Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[2 percent]

And it also does not stop people from being convicted for a crime they did not commit.

I'm confused. We're talking about trouble with confessions. If someone confesses to a crime then claims they're innocent because their confession was technically wrong in places....isn't it their own fault for confessing?!

My point was that the confession by Sells in the Rea case greatly helped her to be acquitted even though there were several problems with the confession matching the facts and evidence of the crime.

She was found not guilty after being declared innocent, rearrested and retried.

There is no innocent verdict in the US legal system. She was never declared innocent. She was tried and convicted, her conviction was overturned, yes. But like most, her conviction was overturned on a technicality - if I remember right it had something to do with the prosecution using a special prosecutor. A totally legal technicality....but a technicality, not a judgement of guilt or innocence at all.

This case is unique. Not one other like it. I don't understand to bring in other cases... JMO

I was musing on confessions. This isn't the only case with a confession. Yep...musing, just like the posters who talk about similar cases, comparing them to this one and others. On this very thread even

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'm confused. We're talking about trouble with confessions. If someone confesses to a crime then claims they're innocent because their confession was technically wrong in places....isn't it their own fault for confessing?!

My point was that the confession by Sells in the Rea case greatly helped her to be acquitted even though there were several problems with the confession matching the facts and evidence of the crime.



There is no innocent verdict in the US legal system. She was never declared innocent. She was tried and convicted, her conviction was overturned, yes. But like most, her conviction was overturned on a technicality - if I remember right it had something to do with the prosecution using a special prosecutor. A totally legal technicality....but a technicality, not a judgement of guilt or innocence at all.



I was musing on confessions. This isn't the only case with a confession. Yep...musing, just like the posters who talk about similar cases, comparing them to this one and others. On this very thread even

Okay.. Not guilty.. The distinction is not important to me. The opposite of guilty is innocent.

She was retried and then found Not GUILTY by a jury of her peers.

IT does not really matter. That has nothing to do with this case because no one was every charged, tried or convicted. Not one Ramsey was charged. The DNA does not match any of the R's.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Okay.. Not guilty.. The distinction is not important to me. The opposite of guilty is innocent.



She was retried and then found Not GUILTY by a jury of her peers.



IT does not really matter. That has nothing to do with this case because no one was every charged, tried or convicted. Not one Ramsey was charged. The DNA does not match any of the R's.

Not guilty does not equal innocent.

Not guilty means the state failed to prove, beyond a responsible doubt, guilt,




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't look at it that way. Like everyone is guilty and then if they are found not guilty it is only a technicality.

To me you are INNOCENT until proven guilty. And if no finding of guilt is found you go back to being presumed innocent.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't look at it that way. Like everyone is guilty and then if they are found not guilty it is only a technicality.

To me you are INNOCENT until proven guilty. And if no finding of guilt is found you go back to being presumed innocent.

A person isn't innocent because they were found not guilty.

A person can be declared legally and factually innocent if they have been exonerated.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

Back to IDI what about two things, one is the man who said he was Jonbenets father aat a pageant and the other being the Santa with a secret

 

[Linda7NJ]

Back to IDI what about two things, one is the man who said he was Jonbenets father aat a pageant and the other being the Santa with a secret

Santa is off the table. IIRC as is FW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

Why? and what is FW?


It's amazing to me when reading through all the possible theories, the level of "cover up" that is required to make it so the Ramsey's did it. Like both of them are evil. (And we get that so many think that Patsy is the worst mother on the planet and every one of her actions have some evil ulterior motive.)

Their lawyers are also evil. The DA office is evil. Louis Smit is also evil and part of a cover up. On and on and on and on and on.

Look at how someone reams Patsy Ramsey for being disturbed by a man approaching her daughter by suggesting that Patsy was a bad mother pushing her daughter out into the rain without a coat on. The HORROR. Never considering that she had the coat with her in the first place and maybe there was another reason.

It's mindnumbing at times

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T56JONRBR7C5GTPLM

The latest false perp, the ominous man who approached JonBenet at the pageant IS KNOWN TO US. If these non-journalists at ABC had done even a modicum of research, they would have come up with the man, who called into the Peter Boyles Denver radio show on the Ramsey case on December 28, 2011. He stated he worked the Pageant of Lights parade days before JonBenet's death, and approached JonBenet BECAUSE IT WAS FREEZING OUTSIDE, AND PATSY WOULD NOT LET JONBENET PUT ON A COAT OVER HER PAGEANT OUTFIT. He wanted to know if she was cold, and Patsy shooed him away, saying she was fine. Listen to the man in his own words about in this segment. Obviously, Patsy would complain about the man to John Ramsey, SINCE HE DIDN'T APPROVE OF HER PARENTING by not letting JonBenet wear a coat. He also states he and his friends were threatened by John Ramsey and Pasta Jay after the murder:

As if the Ramsey's live in some alternate reality where a mother seeing a man approaching her daughter would only be concerned about him juding her parenting style, instead of being like any of the rest of the mothers in the world who would think "Men should know not to be approaching little girls as a stranger, I'm standing right here, why are you so concerned with my daughter and speaking to her without my permission."

 

[Linda7NJ]

Why? and what is FW?


It's amazing to me when reading through all the possible theories, the level of "cover up" that is required to make it so the Ramsey's did it. Like both of them are evil. (And we get that so many think that Patsy is the worst mother on the planet and every one of her actions have some evil ulterior motive.)

Their lawyers are also evil. The DA office is evil. Louis Smit is also evil and part of a cover up. On and on and on and on and on.

Look at how someone reams Patsy Ramsey for being disturbed by a man approaching her daughter by suggesting that Patsy was a bad mother pushing her daughter out into the rain without a coat on. The HORROR. Never considering that she had the coat with her in the first place and maybe there was another reason.

It's mindnumbing at times

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T56JONRBR7C5GTPLM





As if the Ramsey's live in some alternate reality where a mother seeing a man approaching her daughter would only be concerned about him juding her parenting style, instead of being like any of the rest of the mothers in the world who would think "Men should know not to be approaching little girls as a stranger, I'm standing right here, why are you so concerned with my daughter and speaking to her without my permission."

FW= Fleet White

From the forum posting rules listed in this forum:


"Remember, sometimes the rules are a bit different for this forum. Why? Because I know this case like the back of my hand and I pay the bills. Don't mean to sound so snitty but it's true.



No Fleet White did it stuff. No naming of innocent people as suspects.

Santa didn't do it, Fleet White didn't do it and so on. I will not allow the naming of innocent people as suspects.



The only true suspects in the case are John, Patsy and Burke.



If you have an "Intruder Did It" theory then you have to be able to acutally have evidence of this "intruder." No bashing of people formally in the Ramsey's circle of friends.



Now, if you want to talk about Fleet White fine. Just don't say or suggest, or even hint that he had anything to do with this crime. He and his family did not. They have been cleared and I won't allow his name to be dragged through the mud on WS.



Like I said, it's a bit different on this forum. Don't be afraid, I am not into banning people."

 

[MyBelle]

Why? and what is FW?


It's amazing to me when reading through all the possible theories, the level of "cover up" that is required to make it so the Ramsey's did it. Like both of them are evil. (And we get that so many think that Patsy is the worst mother on the planet and every one of her actions have some evil ulterior motive.)

Their lawyers are also evil. The DA office is evil. Louis Smit is also evil and part of a cover up. On and on and on and on and on.

Look at how someone reams Patsy Ramsey for being disturbed by a man approaching her daughter by suggesting that Patsy was a bad mother pushing her daughter out into the rain without a coat on. The HORROR. Never considering that she had the coat with her in the first place and maybe there was another reason.

It's mindnumbing at times

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T56JONRBR7C5GTPLM





As if the Ramsey's live in some alternate reality where a mother seeing a man approaching her daughter would only be concerned about him juding her parenting style, instead of being like any of the rest of the mothers in the world who would think "Men should know not to be approaching little girls as a stranger, I'm standing right here, why are you so concerned with my daughter and speaking to her without my permission."

BBM. If I noticed a child without a coat and the weather warranted a coat, I think I'd take notice and intervene. So what they had a coat with them? It should have been on the kid. There was no good reason for the child not to wear a needed coat. And, yes, it is a reflection on the parent.

JMO

 

[Chewy]

If a child is walking out of a building straight into a warm car it would be ridiculous to put the coat on a child over top of a pageant dress.

Those kinds of generalizations are nonsense to me. People decide that the way THEY do something is the best way and that anyone who does it differently is a "bad parent" and they need "super advice parent" to swoop in to say something.

I've had many people do the same thing to me in the past and it's laughable how much people think they know about a total strangers life. Whisking three kids into a warm car and driving without their coats on is much better than bundling them all up and then having them take it all back off inside the car.

It was cold, not pouring frozen sleet in a hurricane.

 

[MyBelle]

If a child is walking out of a building straight into a warm car it would be ridiculous to put the coat on a child over top of a pageant dress.

Those kinds of generalizations are nonsense to me. People decide that the way THEY do something is the best way and that anyone who does it differently is a "bad parent" and they need "super advice parent" to swoop in to say something.

I've had many people do the same thing to me in the past and it's laughable how much people think they know about a total strangers life. Whisking three kids into a warm car and driving without their coats on is much better than bundling them all up and then having them take it all back off inside the car.

It was cold, not pouring frozen sleet in a hurricane.

Cold is cold. Where did you get the idea the child was entering a car? I know schools that keep a closet filled with donated coats because some parents don't provide for the safety of their kids.

This thread is about an intruder not Patsy's lousy parenting style.

 

[2 percent]

Why? and what is FW?


It's amazing to me when reading through all the possible theories, the level of "cover up" that is required to make it so the Ramsey's did it. Like both of them are evil. (And we get that so many think that Patsy is the worst mother on the planet and every one of her actions have some evil ulterior motive.)

Their lawyers are also evil. The DA office is evil. Louis Smit is also evil and part of a cover up. On and on and on and on and on.

Look at how someone reams Patsy Ramsey for being disturbed by a man approaching her daughter by suggesting that Patsy was a bad mother pushing her daughter out into the rain without a coat on. The HORROR. Never considering that she had the coat with her in the first place and maybe there was another reason.

It's mindnumbing at times

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T56JONRBR7C5GTPLM





As if the Ramsey's live in some alternate reality where a mother seeing a man approaching her daughter would only be concerned about him juding her parenting style, instead of being like any of the rest of the mothers in the world who would think "Men should know not to be approaching little girls as a stranger, I'm standing right here, why are you so concerned with my daughter and speaking to her without my permission."

I'm a little confused about your approach here. The link too. Are you saying that lack of visual evil (horns, red skin, spiked devil's tail) equals innocence? :floorlaugh:

I know my approach is lighthearted but I really am curious about this. It seems the majority of your posts critique posters here, specifically on their opinions about admittedly surface subjects. Yet I don't see any opinion coming from you that isn't just criticism of others on this site. I've always found that when I think something is trivial I either ignore it or I steer the conversation back to meaningful.

So, what are your thoughts on this crime? Do you have a theory (you don't need one, just curious)? I'm not sure I get the significance of your link. I didn't see any reaming of Patsy. I saw a poster describing the incident from the point of view of the man who approached her and then the accusation that John throws his friends and others under the bus to deflect.

On the whole I don't think it's a bad thing for John to tell the police things that disturb/disturbed him or that he remembered later. But I also don't think names should be flung out there to deflect for no reason other than deflection (if that's what it is)...it can hurt people's lives and reputations to falsely accuse them.

 

[MyBelle]

How is Burke a suspect when the DA and police have stated he is NOT a suspect.

Also I didn't bring up anyone's name. But how is it possible to consider clues that showed up during the case without risking getting in trouble for mentioning a real thing that happened.

Also why are we not allowed to discuss real things that actually happened but in other thread people are allowed to COMPLETELY FABRICATE theories based on no evidence and more often their own biases and personal life experience and slander Burke?


Makes no sense to me at all. :facepalm:

So, to clarify, are we banned from discussing any real incidents that happened or only from mentioning the person's name?

I didn't bring up FW NJ did so she's the one that broke the rule. IMO

Nobody has libeled or slandered Burke. He hasn't filed any lawsuits so my best guess is that what has been discussed is based on truth. Truth is a complete defense to libel/slander.

JMO

 

[Chewy]

Cold is cold. Where did you get the idea the child was entering a car? I know schools that keep a closet filled with donated coats because some parents don't provide for the safety of their kids.

This thread is about an intruder not Patsy's lousy parenting style.

Cold is not cold. It's solipsism to say so. That's why we have pages of celebrity gossip criticizing Katie Holmes for not putting a coat on Suri. Plenty of mothers don't put their kids in coats all the time because the kid doesn't want to wear them. It's not horrible parenting.

Grown men should not be going up to little girls they don't know and asking them about themselves. It's creepy and wrong and crossing major boundaries.

 

[MyBelle]

Cold is not cold. It's solipsism to say so. That's why we have pages of celebrity gossip criticizing Katie Holmes for not putting a coat on Suri. Plenty of mothers don't put their kids in coats all the time because the kid doesn't want to wear them. It's not horrible parenting.

Grown men should not be going up to little girls they don't know and asking them about themselves. It's creepy and wrong and crossing major boundaries.

I think a grown man was capable of knowing whether it was too cold or not. There was nothing creepy about trying to help a cold kid.

Mothers who don't force their kid to wear a coat when it is necessary is a horrible parent in my book. I would have done the same thing.

JMO

 

[Chewy]

The kid wasn't cold. He didn't say anything about Jonbenet trembling in freezing shivers. It's creepy in my opinion and totally crosses a line. There's just no way a grown man can justify going up to a little girl when her parent is there, without going up to the parent first. Everyone knows that girls are taught to be wary of strangers approaching them. Even if he had good intentions it's putting her in a dangerous situation. I don't know a single grown man who would do such a thing.

Oh wait I do, child molesters. Clarifying that I am NOT saying he is a child molester. But I can see why Patsy was concerned. It's also concerning that in the public eye like this, then the events of the parties held at the house, there's a real possibility that someone could have gotten inside the home and wandered off and hid during one of these parties.

I'm also curious about the 911 call that happened the night before. That's very strange.

 

[Mama2JML]

Back to IDI what about two things, one is the man who said he was Jonbenets father aat a pageant and the other being the Santa with a secret

BBM

~Carnes Account. "On December 25, 1996, while playing at the home of a neighborhood friend, JonBenet told her friend's mother that "Santa Claus" was going to pay her a "special" visit after Christmas and that it was a secret. (SMF P 124; PSMF P 124.) The person who may have said this to JonBenet has never been identified. (SMF P 125; PSMF P 125.)" (Carnes 2003:101).

~PMPT Account. "Barbara Kostanick was the mother of a playmate of JBR's. She asserted: "The day before Christmas, JonBenet was at our house playing with Megan. The kids were talking about Santa, getting all excited. I asked JonBenet if she had visited Santa Claus yet. She said, “Oh, Santa was at our Christmas party the other night.” Megan had seen Santa at the Pearl Street Mall, so we talked about that. Then JonBenet said, “Santa Claus promised that he would make a secret visit after Christmas.” I thought she was confused. “Christmas is tonight,” I told her. “And Santa will be coming tonight.” “No, no” JonBenet insisted. “He said this would be after Christmas. And it’s a secret” (Schiller 1999:38-39)."​

PMPT makes it seem as if JonBenét identifies 'Santa' as an individual she'd visited @ the Christmas party on the 23rd, but Carnes' ruling indicates otherwise. IMHO, considering the 911 hang-up call, as well, this story re: a "secret Santa visit" is quite suspicious.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682525/What Neighbors Reported

 

[MyBelle]

The kid wasn't cold. He didn't say anything about Jonbenet trembling in freezing shivers. It's creepy in my opinion and totally crosses a line. There's just no way a grown man can justify going up to a little girl when her parent is there, without going up to the parent first. Everyone knows that girls are taught to be wary of strangers approaching them. Even if he had good intentions it's putting her in a dangerous situation. I don't know a single grown man who would do such a thing.

Oh wait I do, child molesters. Clarifying that I am NOT saying he is a child molester. But I can see why Patsy was concerned. It's also concerning that in the public eye like this, then the events of the parties held at the house, there's a real possibility that someone could have gotten inside the home and wandered off and hid during one of these parties.

I'm also curious about the 911 call that happened the night before. That's very strange.

How do you know the child wasn't cold? If it was too cold to the bystander, then it was too cold for the child. Gender is totally irrelevant. If a parent is right there, even more reason for a bystander to intervene. Patsy was indicted for child abuse.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

BBM

~Carnes Account. "On December 25, 1996, while playing at the home of a neighborhood friend, JonBenet told her friend's mother that "Santa Claus" was going to pay her a "special" visit after Christmas and that it was a secret. (SMF P 124; PSMF P 124.) The person who may have said this to JonBenet has never been identified. (SMF P 125; PSMF P 125.)" (Carnes 2003:101).

~PMPT Account. "Barbara Kostanick was the mother of a playmate of JBR's. She asserted: "The day before Christmas, JonBenet was at our house playing with Megan. The kids were talking about Santa, getting all excited. I asked JonBenet if she had visited Santa Claus yet. She said, “Oh, Santa was at our Christmas party the other night.” Megan had seen Santa at the Pearl Street Mall, so we talked about that. Then JonBenet said, “Santa Claus promised that he would make a secret visit after Christmas.” I thought she was confused. “Christmas is tonight,” I told her. “And Santa will be coming tonight.” “No, no” JonBenet insisted. “He said this would be after Christmas. And it’s a secret” (Schiller 1999:38-39)."​

PMPT makes it seem as if JonBenét identifies 'Santa' as an individual she'd visited @ the Christmas party on the 23rd, but Carnes' ruling indicates otherwise. IMHO, considering the 911 hang-up call, as well, this story re: a "secret Santa visit" is quite suspicious.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682525/What Neighbors Reported

It is very suspicious and begs the question who made the promise to her. I wonder if cops thought to check on who may have purchased a santa suit in that area or in Denver or even over the Internet.