We are only dealing in facts and reasonable scenarios from now on

[UKGuy]

Well said. :floorlaugh:

cynic,
So well said it demonstrates the game played by said posters. Did they go to the IDI thread and discuss pineapple issues, no they hit the pineapple thread, a topic I know discredits the Ramseys.

.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Pineapple thread? Are you sure there was a “pineapple thread”, OliviaG? I mean, that’s what we’ve heard, but how do we know it really existed. If it truly was pineapple, show me the report. Maybe it just looked like pineapple. It could have been a thread about apples, or maybe even pinecones. Pinecones look very similar to pineapples, you know. Without an official report, we can’t really say with certainty that it was a pineapple thread.

You might be saying to yourself that you remember it. But memories fade. Memory can be selective too. What you think you remember might not really be the what it really was. This doesn’t mean that you’re not telling the truth -- it’s just the way you remember it.

I’m a skeptic, I'm not saying it didn't exist. It's just that without actual proof, we are only speculating that it was a pineapple thread.

Damn. Now I'm starting to think it was a pinecone thread.

 

[Muy Curioso]

I have to admit that there is nothing like being judge and prosecutor to be right. If someone express a view and he has the power to erase the arguments he does not like, and to decide what is reasonable or not, he is always right. No doubt.

Incidentally, my statements in pineapple forum were argued and took me much time and labor. I can understand that you not agree with them, that you think that I am in error, or that all is a nonsense. But I do not accept that it is not argued. It is, and if someone says It is not, I begin to doubt if he had read it.

Anyway, there is not much to discuss. You are the owner of the forum, and you decide what is published or not. But not knowing that this worked this way, I did not keep a copy of my writings in that thread. I could not imagine that it could be deleted. Is there any way to retrieve what I wrote in that thread?

 

[Tricia]

I have to admit that there is nothing like being judge and prosecutor to be right. If someone express a view and he has the power to erase the arguments he does not like, and to decide what is reasonable or not, he is always right. No doubt.

Incidentally, my statements in pineapple forum were argued and took me much time and labor. I can understand that you not agree with them, that you think that I am in error, or that all is a nonsense. But I do not accept that it is not argued. It is, and if someone says It is not, I begin to doubt if he had read it.

Anyway, there is not much to discuss. You are the owner of the forum, and you decide what is published or not. But not knowing that this worked this way, I did not keep a copy of my writings in that thread. I could not imagine that it could be deleted. Is there any way to retrieve what I wrote in that thread?

Hi Muy Curioso,

Nothing has been deleted. If by chance I do remove any of your posts that contain what you feel is important info I would be happy to send those posts along to you.

Everyone, all that is going to happen is no more wild scenarios without proof or something close to proof for a particular scenario that a poster is presenting for our reading pleasure

This is going to take me a while to work on but I'll do my best to clean things up.

There are many misconceptions in this case. By going over the misconceptions (as in the Ramsey's have been cleared by DNA it's simply not true) and exposing them, and offering the truth
we can only make this forum even stronger.

Please be as patient as you can be. I couldn't make changes while the lawsuit was going and I have many other irons in the fire on Websleuths. JonBenet Ramsey is very important to me and the case is near and dear to my heart.

The goal is to make the JBR forum the go to place (along with ACandyRose.com ) when people want facts on the case.

Feel free to email me if you want to discuss further.

triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com
Tricia

 

[Anti-K]

In response to your request, The rebuttal to the Carnes’ decision is included here:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...t-Judge-Carnes-Decision-A-Documented-Rebuttal


Condensed directory of the information posted in FFJ regarding the rebuttal to the Carnes decision:
THE STUN GUN - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60213#post60213

BROWN BAG AND ROPE - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60226#post60226 continued topic in posts 5, 6, 7, and 8

SUITCASE/BASEBALL BAT/WINDOW WELL - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60252#post60252 Further elucidated in posts 9, 10 and 11

BASEMENT LIGHTS/BUTLER DOOR - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60257#post60257

KNOTS - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60259#post60259 Continued in post 14

BASEBALL BAT - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60262#post60262

DISTURBANCE IN THE WINDOW WELL - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61079#post61079 Continued in post 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

THE SUITCASE - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61087#post61087 Continued in post 24

CONCLUSION SUITCASE AND WINDOW WELL MYTH - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61089#post61089

DNA/BOOT/PALM PRINT - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61110#post61110 Continued in post 27

Other information on the Carnes case can be found here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm

As Boesp comments, I also see no evidence presented in the Carnes case which in any way indicates an intruder. What the case did was help the RST to continue to promulgate the intruder legend.

Not covered in the Rebuttal to Carnes and an important subject within the Carnes testimony pertains to fibers. Unsourced fibers are mentioned frequently as pointing to an intruder. The Rs were both questioned at length about who had been in the WC prior to the homicide. Attorney interviewers uncovered that LHP, her husband, maybe her daughter, possibly a plumber, as well as the handyman and his friend (helping with the Christmas trees) all had been in the wine cellar prior to the homicide. JR says he could have been in the cellar prior to Christmas or on Christmas Day when he retrieved packages to transport on the plane. PR says she was in the wc wrapping or hiding presents prior to Christmas. She also commented that someone(s) from the party on the 23rd may have gone inside the wc to fetch wine. Unsourced fibers carry no weight as exculpatory evidence.

To some degree the Carnes Decision was a matter of Smit vs Thomas. The court found Smit to be credible and believable and Thomas to be less so. We can argue that Carnes was wrong on this (as we can argue that the Grand Jury made the wrong decision) and we can disagree about these things; but this doesn’t change the fact of it: Carnes found Smit to be credible and believable and the Grand Jury found probable cause. These are facts.

Does it matter that Hoffman sucked? Sure, of course it does. But, this doesn’t mean that things would have gone any differently had Hoffman done a stellar job. That would be a matter of opinion only.

I’ve spent some time reading the rebuttals. I skimmed through much of it because I actually agree with much of it. However, I think that the rebuttal is more a rebuttal of the Smit theory and not necessarily intruder theories in general. I disagree with a lot of the Smit theory. And, I note that rebuttals are not refutations.

I was troubled by an absence of a ransom note rebuttal. Perhaps, I missed it?

The ransom note is the key to the Carnes Decision.

From Carnes: &#8220;...if Mrs. Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note, this Court could conclude, as could a reasonable jury, that she was involved in the murder of her child.&#8221; And, &#8220;In sum, plaintiff has failed to prove that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note and has thereby necessarily failed to prove that she murdered her daughter.&#8221; <1>

Everything else, those items rebutted, is window dressing; it&#8217;s extra. It all came down to whether or not it could be determined that Mrs Ramsey wrote the ransom note.

Anyway, I would be interested in reading the rebuttal to Carnes decision on the ransom note if there is one available. If I missed it, perhaps someone could point it out, please.

<1> http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm
...

AK

 

[Tricia]

One question will put this Carnes decision to rest.

Will someone show me the police reports, testimony, or anything presented by the other side that Carnes was able to use to base her decision for the intruder.

Show me how this civil case was a true representation of the non-Ramsey side.

It is only PR. That's all. There is nothing based on the actual truth in the decision.

Again, not Carnes fault. Darnay Hoffman's fault.

 

[BBB167893]

At the time of the Wolf v. Ramsey case, the BPD still considered the homicide investigation an active investigation and therefore were not willing to share any of the evidence they had. Their position was that this was a civil case, in another state, it didn’t involve them, and it might jeopardize their felony case if they provided any information. So they had no involvement in it.

I've said it before, but since you brought it up, it bears repeating. A few years later, when the Ramseys' lawsuit against FOXNews was booted, the lawyers for FNC were determined to gain access to the case file. Mary Lacy made it clear she would fight them in court so that they didn't. It would have been fascinating to see what reasoning she would have applied. (You folks can draw your own conclusions.)

 

[Anti-K]

One question will put this Carnes decision to rest.

Will someone show me the police reports, testimony, or anything presented by the other side that Carnes was able to use to base her decision for the intruder.

Show me how this civil case was a true representation of the non-Ramsey side.

It is only PR. That's all. There is nothing based on the actual truth in the decision.

Again, not Carnes fault. Darnay Hoffman's fault.

If we are not permitted to discuss Carnes, then I will drop the subject. But, when you say that &#8220;[t]here is nothing based on the actual truth in the decision,&#8221; it sounds like you&#8217;re saying that Thomas, Smit, Hunter, Epstein, White, etc and whoever else all lied in their depositions. Because, as I remember it, the depositions were basically all that Carnes had to go on.

The decision itself was based on Hoffman&#8217;s failure to prove that Mrs Ramsey wrote the ransom note. Maybe that was Hoffman&#8217;s fault, but maybe it just wasn&#8217;t something that could be done unless one were to let jurors decide the issue for themselves.

I would be interested in reading the rebuttal to Carnes decision on the ransom note if there is one available. Thank you.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

The decision itself was based on Hoffman&#8217;s failure to prove that Mrs Ramsey wrote the ransom note. Maybe that was Hoffman&#8217;s fault, but maybe it just wasn&#8217;t something that could be done unless one were to let jurors decide the issue for themselves.

Tricia can make her own response, but I have to address this part. That was Hoffman's goal, Anti-K: to get this in front of a jury.

 

[otg]

Damn. Now I'm starting to think it was a pinecone thread.

:giggle: Just sayin'...

 

[BOESP]

View attachment 76325 View attachment 76326

:giggle: Just sayin'...

Now how do we readers know that is truly a pineapple. They both look alike to me, except the one on the right looks like it might have been sitting out a few days longer.:shame:

 

[icedtea4me]

Pineapple thread? Are you sure there was a “pineapple thread”, OliviaG? I mean, that’s what we’ve heard, but how do we know it really existed. If it truly was pineapple, show me the report. Maybe it just looked like pineapple. It could have been a thread about apples, or maybe even pinecones. Pinecones look very similar to pineapples, you know. Without an official report, we can’t really say with certainty that it was a pineapple thread.

You might be saying to yourself that you remember it. But memories fade. Memory can be selective too. What you think you remember might not really be the what it really was. This doesn’t mean that you’re not telling the truth -- it’s just the way you remember it.

I’m a skeptic, I'm not saying it didn't exist. It's just that without actual proof, we are only speculating that it was a pineapple thread.

You magnificent *advertiser censored*.

 

[questfortrue]

Now how do we readers know that is truly a pineapple. They both look alike to me, except the one on the right looks like it might have been sitting out a few days longer.:shame:

You're wrong!

 

[OliviaG1996]

I've said it before, but since you brought it up, it bears repeating. A few years later, when the Ramseys' lawsuit against FOXNews was booted, the lawyers for FNC were determined to gain access to the case file. Mary Lacy made it clear she would fight them in court so that they didn't. It would have been fascinating to see what reasoning she would have applied. (You folks can draw your own conclusions.)

JR's comment on Larry King Live comes to mind: "We've got nothing to hide". Obviously, ML disagrees.

 

[otg]

You magnificent *advertiser censored*.

I DO hope, tea, that anyone who doesn't know the reference will bother to look it up so they realize you weren't questioning the circumstances of my birth.

(...and thank you.)

 

[otg]

You're wrong!

:floorlaugh:

Okay. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last.
:winkkiss:

 

[Anti-K]

Tricia can make her own response, but I have to address this part. That was Hoffman's goal, Anti-K: to get this in front of a jury.

I think that goes without saying.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Hi Muy Curioso,

Nothing has been deleted. If by chance I do remove any of your posts that contain what you feel is important info I would be happy to send those posts along to you.

Everyone, all that is going to happen is no more wild scenarios without proof or something close to proof for a particular scenario that a poster is presenting for our reading pleasure

This is going to take me a while to work on but I'll do my best to clean things up.

There are many misconceptions in this case. By going over the misconceptions (as in the Ramsey's have been cleared by DNA it's simply not true) and exposing them, and offering the truth
we can only make this forum even stronger.

Please be as patient as you can be. I couldn't make changes while the lawsuit was going and I have many other irons in the fire on Websleuths. JonBenet Ramsey is very important to me and the case is near and dear to my heart.

The goal is to make the JBR forum the go to place (along with ACandyRose.com ) when people want facts on the case.

Feel free to email me if you want to discuss further.

triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com
Tricia

Good job Tricia. After all, an attorney can't go in front of a court and spout off any theory they please. It needs to be based on fact and backed by evidence. There is no reason why those same rules shouldn't apply here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

JR's comment on Larry King Live comes to mind: "We've got nothing to hide". Obviously, ML disagrees.

Provided the DA's office isn't the one with secrets to hide...

 

[BBB167893]

I think that goes without saying.

Yes, but it's helpful to understand that his desire to do so, coupled with his other problems, was what led to his defeat. By that I mean that he accepted a lot of BS in the interest of expediency. To quote you:

To some degree the Carnes Decision was a matter of Smit vs Thomas. The court found Smit to be credible and believable and Thomas to be less so

And there's two reasons for that: 1) ST didn't have access to the evidence his book gave, but LS had all of his, the stuff her took illegally and then blackmailed the DA into letting him keep, remember? 2) Hoffman made no real attempt to challenge any of his assertions. That was not entirely his fault, as several of his experts backed out, leaving him in the cold. But mostly, Hoffman didn't ask the right questions. Net result: unless it was challenged, the judge had to accept what was offered, whether it was fact or not.

So, he could see where the road was going, but he didn't anticipate the roadblocks the other side would throw in the way.

Which leads me to another quote from you:

it sounds like you&#8217;re saying that Thomas, Smit, Hunter, Epstein, White, etc and whoever else all lied in their depositions. Because, as I remember it, the depositions were basically all that Carnes had to go on

Yes, all she had to go on. And in that regard, it's not a question of actually lying; it's a question of...well, let us say omission. It's about what was asked and how. For instance, Gideon Epstein said that in (I think) 30 years of his career, this was the first time that he had not been allowed to use side-by-side comparison charts. I can't remember if that was just because Hoffman was unprepared or if Wood blocked it. I DO know that Wood blocked several of Hoffman's discovery attempts and Carnes did NOTHING about it. Hoffman tried very hard to get Patsy to give new handwriting samples, some wearing gloves, others with her left hand. Wood refused, and Carnes did nothing about that. She also did nothing about Hoffman's requests for materials that the Ramseys had. You can't tie someone's legs and then tell them to swim!

Main idea I'm trying to get across is, "the law" and "the facts" are sometimes not the same.