Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: JBR case, Court TV, Thur., 4/21/05, 10 PM

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053

    JBR case, Court TV, Thur., 4/21/05, 10 PM

    Court TV's "Under Investigation" is scheduled to aire the JonBenet Ramsey case at 10 PM on Thursday, April 21. From the ad I saw on TV it looks like another one-sided pro-Ramsey presentation, although they promise new evidence is to be revealed. But in the ad there was a split-second shot of Lou Smit coming through the basement window, so it appears it's probably nothing more than a remake of Smit's convoluted intruder theory.

    There was no intruder. The Ramseys wouldn't be lying their heads off, obfuscating answers to questions, refusing to fully cooperate with investigators, and covering up to protect the identity of an intruder. That doesn't make sense. They would be doing this ONLY if a family member was somehow involved in the murder.

    I get the feeling there's a conspiracy among the media, the courts, and Boulder officials to make it appear an intruder killed JonBenet, knowing the case has been solved for years and children too young to prosecute and too young to even identify were involved. The goal of the conspiracy would be blame the crime on an imaginary intruder and reconstruct the credibility of the Ramseys.
    Last edited by BlueCrab; 04-16-2005 at 11:06 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343

    don't hold your breath...

    Here's the description from CourtTV's website...

    "A new team of investigators takes a closer look at the murder of JonBenet Ramsey resulting in the identification of a key suspect and pointing away from JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey."

    I can't wait!! </sarcasm>

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    dallas, tx
    Posts
    3,308
    well thanks for letting me know as i was torn there between my usual hour of "househunters" on HGTV which also airs in this time slot and this "special". glad i will not have to miss any episodes of my favorite show!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    242
    the blurb i saw said they solve the murder of JBR. That surprised me!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by londonPI
    the blurb i saw said they solve the murder of JBR. That surprised me!
    It suprised Tom Bennett (official Ramsey investigator) too .... ;-)
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by londonPI
    the blurb i saw said they solve the murder of JBR. That surprised me!
    If they did, why haven't I heard it on the news? They probably reveal their theory on the case?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Vermont
    Posts
    1,447

    Blurb

    This is the blurb from the website:

    "JonBenet: A Closer Look

    A new team of investigators takes a closer look at the murder of JonBenet Ramsey resulting in the identification of a key suspect and pointing away from JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by JBR_Justice
    If they did, why haven't I heard it on the news? They probably reveal their theory on the case?
    The "evidence" they will claim against Michael Helgoth is :-

    1. An ex-girlfriend said that HE said he couldn't trust himself with her daughter.

    2. A video tape was found in his possessions of a family Christmas film (link to Ramsey murder) and in the middle of this film was a news bulletin about the murder of ALlie Berrelez (evidence that he was involved in the Berrelez murder and was therefore a child killer)

    3. He wore black clothes.

    4. He killed little kittens with his bare hands.

    5. He owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots.

    6. He had two wolf-dog puppies which had multi-coloured furs. Animal hairs found at the scene of Jonbenet's murder looked like they were the same colour.

    7. He allegedly wondered aloud what it would be like to kill someone.

    8. He allegedly liked to point his gun at people and then fire just a little off from them.

    9. He allegedly spoke of a job which was going to net him $50,000.

    10. The gun injury which killed him and which was officially recorded as suicide, was on the left hand side of his torso. Helgoth was right-handed.

    11. He knew Mr X who was a nasty person and who had a previous conviction of violence.

    12. He had a stun gun.

    13. Something else that I've forgotten.

    The evidence against Michael Helgoth was provided by one John Kenady, a convicted child molester with a rap sheet as long as your arm. The DNA does not match Michael Helgoth but hey, Tom Bennett says the DNA may not be the killers, so maybe Helgoth is still in the running..... Problem is - so are the Ramseys and everyone else close to the Ramseys who have been eliminated on DNA.

    One problem with Tracey's latest theory is that he claimed Mr X killed JonBenet, then Helgoth to shut him up ... and then disappeared. Except that Hegoth hadn't disappeared. He had moved to another state and started up a business with its own website. Key his name into Google and you get his webpage - complete with contact phone numbers.

    Tracey made his documentary and it was broadcast in the UK last summer. Some Websleuths worked out the identity of Mr X from screenshots of an arrest record of his which they showed on the documentary and Tricia bravely posted his name. Within hours, someone had contacted Mr X and boy was he mad to have been Michael; Tracey's "Prime Suspect" for the murders of JonBenet Ramsey, Michael Helgoth, possible involvement in the murder of Allie Berrelez, a sexual asault on a 12 year old girl and the Boulder midnight burglaries. He contacted the Boulder DA's office and wanted to take a DNA test straight away. Tricia also contacted the DA's office who confirmed that Mr X was not and never had been a suspect in the Jonbenet ramsey murder.

    This left Michael Tracey with a wee problem. He had built his whole hour long documentary around this theory which was just candy floss and now he couldn't show it in the US because it was widely known to be junk - and so, the documentary hasn't shown in the US. Yet. The public were never meant to know the identity of Mr X so that they could never discover that the case against him was garbage. For starters, he hadn't "disappeared" and the PIs in Tracey's doc knew that. That was an outright lie - but it made a good story.

    Tracey & co can still use Helgoth as a suspect. He can't sue them because he's dead. If they want to use the "DNA is not Ramsey" as exculpatory evidence, then they have to maintain that line in excluding Helgoth as the actual murderer and have him only as an accomplice. But who was the real perp then? If Tracey can't come up with something better than Mr X, he's only got a few minutes of documentary left - maybe it could run as a commercial? :-)
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles

    The "evidence" they will claim against Michael Helgoth is :-

    Jayelles,

    Why are you so sure the Thursday night program will name Michael Helgoth as the likely killer of JonBenet? Maybe they know something we don't know and they'll throw someone different under the bus.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Jayelles,

    Why are you so sure the Thursday night program will name Michael Helgoth as the likely killer of JonBenet? Maybe they know something we don't know and they'll throw someone different under the bus.
    Maybe ... but I don't think so.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  11. #11
    The DNA means NADA. This is not a DNA case!!!!

    We do not even know the last time JonBenet bathed. I have never seen the question asked of Patsy....EVER!

    December 24 1996...Let's assume JonBenet bathed this day. The Ramseys had dinner at Pasta Jays. Let's assume they stayed a couple of hours. JonBenet would have had to use the bathroom during that time since she most likely had a couple of drinks. Using the toilet at a public restroom...JonBenet could have picked up foreign DNA.

    Later that evening the Ramseys stopped by the White home for awhile before heading home.

    JonBenet went to bed wearing her pink pajamas.

    December 25 1996...JonBenet and Burke woke John and Patsy around 6am. They headed downstairs and opened gifts and had breakfast. I never heard that JonBenet had actually sat down to eat that morning.

    JonBenet and Burke head outside to play with their new toys. Kids from the neighborhood stop by and head to Burke's room to play Nintendo64. Burke's "boy" friends are in his bedroom while little JonBenet sits outside his door playing with her jewelry making toy. There is no word of her having "girl" friends playing with her or even being in the home. Patsy stops by Burke's room and sits next to JonBenet and makes beaded necklaces with her for awhile.

    John comes home and JonBenet gets him to help her ride her new bike around the patio.

    The kids get dressed to go to the Whites. JonBenet DOES NOT BATHE and she changes into her gap outfit. Patsy is asked if JonBenet washes her hands and Patsy does not know. When asked if JonBenet would voluntarily wash her hands, Patsy says NO.

    JonBenet is at the White home for several hours...playing on the living room floor with Daphne. They head home.

    Now with all these activities and places JonBenet could have picked up DNA almost anywhere!

    THE DNA IS MOOT.
    ...We have said to ourselves, look, there is never going to be a victory in this, there is no victory...John Ramsey: 6/24/98

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Toltec

    THE DNA IS MOOT.

    Toltec,

    The DNA is not moot. If the DNA in JonBenet's panties can be considered moot, then most of the convictions based on DNA evidence in the United States should also be considered "moot".

    DNA evidence cannot be ignored just because it MIGHT not be that of the perpetrator. IMO the foreign DNA mixed with her blood in JonBenet's panties is most likely that of her killer.

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
  •