Newbie (on this topic) Question

jfk · Oct 17, 2006

i'm reading Steve Thomas' AND the Ramsey's books alongside each other - i picked up Thomas' by accident, before i heard anything about who he actually was to the case, and i saw that his agenda was clear from the start. I've not decided he's lying, just that he clearly has an agenda.

of course, the R's do, too. doesn't mean that one agenda or the other is misguided - it just is what it is. Thomas could be correct (he's certain PR did it).

my Stupid Question is: why (and how?) is the popular vote STILL against the Ramsey's (PR) if there's DEFINITELY non-family DNA and a man's bootprint at the scene.

thanks,
jfk

UKGuy · Oct 17, 2006

jfk said:
i'm reading Steve Thomas' AND the Ramsey's books alongside each other - i picked up Thomas' by accident, before i heard anything about who he actually was to the case, and i saw that his agenda was clear from the start. I've not decided he's lying, just that he clearly has an agenda.

of course, the R's do, too. doesn't mean that one agenda or the other is misguided - it just is what it is. Thomas could be correct (he's certain PR did it).

my Stupid Question is: why (and how?) is the popular vote STILL against the Ramsey's (PR) if there's DEFINITELY non-family DNA and a man's bootprint at the scene.

thanks,
jfk

jfk,

Hey there, because both the non-family DNA and a man's bootprint may have arrived in the wine-cellar independently of JonBenet's death, also the dna is degraded which suggests it is old and not contemporary with the crime-scene?

.

Chrishope · Oct 17, 2006

Just to go into a bit more detail-

The DNA on the panties is somewhat degraded. It has fewer markers than would normally be used for DNA comparisson. Being degraded suggests that it is older than the DNA from JB's blood.

Dr. Henry Lee thought the DNA might have come from a factory worker in the factory where the panties were made. To test this, he bought the same brand panties and found a brand new pair, just out of the package had some DNA on it. (Not the same DNA as the pair that were on JB)

So, it's quite possible the DNA in the panties will never be matched becaue it may have gotten there from a factory worker in China, or Taiwan, or Korea, or wherever they were made. IOW, the existance of DNA doesn't mean the killer left DNA.

The boot print- We don't know who it belongs to. It was a HITEC boot, which is worn by police, some construction workers, and Burke Ramsey. There is only one print. There had been literally hundreds of people in the Ramsey household during the six months before JB's death. Construction workers doing remodeling work in Nov. had access to that room. In short if we could prove that "jfk" had a pair of HITEC boots, it wouldn't prove he was the killer. Even if jfk had been in the house and left the print it wouldn't prove he was the killer. We don't really know how old it is. It's been siezed on the the IDI folks to make the case that there was an intruder. It's just a boot print.

That's why the vote is still against the Rs, because a lone boot print of indeterminate age, and DNA from an indeterminant source don't overcome all of the other evidence and probability that points squarely at the Rs.

Jay78 · Oct 17, 2006

Chrishope said:
Just to go into a bit more detail-

The DNA on the panties is somewhat degraded. It has fewer markers than would normally be used for DNA comparisson. Being degraded suggests that it is older than the DNA from JB's blood.

Dr. Henry Lee thought the DNA might have come from a factory worker in the factory where the panties were made. To test this, he bought the same brand panties and found a brand new pair, just out of the package had some DNA on it. (Not the same DNA as the pair that were on JB)

So, it's quite possible the DNA in the panties will never be matched becaue it may have gotten there from a factory worker in China, or Taiwan, or Korea, or wherever they were made. IOW, the existance of DNA doesn't mean the killer left DNA.

The boot print- We don't know who it belongs to. It was a HITEC boot, which is worn by police, some construction workers, and Burke Ramsey. There is only one print. There had been literally hundreds of people in the Ramsey household during the six months before JB's death. Construction workers doing remodeling work in Nov. had access to that room. In short if we could prove that "jfk" had a pair of HITEC boots, it wouldn't prove he was the killer. Even if jfk had been in the house and left the print it wouldn't prove he was the killer. We don't really know how old it is. It's been siezed on the the IDI folks to make the case that there was an intruder. It's just a boot print.

That's why the vote is still against the Rs, because a lone boot print of indeterminate age, and DNA from an indeterminant source don't overcome all of the other evidence and probability that points squarely at the Rs.

There is a lot of evidence that seems to point to the R's such as:

Patsy's similar writing style to that of the ransom note
Fibres on the body and on the garrot that are similar to those found in patsy's clothing as well as some of johns.
ramsey's refusal to cooperate with police
refusal to interviewed individually
refusal to have a poligraph done by the police
ramsey's lawyering up immediately while also trying to leave boulder hours after their daughters death
strange behavior after the murder, such as doing a tv interview immediately after and what some people believe to be "staged" emotions during funeral

these are just a few of the things that, IMO, will keep the R's under the infamous "umbrella of suspicion"

jfk · Oct 17, 2006

Chrishope said:
Just to go into a bit more detail-

The DNA on the panties is somewhat degraded. It has fewer markers than would normally be used for DNA comparisson. Being degraded suggests that it is older than the DNA from JB's blood.

Dr. Henry Lee thought the DNA might have come from a factory worker in the factory where the panties were made. To test this, he bought the same brand panties and found a brand new pair, just out of the package had some DNA on it. (Not the same DNA as the pair that were on JB)

So, it's quite possible the DNA in the panties will never be matched becaue it may have gotten there from a factory worker in China, or Taiwan, or Korea, or wherever they were made. IOW, the existance of DNA doesn't mean the killer left DNA.

right, but there's also dna under her fingernails (just asking fair questions for what the possibilities are, not rebutting) - as respected as Henry Lee is (Wecht, Baden, then Lee to me - can you tell i watch Fox?) he also believes OJ is innocent. i have a problem with that.

of course it doesn't mean someone else killed her, the existence of outside DNA means that someone else touched her, sometime. if it's in her underwear made in China, i can see the (huge) leap, but if it's under her fingernails, there's something going on.

if this DNA thing is eliminated, then i can somewhat see it being Patsy.

i just can't see her or John standing up to such lengthy scrutiny.

and Thomas, even while claiming his belief that Patsy is the culprit, still explodes Boulder PD ET AL for being the prideful morons that everyone else claims.

so what of the idea of this dead Norwegian kid who owned HiTechs, and "shot himself" to death with two bullets in the most awkward angles possible (lower rib cage? who shoots themself in the lower ribcage?)

Jay78 - i'm with ya that the R's certainly look suspicious, but that list wouldn't convict anyone, and can hardly be called "evidence". there's GOOD arguments for each of those, and i'm all for finding the Ramsey's guilty IF they are. i really want to see the truth on this one more than some others.

i've finally come to accept that Lizzie Borden really did it, and now JBR and NH!!!! ARRGHHHH!!!

i see i've gotta catch up with some of you here in these forums... i'll never get any work done!!!

)

Jay78 · Oct 17, 2006

jfk said:
right, but there's also dna under her fingernails (just asking fair questions for what the possibilities are, not rebutting) - as respected as Henry Lee is (Wecht, Baden, then Lee to me - can you tell i watch Fox?) he also believes OJ is innocent. i have a problem with that.

of course it doesn't mean someone else killed her, the existence of outside DNA means that someone else touched her, sometime. if it's in her underwear made in China, i can see the (huge) leap, but if it's under her fingernails, there's something going on.

if this DNA thing is eliminated, then i can somewhat see it being Patsy.

i just can't see her or John standing up to such lengthy scrutiny.

and Thomas, even while claiming his belief that Patsy is the culprit, still explodes Boulder PD ET AL for being the prideful morons that everyone else claims.

so what of the idea of this dead Norwegian kid who owned HiTechs, and "shot himself" to death with two bullets in the most awkward angles possible (lower rib cage? who shoots themself in the lower ribcage?)

Jay78 - i'm with ya that the R's certainly look suspicious, but that list wouldn't convict anyone, and can hardly be called "evidence". there's GOOD arguments for each of those, and i'm all for finding the Ramsey's guilty IF they are. i really want to see the truth on this one more than some others.

i've finally come to accept that Lizzie Borden really did it, and now JBR and NH!!!! ARRGHHHH!!!

i see i've gotta catch up with some of you here in these forums... i'll never get any work done!!! )

i too would like to the know the truth. I dont look to convict the ramsey's i just examine all that is publically known about the case. In doing so, i dont feel there is much evidence of an intruder. The ransom note has always made me wonder as it is bizarre and just doesnt seem to fit. I always pray that one day, somehow there will be just even though in the back of mind i dont think that there will be. I would also like to add, if the ramsey's were innocent, they made some suspicious decisions and deserve some blame for not being overly helpful to the police.

Chrishope · Oct 17, 2006

the fingernail dna isn't a match for the panty dna. It has something to do with cross contamination, but I'm not up enough on it to explain it. I'm sure someone else will come along and explain it.

IMO this is no longe about evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. We probably know just about all we are ever going to know. There may be a bit of evidence held back by police that we the public don't know about. Short of a conviction based on unknown evidence, or a confession (a real one, not a fake one) we aren't ever going to know more than we do now.

So, it's about probability.

jfk · Oct 17, 2006

well, i watch CourtTV everyday, and hear a LOT of lawyers talking about all kinds of cases - they INVARIABLY say that they tell almost any client the same thing, that there's nothing they can say that can do them any good, that even if they're completely innocent, to simply say "you'll need to get with my attorney on that, officer, and have a great day" the fact is, that statement cannot hurt you.

of course, you and i know that if we have a solid alibi we're gonna share it pronto - but if you don't, then you're asking for trouble if you talk.

i'm just playing devil's advocate here - giving John the benefit of the doubt. i can't imagine an intruder writing such a wierd note inside the home, sure. but then i can't either imagine Patsy, if she "accidentally" killed (in a rage?) staging all that. or John. the garrot? my God what kind of parent could do that to their just killed little girl. i can't buy that either.

one FACT is obvious. something ODD happened. off the charts WIERD for that family.

Chrishope(sp?) - agreed. it's maddening to convict someone, rightfully, on good circumstantial ev. and have them then stand fast in their denial and not share the truth.

i read/watch a lot of this stuff. i'm starting to have a big problem with our overall judicial system. After Illinois and Texas finding all these wrongfully convicteds...

There's even talk about reopening the Wayne Williams case. He's down for 2 and there were 25 more that remain unsolved. You tell ME.

I'm just glad i don't live in Boulder. Plus, all the liberals. God.

oops...?

)

someone share what they know about this dead Norwegian kid in their neighborhood? or is that another thread...?

narlacat · Oct 17, 2006

Go to the 'seperating fact from fiction' thread in this forum.

It will tell you about the DNA.

Eagle1 · Oct 18, 2006

Quoting one line from jfk above, ....."one FACT is obvious. something ODD happened. off the charts WIERD for that family. "

Yes, that's about all we really know, isn't it?

All our lists of opinions haven't proved a thing, so are we ever going to be able to come up with something that hasn't been said before? We criticize BPD for not looking at anyone else but the family, but we're doing it too. It's just so much easier to "keep it simple,stupid", but that doesn't solve cases.

Eagle1 · Oct 18, 2006

Before there was any terrorism, didn't we have domestic surveillance programs, Echelon, Carnivore, and others, which may have been infiltrated by the power-mad who think they can play God and "humble" people like the Ramseys who're teaching a child to play public prostitute in a sense?

Sure the RN is bogus, but there can be little grains of truth in the biggest lies. Maybe people really were monitoring that family, and everybody else, unpleasant as that thought may be. Everything we've gone over can be interpreted two or more ways. The fact the promised call never came could mean either that they were monitoring and new cops and friends had been called or that the fam did it, but there's something missing that would break the tie. Emotions won't do it. There's just no way at present to know which way it really was. We criticize BPD for that.

If this whole thing was masterminded by a madman spy such as the one predicted in the original source of "Apocalypse Now", he'd have studied Patsy and the family for quite a while, so copying her writing style, if he really did, and all the staging would be a piece of cake.

Even I know about fiber evidence, have known that as long as I've known what little I do about DNA, so it's almost a certainty that Patsy knew that too. Putting on gloves and changing clothes, maybe to a nightgown, would most likely have gone together, even if we want with every fiber of our being to find a chink in her armor that she goofed in some way. Just as she wouldn't have put the too-big panties on JonBenet, or left the pineapple bowl out on the table, etc., many things a woman wouldn't likely do, I really don't think any woman wouldn't immediately start shedding, first her shoes, then fibrous coats, suit jackets, and the rest, upon arriving home for the evening. Whether she'd hang them all up immediately is anybody's guess.

rashomon · Oct 18, 2006

Eagle1 said:
Before there was any terrorism, didn't we have domestic surveillance programs, Echelon, Carnivore, and others, which may have been infiltrated by the power-mad who think they can play God and "humble" people like the Ramseys who're teaching a child to play public prostitute in a sense?

Sure the RN is bogus, but there can be little grains of truth in the biggest lies. Maybe people really were monitoring that family, and everybody else, unpleasant as that thought may be. Everything we've gone over can be interpreted two or more ways. The fact the promised call never came could mean either that they were monitoring and new cops and friends had been called or that the fam did it, but there's something missing that would break the tie. Emotions won't do it. There's just no way at present to know which way it really was. We criticize BPD for that.

If this whole thing was masterminded by a madman spy such as the one predicted in the original source of "Apocalypse Now", he'd have studied Patsy and the family for quite a while, so copying her writing style, if he really did, and all the staging would be a piece of cake.

Even I know about fiber evidence, have known that as long as I've known what little I do about DNA, so it's almost a certainty that Patsy knew that too. Putting on gloves and changing clothes, maybe to a nightgown, would most likely have gone together, even if we want with every fiber of our being to find a chink in her armor that she goofed in some way. Just as she wouldn't have put the too-big panties on JonBenet, or left the pineapple bowl out on the table, etc., many things a woman wouldn't likely do, I really don't think any woman wouldn't immediately start shedding, first her shoes, then fibrous coats, suit jackets, and the rest, upon arriving home for the evening. Whether she'd hang them all up immediately is anybody's guess.

But don't forget the surge of panic which must have flooded Patsy in case it was her who delivered the head bash in a rage. I don't think it occurred to her that she might be leaving (microscopic) fibers at the crime scene, and also forgot that ingested pineapple might become a silent witness in terms of JB's estimated time of death.
With regard to women removing shoes, suit jackets etc. immediately after coming home - I don't think there's a rule for that. While many women do this (myself included), I know quite a few who don't. Especially if the jacket is part of a suit or dress (and not for example an outdoors jacket).

The too big panties may have been put on JB because it was important to have 'Wednesday' written on them.

And why should a perp take the trouble to mastermind the whole thing, learn how to mimic Patsy's handwriting, only to ask a multimillionaire for a ridiculously meager sum of $ 118,000 ? Not convincing imo.

UKGuy · Oct 18, 2006

rashomon said:
The too big panties may have been put on JB because it was important to have 'Wednesday' written on them.

rashomon,
Who other than the stager would know why Wednesday mattered, what is its purpose?

We do not know if there was another pair of size-6 Wednesday underwear available in JonBenet's underwear drawer, the BPD may?

the answer to this could shed new light upon the motive for changing her underwear.

.

Cupcake · Oct 18, 2006

I have followed this case from the beginning, but this is my first post in this forum.

I have not read Patsy and John Ramsey's book ... after reading Steve Thomas' book and Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, I just can't bring myself to put money in the Ramsey's pockets. I felt from the beginning that Patsy Ramsey did it and John helped cover it up. After reading PMPT book, I was certain of it, and Steve's book clinched it for me.

I believe that police detectives have a certain instinct from the very first call to the home/crime scene ... I don't think Steve Thomas has an agenda. I think he feels horribly outraged that JonBenet to this day has not received justice, and I feel that there was so much catering to the Ramseys going on from the DA's office during the entire investigation, that it just sticks in his craw and he had to get it out by writing the book. If there were any untruths in his book, surely he would have been sued for it.

As far as not believing a parent could do this to their own child, I am amazed every day by the things humanity does to each other.

No offense to any IDI folks ... but I just cannot believe anyone still believes the Ramseys did not do this crime. The only consolation for me is that I believe God will take care of punishing Patsy Ramsey, and John, too, when his time comes.

ETA: What saved the Ramseys is the incredible luck that the BPD botched the case from the beginning by not collecting evidence as they should have. If that had just been done properly, very likely one or both Ramseys would have been sent to prison.

BBB167893 · Oct 18, 2006

my Stupid Question is: why (and how?) is the popular vote STILL against the Ramsey's (PR) if there's DEFINITELY non-family DNA and a man's bootprint at the scene.

To wit:

Hey there, because both the non-family DNA and a man's bootprint may have arrived in the wine-cellar independently of JonBenet's death, also the dna is degraded which suggests it is old and not contemporary with the crime-scene?

and

Just to go into a bit more detail-

The DNA on the panties is somewhat degraded. It has fewer markers than would normally be used for DNA comparisson. Being degraded suggests that it is older than the DNA from JB's blood.

One was fresh, the other not.

Dr. Henry Lee thought the DNA might have come from a factory worker in the factory where the panties were made. To test this, he bought the same brand panties and found a brand new pair, just out of the package had some DNA on it. (Not the same DNA as the pair that were on JB)

The boot print- We don't know who it belongs to. It was a HITEC boot, which is worn by police, some construction workers, and Burke Ramsey. There is only one print. There had been literally hundreds of people in the Ramsey household during the six months before JB's death. Construction workers doing remodeling work in Nov. had access to that room. In short if we could prove that "jfk" had a pair of HITEC boots, it wouldn't prove he was the killer. Even if jfk had been in the house and left the print it wouldn't prove he was the killer. We don't really know how old it is. It's been siezed on the the IDI folks to make the case that there was an intruder. It's just a boot print.

In 2002, it was revealed that Burke had a pair of those boots.

That's why the vote is still against the Rs, because a lone boot print of indeterminate age, and DNA from an indeterminant source don't overcome all of the other evidence and probability that points squarely at the Rs.

I know that.

right, but there's also dna under her fingernails (just asking fair questions for what the possibilities are, not rebutting) - as respected as Henry Lee is (Wecht, Baden, then Lee to me - can you tell i watch Fox?) he also believes OJ is innocent. i have a problem with that.

So do I, but nobody figures them all.

of course it doesn't mean someone else killed her, the existence of outside DNA means that someone else touched her, sometime. if it's in her underwear made in China, i can see the (huge) leap, but if it's under her fingernails, there's something going on.

That DNA was even more degraded than the panty DNA.

if this DNA thing is eliminated, then i can somewhat see it being Patsy.

How's this:

"We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence." (Rocky Mountain News, November 19, 2002.)

i just can't see her or John standing up to such lengthy scrutiny.

That's what the lawyers are for.

and Thomas, even while claiming his belief that Patsy is the culprit, still explodes Boulder PD ET AL for being the prideful morons that everyone else claims.

Yeah, not too many people got off that hook.

Jay78 - i'm with ya that the R's certainly look suspicious, but that list wouldn't convict anyone, and can hardly be called "evidence".

Oh, YEAH? I certainly hope Scott Peterson and Wayne Williams don't find that out! Because there was infinitely less evidence against them than there is here, and they went away. The BIG away!

the fingernail dna isn't a match for the panty dna. It has something to do with cross contamination, but I'm not up enough on it to explain it. I'm sure someone else will come along and explain it.

The thing here is that there were only about two markers, nowhere near enough to say that this matches another sample, much less another incomplete sample.

i'm just playing devil's advocate here - giving John the benefit of the doubt. i can't imagine an intruder writing such a wierd note inside the home, sure.

Neither can I.

but then i can't either imagine Patsy, if she "accidentally" killed (in a rage?) staging all that. or John. the garrot? my God what kind of parent could do that to their just killed little girl.

This kind:

From FBI agent Ron Walker, who was at the Ramsey house on 12/26/96 from the A & E program "Anatomy of an Investigation": "Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

There's even talk about reopening the Wayne Williams case. He's down for 2 and there were 25 more that remain unsolved. You tell ME.

I could swear I just mentioned him.

I'm just glad i don't live in Boulder. Plus, all the liberals. God.

Amen to that! But why someone who can't stand liberals would name himself JFK, I'll never know.

It's just so much easier to "keep it simple,stupid", but that doesn't solve cases.

The hell it doesn't!

Eagle1 · Oct 19, 2006

A welcome to any new members is at least one thing we can all be sure of.

Rashomon is a woman? Son of a gun, why did I always assume you were a guy? Is there a meaning of the name?

Whoever said they didn't want to put money into the authors' pockets, the writers of DOI, you could check at your local library and its network. Also Amazon, you know.

Just to stay "fair and balanced", keeping our feet on the ground, I think I should know something about how women think, since " I are one", and I insist, Patsy wasn't in such a rage that she'd forget to put on gloves, and she most definitely would know also to remove clothing that would be sure to shed fibers. In fact, she probably didn't do any killing at all, just was left holding the bag and had to participate in a self-defense coverup. She was smart enough to know they'd been set up, whether or not they were involved at all. Appearances can be very deceiving.

K.I.S.S. never ever solves cases. It's a/k/a bungling. It's why this one hasn't gone away in all this time.

Cupcake · Oct 19, 2006

Eagle1 said:
Whoever said they didn't want to put money into the authors' pockets, the writers of DOI, you could check at your local library and its network. Also Amazon, you know.

Hello, Eagle1 ... yes I have gone to the library for it, but it has been checked out. One of these days, I'll get it from there and read it. But to be honest, I feel so strongly the Ramseys are guilty, I don't know if I'll be able to finish the book.

BBB167893 · Oct 19, 2006

Rashomon is a woman? Son of a gun, why did I always assume you were a guy? Is there a meaning of the name?

Yes. It's the name of Akira Kurosawa's 1950 masterpiece about an event that different people witness at the same time, but each one has a different story.

K.I.S.S. never ever solves cases. It's a/k/a bungling.

Really? Is that why 95% of the time, the most likely suspect is the one who did it?

JMO8778 · Oct 20, 2006

jfk said:
i'm just playing devil's advocate here - giving John the benefit of the doubt. i can't imagine an intruder writing such a wierd note inside the home, sure. but then i can't either imagine Patsy, if she "accidentally" killed (in a rage?) staging all that. or John. the garrot? my God what kind of parent could do that to their just killed little girl. i can't buy that either.

one FACT is obvious. something ODD happened. off the charts WIERD for that family.

I think the family was weird and very dysfunctional to begin with.Especially PR.JR seemed like he was ok until the death of his first daughter.Then along with PR's dx of cancer,I'm guessing depression threw him off course.As far as PR..it seems like depression,mood swings,stress,anxiety,as well as the chemo may have affected her brain.She probably could have used hormone replacement as well,if she wasn't getting any.It didn't sound like she was.
I do feel for BR,although he didn't seem quite normal..not his fault though.He wasn't afraid, and didn't seem to have the normal reactions a child that age should have had.
As far as the above in bold goes,I think the whole thing was a ruse to begin with,starting with the note,to the staging,911 call,etc...see? You didn't beleive it.That's exactly what they wanted everyone to think!!
Don't fall for it.I don't know if the shock factor is one of the oldest tricks in the book or not,but it seems they sure did try to use it to get away with murder.
As far as writing the note after the murder..I think someone pointed out on another thread,PR's desire to save her arse could have made her strong enough to do it.

narlacat · Oct 21, 2006

jfk said:
well, i watch CourtTV everyday, and hear a LOT of lawyers talking about all kinds of cases - they INVARIABLY say that they tell almost any client the same thing, that there's nothing they can say that can do them any good, that even if they're completely innocent, to simply say "you'll need to get with my attorney on that, officer, and have a great day" the fact is, that statement cannot hurt you.

of course, you and i know that if we have a solid alibi we're gonna share it pronto - but if you don't, then you're asking for trouble if you talk.

i'm just playing devil's advocate here - giving John the benefit of the doubt. i can't imagine an intruder writing such a wierd note inside the home, sure. but then i can't either imagine Patsy, if she "accidentally" killed (in a rage?) staging all that. or John. the garrot? my God what kind of parent could do that to their just killed little girl. i can't buy that either.

one FACT is obvious. something ODD happened. off the charts WIERD for that family.

Chrishope(sp?) - agreed. it's maddening to convict someone, rightfully, on good circumstantial ev. and have them then stand fast in their denial and not share the truth.

i read/watch a lot of this stuff. i'm starting to have a big problem with our overall judicial system. After Illinois and Texas finding all these wrongfully convicteds...

There's even talk about reopening the Wayne Williams case. He's down for 2 and there were 25 more that remain unsolved. You tell ME.

I'm just glad i don't live in Boulder. Plus, all the liberals. God.

oops...? )

someone share what they know about this dead Norwegian kid in their neighborhood? or is that another thread...?[/QUOTE]

A parent that had a lot to lose.

There's lots to read on Helgoth, just go back thrugh the threads, it's all there- how he DIDN'T do it.

Newbie (on this topic) Question

Former Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Former Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

..at the beach!

Former Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics