View Poll Results: Are the Ramseys involved or not?

Voters
1005. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Ramseys are somehow involved in the crime and/or cover-up

    742 73.83%
  • The Ramseys are not involved at all in the crime or cover-up

    263 26.17%
Page 59 of 76 FirstFirst ... 9495051525354555657585960616263646566676869 ... LastLast
Results 1,451 to 1,475 of 1895

Thread: Are the Ramseys involved or not?

  1. #1451
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    She claimed to hear the actual scream first. Then (after the Rs lawyers likely got to her) that is when she changed it to "negative energy". She then moved away from Boulder (scary how much power over witnesses some defense lawyers have). But she ultimately did admit once again that she did, in fact, hear an actual scream.
    so your explanation for her changing her story is that "the Rs lawyers likely got to her" where is the evidence that they talked to her before she changed her story.
    Yes I do know she changed her story , like three times , again hardly makes her a reliable witness does it?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to FairM For This Useful Post:


  3. #1452
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Nor would we. Speaking for myself, his having faith is not the problem. Using it to determine guilt of innocence is the problem!
    Amen!

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  5. #1453
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Whocanitbenow View Post
    I am sure this has been hashed and rehashed. I just don't believe they did it. I don't see it the way you do. I guess that is why there are republicans and democrats.. We all have the same information but we process it in different ways.

    I need proof and I don't see it. To get me to step against the parents, I need more than a few skewed points. Maybe in time there will be more to look at but standing where I am now, it is not there for me.
    I don't think anyone wants to "get" you to step against the parents. We just share our opinions based on what evidence that's available to us and what's transpired over the past 14 years.

    Welcome, and please do tell your theory

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  7. #1454
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,586
    Quote Originally Posted by FairM View Post
    so your explanation for her changing her story is that "the Rs lawyers likely got to her" where is the evidence that they talked to her before she changed her story.
    Yes I do know she changed her story , like three times , again hardly makes her a reliable witness does it?
    I can easily see why she would be considered an unreliable witness because just the "negative energy" comment is enough for her to be made a fool of on the witness stand. But I believe her first statement- that she heard the scream- is the truth. Why make the statement at all, if you didn't actually hear it? This was a woman who clearly (at the time) did NOT want to get involved in this case, and it was one of the reasons she stated for not coming forward immediately.
    Then we have the other neighbor (and friend) of the Rs, (the late) Joe Barnhill. He was the neighbor who had the R little dog that night in preparation for their upcoming trips. He knew the family pretty well, and he was the one who said he had seen JR's older son going into the house during the day, when he was alleged to have been in Georgia at his mother's. Then he changed HIS story as well, saying he might have been mistaken (though I can't imagine what other young man would be going into the house at a time when the family was at home. To me, both these neighbors were intimidated into backing off from their original statements, most likely by the RST. Why make them in the first place unless you are sure of what you heard/saw?
    Too bad these witnesses were never put on the stand. The coroner either. Yes, there were a LOT of people the DA and RST never wanted to see questioned on a witness stand. That is a big reason why there was no trial. The witness stand would be the place for such evidence to be brought out.
    And by the way- anytime you see the word "likely" in my post, in is obvious that the word itself implies that it is my OPINION. Let's say it again shall we? This entire FORUM is a place for OPINIONS, mine and yours, to be offered.
    To me, two witnesses seeing'hearing different things which may imply the Rs were lying (about hearing the scream and JAR being in Boulder at the time of the murder) and then changing their stories means someone "advised" them to do so. My guess? A defense attorney.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  9. #1455
    Who knows why witnesses change their stories? we would have to ask her wouldnt we? It always amazes me how someone could lie in bed hear a scream from a child and do nothing about it apart from roll over and go back to sleep!

    DD , just to clarify , you dont have any evidence to back up your view that the witness was tampered with, its just your opinion.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to FairM For This Useful Post:


  11. #1456
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,586
    Quote Originally Posted by FairM View Post
    Who knows why witnesses change their stories? we would have to ask her wouldnt we? It always amazes me how someone could lie in bed hear a scream from a child and do nothing about it apart from roll over and go back to sleep!

    DD , just to clarify , you dont have any evidence to back up your view that the witness was tampered with, its just your opinion.
    To clarify, yes- it is my OPINION. That is what the word "likely" implies when stated. To me, witness tampering (the defense attorneys would probably disagree, seeing it as "advising" these neighbors not to say things they cannot prove. This is an empty threat, because if these two neighbors were ever put on the witness stand at a trial, their testimony would certainly have value. The Rs attorneys always used the same threat, just as LW does to this day- the threat of a lawsuit for saying anything implying the Rs are involved in this crime. They realize that most people WILL be frightened by such a threat and back away, because they do not realize that the Rs were then (are are still) suspects. This is so because they were all THERE when it happened and no other suspect has been named. Until that day, and regardless of what ML or anyone else says, the three people who were in the house with JB when she was killed remain possible suspects.
    As far as the scream- when the neighbor was asked that very question (why she didn't call police) she said that she didn't want to get involved and figured that if the scream was loud enough to wake her up, it was certainly heard by the child's parents. I don't believe when she heard it that she knew it was JB or came from her house, but obviously the next day it would become apparent where the scream had come from. As the crime hit the news, at some point, she made her first statement.
    Witnesses usually change their stories for a few reasons: They are intimidated by the suspects or their lawyers, they realize they were mistaken, they are frightened to tell the truth, or they are lying. In this case, the neighbors had no reason to lie, especially Joe Barnhill, who was a good friend of the family.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  13. #1457
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,429
    Quote Originally Posted by FairM View Post
    so your explanation for her changing her story is that "the Rs lawyers likely got to her" where is the evidence that they talked to her before she changed her story.
    Yes I do know she changed her story , like three times , again hardly makes her a reliable witness does it?
    FairM,
    This is a common tactic employed by defence lawyers, since on the stand the witness can shown to the jury to be unreliable!


    .

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  15. #1458
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    To clarify, yes- it is my OPINION. That is what the word "likely" implies when stated. To me, witness tampering (the defense attorneys would probably disagree, seeing it as "advising" these neighbors not to say things they cannot prove. This is an empty threat, because if these two neighbors were ever put on the witness stand at a trial, their testimony would certainly have value. The Rs attorneys always used the same threat, just as LW does to this day- the threat of a lawsuit for saying anything implying the Rs are involved in this crime. They realize that most people WILL be frightened by such a threat and back away, because they do not realize that the Rs were then (are are still) suspects. This is so because they were all THERE when it happened and no other suspect has been named. Until that day, and regardless of what ML or anyone else says, the three people who were in the house with JB when she was killed remain possible suspects.
    As far as the scream- when the neighbor was asked that very question (why she didn't call police) she said that she didn't want to get involved and figured that if the scream was loud enough to wake her up, it was certainly heard by the child's parents. I don't believe when she heard it that she knew it was JB or came from her house, but obviously the next day it would become apparent where the scream had come from. As the crime hit the news, at some point, she made her first statement.
    Witnesses usually change their stories for a few reasons: They are intimidated by the suspects or their lawyers, they realize they were mistaken, they are frightened to tell the truth, or they are lying. In this case, the neighbors had no reason to lie, especially Joe Barnhill, who was a good friend of the family.
    #

    It was Melody Stanton who allegedly heard the scream not Joe Barnhill. She didnt change her story anyway , she told the police officer about the negative energy in her original statement but he LEFT IT OUT, it only came to light a year later - so this is how mis information and assumptions lead to false information! please see this link for further information http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/...yMorningScream

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to FairM For This Useful Post:


  17. #1459
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,586
    Quote Originally Posted by FairM View Post
    #

    It was Melody Stanton who allegedly heard the scream not Joe Barnhill. She didnt change her story anyway , she told the police officer about the negative energy in her original statement but he LEFT IT OUT, it only came to light a year later - so this is how mis information and assumptions lead to false information! please see this link for further information http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/...yMorningScream
    I never said it was Joe Barnhill who heard the scream. I SAID it was Stanton, and her husband heard the metal scraping concrete. Did you not read my post you quoted where I said "she"? Joe Barnhill said he saw JAR going into the house.
    Stanton claimed to HEAR the scream FIRST. You realize your link is to a WIKIPEDIA article, and Wiki is not edited for mistakes- anyone can write anything and put it on Wiki. Wikipedia is a source of much MIS-information, not only on this case, but much else, do don't presume to lecture ME on spreading misinformation.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  19. #1460
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    .....
    Posts
    3,916
    Heyya DeeDee.

    Ty for the input on MS and JB.

    Talk about fallible memories, eh.
    Who mentioned fallible memories.

    DeeDee, I was wondering about JB`s claiming to have seen JAR.
    Barnhill delivered JBR`s bike to the house, so one would think that his comment re JAR was based in some certainty.

    I`m looking for his exact quote, but as time goes by, many of the JBR news archives are now limited in selection, or are now pay per view.
    Not that instant accessibility as available a few years ago.
    As always the information will be here, somewhere within the JBR forum.



    Lots of neighbours did make day after comments about the murder:


    Diane Brumfitt
    Joe Barnhill
    Nelson Schneider

    http://extras.denverpost.com/news/news103.htm
    Police find girl, 6, dead in home

    Denver Post staff and wire reports Dec. 27, 1996

    Residents in the affluent neighborhood described the victim as a friendly, outgoing child.
    "She was a beautiful little girl,'' Diane Brumfitt said. "She was very engaging and charming.''
    Joe Barnhill, another neighbor, described the family - John, Patricia, JonBenet and older brother Burke - as happy.
    "They are such congenial people - the best neighbors,'' Barnhill said.
    Barnhill said JonBenet's mother, a former Miss West Virginia, raised a well-mannered, polite daughter.
    Patsy Ramsey traveled around the country with JonBenet to attend her daughter's beauty contests.
    "They were so serious about this beauty queen stuff, but they never put any pressure on her,'' said Nelson Schneider, another neighbor.
    "She had her own float in the Colorado Parade of Lights in December 1995, and Patsy walked along the side of the float the whole parade to make sure (JonBenet) was safe,'' he said.


    Dee Dee Nelson-Schneider

    Bangor Daily news, Dec. 27, 1996
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...t+ramsey&hl=en

    "They were so serious about this beauty queen stuff, but they never put any pressure on her," said Dee Dee Nelson-Schneider.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tadpole12 For This Useful Post:


  21. #1461
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I never said it was Joe Barnhill who heard the scream. I SAID it was Stanton, and her husband heard the metal scraping concrete. Did you not read my post you quoted where I said "she"? Joe Barnhill said he saw JAR going into the house.
    Stanton claimed to HEAR the scream FIRST. You realize your link is to a WIKIPEDIA article, and Wiki is not edited for mistakes- anyone can write anything and put it on Wiki. Wikipedia is a source of much MIS-information, not only on this case, but much else, do don't presume to lecture ME on spreading misinformation.
    My mistake you are right you didn't say it was Barnhill , sorry.

    The link is to the JonBenet Encyclopedia , the reference for the police missing this out of her statement is in Steve Thomas's book, so it was the police who missed that part out of her original statment.

    I don't think for one minute this woman heard a scream.

    BTW I wasn't lecturing you on anythin , I was stating my opinion!

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FairM For This Useful Post:


  23. #1462
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,402
    Here's what Detective Steve Thomas said about Melody Stanton and the scream -


    From his book, JonBenet:Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 193:


    "One night we tried to figure out if the parents could have heard JonBenet scream. While some of us stayed in the master suite, Detective Gosage tiptoed through the dark house, then shouted. His shout was clearly audible to me, but Trip DeMuth said it was difficult to hear. We could even hear a shout from the basement, although our intruder theorists could not.

    But we all agreed that Melody Stanton, the neighbor who claimed to have heard a scream, "obviously that of a child," on Christmas night, could have done so. I wanted to go over right then and dig deeper into her story, but Deputy DA DeMuth refused, putting a blockade between police and Melody Stanton. He said he planned to "prep her" before trial. DeMuth didn't explain his reasons to mere police officers and detectives. I could not fathom why a prosecutor would intentionally stop us from talking to her. Such a thing had never happened before in any investigation I was involved in, but with a wave of his hand - poof! - DeMuth sealed off an important avenue of investigation from the investigators. *snip*"


    So...does Thomas mean that DeMuth, the Deputy DA, is tampering with the witness...?





    As to the report, I looked up where the wikipedia link drew the excerpt from Thomas's book, and it is transcribed correctly according to my copy of ST's book. Thomas writes (page 72):


    "More than a year later we would discover that Stanton also told the detective, “It may not have been an audible scream but rather the negative energy radiating from JonBenet.”

    The detective returned to that odd point several times during the interview, but Stanton never again mentioned the “negative energy”. She insisted that she heard an audible scream, so the detective did not include the “negative energy” comment in his report.

    A year later he was ordered to write an amended report. Changing a report is a huge issue for police since it brings the validity of the entire statement into question His revised report was not the first, and it would not be the last, that would enter the Ramsey case file."




    Thomas does not name the detective who interviewed Melody Stanton...but it doesn't sound to me as though the detective did anything wrong in only including what MS could insist on - an audible scream. ST says the detective returned to that "odd point" several times in his interview with MS, but she only referred to the "negative energy" idea the one time. What can the detective do if MS mentions some "negative energy" comment once in an interview, but will not elaborate on it any more, even when asked about it...yet she "insisted" she heard an audible scream?

    IMO, it sounds like the detective wanted his report to include facts, not psychic impressions, especially not ones that the person he is interviewing mention once and only once, even when prompted to further describe her experience in direct relation to the impression she mentioned.

    IMO, this detective may not have even fully understood at the time what kind of runaway freight train the Ramsey Murder Investigation would become, and may not have realized how important that one facet could possibly become.






    I find also on page 193 - 194:

    "Detective Gosage wrote in his official report that he could hear movement and noise, even when people were trying to be quiet, no matter where he stood in the house. Sergeant Wickman told him that Deputy DA DeMuth wanted that report changed. Gosage refused. I found it incomprehensible that any prosecutor would make such a demand, for defense lawyers would pounce on the alteration to paint the cop as unsure of what he saw or heard. DeMuth was putting us on dangerous ground."
    Where is Trenton Duckett?

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nuisanceposter For This Useful Post:


  25. #1463
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,203
    Quote Originally Posted by FairM View Post
    DD , just to clarify , you dont have any evidence to back up your view that the witness was tampered with, its just your opinion.
    Unfortunately, FairM, there's at least one major incident that we know about where Ramsey defense lawyers tampered with a potential witness. They did a lot MORE than tamper with him!
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  27. #1464
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Unfortunately, FairM, there's at least one major incident that we know about where Ramsey defense lawyers tampered with a potential witness. They did a lot MORE than tamper with him!
    will you elaborate on that or point me where to find it?

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to runsdeep For This Useful Post:


  29. #1465
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,203
    Quote Originally Posted by runsdeep View Post
    will you elaborate on that or point me where to find it?
    I can elaborate on it 'til the cows come home, runsdeep! It's a sordid and somewhat infuriating tale, a disturbing illustration of just how much power the Haddon law firm wields in Colorado.

    Here goes: in mid-1997, Craig Lewis, the GLOBE news editor--if you could call him that--hatched a scheme to buy a copy of the ransom note. The plan was to offer Don Vacca, a Ramsey-hired handwriting expert, a sum of money in exchange for a copy. He hired a local attorney named Thomas Miller (hereafter known as Tom Miller) under false pretenses and put his plan into action. The meeting went down, Lewis made his offer, and Vacca rejected it. Vacca went to the authorities and demanded action, but the Jefferson County DA blew it off. I'm not really sure why; maybe they figured it wasn't worth pursuing.

    Well, by the end of that year, Miller, who was also a handwriting expert well-respected in the Colorado court system, got the materials legit and made his conclusion as to who wrote it: Patsy Ramsey.

    Here's where it gets interesting. Eventually, word leaked up to Hal Haddon, the senior partner in Haddon, Forman and Morgan, the Ramseys' lawyers. Haddon was friends with Dave Thomas, the Jefferson County DA, and apparently called in a favor. The favor was that, after two full years of the JC DA saying that it wasn't worth pursuing, Lewis and Miller were arrested and charged with commercial bribery, with Lewis getting slapped with extortion to boot.

    Miller was puzzled as to why he got hauled in on this beef. It soon became apparent that HE was the real target all along, not Lewis. He saw the handwriting on the wall when he saw how different the plea deals that they were offered were. Lewis got a sweetheart offer: if the GLOBE agreed to make a donation of $100,000 to the University of Colorado, Boulder journalism school, he'd be free and clear. The donation was made, and Craig Lewis walked free that very day. (I wonder why they were so specific on THAT particular school receiving the money. I'm sure that it's just a coincidence that it's the same school where Michael Tracey is tenured!)

    Miller's offer was substantially different. No self-respecting man could accept the terms of the deal he was offered. The deal was that Miller would go free IF he voluntarily gave up his law license and personally repudiated his own handwriting credentials. He told them to stuff their deal.

    So, he went to trial. During the trial, his lawyer called to the witness stand a man named David Williams. David Williams was a private investigator employed by Hal Haddon's law firm. Williams admitted on the witness stand that he and several other private investigators had been ordered by Hal Haddon himself to find "dirt" on Miller, something that would bring his credibility as a handwriting expert into question.

    Why did they do this? Well, according to Williams, Haddon was afraid that Miller might be called to testify against Patsy Ramsey if the Rs were ever brought to trial. So, Williams and the others were dispatched to pry into his private and professional life, searching for any kind of professional breach of ethics or illegal act, anything that could be used to give a jury reason not to believe him. When they couldn't find one, they decided to MAKE one. Thus, the request to Dave Thomas to bring charges against him. It was a despicable instance of the political cronyism that ruined this case.

    When it was all said and done, it took the jury less than one hour of deliberations to set Miller free. SOME justice prevailed, I guess.

    Right now, you're probably asking, "how do you know all of this, SD?" Well, the answer is that I actually have a transcript of the Miller trial. Williams was not the only person from Team Ramsey called as a witness. Pat Foreman, Haddon's partner, was another. He corroborated Williams' statements.

    It's scary that the Haddon law firm wields that kind of unchecked power.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  30. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  31. #1466
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    I can elaborate on it 'til the cows come home, runsdeep! It's a sordid and somewhat infuriating tale, a disturbing illustration of just how much power the Haddon law firm wields in Colorado.

    Here goes: in mid-1997, Craig Lewis, the GLOBE news editor--if you could call him that--hatched a scheme to buy a copy of the ransom note. The plan was to offer Don Vacca, a Ramsey-hired handwriting expert, a sum of money in exchange for a copy. He hired a local attorney named Thomas Miller (hereafter known as Tom Miller) under false pretenses and put his plan into action. The meeting went down, Lewis made his offer, and Vacca rejected it. Vacca went to the authorities and demanded action, but the Jefferson County DA blew it off. I'm not really sure why; maybe they figured it wasn't worth pursuing.

    Well, by the end of that year, Miller, who was also a handwriting expert well-respected in the Colorado court system, got the materials legit and made his conclusion as to who wrote it: Patsy Ramsey.

    Here's where it gets interesting. Eventually, word leaked up to Hal Haddon, the senior partner in Haddon, Forman and Morgan, the Ramseys' lawyers. Haddon was friends with Dave Thomas, the Jefferson County DA, and apparently called in a favor. The favor was that, after two full years of the JC DA saying that it wasn't worth pursuing, Lewis and Miller were arrested and charged with commercial bribery, with Lewis getting slapped with extortion to boot.

    Miller was puzzled as to why he got hauled in on this beef. It soon became apparent that HE was the real target all along, not Lewis. He saw the handwriting on the wall when he saw how different the plea deals that they were offered were. Lewis got a sweetheart offer: if the GLOBE agreed to make a donation of $100,000 to the University of Colorado, Boulder journalism school, he'd be free and clear. The donation was made, and Craig Lewis walked free that very day. (I wonder why they were so specific on THAT particular school receiving the money. I'm sure that it's just a coincidence that it's the same school where Michael Tracey is tenured!)

    Miller's offer was substantially different. No self-respecting man could accept the terms of the deal he was offered. The deal was that Miller would go free IF he voluntarily gave up his law license and personally repudiated his own handwriting credentials. He told them to stuff their deal.

    So, he went to trial. During the trial, his lawyer called to the witness stand a man named David Williams. David Williams was a private investigator employed by Hal Haddon's law firm. Williams admitted on the witness stand that he and several other private investigators had been ordered by Hal Haddon himself to find "dirt" on Miller, something that would bring his credibility as a handwriting expert into question.

    Why did they do this? Well, according to Williams, Haddon was afraid that Miller might be called to testify against Patsy Ramsey if the Rs were ever brought to trial. So, Williams and the others were dispatched to pry into his private and professional life, searching for any kind of professional breach of ethics or illegal act, anything that could be used to give a jury reason not to believe him. When they couldn't find one, they decided to MAKE one. Thus, the request to Dave Thomas to bring charges against him. It was a despicable instance of the political cronyism that ruined this case.

    When it was all said and done, it took the jury less than one hour of deliberations to set Miller free. SOME justice prevailed, I guess.

    Right now, you're probably asking, "how do you know all of this, SD?" Well, the answer is that I actually have a transcript of the Miller trial. Williams was not the only person from Team Ramsey called as a witness. Pat Foreman, Haddon's partner, was another. He corroborated Williams' statements.

    It's scary that the Haddon law firm wields that kind of unchecked power.
    Kind of makes you wonder about all the people who "saw" it the ramsey way. Mr. Lou Smit might not have been swayed by his faith as much as I thought..probably just old fashioned greed..lots of money flew around to keep the ramseys out of court...doesn't hurt to own the prosecutor.

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mikebr For This Useful Post:


  33. #1467
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikebr View Post
    Kind of makes you wonder about all the people who "saw" it the ramsey way. Mr. Lou Smit might not have been swayed by his faith as much as I thought..probably just old fashioned greed..lots of money flew around to keep the ramseys out of court...doesn't hurt to own the prosecutor.
    The question that SHOULD be asked here is, "why would an innocent person NEED to pull such an underhanded trick?"

    In fairness, Tom Miller's personal feelings aside, we don't know for sure how much the Ramseys knew about this. It goes back to the Watergate question: "what did they know and when did they know it?" It could be that the Rs purposely tried NOT to know what their hired stooges were up to. That's known as "plausible deniability" in politics.

    But as the old saw holds, even if you're innocent, a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty. I've heard it argued that Tom Miller was not a "legit" analyst and as such, could not give testimony. I'm sure the Colorado court system would be surprised to hear that! But more importantly, the fact that the Haddon law firm pulled this stunt pretty much says it all: they had to keep him out because he WAS credible. That's about as plain as the nose on my face.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  35. #1468
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    73
    JonBenet's murder is a constant in my mind. I catch myself hoping that it will be in my lifetime that she will receive justice. SuperDave, and others, have pretty much solved this case time and time again, which leads me to this question to you; SD: Don't you get tired of having the same conversation over and over and over, year after year after year with new crops of IDIs? I don't know how you do it. Keep trucking, sending you some patience, tolerance and stamina

  36. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Tessa2009 For This Useful Post:


  37. #1469
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    St Louis, MO/Singapore
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Tessa2009 View Post
    JonBenet's murder is a constant in my mind. I catch myself hoping that it will be in my lifetime that she will receive justice. SuperDave, and others, have pretty much solved this case time and time again, which leads me to this question to you; SD: Don't you get tired of having the same conversation over and over and over, year after year after year with new crops of IDIs? I don't know how you do it. Keep trucking, sending you some patience, tolerance and stamina
    I am grateful for the likes of SD and the numerous others who have guided me through the discovery process. I was a teen when JBR was murdered and here in Singapore, I did not get much news/coverage save for the Time magazine article/s and so on. Many many years later, when I was in the US for a postgrad stint in the summer of 2008 till 10, it was the Caylee Anthony debacle that lured me to the W'Sers forum - that an being stuck indoors during the snowstorms in 08!! You folks kept me very warm.

    My attention to the JBR case manifested only recently after the ACA case. Again, with reference to JBR, most of the knowledge I had were outdated information purported by IDI theorists. It was just one week ago when several folks here guided me through hundreds of documents and through their sheer patience (instead of rolling their eyes at yet another IDI theorist here!) that made me sieve through the information to state that the IDI theory is utter BS. I've also noted the great amount of users banned in the JBR forum so I applaud the passion and commitment here.

    If nothing else, I know that I am sharpening my mind and honing my critical/analytical thinking skills. Thank you!

  38. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to eve314 For This Useful Post:


  39. #1470
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Tessa2009 View Post
    JonBenet's murder is a constant in my mind. I catch myself hoping that it will be in my lifetime that she will receive justice. SuperDave, and others, have pretty much solved this case time and time again, which leads me to this question to you; SD: Don't you get tired of having the same conversation over and over and over, year after year after year with new crops of IDIs? I don't know how you do it. Keep trucking, sending you some patience, tolerance and stamina

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Glad you feel the case is solved.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

  40. #1471
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Glad you feel the case is solved.
    I am sure lots of people feel the case is solved, including the BPD. But they can't actually close the case or admit it is solved because they know the case cannot be prosecuted.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  41. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  42. #1472
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,541
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I am sure lots of people feel the case is solved, including the BPD. But they can't actually close the case or admit it is solved because they know the case cannot be prosecuted.
    Maybe somehow this HAS become a DNA case.
    First time I heard Lou Smit saying in one of his tv appearances that maybe in 20 or 30 years they will be able to clone (or something) the dna owner based on that sample I laughed and rolled my eyes.

    But for now I think that a DNA match is the only chance.

    If it matches a factory worker or someone who wasn't in Boulder the night of the murder but somehow had contact with her clothes before,bingo,I guess it's obvious RDI and dna is not relevant.

    If it matches a sick puppy we have a possible intruder.

    Or maybe it matches someone with a military background (AG employee,etc) and we have a possible Ramsey accomplice (crime scene cleaner,etc)

    So maybe DNA IS the best shot they have?
    Cause I don't hope for a confession anymore.
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  43. The Following User Says Thank You to madeleine For This Useful Post:


  44. #1473
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    73
    I don't feel it's a case of DNA - totally. Through the years, truth has been muddied by the power of the "authorties" and the money of the Ramsey's. It's as simple as that. Not ONE person of this world who is INNOCENT would lawyer up BEFORE the police show up AND a body is found. Sorry.....it just doesn't happen.
    Last edited by Tessa2009; 11-02-2011 at 08:05 PM. Reason: I added "innocent"

  45. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tessa2009 For This Useful Post:


  46. #1474
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    Maybe somehow this HAS become a DNA case.
    First time I heard Lou Smit saying in one of his tv appearances that maybe in 20 or 30 years they will be able to clone (or something) the dna owner based on that sample I laughed and rolled my eyes.

    But for now I think that a DNA match is the only chance.

    If it matches a factory worker or someone who wasn't in Boulder the night of the murder but somehow had contact with her clothes before,bingo,I guess it's obvious RDI and dna is not relevant.

    If it matches a sick puppy we have a possible intruder.

    Or maybe it matches someone with a military background (AG employee,etc) and we have a possible Ramsey accomplice (crime scene cleaner,etc)

    So maybe DNA IS the best shot they have?
    Cause I don't hope for a confession anymore.

    I think LE is telling you just that for the most part. I think they also started back from the beginning and were investigating many other areas as well. But, yeah, DNA is a huge part.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

  47. #1475
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    I think LE is telling you just that for the most part. I think they also started back from the beginning and were investigating many other areas as well. But, yeah, DNA is a huge part.
    yeah but then again most IDI's are somehow contradicting themselves,cause they claim:

    1.DNA is crucial and we must trust it
    but on the other hand
    2.BPD is so incompetent and that's why there is no other evidence of the intruder,they failed to collect it

    then how can we trust this DNA evidence so much if the crime scene was so contaminated by these incompetent cops?
    this DNA was collected by these people who we can't trust because they contaminated the crime scene and messed everything up

    it's like trusting a message 100% when the messenger is a total liar/manipulator
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  48. The Following User Says Thank You to madeleine For This Useful Post:


Page 59 of 76 FirstFirst ... 9495051525354555657585960616263646566676869 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •