1085 users online (206 members and 879 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 242
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    968

    Mr. Clean v. The State and The Tabloids

    Okay. Lets face it.
    On one side we have some "Ozzie and Harriet" types a sort of Mr. and Mrs. Clean and on the opposite side we have the BPD, DA-Hunter, the Mayor, the Governor, the Tabloids, etc. We even have posters who will go to extreme lengths to discount what would otherwise be the most significant evidence: foreign dna under the fingernails and in the panties of a female who has been raped and murdered.

    We have people who once they learn about pageants immediately see "stage mothers" and "pedophiles".

    We have six cops galivanting off to Michigan to look at a hard drive in case it has pornography on it but we don't have even one cop walking half a block to check on known sex offenders who were then on parole.

    We had the first hero in the case: Trip DeMuth an ADA who fought mightly to get decent forensic testing done against the BPD's initial attitude that forensic evidence was meaningless because the parents would just say 'we live there, ofcourse our prints and dna are there' and the BPD's attitude of ''an ADA should shut up unless specifically asked a legal question by the BPD". And we have the second hero of the case: Mike Bynum who clearly heard the sound of a massive railroad train and knew that the Ramseys needed lawyers and needed them fast because it was a campaign to convict the parents not an investigation.

    So technically its not solely Mr. and Mrs. Clean versus the overwhelming money and power of The State and The Tabloids, but in effect thats really what it has been.

    Discussion thread: WHY such an initial bias? How could such false and misleading guff about 'no footprints in the snow' be propagated so promptly?
    But above all else: WHY DOES IT CONTINUE?
    Is it that parents in that situation are weak and should somehow be pounced on and pecked to death despite their Ozzie and Harriet status? Or is it because of their "Mr.Clean and Mr.Rich" status that they must endure this continuing nonsense of parental guilt despite overwhelming evidence of an intruder and total lack of any evidence of some sort of instantaneous but transitory pathological homicidal rage?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Toth....WHY such an initial bias? How could such false and misleading guff about 'no footprints in the snow' be propagated so promptly?
    But above all else: WHY DOES IT CONTINUE?

    This has been a horrible nightmare for the Ramseys,and ,as never before,I see ,because of my own current nightmare,exactly how helpless they were.
    The cops had preconceived opinions,they form scenarios based on their "gut",yet they call it experience. Their egos keep them from challenging their own mistakes because they are more important than the public that trusts them. In some instances,they will make efforts to hide any and all information that could prove they were wrong,leading at times to tampering with evidence. I am in that situation right now,and it is HELL.
    JMO

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    I know you went to great lengths in your posts to describe your feelings about the Ramseys vs. the world. However, in answer to your question as to why it continues the answer is quite simple

    The authorities really do believe that the Ramseys are involved in the death of their daughter. The evidence of an intruder is not necessarily evidence. I speak of the DNA where the evidence not only does not omit the Ramseys as per what the experts have told us, it might very well also be female. We have no official documentation stating that the DNA under the nails and in the panties are the same, we also (and brace yourself, this is a big one) don't know if the DNA is connected to the murder. If females have been tested 2 years after the crime, that tells us something.

    There are also some conflicting statements and some really good info out there that hints that lawyers were called before 911. All avenues need to be explored.

    What if it turns out that phone records currently being investigated, etc. show that Bynum was called prior to calling 911?

    There are many reasons why the Ramseys are being held under that umbrella and with all those wonderful people like Keenan favoring the Ramseys why haven't they made any public statements clearing them?

    Stage mother, pedophile, etc. are all nice little terms to throw out so that those who choose to can yell BORG without realizing that the BORG are out there for very good reasons.

    Bottom line: A six year old child was murdered and no justice has been served. The authorities believe the parents are involved and just can't put the pieces together to definitively state who, what and when. I don't believe they ever will; not because they don't want to, just because the only suspects have bought and sold the people who would have brought them to trial and justice.
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    350
    Why intitial "bias?"

    Perhaps it's the fact that pineapple was found in JonBenet's digestive track. There was pineapple in the house, on the counter, in a bowl with Patsy and Burke's fingerprints on it.

    Perhaps it's because the pineapple is hard evidence and determined that the victim ate it approx. one hour before her death.

    Perhaps it's the fact that an intruder bringing his/her own pineapple into the house, cutting it up and serving it to JonBenet is absurd.

    Perhaps it's because the crime scene was staged. The cord around her wrists were loose and showed no purpose. That the duct tape was a used piece and placed on the victim's mouth after death. That the victim was placed in the further most hidden spot in the basement wrapped in her own blanket (removed from the downstairs dryer).

    Perhaps it's because the Ransom Note was fake. A fake kidnapping; a fake ransom; a fake note. Everything used in the fake RN belonged to the Ramseys; pad, paper, pen - placed on the back steps of a winding staircase - without crease, without a mark as Patsy had to step around THREE PAGES SPREAD OUT ON THE LAST STEP.

    Perhaps it's because fibers consistent with Patsy's clothing (still worn from the night before) are found at the crime scene; in the paint tote, entwined in the cord, on the blanket.

    Perhaps it's because the leading DNA expert in the country, Mr. Henry Lee, looked at the DNA and stated: "This is no DNA case." Mr. Lee also stated it all comes down to the "pineapple." Unfortunately, he also stated: "Rice is cooked."

    That's plenty of reason to initially suspect the parents and continue to do so. The BPD checked out numerous other suspects.

    The above is ALL HARD EVIDENCE - I didn't even touch on the circumstantial evidence.

    There was no "initial bias" - only initial suspicion - and rightly so. To pick the "footprints in the snow" is a distraction. Something Wood & Smit would like to "hang on to." Let it go.

    Answer some of the hard questions.
    IMO -

  5. #5
    MaxiGuest
    I love this thread! This is a perfect test of how people with strongly held opinions can argue without personal insults, etc. Since I've been bragging all over WS about you guys, it makes me feel great to see you validating what I've been saying. Go team!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    I read where Fleet White,when asked,"did you serve pineapple" said,he really didn't know.
    The operative word here is "believe",yes the police believe the Ramseys are guilty,however is this their job? Isn't their job that of gathering evidence,and the job of concluding guilt up to a judge after being presented this evidence? Once they "believed" the Ramseys were guilty,can we believe they followed any other course other than making "this shoe fit".
    IMO

  7. #7
    MaxiGuest
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    I read where Fleet White,when asked,"did you serve pineapple" said,he really didn't know.
    The operative word here is "believe",yes the police believe the Ramseys are guilty,however is this their job? Isn't their job that of gathering evidence,and the job of concluding guilt up to a judge after being presented this evidence? Once they "believed" the Ramseys were guilty,can we believe they followed any other course other than making "this shoe fit".
    IMO
    Cops usually think everyone is guilty til proven innocent. That's just cop mentality.

    Absent any especially incriminating evidence, cops usually work from the center of the circle out. They must first eliminate the most obvious suspects -- anyone known to be in the house at the time of the murder. The cops were blocked from following this usual process by the Ramseys' refusal to submit to formal interrogation immediately. Their informal questioning produced contradictions Right there, that is enough to raise the antennae of any cop and keep it raised until evidence reveals a better suspect or a clear way to eliminate the first suspects. Neither of those has happened.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    I read where Fleet White,when asked,"did you serve pineapple" said,he really didn't know.
    The operative word here is "believe",yes the police believe the Ramseys are guilty,however is this their job? Isn't their job that of gathering evidence,and the job of concluding guilt up to a judge after being presented this evidence? Once they "believed" the Ramseys were guilty,can we believe they followed any other course other than making "this shoe fit".
    IMO
    The police did not believe initially that the parents were guilty, otherwise, they would not have been allowed all the freedom, etc. they had initially. It was because of that benefit of the doubt that the crime scene was not kept properly. They really believed the Ramseys were victims. Only after they stopped shaking their heads and really looked, did they determine that the parents are involved. This opinion was based on the experts at the FBI, et al that the ransom note was phony and many things didn't add up. As far as Fleet White answering that he didn't know, he was being honest. He didn't know. It would have been Priscilla's domain and as such, would be her area to answer such a question, which she did. She did not serve pineapple. If Fleet was trying to implicate the Ramseys, he might have answered no immediately; instead he deferred to his wife, who prepared the food. I think that's pretty darn honest.

    Yes, they were biased but who wouldn't be. I defy anyone to ask a detective or any police officer what their feelings would be about the ONLY PARENTS OF A MURDERED CHILD ANYWHERE (unless you can find otherwise) that did not sit down with the police and answer any questions for four months and with conditions including WHERE the interviews would be held, how, when and who would be present. I dare anyone to find another case like it. Or find a case where the parents moved away within a week of the murder of a child.

    Their "job" was to gather evidence and it all pointed to NO INTRUDER.

    TLynn,

    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    I'm painting my kitchen ceiling so this has to be quick. The fiber, pineapple etc weren't even known about when the BPD began leaving reporters with the impression they thought the parents did it.

  10. #10

    answer

    What you view as the most significant evidence many see as irrelevant.

    "most significant evidence: foreign dna under the fingernails and in the panties of a female who has been raped and murdered"

    You have a little problem with facts as JonBenet wasn't raped, if she were there would likely be freshly deposited DNA in copious amounts not a degraded old sample that is too miniscule to be dated to the crime. It's likely foreign DNA is a common occurance under children's nails due to the explorative nature of childhood. IOW samples from living children would likley reveal DNA that could never be sourced. It's never been studied, likewise foreign DNA on children's clothing. It would probably be more obscene if she had no foreign DNA whatsoever as that would signify she were living in a vacuum or had been scrubbed with lysol.

    It has never been determined that it's abnormal for foreign DNA to be there, just assumed. The ability to magnify smaller and smaller pieces of crime evidence has evolved without the ability to interpret the results.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by tipper
    I'm painting my kitchen ceiling so this has to be quick. The fiber, pineapple etc weren't even known about when the BPD began leaving reporters with the impression they thought the parents did it.
    I think the ransom note was the initial red flag for the authorities that this was phony (that was decided very early on) and the rest eventually with every report coming back, continued to point to a staged crime scene to match the phony ransom note. That ransom note was determined early on, to be the red flag if you will. Everything else just fell into place with every piece of evidence and subsequent lack of evidence for an intruder.

    Psst, Tipper, you're not painting it a pineapple motif are you?
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,064
    The statistics are 1 in 12 times, in the death of a child, it was a family member. (Feel free to correct that if I didn't state it correctly). LE, I assume, are trained to know these odds. Since the only known family (for miles) was in that house, they rightly should be looked at immediately. Upon close scrutiny, the family could have cooperated and not become, what to some of us, belligerent and noncooperative, amongst other suspicious activities.

    The Ramsey family just can't seem to get out from under the umbrella, and there have been some ardent folks who've tried to do that for them. The best that's happened for the R's along those lines is that they came across Lin Wood who files suits based on slander. The investigators start their investigation in the inner circle. So far, the Ramseys activities can't exculpate them from suspicion.

    A lot of the 'hard evidence' in this case came from within the home. Things such as the writing pad, Sharpie, paint brush, and the cord and tape could very likely come from within the house, too.

    Finding JB's body in the basement room that was far from the normal living area also suggests that a family member was involved. Either they couldn't bear to put her outside in the cold or they had other intentions to place the body to be discovered later. Some people have come up with suspicions that could be contributed to an outsider, but this fact is one that's really difficult to get past, IMO. JonBenet was found dead in her home with an obvious bogus kidnap note.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    A question about the room where JBR was found.

    Is it true or fallacy that the door was latched from the outside? Wasn't there also a chair placed in front of the door?

    If true, why would an intruder do that? Especially since the RST would like us to believe it was done for the pleasure knowing that the parents would suffer. Why make it harder for them to find her? Why wipe her down? Why cover her? Why not display her? All these things point to the murderer/s "caring" about the victim.
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,064
    The chair wasn't placed in front of the wine cellar, which is where JB was found. I believe it was in front of the train room door or another room, but not the wine cellar.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    Popcorn - I think you'll find that what was done to her meets the legal definition of rape. Whether an object or a penis was used there was penetration. Also, with the police routinely testing for DNA, it's not unheard of for rapists to use condoms.

    Barbara - Nope. No pineapples here. I'm not that 'hospitable!"

Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast