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

[rashomon]

Look at the rope ends.

It agree that it looks like a complete rope, not a rope from which anything was cut off. And if in fact fibers from this rope were found on JonBenet's bed, then imo it is perfectly possible that it was the Ramseys themselves who tried if the rope would suit their staging purposes, but then decided against it because it was too coarse.

 

[Ames]

Covering the face almost always indicates a very close attachment to the victim. Where was John going with this statement? Reverse psychology? Did he think it would add to the illusion a family friend was involved?

You know what. Sometimes when I re-read this stuff for the umpteenth time I get the feeling John was setting up Patsy. Was he trying to give direction to the cops to investigate Patsy? Was he covering his posterior? Was he trying to set up a friend or other family member? Was he subconsciously (or purposely) telling the cops what he actually knew? I have my doubts a lay person in John's field would even think that his dead six-year-old daughter's body was wrapped because someone wanted to make her comfortable.

HMMM...good point. You are not the only person that thinks this...
I think that you could be right. I bet that if it came right down to the wire, John would have spilled his guts about what he knew. And remember, HE said that the RN looked like it had been written by a woman. I bet that Patsy said to him afterward...."John, what the h*ll were you THINKING man???" IMO...he knew all along that Patsy was involved...and if she had of been arrested....he was going to let her take all the blame...probably even denying that he even KNEW her. Patsy? Patsy who? LOL

 

[Ames]

that's what I think,too.He even handed LE the notepad used to write the RN. It's like he wanted her to get caught,without him having to be the one to actually tell on her.That's what makes me think Patsy had something on him (like incest).The way she was wrapped looks like something a mother would do (think about how newborns are wrapped in the hosp. sometimes),and I think JR knew that.
And then he takes a shower,but Patsy doesn't.And Patsy and JB have on the same clothes (JB from the waist up) from the prior evening,yet JR allows her,maybe even told her,to call the White's over.
There may be other things,but rightoffhand,that's all I can think of.I do think he called for his older kids to come to Boulder in order to have them vouch for what a great dad he was.

Yes, so we have the note pad, the fact that he said that it was an "inside job"...and the fact that he said that it looked like a woman wrote the RN, and him going into detail about how she was wrapped "lovingly"...like a "papoose". Sounds like a setup to me. Can anyone think of anything else to add to this?

Babies are wrapped that way, because it makes them feel secure, like they are still in the womb...its called swaddling.

 

[BOESP]

Yes, so we have the note pad, the fact that he said that it was an "inside job"...and the fact that he said that it looked like a woman wrote the RN, and him going into detail about how she was wrapped "lovingly"...like a "papoose". Sounds like a setup to me. Can anyone think of anything else to add to this?

Babies are wrapped that way, because it makes them feel secure, like they are still in the womb...its called swaddling.

Something else that bothers me is Linda Arndt's statement. She was there when John brought JonBenet upstairs, she was trained in sexual abuse cases and domestic violence, and she publicly stated that at the moment she saw John carrying JonBenet she knew he did it. I don't place much store in the seeing stars and the other descriptors Arndt used to describe the moment but people sometimes us metaphors and similes to help describe what they were feeling or seeing. I view those type comments as extraneous information. So, disregarding the bells and whistles, people trained in this area of criminal investigation are usually very good at what they do and while I do question Arndt's handling of the crime scene I think there must have been something that made her believe John did it.

Arndt also met with Patsy toward the end of Patsy's life and Arndt later made, in my opinion, veiled statements that she didn't know who killed JonBenet but she had the information that would allow this case to be solved. I take that to mean Patsy gave her additional information to help catch the killer. Was Patsy playing Arndt or was it Patsy's turn to point the finger at John in retribution for his veiled comments over the years?

So, how would you all handle Arndt's comments? I can't just dismiss what she said. I've thought she might have been so used to men abusing and misusing children and women that her training biased her to that conclusion. On the other hand, Steve Thomas is adamant that Patsy killed JonBenet. I'd be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on this conflict.

 

[Ames]

Something else that bothers me is Linda Arndt's statement. She was there when John brought JonBenet upstairs, she was trained in sexual abuse cases and domestic violence, and she publicly stated that at the moment she saw John carrying JonBenet she knew he did it. I don't place much store in the seeing stars and the other descriptors Arndt used to describe the moment but people sometimes us metaphors and similes to help describe what they were feeling or seeing. I view those type comments as extraneous information. So, disregarding the bells and whistles, people trained in this area of criminal investigation are usually very good at what they do and while I do question Arndt's handling of the crime scene I think there must have been something that made her believe John did it.

Arndt also met with Patsy toward the end of Patsy's life and Arndt later made, in my opinion, veiled statements that she didn't know who killed JonBenet but she had the information that would allow this case to be solved. I take that to mean Patsy gave her additional information to help catch the killer. Was Patsy playing Arndt or was it Patsy's turn to point the finger at John in retribution for his veiled comments over the years?

So, how would you all handle Arndt's comments? I can't just dismiss what she said. I've thought she might have been so used to men abusing and misusing children and women that her training biased her to that conclusion. On the other hand, Steve Thomas is adamant that Patsy killed JonBenet. I'd be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on this conflict.

What ever happened to that book that Arndt was writing?

I never knew that about her having info. that Patsy gave her that would allow the case to be solved. Why is she keeing her mouth shut? Spill your GUTS WOMAN!!!

She actually said that she was counting the bullets in her gun...because of the way that John was acting. The way that he carried her up the stairs was odd too....he carried her around the knees...with her head, way up above his. She made a point of this too. Although, it may have been the ONLY way to carry her, since rigor had already set in. I still believe that Patsy killed her, but John help to stage the crime scene. I do not for one second, believe that she could have done all of that by herself....heck, she probably didn't even know what a garotte was, much less be able to sorta, kinda, fashion one.

 

[UKGuy]

Something else that bothers me is Linda Arndt's statement. She was there when John brought JonBenet upstairs, she was trained in sexual abuse cases and domestic violence, and she publicly stated that at the moment she saw John carrying JonBenet she knew he did it. I don't place much store in the seeing stars and the other descriptors Arndt used to describe the moment but people sometimes us metaphors and similes to help describe what they were feeling or seeing. I view those type comments as extraneous information. So, disregarding the bells and whistles, people trained in this area of criminal investigation are usually very good at what they do and while I do question Arndt's handling of the crime scene I think there must have been something that made her believe John did it.

Arndt also met with Patsy toward the end of Patsy's life and Arndt later made, in my opinion, veiled statements that she didn't know who killed JonBenet but she had the information that would allow this case to be solved. I take that to mean Patsy gave her additional information to help catch the killer. Was Patsy playing Arndt or was it Patsy's turn to point the finger at John in retribution for his veiled comments over the years?

So, how would you all handle Arndt's comments? I can't just dismiss what she said. I've thought she might have been so used to men abusing and misusing children and women that her training biased her to that conclusion. On the other hand, Steve Thomas is adamant that Patsy killed JonBenet. I'd be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on this conflict.

BOESP,

Sure Arndt's professional bias might allow her to focus erroneously on John, whilst Steve Thomas' lack of homicide expertise may bias him in the direction of Patsy?

That Patsy was good for it may simply have been a ploy to place pressure upon her, since she will have been viewed as the weaker of the two parents, and they needed one to offer evidence against the other to break the case.

The important feature is JonBenet's prior abuse, without it a motive vanishes wrt John, and a PDI theory can be promoted, but as everyone knows there is also the pageant feature which takes on another dimension when added to the possible prior abuse and starts to profile JonBenet more a victim of a pedophile than that of a late night toileting incident, where although the crime-scene was staged and elements like the flashlight and ransom note were kept forensically clean, importantly the toileting elements were left in place e.g. urine-soaked longjohns, and soiled pants on the bathroom floor. Patsy stated she placed a dry pair of longjohns on JonBenet as she was put to bed!

I reckon unless the current evidence is enough to resolve the JDI or PDI conflict, maybe we will have to wait until Linda Arndt publishes her book?

 

[JMO8778]

Something else that bothers me is Linda Arndt's statement. She was there when John brought JonBenet upstairs, she was trained in sexual abuse cases and domestic violence, and she publicly stated that at the moment she saw John carrying JonBenet she knew he did it.

I'm not sure what to make of her talking about the way JR carried her...perhaps she meant he was carrying her far away from him,to avoid putting any of his own forensic evidence on her?

I don't place much store in the seeing stars and the other descriptors Arndt used to describe the moment but people sometimes us metaphors and similes to help describe what they were feeling or seeing. I view those type comments as extraneous information. So, disregarding the bells and whistles, people trained in this area of criminal investigation are usually very good at what they do and while I do question Arndt's handling of the crime scene I think there must have been something that made her believe John did it.

I think she had a good gut feeling on that,one she should have went with as far as JR being involved,BUT I don't think he's the one that killed her,unless he did the ligature strangulation (but fiber evidence doesn't seem to indicate that),and or told Patsy to nix calling 911....*that could have been the guilt she was seeing in his eyes.

Arndt also met with Patsy toward the end of Patsy's life and Arndt later made, in my opinion, veiled statements that she didn't know who killed JonBenet but she had the information that would allow this case to be solved. I take that to mean Patsy gave her additional information to help catch the killer. Was Patsy playing Arndt or was it Patsy's turn to point the finger at John in retribution for his veiled comments over the years?

Yes,I think it was both ! From what I read about her book,I get the feeling that Patsy was afraid JR would spill the beans on her once she died...and so she put suspicion on JR to counter that.(and to get him back for all the comments and evidence her threw her way).

So, how would you all handle Arndt's comments? I can't just dismiss what she said. I've thought she might have been so used to men abusing and misusing children and women that her training biased her to that conclusion.

as above.I think it was nothing more than revenge on JR,and fear he would admit she did it,once she died.

On the other hand, Steve Thomas is adamant that Patsy killed JonBenet. I'd be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on this conflict.

I think ST is right.Patsy's own words and behavior,and the evidence lead me to believe that.I think LA saw guilt in JR's eyes ..but not for her actual death.But remember at the time,they didn't know the head injury would have been fatal anyway,so...I think she may have seen guilt over not getting med. help for JB.Which,at the time,he may have thought she'd might have could have been saved if 911 had have been called.(I know that sounds like a dual answer,but it's the best way I know to put it).

 

[JMO8778]

BOESP,



That Patsy was good for it may simply have been a ploy to place pressure upon her, since she will have been viewed as the weaker of the two parents, and they needed one to offer evidence against the other to break the case.

I really don't think so UK.I really think ST thinks she did it,and he didn't seem to be afraid to say it.In PMPT,behind closed doors,I think it was to Shapiro that he said he felt for sure that Patsy was the one who killed her.

The important feature is JonBenet's prior abuse, without it a motive vanishes wrt John, and a PDI theory can be promoted,

I dunno UK...Patsy very well could have lost it over one of JB's soiling incidents.Remember it was Xmas day,a long busy day,everyone was tired,they had to leave early the next morning,and perhaps Patsy had a drink or 2 at dinner,then took a med b/f bed.
Has anyone also considered that maybe JB was molested prior to her death,perhaps when she was put to bed,but... that it had *nothing to do with her actual death,other than the clean up and removal of forensic evidence from it? Perhaps Patsy came in later,and and it all started then,JR having nothing to do with her actual death.

but as everyone knows there is also the pageant feature which takes on another dimension when added to the possible prior abuse and starts to profile JonBenet more a victim of a pedophile than that of a late night toileting incident, where although the crime-scene was staged and elements like the flashlight and ransom note were kept forensically clean, importantly the toileting elements were left in place e.g. urine-soaked longjohns, and soiled pants on the bathroom floor. Patsy stated she placed a dry pair of longjohns on JonBenet as she was put to bed!

the pageants may have been a part of leading to abuse,but as far as the toileting items,I think Patsy was just not one to bother with housekeeping,and so thought nothing of leaving her pants out,and I think the wet LJ's were from a urine release after death.Perhaps her sheets were washed,and Patsy felt no need to continue further w/ that staging?

 

[JMO8778]

I do not for one second, believe that she could have done all of that by herself....heck, she probably didn't even know what a garotte was, much less be able to sorta, kinda, fashion one.

I don't think so either,plus JR's overall behavior b/f and after LE arrived,and Patsy's own words (she screamed and he was screaming when he came up from the basement),indicate he was in on the cover up.Due to his lack of forensic evidence on the garrote,he may have directed her on how to tie the knot,etc.,but not actually touched any of it.

 

[Callan]

15 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, on the 27th, they said,
16 (Well, we want you to come to the police station.̃
17 We said, (We're mentally not capable.̃ Our family
18 doctor was there. He said Patsy was in no
19 condition to leave this house. They said, (Well,
20 we've got to have you come to the police station.̃
21 I said why, he said, (Well we have records there
22 we want to pull out and look at.̃23 And we said, (We can't. If you come here we'll
24 spend as much time as you want. But we physically
25 cannot be there.̃ And that's when Mike Bynum
0020
1 stepped in and said, wait a minute, time out. And
2 he was there delivering food; he's a friend of
3 mine and he happened to be an attorney and he
4 smelled a rat, frankly.
5 LOU SMIT: Now this was while you were at
6 Fernie's?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
8 LOU SMIT: Is that the first time that you
9 contacted the lawyer, that they contacted you?
10 JOHN RAMSEY: He was there. He was bringing
11 food over from Pasta Jay's, and just happened to
12 be there when the police were trying to haul us
13 down to the police station, and he said time out.
14 He took me inside and he said, (John, there's some
15 things going here. Would you allow me to do what I
16 think is necessary?̃ and I said, (Of course.̃
17 LOU SMIT: And what did he do, John?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember, but you'd
19 have to ask him, I guess. But I suspect what he
20 did is take the police aside and say, stop. You
21 cannot do what you're doing to these people. And
22 he arranged to bring Bryan in and Pat and were
23 just kind of on autopilot there. And frankly,
24 skeptical, why did we need to do this.
25 But as time went on we became more and more
0021
1 confused of what the police trying to do. They
2 were trying to put a square peg in a round hole,
3 and we're the square peg. And, you know, it was an
4 extremely frustrating time for us. It still is.
5 Cause we know we didn't do it; there's a killer
6 out there.


It was ALL about THEM and THEIR CONDITIONS.


A day after their daughter was brutally murderd and the BPDopes were hounding them. No evidence, no motive, a woman tranqullised and sedated yet still they only focused on them. Why? because they messed up big time, with the crime scene and they were just covering their lousy backs. Eleven years later, we now have the same thing happening in Portugal.

The Ramsey's were asked by a lawyer [because he could see what was going on] to trust him, with regard to what was going on. They agreed.

Check through the documents involved with the case and you will find that the Ramsey's cooperated a lot more than you may think. The only reason that it looks bad, was because the BPD were leaking certain stuff to the media.

That by the way - is FACT!

McSanta
5 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, he claimed to be very
6 frail and the reason that Mrs. Claus came was
7 because he was so frail. And she struck me as just
8 kind of there. She wasn't really into it or
9 particularly open. And I just accepted the fact
10 that she probably didn't really want to be there,
11 but was there because he was so frail that she had
12 to be there to help him. I think that was the
13 first year she ever came.

McReynolds CLAIMED to be very frail? Couldn't you tell by looking at him, John, that McReynolds WAS very frail. He was an old man, for crying out loud. John, again...insinuating that McReynolds COULD have been the killer, because he CLAIMED to be very frail.



In the full part of this [which you conveniently left out] you will see that John Ramsey was talking about whether or not this person would be physically able to have commited the murder.

This man like it or not, was a possible suspect and he had to be talked about.

The Basement Light...
9 JOHN RAMSEY: With the lights off at night
10 it would have been hazardous because there's a lot
11 of junk piled in here. This door was kind of
12 blocked with boxes and a little chair. And you
13 could move the chair and then walk right in. But
14 it would have been pitch black; it would have been
15 tough.

John says in the earlier part of this interview that he believes that the intruder climbed out the window, in which he came....using the suitcase to hoist himself up. How did he SEE? The flashlight that he supposedly used was on the kitchen counter, wiped clean of prints. If he had of turned on the lights, to be able to see to leave....how did he manage to turn them off again, if he was outside of the house? Was he a magician?


The light in the basement area was found to have been switched on.

I will find it out and post it.

More about the Blanket...
9 LOU SMIT: Okay. What do you actually see
10 now,
11 I mean see in this room?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: Well I see a white blanket
13 that's folded across her body neatly.
14 LOU SMIT: It was neatly folded across the
15 body?
16 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
17 LOU SMIT: Now describe that just a little
18 bit? Was it --
19 JOHN RAMSEY: She was laying on the blanket.
20 LOU SMIT: Was it laying on the back?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. On the back. The blanket
22 was caught up around and crossed in front of her
23 as if somebody was tucking her in.


Now WHY would an intruder wrap her like that??


You could also ask why a parent would strangle, smash the skull of and sexually assult their daughter and then do the same thing{?}

The Dark Basement...
1 LOU SMIT: Now you say that the time that
2 you went into this window, that was nighttime?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
4 LOU SMIT: And you say it was about 11:30 at
5 night? Obviously it would be dark at that time?
6 What's your recollection of the difficulty of
7 getting into the house then?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: Well I guess I remember the
9 unknown harm is when you drop the last foot or two
10 in the basement. Because that basement room is
11 always kind of a mess. You're not quite sure what
12 you're going to land in.
13 Once I was in the basement I could find my way to
14 the door. The light switch is over by the door. So
15 you got to be careful because there's a lot of
16 junk in there.
17 LOU SMIT: But you could make your way
18 around? Would you be able to even see?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, I remember being able
20 to see real well, I think. Cause there's not
21 (INAUDIBLE) light in that basement room. So unless
22 there was light left on or something in one of the
23 rooms you wouldn't have been --

Then how did the intruder see to enter and exit the home?


Like I said - the light was switched on.

 

[Callan]

she had the pineapple approx. 2 hrs before death...about the time they got back from the White's.



she's distancing herself from it...she KNOWS she fed JB pineapple after returning from the White's..anything suspect she can throw on the bowl or spoon helps further her cause.


Let's not get silly now.


It wasn't breakfast..it was a bedtime snack.Burke's fingerprints were on the tea glass,Patsy's and Burke's on the bowl,and JB was found with pineapple in her stomach,(yes,that's a proven fact...I'll get to that in a minute).They obviously all sat down at the table and had a snack after returning from the White's,where JB hadn't eaten much.


Oh, so they all sat down there did they? ... I wonder why all the other bowls were put away{?}


This is from Steve Thomas (the leading detective on the case) book 'JonBenet',hardback,p.192:

Our experts studied the pineapple in the stomach and reported that it was fresh-cut pineapple,consistent right down the the rind with what had been found in the bowl.It was solid proof that it wasn't canned pineapple,and what were the chances that an intruder would have brought in a fresh pineapple to cut up for his victim?

Well done! - you have managed to show what a liar Thomas really is.

You don't believe me? - then check the autopsy report. :woohoo:

 

[Callan]

Callan,

Just so you know...Trisha,our forum owner here,is friends with the White's and won't allow any badmouthing of them here.And rightly so,IMO.The R's have obviously hurt a lot of ppl with their lies.

For your information, I would be very surprised if the Whites were involved in the murder, I was simply remarking on what he did on that particular day.

I would assume [and hope] that he is ashamed of his behaviour. No matter what his problem was on that day, a little girl had just been buried.

As for your remarks about the "Ramsey lies" - name ONE which has been proven.

 

[DeeDee249]

The Rs should have been questioned THE DAY their daughter was found dead in her own home. They got a break by LE allowing it to wait till the next day; a break that not many other people in that same situation would have gotten.

 

[JMO8778]

Well done! - you have managed to show what a liar Thomas really is.

You don't believe me? - then check the autopsy report.

No,Thomas didn't lie.It wasn't the coroner's job to say for sure what it was...he is only to observe and describe what he sees,without stating for sure as to what it actually is.The most he could say it that it 'may represent fragments of pineapple'.
FOR EXAMPLE,I used to work in a hospital,(so I know this as fact when taking medical notes), I could write, 'catheter draining small amount of cherry-red drainage'.That's the most I could write..I couldn't say 'catheter is draining copious amounts of blood',or whatever I *thought it might be.That wasn't my job.It wasn't the coroner's job either.He was doing his job.He is only to describe what he sees,and *not to state as fact what it is,based on looking at it.Further testing is required for that.
That's the same reason you see things throughout the whole report being described that way,such as 'tan '(described as coming from her nose..I think it was stated as 'tan mucous material').He didn't state for sure what it was,or that it contained old blood,as it very likely did.He just describes what he sees.He was doing his job as his job description requires,and that requires only describing what he sees,and NOT stating it as fact.

 

[Callan]

No,Thomas didn't lie.It wasn't the coroner's job to say for sure what it was...he is only to observe and describe what he sees,without stating for sure as to what it actually is.The most he could say it that it 'may represent fragments of pineapple'.
FOR EXAMPLE,I used to work in a hospital,(so I know this as fact when taking medical notes), I could write, 'catheter draining small amount of cherry-red drainage'.That's the most I could write..I couldn't say 'catheter is draining copious amounts of blood',or whatever I *thought it might be.That wasn't my job.It wasn't the coroner's job either.He was doing his job.He is only to describe what he sees,and *not to state as fact what it is,based on looking at it.Further testing is required for that.
That's the same reason you see things throughout the whole report being described that way,such as 'tan '(described as coming from her nose..I think it was stated as 'tan mucous material').He didn't state for sure what it was,or that it contained old blood,as it very likely did.He just describes what he sees.He was doing his job as his job description requires,and that requires only describing what he sees,and NOT stating it as fact.

JONBENET RAMSEY AUTOPSY REPORT




" The stomach contains a small amount (8-11cc) of viscousto green to tan colored thick mucous material WITHOUT particulate matter identified."

" The yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which MAY represent fragments of pineapple."


So somehow, Thomas and his "experts" were [dispite having no scientific medical expertise] not only able to conclusively prove that the 'material' was indeed pineapple, but also, to match the rind from it?. Wow! what a man.

Back in the real world now my friend. Refer me to any source, that OFFICIALLY states [not some pulp fiction] - that the 'material' was indeed pineapple.

I won't wait up.

 

[Callan]

Well folks, here it is - the BIG one. So who is lying??????


The Bonita Papers - 1999


Within minutes of arriving at the Ramsey home, Fleet decided to look around the house. His own
daughter had been missing a few months ago, and after the police were called they found her
hiding under her bed. Fleet was hoping that JonBenet too was just hiding somewhere in the house.
Since everyone had been told by the police officers not to go upstairs, Fleet went town to the
basement. He noticed that the lights were on. He found a small piece of glass from a broken
window in a room used for model trains. In checking the latch for the window he discovered that
it was unlocked, but closed. Fleet also noticed a blue suitcase was sitting underneath the window.
He continued with his search by opening every cupboard and door. He opened the door to the
wine cellar, reached inside, but could not find the light switch and could not see inside the room.
The wind cellar is completely formed by cement and has no windows. Finding no evidence of
anyone entering or leaving from the basement area and no trace of JonBenet, Fleet went back
upstairs.


John went to the basement door with Fleet following. Fleet first took John to the train room to
show him the unlatched broken window that he had discovered on his first excursion into the
basement. John explained to Fleet, "I broke that window last summer when I misplaced my house
key and had to break in." They searched for broken glass on the floor and found one small
splinter. John and Fleet then looked in a broom closet and another small room. While Fleet was
still checking other closets, John walked to the wine cellar and tried to pull open the door.
Because the top latch was secured, the door would not open. John reached up, undid the latch,
and opened the door. Fleet, who was about 20 feet away, heard John exclaim, "Oh my God, oh
my God," and went running to the room where John was standing. As Fleet approached the door,
John flipped on the wine cellar light switch. Fleet saw the body of JonBenet laying on the floor.
John said he saw the white blanket on the floor as soon as he opened the door, and when the
lights came on he saw his daughter laying on the blanket.


Fleet White states that he found the light switched on. He states that he opened the wine cellar door [containing JonBenet, but he was unable too see inside.

John Ramsey opened the wine cellar door and immediately indicated that he had found his daughter, before switching on the wine cellar light.

Fleet White could not see inside the wine cellar, even though he stated that the basement area light was switched ON. But John Ramsey apparently COULD see inside the wine cellar, with this light ON.


This is easily the strangest thing that I have yet to find. Anyone got any answers?

 

[rashomon]

[Callan]
Well done! - you have managed to show what a liar Thomas really is.

You don't believe me? - then check the autopsy report. :woohoo:

JONBENET RAMSEY AUTOPSY REPORT




" The stomach contains a small amount (8-11cc) of viscousto green to tan colored thick mucous material WITHOUT particulate matter identified."

" The yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which MAY represent fragments of pineapple."


So somehow, Thomas and his "experts" were [dispite having no scientific medical expertise] not only able to conclusively prove that the 'material' was indeed pineapple, but also, to match the rind from it?. Wow! what a man.

Back in the real world now my friend. Refer me to any source, that OFFICIALLY states [not some pulp fiction] - that the 'material' was indeed pineapple.

I won't wait up.

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.

ST's book has been thoroghly dissected by Team Ramsey - did he have to retract one single line? No, he didn't. You bet if he had dared to distort any facts, Team Ramsey would have long since screamed this from the rooftops. Of course they didn't like ST's theory that Patsy was involved in JonBenet's death, but the circumstantial evidence (ransom note, fibers) does point in this direction, and Thomas was free to offer his theories regarding Patsy Ramsey who btw was never been cleared as a suspect. Nor has John been cleared.

In your rant against the WS poster and S. Thomas, you completely forgot (or maybe you just don't know) that even the Ramseys dear friend Lou Smit himself said verbatim that what was found in JonBenet's digestive tract was in fact pineapple.

Official source: Lou Smit's interview with John Ramsey:

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."

Yes, indeed, the pineapple is the big bugaboo for the IDIs, for it blows apart the Ramseys' story about JohnBenet having been asleep when they got home.
But since JonBenet ate the pineapple about one to two hours before her death, the IDIs have to come up with far-fetched explanations as to how it got there. "The intruder fed her pineapple" is my personal favorite in absurdity.

 

[Ames]

15 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, on the 27th, they said,
16 (Well, we want you to come to the police station.̃
17 We said, (We're mentally not capable.̃ Our family
18 doctor was there. He said Patsy was in no
19 condition to leave this house. They said, (Well,
20 we've got to have you come to the police station.̃
21 I said why, he said, (Well we have records there
22 we want to pull out and look at.̃23 And we said, (We can't. If you come here we'll
24 spend as much time as you want. But we physically
25 cannot be there.̃ And that's when Mike Bynum
0020
1 stepped in and said, wait a minute, time out. And
2 he was there delivering food; he's a friend of
3 mine and he happened to be an attorney and he
4 smelled a rat, frankly.
5 LOU SMIT: Now this was while you were at
6 Fernie's?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
8 LOU SMIT: Is that the first time that you
9 contacted the lawyer, that they contacted you?
10 JOHN RAMSEY: He was there. He was bringing
11 food over from Pasta Jay's, and just happened to
12 be there when the police were trying to haul us
13 down to the police station, and he said time out.
14 He took me inside and he said, (John, there's some
15 things going here. Would you allow me to do what I
16 think is necessary?̃ and I said, (Of course.̃
17 LOU SMIT: And what did he do, John?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember, but you'd
19 have to ask him, I guess. But I suspect what he
20 did is take the police aside and say, stop. You
21 cannot do what you're doing to these people. And
22 he arranged to bring Bryan in and Pat and were
23 just kind of on autopilot there. And frankly,
24 skeptical, why did we need to do this.
25 But as time went on we became more and more
0021
1 confused of what the police trying to do. They
2 were trying to put a square peg in a round hole,
3 and we're the square peg. And, you know, it was an
4 extremely frustrating time for us. It still is.
5 Cause we know we didn't do it; there's a killer
6 out there.


It was ALL about THEM and THEIR CONDITIONS.


A day after their daughter was brutally murderd and the BPDopes were hounding them. No evidence, no motive, a woman tranqullised and sedated yet still they only focused on them. Why? because they messed up big time, with the crime scene and they were just covering their lousy backs. Eleven years later, we now have the same thing happening in Portugal.

The Ramsey's were asked by a lawyer [because he could see what was going on] to trust him, with regard to what was going on. They agreed.

Check through the documents involved with the case and you will find that the Ramsey's cooperated a lot more than you may think. The only reason that it looks bad, was because the BPD were leaking certain stuff to the media.

That by the way - is FACT!

McSanta
5 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, he claimed to be very
6 frail and the reason that Mrs. Claus came was
7 because he was so frail. And she struck me as just
8 kind of there. She wasn't really into it or
9 particularly open. And I just accepted the fact
10 that she probably didn't really want to be there,
11 but was there because he was so frail that she had
12 to be there to help him. I think that was the
13 first year she ever came.

McReynolds CLAIMED to be very frail? Couldn't you tell by looking at him, John, that McReynolds WAS very frail. He was an old man, for crying out loud. John, again...insinuating that McReynolds COULD have been the killer, because he CLAIMED to be very frail.



In the full part of this [which you conveniently left out] you will see that John Ramsey was talking about whether or not this person would be physically able to have commited the murder.

This man like it or not, was a possible suspect and he had to be talked about.

The Basement Light...
9 JOHN RAMSEY: With the lights off at night
10 it would have been hazardous because there's a lot
11 of junk piled in here. This door was kind of
12 blocked with boxes and a little chair. And you
13 could move the chair and then walk right in. But
14 it would have been pitch black; it would have been
15 tough.

John says in the earlier part of this interview that he believes that the intruder climbed out the window, in which he came....using the suitcase to hoist himself up. How did he SEE? The flashlight that he supposedly used was on the kitchen counter, wiped clean of prints. If he had of turned on the lights, to be able to see to leave....how did he manage to turn them off again, if he was outside of the house? Was he a magician?


The light in the basement area was found to have been switched on.

I will find it out and post it.

More about the Blanket...
9 LOU SMIT: Okay. What do you actually see
10 now,
11 I mean see in this room?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: Well I see a white blanket
13 that's folded across her body neatly.
14 LOU SMIT: It was neatly folded across the
15 body?
16 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
17 LOU SMIT: Now describe that just a little
18 bit? Was it --
19 JOHN RAMSEY: She was laying on the blanket.
20 LOU SMIT: Was it laying on the back?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. On the back. The blanket
22 was caught up around and crossed in front of her
23 as if somebody was tucking her in.


Now WHY would an intruder wrap her like that??


You could also ask why a parent would strangle, smash the skull of and sexually assult their daughter and then do the same thing{?}

The Dark Basement...
1 LOU SMIT: Now you say that the time that
2 you went into this window, that was nighttime?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
4 LOU SMIT: And you say it was about 11:30 at
5 night? Obviously it would be dark at that time?
6 What's your recollection of the difficulty of
7 getting into the house then?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: Well I guess I remember the
9 unknown harm is when you drop the last foot or two
10 in the basement. Because that basement room is
11 always kind of a mess. You're not quite sure what
12 you're going to land in.
13 Once I was in the basement I could find my way to
14 the door. The light switch is over by the door. So
15 you got to be careful because there's a lot of
16 junk in there.
17 LOU SMIT: But you could make your way
18 around? Would you be able to even see?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, I remember being able
20 to see real well, I think. Cause there's not
21 (INAUDIBLE) light in that basement room. So unless
22 there was light left on or something in one of the
23 rooms you wouldn't have been --

Then how did the intruder see to enter and exit the home?


Like I said - the light was switched on.

I am STILL waiting for you to supply me with a link that says that a light in the basement was left on. I have never EVER read that before, and I have read all of the interviews. The light in the basement would have had to have been on, for the "invisible intruder" to have been able to escape, the same way that he entered.....I mean, since he, for some mysterious reason...decided to wiped down the flashlight...AND the batteries...and leave it on the kitchen counter.

 

[Callan]

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.


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?


ST's book has been thoroghly dissected by Team Ramsey - did he have to retract one single line? No, he didn't. You bet if he had dared to distort any facts, Team Ramsey would have long since screamed this from the rooftops. Of course they didn't like ST's theory that Patsy was involved in JonBenet's death, but the circumstantial evidence (ransom note, fibers) does point in this direction, and Thomas was free to offer his theories regarding Patsy Ramsey who btw was never been cleared as a suspect. Nor has John been cleared.


Yeah, as if he would show himself up. As for your 'circumstantial evidence' if there was any substance in either the note or the physical evidence, they would have been charged.

This sort of stuff, has nothing to do with 'circumstantial evidence'.


In your rant against the WS poster and S. Thomas, you completely forgot (or maybe you just don't know) that even the Ramseys dear friend Lou Smit himself said verbatim that what was found in JonBenet's digestive tract was in fact pineapple.

Official source: Lou Smit's interview with John Ramsey:


Yes, indeed, the pineapple is the big bugaboo for the IDIs, for it blows apart the Ramseys' story about JohnBenet having been asleep when they got home.
But since JonBenet ate the pineapple about one to two hours before her death, the IDIs have to come up with far-fetched explanations as to how it got there. "The intruder fed her pineapple" is my personal favorite in absurdity.

8 tape. That doesn't look like that tape I took off

9 JonBenet's mouth.
10 LOU SMIT: Okay. And why do you say that?

11 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, because as I recall,

12 it was black.


The same Lou Smit, who deliberetely showed John Ramsey a different coloured piece of tape, just to see is reaction. That is what police do.

He was doing the same thing, when refering to the pineapple.

 

[Callan]

I am STILL waiting for you to supply me with a link that says that a light in the basement was left on. I have never EVER read that before, and I have read all of the interviews. The light in the basement would have had to have been on, for the "invisible intruder" to have been able to escape, the same way that he entered.....I mean, since he, for some mysterious reason...decided to wiped down the flashlight...AND the batteries...and leave it on the kitchen counter.

Check out post 76.