View Poll Results: Clever or Lucky

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Rs were clever

    2 4.55%
  • Rs were lucky

    42 95.45%
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 193

Thread: Clever or Lucky?

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,543
    Another thing,it's been said that while waiting for the kidnappers to call they never stood together comforting and supporting each other.Some see this as sign of guilt,like they did something bad together.I see it as one hiding and not being able to face the other.Maybe he wasn't eager to "find" the body because he was afraid of LE but was afraid of HER reaction (is this was FW knows and was ticked off by?JR not telling PR the truth?why did PW tell PR she doesn't know some things?)
    Who was it more convenient for that the friends were called over?How nice that she had someone ELSE to comfort her and be present when the body is found.
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to madeleine For This Useful Post:


  3. #152
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    Why is it that the bed-wetting PDI theory is more credible than the JDI sex game theory anyway?Your experts say there is evidence of prior abuse.Where's the evidence that JB wet the bed that night and PR bashed her head because of it?
    What's more likely,people killing their kids over a bed-wetting problem or over a sex related issue,you tell me.


    We have murder,sexual assault and possibly prior abuse.
    What's more likely,daddy did it or mommy post mortem raped her daughter in order to cover up for......God knows what.

    So you would find her guilty of staging then?What about murder?
    Why stage if you're innocent?Let's see....because you love your husband,because you wanna protect your other kid who did something bad,because someone tricked you into it or lied to you,there's more.
    Did John have anything to do with her actual death?How do you know it was her and not him,I will ask this until I drop dead
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  5. #153
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    Who knew what stairs she comes down every morning.
    Who told her immediately to call LE.

    I don't care how crazy this sounds but if RDI I think she was set up and fooled from A-Z.That's why I said on the other thread that one was clever and one was lucky if RDI.Clever for being such a manipulative liar and she was lucky for not knowing the whole horrible truth.There ya go.
    maddy, I have something for you. Give me just a minute...
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  6. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    All I see are shadows in the creases of the folds. I do not see any cord. I would hardly call that an enhanced photo. For one, if that cord appears in the crime photo, that meant someone in LE had photographed it, and it would have been taken into evidence with the blanket and tape, and we would know about it. Also, don't forget that JR was not alone in that wineceller with his daughter's body. FW was right behind him. They were in there seconds, not minutes. Don't you think JR would have mentioned if he'd had to unwind cord from her body? And don't you think FW would have seen this? For JR do actually have done everything he said he did (untape her legs, give CPR, try to untie her wrists) to add unwind more cord from the blanket wrapped around her would have taken FAR longer than the time he actually spent down there.
    "JR: She was laying on the blanket, and the blanket was kind of folded around her legs. And her arms were tied behind her head, and there was some pieces of black tape (inaudible) on her legs, and her head was cocked to the side."

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to MurriFlower For This Useful Post:


  8. #155
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,669
    Quote Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
    "JR: She was laying on the blanket, and the blanket was kind of folded around her legs. And her arms were tied behind her head, and there was some pieces of black tape (inaudible) on her legs, and her head was cocked to the side."
    I don't care what he said. Her arms were most certainly NOT tied behind her head or they would have still BEEN behind her head when she was brought up/ and they would have still been tied behind her back when that crime photo was taken of her on the living room rug. And that photo shows her arms in FRONT.
    JR can spin that death scene any way her wants, but science doesn't lie. Bodies in rigor mortis remain in rigor mortis until it is broken, either by decomposition or a coroner or undertaker tearing the muscle fibers.
    The same goes for the tape on her legs. If there had been, her legs would remain in that position even after the tape was removed, and NO other tape was found except the small piece on her mouth.
    How I wish someone had pushed JR further and asked where he put the tape from her legs and why it wasn't there in the crime pics and why her arms "magically" moved into a different position in the few seconds it took to carry her upstairs.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  10. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I don't care what he said. Her arms were most certainly NOT tied behind her head or they would have still BEEN behind her head when she was brought up/ and they would have still been tied behind her back when that crime photo was taken of her on the living room rug. And that photo shows her arms in FRONT.
    JR can spin that death scene any way her wants, but science doesn't lie. Bodies in rigor mortis remain in rigor mortis until it is broken, either by decomposition or a coroner or undertaker tearing the muscle fibers.
    The same goes for the tape on her legs. If there had been, her legs would remain in that position even after the tape was removed, and NO other tape was found except the small piece on her mouth.
    How I wish someone had pushed JR further and asked where he put the tape from her legs and why it wasn't there in the crime pics and why her arms "magically" moved into a different position in the few seconds it took to carry her upstairs.
    The tape is clearly there in the picture, so is the cord. Don't take my word for it, you can do the same thing yourself with a simple photo editing and enhancing software, you can download a trial version for free (ArcSoft photo studio is the one I use). Simply save the picture http://crimeshots.com/csblanket.jpg and then open it in the photo editing program. Go to enhance. Turn down the brightness and turn up the contrast until it becomes clear, try clicking on the individual colour filters. It's not rocket science.

    As I said previously, it appears her arms were originally crossed in front of her and tied around behind her back like a straight jacket, therefore the extra length of cord in between. They were then pulled up when she was dragged by her arms to the wine cellar. You can see from the crime scene photos they were bent at the elbows, but she is on her side in that photo, so when she was found on her back, they would have been above her head and the extra cord maybe still behind her head. No, JR wasn't lying, no reason for him to. Again you can experiment with this yourself DD.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to MurriFlower For This Useful Post:


  12. #157
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
    While you all have been going about your normal business, I've been using my self imposed 'time out' to work on clues.
    Working on clues IS our normal business.

    I'm not going to debate the pros and cons of this, I haven't either the time or the energy to continue trying to convince any of you who have already know who did it.

    So, this is for anyone who still has an open mind about this case.
    I know EXACTLY what you mean.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  13. #158
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    7,403
    I don't think the Ramseys were lucky. They had money and connections, which is a huge reason why they were never charged. Luck is a force that is (mostly) out of someone's control. There are a lot of people who have gotten away with murder, simply because the victim's body hasn't been found. I would consider people like that, lucky, instead of the Ramseys.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to eileenhawkeye For This Useful Post:


  15. #159
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,943
    Wasn't able to vote because I'm a fence sitter. Well,more of a flip-flopper to be precise. *ducks tomatoes*

    I will have to say, whether I'm on the IDI or RDI train at the time, I think it does come down to luck, rather than cleverness. There were some definite issues with the police and prosecutor's office, and any/all involved lucked out.
    “Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.” - Eleanor Roosevelt


    In no way should any of my statements be construed as legal opinion or advice. I am a newly practicing lawyer (yay!) but not a verified poster here at WS. The above statement(s) are an expression of my personal opinion, for entertainment purposes only, and copyright.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to AnaTeresa For This Useful Post:


  17. #160
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    72
    They were incredibly lucky. There are numerous instances of 'If X happened instead of Y' they would've been caught. They aren't master criminals who planned 50 moves ahead and for every single possible outcome. They hastily hatched/threw together a crummy plan and lucked out that the case was bungled from the outset.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to horatio For This Useful Post:


  19. #161
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by eileenhawkeye View Post
    I don't think the Ramseys were lucky. They had money and connections, which is a huge reason why they were never charged. Luck is a force that is (mostly) out of someone's control. There are a lot of people who have gotten away with murder, simply because the victim's body hasn't been found. I would consider people like that, lucky, instead of the Ramseys.
    There was never any evidence to convict any of the Rs, therefore, no one was charged. Even in this forum, filled with RDIs, there are dozens of theories. "It was Patsy", "It was John", "It was Burke", "It was Burke and Patsy", "It was Burke and John"...

    Alex Hunter was not about to charge the Ramseys and then end up looking like the fool prosecutors from the L.A. D.A.'s office from the O.J. Simpson trial. I am sure the Ramsey's lawyer's connections probably did not hurt them, but the lack of clear evidence pointing to a specific person (s) in the household made it a very difficult case to prosecute.

    Even if one of the Rs did do it, it is not likely they would have been convicted. And now it appears, whatever one thinks of spacy Lacy, that there is at least a chance a male intruder committed this heinous crime.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to mtwentz For This Useful Post:


  21. #162
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    10,496
    Clever to cover up so much.

    Lucky to be wealth and well connected.

    Unless I have included a link, it is my opinion and only my opinion that I am expressing.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 21merc7 For This Useful Post:


  23. #163
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,669
    Quote Originally Posted by mtwentz View Post
    There was never any evidence to convict any of the Rs, therefore, no one was charged. Even in this forum, filled with RDIs, there are dozens of theories. "It was Patsy", "It was John", "It was Burke", "It was Burke and Patsy", "It was Burke and John"...

    Alex Hunter was not about to charge the Ramseys and then end up looking like the fool prosecutors from the L.A. D.A.'s office from the O.J. Simpson trial. I am sure the Ramsey's lawyer's connections probably did not hurt them, but the lack of clear evidence pointing to a specific person (s) in the household made it a very difficult case to prosecute.

    Even if one of the Rs did do it, it is not likely they would have been convicted. And now it appears, whatever one thinks of spacy Lacy, that there is at least a chance a male intruder committed this heinous crime.
    To me, there is not much chance a male intruder committed this crime, because the DNA appears ONLY on her clothing and no where else on the body or crime scene. If there was another male there that night as the crime was committed, it was someone known to the Rs. There is simply no way there would be no other evidence of an intruder OTHER than a few skin cells, which could have been picked up by her parents. They likely shook someone's hand at that party or touched door knobs, etc. And both parents admitting to handling the longjohns- Patsy claimed to have pulled them on her and JR was seen carrying her body holding her upright with his hands around her waist. Then there are his shirt fibers inside the panty crotch (not on the waistband where the skin cells were found).
    As far as AH is concerned- he wasn't about to charge ANYONE- ever. It wasn't just the Rs case he was reluctant to prosecute- he never prosecuted ANY case, preferring to plea-bargain rather than risk losing in court.
    With his links to the defense team, he should never have been on this case at all.
    You are completely correct about the lack of evidence pointing to a single R. I have never understood how all it takes to get away with murder is to have an accomplice. I see other cases all the time where ALL involved are considered equally guilty, it need not be exclusively the one who actually committed the murder. The inability to state with certainty who did what to JB may have clouded the jury's decisions, but it really upsets me that people get away with a crime like this because there are no other witnesses.
    Had the police been allowed to separate the Rs for questioning, they may have gotten one to point a finger at the other, but as we all know, spouses cannot be made to testify against one another (another big mistake as far as I am concerned). A marriage license shouldn't be a license to commit murder together.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  25. #164
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    To me, there is not much chance a male intruder committed this crime, because the DNA appears ONLY on her clothing and no where else on the body or crime scene. If there was another male there that night as the crime was committed, it was someone known to the Rs. There is simply no way there would be no other evidence of an intruder OTHER than a few skin cells, which could have been picked up by her parents. They likely shook someone's hand at that party or touched door knobs, etc. And both parents admitting to handling the longjohns- Patsy claimed to have pulled them on her and JR was seen carrying her body holding her upright with his hands around her waist. Then there are his shirt fibers inside the panty crotch (not on the waistband where the skin cells were found).
    As far as AH is concerned- he wasn't about to charge ANYONE- ever. It wasn't just the Rs case he was reluctant to prosecute- he never prosecuted ANY case, preferring to plea-bargain rather than risk losing in court.
    With his links to the defense team, he should never have been on this case at all.
    You are completely correct about the lack of evidence pointing to a single R. I have never understood how all it takes to get away with murder is to have an accomplice. I see other cases all the time where ALL involved are considered equally guilty, it need not be exclusively the one who actually committed the murder. The inability to state with certainty who did what to JB may have clouded the jury's decisions, but it really upsets me that people get away with a crime like this because there are no other witnesses.
    Had the police been allowed to separate the Rs for questioning, they may have gotten one to point a finger at the other, but as we all know, spouses cannot be made to testify against one another (another big mistake as far as I am concerned). A marriage license shouldn't be a license to commit murder together.
    Actually, if I am reading Steve Thomas' book correctly, his main theory was that Patsy committed the crime alone, while John was asleep in bed, and that John did not figure out Patsy was guilty until sometime in the morning when the Boulder Police were in the house. So my assumption is that the Boulder Police would have wanted to charge only Patsy.

    Assuming that is how she would have been charged, then her lawyers could have used a Casey Anthony defense: John did it and Patsy covered up for him with the letter. Or they could simply have put Lou Smit on the stand to say a stun gun had been used by an intruder. Either way, the chances for a conviction were probably less than 50/50.

    As for the DNA, my understanding is that the touch DNA was only searched for in places the killer was likely to have touched. They did not test every article and piece of clothing for it. But they did test for it on the longjohns, and this touch DNA on the longjohns apparently matches the DNA found on Jon Benet's panties. Do I have that part correct?

  26. #165
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,870
    Actually, if I am reading Steve Thomas' book correctly, his main theory was that Patsy committed the crime alone, while John was asleep in bed, and that John did not figure out Patsy was guilty until sometime in the morning when the Boulder Police were in the house. So my assumption is that the Boulder Police would have wanted to charge only Patsy.
    If that were true the JR could not have been involved in any staging. That means PR did all the staging herself. If find that hard to believe.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  28. #166
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,669
    Quote Originally Posted by mtwentz View Post
    Actually, if I am reading Steve Thomas' book correctly, his main theory was that Patsy committed the crime alone, while John was asleep in bed, and that John did not figure out Patsy was guilty until sometime in the morning when the Boulder Police were in the house. So my assumption is that the Boulder Police would have wanted to charge only Patsy.

    Assuming that is how she would have been charged, then her lawyers could have used a Casey Anthony defense: John did it and Patsy covered up for him with the letter. Or they could simply have put Lou Smit on the stand to say a stun gun had been used by an intruder. Either way, the chances for a conviction were probably less than 50/50.

    As for the DNA, my understanding is that the touch DNA was only searched for in places the killer was likely to have touched. They did not test every article and piece of clothing for it. But they did test for it on the longjohns, and this touch DNA on the longjohns apparently matches the DNA found on Jon Benet's panties. Do I have that part correct?
    I'd have LOVED for Lou Smit to have been put on the stand. If he'd blathered about a stun gun there, he'd have had to back it up with PROOF that a stun had been used. Proof the R family refused to allow to be obtained. Proof the DA refused to order to be obtained. In other words, proof they KNEW they could not obtain. He could SAY anything he wished. But in a trial, you need FACTS and the use of a stun gun was not factual.
    As far as looking only at the places a killer would have touched- shall we add to the clothing waistbands (which the parents also were KNOWN to have touched) the cord, tape, paintbrush pieces, door to the wineceller, wooden latch to the wineceller, pineapple bowl (IDI claims the "intruder" fed her the pineapple- her OWN prints were not on he bowl but Patsy's were).
    Because those places SHOULD have been tested. The "killer" SURELY had to touch those items. Yet- no "killer-unknown - male DNA" there.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  29. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  30. #167
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    Another thing,it's been said that while waiting for the kidnappers to call they never stood together comforting and supporting each other.Some see this as sign of guilt,like they did something bad together.I see it as one hiding and not being able to face the other.Maybe he wasn't eager to "find" the body because he was afraid of LE but was afraid of HER reaction (is this was FW knows and was ticked off by?JR not telling PR the truth?
    why did PW tell PR she doesn't know some things?)
    Who was it more convenient for that the friends were called over?How nice that she had someone ELSE to comfort her and be present when the body is found.
    Can someone steer me to the source or documentation for PW's statement to PR? Or any documentation concerning the rift that developed between the W's and the R's? I tried with the search feature but gave up. Thanks!
    “Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don’t practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us – and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.” – Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Hurricane For This Useful Post:


  32. #168
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I don't care what he said. Her arms were most certainly NOT tied behind her head or they would have still BEEN behind her head when she was brought up/ and they would have still been tied behind her back when that crime photo was taken of her on the living room rug. And that photo shows her arms in FRONT.
    JR can spin that death scene any way her wants, but science doesn't lie. Bodies in rigor mortis remain in rigor mortis until it is broken, either by decomposition or a coroner or undertaker tearing the muscle fibers.
    The same goes for the tape on her legs. If there had been, her legs would remain in that position even after the tape was removed, and NO other tape was found except the small piece on her mouth.
    How I wish someone had pushed JR further and asked where he put the tape from her legs and why it wasn't there in the crime pics and why her arms "magically" moved into a different position in the few seconds it took to carry her upstairs.
    This is where LE really let JonBenet down and made this an unsolvable case. They not only did not question the Ramseys alone, PRIOR to JonBenet being found, but more importantly, they didn't do so after. I have read in so many kidnapping cases, of children that were home with their parents, that they felt like suspects. That they were questioned at length alone, and often more than once, until they had proof the parent was not involved.

    Yes, they were distraught and grieving, but they also had a responsibility to help find JonBenets killer.

    BPD had a wealth of information from JonBenets body, vs her parents statements. Why didn't they pursue answers to what the evidence showed?

    Then when they did 'interview' the R's, there hands were tied so far behind their backs, that it was actually useless fluff, since they didn't pursue answers to scenarios that were presented vs the evidence. Very sad and this let a killer go free no matter if you believe IDI or RDI, as clearing the Ramseys would have widened the net to catch someone else responsible.

    Instead, there is no justice to this day.
    ___________________

    "This Time We Get It Right!"
    If you can read this, thank a teacher, if it's in English, thank a soldier!
    If I forget to mention it. Everything I post is my opinion, right or wrong, good or bad.
    If you have questions about Rebecca Zahaus death, please watch this:http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...00&postcount=1

  33. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SunnieRN For This Useful Post:


  34. #169
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    STEELER COUNTRY!
    Posts
    24,330
    Lucky, Clever and lots of money
    Kyron, HALEIGH, ADJI & Gabriel NEEDS PRAYERS NOW TO FIND THEM!. Zahra & Jonathan in heaven
    Justice for Hailey!!!!
    No Justice for Caylee Marie..........

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to passionflower For This Useful Post:


  36. #170
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,870
    Quote Originally Posted by SunnieRN View Post
    This is where LE really let JonBenet down and made this an unsolvable case. They not only did not question the Ramseys alone, PRIOR to JonBenet being found, but more importantly, they didn't do so after. I have read in so many kidnapping cases, of children that were home with their parents, that they felt like suspects. That they were questioned at length alone, and often more than once, until they had proof the parent was not involved.

    Yes, they were distraught and grieving, but they also had a responsibility to help find JonBenets killer.

    BPD had a wealth of information from JonBenets body, vs her parents statements. Why didn't they pursue answers to what the evidence showed?

    Then when they did 'interview' the R's, there hands were tied so far behind their backs, that it was actually useless fluff, since they didn't pursue answers to scenarios that were presented vs the evidence. Very sad and this let a killer go free no matter if you believe IDI or RDI, as clearing the Ramseys would have widened the net to catch someone else responsible.

    Instead, there is no justice to this day.
    I agree with you, however, I just want to point out that the Rs were under no legal obligation to be questioned, separately or together, at any time. Not while waiting for the fake ransom call, not after the body was found, not the next day, or the day after that. To me the thing that really separates this case from others is that the Rs knew their rights and exercised them.

    That doesn't mean the cops should not have tried, but we'll never really know if trying would have made a difference.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  38. #171
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    I agree with you, however, I just want to point out that the Rs were under no legal obligation to be questioned, separately or together, at any time. Not while waiting for the fake ransom call, not after the body was found, not the next day, or the day after that. To me the thing that really separates this case from others is that the Rs knew their rights and exercised them.

    That doesn't mean the cops should not have tried, but we'll never really know if trying would have made a difference.
    You are absolutely right. Many people do not realize that people are not required to speak to police, even people who are suspects and even suspects who have been arrested. (you have the right to remain silent, etc....). But if an INNOCENT person with a murdered child was asked to speak to police, I am sure they would and their lawyers would want them to. Look at how differently the parents of other murdered kids acted with LE. Some of them were initially suspects, too. But they were innocent and were quickly cleared.
    The Rs have never been cleared except in the (scary and muddled) mind of former DA ML. And that was just lip service, not a legitimate clearing. The fact is that when it is known that people were present at time and place of a murder, NO ONE is truly cleared until a suspect has been identified BY NAME as being the donor of DNA or any other evidence left at the crime scene and pertinent to the crime.
    However- when someone is given a subpoena- THEN they are required to testify. People MUST speak to a Grand Jury, but they can refuse to answer questions by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate themselves. It should be obvious that "taking the Fifth" is tantamount to being guilty or involved somehow or having knowledge of the guilty party. By your very words "on the grounds that it may incriminate me" you are stating that you were a part of that crime in some way or have knowledge of who committed it. Innocent people do not "take the Fifth".
    With this crime, we have the added problem of a married couple (the parents) who may each have their own part in the crime or where either parent may have knowledge of the other's part in the crime. Spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other. (you know, I really don't understand why this has to be so). The parents may be covering for another family member as well, and even if they are not guilty of the killing, they are guilty of the coverup. Tampering with evidence is a crime in its own right.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  39. The Following User Says Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  40. #172
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    1,093
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I don't care what he said. Her arms were most certainly NOT tied behind her head or they would have still BEEN behind her head when she was brought up/ and they would have still been tied behind her back when that crime photo was taken of her on the living room rug. And that photo shows her arms in FRONT.
    JR can spin that death scene any way her wants, but science doesn't lie. Bodies in rigor mortis remain in rigor mortis until it is broken, either by decomposition or a coroner or undertaker tearing the muscle fibers.
    The same goes for the tape on her legs. If there had been, her legs would remain in that position even after the tape was removed, and NO other tape was found except the small piece on her mouth.
    How I wish someone had pushed JR further and asked where he put the tape from her legs and why it wasn't there in the crime pics and why her arms "magically" moved into a different position in the few seconds it took to carry her upstairs.

    This is kind of interesting.....notice what they say about children and rigor mortis.


    http://health.howstuffworks.com/dise...tis-cause2.htm

  41. #173
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,669
    Quote Originally Posted by EllaMae View Post
    This is kind of interesting.....notice what they say about children and rigor mortis.


    http://health.howstuffworks.com/dise...tis-cause2.htm
    I had read that before. The progression may be a bit quicker, but not so much that it would matter all that much. In JB's case, we also have the pineapple in her small intestine to go by. This type of analysis is unrelated to rigor mortis. Fruit such as pineapple will take about 2 hours to move from the stomach to the small intestine (right below the stomach and the "next stop" in the digestive process. Then there are also known factors, such as the time the family left the party and arrived home. Put all of it together, and you have a reasonably accurate timeline- leave the White's between around 9-9:30 pm, Make a few tops to deliver gifts, arrive home by 10 pm. Pineapple snack not long after. Scream heard around midnight, also "strange moving lights" seen in the kitchen around the same time. The "moving lights are consistent with someone walking carrying a flashlight- a flashlight was found in the kitchen. Death likely occurred around then, between midnight and 1 am. Rigor progresses in stages, body found in FULL rigor at 1 pm the following day. Full rigor takes approx. 12 hours to form, maintains for 12 hours and passes off over the next 12 hours. JB was in diminishing rigor at the time of the autopsy at 8 am on the 27th. At this point it was about 18 hours since she was FOUND and about 30 hours since she had died. While these times are approximate, they follow close enough from a scientific or forensic aspect to presume death occurred between midnight and 1 am that night (though it was Christmas night, it was probably technically the 26th when she died.
    Had the coroner performed two IMPORTANT and STANDARD procedures when he first examined the body around 8 pm the evening of the 26th, we woudn't need to have this discussion.
    Algor mortis is also an excellent indicator of time of death especially when a person died indoors at a stable temperature. Again, a child's body mass loses heat through algor mortis at a slightly different rate, but it is still a reliable indicator. The Coroner did not take a core body temperature, though it is standard procedure to do so. Neither did he take a sample of the vitreous fluid of the eyeball, where potassium levels are also used as an indication of the time of death.
    LE did not ask the coroner why he failed to do these things, but had the coroner been put on the witness stand, I would HOPE someone would have had the sense to ask those questions.
    The coroner spent only about 10 MINUTES examining the body that night in the home. Either he was already sure of the time of death, or he wished NOT to determine it. Either way-something smelled fishy, and it wasn't just the body.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  42. The Following User Says Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  43. #174
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by horatio View Post
    They were incredibly lucky. There are numerous instances of 'If X happened instead of Y' they would've been caught. They aren't master criminals who planned 50 moves ahead and for every single possible outcome. They hastily hatched/threw together a crummy plan and lucked out that the case was bungled from the outset.
    That's the way I look at it. It helps that none of the tactics a rookie walking a beat would know were done.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  44. The Following User Says Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  45. #175
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,222
    Quote Originally Posted by mtwentz View Post
    Alex Hunter was not about to charge the Ramseys and then end up looking like the fool prosecutors from the L.A. D.A.'s office from the O.J. Simpson trial.
    Yeah, I'm sure that was part of the problem. I think the OJ Simpson case scared the you-know-what out of Alex Hunter.

    I am sure the Ramsey's lawyer's connections probably did not hurt them, but the lack of clear evidence pointing to a specific person (s) in the household made it a very difficult case to prosecute.
    For a minute, I thought my eyes were playing tricks! That's what I've been saying for a long time now!
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •