1303 users online (203 members and 1100 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 88
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    324

    "And Justice For Some"

    I thought this deserved its own thread.

    Wendy Murphy has written extensively on the JBR case in her new book "And Justice For Some," which I read finished.

    Some of these details we've already discussed, but others are new. At least to me. Like John's sweater fibers being on JB's genitals. Now how did that happen? When John is asked about this his lawyer goes ballistic. Very strange reaction! Why did that trigger such an outburst?

    The other thing is the pineapple. It's a good question why the BPD didn't take that in for testing. Could it have had a drug in it? There was always something weird to me about the Ramseys both denying giving her pineapple. WHY?

    It was in their bowl, in their kitchen. In the girl's stomach! So why did they deny it? Did it maybe have a chemical in it that might have meant Game Over for them?

    And how exactly was John so sure Patsy didn't give JonBenet that pineapple?
    He closed down the subject for some reason.

    If only the pineapple was tested this case might have been solved!
    It's just my opinion.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,731
    Quote Originally Posted by halycon View Post
    I thought this deserved its own thread.

    Wendy Murphy has written extensively on the JBR case in her new book "And Justice For Some," which I read finished.

    Some of these details we've already discussed, but others are new. At least to me. Like John's sweater fibers being on JB's genitals. Now how did that happen? When John is asked about this his lawyer goes ballistic. Very strange reaction! Why did that trigger such an outburst?

    The other thing is the pineapple. It's a good question why the BPD didn't take that in for testing. Could it have had a drug in it? There was always something weird to me about the Ramseys both denying giving her pineapple. WHY?

    It was in their bowl, in their kitchen. In the girl's stomach! So why did they deny it? Did it maybe have a chemical in it that might have meant Game Over for them?

    And how exactly was John so sure Patsy didn't give JonBenet that pineapple?
    He closed down the subject for some reason.

    If only the pineapple was tested this case might have been solved!
    Halycon, according to Steve Thomas, a detective in the early stages of the investigation, the pineapple was tested. That's how the police found out that the pineapple in the bowl was consistent with the pineapple found in JonBenet's stomach. In addition, JonBenet was tested for drugs in her system. That is standard procedure for an autopsy, especially one involving a homicide.

    Like you, I find it odd that fibers consistent with John's black shirt that he worn the night of December 25 were found on JonBenet's external genitalia. Either he or Patsy via secondary transference are the logical sources.

    I have not read Wendy Murphy's book.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    4,217
    Halycon,
    The Ramseys had to deny serving the pineapple. Or else change their story about arriving home. They insisted JonBenet was "zonked out" asleep and put straight to bed. If that's the case, there's no room in the parents' account for a snack time.
    Eventhough, Burke remembers it differently. According to him, his sister walked up the stairs to her bedroom.
    I assume when putting their story together Patsy and John completely forgot about the pineapple on the table and could not include it after they were so firm about bringing a sleeping daughter into the house.
    And, we begin to wonder. Why was it so important for them to say she was asleep when they arrived home and there was no interaction among the family. She was put straight to bed.
    jmo
    The Hokey Pokey Clinic - A good place to turn yourself around:

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by azwriter View Post
    And, we begin to wonder. Why was it so important for them to say she was asleep when they arrived home and there was no interaction among the family.
    good question.perhaps some sexual contact happened that they need to deny?
    IOW-she was last seen alive at the White's...if the story goes that she was put straight to bed,then...whatever happened,they had no part of.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=halycon;1690633]I thought this deserved its own thread.

    Wendy Murphy has written extensively on the JBR case in her new book "And Justice For Some," which I read finished.

    Some of these details we've already discussed, but others are new. At least to me. Like John's sweater fibers being on JB's genitals. Now how did that happen? When John is asked about this his lawyer goes ballistic. Very strange reaction! Why did that trigger such an outburst?

    QUOTE]


    I recall seeing the video of the interrogation. This statement is not verbatim. John is told why his shirt fibers were found on JonBenet's genital area. John replies, "Bulls**t! I will not have you tarnishing my and my daughters relationship!"

    I thought this was a ploy on the detectives part...as in, he was not telling the truth. LE can lie to get a suspect's response to the accusation.
    ...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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Both JR and PR tried to grandstand their way out of these accusations- they & their lawyers bullied anyone questioning them. It worked- in most cases. I don't see where JR was pressed on the issue.
    What is suspicious is that it seems any hint of a sexual assault on JBR provoked extremely inappropriate reactions- from PR defiantly asking "You show me where it says that!" Nedra saying "She was only a little bit molested". And this outburst by JR and his lawyer. This issue is certainly a trigger for them.
    Very inappropriate feelings about the sexual molestation of their 6-year-old daughter. Where you would expect to see outrage and horror and grief that this WAS done, instead you see anger at being told that it was done.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    [quote=Toltec;1692663]
    Quote Originally Posted by halycon View Post
    I thought this deserved its own thread.

    Wendy Murphy has written extensively on the JBR case in her new book "And Justice For Some," which I read finished.

    Some of these details we've already discussed, but others are new. At least to me. Like John's sweater fibers being on JB's genitals. Now how did that happen? When John is asked about this his lawyer goes ballistic. Very strange reaction! Why did that trigger such an outburst?

    QUOTE]


    I recall seeing the video of the interrogation. This statement is not verbatim. John is told why his shirt fibers were found on JonBenet's genital area. John replies, "Bulls**t! I will not have you tarnishing my and my daughters relationship!"

    I thought this was a ploy on the detectives part...as in, he was not telling the truth. LE can lie to get a suspect's response to the accusation.
    but they were posed these q's by attorneys as well,and they aren't allowed to lie.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Both JR and PR tried to grandstand their way out of these accusations- they & their lawyers bullied anyone questioning them. It worked- in most cases. I don't see where JR was pressed on the issue.
    What is suspicious is that it seems any hint of a sexual assault on JBR provoked extremely inappropriate reactions- from PR defiantly asking "You show me where it says that!" Nedra saying "She was only a little bit molested". And this outburst by JR and his lawyer. This issue is certainly a trigger for them.
    Very inappropriate feelings about the sexual molestation of their 6-year-old daughter. Where you would expect to see outrage and horror and grief that this WAS done, instead you see anger at being told that it was done.
    as far as Nedra's comment,the only thing I can find on it is in PMPT...and her comment sounds like one of shock and denial (I don't know with whom she was quoted speaking to at the time,I'll have to find my book),but it appears to be taken out of context,to some degree,to say that she said JB was 'only a little bit molested'..what Nedra said was that she 'didn't know JonBenet had been molested,to some degree'.
    So it sounds to me like she read the reports about digital penetration,and perhaps was in denial about it,(somewhat),and/or is acknowledging that she wasn't molested beyond dig. penetration? Of course molestation is molestation,that might have just been her way of denying it,just as she said..'to some degree'.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    324
    Interesting what Nedra said. I remember it as "little bit molested" too; could it have been in the Schiller movie that way? It always shocked me.

    And yes, the lie about whether the girl was asleep? I thought John said he read her to sleep? Very hinky.

    I don't think the pineapple was tested for sedatives, and that is Wendy Murphy's point. The public has a right to know what any results on the pineapple were and those haven't been revealed.

    We know for certain the whole bowl was seized as evidence and the contents were tested -- but we've never heard the results -- yet we know pineapple matching the stuff found in the bowl was found in the child's belly, undigested. Let's have that info!

    I heard Murphy on a talk show some time ago and she asked why were the parents asked extensive questions about the presence of sedatives in the home. If they wanted to know whether the ramseys took sleeping pills and thus missed the child's screaming, all they had to do was say "Did you take a sleeping pill that night?" But instead police went into lots of details about the different types of sedatives in the home -- and this is where she keeps coming back to the pineapple. Was there a sedative in it? Otherwise why lie about having it in the home and JB eating it?

    I have to agree that the pineapple holds the answers to a lot of this. I wish we could find out what its lab results were.
    It's just my opinion.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    324

    Oh this is funny too!

    http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat...6882.asp#email

    Thursday, Sep 13

    Meet Anna Nicole's Widower's Lawyer!

    So I'm looking at the Associated Press dispatch on all the lawsuit-related hoopla Rita Cosby has stirred up with her Anna Nicole Smith book, Blonde Ambition, which apparently has Howard Stern and Larry Birkhead upset because it suggested that not only did they team up to exploit Smith like Kevin Bacon and Matt Dillon in Wild Things (only without Neve Campbell and Denise Richards), but that if their story had had a shower scene, too, it would've been a lot steamier. Naturally, they both deny everything, including the existence of a Birkhead/Stern sex tape, and are planning to sue separately, with Birkhead claiming he's going to get "one of the most expensive lawsuit settlements in book-publishing history." But it was when Stern's attorney, L. Lin Wood, said that he was "convinced...[Cosby] has, as a practical matter, authored a work of pure fiction" that my spidey sense started tingling. L. Lin Wood? Ah, yes... the infamous "attorney for the damned," who has pursued defamation claims for Richard Jewell, Gary Condit, and the Ramseys.

    Funnily enough, Wood also plays a part in another book that is reaching stores this week: Wendy Murphy's And Justice for Some, described in the subtitle as "an exposé of the lawyers and judges you hate—and the dirty tricks they don't want you to know about." Murphy, a former prosecutor turned victim's rights advocate, describes how he contacted her on behalf of the Ramseys after she appeared on a cable news show and told her, "I just heard you accuse my client of abusing and killing his daughter, and if I ever hear you say that again, you won't be ex-prosecutor Wendy Murphy, you'll be defendant Wendy Murphy in my lawsuit. Check my record!" She goes on to accuse Wood of using the threat of legal action to suppress the public articulation of opinions on matters of public interest that reflect poorly on his clients, "not unlike what fascist extremists do when they try to maintain political power and control people by telling them about all the horrible things that will happen if they don't speak and think a certain way."
    It's just my opinion.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by halycon View Post
    Interesting what Nedra said. I remember it as "little bit molested" too; could it have been in the Schiller movie that way? It always shocked me.
    I don't recall seeing it there,no.
    I just got the impression that Nedra had a very different reaction to it than PR did...like she truly didn't know,as opposed to knowing something was going on,and saying JB was 'just a little bit molested'.

    And yes, the lie about whether the girl was asleep? I thought John said he read her to sleep? Very hinky.
    it is.it seems something on,in,or about her body required them to say she went straight to bed,as if they had no part in whatever it was.

    I don't think the pineapple was tested for sedatives, and that is Wendy Murphy's point. The public has a right to know what any results on the pineapple were and those haven't been revealed.

    We know for certain the whole bowl was seized as evidence and the contents were tested -- but we've never heard the results -- yet we know pineapple matching the stuff found in the bowl was found in the child's belly, undigested. Let's have that info!

    I heard Murphy on a talk show some time ago and she asked why were the parents asked extensive questions about the presence of sedatives in the home. If they wanted to know whether the ramseys took sleeping pills and thus missed the child's screaming, all they had to do was say "Did you take a sleeping pill that night?" But instead police went into lots of details about the different types of sedatives in the home -- and this is where she keeps coming back to the pineapple. Was there a sedative in it? Otherwise why lie about having it in the home and JB eating it?

    I have to agree that the pineapple holds the answers to a lot of this. I wish we could find out what its lab results were.
    if it did have a sedative in it,my thought would be someone was sedating her in prep. to be molested.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    The thing here is, we know they were asked about these drugs, like Klonopin, Xanax, Ativan and Paxil. (Forgive me for not knowing what those do.) But was it to find out if the girl was drugged, or if these drugs could provoke a violent action?

    I recall seeing the video of the interrogation. This statement is not verbatim. John is told why his shirt fibers were found on JonBenet's genital area. John replies, "Bulls**t! I will not have you tarnishing my and my daughters relationship!"
    Whittaker Chambers once said that only the guilty have anything to scream about. I guess he'd know. There's an old saying: a hit dog barks.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,594
    [QUOTE=SuperDave;1695371]The thing here is, we know they were asked about these drugs, like Klonopin, Xanax, Ativan and Paxil. (Forgive me for not knowing what those do.) But was it to find out if the girl was drugged, or if these drugs could provoke a violent action?




    Please Please tell me where this can be read? I've never heard this before and I feel like I'm missing a huge chunk of evidence to consider. Thanks!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    The drugs mentionbed, Paxil, et al, are all either anti-anxiety drugs or antidepressants. They are not sedatives. I think by questioning about those specific drugs, LE was trying to find out if the parents were being treated for depression or anxiety (stress). It wasn't about whether the pineapple was drugged. The coroner tested both JBR's blood and tissue samples, as well as the stomach contents, and the toxicology report was negative for any and all drugs.
    NONE of thoss drugs mentioned would make someone unconscious, of course anything given to a child in large doses is dangerous, but these drugs would most certainly have shown up in the autopsy.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,391
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The drugs mentionbed, Paxil, et al, are all either anti-anxiety drugs or antidepressants. They are not sedatives. I think by questioning about those specific drugs, LE was trying to find out if the parents were being treated for depression or anxiety (stress). It wasn't about whether the pineapple was drugged. The coroner tested both JBR's blood and tissue samples, as well as the stomach contents, and the toxicology report was negative for any and all drugs.
    NONE of thoss drugs mentioned would make someone unconscious, of course anything given to a child in large doses is dangerous, but these drugs would most certainly have shown up in the autopsy.
    I agree I recognize a couple of the drug names from the list as meds our DIL takes she Has Bi Polar and a few other diagnoses. I was always thinking down that line for a very long time now. Also if one of the meds does not work right that can make a bad situation worse.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY TX - Dr. Calvin Day for sexual assault of patient, San Antonio, 2013
    By wfgodot in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 10:02 AM
  2. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 02:11 AM