BrotherMoon
Former Member
Eagle1 said:
Along those lines: zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Sbtc
- Thread starter txsvicki
- Start date
Along those lines: zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
BrotherMoon
Former Member
Second Blessing Transcends Conversion
SisterSocks
What a wild and crazy trip its been
BrotherMoon said:
Well No truer words could be spoken .
Hello BrotherMoon,its been awhile.
SisterSocks
princessmer81
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 0
Saved By The Cross
princessmer81
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 0
I Googled SBTC and I also found:
Southern Baptists of Texas Convention
Skill Biased Technological Change
Small Business Technology Coalition
Small Business Training Center (this was a Korean site)
Southern Baptists of Texas Convention
Skill Biased Technological Change
Small Business Technology Coalition
Small Business Training Center (this was a Korean site)
Firstpage
New Member
Strangled by the cord
gaia
Cat Servant
She Better Thank Christ! 
Britt
New Member
IMO the note was a piece of literature written by a trained writer, namely Patsy. She wrote it with the small foreign faction terrorist theme. So, in keeping with that theme, I think SBTC stands for Small Boulder Terrorist Cell
gaia
Cat Servant
Nice going, Britt. I find your reasoning...reasonable.
Eagle1
Former Member
I just replied in another thread about John saying "I'm so sorry", and the writer not finding out what he meant. (Schiller?)
Eagle1
Former Member
"If, If, If", the infamous prophesied spy is involved, he probably was not at the party on the 23rd, but the killer evidently was.
Megan Kostanik (Kostelnik?) and her mom said JonBenet told them Santa promised her an extra visit after Christmas.
He probably wasn't alone, especially if he was McSanta who'd just had heart surgery.
And Patsy's sister said P said, "We didn't mean for THIS to happen," as if they'd wrongly trusted some people.
Guess all of us did an SBTC search, and I still think it means that Texas (?) S. Baptist organization which I think they later disbanded or maybe renamed.
A friend said both Patsy and JonBenet were CHANGED when they came back from Texas, Houston I think. She said JonBenet seemed to have lost her innocence or did she say her innocent child look?
Megan Kostanik (Kostelnik?) and her mom said JonBenet told them Santa promised her an extra visit after Christmas.
He probably wasn't alone, especially if he was McSanta who'd just had heart surgery.
And Patsy's sister said P said, "We didn't mean for THIS to happen," as if they'd wrongly trusted some people.
Guess all of us did an SBTC search, and I still think it means that Texas (?) S. Baptist organization which I think they later disbanded or maybe renamed.
A friend said both Patsy and JonBenet were CHANGED when they came back from Texas, Houston I think. She said JonBenet seemed to have lost her innocence or did she say her innocent child look?
close_enough
Inactive
BrotherMoon said:
boy, ain't that the truth
close_enough
Inactive
mihaff said:
i agree...don't know about Patsy being drunk, but after reading the note, i don't think a child wrote it...i don't think that John had anything to do with JBR's murder, but i think he helped Patsy, in covering for her...(going along w/the kidnapping story)
I once traced SBTC to a religious group in Korea. I think it stood for Students Brought To Christ or some such thing. I sent an email to this group, informing them that SBTC had been mentioned in the Ramsey kidnapping note, and got no reply. If memory serves, this organization was also active on the U of C Boulder campus at the time.
Am I the only one to notice that in the ransom note shown in the paperback version of DOI there is no period after the I in F.B.I? Seeing that caused me to wonder if the person who wrote the manuscript was in the habit of omitting a period after the last initial as in S.B.T.C The Ramseys say this book was written by them and is the unvarnished truth. I note also that possession is spelled correctly.
I've often wondered why the paintbrush shaft/stem/handle was broken at all, let alone twice. Wouldn't the entire paintbrush have served as well as, if not better than, a mere piece of it as a grip for the garotte? If so, why bother to break it? For that matter, was the stick even necessary? How hard can it be for an adult to tighten a noose of this type sufficiently to asphyxiate his victim by wrapping the cord around his hand once or twice and giving it a good yank? Incidentally, the stick/grip had the word, "Korea" on it, as I'm sure you all know (just a reminder). Since Korea is foreign from an American perspective-the crime occurred in America-is this further evidence of staging by the foreign faction? It appears that she was strangled while conscious (the neck ligature applied), and the garotte handle wasn't added until later, while she lay unconscious. Note the hair entwined in the cord where it attaches to the handle. How else can you explain it? Now, I am reading that fibers from someone's clothing were entwined there also. What is the source for this information?
Is it possible that some young person-nameless here forevermore-lassoed JonBenet and couldn't or wouldn't release the tension in the noose soon enough to prevent JBR's demise? Might this account for the much-talked-about knife that was found in fairly close proximity to the body, an instrument which, in proper hands, might have been used successfully to cut the cord? What is left to explain is the blow to the head. Is it possible that, with the cord around her neck, she lost consciousness and fell from a height, striking her head on some hard surface, possibly a concrete or tile floor? This might explain why it appears that the strangulation and the cranial trauma occurred at about the same time, with strangulation occurring, or beginning to occur, first, soon followed by the blow, as a result of which, despite considerable injury to the scalp, skull and brain, there was little bleeding. What the medical examiner described as an extensive area of hemorrhaging may have been subgaleal (this word is probably misspelled; I think it means in the interstices between the scalp tissue and the skull. It is sometimes seen in newborns when they are delivered with tongs; in newborns this hemorrhaging can be fatal), with most of the actual scalp injury occurring at the site where the fragment was displaced. Since there was little intracranial bleeding and no noticeable scalp trauma-which would include hematoma (goose-egg)-it isn't likely that she first suffered the blow and then was much later garotted as a staging strategem, for the simple reason that she wouldn't have lived long with this severe injury, and, as was previously stated, there was little bleeding. And there was that bowl of pineapple bearing the prints of two individuals. Maybe two people were involved-one in the death and yet another in the cover-up, John not being one of them. Remember, he had taken a melatonin tablet and so slept soundly through the whole mess.
It appears from the photos that JBR slobbered or drooled. What's the explanation for this? Also it appears that the noose traveled some distance around her neck in a violent or semi-violent tightening process as if no care was taken to avoid hair and necklace.
Three "final" questions: (1.) How do you account for the neck abrasions, including especially the large triangular one which looks more like a burn than an abrasion? (2.) Were the wrists bound tightly TOGETHER as John stated in his '98 interview but recanted, as it were, in the book? (3.) If the wrists were not bound tightly together-as I suspect-but separated by a distance approximately equal to the length of the cord between the two wrist loops, does this suggest that the wrist ligature was attached while the body was in rigor?
Stop me before I speculate more.....
Edited because I screwed up.
Am I the only one to notice that in the ransom note shown in the paperback version of DOI there is no period after the I in F.B.I? Seeing that caused me to wonder if the person who wrote the manuscript was in the habit of omitting a period after the last initial as in S.B.T.C The Ramseys say this book was written by them and is the unvarnished truth. I note also that possession is spelled correctly.
I've often wondered why the paintbrush shaft/stem/handle was broken at all, let alone twice. Wouldn't the entire paintbrush have served as well as, if not better than, a mere piece of it as a grip for the garotte? If so, why bother to break it? For that matter, was the stick even necessary? How hard can it be for an adult to tighten a noose of this type sufficiently to asphyxiate his victim by wrapping the cord around his hand once or twice and giving it a good yank? Incidentally, the stick/grip had the word, "Korea" on it, as I'm sure you all know (just a reminder). Since Korea is foreign from an American perspective-the crime occurred in America-is this further evidence of staging by the foreign faction? It appears that she was strangled while conscious (the neck ligature applied), and the garotte handle wasn't added until later, while she lay unconscious. Note the hair entwined in the cord where it attaches to the handle. How else can you explain it? Now, I am reading that fibers from someone's clothing were entwined there also. What is the source for this information?
Is it possible that some young person-nameless here forevermore-lassoed JonBenet and couldn't or wouldn't release the tension in the noose soon enough to prevent JBR's demise? Might this account for the much-talked-about knife that was found in fairly close proximity to the body, an instrument which, in proper hands, might have been used successfully to cut the cord? What is left to explain is the blow to the head. Is it possible that, with the cord around her neck, she lost consciousness and fell from a height, striking her head on some hard surface, possibly a concrete or tile floor? This might explain why it appears that the strangulation and the cranial trauma occurred at about the same time, with strangulation occurring, or beginning to occur, first, soon followed by the blow, as a result of which, despite considerable injury to the scalp, skull and brain, there was little bleeding. What the medical examiner described as an extensive area of hemorrhaging may have been subgaleal (this word is probably misspelled; I think it means in the interstices between the scalp tissue and the skull. It is sometimes seen in newborns when they are delivered with tongs; in newborns this hemorrhaging can be fatal), with most of the actual scalp injury occurring at the site where the fragment was displaced. Since there was little intracranial bleeding and no noticeable scalp trauma-which would include hematoma (goose-egg)-it isn't likely that she first suffered the blow and then was much later garotted as a staging strategem, for the simple reason that she wouldn't have lived long with this severe injury, and, as was previously stated, there was little bleeding. And there was that bowl of pineapple bearing the prints of two individuals. Maybe two people were involved-one in the death and yet another in the cover-up, John not being one of them. Remember, he had taken a melatonin tablet and so slept soundly through the whole mess.
It appears from the photos that JBR slobbered or drooled. What's the explanation for this? Also it appears that the noose traveled some distance around her neck in a violent or semi-violent tightening process as if no care was taken to avoid hair and necklace.
Three "final" questions: (1.) How do you account for the neck abrasions, including especially the large triangular one which looks more like a burn than an abrasion? (2.) Were the wrists bound tightly TOGETHER as John stated in his '98 interview but recanted, as it were, in the book? (3.) If the wrists were not bound tightly together-as I suspect-but separated by a distance approximately equal to the length of the cord between the two wrist loops, does this suggest that the wrist ligature was attached while the body was in rigor?
Stop me before I speculate more.....
Edited because I screwed up.
Thanks trixie, you're very kind. I look forward to sleuthing with you....as long as you keep patting me on the back.
Perhaps you'd care to give me your take on John's observations, during his '98 interview with LE, regarding what he saw in the wine cellar when he discovered JBR's body, and the obstructions he encountered in the basement en route to the train room.
I recall reading (I think in PMPT) that he told someone that JBR had been wrapped papoose-like in the white blanket when he found her, and I recall being informed (somehow) that he told Linda Arndt that morning that it looked like an inside job.
Later...much later...I read that part of the Douglas/Olshaker book which discusses the Ramsey case, wherein Douglas said he was assured by someone, possibly Ramsey or Ramsey's attorney, that the body was not wrapped in the blanket but instead DRAPED with it haphazardly. He interpreted that as indicating that the perp hadn't treated the dead child with care and respect; i.e., had no emotional attachment to it. He said the perp had probably intended to use the blanket to carry JBR. That was his explanation for the presence of the blanket. WHAT?????????????
I've only recently read the transcript of the aforementioned '98 interview, wherein Ramsey recounted moving a chair or barstool, and possibly some boxes, aside in order to gain entrance to the train room. Simply stated, he found the door blocked, or partially blocked, by one or more of these items. It's not clear from what he said whether these items were in the hallway leading to the train room or in the room itself. He intimated that he was somewhat surprised to discover that the door was still blocked as, apparently, it had been the last time he laid eyes on it (I'm not referring to his glass eyes). At any rate, he remarked that it didn't appear to him that anyone had gone through there recently. Recall that he said he was looking to see whether anyone had entered the house through the basement. And, once he gained entrance to the room by moving the obstruction/s to the side, he eventually found himself (lucky guy!) at the broken and open window, which he did not consider the mysterious intruder's ingress/egress point at the time, knowing that he himself had broken it months earlier and knowing that it was not unusual, during the winter months, while the kids were playing down there (what else do kids do?), and with the furnace blasting, for the window to be open in order to admit cool, fresh air to keep the place from getting too hot and stuffy. Isn't this ironic...and prior to reading this interview, I had often wondered why they didn't get the damn window fixed so the kids wouldn't catch cold. As it turns out, punching a hole in the window pane, though it was done for a different purpose, only added to the effectiveness of the natural air conditioning. This is a prime example of breaking something to make it better. But, I digress.
Now, what John says he saw in the wine cellar regarding how the body, except for the feet, head and arms, was wrapped lovingly in the white blanket, and his stated impressions regarding the blocked door, and the train room window, open as usual and with broken pane as usual, not to mention that he was the one to find the body, lead one to believe that he was telling the truth as to what he saw and how he felt about it. So why do so many regard what he says as lies? Here is a guy who is admitting to LE, at least implicitly, that it looks like an inside job, as well as admitting to LE explicitly that he didn't think anyone had entered the house that night via any window in the basement. Furthermore, he told LE that he was pretty sure that all the many doors had been locked. Do you get the impression, from the foregoing, that John killed JBR or that John participated in a cover-up? If so, pray tell, how??????
There are two people who know did this...
Perhaps you'd care to give me your take on John's observations, during his '98 interview with LE, regarding what he saw in the wine cellar when he discovered JBR's body, and the obstructions he encountered in the basement en route to the train room.
I recall reading (I think in PMPT) that he told someone that JBR had been wrapped papoose-like in the white blanket when he found her, and I recall being informed (somehow) that he told Linda Arndt that morning that it looked like an inside job.
Later...much later...I read that part of the Douglas/Olshaker book which discusses the Ramsey case, wherein Douglas said he was assured by someone, possibly Ramsey or Ramsey's attorney, that the body was not wrapped in the blanket but instead DRAPED with it haphazardly. He interpreted that as indicating that the perp hadn't treated the dead child with care and respect; i.e., had no emotional attachment to it. He said the perp had probably intended to use the blanket to carry JBR. That was his explanation for the presence of the blanket. WHAT?????????????
I've only recently read the transcript of the aforementioned '98 interview, wherein Ramsey recounted moving a chair or barstool, and possibly some boxes, aside in order to gain entrance to the train room. Simply stated, he found the door blocked, or partially blocked, by one or more of these items. It's not clear from what he said whether these items were in the hallway leading to the train room or in the room itself. He intimated that he was somewhat surprised to discover that the door was still blocked as, apparently, it had been the last time he laid eyes on it (I'm not referring to his glass eyes). At any rate, he remarked that it didn't appear to him that anyone had gone through there recently. Recall that he said he was looking to see whether anyone had entered the house through the basement. And, once he gained entrance to the room by moving the obstruction/s to the side, he eventually found himself (lucky guy!) at the broken and open window, which he did not consider the mysterious intruder's ingress/egress point at the time, knowing that he himself had broken it months earlier and knowing that it was not unusual, during the winter months, while the kids were playing down there (what else do kids do?), and with the furnace blasting, for the window to be open in order to admit cool, fresh air to keep the place from getting too hot and stuffy. Isn't this ironic...and prior to reading this interview, I had often wondered why they didn't get the damn window fixed so the kids wouldn't catch cold. As it turns out, punching a hole in the window pane, though it was done for a different purpose, only added to the effectiveness of the natural air conditioning. This is a prime example of breaking something to make it better. But, I digress.
Now, what John says he saw in the wine cellar regarding how the body, except for the feet, head and arms, was wrapped lovingly in the white blanket, and his stated impressions regarding the blocked door, and the train room window, open as usual and with broken pane as usual, not to mention that he was the one to find the body, lead one to believe that he was telling the truth as to what he saw and how he felt about it. So why do so many regard what he says as lies? Here is a guy who is admitting to LE, at least implicitly, that it looks like an inside job, as well as admitting to LE explicitly that he didn't think anyone had entered the house that night via any window in the basement. Furthermore, he told LE that he was pretty sure that all the many doors had been locked. Do you get the impression, from the foregoing, that John killed JBR or that John participated in a cover-up? If so, pray tell, how??????
There are two people who know did this...
Excellent summary of the reasons why I also believe John was not involved in the death or staging of JonBenet. I would add to this the fact that when John was asked for samples of Patsy and his hand writting, he gave the police the very pad the 'ransom note' was written on.RedChief said:
This tells me that, at that time, John had no knowledge the paper for the note came from the pad.
BrotherMoon
Former Member
RedChief said:
Both of them are in Patsy Ramsey.