1162 users online (160 members and 1002 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    538

    Paradox, Steve, and John

    There has been an unfortunate blow-up on the FFJ forum involving Paradox and his theory. There was an effort to belittle his theory and this shouldn't go unchallenged. As far as I know, the theory put forth by Paradox is the same theory put forth by Steve Thomas except Paradox suggests JonBenet's death was intentional.

    Basically it's Patsy/accident or Patsy/intentional. Steve Thomas asked John on the Larry King show to clarify this point and for some reason John avoided the question. But nothing in Paradox's theory undermines the efforts of Steve Thomas. This is important.

    When you have someone who is guilty of a crime, the last thing their lawyers and investigators want to do is to solve the crime. Instead their efforts are aimed at creating doubt and possibilities. This is exactly what the Ramsey team has been doing for years. Lou Smit wasn't trying to solve the crime, he was creating doubt.

    Steve Thomas solved this crime 10 years ago. When people trot out Burke and John, they are actually doing the same thing as Lou Smit. They are creating doubt and possibilities. You can't limit doubt.


    Paradox was asked to give a timeline for his theory. Intentional or accidental, the timeline should be the same. Everything works for Steve's theory, so it should work for Paradox's theory.

    And what about John's fibers?

    If people can blindly cling to these fibers then why can't people blindly cling to the DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

    The DNA in the underwear can be eliminated because if you look at the overall context of the crime, an intruder doesn't make sense.

    If you look at the overall context of the crime, does John make sense. No. Do you think Steve eliminated him because he flipped a coin?

    Fibers mean something when they tell you something. If fibers from Ted Bundy's shirt are found on a dead girl that he had no reason to be in contact with, those fibers tell us something.

    If fibers from anybody JonBenet was around Christmas night were found on her, it would tell us nothing. The only reason Patsy's fibers meant anything is becaue of their circumstances. A fiber from Patsy found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. A fiber from Fleet White found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. Same for John.

    Where the fibers were found is especially meaningless because of the known undressing, cleaning, redressing, and who knows what else.

    Look past the fibers and the shoe print, and the DNA and walk through the crime. You should come to the same basic conclusion as Steve Thomas. And Paradox.

    Patsy, Patsy, and more Patsy.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert18 View Post
    There has been an unfortunate blow-up on the FFJ forum involving Paradox and his theory. There was an effort to belittle his theory and this shouldn't go unchallenged. As far as I know, the theory put forth by Paradox is the same theory put forth by Steve Thomas except Paradox suggests JonBenet's death was intentional.

    Basically it's Patsy/accident or Patsy/intentional. Steve Thomas asked John on the Larry King show to clarify this point and for some reason John avoided the question. But nothing in Paradox's theory undermines the efforts of Steve Thomas. This is important.

    When you have someone who is guilty of a crime, the last thing their lawyers and investigators want to do is to solve the crime. Instead their efforts are aimed at creating doubt and possibilities. This is exactly what the Ramsey team has been doing for years. Lou Smit wasn't trying to solve the crime, he was creating doubt.

    Steve Thomas solved this crime 10 years ago. When people trot out Burke and John, they are actually doing the same thing as Lou Smit. They are creating doubt and possibilities. You can't limit doubt.


    Paradox was asked to give a timeline for his theory. Intentional or accidental, the timeline should be the same. Everything works for Steve's theory, so it should work for Paradox's theory.

    And what about John's fibers?

    If people can blindly cling to these fibers then why can't people blindly cling to the DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

    The DNA in the underwear can be eliminated because if you look at the overall context of the crime, an intruder doesn't make sense.

    If you look at the overall context of the crime, does John make sense. No. Do you think Steve eliminated him because he flipped a coin?

    Fibers mean something when they tell you something. If fibers from Ted Bundy's shirt are found on a dead girl that he had no reason to be in contact with, those fibers tell us something.

    If fibers from anybody JonBenet was around Christmas night were found on her, it would tell us nothing. The only reason Patsy's fibers meant anything is becaue of their circumstances. A fiber from Patsy found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. A fiber from Fleet White found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. Same for John.

    Where the fibers were found is especially meaningless because of the known undressing, cleaning, redressing, and who knows what else.

    Look past the fibers and the shoe print, and the DNA and walk through the crime. You should come to the same basic conclusion as Steve Thomas. And Paradox.

    Patsy, Patsy, and more Patsy.
    The last time I was over there I read that Paradox got banned for talking smack about the FFJ forum and ALSO THIS forum on yet another forum. He/she doesn't seem to have much respect for either of them. It had nothing to do with his theory and he's been posting that same theory for a long, long time. I've never seen anyone get banned from FFJ because of their theory. IMO the very first line of your post is misleading therefore I won't bother addressing the rest of it because it is moot, IMO.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert18 View Post
    Where the fibers were found is especially meaningless because of the known undressing, cleaning, redressing, and who knows what else.
    We must ask ourselves WHEN did John's shirt fibers become deposited in JonBenet's panties and crotch area. These are fibers from the very article of clothing he wore on the night of the crime. He says he carried JonBenet to bed, but it was Patsy who got her ready for bed. Considering JonBenet's private area had been wiped down/ cleaned up and too-large Bloomies were placed on her, at what point innocently did John's fibers become deposited there? Consider also his and Patsy's reactions to being told of the chronic vaginal trauma. John has had years to think about and tell LE and the public at what point innocently his fibers may have been deposited there.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie View Post
    The last time I was over there I read that Paradox got banned for talking smack about the FFJ forum and ALSO THIS forum on yet another forum. He/she doesn't seem to have much respect for either of them. It had nothing to do with his theory and he's been posting that same theory for a long, long time. I've never seen anyone get banned from FFJ because of their theory. IMO the very first line of your post is misleading therefore I won't bother addressing the rest of it because it is moot, IMO.
    I don't read there much,so thx for posting.I know intentional vs accident has been discussed here w/ no problem; I believe you.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert18 View Post
    There has been an unfortunate blow-up on the FFJ forum involving Paradox and his theory. There was an effort to belittle his theory and this shouldn't go unchallenged. As far as I know, the theory put forth by Paradox is the same theory put forth by Steve Thomas except Paradox suggests JonBenet's death was intentional.

    Basically it's Patsy/accident or Patsy/intentional. Steve Thomas asked John on the Larry King show to clarify this point and for some reason John avoided the question. But nothing in Paradox's theory undermines the efforts of Steve Thomas. This is important.

    When you have someone who is guilty of a crime, the last thing their lawyers and investigators want to do is to solve the crime. Instead their efforts are aimed at creating doubt and possibilities. This is exactly what the Ramsey team has been doing for years. Lou Smit wasn't trying to solve the crime, he was creating doubt.

    Steve Thomas solved this crime 10 years ago. When people trot out Burke and John, they are actually doing the same thing as Lou Smit. They are creating doubt and possibilities. You can't limit doubt.


    Paradox was asked to give a timeline for his theory. Intentional or accidental, the timeline should be the same. Everything works for Steve's theory, so it should work for Paradox's theory.

    And what about John's fibers?

    If people can blindly cling to these fibers then why can't people blindly cling to the DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

    The DNA in the underwear can be eliminated because if you look at the overall context of the crime, an intruder doesn't make sense.

    If you look at the overall context of the crime, does John make sense. No. Do you think Steve eliminated him because he flipped a coin?

    Fibers mean something when they tell you something. If fibers from Ted Bundy's shirt are found on a dead girl that he had no reason to be in contact with, those fibers tell us something.

    If fibers from anybody JonBenet was around Christmas night were found on her, it would tell us nothing. The only reason Patsy's fibers meant anything is becaue of their circumstances. A fiber from Patsy found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. A fiber from Fleet White found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. Same for John.

    Where the fibers were found is especially meaningless because of the known undressing, cleaning, redressing, and who knows what else.

    Look past the fibers and the shoe print, and the DNA and walk through the crime. You should come to the same basic conclusion as Steve Thomas. And Paradox.

    Patsy, Patsy, and more Patsy.
    ..something I want to point out,in ST's JonBenet,he is relaying to Smit his own personal theory.SMIT.The one who was in on the conspiracy to 'create' an intruder.(UK and I had talked about that not long ago,and I do agree with him;there was one).Thomas of course,knew he couldn't be trusted.But conspiracy or not,he is not going to give all the cards away to his opponent.It would be unwise to do so.Thomas is also legally bound to not reveal all of the evidence.I think what we're missing is JR's evidence..it apparently goes to a high level(examples-the missing phone records,calls to the CO. Governor).Thomas is not going to reveal all of that in his theory. Like someone told me off the board "You should not expect everything to be in that book".

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    The fibers DO mean something depending on were they are found. PR's fibers found entwined IN the garrote place her at the point in time where the garrote was made. This did NOT come from her throwing herself on the body- the knot was at the back of her neck and JBR was placed face up on the carpet. JR's shirt fibers placed on the crotch of her STAGED panties place him there when they were put on her. These were not the panties she wore upon dressing that morning. I don't remember seeing anywhere where JR says he helped her with toileting that day. I just can't explain those shirt fibers in her crotch any other way. If he had wiped her after using the toilet, then shirt fibers may have gotten on her vulva and then transferred to the panties when she was redressed in them. With JR knowing that he was being specifically linked to the body by the shirt fibers in the crotch, it is surprising that he did not offer up that as an excuse.
    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
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert18 View Post
    There has been an unfortunate blow-up on the FFJ forum involving Paradox and his theory. There was an effort to belittle his theory and this shouldn't go unchallenged. As far as I know, the theory put forth by Paradox is the same theory put forth by Steve Thomas except Paradox suggests JonBenet's death was intentional.
    But that was a main the point of the whole discussion on FFJ: Paradox has been confronted with the fiber evidence against John and it made him so furious that he flew off the handle.
    Basically it's Patsy/accident or Patsy/intentional.
    Patsy and John could also have been covering up for Burke.

    If fibers from anybody JonBenet was around Christmas night were found on her, it would tell us nothing. The only reason Patsy's fibers meant anything is becaue of their circumstances. A fiber from Patsy found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. A fiber from Fleet White found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. Same for John.
    Fibers from John shirt found on JonBenet's external labia mean 'nothing'?
    Even die-hard IDIs on forums have admitted that "if that were true" (for they don't believe these fibers existed) it would sway them to RDI.

    If you look at the overall context of the crime, does John make sense. No. Do you think Steve eliminated him because he flipped a coin?
    I also wrote on FFJ that if I could ask Steve Thomas one question, it would be:

    "Would you still have given John Ramsey a pass if you had known about the incriminating fiber evidence against him?"

    For additional fiber tests were conducted after Steve Thomas ceased to be involved in the case.

    Patsy was the main stager of the scene, no question about it. But the fiber evidence implicates John too, at least as the helper in the cover-up. Unless Patsy was forensically that sophisticated to deliberately place John's shirt fibers there (very unlikey, since this crime staging has no charcateristics of sophistication - on the contrary, it was done very clumsily.

    When people trot out Burke and John, they are actually doing the same thing as Lou Smit. They are creating doubt and possibilities. You can't limit doubt.
    It depends on which doubts one has. Smit doubted that any of the Ramseys could have been involved because in his opinion, no parent would 'garrote' their child. He saw a piece of cord wrapped around a stick and everything he knew about domestic homicides seems to have gone 'pouf' in his head. As if a mental delete button had been pressed there.
    From then on, he blocked out everything which pointed to Ramsey involvement, to the point of delivering totally false info in his depostion in the Wolf case.
    Smit also completely ignored the ransom note because it didn't fit into his lone sexual predator scenario.


    Just like Smit, Paradox has blocked out case info because it does not fit into his theory.

    jmo
    Last edited by rashomon; 03-28-2008 at 01:35 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Cool

    Steve, Steve, Steve.....

    I think that it is safe to presume that most here do know that sometimes law enforcement will put pressure on the weakest link - Patsy - in order to get to their Man - John. If Patsy was under the impression that she and she alone was under the microscope while John flew under the Radar, it was a small chance to take when one was out of chances.......Think about it............and Trust Me on this one.

    Other than that - Paradox is posting his trickery at Topix if anyone feels the need to mingle with It.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert18 View Post
    There has been an unfortunate blow-up on the FFJ forum involving Paradox and his theory. There was an effort to belittle his theory and this shouldn't go unchallenged.
    I am the moderator that banned him soooooooo, challenge on......

    Just know this first - there was no real effort needed to belittle his blabber.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by RiverRat View Post
    Steve, Steve, Steve.....

    I think that it is safe to presume that most here do know that sometimes law enforcement will put pressure on the weakest link - Patsy - in order to get to their Man - John. If Patsy was under the impression that she and she alone was under the microscope while John flew under the Radar, it was a small chance to take when one was out of chances.......Think about it............and Trust Me on this one.
    that's what UKguy has been saying all along.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by RiverRat View Post
    Steve, Steve, Steve.....

    I think that it is safe to presume that most here do know that sometimes law enforcement will put pressure on the weakest link - Patsy - in order to get to their Man - John. If Patsy was under the impression that she and she alone was under the microscope while John flew under the Radar, it was a small chance to take when one was out of chances.......Think about it............and Trust Me on this one.
    You can't be serious.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post

    Fibers from John shirt found on JonBenet's external labia mean 'nothing'?
    Here is what we know.

    John and JonBenet live in the same house.

    They were together on Christmas night when John wore the shirt.

    John wore the shirt at the White's and at his house.

    JonBenet did not have a normal bath between the time she was with John when he was wearing the shirt and when she died.

    We don't know the exact migration of JonBenet's body that night in the house.

    We don't know the extent of all the clothes changes.

    JonBenet's original underwear were taken off, there was some kind of cleaning, and new underwear were put on her.

    Those fibers could have come off her top or some other part of her body and moved during the cleaning.


    The fibers could mean John was involved in doing things with JonBenet's body but it is also easy to see there could be an innocent explanation.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert18 View Post
    Here is what we know.

    John and JonBenet live in the same house.

    They were together on Christmas night when John wore the shirt.

    John wore the shirt at the White's and at his house.

    JonBenet did not have a normal bath between the time she was with John when he was wearing the shirt and when she died.

    We don't know the exact migration of JonBenet's body that night in the house.

    We don't know the extent of all the clothes changes.

    JonBenet's original underwear were taken off, there was some kind of cleaning, and new underwear were put on her.

    Those fibers could have come off her top or some other part of her body and moved during the cleaning.


    The fibers could mean John was involved in doing things with JonBenet's body but it is also easy to see there could be an innocent explanation.
    Then why couldn't John offer any innocent explanation?
    John's shirt fibers were found in no other places on JonBenet than on her external labia and in the size 12 underwear. These are incriminating locations especially when one considers that the body probably was redressed in this too big underwear taken out fresh of the package.

    Why do you think it so improbable that John had helped Patsy with the staging of the scene at some time?
    He decided to cover up for her, so why shouldn't he have actively helped her as some kind of 'gofer', like Delmar England called it?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert18 View Post
    You can't be serious.
    Yes I can. I can also be dead wrong, but I doubt it. People need to remember though that there was more than just Steve Thomas working this case - just because he was the only one with the balls enough to put them on the line does not mean that he was the only person dealing with those two hiding behind their attornies.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Blackpool,UK
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by RiverRat View Post
    I am the moderator that banned him soooooooo, challenge on......

    Just know this first - there was no real effort needed to belittle his blabber.
    Oh dear now I know I need glasses-I read that as "belittle his blaDDer" LOL

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 147
    Last Post: 09-26-2016, 11:36 AM
  2. GUILTY FL - John Gavin, 67, found in shallow grave, Port St John, 6 Oct 2005
    By Hammerized in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-22-2015, 12:09 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-23-2004, 10:12 AM