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

[Callan]

Why not stay on TOPIX where they like to dish it out in the same manner you enjoy. Here they really try to maintain a higher level of discourse and maturity :blowkiss: No harm intended. Not trashing the other site, it is a good place for a steet fight type debate, here is not.

These people need me Rino. They have been so brainwashed by tabloid junk and people like Steve [does my hair look okay?] Thomas, they have to be shown the error of their ways.

Did you know, that they actually believe that JonBenet was accidently killed by her mother, because she wet the bed? I kid you not, that is their belief. However, they have the habit of changing the way that it happened, when they feel the need.

One minute, it is Patsy losing control in the bathroom and throwing or pushing JonBenet against the edge of the bath, next minute, it is JonBenet being taken down to the basement and smashed over the head with a torch.

Apparently, the scene of crime officers were so inept, that they failed to check the bath for signs of hair or skin, left by the impact. Likewise, the same thing happened with the torch.

Of course, by ignoring the bath and the torch, they did not check to see if the the hole left in JonBenet's skull, matched either of them. That is a real pity.

This therory was put forward by their guru -Thomas. A man, so up himself, he probably carried spare lip-gloss in a holster.

So you see, I have to try my best to help them.

 

[Callan]

He is not lying here. He is talking abou the fibers from her sweater. He is also talking about the fact that it appears that JonBenet was molested three days prior.

So there!:snooty:

That is strange, I don't see any reference to either.

It is a real mystery, that despite this 'case solving evidence' he suggested that they had ... she was never charged.

 

[Solace]

That is strange, I don't see any reference to either.

It is a real mystery, that despite this 'case solving evidence' he suggested that they had ... she was never charged.

Why do you think she was not charged Callan? And also, I am not sure I understand your meaning when you say you dont see any reference to either - do you mean the fibers from Patsy's jacket that were found in the garrotte, under the tape and in the paint tray?

Callan, as I recall it, you did not think it possible that Jon Benet's skull was cracked and no blood appeared on the "outside" of her head. That is exactly what happened though. My point here is that I think you are assuming much in this case, when you should not be. The fact is there was no outer evidence of a cracked skull, but upon examination, the skull was basically split and hemmoraging (sp) was extensive under the skull in three separate areas.

 

[Solace]

These people need me Rino. They have been so brainwashed by tabloid junk and people like Steve [does my hair look okay?] Thomas, they have to be shown the error of their ways.

Did you know, that they actually believe that JonBenet was accidently killed by her mother, because she wet the bed? I kid you not, that is their belief. However, they have the habit of changing the way that it happened, when they feel the need.

Callan, it may surprise you to know that children are hurt every day by parents who are in a rage over bedwetting. Noone is changing anything. There are theories by different posters, but I believe most here believe that Patsy is the one who killed her child.

If you can give us some "tangible" evidence of an intruder, I will listen. :slap:

 

[Solace]

These people need me Rino. They have been so brainwashed by tabloid junk and people like Steve [does my hair look okay?] Thomas, they have to be shown the error of their ways.

Did you know, that they actually believe that JonBenet was accidently killed by her mother, because she wet the bed? I kid you not, that is their belief. However, they have the habit of changing the way that it happened, when they feel the need.

One minute, it is Patsy losing control in the bathroom and throwing or pushing JonBenet against the edge of the bath, next minute, it is JonBenet being taken down to the basement and smashed over the head with a torch.

Apparently, the scene of crime officers were so inept, that they failed to check the bath for signs of hair or skin, left by the impact. Likewise, the same thing happened with the torch.

Of course, by ignoring the bath and the torch, they did not check to see if the the hole left in JonBenet's skull, matched either of them. That is a real pity.

Actually, Callan, Steve Thomas says her head wound is the result of being hit against a round object such as a bathtub.

And how do you know what Steve Thomas has done or not done in this case? Lawrence Schiller says he is the most knowledgeable person on this case. Have you read his book? Can you tell me what you have read on this case. Genuinely interested. Thanks.

 

[Rino]

These people need me Rino. They have been so brainwashed by tabloid junk and people like Steve [does my hair look okay?] Thomas, they have to be shown the error of their ways.

Did you know, that they actually believe that JonBenet was accidently killed by her mother, because she wet the bed? I kid you not, that is their belief. However, they have the habit of changing the way that it happened, when they feel the need.

You're too modest, do you mean like Jim Jones followers needed him when actually he needed them.

No one knows what happend that night because the parade of lies and lawyers the Ramseys put out there.

JB had a massive headwound that did not bleed, sorry, dear - thats a fact. Why and how are only speculations. I too think the wound was caused by Patsey in a temper becuase I don't think Burke was involved at all, excluding his part in an accident. I further beleive, thinking Patsey killed her John staged the scene with her- sadly actually killing her. Not knowing he caused her death is why he found her in the celler, as others mentioned eariler. Because there is zero, nada, goose egg nill evidence of an intruder other than the Ramseys word, I give that "alibi" no weight.

What a shock it must have been for him to hear the in autopsy report that she was stangled and it was not the blow to the head causing her death. They both now had to keep their disgusting secrets to the grave - half done now :behindbar

Just a little sidenote, it is unattractive to make fun of people because they are good looking - it makes you look silly (sillier )

 

[BOESP]

These people need me Rino. They have been so brainwashed by tabloid junk and people like Steve [does my hair look okay?] Thomas, they have to be shown the error of their ways.

Did you know, that they actually believe that JonBenet was accidently killed by her mother, because she wet the bed? I kid you not, that is their belief. However, they have the habit of changing the way that it happened, when they feel the need.

One minute, it is Patsy losing control in the bathroom and throwing or pushing JonBenet against the edge of the bath, next minute, it is JonBenet being taken down to the basement and smashed over the head with a torch.

Apparently, the scene of crime officers were so inept, that they failed to check the bath for signs of hair or skin, left by the impact. Likewise, the same thing happened with the torch.

Of course, by ignoring the bath and the torch, they did not check to see if the the hole left in JonBenet's skull, matched either of them. That is a real pity.

This therory was put forward by their guru -Thomas. A man, so up himself, he probably carried spare lip-gloss in a holster.

So you see, I have to try my best to help them.

What torch are you referring to, Callan? Also, how is it you would know more about JonBenet's death than Steve Thomas would know? If you want us to be your disciples, you must offer us some credible evidence showing that you deserve our devotion. You might also want to visit this website for additional information: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html .

 

[Ames]

Sorry, JMO- Callan's sarcastic comment was misdirected at you; it was intended for me!
Callan- I don't know what other boards you post on, nor do I care, but this one has been around long before you came here (me, too, I am a newbie, but not as new as you.) In other boards, people treat each other with respect, even when they disagree. Or they ignore them. You seem unable to do either. We all get along here, and we are not all RDIs. As is the case with many with weak arguments, they feel by being nasty or taunting they can intimidate people into either agreeing with them or backing down. Not this baby. I have chunks of people like you in my stool.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Now THAT was funny! Tell it like it is sista!!

 

[Ames]

Oh, man! That is priceless!


-Tea

Aside from being killed by aliens, this is GOT to be the most farfetched IDI theory EVER in the history of the JonBenet case. As sad as this whole case is, I laughed my butt off when I read this guys post. I responded with..."and you have GOT to be kidding".

 

[Ames]

Callan seems to be the only one around here to whom the rules do not apply. He/she has broken many board rules and yet nothing happens. I guess we no longer have a moderater here. Too bad, I was hoping this message board would not end up like the others.

If every single one of us, that he/she offends would report the post...maybe something would be done. I don't mind a good argument, but Callan gets down right rude and nasty sometime.

 

[Ames]

Oh Ames, what are we going to do with you?

What's coming next? - 'Patsy ... The Sesame Street Years.'

"Patsy...The Sesame Street Years"?? What are you smoking, Callan???

 

[Ames]

These people need me Rino. They have been so brainwashed by tabloid junk and people like Steve [does my hair look okay?] Thomas, they have to be shown the error of their ways.

Did you know, that they actually believe that JonBenet was accidently killed by her mother, because she wet the bed? I kid you not, that is their belief. However, they have the habit of changing the way that it happened, when they feel the need.

One minute, it is Patsy losing control in the bathroom and throwing or pushing JonBenet against the edge of the bath, next minute, it is JonBenet being taken down to the basement and smashed over the head with a torch.

Apparently, the scene of crime officers were so inept, that they failed to check the bath for signs of hair or skin, left by the impact. Likewise, the same thing happened with the torch.

Of course, by ignoring the bath and the torch, they did not check to see if the the hole left in JonBenet's skull, matched either of them. That is a real pity.

This therory was put forward by their guru -Thomas. A man, so up himself, he probably carried spare lip-gloss in a holster.

So you see, I have to try my best to help them.

As I suspected Callan, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, because you apparently haven't done any research whatsoever, on this case. Gee...how can you be so knowledgeable about the case, if you haven't done your homework. NO, we don't need anyone here, that spouts off things that they make up as they go along. We rely on facts here...you are on the wrong board. Referring to the first sentence that I have highlighted in red....did you know that there was NO SIGN AT ALL of that head wound, it was ALL internal...no split open scalp, no bleeding...no sign at all, that anything had happened to her head. SO WHY would there have been hair or skin on the bathtub? Regardless of that, how do YOU know that they didn't check for those things? Were you there? Regarding the 2nd sentence in red....YES, in fact they DID check to see if there was a match, and the conclusion was that a flashlight fit PERFECTLY into the injury to the skull bone, as would any rounded object..for example a bathtub. You seriously need to do some research on this case, before coming on here to start things with us.

 

[rashomon]

Oh Ames, what are we going to do with you?

Callan, your condescending use of the 'pluralis maiestatis' speaks volumes. But I'm afraid Ames is far more the "queen" of a sensible RDI theory than you are queen (or king) of any sensible IDI theory.
For every IDI theory offered on the JBR boards has more holes in it than swiss cheese. These people have immersed themselves so much into their self-created intruder scenarios that they ignore basic case facts like the STAGED scene.
For example, you won't find an IDI who can convincingly explain why an intruder would write a FAKED kidnapping note. But maybe your are the one big exception, so just go ahead and explain. Can't wait to hear your theory on that.

jmo

 

[Ames]

That is strange, I don't see any reference to either.

It is a real mystery, that despite this 'case solving evidence' he suggested that they had ... she was never charged.

She was under an "UMBRELLA OF SUSPICION" until the day she died.

 

[Ames]

Callan, your condescending use of the 'pluralis maiestatis' speaks volumes. But I'm afraid Ames is far more the "queen" of a sensible RDI theory than you are queen (or king) of any sensible IDI theory.
For every IDI theory offered on the JBR boards has more holes in it than swiss cheese. These people have immersed themselves so much into their self-created intruder scenarios that they ignore basic case facts like the STAGED scene.
For example, you won't find an IDI who can convincingly explain why an intruder would write a FAKED kidnapping note. But maybe your are the one big exception, so just go ahead and explain. Can't wait to hear your theory on that.

jmo

Thanks, Rashie... I am humbled...you just made my day!! Of course, it isn't very hard to be the "queen of sensible RDI theory"...when the person that I am competing against is Callan, who...imo...has no knowledge of this case, whatsoever.

 

[Ames]

Oh Ames, what are we going to do with you?

What's coming next? - 'Patsy ... The Sesame Street Years.'

Hmmm...well you could start by realizing that I have done extensive research on this case, and by listening to me for once.

OH, by the way....after Nov. 16th, if you post something to me, and I don't respond back to you pronto, its because I am off having a C-section, and not because I am too chicken to answer you.

 

[Rino]

Hmmm...well you could start by realizing that I have done extensive research on this case, and by listening to me for once.

OH, by the way....after Nov. 16th, if you post something to me, and I don't respond back to you pronto, its because I am off having a C-section, and not because I am too chicken to answer you.

How exciting!!

 

[Solace]

These people need me Rino. They have been so brainwashed by tabloid junk and people like Steve [does my hair look okay?] Thomas, they have to be shown the error of their ways.

Did you know, that they actually believe that JonBenet was accidently killed by her mother, because she wet the bed? I kid you not, that is their belief. However, they have the habit of changing the way that it happened, when they feel the need.

One minute, it is Patsy losing control in the bathroom and throwing or pushing JonBenet against the edge of the bath, next minute, it is JonBenet being taken down to the basement and smashed over the head with a torch.

Apparently, the scene of crime officers were so inept, that they failed to check the bath for signs of hair or skin, left by the impact. Likewise, the same thing happened with the torch.

Of course, by ignoring the bath and the torch, they did not check to see if the the hole left in JonBenet's skull, matched either of them. That is a real pity.

Callan,

Forensic Dr. Spitz (sp) says the indentation in her skull matches the "torch" exactly, not a little bit, but exactly.

Callan, you are making statements but it is clearer and clearer you have not read up on this case.

Callan, what do you think happened?:slap:

 

[Solace]

Thanks, I am humbled...you just made my day!!

Ames,

Rash is always there when we need her. She always surfaces at just the right time. Hi Rash!

 

[Solace]

Hmmm...well you could start by realizing that I have done extensive research on this case, and by listening to me for once.

OH, by the way....after Nov. 16th, if you post something to me, and I don't respond back to you pronto, its because I am off having a C-section, and not because I am too chicken to answer you.

:laugh: "its because I am off having a C-section"

You are going to have a ball!