Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera

[OpenMind4U]

and we all know who that money went to!

IDK...IMO, Shapiro always was/is the wishy-washy guy...without integrity of any kind!

 

[dodie20]

Tr

notes from Perter Boyle Show:

re: Peter Boyles talks about the recent Grand Jury revelation! (January 28 & 29, 2013) - Forums For Justice

guest Craig Silverman (former Chief Deputy to Stan Garnett) ,

Part 2:BP2013B, at 25:07:

PB: Now what will Stan Garnett do, Craig, as an attorney,
now this falls into ...

CS: ....Let's remember, the grand jury said child abuse resulting in death,
there's a 3 year statute of limitations on that so....
unless it's first degree murder,
I don't think that anybody can be prosecuted.
Statute of limitations has run ..

true, but maybe there's a way around this? If nothing else, 1 grand jury voted to indict JR, maybe another would. Especially with the new evidence of his own words in his books, to contradict his own words to LE. If JR is smart, he'd be careful about saying things like 'just drama', because he's liable to tick off the wrong legal mind. I know my opinions don't matter much, but as a person, I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt on certain things, but I'm sick of him AND his arrogance. This whole grand jury report has really touched a nerve, and IMO, other people, (the right people, I hope), are getting sick of him too. Times are different and the average person doesn't equate money with 'good' anymore. We're more enlightened on child abuse, and frankly, we know nothing is out of the realm of possibility. Rich people abuse, rape and kill their children just like poor people do. Except for the elite who are desperately hanging on to the past, money doesn't talk, All moo.

 

[SyraKelly]

...without mention the name of the blog, here are snippets from today's Boyles radio show. He has Tom Miller as his guest.

'Doc Miller said that the movie RANSOM was played on that Christmas night at Fleet and Priscilla White's house!

Doc said he believes Alex knew the Boulder DA's office could not win against the skill of the $$$$$ megabucks Haddon law firm.

Doc said that publishers in the US WILL NOT publish a book unless it is pro Ramsey on this case. He could not find a publisher for his book, nad had to publish it in Japan, though now he says he may self publish it. As he noted the first chapter is on his website. '

'Doc said Craig Lewis of The Globe called Jeff Shapiro "idiot boy." He said Shapiro would come over to Judith Phillips house unannounced whnever he wanted for information.

He said Craig Lewis was heads above the other tabloids, because he moved to Boulder, he had private investigators in Denver, had fist fulls of cash from The Globe, could get PRIVATE PHONE RECORDS, so so much for any conspiracy theory about any phone records, because Craig Lewis knows if that is true or not that they exist or not.

Craig Lewis plays himself in "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", instructing the new reporter Shapiro. After the Globe supposedly threatened Steve Thomas was info about his mother if he didn't give them an interview after he resigned, Shapiro went to the FBI about The Globe and Craig Lewis and Tom Miller. The Globe took a deal for $100,000 donation to CU's journalism school for Craig Lewis. Tom Miller did not take a deal, he took the case to trial, and won. '


Hope I wouldn't get in trouble by posting this....lease:

Here is the link to listen this show:

http://www.khow.com/player/?station...t&program_id=fullshow_boyles.xml&mid=22839066

This is very interesting & I also read Nick of Time was playing at the Whites house that night...

Wasn't Mike Tracey a professor at CU?

I don't know if I am allowed to say this.but people over at FFJ are saying-Peter Boyles has a source who has a piece of information he been sitting on that is damning towards the Ramseys-he hope this source will come out soon..

 

[OpenMind4U]

This is very interesting & I also read Nick of Time was playing at the Whites house that night...

Wasn't Mike Tracey a professor at CU?

I don't know if I am allowed to say this.but people over at FFJ are saying-Peter Boyles has a source who has a piece of information he been sitting on that is damning towards the Ramseys-he hope this source will come out soon..

Yes, you're correct!!! And it's very good post by KoldKase on FFJ in regards of above stated money and phone records. We need KoldKase permission to copy her post in WS.

KoldKase, would you please post your excellent post here!!!! Such a valuable information in it!!!

 

[SyraKelly]

I think things are starting to heat up here with this GJ info.I hope more people will start to speak out about the BS that has been happening for way to long.I don't think JR is going to like all that DRAMA either-LOL

 

[SyraKelly]

Thanks Openmind for asking KK to post that info here..more people need to read this. Although its KK O,But to me-Its very compelling evidence to support just what happened in the DA office!

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Did I read that correctly...The Globe donated $100k to CU Journalism School?

 

[SyraKelly]

Did I read that correctly...The Globe donated $100k to CU Journalism School?

YES-you did Eileen!

 

[SunVenus]

I hope this makes sense, I am utterly exhausted. There is simply not enough coffee in the world today to make my brain work right.

Actually, it fits the evidence better than any theory out there.

I disagree. There is far more evidence IMO that points to at least one Ramsey family member being involved.

I agree, but only so long as we remain open to any possible angle and do not make the mistake of devoting ourselves to a particular conclusion about this case as if it were our religion, which it is not. It is an unsolved murder.

No, this case is not a religion. However, as a professional religious scholar, I can say that there are many practitioners of various religions in which the philosophical concepts of truth and justice play integral parts to one’s attitude, conduct, and way of thinking. I don’t mean merely paying lip-service or in keeping up appearances, but really matter. (Nor do I think that a high ethical platform is the sole provenance of the religious—I know many atheists & agnostics who are deeply moral.) I think almost every one of us on this forum share diverse but similar concepts of how we view justice & fairness and right & wrong, whether they be RDI or IDI or other. In the end, we want answers, we want to prevent this from happening again, and we mostly we want justice for JBR. To be frank though, I found your remark a bit condescending: I know this is not a religion. I’d wager no one here treats it as their religion. Yep, I have seen one or two people that hold onto dogmatic ideas without evidence, and I’ve seen some in the archives who promote a ludicrous scenario to advance a particular agenda of religious bias. But you are so defensive and are clinging so hard to your theory that it looks a little suspect in some minds. It looks a wee bit as you described, religious: you appear to take it on faith that a pair of unknown burglars stuffed up a robbery and leapt to molestation and murder. You’ve not really presented evidence to this end, and have dismissed evidence that doesn’t fit your theory without even a cursory glance and with many insults. I won’t be surprised if you’ll say the same for those of us who have looked at this case and see one or more Ramsey’s as being involved. Guess it can’t be helped, but to work on a bridge here: we all know this not a religion. Hopefully we are all working from facts & evidence and not blind faith. Just a piece of advice: It may help you when you have a career someday to understand one can hold strongly to an opinion without being insulting, and even argue it vociferously, but not in an ugly manner. Stick with us, we’ll help sand off some of those rough edges.

Clearly, child murder trumps child molestation in the hierarchy of evil human behavior. If the male burglar is depraved enough to brutally murder a six year old girl, he is certainly depraved enough to sexually assault her. Thus, it would not be at all unlikely for our male burglar, turned child murderer, to let all his demons out on this occasion. After all, he cannot possibly behave any worse after crushing a little girl's skull with a tire iron. (No, JBR was not hit over the head with a flashlight.)

Child murder is foul and disgusting. Child molestation is also foul and disgusting. Neither should be excused or diminished. It is hard for me to even try to rank them in severity, so I shan’t for now. However, based on what I know of criminals in the jail system, people who touch children—kill or molest—aren’t tolerated by other monsters on the cellblock. A convict who killed an adult in cold-blooded, first-degree murder often feels himself (or herself) morally superior to the convict next door who harmed a child, and thus we see that child killers or molesters for their own safety must be kept out of the general prison populace. Even “regular rapists” (incongruous choice of words, but I mean those who go after women or men of adult age) aren’t safe—their victim has a mom, a sister, a boyfriend, a cousin… and so do the murderers. Even amongst criminals, there is a hierarchy. (Maybe even more so than the non-incarcerated people western societies.) Unless I am terribly mistaken, the fact that one kills doesn’t necessarily mean that one will molest. To rational minds, killing is horrible. But sexual assault is something else entirely on the horrible scale. Perhaps a professional psychiatrist & forum member who deals with the criminal mindset can correct me here, but I think a murderer is not necessarily any more likely to be a molester (unless it’s a molester killing to cover up the crime), and a criminal killing out of fear of discovery seems unlikely to turn child rapist just out of the blue. There’d surely have been some sign, etc. Paedophilia and rape are perversions of another sort, and of those that do kill their victims, it is often to silence the victim rather than as an afterthought to a bungled burglary. I’d also think it very unlikely for a paedophile to play burglar. I’d guess most of them are actually rather timid and too concerned with keeping up appearances as a “good, trustworthy citizen” so as to be in position to stalk & groom their prey to risk being arrested for burglary.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that there is no controversy over the issue of whether or not there is definite evidence of prior sexual abuse. The fact of the matter is that JBR had an older brother. It is not terribly unusual for young children, even siblings, to play doctor. What is more, the evidence for prior sexual abuse is debatable. In other words, it is so scant that the evidence, at best, suggests little more than children playing doctor and does NOT suggest chronic, aggressive, sexual abuse at the hands of an adult. The Ramseys have been accused of "hiding something" since Day One of the investigation. If they were indeed hiding something it is most likely sexual play between Burke and JBR, and their motive for keeping it a family secret should be obvious and understandable, considering the relentless witch hunt to which the family was being subjected.

Unfortunately, there is controversy about prior sexual abuse of JBR. The evidence is not scant, it is conclusive and was backed by other forensic experts that the coroner called in for additional opinion. (I believe the relevant documents can be found scanned on ACandyRose’s website.) Their hypothesis that such abuse occurred is valuable and reliable. But I do agree that siblings playing doctor is far more common than people realise, and that yes, it does even happen in so-called “good families”. It could be that prolonged & repeated sexual experimentation between BR & JBR could have caused the pre-existing signs noted by the coroner’s report. Even so, JBR did end up murdered, and she was freshly and roughly sexually abused at some point in that event.

And what about this idea? Perhaps PR was so truly one of god’s innocents that she would rather do anything to hide her children’s experimentation rather than face up to reality, and have the world know the family was not perfect. Was such behaviour so unfathomable she simply over-reacted? I don’t pretend to know PR’s mind, but from her interviews, her past in pageants, and the focus on appearances—at least on a surface level—of the homes they owned, the clothes she wore, the focus on dressing JBR in certain ways at certain times, etc. could it be possible it was just too much for her to bear? Oh, not that she set out to murder her child, but perhaps she began to suspect something was up. Perhaps that evening she caught JBR & BR in the act. Maybe—with all the stressors of the season, the impending trips, the long and slow recovery from stage four cancer—her mind just snapped and she lashed out? Breaks with sanity happen, and good, rational people sometimes do terrible things. In my mind, I have always suspected the head-blow to be accidental, things piled up from there, and a tragic set of events escalated into to death and the attempted cover-up.

I have seen no substantial evidence to suggest that the Ramseys were "umm, well, not the norm" whatever that means. I doubt they were the perfect family; but then again, no such family exists. They certainly were not radically dysfunctional and it is wrong for you to suggest that they were.

First, I will agree there is no such thing as a “perfect” family, and yes, many families have some a level of dysfunction. However, most families do not end up with a raped and dead child in their basement, even dysfunctional families.

My choice of wording of “umm, well, not the norm” refers to my judgment on a few factors. PR was very much into appearances—superficial appearances. She was very involved with the kids schooling, activities, church functions, and activities surrounding her adult friends and the extended family. That isn’t the odd part—we all tend to focus on those things more or less. However, comments have been made by Ramsey extended family members & friends that PR was overly involved in these things. She was really pushing, even though the horrible battle with cancer. I don’t wholly blame her for those actions that would have placed much pressure on those around her—she was looking mortality straight in the face. It’s not as if I think she was making the family deliberately dysfunctional— who would do that? People mostly do the best they can with the hand they are dealt… but that doesn’t mean that they don’t sometimes make the wrong choices or cause stress or harm to others. I also consider the behaviour of the Ramsey’s after the murder to be highly dysfunctional. Oh, you say they felt they faced a witch hunt. Well, too damn bad. It is a sad fact that in most child murders, the perp is a parent. Why would they not cooperate with the police? Why did they demand special privileges from the very first moment? The Ramsey’s, to all appearances, are ever so precious and consider themselves above the rules peons like you & I would have to tolerate, like answering direct questions immediately and without the other spouse there as safety net, giving physical samples for evidence, turning over records, assuming they could just leave the state, etc. Do not give me the “distraught parents” song & dance, of course they were. Other parents have borne up under similar tragedies, the Ramsey’s could have as well. Even if they did kill JBR, I don’t doubt they were distraught. In justice, there is not one set of rules for the nouveux riche and another for everyone else. It is supposed to work the same for all of us… and whoa nelly, they played their self-entitled attitude to the hilt—and still do.

Now, what I considered most unusual to a sexual dynamic was the deliberate hyper-sexualisation of five/six-year old JBR in the pageant circuit. A six-year old in make-up? Foils in hair? Come-hither looks and provocative motions? Are you suggesting this is a good thing? Or are you one of those who’d say I am the sicko for being aware that having a child even innocently make such motions or wear such costumes in an environment where anyone could just walk in could make them if not an actual target for crime, at least the recipient of lascivious thoughts from others? A child at the age of six is not set-up emotionally or intellectually to deal with the type of feelings this could bring out in some. She may have found being looked at by crowds exciting, but was not aware that being cute like a grown-up could also carry ramifications. She was a child. Therefore, I feel it is parent’s responsibility not to allow such things to occur. Even if JBR was the one pushing the pageant participation a parent could indulge a kid’s urge to compete in “natural” pageants, where attire is age-appropriate and make-up is not used.

I realise this is my value judgement. I think pageants are disgusting. I think they send the wrong message to both males & females. Oh yeah, there’s usually a neat little talent section. But there’s also a swimsuit section… and when has (I’m talking adults here) having a “great arse in a swimming costume” ever saved a life or made a major difference in the world? One talent section, but several segments that are based on nothing but appearance? Why not a math quiz or a spelling bee? How about a surprise award to a child who comforts and soothes the hurt feelings of a kid that lost? How does a good figure or a pretty face make one of higher character, or possess greater integrity? Pageant promoters like to say that they hold pageants to teach poise & composure. Bull puckey. They are a holdover from an archaic age & collapsing culture. Whilst I think that developing poise, composure & nurturing talents are important, I feel there are better places and activities for this, and activities that encourage young and impressionable children to get an idea that just being attractive is a meal ticket is wrong. Life is not about growing up a pretty girl and catching a husband; we have moved on from that. Outer beauty can fade, and living a life where that is all that counts can be devastating when the upper arms wobble and wrinkles start to appear. Neither women nor men are mere ornaments; there are other qualities that a far more important than appearance: character, intelligence, and so forth.

Also it is not "wrong" for me to judge the R family dynamic as unwholesome nor to express it here. Whether you like it or not I am a grown, educated woman & a parent, and I have every right to express my opinion and make a judgment. You’ve been given free rein to express your opinions and judgments as well as being notably rude & hostile to some of the other posters here, so as you said to another forum member, if you don’t like reading what I have to say, then go elsewhere. In short—quit telling me and other members what to do. You are not my dad, my boss, my spouse, my deity, my counsellor nor my conscience. Learn how to communicate politely on this forum, or you will soon run out of people to even humour you, much less discuss your theory. Even I am losing patience with you after reading more of your recent snide remarks. You owe a few folks some apologies.

But I digress. Spanking & preaching mode now off.

There would have been no reason for the burglars to murder JBR unless she could identify one of them by name. If JBR was so well acquainted with one of the burglars, it is entirely plausible that this person could have gotten her hands on a key to the Ramsey residence. Thus, there would have been no sign of forced entry.

What is more, the Ramseys were not very fastidious with their home security. Indeed, they did not even bother to set the alarm most of the time. Therefore, it is entirely possible that a door had actually been left unlocked, despite all assurances to the contrary by all concerned parties.

Agreed.

The usual stuff: jewelry, guns, collectibles, cash, anything that can be easily thrown into a shoulder bag and hocked at the local pawn shop.

In your theory, that makes sense. I had asked to see if you thought they were after something specific, but no, so okay. Moving on.

There is no reason to suspect that these were experienced, professional burglars who relied on swag as their primary source of income. In fact, it is at least as likely that these were thrill burglars out for kicks and a little dope money.

Perhaps. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but did you not state or ask on another thread if there had been a series of burglaries in the area? If it wasn’t you, my apologies, I am still not up to optimum brain-operating speed since the birthday party & large amounts of visitors from out of state. Even so, they could still be mere apprentice burglars. However, it sounded to me as if your theory was trying to make them out to be part of an ongoing, unsolved pattern of crimes. (If that was your post. Derp.)

That the burglars could have screwed up so badly by getting wrong the date of the Ramseys departure to Michigan is telling of what sort of burglars we are dealing with, and perhaps ultimately, their identities.

Yes, but if they knew the precise amount of JR’s bonus how could they have so badly screwed up the date of the Charlevoix trip? I mean, finances are deeply personal, and for obvious reasons are held close to the chest and even amongst close friends, often not discussed in detail. Finding out about JR’s bonus amount seems unlikely. But even casual acquaintances might know the R’s were off to Charlevoix then on to the Disney Cruise, and that they’d leave on the 26th. Surely the dimmest burglar would probably realise that a tired family with young children, exhausted on Christmas Day after parties and present opening and so on would leave on the 26th and not the 25th. Unless we are really going out on a limb here, these alleged burglars most likely lived in a western, Christian society. (Meaning that they were not a “small foreign faction” that was unfamiliar with the common American practice of Christmas and all the chaos that goes with it). They probably had Christmas celebrations of their own, if not on December 25th 1996, at least memories of how Christmas day went as a kid. Families are together on Christmas normally, friends too, and even though the loot for burgling might be good on Christmas night, an iota of common sense on the part of these alleged burglars would tell them to choose another night. So these were either simultaneously the dumbest but luckiest burglars in Colorado, or else there is a more logical theory.

Good question. Why not just grab JBR and leave? Why hang around?
The answer: They had no where to take her. Indeed, they might not even have had a car with which to smuggle JBR away. Now what sort of burglars are these? My guess is that they are young adults. They either live with their parents in the surrounding neighborhood or they live in a dorm or frat house at UC, which is just around the corner from the Ramsey residence.

Okay, so now we have young adult burglars. I’m guessing you’d see it as a spree or lark burglary situation, then? I’ve seen frat boys do a lot of ugly things: drug dealing, violence, rape, harassment, petty theft. I suppose a young could be prone to burglary, but murder & child rape? A slight possibility. I don’t think such propensities could be covered up for long.

Yes, nowhere to put JBR dead or alive. I suspect it was the same when the Ramsey’s were confronted with what to do with JBRs corpse. They can’t leave—it’d be out of pattern if their car drove out in the middle of the night, or even towards early morning after all the panicking, conferring, planning, staging, etc. So it was off to the wine cellar with her, to await the more opportune time to “discover” the body.

The female burglar did this because she knew and liked JBR. It was she who wrote the ransom note. It was she who tried to persuade her depraved boyfriend not to kill JBR. It was she who felt genuine remorse for the murder.

What evidence do you have that there was a female burglar? We’ve gone from dumb frat boys to a girl living with her parents nearby (as I’m sure you realise that girls normally don’t live in frat houses—sorority houses yes, but housing in the Greek system is still gender-segregated even in this modern age, no? (Or am I that old now! Yikes.) Do you think that with this hypothesised pair of burglars, it could be possible that the woman was the one who molested and killed JBR—or did one thing or the other? What evidence do you have that shows it had to be a man who did the molesting & killing? I realise that men are prosecuted for this more often, but it isn’t unheard of for a woman to be murderous or capable of molestation, it’s less common but it does occur. Or do you feel like Mary Lacy seemed to intimate in her defence of Patsy Ramsey: that women don’t do such things, and apparently men lack remorse or conscience, or at least to a lesser degree than women? Yes, I am reading a lot into what she said, but that’s how it came across. It was insulting on many levels.

I think there is a very high degree of probability that our female burglar is dead, having been murdered by her male accomplice not long after the murder of JBR. Has he walked the straight and narrow since then? I doubt it. But if he moved away to Europe or Israel or Australia, he could have easily eluded the radar of American law enforcement.

Okay, so the hypothetical male burglar turned rapist & murderer suddenly kills again—this time his partner. He gets a passport and a visa and hops a plane to Europe or Australia or Israel. Firstly—does he immigrate legitimately, or does he ramp up his increasing life of crime by violating the temporary status of his visa and becoming an illegal immigrant? (If you think he immigrated legally, particularly to Australia, I would be happy to go over the minutia of this with you having been through it myself—and just how hard they look into the backgrounds of prospective legal residents/applicants for citizenship.) And let us say he can’t stop committing crimes and he finally gets caught. What are the chances that he is smart enough to keep his trap shut in a faraway country? (After all, he wasn’t smart enough to not rob a house when the family was home). Strange country, convict environment of bravado & experience—his tale of getting away with one of the world’s greatest crimes would score him some points on the cool scale that passes for the norm in prison. I can’t speak for all European countries or Israel, but I feel confident that LE here in Oz wouldn’t simply sit on any hint of involvement in the JBR case. Oh, they might wrangle to keep our hypothetical petty burglar/double murderer/child molester from being extradited to Colorado, which has the death penalty, but then again, JBR’s death was and continues to be a horrific crime in the minds of my Aussie friends & neighbours—I’m betting people would be ticked off and wanting action. Furthermore, I suspect it’d be much the same in most places. This crime shook up people all over the globe.

Clearly, one of the burglars was possessed by an actual human soul and felt some degree of remorse while the other one was a sadistic, cold-hearted, psychopath.

What is clearly more interesting to me is that you can label a hypothetical burglar a psychopath based on nothing but an ugly crime, yet you spit the dummy when I mention that I feel the Ramsey household had an unusual dynamic. I will concede though, that a stranger doing an act like this would be what most non-professionals might call psychopathic. We don’t know if he was. We don’t even know if he really exists! My point is that if a Ramsey committed this crime, I’d not necessarily label them a psychopath, either. It would depend on who it was, why it happened and so on. Certainly if they did do it and are engaged in the cover-up for this long, showing a false face and not very focused on finding the killer of JBR, then maybe they are a psychopath. But we don’t get to make that diagnosis unless we are psychologists. I am not, am pretty sure you are not either. Can we just agree that whoever did this is a gigantic creepy that ought not be allowed out in public?

The most glaring piece of evidence is the ransom note which was not likely written by Patsy, or John, or Burke. Obviously, somebody wrote the note and it was not a member of the Ramsey family.

Oh goody! The ransom note.

Do you not agree that $118,000 is an irregular amount to ask for ransom, rather than $250,000 or some rounder number? Wouldn’t that amount—precise almost to the dollar of JRs bonus— be a bit unlikely for a casual acquaintance to know? (Oh certainly, maybe Patsy bragged about it. But if that happens to be the case, chalk that up on my scale of her drive with appearances. IME only new money sorts – or the very stupid, or the so very innocent-minded that it is best they not be let out without someone to watch over them lest they come to harm trying to hand-feed a tiger or the like-- discusses money loosely; old money with manners types simply do not. It’s vulgar. People who aren’t complete fools do not. It’s dangerous. You know the old saw: there are three things you ought not to discuss in polite company: money, politics, and religion. But again, I know that would be my value judgment about PRs lack of either sense or manners… or both.)

And speaking of sense… what about the line in the ransom note that refers to “use that good southern common sense, John” which (IIRC) was an inside Ramsey-extended family joke? JR was not from the south, he was a damnyankee. How would this be something a causally acquainted burglar would know? If the burglars thought JR was from the south, they’d not be so well acquainted with the family, would they? Probably not enough to know an intimate thing like the exact amount of a work bonus or the precise layout of the house, right? But maybe enough to know that the Ramsey family was leaving on the 26th? Oh wait…

Why a practice ransom note? Why a veritable Gone with the Wind epic length note rather than something more succinct? If these alleged burglars were so dumb they couldn’t case a house properly, then how are they clever enough to use words like “attaché” and “hence”, and yet again not smart enough to spell “business” or “possession”? How do they know the house so well that they can find the tablet & sharpie to write the note? And to that—how is it that they were so well-acquainted with the floor plan that they knew about the about the wine-cellar, and where to find duct tape, cord, paintbrushes, staircases and Burke’s pocket knife (which had been hidden outside JBRs room in the laundrette alcove)? The house is a veritable maze, have you looked at the floor plans? Even people well acquainted with the Ramsey family didn’t know about the wine-cellar. All this movement, all the time writing a ransom note, all that time slowly killing and molesting a child—all that and they are in a fit of panic (being simple-minded, novice, potentially high, young adult burglars), afraid of being caught? Yet they take all that time to creep about the house like Manson family members and somehow do not disturb anyone else? Really?

Why would they change JBRs panties, and where did they get the size 12 Bloomies? Did they feed JBR the pineapple? How did they get in and out without leaving any physical evidence behind? How do you think they entered the house? Where exactly did they enter? Is that what you think the purpose of the tire iron was originally— to jimmy a lock or door?

Now then! I have entertained your idea. Some of it I really did think over a few times, and some of it made me think even harder about facts I do know of the case. I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt and treated you nicely but for calling you on the carpet for your lack of social graces in a forum environment. I think you earned that swat on the nose; you may disagree. If so, well, that will be something else upon which we cannot agree. But here is what I would like you to do now: tell me honestly what evidence suggests that one or more Ramsey’s might be the perpetrators of this crime. What I am asking is for you to play devil’s advocate. I trust you are familiar with the term. Can you do that, or are you so wedded to the idea of complete innocence of the Ramsey’s that you couldn’t look at it in another direction?

I look forward to your response, and am enjoying the discussion.

Edited to add: One further question I forgot to slip in there. You theorise that it was a pair of burglars, male & female, and that the male burglar (killer & molester of JBR) may well have killed the female burglar partner at a later point. I have yet to see any evidence you have presented on any part of your theory, but maybe you have this-- have you come across any murder, unexplained death, etc. of a female, university-aged in the Colorado region, or maybe anywhere in the US? (I know, a big ask.) Something that to your mind fits the pattern of your theory? Just wondered; thanks for indulging me in one last question for today. I'll try not pester you for a few more minutes at least.

 

[SunVenus]

YES-you did Eileen!

Well, there's a WTF moment if I've ever had one. And what an ugly, unholy alliance.

The things some unis will do to en$ure $chola$tic $ucce$$.

*shakes head slowly*

 

[SyraKelly]

I have followed this case since the beginning,but rarely posted and I thought I KNEW this case,but after reading over at FFJ the last week-I knew NOT the half off it..This case is DEEP in the political arena!!I am blown away by the stuff I have read.

I am trying to register over at FFJ,but for some reason it won't let me.Does anyone know why?

 

[SunVenus]

I have followed this case since the beginning,but rarely posted and I thought I KNEW this case,but after reading over at FFJ the last week-I knew NOT the half off it..This case is DEEP in the political arena!!I am blown away by the stuff I have read.

I am trying to register over at FFJ,but for some reason it won't let me.Does anyone know why?

I thnk FFJ has a closed membership list, you may have to be brought in by someone in good standing. They may have been subjected to spam or the like in the past & had to tighten security, so to speak.

I'd like to join too.

As for the political end of this case-- well, IMO that's where the injustice was compounded. I think that not only is the R family house of cards about to collapse, but given Colorado's collective political climate, certain former DAs and others may have some 'splainin to do to the taxpayers.

 

[SyraKelly]

SV-LOL-I would be exhausted if I typed all that out to-you :rocker:
most excellent reply!!

I love how you say-When has having a great arse in a swimming costume saved a life or made a major difference in the world-:floorlaugh:
Gone with the Wind epic lenght note-:great:

 

[SunVenus]

SV-LOL-I would be exhausted if I typed all that out to-you :rocker:
most excellent reply!!

I love how you say-When has having a great arse in a swimming costume saved a life or made a major difference in the world-:floorlaugh:
Gone with the Wind epic lenght note-:great:

LOL! Happy to amuse..

Re: the Gone with the Wind of ransom notes: we should always be glad they didn't try to write a sequel. PR (IMO) would still be writing it right now...

Edited to add: My post is long enough that it is almost the Ramsey Ransom Note of posts. I don't know whether to feel amused or disturbed.

 

[arielilane]

This post is for people who does't know this case or/and pretend to ignore the most important FACTS.

1. JonBenet's body wasn't LEFT in the basement. The body was HIDDEN in one of the room in the basement which was known to 'inside' people only, like: housekeeper, family members and some friends. LE and friend have searched the basement. Neither of them have found the body! It was hidden very well. So, the notion of 'getting rid of the body' was executed in this case almost at the same manner as if it would be hidden outside. The most important fact is that JB father - John Ramsey - conviniently 'find' her when police left the house;

2. The reasons why search of Ramsey's house wasn't done properly are:
- based on Ramsey's emergency 'kidnapping' call and existance of 'ransom note', BPD initiates the standard KIDNAPPING procedure, including FBI involvement and setting-up the wire-tab. Identification of ENTRY/EXIT point of kidnappers to/from house was the main task for LE. Search for BODY INSIDE the house wasn't in this procedure!;
- the political, social, financial status of Ramsey family wasn't raised any red flags. Apposite, the 'gold glove' treatment has been applied for Ramsey immidietly! The Victims Advocate was send to Ramsey house right away.

3. Yes, JBR was brutally murdered! However, the elements of the 'brutallity' could be divided by 3 categories:
- hidden (blunt trauma on head and acute sexual injury);
- actual (strangulation by rope);
- grotesque (non-workable garrote; non-workable hand bindings).

4. The presence of the 'grotesque' elements in addition to other 'staging' activities (like cleaning and redressing the body) points to one and only one conclusion: no INTRUDER! no OUTSIDE murderer! JBR murder was 'inside' job done by person(s) who cares enough to wrap her body in her favorite blanket with her favorite nightgown, placing the doll next to her = her PARENTS!!!!!

JBR murder 101.

jmo

This post deserved more than just the thank you button. Great post! Thank you.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Guys and Girls,

Highly recommend to read this thread on FFJ. Our talented Cynic has opened the 'iron curtain'!!!!!! Thank you Cynic!

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10215"]We can now request the Ramsey Grand Jury files! - Forums For Justice[/ame]

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

I hope this makes sense, I am utterly exhausted. There is simply not enough coffee in the world today to make my brain work right.

We shall see. I'm going to respond to your posting in segments since there is a lot of ground to cover.

I disagree. There is far more evidence IMO that points to at least one Ramsey family member being involved.

I have yet to to find a single RDI theory that does not eventually break down into special pleading. If you know of one, I would like to hear it.

No, this case is not a religion. However, as a professional religious scholar, I can say that there are many practitioners of various religions in which the philosophical concepts of truth and justice play integral parts to one’s attitude, conduct, and way of thinking. I don’t mean merely paying lip-service or in keeping up appearances, but really matter. (Nor do I think that a high ethical platform is the sole provenance of the religious—I know many atheists & agnostics who are deeply moral.) I think almost every one of us on this forum share diverse but similar concepts of how we view justice & fairness and right & wrong, whether they be RDI or IDI or other. In the end, we want answers, we want to prevent this from happening again, and we mostly we want justice for JBR. To be frank though, I found your remark a bit condescending: I know this is not a religion. I’d wager no one here treats it as their religion. Yep, I have seen one or two people that hold onto dogmatic ideas without evidence, and I’ve seen some in the archives who promote a ludicrous scenario to advance a particular agenda of religious bias. But you are so defensive and are clinging so hard to your theory that it looks a little suspect in some minds. It looks a wee bit as you described, religious: you appear to take it on faith that a pair of unknown burglars stuffed up a robbery and leapt to molestation and murder. You’ve not really presented evidence to this end, and have dismissed evidence that doesn’t fit your theory without even a cursory glance and with many insults. I won’t be surprised if you’ll say the same for those of us who have looked at this case and see one or more Ramsey’s as being involved. Guess it can’t be helped, but to work on a bridge here: we all know this not a religion. Hopefully we are all working from facts & evidence and not blind faith. Just a piece of advice: It may help you when you have a career someday to understand one can hold strongly to an opinion without being insulting, and even argue it vociferously, but not in an ugly manner. Stick with us, we’ll help sand off some of those rough edges.

I'm sorry, but knowing a thing or two about cults and cult behavior myself, I have to say that there is clear evidence of an RDI cult on the JBR boards here. It is one thing to suspect the Ramseys did it; it is quite another to defend the idea as if it were the main tenet of one's religion. Surely, you have noticed the way in which some RDI advocates react as though have been personally insulted when the mere suggestion is made that someone other than John, or Patsy, or Burke could have killed JonBenet.

Then again, perhaps you have not. You describe me as being "condescending" and "defensive" and yet it is I who has been demonized as a "troll" who should be shunned, and I have only been posting on these boards for a week or so! You need only go back a few pages on this very thread to observe numerous urgings of "Don't feed the troll!"

This, in case you do not recognize it, is cult-like behavior. Yes, it is childish and pathetic, but it is also the sort of behavior one routinely sees in cults (and religions) where differing with of a core belief is treated as heresy. This is not a religion. This is the unsolved murder of a little girl. There are real lives at stake, namely, those of the remaining members of the Ramsey family and the legacy of those who have passed. This is not the sort of thing that sane and decent people build a religion around. The fact of the matter is that there are RDI theorists, and then there are RDI dogmatists. Unfortunately, there appears to be more RDI dogmatists than theorists with the dogmatists actively trying to suppress, indeed, repress, IDI theorists as much as possible, as if they had a personal stake in the matter of who killed JonBenet Ramsey. It is downright bizarre, neurotic, and sick. Of course, there is one other glaring symptom of cult-like behavior here; however, I do not presently feel confident that I can address it without being banned.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Child murder is foul and disgusting. Child molestation is also foul and disgusting. Neither should be excused or diminished. It is hard for me to even try to rank them in severity, so I shan’t for now. However, based on what I know of criminals in the jail system, people who touch children—kill or molest—aren’t tolerated by other monsters on the cellblock. A convict who killed an adult in cold-blooded, first-degree murder often feels himself (or herself) morally superior to the convict next door who harmed a child, and thus we see that child killers or molesters for their own safety must be kept out of the general prison populace. Even “regular rapists” (incongruous choice of words, but I mean those who go after women or men of adult age) aren’t safe—their victim has a mom, a sister, a boyfriend, a cousin… and so do the murderers. Even amongst criminals, there is a hierarchy. (Maybe even more so than the non-incarcerated people western societies.) Unless I am terribly mistaken, the fact that one kills doesn’t necessarily mean that one will molest. To rational minds, killing is horrible. But sexual assault is something else entirely on the horrible scale. Perhaps a professional psychiatrist & forum member who deals with the criminal mindset can correct me here, but I think a murderer is not necessarily any more likely to be a molester (unless it’s a molester killing to cover up the crime), and a criminal killing out of fear of discovery seems unlikely to turn child rapist just out of the blue. There’d surely have been some sign, etc. Paedophilia and rape are perversions of another sort, and of those that do kill their victims, it is often to silence the victim rather than as an afterthought to a bungled burglary. I’d also think it very unlikely for a paedophile to play burglar. I’d guess most of them are actually rather timid and too concerned with keeping up appearances as a “good, trustworthy citizen” so as to be in position to stalk & groom their prey to risk being arrested for burglary.

I'm sorry, but the list of child molesters who were also child murderers is disturbingly extensive. The awful cases of Adam Walsh and Megan Kanka should come immediately to mind to anyone knowledgable on the subject. I cannot imagine where you got the idea that child murderers and child molesters are necessarily two different species, since this is clearly not the case. Enough said on this point.

It is also not terribly unheard of for home invaders (i.e. burglars) to turn toward child rape and child murder if the opportunity presents itself. The horrible case of the Petit family should come to mind. Enough said on this point.

 

[Nom de plume]

We shall see. I'm going to respond to your posting in segments since there is a lot of ground to cover.



I have yet to to find a single RDI theory that does not eventually break down into special pleading. If you know of one, I would like to hear it.



I'm sorry, but knowing a thing or two about cults and cult behavior myself, I have to say that there is clear evidence of an RDI cult on the JBR boards here. It is one thing to suspect the Ramseys did it; it is quite another to defend the idea as if it were the main tenet of one's religion. Surely, you have noticed the way in which some RDI advocates react as though have been personally insulted when the mere suggestion is made that someone other than John, or Patsy, or Burke could have killed JonBenet.

Then again, perhaps you have not. You describe me as being "condescending" and "defensive" and yet it is I who has been demonized as a "troll" who should be shunned, and I have only been posting on these boards for a week or so! You need only go back a few pages on this very thread to observe numerous urgings of "Don't feed the troll!"

This, in case you do not recognize it, is cult-like behavior. Yes, it is childish and pathetic, but it is also the sort of behavior one routinely sees in cults (and religions) where differing with of a core belief is treated as heresy. This is not a religion. This is the unsolved murder of a little girl. There are real lives at stake, namely, those of the remaining members of the Ramsey family and the legacy of those who have passed. This is not the sort of thing that sane and decent people build a religion around. The fact of the matter is that there are RDI theorists, and then there are RDI dogmatists. Unfortunately, there appears to be more RDI dogmatists than theorists with the dogmatists actively trying to suppress, indeed, repress, IDI theorists as much as possible, as if they had a personal stake in the matter of who killed JonBenet Ramsey. It is downright bizarre, neurotic, and sick. Of course, there is one other glaring symptom of cult-like behavior here; however, I do not presently feel confident that I can address it without being banned.

Yeah, you ought to know what that's like EDIII. You are doing the exact thing you complain about in reverse! At least RDI have mountains of evidence to back up our theories, as where you have none.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Unfortunately, there is controversy about prior sexual abuse of JBR. The evidence is not scant, it is conclusive and was backed by other forensic experts that the coroner called in for additional opinion. (I believe the relevant documents can be found scanned on ACandyRose’s website.) Their hypothesis that such abuse occurred is valuable and reliable. But I do agree that siblings playing doctor is far more common than people realise, and that yes, it does even happen in so-called “good families”. It could be that prolonged & repeated sexual experimentation between BR & JBR could have caused the pre-existing signs noted by the coroner’s report. Even so, JBR did end up murdered, and she was freshly and roughly sexually abused at some point in that event.

Ergo, the evidence of JBR being sexually abused by an adult is scant. You have just admitted this much yourself. Enough said.

And what about this idea? Perhaps PR was so truly one of god’s innocents that she would rather do anything to hide her children’s experimentation rather than face up to reality, and have the world know the family was not perfect. Was such behaviour so unfathomable she simply over-reacted? I don’t pretend to know PR’s mind, but from her interviews, her past in pageants, and the focus on appearances—at least on a surface level—of the homes they owned, the clothes she wore, the focus on dressing JBR in certain ways at certain times, etc. could it be possible it was just too much for her to bear? Oh, not that she set out to murder her child, but perhaps she began to suspect something was up. Perhaps that evening she caught JBR & BR in the act. Maybe—with all the stressors of the season, the impending trips, the long and slow recovery from stage four cancer—her mind just snapped and she lashed out? Breaks with sanity happen, and good, rational people sometimes do terrible things. In my mind, I have always suspected the head-blow to be accidental, things piled up from there, and a tragic set of events escalated into to death and the attempted cover-up.

Now, which scenario do you think more likely:

1) Patsy Ramsey, a well respected woman and decent wife and mother of whom no evidence exists of her abusing her children, discovers her husband, John Ramsey, a well respected man and decent husband and father of whom no evidence exists of him molesting his children, suddenly sexually abusing his daughter, six year-old JonBenet. Patsy then goes into a rage, grabs a heavy metal object and crushes--not her husband's skull--but her beloved daughter's skull.

2) JonBenet is murdered by intruders who broke into the Ramsey home under the mistaken assumption that the family had left for vacation in Michigan, one of the burglars having molested and murdered JonBenet after she discovered them in the house.


This is not a rhetorical question. I expect a sound and defensible answer.