Burke and a friend testified in front of a grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tech shoes. Uh huh!!

PS..I was starting to feel a bit worn down ,until I saw the comment concerning Judge Carnes and her "highschool" letter
..is this how it is..either a Ramsey did it..or you are an idiot?
I respect any woman who made it to sit on a federal bench,good for her,hardly an idiot!!

JMO

[Sabrina]

Mrs. Mush, I suggest you buy Death of Innocence on Ebay or www.half.com, In fact, you can buy all the book sthis way for pennies.

You MUST also buy the National Enquirer book by Don Gentile- Jon Benet, the Police Tapes.

If one takes this book which is the Ramseys' interview transcripts and compares it to the Ramsey's book, one can see numberous lies they told.

[Eagle1]

Chances are JonBenet's hands were sticky on the way home from the Whites' from eating a piece of Christmas candy or fruit, and when they stopped to deliver Christmas gifts, she may have petted a dog at the Whites' if they had one, and at two or three of the friends' houses, so the hairs could be from different animals.

Or, maybe an intruder wore something with animal hair on it and her hands were sticky from the pineapple.

I forget "Boots" ' real name, though I'm sure I have it somewhere in my notes. Would Santa's delinquent son have known Boots? If there was an intruder they may have planned before doing this crime to frame him and suicide him, maybe even "borrowed" his boots? Did they clear Boots? Was anyone bullying him, who'd maybe been in the military with him?

Boots' friend was snooping around after his death, trying to exonerate or decide if Boots did it? Boots had been in the military a short time, Army I think, only a few months.

Intrusions continued after Boots' death, a 14 yr old girl's home who was in JonBenet's dance class, Dance West, and Susannah Chase was killed on the street. Some homeless people also were killed. Three drowned in the Creek. Strange town.

[Eagle1]

Boulder PD probably know, but no author is going to know and tell us.

That one piece of info would tell whether she got the hairs on the way home or during the crime.

[Jayelles]

Whewwwww..I sure didn't mean to make anyone's bp rise,

Well you didn't make mine rise if that helps.

I have read in many an article that animal hairs were found on the tape and on the hands,in articles not mentioning beaver at all,just stating the facts,animal hairs. I did not realize it was such an important issue that some have decided the hairs were not the same. I will certainly be more careful in the future,to use the words "allege",as I wish ST would have been when he was spouting about Patsy owning Beaver shoes. It was ST,I believe ,that first said the one on the tape was "beaver".

Please don't twist the issue. It is not a case of 'some having decided the hairs were not the same' as some refraining from making assumptions that they are. Perhaps too subtle a diifference for 'some'?

Now moving right along,oh how interesting that Burke and a friend testified in front of a grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tech shoes. Uh huh!!

PS..I was starting to feel a bit worn down ,until I saw the comment concerning Judge Carnes and her "highschool" letter
..is this how it is..either a Ramsey did it..or you are an idiot?
I respect any woman who made it to sit on a federal bench,good for her,hardly an idiot!!

I don't think anyone has called Judge Carnes an idiot and I think that is perhaps the difference between us. I criticised a piece of her work rather than her as a person. She may have excelled in order to make it to the bench, but she has a duty to maintain that high level of excellence in her work thereafter. Her decision was taken without consideration of much of the evidence. To boot, the evidence which she based her judgement on is known to be out-dated. In other words, I don't believe she did her research very thoroughly in this case - or she could at least have acknowledged that she was working without the benefit of the most up-to-date evidence file. A high school student could have made as good a job IMO.

What I do think is rather idiotic, when someone ignores a poster when she says "I believe the Ramseys are innocent" and labels her RDI because she dared to criticise Judge Carnes' badly-researched report. No worries, I have been called a BORG often enough and it amuses me - a bit like the classic - 'if you can hear anything on this tape then you are a BORG' !! Toe the party line or else.

[sissi]

I quoted the Burke/grandjury thing only because no one was called on it.
Concerning the hairs,I trust my sources. I have a problem with Steve Thomas,I have a problem reading "alleged","suspected","assumed",and should never have put the word "beaver" in my post. Sorry.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1048518253788

Please scroll down,read the sentence involving the hairs,and determine for yourself if one reading this is to believe there were two sources. IMO JMO

And yes,I did take offense to the "high school" remarks,as I do believe women are often subjected to this kind of thing,no matter their education. I do not believe she was poorly versed in the case,I do believe much of what we accept as fact,plainly isn't.
JMO IMO

[Ivy]

sissi...Lin Wood is responsible for letting the cat out of the bag regarding Burke and a friend testifying to the grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tec shoes. Looking for another opportunity to spin the case in favor of the Ramseys, Wood sent CNN, NBC and CBS video tapes of all the interviews that LE conducted with the Ramseys in 1997, 1998 and 2000. In a 2000 interview, LE informed Patsy Ramsey that Burke and a friend had revealed to the grand jury that Burke owned Hi Tec shoes. I guess Wood forgot about the tidbit regarding Burke's shoes being in the video tapes as well as the interview transcripts. Either that, or Wood was trying to pre-empt LE leaking the info.

Judge Carnes did not have access to police files, and the Ramseys didn't tell her about the revelation in the 2000 interview that Burke owned Hi-Tec shoes. The Ramseys also didn't tell Carnes that prosecutors told them in 2000 that fiber tests showed that fibers indistinguishable from Patsy's red jacket fibers were found in the paint tray and tied into the ligature. As I've said before, and I stand by it: The only information Carnes had on the case was what was supplied to her by the Ramseys and Lin Wood. Even Lou Smit, who had read the police files, disagreed with and dismissed much of the information Carnes based her decision on--information supplied by the Ramseys.

[Jayelles]

Ivy - and Lou Smit hadn't had access to the police files since 1998 so his presentation was about 4 years out of date. Beckner confirmed in his deposition that forensic work had been ongoing since the Grand Jury and that some of the DNA results hadn't been available till late 1998 - after Smit left.

[Britt]

Ivy, excellent post.

But there were two sides to this civil case. What about Wolf's attorney, Darnay Hoffman? What about his handling of the case?

IMO Hoffman is partially if not fully to blame for the Carnes decision. It was the lawyers' jobs to present the case for Carnes to rule on. It was Carnes' job to rule solely on what was presented to her in that civil case, which had nothing to do with the criminal investigation. It is unfair to blame her for Hoffman's (IMO) failings.

What Ramsey supporters refuse to realize is that Carnes' decision had zero to do with the Boulder criminal case. She was merely ruling on Wolf's civil suit, based on the limited information available to her in that context.

For all the RST spewage about separating truth from spin, you'd think they would recognize Wood's spin on Carnes' ruling.

It is Ramsey supporters who need to get their facts straight:

The civil suit and the criminal case are not related.

The Carnes ruling was not, and did not have the authority to be, exoneration of the Ramseys in the criminal case. She does not have the authority to clear suspects in the Ramsey criminal investigation.

Sissi... I don't think Carnes is an idiot (technically speaking), but since you posted several articles about the Carnes ruling (and Wood's spin thereof), are you presenting the above spin as fact? Are you trying to say that Carnes has cleared the Ramseys?

[sissi]

I would love to read the information concerning "Burke owning Hi-techs" could you please link me to something?

[Ivy]

Britt, Darnay Hoffmann didn't have access to the police files either, but IMO he did fail to present the case adequately, especially in regards to the handwriting documents. He didn't have Epstein in his depostion elaborate on his methodology or go into detail about his analysis.

Although some people may excuse Carnes's ignorance of the facts as not being her fault because the only information she had was what the Ramseys fed her, she herself decided to dismiss Gideon Epstein's expert opinion, his "absolute certainty" that Patsy wrote the note. As I mentioned above, Carnes thought Epstein should have been more specific in his depostion and gone into detail about his methodology. Had Carnes given Epstein the chance by letting the Wolf case go forward, Epstein would have been able to do just that. Now he won't.

Until he retired in 2000, Epstein was director of the forensics unit of the documents lab at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. But he wasn't the only expert who believes Patsy wrote the note. David Leibman, former president of the National Association of Document Examiners, does too. Anyway, regardless of the opinions of the experts, Carnes had to be blind not to see from the handwriting comparison documents showing Patsy's exemplars next to the ransom note samples, that Patsy wrote the note. Rather than being an idiot, I think that by objecting to the unspecificity of Epstein's deposition, Carnes was very clever to pounce on this opportunity to favor the Ramseys and make sure the Wolf case didn't go to trial.

[Britt]

Ivy, I certainly agree with you about the handwriting, but IMO Hoffman's incompetence doomed this case from the get-go. Instead of a simple defamation/libel/slander suit based on the only fact that was relevant - that Wolf had been cleared by LE yet the Ramseys named him as a suspect anyway - Hoffman turned it into a Patsy-criminal-prosecution. I think this created unnecessary problems for Hoffman which he wasn't up to handling. Possibly this partly explains Carnes' attitude/response (?)

[Ivy]

Britt, I totally agree that Darnay was trying to prove PDI and lost focus of what the Wolf case was really about.

I remember when Darnay used to post here at WS how determined he was to prove Patsy wrote the note and to see to it that she be charged with felony murder. The felony he had in mind was kidnapping. Darnay explained that kidnapping merely required a person to be moved against their will from one room to another, or, if I recall correctly, to be moved against their will anywhere, even to another part of the same room.

Darnay said that even if someone other than Patsy kidnapped and killed JonBenet, if it was proved that Patsy wrote the note, she could be charged with felony murder. Darnay said it was the same as in cases where drivers of bank robbery get-away cars can be charged with felony murder if the actual robbers happen to kill someone during the heist.

I remember waiting and waiting for Darnay to respond to my post asking how it could be proved JonBenet was taken anywhere against her will. Other posters had questions too, but I don't recall many of our questions being answered. I know mine wasn't.

[Toltec]

From the autopsy report:

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.

Dr. Cyril Wecht explains the autopsy report as JonBenet suffering from acute AND chronic abuse.

I am presenting FACTS here and I too am tired of some people posting without quoting sources. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but they should say it is only opinion...not based on FACTS.

[Ivy]

sissi, I've posted the link to the article containing the information about Burke's Hi Tec shoes many times, including in a post I made a while back on the subject. I even posted the article link earlier in this thread, in the post wherein I told MrsMush I considered the article a Must Read, although I see I neglected to post the link later in the thread, when I spoke of Burke's shoes. I humbly beg everyone's forgiveness for being remiss. Here is the link again:

Solving the JonBenet Case (http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm)

If, after reading the article, anyone wishes to dispute the fact that Burke and his friend testified before the grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tech shoes and that Patsy was informed in 2000 of this, I suggest you take it up with the article's author, Ryan Ross. He is a legal affairs expert living in Denver, whose articles have appeared in National Law Journal and Legal Times, as well as other publications. He has also appeared on Nightline as a legal expert.

[sissi]

Toltec's quote Dr. Cyril Wecht explains the autopsy report as JonBenet suffering from acute AND chronic abuse.

NO! This is not a fact,this is an interpretation,and is in direct opposition to the opinions of those directly involved with the case. The autopsy showed some chronic inflamation,not chronic abuse,that is a "call",a supposition,a guess..

[Britt]

Originally posted by sissi
Toltec's quote Dr. Cyril Wecht explains the autopsy report as JonBenet suffering from acute AND chronic abuse.

NO! This is not a fact,this is an interpretation,and is in direct opposition to the opinions of those directly involved with the case. The autopsy showed some chronic inflamation,not chronic abuse,that is a "call",a supposition,a guess..
Sissi, could you please elaborate?

Can you please quote/source and/or link to this opposite interpretation of those autopsy findings?

[sissi]

You are right Ivy, I would have to take issue with the author,his is more of an editorial,and the few facts that he sources,are questionable,for ex. Wecht's description was that of strangulation then head hit,I believe this author got that one wrong,claiming the opposite. He has "sources" but doesn't name them,that always makes material "highly" suspect ,IMO. If Burke owned those Hi-techs,or any Hi-techs,I wonder why the more "mainstream" media didn't pick up the coverage. From personal experience,I happen to know writers take license, in the best of journals one cannot expect accuracy to be 100%.
We all read the same information,we just choose what we believe . JMO IMO

[Ivy]

sissi, you know you're going to believe what you want to, no matter what the evidence says.

Do I have it right that you now place value on Wecht's opinions? Hello?

[sissi]

For Britt,

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/timeline4.html

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/02/20-1.html

We have to remember Wecht was not directly involved in this case .

[Britt]

Thank you, Sissi. :)

But the most we can conclude from those articles is that the experts were "in disagreement" and "evidence of sexual assault was inconclusive."

Bottom line: No one can say for sure that she was not sexually abused.

JB's doctor himself, Dr. Beuf, did not know whether JB was abused or not.

From Diane Sawyer's interview with Dr. Beuf:

DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.

He couldn't say for sure. He didn't look. He didn't know.

ABC Primetime Live, September 10, 1997 (http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm)

[Britt]

Originally posted by sissi
We have to remember Wecht was not directly involved in this case .
Is it necessary for a medical expert to be directly involved in a case in order to have the expertise to interpret autopsy findings?

What about expert witnesses in trials? What about the other experts consulted in this case?

[sissi]

I do not believe that to be the case. In a trial, the coroner that does the autopsy,is traditionally the one that presents his findings,not someone from across the country who had no access to actual tissue samples. If he ,Wecht, would be called in for the prosecution,it would be difficult to take anything he promotes as anything more than speculation. Remember he lost his credibility when he claimed John Ramsey murdered his daughter.

On the same side of this is Doberson,his testimony will also be lacking in the fact he is drawing conclusions based on photos,not on actual examination.

These are two similar situations, I can understand picking one to believe,it's human nature.

Which "guy" do you believe and why?
IMO JMO

[sissi]

Oh,and Britt,my first post was lost ,my connection shut down,I wanted to say,Yes,you are right,there is no way to conclude either way.

[Britt]

Originally posted by sissi
In a trial, the coroner that does the autopsy,is traditionally the one that presents his findings,not someone from across the country who had no access to actual tissue samples.
True, the coroner testifies, as well as experts called by both sides.

My point was that an expert witness such as Wecht (not necessarily Wecht) could be called at trial and the fact that he/she wasn't present for the actual autopsy nor directly involved in the case does not diminish his/her expertise. The autopsy report is written in a 'language' that can be interpreted by anyone with the expertise to understand it.

I think we're talking about two separate things here: interpretation of the autopsy report, and theory of the crime. I believe Wecht's interpretation of the autopsy findings, but not his theory of the crime. IOW, I believe JB was sexually abused prior to the night of her death, but I don't believe John killed her during a sex game.

[Toth]

Might interest you to know that under the Frye test a determinaiton of stun gun use may be made from forensic quality photographs and not from examination of epidermal tissue.

[gretchen]

MrsMush, Boy did you open a can of worms!:D

My suggestion is to read all the books on the case BEFORE reading the forums. To do otherwise will only confuse you! I have read everything I can about this case and still get some of the facts mixed up. It is easy to do-so much information and so many opinions all wrapped together.

But anyway, welcome to the JBR forum. I think you will like it here, just keep in mind that opinions vary considerably and most of us have very definate opinions on who did it.

To me, the most frustrating part is the lack of law enforcement to do anything with this case. I don't believe for one minute a real investigation is being conducted by Mary Keenan.

Good luck!

[SisterSocks]

Welcome Mush=)

Socks

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by MrsMush99
Hello Everyone,

I've never posted on the JBR forum. This will be my first. One of the reasons is because I know only the basics of this case. I really interested in learning more. I really don't have a strong opinion as to what happened because I don't think I have all the facts. I would love to be a part of this forum, but I feel I should get some of my facts straight.

One questions that I have is who is Susan Stine?

The other one that I have is has the man who was playing Santa Clause been looked at closely and eliminated?

Thank to all of you who respond. I hope to be a part of this forum.

:D

HELLO to you! I'm sorry I'm a slow poster (I've priorities as in "kids/husband/house/work...etc). AGAIN, welcome and hopefully you time here will be well spent/peaceful/theraputic...in a positive way!

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by SisterSocks
Hi Cass , actually Patsy scored low on the handwriting lingustics

I don't think Pats actually Killed JB but , although she scored low I do think she could have written the RN=(


I am also FENCE SITTER .

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN: FENCE SITTER: SAFE ? (AS IN WHAT?)
\
\
Q: HAVE YOU READ IT ALL (JONBENET INFO AVAIL)? Y/N

If not, why?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/06/slain.girl/9701.01.ep.html
Secondly, they will be offering a reward perhaps as much as $50,000 starting next week. It has been a very difficult week as you might expect for the Ramsey family, a very difficult interview as well, we talked to them for about 45 minutes.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CABELL (off-camera): Why did you decide you wanted to talk now?

JOHN B. RAMSEY, JONBENET'S FATHER: Well we have been pretty isolated -- totally isolated -- for the last five days, but we've sensed from our friends that this tragedy has touched not just ourselves and our friends but many people. And we know that there's many people that are praying for us, that are grieving with us. And we want to thank them, to let them know that we are healing, and that we know in our hearts that JonBenet is safe and with God and that the grieving that we all have to do is for ourselves and for our loss, but we want to thank those people that care about us.

PATRICIA RAMSEY, JONBENET'S MOTHER: We have just been overwhelmed by the cards and letters and visits and people we haven't seen for years have come to call and be supportive in their -- many of them are parents, and they know and can feel our grief.

RAMSEY, J: But the other -- the other reason is that -- for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened.

CABELL: There has been some question as to why you hired a defense attorney.

RAMSEY, J: I know. Well, we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note to be surrounded by friends, our minister, our family doctor, a personal friend of mine who is also an attorney, and we relied on their guidance almost from that moment on and my friend suggested that it would be foolish not to have knowledgeable counsel to help both us and with the investigation.

RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.

RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on.

RAMSEY, P: We can't -- we can't --

RAMSEY, J: This -- we cannot go on until we know why. There's no answer as to why our daughter died.

CABELL: Are you fully convinced that your daughter was kidnapped by some outsiders outside your family or circle of friends?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. I -- we don't -- you know, it's just so hard to know, but we are -- our family is a loving family. It's a gentle family. We have lost one child. We know how precious their lives are .

CABELL: Mrs. Ramsey -- you found the note. Was it a handwritten note, three pages?

RAMSEY, P: I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing I -- I just gotten up. We were on our -- it was the day after Christmas, and we were going to go visiting, and it was quite early in the morning, and I had got dressed and was on my way to the kitchen to make some coffee, and we have a back staircase from the bedroom areas, and I always come down that staircase, and I am usually the first one down. And the note was lying across the -- three pages -- across the run of one of the stair treads, and it was kind of dimly lit.

It was just very early in the morning, and I started to read it, and it was addressed to John. It said "Mr. Ramsey," And it said, "we have your daughter." And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. I can't -- "we have your daughter." and I don't know if I got any further than that. And I immediately ran back upstairs and pushed open her door, and she was not in her bed, and I screamed for John.

CABELL: John, you subsequently read the note. Was there anything in there that struck you in any sense?

RAMSEY, J: Well, no. I mean, I read it very fast. I was out of my mind. And it said "Don't call the police." You know, that type of thing. And I told Patsy, call the police immediately. And I think I ran through the house a bit.

RAMSEY, P: We went to check our son.

RAMSEY, J: Checked our son's room. Sometimes she sleeps in there. And we just were --

RAMSEY, P: We were just frantic.

CABELL: How did you happen later to look in the basement?

RAMSEY, J: Well, we'd waited until after the time that the call was supposed to have been made to us, and one of the detectives asked me and my friend who was there to go through every inch of the house to see if there was anything unusual or abnormal that looked out of place.

RAMSEY, P: Look for clues I guess.

RAMSEY, J: Look for clues, asking us to do that, give us something more to do to occupy our mind, and so we started in the basement, and -- and we were just looking, and we -- one room in the basement that -- when I opened the door -- there were no windows in that room, and I turned the light on, and I -- that was her.

RAMSEY, P: She was --

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABELL (on camera): Mr. Ramsey did confirm that duct tape was found on his daughter's mouth. I asked him about a cord found around her neck, that was a report out of Colorado today, he said he didn't see, it could have been there but he was panicked at that point. He picked up the body, ran screaming upstairs, hoping she was still alive, of course she was not.

There was also a reference to another child that was lost. They lost his daughter -- his adult daughter -- about four years ago in an auto accident. This is the second child they have lost.

Coming up in just a few minutes, we address the question -- I address the question -- to them of their being suspects themselves. That's natural in a case like this and we'll ask them about that coming up.


http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/01/child.slain/index.html
A funeral service for the slain child was held Tuesday in Atlanta, where she was baptized and where her parents met.:mad:

[Blazeboy3]

JOHN B. RAMSEY, JONBENET'S FATHER: Well we have been pretty isolated -- totally isolated -- for the last five days, but we've sensed from our friends that this tragedy has touched not just ourselves and our friends but many people. And we know that there's many people that are praying for us, that are grieving with us. And we want to thank them, to let them know that we are healing, and that we know in our hearts that JonBenet is safe and with God and that the grieving that we all have to do is for ourselves and for our loss, but we want to thank those people that care about us.



ok...THIS IS IS A CLUE...WHAT'S MISSING FROM THE ABOVE/ABOVE POSTED STATEMENT/POST?

[Jayelles]

Toth:-
Might interest you to know that under the Frye test a determinaiton of stun gun use may be made from forensic quality photographs and not from examination of epidermal tissue.

And it would be laughed out of court. Steve Tuttle would be brought on to testify that during years of extensive testing, Taser had never been able to reproduce the marks as seen in JBR's autopsy photos.

Graphics experts would be brought in to show that the marks on JBR don't match up to any known brand of stungun.

The Boggs photos would be shown to demoinstrate what real stungun marks look like when the victim dies soon after.

The pigmarks would be used to show that when a stungun is used, the marks are pink and match up to the weapon perfectly.

I say bring it on - it will be torn to pieces by expert witnesses.

[Jayelles]

And Toth, you might be interested in this re the admissability of evidence submited under the Frye Test:-

Out of forty published opinions prior to 1993 deciding the admissibility of voice identification evidence, twenty-three courts applied the Frye standard or a standard very similar to Frye. Sixteen of the twenty-three courts rejected the admission of such evidence

http://www.owlinvestigations.com/forensic_articles/aural_spectrographic/standards_of_admissibility.html

[Toth]

The sixteen were probably right too.

[Nedthan Johns]

Mrs. Mush: Hello Everyone,

I've never posted on the JBR forum. This will be my first.

Ned: Under your name it say 145 posts. First one, you must be a Peterson addict then LOL?

[Nedthan Johns]

One questions that I have is who is Susan Stine?

The other one that I have is has the man who was playing Santa Clause been looked at closely and eliminated?

Thank to all of you who respond. I hope to be a part of this forum.

Ned: Let me surmise the whole case for you, it's real simple:

No Santa Claus didn't play a part in this crime, except to show up for a Christmas party and hand out presents.

That JOhn and Patsy Ramsey are the only TWO viable suspects, unless you want to go out on a limb and include Burke. That the evidence thus far points ONLY to a Ramsey involvement. Patsy wrote the note, Patsy placed the tape over JB's mouth, and JOhn Ramsey was a participating member for certain which was confirmed by Lin Wood's release of the 911 tape. That the BPD don't have the brains or balls to make an arrest in this case, and that the Ramsey's will forever live in the facade that they have done nothing wrong, including failing to continue to look for their imaginary intruder who they claim took the life of "that child". That Lou Smit will forever believe his stun gun theory since he imployed the use of PIGS to prove it. Because we all know GREAT investigators stop when they have reached only ONE possible conclusion, the one that fits his theory. LOL

Other than that, welcome and how the heck is the Peterson case doing?

[Toltec]

Blazeboy...you got me?

Other than the fact that John told a lie about being isolated...I do not know what is missing.

Edited to add: John did not mention a reward for catching the killer?

[Nedthan Johns]

Sabrina: Mrs Mush,

There were no hairs found on JonBenet, I think you are thinking about what was reported as a "public" hair found on the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in. This was later changed to "a body hair". It was only ONE hair.

Ned: I believe this hair was confired to be Patsy's. I may be wrong

Sabrina: I could be wrong, but the fibers mostly all match up to Patsy and John.

Ned: Fibers from John's shirt he wore that night were found on Jb's underpants. Patsy's were found on the rope, paint tote and under the tape. Blue fiber was found that matches nothing else found in the home.

Sabrina: I bet they came from a towel that probably was never collected.

Ned: Hence the NEED for the club clubs which lay within a foot of the crime scene. ONe rag that doesn't match anything else in the house. The rag used to clean the clubs Most likely and in reach of a killer

[Nedthan Johns]

Sissi: C.decides to create an elaborate staging of murder by
crazed pedophile that's into bondage

Ned: The ONLY reason any parent would chose to knowingly sexually abuse their child to include in a cover up would be if that child was being sexually abused prior to the crime. ONLY REASON. IN fact they went as far as to use the BROKEN end of the paint brush to simulate rape and make sure she bleed. Not an option had the child not have been sexually abused prior. They were trying to COVER up the fact that she was being abused. So accidental or not, the Ramsey's had no choice. They couldn't call an ambulance.

Had this been some sort of accident, and for some crazy reason the parents decided not to call for an ambulance then WHY stage a rape scene with a broken paint brush? It wouldn't have needed to be included. The ransom note was all about a kidnapping, not a rape.

[Nedthan Johns]

Sissi: No beaver items were ever found in the home,not in vacuuming,not in a closet,and certainly not in "boots" that have become one of the legends surrounding this case

Ned: Actually Sissi, did the BPD every recover the vacuum cleaner? I haven't heard this to be true and would be important had no beaver hairs been found in it, however I believe the BEST source as to answer whether Beaver hair was ever in the home prior would be Linda Pugh, who would have been in charge of vacuuming and would know if Patsy or John had boots which were lined with such

[Ivy]

Only a few areas of the house were vacuumed, right?

[MrsMush99]

OK Everyone,

I've looked for PMPT and DOI in Barnes and Noble today and they did not have them. They did have a couple of other ones but didn't know if they were any good so I didn't get them. I'm going to keep trying to get them without having to order them online.

[Toltec]

Ned...one of the posters on Skanky's forum theorized that the killer stepped on a beaver before entering the home!

[Ivy]

MrsMush...Does your public library have the books? If it does, you could check them out and then order the books from Amazon or somewhere. Just a thought.

[Maxi]

Mrs Mush, be sure to look in the remainders section. I've seen both of them there at Borders, I think. You can probably find it used on Amazon, and the price plus shipping may not add up to as much as you'd spend in a store.

[sissi]

Can I have a go at summarizing it for you MrsMush?
Patsy and John were great business people but rather naive(could say stupid) at life.
They trusted the world (their world) was a safe haven,they didn't do a very good job of protecting their most precious possessions,their children.
They were proud of their accomplishments,flaunted them in the press,they were proud of their beautiful daughter and flaunted her,as well.
Their house was found in the morning with no less than 7 unlocked windows and one door ajar. Many people had keys to their home,current employees as well as past ones,including a neighbor.
They chose to sleep on a different floor of the house than their children,making it impossible to hear anything,not even a midnight illness.
The warning of the housekeeper to keep Jonbenet closer to home,watch her outside at play was unheeded,they didn't see who she talked to on the street,in the alley or in the yard.
There are cities in this United States where parents can be found neglectful for allowing their children to walk to school,let alone play blocks away at the age of six.
Someone took advantage of their incredible trust,and took their child's life. No one knows who, certainly they don't,they weren't looking!
IMO

[Sabrina]

Yes, and the Ramseys still haven't learned their lesson because they virtually did not provide any security for Burke right after the kidnapping , and their home in Atlanta was broken into (very suspiciously)

[Toth]

Nothing suspicious about the Atlanta breakin.

Fairly good summary of their views and trusting nature. Their 'world' had evil in it only during the Sunday sermon. I would not agree with the 'flaunting' part, but see no particular need to quibble about it. The newspaper article was not even John Ramseys idea, I think it was Jeff Merricks. They did not throw lavish parties or have an opulent lifestyle.

[candy]

Patsy putting together lunches for John's business that cost $30,000 is lavish to me.

[Ivy]

Poor Jeff Merrick. Little did he know he was about to be thrown under a bus.

PMPT pb p. 578

...Lou Smit received a letter from John Ramsey, who gave the investigator his list of suspects in his daughter's murder: Jeff Merrick, Mike Glynn, and Jim Marino--all of whom had once worked for him--and Bill McReynolds, who had been Santa at their Christmas party.

[Toth]

They lead essentially a low key lifestyle. They were not well known or particularly conspicuous in Boulder society. They raised their kids rather than go to Opera House Openings or the like.

On what is referred by you as The Swamp and by me as the Forum of Record and Reason, I once posted a thread dealing with the List that had been issued by the Boulder Chamber of Commerce: "Boulder Area Fat Cats with Young Daughters" and mentioned that John Ramsey was listed 576th on that list. Now obviously, there was no such list issued by the Chamber of Commerce, despite one poster's misunderstanding of that point, but crux of the matter is that John Ramsey would have been rather low on any such list.

No oppulent lifestyle. No Enron type business deals.

[Imon128]

Are we talking about the SAME John and Patsy Ramsey??? (scratching head)

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by Toth
They lead essentially a low key lifestyle. They were not well known or particularly conspicuous in Boulder society. They raised their kids rather than go to Opera House Openings or the like.

On what is referred by you as The Swamp and by me as the Forum of Record and Reason, I once posted a thread dealing with the List that had been issued by the Boulder Chamber of Commerce: "Boulder Area Fat Cats with Young Daughters" and mentioned that John Ramsey was listed 576th on that list. Now obviously, there was no such list issued by the Chamber of Commerce, despite one poster's misunderstanding of that point, but crux of the matter is that John Ramsey would have been rather low on any such list.

No oppulent lifestyle. No Enron type business deals.

You must be joking. While they were not well-known, John and Patsy certainly were fond of leading a less than low-key lifestyle. I would never think that a low-key lifestyle includes travel to multiple states most months of the year, and requiring one's children to have three separate sets of friends in Colorado, Michigan and Georgia (four sets for JonBenet, if you include the ones she saw only at pageants). No "oppulent" lifestyle"? What sort of lifestyle would you call it, then, that ends up with expensive country club memberships in two states, tickets every year to the Superbowl, travel at will to the Olympics, ownership of two houses, two racing-class boats, two new cars, a $150 lobster dinner in New York City for a child and the ability to spend thousands of dollars in support of a trivial hobby that was said to have no more than "a few Sunday afternoons" spent on it?

[Barbara]

"........and mentioned that John Ramsey was listed 576th on that list. Now obviously, there was no such list issued by the Chamber of Commerce, despite one poster's misunderstanding of that point, but crux of the matter is that John Ramsey would have been rather low on any such list."

Yet, with 575 fatter cats than him, these mysterious, brilliant, invisible, one armed, one legged "intruder" from a foreign faction chose John Ramsey to target. The one with a difficult house to navigate AND WITH EVERYONE AT HOME SLEEPING, leaving no real evidence of him/herself.

Yeah, we believe that.

[Toth]

Originally posted by Imon128
Are we talking about the SAME John and Patsy Ramsey??? (scratching head) Don't scratch too hard, but do please consider: part time housekeepers NOT full time butler, nanny and maid. Devoted time to school and church activities, did not merely send checks. Generous but never splashing money around or ostentatious lifestyle. Financially well off but still a low key lifestyle. Sure,,, someone like Pricilla White may have resented the Shopping Trip/Theater Trip to NYC that she had to drop out of (and probably never intended going on anyway), but most people did not resent the Ramsey's lifestyle in anyway.
Sure they had the usual business entertaintment deductions for salesmen such as tickets to sporting events but there was no opulent lifestyle.

[Toth]

Originally posted by Barbara
Yet, with 575 fatter cats than him, these mysterious, brilliant, invisible, one armed, one legged "intruder" from a foreign faction chose John Ramsey to target. The one with a difficult house to navigate AND WITH EVERYONE AT HOME SLEEPING, leaving no real evidence of him/herself. Which means there was no foreign faction, not that there was no intruder. It means the Ramseys were the targets, not merely that they were "fat cats". The home was easy to navigate, particularly with so many Christmas trees lighting the way and there was considerable forensic evidence of an intruder and some evidence indicating prior entry into the house, such as the white duct tape.

[Ivy]

Patsy said the house was so hard for their guests to navigate that there was a standing joke that guests needed to drop a trail of breadcrumbs to keep from getting lost in it.

Auntie Pam probably absconded with the roll of tape, as well as the remainder of the cord. There is NO evidence of an intruder. None.

[Toth]

Originally posted by Ivy
Auntie Pam probably absconded with the roll of tape, as well as the remainder of the cord. What on earth makes you think that Aunt Pam would ever do such a thing? Why would the tape and cord have been left undiscarded? When would devestated and drugged Patsy Ramsey been able to have communicated anything about the tape and cord? Wouldn't Susan Stine have heard any such statement? Why on earth would Aunt Pam not want to see the murderer of JonBenet in jail? Don't you think she would be the first to turn in ANYONE who she thought had done it. HOW could Aunt Pam have obtained the cord or tape when she was not alone in the house for even an instant but was escorted and watched by the police at all times?

[Ivy]

Toth, your asking, "Wouldn't Susan Stine have heard any such statement?" makes me laugh. My answer: So what if she had? What does that have to do with anything? Do you think Patsy's pitbull Susan would have tattled on the Ramseys?

If Auntie Pam removed the tape roll and cord, she did it to protect her sister Patsy and Patsy's husband John and their son Burke...and to help protect the reputation of entire family, including the Paughs. But I actually think that Patsy probably removed the items in her purse, or that John or Burke sneaked them out. Remember...Patsy, John and Burke were not searched before they left the house.

[sissi]

Barbara quote;The one with a difficult house to navigate AND WITH EVERYONE AT HOME SLEEPING, leaving no real evidence of him/herself.
That was the VanDams,the perp in the Jonbenet case left many fibers,a hair,and his dna,he just needs to be located,IMO.

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by Toth
Don't scratch too hard, but do please consider: part time housekeepers NOT full time butler, nanny and maid. Devoted time to school and church activities, did not merely send checks. Generous but never splashing money around or ostentatious lifestyle. Financially well off but still a low key lifestyle. Sure,,, someone like Pricilla White may have resented the Shopping Trip/Theater Trip to NYC that she had to drop out of (and probably never intended going on anyway), but most people did not resent the Ramsey's lifestyle in anyway.
Sure they had the usual business entertaintment deductions for salesmen such as tickets to sporting events but there was no opulent lifestyle.

part time housekeepers NOT full time butler, nanny and maid

All this says is that John and Patsy had no particular desire to build yet another room onto their house for the live-in help, as they had done with their full-time live-in nanny Shirley Brady in Atlanta. Where would a full-time employee have been able to live within the Ramsey house and yet not invade the family's privacy? Remember, if John and Patsy maintained an average sex life while in Boulder, they were doing so in a bedroom that had no doors. Burke and JonBenet may not have been able to interpret the odd sounds coming from their parents's bedroom, but an adult housekeeper certainly would.

Devoted time to school and church activities, did not merely send checks.

The time spent volunteering at the school was a requirement. The school was new and did not yet have enough funding to hire all the teachers and aides it could have used. It could not even afford to buy all the school supplies it needed, which is why the Good Fairy project came about which finagled parents into buying supplies out of their own pockets.

Church activities? All anyone can say that John and Patsy did for their Boulder church was write a check to pay for the atrium established in Beth's name. They led no classes, and a good thing, too, as we found out later on when John told a Christian tv program interviewer that he was not a good Bible student, and this after nearly twenty years of attending Bible study classes. The Ramseys let their house be used for a church event, but all that meant was staying out of the way; you might as well say that Jacques participated in church activities by that definition.


Generous but never splashing money around or ostentatious lifestyle.

The purpose of the 1994 Christmas house tour was to be ostentatious about their lifestyle, since the house was not designed by any notable architect as other houses on the tour were. John did not build the boat Grand Season because he wanted a modest little skiff to fish from. Patsy did not buy JonBenet an antique Victorian chair costing thousands of dollars because she felt she could find no other less costly item for her child to sit on. John did not own his own airplane because the commercial airline schedules were five minutes off from what John absolutely, positively needed.

Sure,,, someone like Pricilla White may have resented the Shopping Trip/Theater Trip to NYC that she had to drop out of (and probably never intended going on anyway), but most people did not resent the Ramsey's lifestyle in anyway.

And by "like Priscilla White" would you mean Susan Stine, who had no daughter and therefore was not invited to the mother-daughter trip to New York? You cannot mean Priscilla herself, who lived a life of leisure (the sort a person can live who has married into a family who own land worth a few million dollars in Aspen), had a stay-at-home spouse to help with the children and who could go to New York anytime she wanted.

[Imon128]

Toth...I'm just curious, have you read info on the R's social life and standing in the community at the time of JB's death? They surely were Snob Knob community residents, from what I've read. In a glorification of the couple, one might tend to dismiss the social standing in lieu of a pipedream sweetie-pie couple living the elusive dream, but I don't believe that to be the case with John, Patsy, and family. JMO, of course. :-)

[Nedthan Johns]

Toth: No oppulent lifestyle. No Enron type business deals

Ned: and BINGO, NO reason for any intruder kidnapper to want to take or harm their innocent child

[Nedthan Johns]

Why Nutt, you summed it up nicely :)

[Toltec]

Two words....Excess Graphics.

[Toth]

Originally posted by why_nutt
part time housekeepers NOT full time butler, nanny and maid

All this says is that John and Patsy had no particular desire to build yet another room onto their house for the live-in help, as they had done with their full-time live-in nanny Shirley Brady in Atlanta.
....Was this during the time of Patsy's illness?

>Remember, if John and Patsy maintained an average sex life
...That is a subject for tabloid editors, not I.

Devoted time to school and church activities, did not merely send checks.

The time spent volunteering at the school was a requirement. The school was new and did not yet have enough funding to hire all the teachers and aides it could have used.
...and could not afford to enforce any such requirement either.

Church activities? All anyone can say that John and Patsy did for their Boulder church was write a check to pay for the atrium established in Beth's name.
....Apparently that 'anyone' does not include the Pastor.

Generous but never splashing money around or ostentatious lifestyle.

The purpose of the 1994 Christmas house tour was to be ostentatious about their lifestyle, since the house was not designed by any notable architect as other houses on the tour were.
....Apparently the organizers of the tour had no objection.

>Patsy did not buy JonBenet an antique Victorian chair costing thousands of dollars because she felt she could find no other less costly item for her child to sit on.
......Whereas all your cars, clothes, furniture are ofcourse selected by standards solely of least cost.
> John did not own his own airplane
Airplane ownership has nothing to do with opulence.

Sure,,, someone like Pricilla White may have resented the Shopping Trip/Theater Trip to NYC that she had to drop out of (and probably never intended going on anyway), but most people did not resent the Ramsey's lifestyle in anyway.

>You cannot mean Priscilla herself, who lived a life of leisure (the
>sort a person can live who has married into a family who own
>land worth a few million dollars in Aspen), had a stay-at-home
>spouse to help with the children and who could go to New York
>anytime she wanted.
Ever hear of the phrase 'land rich, cash poor'?
What does her father in law's land holdings have to do with anything?
Stay at home spouse due to what? A trust fund, earned income or an allowance from his father?

[sissi]

I have been reading a bit of the NE transcripts,it does seem Priscilla found the Paugh and Ramsey families to be very snobbish during her stay in Atlanta. She mentioned this to Patsy,who was so removed from daily routine,that she couldn't address the issue,consequently they quickly dissolved their friendship.

Patsy seemed haunted by something Priscilla said,something to the effect,"I know what this is all about". Patsy wishes she would
have been more "together" and pushed the issue to understand what she meant. The emotional and physical strain was too much for Patsy, she couldn't add the White's temper tantrums to her current load. When the fog began to clear,Patsy seemed to have concerns about these behaviors and did wonder aloud if the White's played some part in her child's murder.
We can hope the police questioned the White's as thoroughly,maybe they ,one day, can give the Ramseys the
answer they need to ,"why did our good friends turn on us,and act so irrationally at a time of our need?".

IMO JMO

[Toth]

It has always been puzzling as to why and exactly how the Whites were able to so piss off two, repeat two, of their hosts that those hosts wanted them moved elsewhere despite the funeral situation being a poor time to deal with such issues.

However, I've always felt this goes solely to personality and social skills and not to guilt at all.

[sissi]

It seems Fleet was questioned,as to whether he or John actually
removed the tape from Jonbenet's mouth. This seemed to be the first issue between the men. Fleet said he was going to have to deal with it "his way".
It seemed ,as well, that Priscilla owned the same red and black jacket that Patsy owned,which would mean the fibers could be consistant with both. (don't hold me to this one,I read it,but as with many things who knows?)
IMO JMO

Toth,interesting that you say social skills,were there more
than the average number of,given the population,sociopaths
in Boulder?

[Ivy]

Fleet was probably exasperated, wondering why John would lie about certain things that Fleet knew to be true.

Oh, no, here we go again with Priscilla White having a jacket similar to Patsy's famous red and black one.

[Toth]

Originally posted by Ivy
>Fleet was probably exasperated, wondering why John would
>lie about certain things that Fleet knew to be true.
I know of no such lies and I am sure that Fleet White would have done more than 'wonder' he would have told the police.

>Oh, no, here we go again with Priscilla White having a jacket
>similar to Patsy's famous red and black one.
The forensics examiner at the CBI probably feels the same way you do! Unfortunately, he has to examine the evidence that exists, not the evidence he chooses.

[Ivy]

Toth, Fleet did tell LE about some of the hinky things John said that didn't cooincide with what Fleet himself had witnessed.

If the fibers actually came from Pricsilla's jacket, then John and Priscilla must have been in on the murder together, or at least the coverup, because fibers matching John's black wool shirt made in Israel that he wore to the Whites' Christmas dinner were discovered in JonBenet's panties and in her crotch area when her body was found.

Wait. I get it. Fleet must have owned an identical shirt to John's black wool shirt made in Israel, and it was Fleet and Priscilla who did the deed, not the Ramseys. The Whites dressed up like John and Patsy and sneaked over to the Ramseys' house after the Ramseys' left for home and hid. After they killed JonBenet, they carefully left some fibers from their clothing to implicate John and Patsy. Yeah, that's the ticket! LOL

[eliza]

Originally posted by Toth
It has always been puzzling as to why and exactly how the Whites were able to so piss off two, repeat two, of their hosts that those hosts wanted them moved elsewhere despite the funeral situation being a poor time to deal with such issues.

However, I've always felt this goes solely to personality and social skills and not to guilt at all.



Toth, I wouln't be so quick to pass judgement on the Whites behavior in Alanta. Remember the whites were the only ones to observe the Ramseys on the days prior to and after the death of JBR. They were also at the crime scene and know more details than the Alanta friends and family. Their behavior might not have seemed so bizarre had the total picture been seen by all. Although the Ramseys have taken the opportunity to put their spin on the situation to make the Whites look bad, I commend the Whites for their silence knowing the best place to tell their side of the story will be in a court of law.

[Toltec]

According to Patsy...John Fernie would not let Fleet White on the private jet to Atlanta because Fleet was acting irrational. She then goes on to tell LE that Priscilla had made the statement, "Why are you getting lawyers, we aren't getting lawyers."

It is quite obvious that the Whites became unnerved when they found out that the Ramseys lawyered up so early in the investigation. Remember that on the morning of the 27th, the Whites got a visit from Team Ramsey Investigators. They were being questioned about Christmas day and the day after. This is before the police were able to get the Whites statements. Steve Thomas makes the claim that TR Investigators were locking the Whites into their statements.

People seem to forget that LE initially believed a kidnapping had taken place. The only LE official in the Ramsey home was Linda Arndt. She made the tragic mistake of letting John search the home.

After JonBenets body was found, the Ramseys wanted to high-tail it out of Boulder...leaving their baby behind, under the Christmas Tree. ABANDONMENT! Outside of murder...this, IMO, is the most sickening and selfish act any parent can inflict on their child. How could any loving parent get on an airplane while their dead baby is still in their home? I loathe John and Patsy.

Tell me WHY John allowed Mike Bynum to REPRESENT THEM 26 DEC 1997? Tell me WHY the Ramseys retained DEFENSE LAWYERS on 27 DEC 1997..the DAY AFTER JonBenet was found dead? Tell me WHY the Ramseys felt that they NEEDED LAWYERS?!

[Toth]

Originally posted by Ivy
Fleet must have owned an identical shirt to John's black wool shirt made in Israel
Why are you repeating that absolute nonsense about black shirt fibers found in her panties?
Don't you remember the response, JR gave?
What could be more plain that that response?

[Ivy]

Toth, please tell me what JR--John Ramsey--said about the fibers. Never mind. I wouldn't believe him anyway.

[why_nutt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toth
Originally posted by why_nutt

All this says is that John and Patsy had no particular desire to build yet another room onto their house for the live-in help, as they had done with their full-time live-in nanny Shirley Brady in Atlanta.

[b]....Was this during the time of Patsy's illness?

No, when the full-time live-in nanny was present, Patsy was in excellent health and not employed. This was well before she was diagnosed with cancer.

The time spent volunteering at the school was a requirement. The school was new and did not yet have enough funding to hire all the teachers and aides it could have used.

...and could not afford to enforce any such requirement either.

Peer pressure is a standard technique. For example, it is how many of the celebrities and high-income parents here in New York can be cajoled into volunteering at the schools their children attend, when said parents would much rather just write a check or send a member of their entourage but the schools want the hands-on involvement of the parents themselves. Roxy Walker and Barb Kostanick were vigorous volunteers at High Peaks/Martin Park, and even unto this day they still are at the schools their children have moved to. It would have made Patsy look bad in their eyes if their dear friend tried to stash her daughter at school and then spent the day doing nothing but getting her hair done at the salon. And if you have read JONBENET'S MOTHER, you will know from the character testimony of her friends, it is clear that Patsy lives to receive approval from her friends. There is not an anecdote in that book where Patsy does not engage in an activity without making sure she receives profuse praise for doing what any other mother would consider an ordinary part of her job. I mean, really, getting profuse compliments from John Andrew for Patsy's helping him cut out paper West Virginias as part of a school project? A thirteen-year-old babysitter could do that.

Church activities? All anyone can say that John and Patsy did for their Boulder church was write a check to pay for the atrium established in Beth's name.

....Apparently that 'anyone' does not include the Pastor.

You know what they say about not biting the hand that feeds you. Hoverstock's literal bread and butter came not from good works done by fervent members of his congregation, but by large donations of money made by the Ramseys and others. In general, though, you must agree that Hoverstock has not been vocal in defending the Ramseys to the extent that others were. He is a notable absence in JONBENET'S MOTHER and all of the Tracey documentaries.

The purpose of the 1994 Christmas house tour was to be ostentatious about their lifestyle, since the house was not designed by any notable architect as other houses on the tour were.

....Apparently the organizers of the tour had no objection.

Why would the organizers object? The purpose of the tour was to raise money. The Ramseys helped them do this. Displays of ostentation and opulence on the part of the Ramseys only made their house a more attractive item for Historic Boulder to present. John even made a point in DOI of writing that the tour guide made the house out to be more opulent than it was, as in attributing an ordinary print to a Renaissance artist, a nice complementary process that matched Patsy's own claim that a marble sideboard came from Tiffany's when it did not.

Patsy did not buy JonBenet an antique Victorian chair costing thousands of dollars because she felt she could find no other less costly item for her child to sit on.

......Whereas all your cars, clothes, furniture are ofcourse selected by standards solely of least cost.

Tsk, Toth. Sarcasm does not become you. Still, we can drag out the definition of opulence ("wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living," "Great abundance; profusion") and say that a multi-thousand dollar chair and six Christmas trees count as opulence, which essentially means your original claim is false, and the Ramseys did like to live an opulent, ostentatious life.

John did not own his own airplane

Airplane ownership has nothing to do with opulence.

What was that definition of opulence again? "Wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living." What is private airplane ownership? An act of demonstration of wealth in the service of sumptuous living ("Sumptuous: Involving large outlay or expense; costly; expensive").

You cannot mean Priscilla herself, who lived a life of leisure (the sort a person can live who has married into a family who own land worth a few million dollars in Aspen), had a stay-at-home spouse to help with the children and who could go to New York anytime she wanted.

Ever hear of the phrase 'land rich, cash poor'?

In the context of farming, yes, but prime Aspen real estate which the Whites have been building on in the past few years does not fall within the usual defintion.

What does her father in law's land holdings have to do with anything?

A well-off relative can ease a person's family's need to seek gainful employment from others. Just ask John Ramsey, who for a while mooched often enough off of the money from Don Paugh's land holdings and the mineral rights thereof in West Virginia.

Stay at home spouse due to what? A trust fund, earned income or an allowance from his father?

Does it matter? I wager that finding a job is not going to be Burke's first priority once he gets hold of the money from his own trust fund. (Unless, of course, it is stocked with little more than the pin money a reasonable person would speculate it contains, given Patsy's implied threat that it would be harmed by paying Burke's own attorney.) John Ramsey himself was eager to be a stay-at-home spouse; his plans as of spring 1997 were to quit Access Graphics and go on to live a life Fleet was already living.

[sissi]

the book...NE.......It's interesting to read the section where the police questioned Patsy about the dinner. It almost seemed they were going along the line of suspecting the food was "drugged"...very weird.

Ivy, it has been said by all LE that the dark fibers match nothing of the Ramseys. Do you suggest there was a sweater,hidden and destroyed? If that is the case how can you identify it so well?
JMO IMO

[Ivy]

sissi, prosecutors said that fibers consistent with the fibers on John's black shirt made in Israel were consistent with fibers found in JonBenet's underpants and in her crotch area.

Lin Wood has a screaming hissy anytime this is mentioned, and so does John Ramsey.

Here are sources with info about John's black shirt. The third source is a LKL transcript from ACR's website in which both Lin Wood and John Ramsey have screaming hissies when questioned about John's black shirt.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-ramq.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/11122002lkl-linwood.htm

[sissi]

I'm sorry Ivy,I do choose to stick with my own sources,one of yours was an editorial and the other was "police tactic interrogation,aimed at making someone confess without a basis,designed to insite anger".
There were no dark fibers connected to John Ramsey found in this child's underwear.
IMO

[Ivy]

Who are your sources, pinky? The Ramseys and their team?

The so-called "editorial" you refer to was written by Ryan Ross, who is a legal affairs expert living in Denver, whose articles have appeared in the the National Law Journal, the ABA Journal and Legal Times, among others. He has also appeared as a legal expert on Nightline twice. But none of that matters to you, does it, because he isn't part of the Ramsey Spin Team.

By the way, did you actually read Ross's article "Solving the JonBenet Case"?

[sissi]

Ivy,who is Pinky?
I imagine Geraldo has better credentials ,and I feel the same about him as a source .
IMO

If for one NY minute we are to believe what Ross says,then we have to believe there would have been enough evidence to indict a Ramsey for the murder of their daughter.

Burke owned hi-techs
John's sweater fibers were found in her panties
Patsy's sweater were the only fibers found on the items he listed
Burke was heard on the 911 tape saying "what did you find" and was quickly dismissed by his father with " we weren't talking to you"

This isn't the case!
Instead we have the BPD acknowledging there is unknown DNA under her nails and in her underwear
There were fibers found on her body that can not be sourced in the home
We have red fibers that came from a presumably red and black jacket that are consistant in that they are both the same chemical fiber(that could mean acryllic,nylon polyester,common fibers?)
The BPD notes there are hi-tech prints from unknown source
(they were not a match to helgoths,so there must be something identifiable about the print,maybe size ,wear marks?)
There is a baseball bat found outside with carpet fibers that matched the fibers found in the basement
There is a bag of rope found in a guest room ,fibers that are found
in her room and in the bag the coroner used to transport her
There was NEVER any snow on the walks
Among things missing from the crime scene are
tape,cord,part of broken paint brush
There are fibers from the crime found in the suitcase that contained the Dr.Suesse book
A palm print on the door
A scuff mark on a wall
handwriting that Boulder's own suggest wasn't Patsy's
I am certain I am forgetting more,in fact what happened with the SAS shoes?
What are we to do,take information that is hearsay,from an editorial and incorporate that information into the facts we already know? Or should we dismiss known facts,assume they have all been written off,and move on to assume some reporter knows the "real" truth?
IMO

[Ivy]

sissi, your posts remind me of posts by a former WS poster whose hat was Pinky5.

I see that you, like another poster here whom we all admire, aren't open to factual information...only "information" spread by the Ramsey team. That must be why you didn't read the article.

[sissi]

Ivy,I AM open to factual material, I believe ,as I said,if these items you present are facts the Ramseys would have been indicted. Why weren't they?
IMO

[Ivy]

sissi, if you had read the article, you'd know why they weren't.

[sissi]

As soon as I finish this NE book,I am going to give up,as it seems there is little hope of ever really knowing. There will always be those who believe a Ramsey "dunnit",as there will be those,"like me" who believe an "intruder did it".
I have no qualms with anyone believing what they choose,as I do the same. I do argue sources,but clearly it's up to the reader to choose. Should I suggest the BPD had it right? that wecht ,spitz,myer,smit,thomas,doberson,cbi,aerospace,fbi ,and on and on ..has it right? Then moving away a step farther from the real investigation, do Wood ,Geraldo,Ross,Carnes, do any of these people have it right? IMO the information I have points to an intruder.
IMO JMO

[ajt400]

[
And most important, ALWAYS ask for a source to back up ANY statements. If the poster cannot provide that, take it with a grain of salt.
[/B]

Exactly my point, comments about this case to the media that were later blown out of proportion were not checked for source credibility! The media was allowed to run rampant and print whatever they desired to sell copies!!

[Jayelles]

Exactly my point, comments about this case to the media that were later blown out of proportion were not checked for source credibility! The media was allowed to run rampant and print whatever they desired to sell copies!!

I think it would be fair to say that some of the early, unsourced media stories have since been debunked and acknowledged as such by both sides. Sadly, the RST keep bringing them up as though they were not.

[Blazeboy3]

OK...for all practical purposes LOL ... read the following/latest book to end your questioning on who/what/when/where/ why ... ? ... if you have the courage(dare to look beyond(inside) thyself...???!!!?!):IMHO IT'S A MUST-READ-BOOK!!!

MOST People/Persons DO NOT "WANT TO KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED"; WHY? LACK OF (WHAT?):thinking/courage/self?...

READ THE FOLLOWING BOOK/BUY IT IF YOU DARE:...???

An Evening with JonBenet Ramsey (Paperback) by Walter A. Davis
http://www.pricefarmer.com/cgi-bin/farm?isbn=1413411088&popup=1

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
Exactly my point, comments about this case to the media that were later blown out of proportion were not checked for source credibility! The media was allowed to run rampant and print whatever they desired to sell copies!!

The reason WHY is in the latest book by Walter Davis:

http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=2673330297677&pid=1413411088
Home : Books : Title Details

An Evening with JonBenet Ramsey
(Hardcover)
by Walter A. Davis
In Stock: Ships within 2-3 days.
Retail Price: $31.99
Our Price: $31.99
Millionaire's Club Price: $28.79
Members Save $3.20 ! (10%)

Compare Prices

ISBN: 1413411096 / Publisher: Xlibris Corporation / Date: Sept 2003 / Page Count: 212
Other Formats: Paperback
Rate this item: Click your choice, 5 stars being the best.

[Blazeboy3]

FYI...here's what I found searching AOL info...
http://63.147.65.175/news/jon082900.htm

FYFYAug. 29, 2000, updated 9:45 p.m. - John and Patsy Ramsey returned today for a second day of questioning about the death of their daughter, JonBenét, by investigators from Boulder, who insisted their questions "have to be answered."

The two sides squabbled Monday over the line of questioning by special prosecutor Michael Kane, with the Ramseys' attorney, L. Lin Wood, saying Kane was refusing to consider any suspects other than the 6-year-old's parents.


TIMELINE
1996

Dec. 26
Patsy Ramsey reports getting up to make coffee around 5:30 a.m. and finding a 2 1/2-page ransom note. The note says JonBenét has been kidnapped and demands $118,000 in cash. That afternoon, John Ramsey finds JonBenét 's body in a spare room in the basement. She had been strangled with a garrote, and her mouth and neck were bound with duct tape.

1997

Jan. 1
In their first public comment on the case, John and Patsy Ramsey grant an extensive interview to CNN in which Patsy Ramsey proclaims, "There is a killer on the loose."

April 18
Boulder DA Alex Hunter for the first time publicly identifies John and Patsy Ramsey as the focus of the investigation.

April 30
Police conduct long-awaited "formal interviews" with the couple. Patsy Ramsey is interrogated for 6 hours. Her husband later is interrogated for about two hours.

1998

Jan. 15
John and Patsy Ramsey refuse to submit to another round of interviews unless they can review the evidence, a condition unacceptable to police.

June 24
The couple return to Colorado for interrogation by DA's investigators and are reportedly questioned together and separately. And for the first time, the prosecution conducts an extensive interview with their son, Burke, 11.

Aug. 6
In a stinging, eight-page resignation letter, Detective Steve Thomas says Hunter's office is "thoroughly compromised" and has "crippled" the case. Thomas charges that critical evidence has not been collected and maintains that other evidence hasn't been tested.

Sept. 16
Five months after they were chosen, Boulder County grand jurors begin their investigation into the girl's slaying.

Sept. 24
Veteran homicide Detective Lou Smit resigns, saying that authorities are focusing too heavily on the parents.

1999

Oct. 13
The grand jury ends its 13-month investigation. Hunter announces that his team doesn't think it has "sufficient evidence to warrant filing of charges."

Oct. 27
Gov. Bill Owens challenges the Ramseys: "Quit hiding behind your attorneys, quit hiding behind your public relations firm; come back to Colorado and work with us to find the killers in this case, no matter where that trail may lead."

2000

March 10
Alex Hunter calls it quits. After 28 years, he says he won't run again.

March 17
"The Death of Innocence" by John and Patsy Ramsey goes on sale.

April 10
Steve Thomas releases his book, "JonBenét: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation," in which he theorizes that Patsy Ramsey accidentally killed her daughter, then covered it up.

May 24
John and Patsy Ramsey release results of polygraph tests indicating that they're telling the truth when they say they didn't kill their daughter.


As Kane returned for the second day of talks today, he said Wood "doesn't want his client to answer some tough questions."

"This case is ... almost four years old. Whether it's an intruder or somebody in the house who committed this homicide, there are some difficult, tough questions that have to be answered," he said.

Asked if he expected the mood to change, Kane said, "I'm sure it'll be the same thing, but we'll see."

He said he planned to leave town at noon today. Other members of the investigative team, led by Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, left their hotel with suitcases but did not indicate when they would return to Boulder. Asked for a comment, Beckner said, "We're supportive of Mike Kane. he's part of our team."

The investigators spent seven hours Monday questioning Patsy Ramsey at Wood's office in downtown Atlanta and planned to continue interviewing her today before moving on to her husband. The Ramseys entered the building today morning through an underground entrance and did not speak to reporters.

What began as a cordial interview of Patsy blew up Monday afternoon, with a prosecutor threatening to walk out and the Ramseys' attorney promising to end today's session if the tone of the questions doesn't change.

When Monday's questioning in Atlanta ended just before 4 p.m. Denver time, the Ramseys' attorney had uncharacteristic praise for Boulder police, especially Chief Mark Beckner, but blasted Kane, the prosecutor who led a 13-month grand jury investigation of JonBenét Ramsey's death.

"The bottom line is we had a productive morning, the afternoon was a waste of time, and the reason for that is spelled Michael Kane," Wood said in a phone interview after the session ended.

Earlier, Wood told a flock of reporters outside his office that Kane is an "overzealous, obsessive special prosecutor from Pennsylvania who long ago lost his objectivity." Wood said Kane was on a "fishing expedition" during the day-long interview, which took place in Wood's office in a downtown Atlanta high-rise.

Kane questioned Patsy about security for JonBenét 's brother, Burke, when he returned to school after his sister's death. He also asked her about donations made to a foundation the family set up, Wood said.

The JonBenét Ramsey Children's Foundation was set up by the Ramseys to provide reward money for information leading to JonBenét 's killer. Kane, reached at his Atlanta hotel room, said he didn't think it would be ethical to respond to Wood's comments, since the interviews are set to continue today. But former Boulder detective Steve Thomas, who formally questioned Patsy Ramsey in 1997, defended Kane's actions.

"I think he sees the case for what it is and is trying to be as aggressive as he can with it," Thomas said.

Kane also declined to say whether Monday's questioning had been productive. But he confirmed he did threaten to walk out at one point Monday afternoon.

Until Monday, the Ramseys had been formally interviewed only twice by police since their daughter was found beaten and strangled in the basement of their Boulder home Dec. 26, 1996. They did not testify before a Boulder grand jury that disbanded last October after a 13-month investigation. No indictments were issued.

Beckner told reporters Monday morning that much has happened since the Ramseys were last questioned in June 1998. Beckner said investigators wanted to ask the Ramseys about things they wrote in their book, "The Death of Innocence," published this spring. And "new forensic evidence has developed over the last couple of years," he said.

Beckner declined to say the Ramseys are suspects. But he pointed out they were in the house when their daughter was killed, which he said makes them "suspicious witnesses."

With Beckner and Kane in Atlanta are Boulder police investigators Tom Trujillo, Jane Harmer and Tom Wickman. Prosecutors Mitch Morrissey and Bruce Levin, who worked with Kane during the grand jury investigation, are there as well. Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, who leaves office in January, was not present.

As he left Wood's office at the end of the day, and later through a spokeswoman, Beckner declined to comment on Monday's session, saying he didn't want to jeopardize today's interviews.

But Wood said he was encouraged, at least, by Beckner's behavior. "From what I saw today, we need to try to work with Chief Beckner and Michael Kane needs to go back to Pennsylvania and work on developing his private practice."

Kane was a prosecutor in Denver and later a federal prosecutor in Pennsylvania. He joined the grand jury investigation at Hunter's request.

No conditions were set on the interviews. But the Ramseys, who have consistently maintained that they are innocent, have said their goal is to create a new, better relationship with Boulder police, who they say zeroed in on them as suspects immediately. Boulder police say they have looked at dozens of other possible suspects.

As she entered her attorney's office Monday morning, Patsy Ramsey asked reporters to pray that "it's a productive day." But former Detective Thomas wasn't hopeful anything would come of the interviews: "Don't hold your breath and anticipate an arrest or conclusion coming from these two days of peace talks."


Copyright 2000 The Denver Post. All rights reserved.

[Blazeboy3]

Copied from above: "I think he sees the case for what it is ...?"

[Blazeboy3]

Hello...can you hear me now? ... what's wrong w/this picture/ post?

[Blazeboy3]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ajt400
[And most important, ALWAYS ask for a source to back up ANY statements. If the poster cannot provide that, take it with a grain of salt. [/B]


FYI...this is not "MOST IMPORTANT" as posted above...what's most important is knowledge(justice) from what has happened to JonBenet IMHO!I'm sorry; forgive me; YOU GOAL IS >>>...??? Hopefully/assuming it's JONBENET and the solution to her(that Child) murder...the person/monster that decided to end her life which ... should not have happened... are we on the same page, maybe?

[Blazeboy3]

Blaze, please edit your post above so that it has some excerpts from the original story and a link for those who want to read the whole thing. Thanks.

MAXI...I truly did try...and :silenced: I tried...but it didn't work///HELP???

[Blazeboy3]

sissi, your posts remind me of posts by a former WS poster whose hat was Pinky5.

I see that you, like another poster here whom we all admire, aren't open to factual information...only "information" spread by the Ramsey team. That must be why you didn't read the article.

Hey where's Pinky5...I did relate to her/him w/goodness...I did like her very much FWIW!!! :) :) :) :blowkiss: :blowkiss: :blowkiss:

[Blazeboy3]

As soon as I finish this NE book,I am going to give up,as it seems there is little hope of ever really knowing. There will always be those who believe a Ramsey "dunnit",as there will be those,"like me" who believe an "intruder did it".
I have no qualms with anyone believing what they choose,as I do the same. I do argue sources,but clearly it's up to the reader to choose. Should I suggest the BPD had it right? that wecht ,spitz,myer,smit,thomas,doberson,cbi,aerospace,fbi ,and on and on ..has it right? Then moving away a step farther from the real investigation, do Wood ,Geraldo,Ross,Carnes, do any of these people have it right? IMO the information I have points to an intruder.
IMO JMO

SISSI...if that's what you can live with/bear...so be it?! ... choices... the choice is yours +sum/whole?!.. :doh: :silenced: :)

[Blazeboy3]

Thank you everyone for all the information. I will be sure to look at all the links and the handwriting thread. It will take me some time because there is sooooo much information so bear with me please:D

I have not read Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. I did see the movie last week when it was on. I thought I had the book, but when I went to look for it I couldn't find it. Anyway, I will purchase it sometime this week.

I know that there were some fibers, hairs and sperm that was found on JonBenet. To my knowledge they were never linked to anyone in the house. Is this correct?


Thanks again everyone. I'll do my best to keep up!;)

WELCOME ... Thank You for Keeping Up w/Correct Facts-Info!? :)

[Toth]

No sperm was found on or in or near the corpse.

[Blazeboy3]

MrsMush, Boy did you open a can of worms!:D

My suggestion is to read all the books on the case BEFORE reading the forums. To do otherwise will only confuse you! I have read everything I can about this case and still get some of the facts mixed up. It is easy to do-so much information and so many opinions all wrapped together.

But anyway, welcome to the JBR forum. I think you will like it here, just keep in mind that opinions vary considerably and most of us have very definate opinions on who did it.

To me, the most frustrating part is the lack of law enforcement to do anything with this case. I don't believe for one minute a real investigation is being conducted by Mary Keenan.

Good luck!

Gretchen/I agree: ... for those OTHERS: READ ALL THERE IS TO READ!+SUM
and pray for "good luck!"

[Blazeboy3]

Blaze, please edit your post above so that it has some excerpts from the original story and a link for those who want to read the whole thing. Thanks.

Will do(forgive me for my men-a-pause(al) lateness) & THANKS! :D :eek: