867 users online (81 members and 786 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 29 of 49 FirstFirst ... 19 27 28 29 30 31 39 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 725
  1. #421
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,701
    Quote Originally Posted by k-mac View Post
    Woo woo up
    Where is there proof that these long johns were burkes??
    All I have been privy to is JBR was wearing male long johnsthat were too big for her little body.
    This does not mean what is overly implied as fact. That theywere burkes. Specifically off burkes back then and there.
    Patsy admitted to putting the long johns on her for bed.
    This is not an impossibility as uk guy would like to dismissbut cant.
    JBR had a bed wetting problem. Putting thick bottoms on hermakes perfect sense to me. Maybe just maybe she bought male long johns for JBRbecause they have extra padding in her wet spot. Whoknows? Nobody. Yes theycould be burkes. But they may not be. Hasnít been proven by law enforcement.
    there is far moreinnocence to that night and normality than most conspiritists around here wantto believe.
    k-mac,
    Where is there proof that these long johns were burkes??
    All I have been privy to is JBR was wearing male long johnsthat were too big for her little body.
    This does not mean what is overly implied as fact. That theywere burkes. Specifically off burkes back then and there.
    Well they aint JR's, or the little boy's next door, maybe Patsy was into a bit of rossdressing, who knows anything is possible, lots of possible explanations, but the best, the one that makes most sense is that they belonged to Burke Ramsey!

    The reason: Patsy is covering for BR, plain and simple. Its a no brainer unless you have read too many PDI books.

    .

  2. #422
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    k-mac,

    Well they aint JR's, or the little boy's next door, maybe Patsy was into a bit of rossdressing, who knows anything is possible, lots of possible explanations, but the best, the one that makes most sense is that they belonged to Burke Ramsey!

    The reason: Patsy is covering for BR, plain and simple. Its a no brainer unless you have read too many PDI books.

    .
    exactly as I asked..you got nothing but assumptions. as usual

  3. #423
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,701
    Quote Originally Posted by k-mac View Post
    exactly as I asked..you got nothing but assumptions. as usual
    k-mac,
    Sure and guess what, if you have read any of the published JonBenet books, Kolar, Thomas, et al, then they are full of assumptions.

    That's what we are here for, speculation, we aint the FBI. You can leave proof and guilt to the Judge and Jury!

    .

  4. #424
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    1,160
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    icedtea4me,
    I just did in my last post where I described a subclass of PDI theorists who assume JR is a mind reader, e.g. Patsy's!

    Some JDI theories do it in reverse, and have special cases for events like where Patsy goes ahead and dials 911, breaking with JR's expectations, otherwise Patsy reads JR's mind and falls in line so to accommodate his JDI.

    .
    None of these statements is a direct quote from anyone stating Patsy communicated telepathically with John.

  5. #425
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    1,160
    Quote Originally Posted by TeaTime View Post
    He liked to play in the basement.
    So?

    Quote Originally Posted by TeaTime View Post
    He was awake for the 911 call.
    As were John and Patsy.

  6. #426
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    k-mac,
    Sure and guess what, if you have read any of the published JonBenet books, Kolar, Thomas, et al, then they are full of assumptions.

    That's what we are here for, speculation, we aint the FBI. You can leave proof and guilt to the Judge and Jury!

    .
    well I figured that would be your reply uk guy.
    smoke and mirrors works well for bdi.
    but facts and proof not so much hey? ;-)

  7. #427
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,701
    Quote Originally Posted by icedtea4me View Post
    None of these statements is a direct quote from anyone stating Patsy communicated telepathically with John.
    icedtea4me,
    It's implied in the theory, it follows from what JR is supposed to know, but was not present to see, since the case is PDI.

    i.e. there is no need for quotes it's implied in the theory.


    The PDI theories have large holes in them, these are backfilled with hand-waiving and just so stories. Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory is a good example.

    Consider how ST's theory does not explain all the evidence, it just uses what's available to confirm his bedwetting assumption.

    Put simply, people match Patsy's staging and the forensic evidence to their favorite PDI theory, neglecting that Patsy might have been staging for another family member?

    .

  8. #428
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by k-mac View Post
    Woo woo up
    Where is there proof that these long johns were burkes??
    All I have been privy to is JBR was wearing male long johnsthat were too big for her little body.
    This does not mean what is overly implied as fact. That theywere burkes. Specifically off burkes back then and there.
    Patsy admitted to putting the long johns on her for bed.
    This is not an impossibility as uk guy would like to dismissbut cant.
    JBR had a bed wetting problem. Putting thick bottoms on hermakes perfect sense to me. Maybe just maybe she bought male long johns for JBRbecause they have extra padding in her wet spot. Whoknows? Nobody. Yes theycould be burkes. But they may not be. Hasnít been proven by law enforcement.
    there is far moreinnocence to that night and normality than most conspiritists around here wantto believe.
    Makes sense to me. The only downside might be a major rash with that fabric clinging to her, but it mighta been an experiment or maybe jbr woke up if she got wet.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  9. #429
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    1,160
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    icedtea4me,
    Stranger things have happened in this case, Karr, etc. Whoever thought they would see Burke Ramsey interviewed on Dr Phil, even if it was fixed?*snip*
    Why do you think there would have been someone out there thinking "Burke Ramsey will never be interviewed by Dr Phil"?

  10. #430
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    1,160
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    k-mac,

    Well they aint JR's, or the little boy's next door, maybe Patsy was into a bit of rossdressing, who knows anything is possible, lots of possible explanations, but the best, the one that makes most sense is that they belonged to Burke Ramsey!

    The reason: Patsy is covering for BR, plain and simple. Its a no brainer unless you have read too many PDI books.

    .
    What do you think is Burke's reason for redressing his sister in his long johns?


  11. #431
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ambitioned View Post
    And then when you're finished with those, watch a few videos including this one:

    http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-case-of...-force-trauma/

    There was zero evidence of an intruder. IDI is dead.
    I don't play well with others.

    That said, good to see that Dr. Spitz is sued again. Hopefully he loses, just like last time. He saw a pattern and fit there as well, unfortunately for him, there was neither such thing.

    Lastly, and by the way, the skull on exhibit is not a living skull. Note the lacquer. Because dry and brittle and would decompose into dust in a few years past a decade. And so, no, the video proves no such thing, as the skull is dry and brittle, no marrow with fat there in the middle, and for the cherry on top, the experiment failed to replicate injury as there was no 8.5 inch part comminuted, part linear skull fracture. Here's where he lost, last time 'round:

    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/.../1343/1519147/

    More specifically:

    Two criminal complaints were filed against plaintiff. In the first complaint, he was charged with decapitation of the body of a woman named Glenda Reed. On this charge, the strongest evidence against him was a group of three cervical vertebrae found in his desk at the Wayne County Medical Examiner's office. Spitz fit these three vertebrae with a fourth vertebra taken from the body. Patrick Foley, the assistant prosecutor who investigated the charges against plaintiff, testified that Spitz "told us they fit like a puzzle, and I believe his statement was that they came from the same body." (Tr. 2/23/81, at 2123). He admitted that he relied on Spitz as a medical expert, and saw no reason to consult other doctors. (Tr. 2/23/81, at 2123 and 2130).


    Later, at plaintiff's preliminary examination, the degree of certainty in Spitz's identification began to erode. On direct examination, he stated, "My opinion is that they [the vertebrae] match so perfectly that I am bound to believe that they do come from the same person." (Tr. 2/9/81, at 926; 2/25/81, at 22). On cross-examination, however, he stated, "(I)t is my professional opinion that they could very well come from the same person.... Nobody can say that [in fact, they come from the same body]. There is no way this can be established." (Tr. 2/25/81, at 23-24). He explained that his opinion was derived only from fitting the vertebrae together, because there was no other method to determine if they came from the same body. (Tr. 2/25/81, at 26-28). At trial, it became clear that other identification techniques exist. (Tr. 2/24/81, at 2234-35, 2245-54).


    A person "initiates" a prosecution if he makes false statements to prosecuting officials or wilfully conceals facts from them, causing them to recommend issuance of a warrant. Renda v. U.A.W., 366 Mich. 58, 86-87, 114 N.W.2d 343, 357 (1962). From this evidence, the jury properly could have concluded that Spitz intentionally overstated his ability to identify the vertebrae from plaintiff's desk as part of the body of Glenda Reed.[8] Foley admitted that he relied on Spitz's medical expertise. Thus, the jury properly could have found that Spitz "initiated" the prosecution.

    So would appear that having lost already on a claim of malicious prosecution, now he's going for the losing end of a suit in tort for money damages for defamation.

  12. #432
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,196
    Quote Originally Posted by SlappyMc View Post
    I don't play well with others.
    That's good. Neither do I!
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  13. #433
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,196
    Quote Originally Posted by SlappyMc View Post
    (4) by the way, Patsy did nothing here, at least initially, since she doesn't make the 911 when she did if she's involved, also means, by the way, that she didn't write the note.
    I don't know where you'd get an idea like that. Hey, the Menendez Bros. called 911. I guess we'd better let them go.

    (9) and now for third time's the charm, you'd have to have a Mt. Everest of evidence to convince me that Patsy did anything wrong.
    Damn. All I have is the Matterhorn.

    First, there is the 911 call, which you simply don't make when she did, if coverup is the plan,
    Like I said, I don't know where you get that idea.

    and second, some have said that sometimes the one parent knows and allows it, and that's true, but far more often than not is someone rather dependent on the other and the other usually doesn't have gazillions of dollars for you take in the divorce case. Let me put that this way, he was every gold-digger's dream. So no reason to not bail out when the need for the same arose.
    Are you kidding? Read Marilyn Van Derbur's story sometime. It'll blow this idea right to cinders.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  14. #434
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,701
    Quote Originally Posted by icedtea4me View Post
    Why do you think there would have been someone out there thinking "Burke Ramsey will never be interviewed by Dr Phil"?
    icedtea4me,
    If you care to do some homework, 100% of people would not have thought BR would be interviewed by Dr Phil, prior to 2002, as the Dr Phil show began in 2002.

    Also the Dr Phil show is a celebrity makeover vehicle for celebs. They pay big money for him to smoother over the latest scandal. He is a modern day fixer via broadcast media, to this end he is richly rewarded as he is a multi-millionaire.

    Since BR was no celeb, was assumed innocent, why would anyone think he needed to do Dr Phil?

    You get my drift.

    It might have been LW who advised the R's to do Dr Phil, he knows where the R's media capital is concentrated, and what pitfalls toavoid, except BR on Dr Phil was a car crash!

    .

  15. #435
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,701
    Quote Originally Posted by icedtea4me View Post
    What do you think is Burke's reason for redressing his sister in his long johns?

    icedtea4me,
    Well it would not be the same as Patsy's would it?


    Whoever dressed JonBenet had at least one of two motives: 1. Hide a prior assault, 2. Implicate Burke Ramsey.

    Speculating I'll vote for 1. and assume JonBenet was in Burke Ramsey's bedroom, and he had been dressed in the long johns, i.e. he and JonBenet were in bed together, after JonBenet was sexually assaulted and whacked on the head Burke Ramsey went down to the basement, e.g. Dr Phil Show, and fetched the size-12's he had seen that afternoon, and dressed JonBenet in a pair of them, followed by his long johns as they were close to hand, he then either moved JonBenet down to the basement or into her bedroom?

    .

Page 29 of 49 FirstFirst ... 19 27 28 29 30 31 39 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Was Burke Involved? # 4
    By Tricia in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 2354
    Last Post: 12-28-2016, 06:41 PM
  2. Was Burke Involved ? # 3
    By Tricia in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 1019
    Last Post: 09-24-2016, 06:19 PM
  3. Was Burke involved?
    By GuruJosh in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 2825
    Last Post: 04-03-2014, 07:36 PM
  4. What Burke knows...
    By armywife210 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-12-2008, 11:59 PM
  5. Burke
    By capps in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 05-20-2005, 11:06 AM