Is Patsy Ramsey losing her battle with ovarian cancer

[Rainsong]

Indeed -- as long as no-one tries to dictate to others how the facts should be interpreted.

I admit I have a terrible memory, but I do not recall dictating to anyone. However, given the lamentable memory, I could be wrong.

Rainsong

 

[BlueCrab]

To my knowledge I have not 'twisted' anyone's words. I have taken care to use their exact wordage.

Rainsong,

Sorry Rainsong, but that's not correct.

I agree with what GuruJosh and Voice of Reason pointed out to you. You didn't use my exact word and it changed the meaning of what I had posted. I said there was no credible evidence of an "intruder", and you quoted me as saying there was no credible evidence of an "outsider". The two words mean two entirely different things in my BDI theory.

The misquote could have been innocent, or it could have been devious. I don't know. But I do know that technique is SOP over at the other forum because it was used on me repeatedly during the few times I posted over there.

BlueCrab

 

[Rainsong]

Rainsong,

Sorry Rainsong, but that's not correct.

I agree with what GuruJosh and Voice of Reason pointed out to you. You didn't use my exact word and it changed the meaning of what I had posted. I said there was no credible evidence of an "intruder", and you quoted me as saying there was no credible evidence of an "outsider". The two words mean two entirely different things in my BDI theory.

The misquote could have been innocent, or it could have been devious. I don't know. But I do know that technique is SOP over at the other forum because it was used on me repeatedly during the few times I posted over there.

BlueCrab

I used 'outsider' because another person pointed out you use 'invitee.' Since you do not consider an intruder to have participated in the murder of JonBenet as you do not see any such ' credible evidence,' I used a different word. We could quibble over the semantics, but the fact remains, I'm still searching for any evidence that backs up your theory. Could you point me in the correct direction?

Thank you.
Rainsong

 

[IrishMist]

Hi, Rainsong, welcome to WS.

BC has put his theory, and it's evidence, all over this board.

WS has a search tool that you can use to find the posts of a specific poster.
Or, you can click on their name, and search for their posts that way!

'Tis pretty cool!

 

[Rainsong]

Hi, Rainsong, welcome to WS.

BC has put his theory, and it's evidence, all over this board.

WS has a search tool that you can use to find the posts of a specific poster.
Or, you can click on their name, and search for their posts that way!

'Tis pretty cool!

Thank you, Irish Mist.

I've been reading Blue Crabs theories for several years now and have yet to discover the evidence on which he bases them. His theories certainly sound respectable, but I keep looking for something tangible to validate them.

Rainsong

 

[BlueCrab]

I've been reading Blue Crabs theories for several years now and have yet to discover the evidence on which he bases them. His theories certainly sound respectable, but I keep looking for something tangible to validate them.

Rainsong,

"Validate" a theory? Theories are made-up stories based on enough credible facts to make the theory plausible. The theory's author fills in the blanks with his own facts and fiction to connect the known facts and thus complete the story. Theories cannot be validated until the full truth is finally known.

My BDI theories are based on the same credible evidence that just about everyone elses' theories are based on -- i.e., what we know from published books and articles; what we know from court depositions; what we know from the transcripts of police interviews; what we personally know; etc. Theories themselves are hypotheticals based on this known information, and cannot be "validated".

Please tell me how you can validate a crime theory without a court verdict, or a confession, or some other significant event that brings closure to the criminal case.

BlueCrab

 

[Rainsong]

Rainsong,

"Validate" a theory? Theories are made-up stories based on enough credible facts to make the theory plausible. The theory's author fills in the blanks with his own facts and fiction to connect the known facts and thus complete the story. Theories cannot be validated until the full truth is finally known.

My BDI theories are based on the same credible evidence that just about everyone elses' theories are based on -- i.e., what we know from published books and articles; what we know from court depositions; what we know from the transcripts of police interviews; what we personally know; etc. Theories themselves are hypotheticals based on this known information, and cannot be "validated".

Please tell me how you can validate a crime theory without a court verdict, or a confession, or some other significant event that brings closure to the criminal case.

BlueCrab

Validate has many meanings. In the context in which I used it, try substituting substantiate.

I'm not asking you to prove your theory(ies)--totally different from validation/substantiation. and not likely to occur unless the killer is arrested, tried and convicted--I'm asking you to show me the evidence upon which you have formed it(them).

Rainsong

 

[JBRMod2]

Validate has many meanings. In the context in which I used it, try substituting substantiate.

I'm not asking you to prove your theory(ies)--totally different from validation/substantiation. and not likely to occur unless the killer is arrested, tried and convicted--I'm asking you to show me the evidence upon which you have formed it(them).

Rainsong

Bluecrab has posted the reasons behind his theory on many occasions and if you have read his posts as you say you have, you will be familiar with these reasons.

This is a good example of why members should post their theories on the "Member Theories" thread above. In doing so, they will save themselves the effort to having to repeat themselves ad nauseam for those who can't or won't do the research themselves.

 

[Rainsong]

I've been at WS for awhile now even though I haven't posted much on the JBR forum. Lay off the validation of theory stuff. That's why they are called theories because they aren't based on puredee facts. They are based somewhat on facts with some suppostions and conjectures thrown in.

So it's acceptable to formulate theories based on nothing but conjecture?

Okay, let's take it from there.

JonBenet was killed by Toth's aliens who carried their trained mosquitos in a dark blue, trimmed with tan, cloth carrier tied up with 1/4 cord and secured with a six-inch piece of black duct tape manufactured a month prior to the murder.

Being aliens, they could beam themselves into any abode they chose. The Ramseys, those lucky devils, won that particular lottery. And, being aliens, they beamed themselves out of the home thus leaving no footprints in the snow. The foreign male DNA cannot be traced because it only appears to be human. The marks on JonBenet's body aren't stun gun marks at all--nor are they the result of the trained mosquitos. They were made by the aliens' antennae--or possbily their 'fingers.' Being high energy creatures and vibrating at a higher level than humans, the mere touching of human flesh created rusty patches on JonBenet's body and many experts are merely confusing them with stun gun marks, idiots that they are.

So, if the mosquitos were not there to inflict the marks upon the tiny body, what was their purpose? Why, to rouse JonBenet from her slumbers so the aliens could entice her to the kitchen where they had prepared a snack for her pleasure.

Since the killers are aliens, they have no need of paper or pens on their home planet where they exchange thoughts and ideas by telepathy, thus they did not arrive in the home prepared to write their missive. Upon sighting the paper and pens near the kitchen, they took advantage of the materials to pen the infamous note. And, being aliens, they have no human emotions, therefore they wrote the note with quite steady tenacles after disposing of their victim.

Being curious creatures, the paint brush intrigued them but the bristles tickled their delicate skin. After breaking the brush end from the art tool, they decided to explore their young captive with a portion of it. Not seeing any alteration in the physiology of the child, they tucked the end of the brush into one of their capacious pockets, swathed her body in a blanket and placed her body in the windowless room.

A poster on the wall in another room caught one of their twelve eyes--and then--then, dear friends, in unison, they spoke those famous words that were never spoken by Captain Kirk--

"Beam me up, Scotty!"



Rainsong (BC, I do agree with many points you make in several of your posts, but, not alas, the BDI theory.)

 

[Rainsong]

Bluecrab has posted the reasons behind his theory on many occasions and if you have read his posts as you say you have, you will be familiar with these reasons.

This is a good example of why members should post their theories on the "Member Theories" thread above. In doing so, they will save themselves the effort to having to repeat themselves ad nauseam for those who can't or won't do the research themselves.

I have read and re-read Blue Crab's theories. I can understand why he postulates said theories but am still looking for any type of substantiation for them. With the Patsy Did It theories, we have the note pad, pen, fibers, paintbrush. With the John Did IT theories, we have the same plus the sexual assault. What we don't have in either of those two theories is proof that either of them wrote the note or reason to believe either parent was capable of the murder based on past behavior and history.

I hope no one minds my little fantasy theory. It is only meant for fun.

Rainsong

 

[little1]

I have read and re-read Blue Crab's theories. I can understand why he postulates said theories but am still looking for any type of substantiation for them. With the Patsy Did It theories, we have the note pad, pen, fibers, paintbrush. With the John Did IT theories, we have the same plus the sexual assault. What we don't have in either of those two theories is proof that either of them wrote the note or reason to believe either parent was capable of the murder based on past behavior and history.

I hope no one minds my little fantasy theory. It is only meant for fun.

Rainsong

One also cannot judge wether or not someone was capable of murder based on past behavior & history.

Look at Jeff MacDonald, there really was no violent eruptions in his past---but the man is guilty as sin. His prosecutor said to the jury, "If I can prove that he DID do it, I don't need to prove WHY he did it."

 

[Rainsong]

One also cannot judge wether or not someone was capable of murder based on past behavior & history.

Look at Jeff MacDonald, there really was no violent eruptions in his past---but the man is guilty as sin. His prosecutor said to the jury, "If I can prove that he DID do it, I don't need to prove WHY he did it."

Well now, Jeff MacDonald is another story--and one in which I believe there is reasonable doubt. But his case is probably a different forum.

Rainsong

 

[Nedthan Johns]

"It was an awful thing to go through, but the media and the public have been so horrible to her, and in my opinion, have caused a lot of it," McLean said.

Ned: Mrs. McLean should get her head out of Patsy's *advertiser censored*!!! Patsy is and ALWAYS will be the number 1 suspect in this case. Perhaps if Patsy really wanted to be elimiated as the prime suspect she would have done everything she could to cooperate with police. No one caused Patsy's cancer.

It seems very un-likely that Patsy would pull through a fourth bout with cancer. I find it odd that John still resides in Michigan and is not with his wife even with Burke in school. These people have money to hire nanny's and besides Burkes is old enough now to stay on his own to finish school. This may be just more BS hype and drama in the life of the Ramsey's.

 

[Voice of Reason]

- - Intruder evidence vs. Invitee evidence (generally speaking, not specific to JBR) - -

Intruder: forced entry, things out of place, evidence that suggests in and out, outside material found in the house

Invitee: no forced entry, nothing out of the ordinary, evidence suggests the person was comfortable in the home, possibly some materials from outside of the home, but maybe not.

This is just a rough overview of the distinctions, and IMO, evidence points towards an invitee a heck of a lot more than towards an intruder. Most significant, in my book, has always been the level of comfort the perp, should he/she be an outsider, that he had inside that house.

As for BlueCrab's theory, I don't subscribe (sorry, BC ), but there is much evidence to support it. Hopefully, you will get the hang of the old search feature, but until then, allow me to offer some of the background...

Since BC's theory involves youth, the elements of teenaged male are quite prevalent in the ransom note, both in grammar and content. The length of the note also suggests the comfort level that would be found only in a Ramsey or a close friend of a Ramsey. If the "garotte" is deemed an EA or AEA device, which arguably the evidence can suggest, this is also something that teens may experiment with. The mix of elements from within the house as well as elements from outside the house suggest that this crime was committed by someone familiar of what they might find inside the house. Either that, or this suggests that this was a spur of the moment crime, committed following a sibling argument or game gone wrong. Also, the "foreign faction" has been equated by some to a university group of which one of BC's suspects was a member. The foreign DNA is also explained by BC's theory, because it involves an outsider. Do you need more?

 

[Rainsong]

- - Intruder evidence vs. Invitee evidence (generally speaking, not specific to JBR) - -

Intruder: forced entry, things out of place, evidence that suggests in and out, outside material found in the house

Invitee: no forced entry, nothing out of the ordinary, evidence suggests the person was comfortable in the home, possibly some materials from outside of the home, but maybe not.

This is just a rough overview of the distinctions, and IMO, evidence points towards an invitee a heck of a lot more than towards an intruder. Most significant, in my book, has always been the level of comfort the perp, should he/she be an outsider, that he had inside that house.

As for BlueCrab's theory, I don't subscribe (sorry, BC ), but there is much evidence to support it. Hopefully, you will get the hang of the old search feature, but until then, allow me to offer some of the background...

Since BC's theory involves youth, the elements of teenaged male are quite prevalent in the ransom note, both in grammar and content. The length of the note also suggests the comfort level that would be found only in a Ramsey or a close friend of a Ramsey. If the "garotte" is deemed an EA or AEA device, which arguably the evidence can suggest, this is also something that teens may experiment with. The mix of elements from within the house as well as elements from outside the house suggest that this crime was committed by someone familiar of what they might find inside the house. Either that, or this suggests that this was a spur of the moment crime, committed following a sibling argument or game gone wrong. Also, the "foreign faction" has been equated by some to a university group of which one of BC's suspects was a member. The foreign DNA is also explained by BC's theory, because it involves an outsider. Do you need more?

Ah, lack of evidence means the perpetrator was invited in.
Stephanie Crowe murder-no signs of forced entry, little evidence of intruder
Jessica Lunsford-no signs of forced entry, no evidence of intruder
Patricia Gertsch Hodges-found murdered behind locked doors, no signs of forced entry, no signs of a struggle or of an intruder.

Did all these people invite their killers in simply because there is no sign there was an intruder?

Rainsong

 

[Voice of Reason]

Ah, lack of evidence means the perpetrator was invited in.
Stephanie Crowe murder-no signs of forced entry, little evidence of intruder
Jessica Lunsford-no signs of forced entry, no evidence of intruder
Patricia Gertsch Hodges-found murdered behind locked doors, no signs of forced entry, no signs of a struggle or of an intruder.

Did all these people invite their killers in simply because there is no sign there was an intruder?

Rainsong

Where in my post did I suggest that this couldn't possibly be an intruder? I was merely pointing out some of the differences that COULD exist between intruder and invitee. (Trying to be objective) However, if you want to read the evidence most honestly, I think that the outsider DNA suggests it must be an outsider, but the rest of the evidence suggests an insider. Therefore, you can go with a combination of both, or an "outsider" who was actually an "insider", hence , invitee. I have seen you often post, "Don't ignore the evidence." Well, there is a lot of evidence that whoever committed this crime either knew the Ramseys, knew the house or both. That cannot be ignored if you are suggesting some crazed pedophile committed this crime...

 

[Rainsong]

Where in my post did I suggest that this couldn't possibly be an intruder? I was merely pointing out some of the differences that COULD exist between intruder and invitee. (Trying to be objective) However, if you want to read the evidence most honestly, I think that the outsider DNA suggests it must be an outsider, but the rest of the evidence suggests an insider. Therefore, you can go with a combination of both, or an "outsider" who was actually an "insider", hence , invitee. I have seen you often post, "Don't ignore the evidence." Well, there is a lot of evidence that whoever committed this crime either knew the Ramseys, knew the house or both. That cannot be ignored if you are suggesting some crazed pedophile committed this crime...

Your second note re: invitees prompted my response. Are we required to respond to an entire post vs a small portion? I ask because I believe an invitee would leave more obvious signs than proposed by your post.

Never would I suggest ignoring the evidence--not even a stray fiber.

But I do disagree with your assessment that the evidence points more toward an invitee rather than an intruder. I don't believe the words 'intruder' and 'stranger' are necessarily interchangeable.

Rainsong

 

[Voice of Reason]

Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is that one thing, if anything, that, IMO, is clear from the evidence, is that either the perp or someone involved in this crime was an "insider." Now insider could be any number of things...it could be a Ramsey, it could be a friend/acquaintance invited, or it could be a friend/acquaintance uninvited. However, I do not think there is much to suggest that this was a crime perpetrated by the local wacko. I guess this doesn't exactly narrow it down too much, but I think that people such as Helgoth and Oliva should be eliminated on the evidence alone.

 

[capps]

So it's acceptable to formulate theories based on nothing but conjecture?

Okay, let's take it from there.

JonBenet was killed by Toth's aliens who carried their trained mosquitos in a dark blue, trimmed with tan, cloth carrier tied up with 1/4 cord and secured with a six-inch piece of black duct tape manufactured a month prior to the murder.

Being aliens, they could beam themselves into any abode they chose. The Ramseys, those lucky devils, won that particular lottery. And, being aliens, they beamed themselves out of the home thus leaving no footprints in the snow. The foreign male DNA cannot be traced because it only appears to be human. The marks on JonBenet's body aren't stun gun marks at all--nor are they the result of the trained mosquitos. They were made by the aliens' antennae--or possbily their 'fingers.' Being high energy creatures and vibrating at a higher level than humans, the mere touching of human flesh created rusty patches on JonBenet's body and many experts are merely confusing them with stun gun marks, idiots that they are.

So, if the mosquitos were not there to inflict the marks upon the tiny body, what was their purpose? Why, to rouse JonBenet from her slumbers so the aliens could entice her to the kitchen where they had prepared a snack for her pleasure.

Since the killers are aliens, they have no need of paper or pens on their home planet where they exchange thoughts and ideas by telepathy, thus they did not arrive in the home prepared to write their missive. Upon sighting the paper and pens near the kitchen, they took advantage of the materials to pen the infamous note. And, being aliens, they have no human emotions, therefore they wrote the note with quite steady tenacles after disposing of their victim.

Being curious creatures, the paint brush intrigued them but the bristles tickled their delicate skin. After breaking the brush end from the art tool, they decided to explore their young captive with a portion of it. Not seeing any alteration in the physiology of the child, they tucked the end of the brush into one of their capacious pockets, swathed her body in a blanket and placed her body in the windowless room.

A poster on the wall in another room caught one of their twelve eyes--and then--then, dear friends, in unison, they spoke those famous words that were never spoken by Captain Kirk--

"Beam me up, Scotty!"



Rainsong (BC, I do agree with many points you make in several of your posts, but, not alas, the BDI theory.)

I wonder why this post stays ... while my very short previous post to lighten things up was deleted?

 

[Rainsong]

I wonder why this post stays ... while my very short previous post to lighten things up was deleted?

Me too!

Rainsong