Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[andreww]

How does the evidence conclusively prove that PR started it and JR finished it?

The link below shows autopsy photo's (graphic!). You'll never get me to believe that PR and JR caused that kind of damage to JB's skull NEVER!

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

That it is why it is so frustrating debating this case with most IDIs. You simply don't have the stomach for it. Guess what? Parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and grandparents are all capable of inflicting this kind of damage. Evil is not picky on who it chooses to control.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Major difference being? She wasn't being interrogated by the :cop: with their lieing conniveing ways!

You can stand up for her all you like, but sane, rational people see her for what she is. A parent will go to the ends of the earth for their child. The Ramsey's on the other hand were so concerned that they would be suspected (and let's be straight, all parents will be the first suspects) that they chose not to participate in the investigation at all. They begged for donations to fund their own unbiased investigation but used that money to help pay for their own defense.

Earlier you said that you'd never believe John and Patsy did this based on the extent of the injuries, but you completely ignore the fact that these people were so self absorbed that that their only concern was keeping themselves out of jail. Have you ever seen John or Patsy completely lose it while reminiscing about Jonbenet? The answer is no, because they never reminis about Jonbenet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexasTuff]

(bbm)If he said that, he indeed would have been lying. But that's not exactly what was said. He suggested that there was trace evidence that was in the process of being examined that appeared to link her (Patsy) to the death. But it's better to read it in context (emphasis mine):

20 TOM HANEY: We talked yesterday or
21 the day before too about I told you of a
22 personal experience of being a policeman, people
23 tend to lie to me and you told me a few minutes
24 ago that you're telling me everything that you
25 know about.
0592
1 PATSY RAMSEY: That's correct.
2 TOM HANEY: Okay. And that's all
3 been truthful?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
5 TOM HANEY: And I told you then
6 that I wouldn't lie to you. And I don't have
7 any reason to lie to you.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Great.
9 TOM HANEY: And I didn't lie to you
10 about the information, this medical information
11 that I told you about.
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay, this is very
13 hurtful.
14 TOM HANEY: I know that. And if I
15 told you right now that we have in the process
16 of being examined trace evidence that appears to
17 link you to the death of JonBenet, what would
18 you tell me?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: That's totally
20 incredible. (INAUDIBLE).
21 TOM HANEY: How is it impossible?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: I did not kill my
23 child. I didn't have a thing to do with it.
24 TOM HANEY: And I am not talking,
25 you know, somebody's guess or some rumor or some
0593
1 story.
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't care what
3 you're talking about.
4 TOM HANEY: I am talking about
5 scientific evidence.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't give a damn
7 how scientific it is, go back to the damn
8 drawing board. I didn't do it. John Ramsey
9 didn't do it and we didn't have a clue of
10 anybody who did do it. So we all got to be
11 working together from this day forward to try to
12 find out who the hell did it.
​

You need to listen in context (emphasis mine). Go to pg.77 and listen to what Haney says. First he calls it "trace evidence" then at about the 1:40 point of the interrogation in the video Haney calls it "scientific". Your own post shows it on 4-5 that he referred to it as scienticic (TOM HANEY: I am talking about scientific evidence.).

 

[TexasTuff]

Blast from the past (courtesy of whynut):

[video=youtube;At1sAG66-j4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At1sAG66-j4[/video]

:maddening: What an idiotic video! It's supposed to prove something because someone played a bleep in the interview over and over. You really ought to be embarresed that yu posted this.

 

[TexasTuff]

I think it is important to note that this case is not exactly like others because, IMO, the Ramseys became very early on convinced that the police were not their friends.

They were considered to be suspects from the beginning and that's how they were treated. BCP and prosecutors set out to prove their guilt not their innocence.

It's interesting that police can lie and make things up to come up with the results they want.


Eveyone is so convinced because the GJ True Billed them that they are guilty, that's what the prosecutions aims are with a GJ to present what is loosely believe to be true evidence. The GJ is at the mercy of the jaundiced view of the prosecution.


According to :
[FONT=ArnoPro,Bold][FONT=ArnoPro,Bold][FONT=ArnoPro,Bold]Cornell Law Review
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=ArnoPro,Bold][FONT=ArnoPro,Bold][FONT=ArnoPro,Bold][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]Volume 80
Issue 2
[FONT=ArnoPro,Italic][FONT=ArnoPro,Italic]January 1995 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=ArnoPro,Italic][FONT=ArnoPro,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]Article 10

Why Grand Juries Do Not (and Cannot) Protect
the Accused
Andrew D. Leipold

Mr. Leipold points out:

The prosecutor dictates the course of the proceedings, even judges are not allowed in the grand jury room; attendance is limited to the prosecutor, the jurors, the court reporter, and the single witness being questioned.


By traditional trial standards, a grand jury is allowed to consider a surprising, even shocking, mix of evidence. The prosecutor is not required
to inform the grand jury of evidence that favors the suspect, even if that evidence is exculpatory.Jurors are allowed to consider hearsay, illegally obtained evidence, tips, rumors, or their own knowledge of the alleged crime.

The Rules of Evidence do not apply, so the prosecutor can ask leading questions and pursue matters that would be considered irrelevant if presented at trial. The decision of which evidence to present is also in the prosecutor's hands: the suspect has no right to testify in his own defense, and if he does testify, is not allowed to bring counsel with him into the grand jury room.

The suspect may not put on contrary evidence, is not given access to the testimony of his accusers until the trial begins, and indeed, may not even be told he is being investigated. The result of these lax evidentiary standards, when combined with the prosecutor's discretion over the presentation of the evidence, is that grand jurors hear only what the prosecution wants them to hear, the most inculpatory version of the facts possible, regardless of whether that versionis based on evidence that will be considered at trial.

Broad discretion on the part of the prosecutor offers great potential for abuse: overwork, political pressure, laziness, and malice can prompt a prosecutor to bring ill-considered charges against innocent people or excessive charges against those who have committed lesser crimes.

In theory, these citizens (Grand Jury) are independent of the court and the prosecutor, and if it appears that the prosecutor is making unwarranted accusations, the grand jury should refuse to allow the case to go forward. (emphasis mine)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and if it appears that the prosecutor is making unwarranted accusations

But I ask HTH are they supposed be able to come to an accurate decision when the prosecutor is running the show and the accused person cannot even rebut the evidence?

 

[TexasTuff]

That it is why it is so frustrating debating this case with most IDIs. You simply don't have the stomach for it. Guess what? Parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and grandparents are all capable of inflicting this kind of damage. Evil is not picky on who it chooses to control.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's your answer? Well DUH, I know about parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. The skull shows that this was an extremely violent attack, much like the statement Helgoth made to his co-worker that he wondered what it woud be like to "crack a skull". The problem with PDIT or RDIT people is they have tunnel vision and refuse to consider anything else.

 

[OliviaG1996]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...enet-rehash-7354305+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Barbara Walters's John Ramsey Interview a Cringe-Worthy JonBenet Rehash
November 19, 201

"Okay, it was trash. But at least it was recycled trash. The bulk of the material consisted of old clips, including generous excerpts from Walters' tear-soaked interview with John and Patsy Ramsey in 2000. Lawrence Schiller, author of Perfect Murder Perfect Town, showed up to explain how Boulder's open-space policy is driven by a desire "to keep itself separate from the rest of the world." The last quarter of the show was basically handed over to John Ramsey — who, under gentle fawning and prodding from Walters, talked about how the family tragedy drained his finances and made him all but unemployable. He also introduced his current wife. (Patsy died in 2006.)Other than a brief glimpse of JonBenet's brother Burke as an adult, there wasn't much new here. Walters didn't go near what are arguably the only "newsy" developments in the JonBenet investigation in recent years — evidence that the DNA in the case is much more muddled than we were led to believe and the revelation that the grand jury voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey on criminal charges back in 1999, but Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter refused to sign off on the prosecution. Instead of tackling those juicy subjects head-on with Ramsey, Walters stuck to an old, old script. She insisted that the parents had been "officially exonerated" by Hunter's successor (a characterization the current Boulder DA doesn't accept) and that marks on JonBenet's body "exactly matched" the contact points of a stun gun (a canard advanced by intruder theorist Lou Smit, debunked by investigator James Kolar in his 2012 book Foreign Faction).
Details, details. Nothing was going to get in the way of the gooey, sugary story line Walters was determined to serve up — that John Ramsey is a man who has suffered much and come out smiling. That her whiffle-ball questions might have given him plenty of reasons to smile never seems to have occurred to her."

****************************
good review

This reviewer should definitely join WebSleuths if they haven't already! :clap:

 

[questfortrue]

(sbm)
OMG, Tad! I can't believe the picture Westworld chose to use. :floorlaugh:

Looks like they deliberately caught him while he was showing Barbara Walters how he got the nickname "lizard lips". :lol:

I lol when I saw that photo. It seems to me that photo was intentionally selected, a ‘tongue in cheek’ expression of the editor.

Prendergast’s integrity and his ability to frame in words what one may only have sensed, make him one of my favorite columnists. However, to appreciate him one usually needs to be able to pick up on nuance or distinction of meaning. (Inferring scientifically determined consistency of fibers linking someone to a crime is different than calling someone a killer. Distinction of meaning.) Prendergast mentions the DNA being more “muddled” than thought, less valuable in understanding the crime, yet doesn’t dismiss that it exists. (For the record, Prendergast didn’t select the term “muddled” out of thin air. It was from his discussions with a recognized DNA expert.) Anyway, I digress. But if I could clone Prendergast, and have him speak from a national stage, I would.

 

[OliviaG1996]

How does the evidence conclusively prove that PR started it and JR finished it?

The link below shows autopsy photo's (graphic!). You'll never get me to believe that PR and JR caused that kind of damage to JB's skull NEVER!

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

How about BR?

 

[Anti-K]

I think you just proved the bolded statement by showing that you don’t understand it.

“Totality” does not mean that ALL of the evidence only points in one direction. It doesn’t mean all of the evidence agrees with itself. All of anything includes each individual item. “Totality” means the state of being total -- the sum. IOW, take all the plusses and minuses and add them up to get the total. The totality takes into consideration all of the known evidence (culpatory and exculpatory) and sums it up to a conclusion. While you can say that the totality of evidence is a preponderance one way or another; that preponderance is simply the weight given to the larger amount. Preponderance indicates which is the larger portion of the total. A preponderance of evidence is the burden of proof required in civil litigations. Criminal law requires a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It would be correct (and maybe even more accurate) to say “that the preponderance of the evidence, or the majority of it, the most, something, etc.” But it is still correct to also say the totality of evidence when expressing one’s opinion about it. It’s all opinion anyway.

The definition of totality you use here is a mathematical concept which is NOT what we are dealing with here. Thanks for proving my point.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

That it is why it is so frustrating debating this case with most IDIs. You simply don't have the stomach for it. Guess what? Parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and grandparents are all capable of inflicting this kind of damage. Evil is not picky on who it chooses to control.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You miss the point. It isn’t that parents (etc) aren’t capable of committing such acts, it is that there is no evidence to show that THESE parents were capable of committing such acts.
…

AK

 

[TexasTuff]

How about BR?

You honestly believe a 9yr. old could have done that?

 

[Tadpole12]

Blast from the past (courtesy of whynut):

vintage, classic, ty otg.

 

[TexasTuff]

The video proves nothing; nor was it supposed to. It's something called humor that some people might get a chuckle out of, and others may not. If you don't, just "scroll and roll", or -- like the Ramseys -- just "move on with your life". (In case you didn't know, John Ramsey's whip-like tongue lapping is the stuff of legend.)

But actually (since you brought it up), I would be much more “embarresed” (sic) if I had posted about my being married to someone in LE for 31 years (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Jon-Benet-Ramsey-Poll&p=12184470#post12184470) and then made a statement like this: If that is the impression of LE you’ve gotten from your husband, I’ll offer you my sympathies. But please don’t bring your preconceived ideas here and try to apply them to this case or to others.

I think I’d also be just a little bit “embarresed” (sic) about not paying any attention to the spell-checker here at WS that automatically tells you when you’ve misspelled a word (or two, or three).

For starters my husband and I are pro law enforcement. My husband doesn't post here or offer me advice on what to say in my posts, so leave my husband out of this. We've been married for 53yrs not 31, he was in law enforcement for 31 (do learn to read better).

Even though I'm pro law enforcement I do believe their methods are screwie, they expect the public to be honest yet they can lie and mislead whenever it suits them. You need to take a lesson from what I said because they know the game a lot better than you obviously do.

The GJ being the worst since the jurors are at the mercy of whatever the prosecution wants to tell them.

Everything was going pretty good til you showed up and started showing your :behind:. Boo Hoo, you can't take a couple of mis-spelled words :violin:.

Your a real TROLL!

Good night Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are :bed: SAY HELLO TO IGGY!

 

[OliviaG1996]

You honestly believe a 9yr. old could have done that?

Yes. You don't need to be the size of the Hulk in order to crack a child's skull, especially with a heavy object.

 

[TexasTuff]

Yes. You don't need to be the size of the Hulk in order to crack a child's skull, especially with a heavy object.

So the parents seeing she is obviously out like a light instead of calling 911 they decide to garrote her?

 

[giagreen]

The video proves nothing; nor was it supposed to. It's something called humor that some people might get a chuckle out of, and others may not. If you don't, just "scroll and roll", or -- like the Ramseys -- just "move on with your life". (In case you didn't know, John Ramsey's whip-like tongue lapping is the stuff of legend.)

But actually (since you brought it up), I would be much more “embarresed” (sic) if I had posted about my being married to someone in LE for 31 years (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Jon-Benet-Ramsey-Poll&p=12184470#post12184470) and then made a statement like this: If that is the impression of LE you’ve gotten from your husband, I’ll offer you my sympathies. But please don’t bring your preconceived ideas here and try to apply them to this case or to others.

I think I’d also be just a little bit “embarresed” (sic) about not paying any attention to the spell-checker here at WS that automatically tells you when you’ve misspelled a word (or two, or three).

Seriously? Bringing up spelling errors and personal life? That's just being mean.

 

[TexasTuff]

Seriously? Bringing up spelling errors and personal life? That's just being mean.

gia, What is the R.I.P. Cory Cole about?

 

[giagreen]

gia, What is the R.I.P. Cory Cole about?

Oh he was a little boy that was murdered by his abusive father. I forgot I even had that as a signature till you asked. Is been a while.
But idk for some reason his story really stuck with me.

 

[BOESP]

So the parents seeing she is obviously out like a light instead of calling 911 they decide to garrote her?

Well, the FBI believed there was staging within staging although James Kolar believed the ligature was not a part of the staging but, apparently, a planned part of the crime. (My paraphrasing.)

So, yes I believe Patsy decided to take things into her own hands instead of calling 911. Simply put, I'd call it CYA.

Grand juries, according to statistics, are correct about 98-99% of the time. I once posted links here to several government statistics concerning this and child homicides. I'd now recommend doing a Google search for more up-to-date information if one is interested.