Page 29 of 73 FirstFirst ... 19 27 28 29 30 31 39 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 1086
  1. #421
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,977
    [quote=WHITEFANG;5254293]
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post

    00-00-0000
    Worked for
    Merry Maids
    Ramsey House
    Took 4 people
    Once a week
    Cleaning
    Linda began
    3 days week
    $72 a day
    Mon, Wed, Fri
    9am to 3pm
    Some Sat, Hol
    On 10-27-1996
    Got $300 bonus
    12-23-1996
    Linda took Patsy Paint Tray to basement

    I thought it meant she started on 10/27/1996 and got the bonus on 12/23/1996
    If you go back and read her words, she says that she got a $300 bonus at the end of her first YEAR working for Patsy. I assume it meant she started the previous October (1995).
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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


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


  3. #422
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,977
    Quote Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
    Could someone please look at this photo of the spiral staircase and tell me what they think the rectangular brown object is under the stairs to the right?

    http://www.acandyrose.com/057spiralstairs-x.gif

    I looked at this photo on the ACR site, where it can be enlarged by clicking on it. That brown shape is actually a dresser. You can see the white wall showing at the bottom,through the legs of the dresser. The legs of the dresser can be seen more clearly in the larger pic.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  5. #423
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    If you go back and read her words, she says that she got a $300 bonus at the end of her first YEAR working for Patsy. I assume it meant she started the previous October (1995).
    This is the history of housekeepers/babysitters since 1991.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Letter from Susanna Savage:

    "I first met the Ramseys in 1991, when Take a Break, a professional sitting service, called me. JonBenet was seven months old.

    Two years later, in 1993, Patsy was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and I went to work full-time for the Ramseys
    (snip)
    The following year, JonBenet went to preschool. That's when I stopped working for them
    (snip)
    In 1996, Priscilla White called and asked me to watch the kids again. They were having a surprise birthday party for Patsy.
    (snip)
    Then Patsy called me on December 1, the night of the Access Graphics Christmas party. She wanted me to sit with JonBenet and Burk
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PETER BOYLES: How long did you work for John and Patsy Ramsey?
    LINDA WILCOX: Approximately 2 1/2 years. I left September 4, 1995.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LHP
    I was working for a bonded agency called Merry Maids when I met Patsy. I started with her one day a week. I was dumbfounded, the place was so huge. It was too much for one person. Soon we had four people, once a week.
    (snip)
    Then I went to work for her three days a week, $72 a day. Monday, Wednesday, Friday. I'd get there at 9:00 in the morning and be gone by 3:00. That's when my daughter Ariana gets out of school. Sometimes I worked for Patsy on Saturdays and holidays. She gave me a $300 bonus at the end of my first year. That was October 27, 1996

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


  6. #424
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,977
    So according to that, the previous housekeeper Linda Wilcox left September 1995. Presumably that is when LHP started (as part of the Merry Maids crew). So, that would make her comment about receiving the $300 bonus in 1996 "at the end of her first year" about right. She'd been working for them a year when she got that bonus.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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


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


  8. #425
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070
    [quote=DeeDee249;5256824]
    Quote Originally Posted by WHITEFANG View Post

    If you go back and read her words, she says that she got a $300 bonus at the end of her first YEAR working for Patsy. I assume it meant she started the previous October (1995).
    Yep. Thanks. I see where I misunderstood. Still, all in all, Pat was pretty nice to her.

    Did she take a polygraph?


  9. #426
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by WHITEFANG View Post
    I find it reassuring. He was in shock. He misspoke at times. He wasn't following a script. MO
    That's where we part company, friend. I don't find it reassuring in the least. As for the rest of your characterization, if you take the whole of his statements in context, his answers clearly do follow a script in his own head and he only "misspeaks" when the interviewer throws him a curveball.
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  10. #427
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
    Why sir! It's to catch herself a nice, rich, gentleman for her husband, that's why. Fiddle-de-dee!!
    Then I wish them the best of luck. If this case is any indication, they'll need it.
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  11. #428
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by WHITEFANG View Post
    Supe,
    I know for a fact that parents have murdered their children. How could I dispute that? How could anyone?
    That's precisely the question I ask.

    That is not what I disagree with here, that parents could do this kind of thing.
    What I find troubling about the theory as it is applied in this case is the dearth of evidence, the lack of credible information that moves me toward that rationale.
    Well, just what do you consider credible? Because as I've often said, a good prosecutor (underline good) could have made a case. And I know that because people have gone to prison on a lot less than is arrayed against the Rs.

    Frankly, the bits and pieces of "evidence" fall short, to me- IMO, of even a remotely convincing body of proof they they did this. I just don't see it, at all. That is my honest appraisal.
    It was the same way for me, for a while

    The "evidence" which points toward someone else, although not plentiful, makes much more sense to me. And, I am convinced that I view this entire set of circumstances through flawed lenses. No doubt, I as well as others, rely to some extent on our gut reaction, our intuition, our "sense" of others.
    You're right about that. That's why we're all here.
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  12. #429
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by WHITEFANG View Post
    I know for a fact that parents have murdered their children. How could I dispute that? How could anyone?
    That is not what I disagree with here, that parents could do this kind of thing.
    What I find troubling about the theory as it is applied in this case is the dearth of evidence, the lack of credible information that moves me toward that rationale.
    Frankly, the bits and pieces of "evidence" fall short, to me- IMO, of even a remotely convincing body of proof they they did this. I just don't see it, at all. That is my honest appraisal.
    The "evidence" which points toward someone else, although not plentiful, makes much more sense to me. And, I am convinced that I view this entire set of circumstances through flawed lenses. No doubt, I as well as others, rely to some extent on our gut reaction, our intuition, our "sense" of others.
    Have a look at this case WF, the Noura Jackson trial.
    There are some parallels to the Ramsey case.

    · Inconsistencies in statements to police.
    · Unexplained DNA evidence.
    · Staging.
    · Questionable and suspicious behavior.
    · Killing of a family member.

    [ame="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6383650n"]My Mother's Murder - 48 Hours - CBS News[/ame]
    or, you can read the text of the video here:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6383885.shtml
    Last edited by cynic; 06-07-2010 at 08:56 PM.
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)


  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:


  14. #430
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Have a look at this case WF, the Noura Jackson trial.
    There are some parallels to the Ramsey case.

    · Inconsistencies in statements to police.
    · Unexplained DNA evidence.
    · Staging.
    · Questionable and suspicious behavior.
    · Killing of a family member.

    My Mother's Murder - 48 Hours - CBS News
    or, you can read the text of the video here:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6383885.shtml
    Well, just what do you consider credible? Because as I've often said, a good prosecutor (underline good) could have made a case. And I know that because people have gone to prison on a lot less than is arrayed against the Rs.

    All the usual corroborating criteria can contribute. DNA can be very powerful. Eyewitness testimony, though perhaps the weakest link in a chain of evidence, if presented w/o ulterior motive from a believable person(s), can be useful. Fingerprints, footprints, other telltale items, time-frames, consistent testimony of the major themes. Polygraph testing. Past history of drug/alcohol abuse/dependence, psychological factors, economic, other kinds of stresses. Motive. An indescribable but tangible "ring of truth" to the person's account. A confession.

    A good defense counsel, and, like you, I mean good, would win easily, IMO.

    Sad, but true. Look at Vanzetti and Sacco as one tragic example.

    For the Supe and you.

    Another key piece of evidence would be the improbability that x could murder y even under the most trying circumstances.
    Last edited by WHITEFANG; 06-07-2010 at 10:20 PM.


  15. #431
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070
    Well, just what do you consider credible? Because as I've often said, a good prosecutor (underline good) could have made a case. And I know that because people have gone to prison on a lot less than is arrayed against the Rs.

    All the usual corroborating criteria can contribute. DNA can be very powerful. Eyewitness testimony, though perhaps the weakest link in a chain of evidence, if presented w/o ulterior motive from a believable person, can be useful. Fingerprints, footprints, other telltale items, time-frames, consistent testimony of the major themes. Past history of drug/alcohol abuse/dependence, psychological factors, economic, other kinds of stresses. An indescribable but tangible "ring of truth" to the person's account.

    A good defense counsel, and, like you, I mean good, would win easily, IMO.

    Sad, but true. Look at Vanzetti and Sacco as one tragic example.


  16. #432
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070

    where the swelling mountain water moves onward to the sea:

    That's where we part company, friend. I don't find it reassuring in the least. As for the rest of your characterization, if you take the whole of his statements in context, his answers clearly do follow a script in his own head and he only "misspeaks" when the interviewer throws him a curveball.
    I screamed, but I didn't. Error in his script?
    Putting her down in the living room but not doing so, error in the script?
    It seems that even the most common, mundane gaffs are given a sinister twist. At some point it becomes too much. He wasn't evil incarnate. He was smart enough not to reveal how perfectly evil he was, surely.


  17. #433
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,977
    Quote Originally Posted by WHITEFANG View Post

    Another key piece of evidence would be the improbability that x could murder y even under the most trying circumstances.
    But that is not actually "evidence". The probability or improbability may be something to consider, but it is NOT evidence. Evidence is something tangible. Like a print, fiber, DNA. A possession left at the scene, etc. You can't submit an improbability, probability or tendency as evidence. In trials, you can't even submit the accused's past convictions of the same kind of crime as evidence.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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


  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  19. #434
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070
    Linda Hoffman - Housekeeper - "When I cleaned that house, I cleaned that basement many times and I didn't even know that room was there - It tells me somebody had to know that house."
    Yet she recalled seeing the cord on a package next to where Joni's body was found (in the room she didn't know was there) later found on Joni's neck?


  20. #435
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070

    and contemplates the milking girl whose offer is his need.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    But that is not actually "evidence". The probability or improbability may be something to consider, but it is NOT evidence. Evidence is something tangible. Like a print, fiber, DNA. A possession left at the scene, etc. You can't submit an improbability, probability or tendency as evidence. In trials, you can't even submit the accused's past convictions of the same kind of crime as evidence.
    Interesting, although I believe probabilities are often used when presenting a case in court. They can carry alot of weight. Evidence is also the lack of something tangible.


Page 29 of 73 FirstFirst ... 19 27 28 29 30 31 39 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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
  •