740 users online (74 members and 666 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    FWDI, SantaDI etc etc

    Anyone who thinks that FW did it or that Santa did it - where is the evidence that places them at the crime scene?

    So Santa was a bit drippy and Fleet was upset and angry - that doesn't make them child killers. We need evidence to place them there - at the scene.

    The BPD followed a lot of leads, investigated a lot of people. They didn't release a list of these people but just because they didn't publicly name their list of suspects does NOT mean they weren't investigated.

    Supporters of David Westerfield say that there was no evidence which placed him at the scene. This is GARBAGE. The vanDam murder crime scene did not comprise solely of the vanDam house. Danielle was removed from her house. There is no evidence to suggest she was murdered there. Her body was dumped miles away in the desert. We know Westerfield spent the weekend driving around in that desert in his motorhome. There is evidence that places her in his motorhome - her blood and strands of her newly cut hair. The motorhome was the crime scene and there is plenty of evidence to place him there.

    The Ramsey crime scene was the Ramsey home. So come on FWDIs and SantaDIs - where is the evidence that puts these two "suspects" at the crime scene?
    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Well we would hope that the house was loaded with fibers ,hairs,and dna from both. If not..why not..both of these men were in that house, wouldn't we expect fibers from their homes, clothing and hairs from their bodies to be there?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Well we would hope that the house was loaded with fibers ,hairs,and dna from both. If not..why not..both of these men were in that house, wouldn't we expect fibers from their homes, clothing and hairs from their bodies to be there?
    Yes, we would expect fibres from their clothes to be in those parts of the house that they were known to be in prior to the murder - and possibly beyond due to secondary transfer.

    But what about the crime scene? JonBenet's bed, the basement, her body... where is the evidence there to link these "suspects" to the crime?
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    When did LE ask for their clothing and what clothes did they ask for? I can't recall reading anything about it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by tipper
    When did LE ask for their clothing and what clothes did they ask for? I can't recall reading anything about it.
    Tipper, this is precisely what I referred to in my first post.

    The BPD followed a lot of leads, investigated a lot of people. They didn't release a list of these people but just because they didn't publicly name their list of suspects does NOT mean they weren't investigated.
    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
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Both Fleet white and Santa had good heads of hair. Santa's beard was full of glitter.Plenty of potentially good evidence to be shed on both cases.
    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    The BPD followed a lot of leads, investigated a lot of people. They didn't release a list of these people but just because they didn't publicly name their list of suspects does NOT mean they weren't investigated.
    Jayelles,

    Well put! You are absolutely correct. The big problem I have with those who think the police ignored other leads is that it defies logic. Think about it. While LE was certainly sloppy, and they were certainly fixated on the Ramsey's involvement, when all is said and done, they simply wanted to solve this crime. Unless they had a personal vendetta against the Ramsey family, and this was trully a frame-up by LE (which I don't think is the case), they weren't going to turn away from a good, solid lead. And for the record, a window broken a year earlier by the home's owner is not really a "good, solid lead." I don't think there's a single member of LE who wouldn't love to be known as the guy who solved the Ramsey case, whether the answer is Patsy, John, Fleet, McSanta, or a stranger.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Someone (was it Hunter?) said (paraphrased) "You would be surprised at who we are looking at". Many took that to mean Burke, but I don't think that is necessarily the case.

    More recently, following a sustained pro-Ramsey propaganda campaign, Tom Bennett broke his silence to state that the DNA might not be the killer's. Was he sick and tired of Ramsey spin?

    I think the investigators are a lot wiser than some give them credit for. I think they suspect someone close to the family and just cannot make a firm case against that person. Sadly, nowadays money is an obstacle - as may distance (how likely is it that the killer remained in Boulder?)

    Those who are BENT on the DNA being the killers are ruling some pretty compelling suspects IMO. I think some cling to the DNA because it rules out their beloved Ramseys. It is a blessing that the official investigators are more objective. If the RST were running the investigation, there would never be justice for Jonbenet.
    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
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    Jayelles,

    Well put! You are absolutely correct. The big problem I have with those who think the police ignored other leads is that it defies logic. Think about it. While LE was certainly sloppy, and they were certainly fixated on the Ramsey's involvement, when all is said and done, they simply wanted to solve this crime. Unless they had a personal vendetta against the Ramsey family, and this was trully a frame-up by LE (which I don't think is the case), they weren't going to turn away from a good, solid lead. And for the record, a window broken a year earlier by the home's owner is not really a "good, solid lead." I don't think there's a single member of LE who wouldn't love to be known as the guy who solved the Ramsey case, whether the answer is Patsy, John, Fleet, McSanta, or a stranger.
    I agree. I cannot understand why some posters think that people inside the investigation are so desperate to frame the Ramseys that they would jeopardise their careers and professional reputations!
    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Jayelles,

    I don't think it's a good idea to include FW in this thread.

    Back in September I started a thread under the title "FW".As far as FW is concerned,I don't think Tricia wants posters to go there,as she relayed in this post from October:

    "Originally Posted by capps"
    There you go ....
    There are 15 things mentioned in this thread alone,that make me raise an eye brow.
    I'm not saying he's guilty,or even involved.I'm certainly not mentioning Fleet just to take any pressure off the Ramsey's.
    But I do think there's enough unusual behavior,if I was LE, to but him on the radar screen.
    I hope he's not involved in any way.

    "Originally Posted by Tricia"
    Fleet White was not involved in anyway whatsoever. He was cleared by the police. I am not certain of many things but I am certain Fleet White and anyone in his family had nothing to do with the death of JonBenet.
    There are very few things I will put an end to as far as discussions go. One of them is the "Fleet White did it" stuff.
    Capps, please I am not getting down on you at all even though it seems like it
    There was a small yet annoying group that did their best to try and bring FW down and they failed when their lies were exposed. These freaks are still out there and try and disrupt both of my forums by bringing up FW and his family.
    As long as the discussions on FW and his family remain non accusatory I have no problem. I wanted to give you a heads up. Just in case.
    I haven't been through all of this thread but I am sure there aren't any problems. I would have heard about it I believe.
    This is personal to me. I have a lot of respect for Fleet White and what he has been through and what he has tried to do. I hope you all understand.
    Thanks.
    __________________
    tgrif@xmission.com
    Snail Mail:
    Websleuths C/O Tricia Griffith
    P.O. Box 682453
    Park City UT
    84068


    So,as you can see Tricia very respectfully asked me to not go there .... and I have respectfully complied.

    Just a heads up ...


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Capps - I am not talking about all the usual reasons that FWDIs come up with - that he provided JBR with dry underwear when she had an accident, that he was angry on occasions, that they think he was jealous of JR etc, etc. I believe this is what Tricia gets cross about.

    I am referring to hard, factual evidence. We know FW & Santa had their DNA tested so we know the police looked at them - they weren't overlooked.

    The RST keep asking for hard evidence that says the Ramseys are serious suspects. I am returning that question with regard to FW & Santa - who are clearly favourite suspects of the RST.
    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

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Anyone who thinks that FW did it or that Santa did it - where is the evidence that places them at the crime scene?

    So Santa was a bit drippy and Fleet was upset and angry - that doesn't make them child killers. We need evidence to place them there - at the scene.

    The BPD followed a lot of leads, investigated a lot of people. They didn't release a list of these people but just because they didn't publicly name their list of suspects does NOT mean they weren't investigated.

    Supporters of David Westerfield say that there was no evidence which placed him at the scene. This is GARBAGE. The vanDam murder crime scene did not comprise solely of the vanDam house. Danielle was removed from her house. There is no evidence to suggest she was murdered there. Her body was dumped miles away in the desert. We know Westerfield spent the weekend driving around in that desert in his motorhome. There is evidence that places her in his motorhome - her blood and strands of her newly cut hair. The motorhome was the crime scene and there is plenty of evidence to place him there.

    The Ramsey crime scene was the Ramsey home. So come on FWDIs and SantaDIs - where is the evidence that puts these two "suspects" at the crime scene?
    I don't think FW was at the crime scene but I do think Santa was. Unfortunately I do not know what samples if any, were taken from Santa by the BPD. Do you know if he gave a DNA sample for sure? Or do you just assume he did?

    Since the police didn't raid his home on the morning of the 26th they missed any opportunity of possibly finding a dark fibre cloth with JonBenet's DNA on it, ropes matching those of the ligature, scratches on his body, pineapple, hypnotic drugs, black tape. There was at least one other home that I think might have yielded some of the above evidence but this was not raided either. Another raid of a local home might have yielded a stun gun if they had got there early enough.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Both Fleet white and Santa had good heads of hair. Santa's beard was full of glitter.Plenty of potentially good evidence to be shed on both cases.
    But did the police look for traces of glitter/fairy dust in the basement? I imagine the basement floor was not all that clean and probably had all manner of bits and pieces on it, and white beard hairs and fairy dust would have mingled in with all the other crap.

    Didn't they do their collections all in the first week after the murder? This was when they were only targetting John and Patsy as the guilty ones. Since neither John or Patsy had white hair why do you think the police would have bothered to pick up any white hairs they might have seen? Or fairy dust? No, they only looked for evidence against John and Patsy such as fibres on the body that they might be able to match to Patsy's or John's clothes.

    What selection process did the police use when they collected their evidence from the house? They shouldn't have used any selection process. They should have taken the entire floor covering. Then they could have gone back over it once they failed in their attempts to find sufficient evidence to incriminate Patsy and John. THEN they might have noticed the white beard hairs and fairy dust.

    I don't think FW was there so they wouldn't have found anything of him except what he left during his early morning post murder inspection.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    Jayelles,

    Well put! You are absolutely correct. The big problem I have with those who think the police ignored other leads is that it defies logic. Think about it. While LE was certainly sloppy, and they were certainly fixated on the Ramsey's involvement, when all is said and done, they simply wanted to solve this crime. Unless they had a personal vendetta against the Ramsey family, and this was trully a frame-up by LE (which I don't think is the case), they weren't going to turn away from a good, solid lead. And for the record, a window broken a year earlier by the home's owner is not really a "good, solid lead." I don't think there's a single member of LE who wouldn't love to be known as the guy who solved the Ramsey case, whether the answer is Patsy, John, Fleet, McSanta, or a stranger.
    But the time to gather the evidence is immediately after the murder. With the passage of time more and more evidence is lost. The time immediately after the murder was when the BPD were targetting the Ramseys and ONLY the Ramseys. They were only interested in evidence that incriminated the Ramseys. The police had no interest in anyone else as they were so sure it was the Ramseys. I haven't put IMO because I think this has been generally recognised. But no doubt there are people who will dispute this.

    Once the BPD had realised their mistake it was too late to obtain solid evidence against ANYONE else even if they now wanted to.

    So the case has stagnated, because while the BPD collected masses of material as evidence, it was only collected with one suspect in mind who they were unable to build a case against because they found nothing incriminating and they left it too late to collect evidence against a larger number of suspects.

    I think LE probably HAS managed to find some incriminating evidence against others by now but it is presumably not sufficient to build a solid case - YET.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by capps
    Jayelles,

    I don't think it's a good idea to include FW in this thread.

    Back in September I started a thread under the title "FW".As far as FW is concerned,I don't think Tricia wants posters to go there,as she relayed in this post from October:

    "Originally Posted by capps"
    There you go ....
    There are 15 things mentioned in this thread alone,that make me raise an eye brow.
    I'm not saying he's guilty,or even involved.I'm certainly not mentioning Fleet just to take any pressure off the Ramsey's.
    But I do think there's enough unusual behavior,if I was LE, to but him on the radar screen.
    I hope he's not involved in any way.

    "Originally Posted by Tricia"
    Fleet White was not involved in anyway whatsoever. He was cleared by the police. I am not certain of many things but I am certain Fleet White and anyone in his family had nothing to do with the death of JonBenet.
    There are very few things I will put an end to as far as discussions go. One of them is the "Fleet White did it" stuff.
    Capps, please I am not getting down on you at all even though it seems like it
    There was a small yet annoying group that did their best to try and bring FW down and they failed when their lies were exposed. These freaks are still out there and try and disrupt both of my forums by bringing up FW and his family.
    As long as the discussions on FW and his family remain non accusatory I have no problem. I wanted to give you a heads up. Just in case.
    I haven't been through all of this thread but I am sure there aren't any problems. I would have heard about it I believe.
    This is personal to me. I have a lot of respect for Fleet White and what he has been through and what he has tried to do. I hope you all understand.
    Thanks.
    __________________
    tgrif@xmission.com
    Snail Mail:
    Websleuths C/O Tricia Griffith
    P.O. Box 682453
    Park City UT
    84068


    So,as you can see Tricia very respectfully asked me to not go there .... and I have respectfully complied.

    Just a heads up ...
    Tricia, I know you own this Forum and are therefore entitled to run it according to your rules. Could you please spell them out as they apply with respect to this matter in a Sticky?

    I personally think it will detract from the quality of your Forum if you apply the rule Capps mentions, as will not be considered an open to all POV arena.

    It will put severe limitations on discussion and will no longer be a 'free press'.

    It's esteemed status as an educational resource for students of crime and law will be altered or downgraded.

    Please consider.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast