What The Hell Is Going On Here??????????

[daffodil]

Oops sorry for the double post-dont know what happened there.

 

[Squishified]

Good post daffodil!

 

[rashomon]

Another thing about this, Patsy Ramsey gets angry and her voice suddenly cracks with emotion. How the hell could she fake something like that?

Not only can a voice cracking with emotion be faked easily by many people - the real emotion may actually have been there suppose Patsy was in fact JonBenet's killer - after all, she was her mother.

 

[Callan]

Callan,
Which all suggests either everyone involved failed to discover JonBenet for one reason or another, or, JonBenet was never originally in the winecellar, being placed there at a later point in the morning?

You left out that although Fleet White was there when JonBenet was discovered, and he was told to stay away from the wine-cellar after going upstairs, he returned to check something out?

Patently something he did not see earlier, or did he?

.

Your point about JonBenet's body being placed in the wine cellar at a later time, is a good one and one which also occured to me. You would think that this would be highly unlikely, but in this particular murder case, you would almost think of it has 'normal'.

I now strongly believe, that the three people who visited the basement alone, hold the key to everything. The fact is, all the things that they said, that they did down there, do not fit with each other and CANNOT be denied.

The most strange of these, is Fleet White's version of events. This is when states that he looked into the wine cellar and that he could not see JonBenet's body lying there. Forget about the lighting nonsense, if she was there - he WOULD have seen her. Absolute FACT!

So that only leaves TWO possibilites. He was stating a downright lie or at that particular time, her body - was NOT there. The first possibility VERY bad for him. The second - VERY good.

If we accept that the latter is true, then although you could probably remove him from the equation, you would still be left with THREE other people, who in therory, would have been able to move her body from another location and place her in the wine cellar. A police officer, her father and [incredible, I know] an intruder. An intruder, who would have had to have STILL been in the house - VERY recently.

 

[JMO8778]

Not only can a voice cracking with emotion be faked easily by many people - the real emotion may actually have been there suppose Patsy was in fact JonBenet's killer - after all, she was her mother.

Yes,and her fake 911 hyperventilation call was just that...fake.Patsy KNEW dramatics from her past performances,she KNEW how to be false and put on airs,so to speak...and btw,in the middle of the 911 call,she STOPPED breathing fast,because she wanted to.....PROOF it was fake to begin with ! She could control it when she wanted to !

 

[Callan]

Yes,and her fake 911 hyperventilation call was just that...fake.Patsy KNEW dramatics from her past performances,she KNEW how to be false and put on airs,so to speak...and btw,in the middle of the 911 call,she STOPPED breathing fast,because she wanted to.....PROOF it was fake to begin with ! She could control it when she wanted to !

I am sorry to disturb you, oh great one, but you appear to have forgotten to enlighten us all, with your views on posts:

75 - 90 - 155

Despite what some may think, surely it cannot be because you are unable{?}

 

[JMO8778]

I am sorry to disturb you, oh great one, but you appear to have forgotten to enlighten us all, with your views on posts:

75 - 90 - 155

Despite what some may think, surely it cannot be because you are unable{?}

If someone else answers to my satisfaction,I see no need to reiterate.I haven't really went back and read all the replies to this thread thouroghly though,because it really doesn't interest me.I realize you're a fairly new poster,but some of us have been here for quite awhile,and most of this is all old hat to us,nothing new,same ole same ole.We've read it ..interviews included,heard about it/saw it on tv.However,when I get the time,I shall bow down and read the old posts.

Off the top of my head,yes,there's no reason to believe the pineapple wasn't tested,it certainly would have been,(just as the splinter certainly was);the coroner only did the preliminary findings and descriptions of it.Further testing was needed to be certain,but it appears more than coincidence that he specifically mentioned the word PINEAPPLE before it even was,and lo and behold...there was a bowl of pineapple on the table in the R's home.I guess he knows what pineapple looks like when he sees it.And the fact he used to word 'fragments' doesn't give us a specific size of the pieces he found;so for Thomas to use the word 'chunks' doesn't mean they were huge or even large pieces of pineapple...Thomas knows his reader aren't stupid,and JB would have thoroughly CHEWED the pineapple,by that he wasn't trying to say for one split second that JB grabbed huge or even large pieces of pineapple from the bowl and swallowed them almost whole. For myself,I can't think of a single time I ever would have used the word 'chunks' for legal documentation,and I imagine the coroner didn't think to use it either.However,in writing a book,Thomas is free to use any word he wants.It still gives us no idea of size,so by trying to say he is lying,it's ineffectual;there are such things as large chucks and small chunks of things that exist,certainly chewed up pineapple is not omitted in these descriptions.
Thomas isn't stupid,and he isn't a liar-he wouldn't risk his reputation by putting lies in his book,which,btw,he was never once asked to redact *anything AT ALL,his book continues to be sold as it was originally printed,since I believe was the year 2000,when he wrote it.The man worked his tail off to get justice for JB,only to be blocked by TR,etc.,time after time.To me,he is JB's HERO,even though her killer (whom I believe,as he does,was Patsy) never saw a day behind bars.

 

[JMO8778]

From the autopsy report:

"The proximal (meaning first part,sometimes referred to as the upper digestive tract) portion of the small intestine contains fragmented (likely from being chewed-it gives no connotation of size) pieces (again,no specific size of the pieces are mentioned) of yellow to light green -tan apparent (apparent-meaning large enough to see) vegetable or fruit material (material-meaning it's not just mushy,it can be seen as particle matter) which may represent fragments of pineapple". (imagine that..it looked like pineapple to him).

 

[JMO8778]

Originally Posted by rashomon
Callan: You are obviously not aware that a complete autopsy report contains far more pages than the meager nine-page summary we happen to have access to via the internet. Also, no lab reports can be accessed online either.
Dr. Meyer described what he saw in JonBenet's digestive tract. This material is then sent to a laboratory where it is analyzed for its chemical content. And it is logical to infer that is the lab experts Steve Thomas was referring to. Therefore your conclusion that S. Thomas is a 'liar' just because you can't look up the lab report yourself lacks basic logic.

Originally Posted by Callan: Thomas specifically stated in his book, that there were chunks of pineapple in the stomach. There was a liquid substance in the stomach. That is a lie. What part of that do you not understand?

No,he's just using the term 'stomach' in layman's terms,in connection with the small intestine,which is frequently done sometimes;there is no attempt to deceive the reader.On page 42(before the previous quote on P. 192 I used earlier),same book,'Jonbenet',hardback,p.42:

The stomach was empty,but the coroner found what appeared to be chunks of pineapple in the upper digestive tract.This would also be tested in an effort to determine to what extent the food had been digested,a key indicator in helping establish the time of death.Police would need to identify what she had eaten the day before,when, and where.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO the term 'stomach' is synonymous in connection with 'small intestine',when used in layman's terms.He makes no attempt to hide that fact.Thomas also talked about the pineapple being eaten approx. 2 hours before her death;again he is not going to assume the average reader is stupid,for surely by then the actual stomach itself is EMPTY.

 

[BOESP]

... SO the term 'stomach' is synonymous in connection with 'small intestine',when used in layman's terms.He makes no attempt to hide that fact.Thomas also talked about the pineapple being eaten approx. 2 hours before her death;again he is not going to assume the average reader is stupid,for surely by then the actual stomach itself is EMPTY.

I would speculate the autopsy described the duodenum, especially since the pineapple found was still in visually identifiable pieces. Here's the "American Heritage Dictionary" definition: duodenum - The beginning portion of the small intestine, starting at the lower end of the stomach and extending to the jejunum.

 

[JMO8778]

I would speculate the autopsy described the duodenum, especially since the pineapple found was still in visually identifiable pieces. Here's the "American Heritage Dictionary" definition: duodenum - The beginning portion of the small intestine, starting at the lower end of the stomach and extending to the jejunum.

yes,thx for that

 

[Callan]

If someone else answers to my satisfaction,I see no need to reiterate.I haven't really went back and read all the replies to this thread thouroghly though,because it really doesn't interest me.I realize you're a fairly new poster,but some of us have been here for quite awhile,and most of this is all old hat to us,nothing new,same ole same ole.We've read it ..interviews included,heard about it/saw it on tv.However,when I get the time,I shall bow down and read the old posts.

Off the top of my head,yes,there's no reason to believe the pineapple wasn't tested,it certainly would have been,(just as the splinter certainly was);the coroner only did the preliminary findings and descriptions of it.Further testing was needed to be certain,but it appears more than coincidence that he specifically mentioned the word PINEAPPLE before it even was,and lo and behold...there was a bowl of pineapple on the table in the R's home.I guess he knows what pineapple looks like when he sees it.And the fact he used to word 'fragments' doesn't give us a specific size of the pieces he found;so for Thomas to use the word 'chunks' doesn't mean they were huge or even large pieces of pineapple...Thomas knows his reader aren't stupid,and JB would have thoroughly CHEWED the pineapple,by that he wasn't trying to say for one split second that JB grabbed huge or even large pieces of pineapple from the bowl and swallowed them almost whole. For myself,I can't think of a single time I ever would have used the word 'chunks' for legal documentation,and I imagine the coroner didn't think to use it either.However,in writing a book,Thomas is free to use any word he wants.It still gives us no idea of size,so by trying to say he is lying,it's ineffectual;there are such things as large chucks and small chunks of things that exist,certainly chewed up pineapple is not omitted in these descriptions.
Thomas isn't stupid,and he isn't a liar-he wouldn't risk his reputation by putting lies in his book,which,btw,he was never once asked to redact *anything AT ALL,his book continues to be sold as it was originally printed,since I believe was the year 2000,when he wrote it.The man worked his tail off to get justice for JB,only to be blocked by TR,etc.,time after time.To me,he is JB's HERO,even though her killer (whom I believe,as he does,was Patsy) never saw a day behind bars.

Wow! - what a first paragraph. I see that you take after Thomas, in the arrogance and ego department.

I know that I am wasting my time saying anything about him, a woman with a crush is oblivious to common sense, so just explain the following inclusion from post 90.


21 PATSY RAMSEY: All right. Do where we know
22 this is what she ate?
23 TOM HANEY: We are pretty sure it was
24 pineapple.


Quote:
Lou Smit: "The pineapple is inside her, so we have to figure out how that pineapple got there. She had to eat it at some point.
John Ramsey: "Are you sure it was pineapple?"
Lou Smit: "No question. No question. So that's always been the big bugaboo."

Both from June 1998.

Hmm, there is something not right here, is there not? Two detectives giving different opinions. One is indicating that it could be pineapple, whilst the other, is stating that it is definetely pineapple. Who are we to believe?

I mean, it cannot be Lou Smit can it? - he is a Ramsey friend. By saying that, he would not be helping their cause, one little bit.

Therefore, it must be Tom Haney. But why would he not say the same has Smit? It had been 18 months since the murder, surely, if it was possible to scientifically determine that the substance was indeed pineapple ... why did he not confirm it?


I do hope, that it is worthy of your attention.

 

[DeeDee249]

Those comments about the pineapple were made before the lab reports confirmed that it was definitely pineapple. And it was matched to the pineapple in the bowl on the R table.
When a coroner makes the written report, it is very basic and based on things EXACTLY as they appear, BEFORE corroborating lab reports are in. It is a "first look" as it were. When the coroner describes, for example, the jewelry on the body, he describes it as "yellow metal" ring, bracelet, cross and chain. He may believe it is 14K gold, but until a lab tests the metal to show exactly what kind of "yellow metal" it is, it must be decribed the way it looks- yellow metal.
The contents of the doudenum (small intestine) are described as "MAY represented fragments of pineapple" because until the lab reports are completed, it can't be said with legal certainty that is IS pineapple. In this case, the required lab reports did confirm it was pineapple.

 

[Callan]

Those comments about the pineapple were made before the lab reports confirmed that it was definitely pineapple. And it was matched to the pineapple in the bowl on the R table.
When a coroner makes the written report, it is very basic and based on things EXACTLY as they appear, BEFORE corroborating lab reports are in. It is a "first look" as it were. When the coroner describes, for example, the jewelry on the body, he describes it as "yellow metal" ring, bracelet, cross and chain. He may believe it is 14K gold, but until a lab tests the metal to show exactly what kind of "yellow metal" it is, it must be decribed the way it looks- yellow metal.
The contents of the doudenum (small intestine) are described as "MAY represented fragments of pineapple" because until the lab reports are completed, it can't be said with legal certainty that is IS pineapple. In this case, the required lab reports did confirm it was pineapple.

First of all, the Haney, Smit quotes, were from June 1998, 18 months after the murder. Yeah, it really is going to take that long to get lab results!

Secondly, as you appear to be privy to official documents, maybe it would help, if you could actually post a copy of the report, instead of just talking about it{?}

You do have a copy, don't you?

Thought not.

 

[Callan]

Cat got your tongue JMO8778?

 

[BOESP]

Cat got your tongue JMO8778?

Callan, there are dozens of regional language variances in the United States. They aren't likely found in the UK or if they are they may not mean the same thing as in the USA. In my region "pretty sure" means the same thing as "no question." Such phrases are colloquialisms or idioms in American English. Some people use "exactly" "sure enough" and many other phrases. They all mean the same thing.

By getting very technical one could say that unless Haney and Smit were at the autopsy and saw the pineapple and were absolutely able to identify it as pineapple, or unless they were the person who tested the pineapple at the lab, then they could not possible "know" it was pineapple. However, most adjudication deals with reasonable doubt and it is from that viewpoint investigators base their questioning. I hope this clears up your confusion on what Haney and Smit were saying -- they both meant JonBenet definitely had pineapple in her upper digestive tract.

 

[Ames]

I never said, that I believe he killed her. I stated that a rope used in a photo of her, matched one that appeared to have been brought to the house and just placed in the guest bedroom.

You indicated that there was no problem with him, so I posted what I did.

It was suggested that he was involved in a child *advertiser censored* group. If true, he could be the tip of an iceberg.

The fact is, Boulder seems to be a place that makes Twin Peaks - look like Disney World.

Now that is entirely possible. My youngest daughter models, and on every photo shoot, the photograper asks me to bring props from my home...dolls, books, flowers, etc. Could be that Patsy, brought her own rope, since JB was dressed like a cowgirl.

 

[Ames]

You stated, that the 'junk' - was outside the wine cellar.

No YOU said that the WC had no junk, it wasn't me that said that. I said that the basement was full of junk...and as you pointed out in one of John's interviews...the train room was too.

 

[Ames]

I think you have me confused with another poster, Callan. Post #138 in this thread is the only time I've commented on Simons and that comment was a response to an earlier post you made.

JonBenet's injuries and the known circumstances of the scene are not consistent with what is known about pedophilia homicides. What evidence connects Simons to the scene or to the crime? I don't know of any is why I'm asking.

Also, Patsy had similar rope put on the tree in John Andrew's bedroom and she stated she also used it to decorate outside for a fall theme involving a scare crow (if I remember correctly). We have similar rope at my home as well and I'd venture some of our neighbors do too. It really isn't viable evidence to produce a picture and imply the photographer was involved because there was a hemp rope in the photo and hemp rope in the Ramsey home. Obviously, Patsy is the one who selected the red shirt and overall outfit for the photo shoot. Maybe Patsy brought the rope to the photo session as a prop. In my opinion, she probably did along with the clothing JonBenet wore.

I agree...

 

[Ames]

Hmm, let me think.

UNKNOWN DNA mixed with her blood, in her underwear.
UNKNOWN DNA under her fingernails.
Pubic hair, from UNKNOWN person.
UNKNOWN animal hairs.
UNKNOWN fibres.
Fresh UNKNOWN footprints, found next to her body.

So apparently, one or both of the Ramsey's carried out this frenzied attack, yet not ONE of the above pieces of evidence, can be linked to them{?}

Not possible.

In fact, the police were so desparate, they decided to try a little 'trickery' in the hope that Patsy Ramsey would crack.

Look at this.

TOM HANEY: And I told you then
6 that I wouldn't lie to you. And I don't have
7 any reason to lie to you.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Great.
9 TOM HANEY: And I didn't lie to you
10 about the information, this medical information
11 that I told you about.
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay, this is very
13 hurtful.
14 TOM HANEY: I know that. And if I
15 told you right now that we have in the process
16 of being examined trace evidence that appears to
17 link you to the death of JonBenet, what would
18 you tell me?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: That's totally
20 incredible. (INAUDIBLE).
21 TOM HANEY: How is it impossible?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: I did not kill my
23 child. I didn't have a thing to do with it.
24 TOM HANEY: And I am not talking,
25 you know, somebody's guess or some rumor or some
0593
1 story.
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't care what
3 you're talking about.
4 TOM HANEY: I am talking about
5 scientific evidence.

I wonder where that all went?

Another thing about this, Patsy Ramsey gets angry and her voice suddenly cracks with emotion. How the hell could she fake something like that?

The same way she faked her emotion in the 911 call. She was an actress...remember?