05-09-2007, 03:00 AM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
Some newbie's may want to read this
There are so many stories out there. I still like to read through them.
Maybe someone else would too.. One of many..
05-09-2007, 09:04 AM #2
Good choice. That's one of my favorite pieces on the JBR case.
05-09-2007, 09:22 AM #3Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
05-09-2007, 12:16 PM #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Yes it is a good article but also very depressing to read.
There is very good news today though. A 20-year-old girl was killed 6 years ago while working at the entry booth to a Minnesota state park. She apparently was beaten to death with a rock during a robbery in the middle of the afternoon.
Here is how it relates to the JonBenet case:
"The Minnesota Attorney General's office, because of its experience with serious cases, will prosecute the case for Rock County."
AND, somebody from her family didn't kill her so it was a DNA case.
Imagine if somebody in Colorado had considered JonBenet's death a serious case and removed Alex Hunter's sorry behind.
Note the small beady eyes. Wow!
05-09-2007, 09:59 PM #5
. "They totally used the church as a photo opportunity," says the parishioner.
Thanks for posting the link to the article, its the first time that I have ever seen it. The above quote from the parishioner, says it ALL.
"This time we get it right."
05-10-2007, 10:08 PM #6Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Quoted from this article:
"he (25-year F.B.I. veteran Gregg McCrary) says, "because on a ratio of 12 to 1, child murders are committed by parents or a family member. In this case, you also have an elaborate 'staging' - the ransom note, the placement of the child's body- and I have never in my career seen or heard about a staging where it was not a family murder- or someone very close to the family. Just the note alone told me the killer was in the family or close to it.""
"In fact, in the first week of January, without permission from the department, Arndt gave Ramsey attorney Patrick Burke a copy of the ransom note."
There are a lot of things in that article that make you grit your teeth but these two about bust the jaw. Linda Arndt must have been there that day because Don Rickles wasn't available.
05-19-2007, 08:29 PM #7
And the beat goes on...Hi, I'm SuperDave. I do BAD things to BAD people.
Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)
05-20-2007, 12:31 PM #8Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
10-11-2008, 08:32 AM #9
10-11-2008, 11:48 AM #10~~~
'I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love' . Mother Teresa
Add me on Facebook: email@example.com
10-11-2008, 03:00 PM #11
good one,the political connections are obvious.
as far as JR as a 'conservative republican',I'm not impressed at all.his actions spoke otherwise,even before the murder.anyone in business knows public appearance...things such going to church,being involved in the community etc...is just a part of displaying the right image to the public.there are PLENTY of businessppl going to church,giving to certain charities,etc.,that can't be trusted to tell the truth or hold a dime of anyone else's money (unless it's for one of their back-scratching cronies!)
08-11-2009, 10:36 AM #12
Yeah, you may want to read this, I agree!
Wow. Thank you so much for this information. I am so glad I found this thread. I understand that there are people who still think the Ramsey's had nothing to do with the death of Jonbenet. I am not one of them. And I am not posting to offend anyone. I am posting my opinion and I enjoy seeing everyone's opinion: especially those that do not agree with mine. To me that is proof that everyone is getting a say: as it should be.
But I would like to see this case tried in a court of law. If the Ramseys are not guilty, I trust the evidence would show this to be true. I do feel, from the evidence I have seen(know of)they would be found guilty of concealing the truth about the death of their daughter. Hence: my opinion of them. I have nothing personal against the Ramseys. This is a very old case, one I grew up with as "pop culture"(that is not to offend the memory of JB just to describe what the case has become not the reality of her tragedy)and I have always wondered if I could know the truth.
I have always been drawn by this case, as have millions of others, but I have not been drawn to many criminal cases in my life. Just this one and Caylee Anthony. I had years to hear things re: JB as opposed to following Caylee's case in "real time." The difference in having internet information vs. what ever you read or heard from the media is incredible and enlightening, to say the least.
(Bolded parts are from website linked for this thread)
John Ramsey hires law firm that has the power to intimidate the DA of Boulder into not filing charges against the Ramsey's. If no charges are filed, there is no case. (I get it now!) Alex Hunter is Harvey Dent*
*(Dark Knight reference, sorry makes sense to me)
Eight months after the murder, to the bafflement of the public, the FBI, and the police, Haddon's team has been singularly successful in dissuading Boulder D.A. Alex Hunter from filing charges.
How is it that someone hasn't stepped in on this in all these years? Why would the FBI let "local" go over their heads? Do they have to? What else is going on here?
Now that the case is opened again, will this all come out? Will this case be looked at for real?
Last edited by Chiquita71; 08-11-2009 at 10:48 AM.John 14:6
08-11-2009, 11:37 AM #13Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
Steve Thomas the Mole
Yes, it's a good reminder of law enforcement gone awry. Don't forget who was responsible for the distorted article---STEVE THOMAS. He was part of an ongoing investigation, and instead of doing things by the book, and because of his vendetta with the DA's office, he chose to meet with the reporter on the sly and basically tromped all over the Ramsey's constitutional rights. He should have been brought up on Federal charges when it was learned he was responsible for the lies and half-truths. There are phrases in the article directly from Steve Thomas. It doesn't take Foster's handy dandy computer to figure out who the mole was. Thomas in his book and public TV appearances used the same phrases.
Linda Arndt, to her credit, was not allowed to defend herself in the media, and she didn't--which was part of her lawsuit. She was made the scapegoat, when the most crucial error was made by French---he didn't search the house thoroughly. When Arndt got to the scene she was told the house was thoroughly searched. She had her marching orders from Ellers. She wanted more help, she wanted dogs brought in. She was told to set up monitoring equipment and wait for a phone call, and keep order with all the adults---an impossibility under the circumstances.
08-11-2009, 11:43 AM #14
A.Hunter and M.Lacy on the case....makes you wonder what else dissapeared from all the evidence besides the phone records.....sigh....this case will never be solved.....
One thing though I will never ever understand.......JR and all the other IDI's......they don't give a damn about their intruder or finding out who it was.....they're just an "army" promoting the IDI theory.The IDI theory protects the Ramsey's.
Why are we even talking about the intruder ?The Ramsey's were cleared,isn't it what IDI's wanted?I was fooled for a long time....I thought they were talking about the intruder because they were interested in justice and they were hoping that DNA will match someday.But no,all the IDI talk is actually pro Ramsey talk.
Last edited by madeleine; 08-11-2009 at 12:42 PM.
08-11-2009, 11:45 AM #15