We are only dealing in facts and reasonable scenarios from now on

[Tricia]

Hi Everyone,

It is taking me a long time to finally get this done so please be patient with me.


We will no longer allow any wild theory based on nothing but fantasy.

If you want to put forward a theory you have to back it up with something.

Example. If you say you think Santa killed JBR don't post about it here unless you can offer something that is not based in fantasy.

If you are going to say an intruder wrote the note guess what? You have to show us something that backs up your claim.

The Ramsey forum is different than all the other forums on Websleuths.

Websleuths is looked upon as the go to place for all true crime

It is cringe worthy when I read some random theory based on absolutely nothing.

In the future if you see a post that is not backed up with a fact or at the very least a reasonable logical scenario please alert on it. I will decide what stays or goes.

This will be a great discussion forum because we have no idea who killed JonBenet. The facts do not even hint at an intruder but there were three people in the house that night. That leaves us plenty to talk about.

This will be a work in process so please be patient with me. I have a ton of projects on my plate. This is only one.

Thank you,
Tricia

 

[andreww]

Thanks Tricia. Though I agree with your idea, I just wonder if removing offending posts after the fact will make threads even harder to follow than they already are? However. I can live with that if it will stop this endless back and forth that's being perpetrated by "fantasy evidence" as of late.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Many posts are simply based on speculation dressed up with large words and quotes from obscure sources.

Take the Pineapple thread as a case in point. The autopsy report cited pineapple being found in JonBenet's digestive tract, and that there was a bowl of pineapple found in the breakfast bar.

Yet some members are disputing these facts and the consequences for the Ramsey Version of Events.

The continual posting denying what has been settled fact on any other website would constitute trolling

Are these people paid to inject doubt and disinformation onto websleuths?

.

 

[gitana1]

Hi Everyone,

It is taking me a long time to finally get this done so please be patient with me.


We will no longer allow any wild theory based on nothing but fantasy.

If you want to put forward a theory you have to back it up with something.

Example. If you say you think Santa killed JBR don't post about it here unless you can offer something that is not based in fantasy.

If you are going to say an intruder wrote the note guess what? You have to show us something that backs up your claim.

The Ramsey forum is different than all the other forums on Websleuths.

Websleuths is looked upon as the go to place for all true crime

It is cringe worthy when I read some random theory based on absolutely nothing.

In the future if you see a post that is not backed up with a fact or at the very least a reasonable logical scenario please alert on it. I will decide what stays or goes.

This will be a great discussion forum because we have no idea who killed JonBenet. The facts do not even hint at an intruder but there were three people in the house that night. That leaves us plenty to talk about.

This will be a work in process so please be patient with me. I have a ton of projects on my plate. This is only one.

Thank you,
Tricia

I love you Tricia, but may I disagree with part of this? I don't know that it's true that "The facts do not even hint at an intruder." According to "U.S. District Court Judge Julie Carnes of Atlanta said in the ruling this week there was no evidence showing the parents killed Jonbenet and considerable evidence showing that an intruder killed the child." http://lubbockonline.com/stories/040603/nat_040603067.shtml#.VXn0IFIrPTo
BBM.

I studied this case quite a bit when it happened and for years after and felt firmly that the Ramseys were guilty. I can't say that anymore. I don't know the truth.

I don't visit this thread much at all though because it does seem that the only acceptable theory is that the Ramseys are guilty and this new rule might solidify that quite a bit.

 

[BOESP]

I love you Tricia, but may I disagree with part of this? I don't know that it's true that "The facts do not even hint at an intruder." According to "U.S. District Court Judge Julie Carnes of Atlanta said in the ruling this week there was no evidence showing the parents killed Jonbenet and considerable evidence showing that an intruder killed the child." http://lubbockonline.com/stories/040603/nat_040603067.shtml#.VXn0IFIrPTo
BBM.

I studied this case quite a bit when it happened and for years after and felt firmly that the Ramseys were guilty. I can't say that anymore. I don't know the truth.

I don't visit this thread much at all though because it does seem that the only acceptable theory is that the Ramseys are guilty and this new rule might solidify that quite a bit.

Carnes presided over a civil suit concerning whether or not the plaintiff had been slandered by the Ramseys, who insinuated the male Plaintiff was the Intruder. Evidence was not presented for a homicide, only for a civil suit, and Carnes decided against the Plaintiff. It was not a jury trial to decide who killed JonBenet.

Also, the trial was held in Georgia, the Ramseys home state and, well, I won't go there.

It is disingenuous to come to a decision based on evidence in a civil suit means there was no evidence indicating a Ramsey killed JonBenet. The Grand Jury in Boulder believed otherwise. They handed down a true bill.

 

[gitana1]

Carnes presided over a civil suit concerning whether or not the plaintiff had been slandered by the Ramseys, who insinuated the male Plaintiff was the Intruder. Evidence was not presented for a homicide, only for a civil suit, and Carnes decided against the Plaintiff. It was not a jury trial to decide who killed JonBenet.

Also, the trial was held in Georgia, the Ramseys home state and, well, I won't go there.

It is disingenuous to come to a decision based on evidence in a civil suit means there was no evidence indicating a Ramsey killed JonBenet. The Grand Jury in Boulder believed otherwise. They handed down a true bill.

I understand all that. However, the judge issued a 93 page report. It contains an explanation of the evidence the Court reviewed from both sides. I read the report. So while people may say, "Oh, it's corruption so nothing in the report is valid", or, "Well, it wasn't a criminal trial", that does not negate the fact that in a 93 page report, a court found that there was considerable evidence of an intruder, and outlined exactly what that evidence was.

Is the evidence accurate? I don't know. But these are facts being presented in a court of law - by a court of law - not rumor or innuendo. And those facts do indeed hint at an intruder.

 

[questfortrue]

I understand all that. However, the judge issued a 93 page report. It contains an explanation of the evidence the Court reviewed from both sides. I read the report. So while people may say, "Oh, it's corruption so nothing in the report is valid", or, "Well, it wasn't a criminal trial", that does not negate the fact that in a 93 page report, a court found that there was considerable evidence of an intruder, and outlined exactly what that evidence was.

Is the evidence accurate? I don't know. But these are facts being presented in a court of law - by a court of law - not rumor or innuendo. And those facts do indeed hint at an intruder.

If I interpret Tricia correctly, she is providing logical guidelines for members here. (The motivation for the reminder of guidelines may have been evoked by such an outlandish post last night, that anyone reading it may have thought the person was either a troll or an escapee from the state mental institution.) There is, of course, a lot to discuss pertaining to the evidence of the family’s involvement, and that has been a focus for many of us here. But it's also noted that no one is precluded from discussing evidence of an intruder as long as it’s backed up by “something” and isn’t simply wild fantasy or speculation. (IOW, I believe if someone is using the ouija board as a source, that’s kinda out of bounds. )

Recognizing the rules may not make sense to some, I also understand that this is a private forum. If we don’t appreciate these guidelines, that’s fine, because none of us have to be here. Personally, I’ve noticed great restraint on the part of mods in allowing some of the posts. (They seem to put up with a lot before they snip or remove a post or give anyone a timeout.)

BTW, some have brought quotes from the Carnes’ ruling to this forum in discussing some evidence and testimony. IIRC, no one has been banned for such discussion. I don’t attribute the same value to the evidence introduced in that case as I do to the information from detectives who worked the case or from interviewers who were familiar with certain reports. But that’s a discussion for another thread.

 

[BOESP]

I've read all the report too and was not convinced there was an Intruder.

 

[Tricia]

I love you Tricia, but may I disagree with part of this? I don't know that it's true that "The facts do not even hint at an intruder." According to "U.S. District Court Judge Julie Carnes of Atlanta said in the ruling this week there was no evidence showing the parents killed Jonbenet and considerable evidence showing that an intruder killed the child." http://lubbockonline.com/stories/040603/nat_040603067.shtml#.VXn0IFIrPTo
BBM.

I studied this case quite a bit when it happened and for years after and felt firmly that the Ramseys were guilty. I can't say that anymore. I don't know the truth.

I don't visit this thread much at all though because it does seem that the only acceptable theory is that the Ramseys are guilty and this new rule might solidify that quite a bit.

Did you the judge literally only heard Lin Wood's presentation? Literally. Because Darnay Hoffman was the worst lawyer and was working for Chris Wolf for free it was a disaster.

If you give me time I can come up with the documents that prove what I am saying is true.

The judge only heard Lin Wood's side. She had absolutely no choice but to rule this way.

This is the Ramsey spin that needs to stop. People hear a judge said there was an intruder and because she is a judge they think it has to be true. I know I would think this way had I not read what was going on with this case with my own eyes.

Gitana1 if I show you what I am saying is true what would you think? I know it sounds incredible.

Perhaps we can put this one rest on this thread right now.

I am traveling and won't be back on my computer until late Saturday. If anyone can help me with this information I would appreciate it

 

[Tricia]

If I interpret Tricia correctly, she is providing logical guidelines for members here. (The motivation for the reminder of guidelines may have been evoked by such an outlandish post last night, that anyone reading it may have thought the person was either a troll or an escapee from the state mental institution.) There is, of course, a lot to discuss pertaining to the evidence of the family’s involvement, and that has been a focus for many of us here. But it's also noted that no one is precluded from discussing evidence of an intruder as long as it’s backed up by “something” and isn’t simply wild fantasy or speculation. (IOW, I believe if someone is using the ouija board as a source, that’s kinda out of bounds. )

Recognizing the rules may not make sense to some, I also understand that this is a private forum. If we don’t appreciate these guidelines, that’s fine, because none of us have to be here. Personally, I’ve noticed great restraint on the part of mods in allowing some of the posts. (They seem to put up with a lot before they snip or remove a post or give anyone a timeout.)

BTW, some have brought quotes from the Carnes’ ruling to this forum in discussing some evidence and testimony. IIRC, no one has been banned for such discussion. I don’t attribute the same value to the evidence introduced in that case as I do to the information from detectives who worked the case or from interviewers who were familiar with certain reports. But that’s a discussion for another thread.

What we need to do is anytime someone brings up the Carnes ruling or quotes from it we need to bring out the evidence that shows how one sided the case was and still is.

 

[Tricia]

If anyone wants to read the definitive facts of this case then you must read James Kolar's book.

If you need a copy I will personally see you get one. Everyone who wants to discuss this case should read what the lead investigator for the D.A's office had to say.

Email me at triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com or PM me.

 

[questfortrue]

Did you the judge literally only heard Lin Wood's presentation? Literally. Because Darnay Hoffman was the worst lawyer and was working for Chris Wolf for free it was a disaster.

If you give me time I can come up with the documents that prove what I am saying is true.

The judge only heard Lin Wood's side. She had absolutely no choice but to rule this way.

This is the Ramsey spin that needs to stop. People hear a judge said there was an intruder and because she is a judge they think it has to be true. I know I would think this way had I not read what was going on with this case with my own eyes.

Gitana1 if I show you what I am saying is true what would you think? I know it sounds incredible.

Perhaps we can put this one rest on this thread right now.

I am traveling and won't be back on my computer until late Saturday. If anyone can help me with this information I would appreciate it

In response to your request, The rebuttal to the Carnes’ decision is included here:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...t-Judge-Carnes-Decision-A-Documented-Rebuttal


Condensed directory of the information posted in FFJ regarding the rebuttal to the Carnes decision:
THE STUN GUN - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60213#post60213

BROWN BAG AND ROPE - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60226#post60226 continued topic in posts 5, 6, 7, and 8

SUITCASE/BASEBALL BAT/WINDOW WELL - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60252#post60252 Further elucidated in posts 9, 10 and 11

BASEMENT LIGHTS/BUTLER DOOR - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60257#post60257

KNOTS - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60259#post60259 Continued in post 14

BASEBALL BAT - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60262#post60262

DISTURBANCE IN THE WINDOW WELL - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61079#post61079 Continued in post 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

THE SUITCASE - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61087#post61087 Continued in post 24

CONCLUSION SUITCASE AND WINDOW WELL MYTH - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61089#post61089

DNA/BOOT/PALM PRINT - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61110#post61110 Continued in post 27

Other information on the Carnes case can be found here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm

As Boesp comments, I also see no evidence presented in the Carnes case which in any way indicates an intruder. What the case did was help the RST to continue to promulgate the intruder legend.

Not covered in the Rebuttal to Carnes and an important subject within the Carnes testimony pertains to fibers. Unsourced fibers are mentioned frequently as pointing to an intruder. The Rs were both questioned at length about who had been in the WC prior to the homicide. Attorney interviewers uncovered that LHP, her husband, maybe her daughter, possibly a plumber, as well as the handyman and his friend (helping with the Christmas trees) all had been in the wine cellar prior to the homicide. JR says he could have been in the cellar prior to Christmas or on Christmas Day when he retrieved packages to transport on the plane. PR says she was in the wc wrapping or hiding presents prior to Christmas. She also commented that someone(s) from the party on the 23rd may have gone inside the wc to fetch wine. Unsourced fibers carry no weight as exculpatory evidence.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Was the, "The Pineapple Snack" thread deleted?

 

[CorallaroC]

excellent post by questfortrue - plenty of important reading there

(to OliviaG1996 - I too can't find "the pineapple snack" thread right now.... )

Tricia: has that thread been removed??

 

[gitana1]

Did you the judge literally only heard Lin Wood's presentation? Literally. Because Darnay Hoffman was the worst lawyer and was working for Chris Wolf for free it was a disaster.

If you give me time I can come up with the documents that prove what I am saying is true.

The judge only heard Lin Wood's side. She had absolutely no choice but to rule this way.

This is the Ramsey spin that needs to stop. People hear a judge said there was an intruder and because she is a judge they think it has to be true. I know I would think this way had I not read what was going on with this case with my own eyes.

Gitana1 if I show you what I am saying is true what would you think? I know it sounds incredible.

Perhaps we can put this one rest on this thread right now.

I am traveling and won't be back on my computer until late Saturday. If anyone can help me with this information I would appreciate it

Thats an argument as to why the evidence may not be valid or why it may not prove an intruder was responsible or existed. But that does not support the statement that no evidence of an intruder exists. I'm using my legal mind here. Not my subjective one. The veracity or validity of evidence and the existence of it are two different things. The judge decides what evidence gets in (here that's the mods) and the jury decides whether it's credible or important or misleading, etc. (the posters would be like the jury).

If I read documents that proved precisely what you said, (and I have no reason to distrust you), that an ineffectual attorney represented the other side, etc., I would tend to be more distrustful of the intruder theory and give the intruder evidence less weight. But that is a vastly different thing from saying the evidence does not exist.

One has to do with existence of evidence and one has to do with validity of evidence.

questfortrue's post made a lot of sense to me. Since I don't visit here but once every few years I was unaware of outlandish posts making things up out of thin air. I agree that kind of thing needs to be curbed. But this post here, as well as another post stating "I don't believe an intruder exists", (which is not what my post was about), or posts explaining why the intruder theory is wrong or the evidence weak, indicates to me that indeed, other points of view may be stifled some by the rules. Hopefully I'm wrong.

But it is true that the rules make Websleuths a great forum and I have deep respect for Tricia and all the mods. So, I apologize if I've overstepped, I will keep my feelings about this to myself from here on in and leave you all to it. Love you guys!

 

[BBB167893]

Also, the trial was held in Georgia, the Ramseys home state and, well, I won't go there.

Now I'm all in suspense!

It is disingenuous to come to a decision based on evidence in a civil suit means there was no evidence indicating a Ramsey killed JonBenet. The Grand Jury in Boulder believed otherwise. They handed down a true bill.

The judge in question never saw any of the actual police evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

In response to your request, The rebuttal to the Carnes’ decision is included here:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...t-Judge-Carnes-Decision-A-Documented-Rebuttal


Condensed directory of the information posted in FFJ regarding the rebuttal to the Carnes decision:
THE STUN GUN - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60213#post60213

BROWN BAG AND ROPE - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60226#post60226 continued topic in posts 5, 6, 7, and 8

SUITCASE/BASEBALL BAT/WINDOW WELL - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60252#post60252 Further elucidated in posts 9, 10 and 11

BASEMENT LIGHTS/BUTLER DOOR - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60257#post60257

KNOTS - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60259#post60259 Continued in post 14

BASEBALL BAT - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=60262#post60262

DISTURBANCE IN THE WINDOW WELL - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61079#post61079 Continued in post 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

THE SUITCASE - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61087#post61087 Continued in post 24

CONCLUSION SUITCASE AND WINDOW WELL MYTH - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61089#post61089

DNA/BOOT/PALM PRINT - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ision-A-Documented-Rebuttal&p=61110#post61110 Continued in post 27

Other information on the Carnes case can be found here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm

As Boesp comments, I also see no evidence presented in the Carnes case which in any way indicates an intruder. What the case did was help the RST to continue to promulgate the intruder legend.

Not covered in the Rebuttal to Carnes and an important subject within the Carnes testimony pertains to fibers. Unsourced fibers are mentioned frequently as pointing to an intruder. The Rs were both questioned at length about who had been in the WC prior to the homicide. Attorney interviewers uncovered that LHP, her husband, maybe her daughter, possibly a plumber, as well as the handyman and his friend (helping with the Christmas trees) all had been in the wine cellar prior to the homicide. JR says he could have been in the cellar prior to Christmas or on Christmas Day when he retrieved packages to transport on the plane. PR says she was in the wc wrapping or hiding presents prior to Christmas. She also commented that someone(s) from the party on the 23rd may have gone inside the wc to fetch wine. Unsourced fibers carry no weight as exculpatory evidence.

There's a book that devotes an entire chapter to the Wolf civil case. The author is a good friend of mine

 

[otg]

Was the, "The Pineapple Snack" thread deleted?

Pineapple thread? Are you sure there was a “pineapple thread”, OliviaG? I mean, that’s what we’ve heard, but how do we know it really existed. If it truly was pineapple, show me the report. Maybe it just looked like pineapple. It could have been a thread about apples, or maybe even pinecones. Pinecones look very similar to pineapples, you know. Without an official report, we can’t really say with certainty that it was a pineapple thread.

You might be saying to yourself that you remember it. But memories fade. Memory can be selective too. What you think you remember might not really be the what it really was. This doesn’t mean that you’re not telling the truth -- it’s just the way you remember it.

I’m a skeptic, I'm not saying it didn't exist. It's just that without actual proof, we are only speculating that it was a pineapple thread.

 

[otg]

(I hope my satire in the previous post doesn’t offend anyone.)

There was so much wrong with the situation leading up to the Carnes decision, it’s hard to know where to start. Tricia did a wonderful job in 2004 of refuting the conclusions stated in the summary judgment, and QFT has linked here the topics of some of the posts. But probably the most important thing to know about it was brought up by SD above:

The judge in question never saw any of the actual police evidence.

At the time of the Wolf v. Ramsey case, the BPD still considered the homicide investigation an active investigation and therefore were not willing to share any of the evidence they had. Their position was that this was a civil case, in another state, it didn’t involve them, and it might jeopardize their felony case if they provided any information. So they had no involvement in it.

Much of what Judge Carnes stated in her SJ is wrong according to what has since leaked out about the evidence. I’m not faulting the judge -- she only had the information that was provided to her, and as Tricia stated, that was pretty one-sided because of the representation that the plaintiff (Wolf) had. That lawyer (Hoffman), I think, had good intentions, but also had some serious problems. For one thing, he upset the judge because he was afraid of flying and did everything he could to avoid going in person. He also had health problems which some have speculated might have been the reason he took his own life years later (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?135907-Darnay-Hoffman-Committed-Suicide).

Gitana1, unless you really understood everything going on at the time of this case, it’s hard to pass judgment now. I’ll just leave it there for now.

 

[cynic]

Pineapple thread? Are you sure there was a “pineapple thread”, OliviaG? I mean, that’s what we’ve heard, but how do we know it really existed. If it truly was pineapple, show me the report. Maybe it just looked like pineapple. It could have been a thread about apples, or maybe even pinecones. Pinecones look very similar to pineapples, you know. Without an official report, we can’t really say with certainty that it was a pineapple thread.

You might be saying to yourself that you remember it. But memories fade. Memory can be selective too. What you think you remember might not really be the what it really was. This doesn’t mean that you’re not telling the truth -- it’s just the way you remember it.

I’m a skeptic, I'm not saying it didn't exist. It's just that without actual proof, we are only speculating that it was a pineapple thread.

Well said. :floorlaugh: