Evil people - and things that don't fit

[wenchie]

Do people really believe that some eight-year olds snuck out of their house in the middle of the night, murdered Jonbenet, and then snuck back home and never told anyone?

Kids ALWAYS tell someone, and it's usually within a day. They tell a friend - or two - and pretty soon the whole school knows.

While I'm finally getting to the point that I can admit into my consciousness that B may have accidently lashed out at his sister and hurt her more than he ever intended to - a conspiracy theory involving a group of kids is absurd IMO.

 

[BlueCrab]

Do people really believe that some eight-year olds snuck out of their house in the middle of the night, murdered Jonbenet, and then snuck back home and never told anyone?

Kids ALWAYS tell someone, and it's usually within a day. They tell a friend - or two - and pretty soon the whole school knows.

While I'm finally getting to the point that I can admit into my consciousness that B may have accidently lashed out at his sister and hurt her more than he ever intended to - a conspiracy theory involving a group of kids is absurd IMO.

wenchie,

What makes you think they haven't told people? IMO they told the grand jurors. And they have the court gag order to save them if the truth slips out once in awhile and needs to be reigned back in. Secrets can be kept when you have the courts and the media lending a helping hand in carrying out a conspiracy of legally enforced silence.

For all intents and purposes the children were 10, not 8 years old. And no one necessarily snuck out of their house that night (although he could have) because the fifth person in the house could have been invited by the Ramseys and gone with the approval of his parents. Also, there may have been a young adult involved as well. The erotic asphyxiation device around JonBenet's neck has young adult written all over it. Most of the more than 500 accidental EA and AEA strangulation deaths in the U.S. each year are males in their teens and twenties.

BlueCrab

 

[GuruJosh]

Secrets can be kept when you have the courts and the media lending a helping hand in carrying out a conspiracy of legally enforced silence.
BlueCrab

But how is the media involved in the conspiracy, and who in the media knows the truth? Are you saying that there are multple reporters who know what the GJ decision was?

I still find it unbelievable that no on has blabbed, if that is the case. SOMEONE would be willing to risk jail.

And again, i have said this before.... i am in Australia. If you know the truth, EMAIL ME. Cos no one in the USA can touch me here, like it or not.

The fact that that hasn't happened makes me dubious about a conspiracy.

 

[BlueCrab]

But how is the media involved in the conspiracy, and who in the media knows the truth? Are you saying that there are multple reporters who know what the GJ decision was?

GuruJosh,

I think the court has been very selective but, IMO, the top guy in several of the networks knows the truth, and no one under each of them is gonna buck what is suggested by the guy at the top. Since children are involved, and they are breaking no law by conspiring to bring the case to a close, the networks are cooperating willingly.

Why else, without revealing the truth in rebuttals, would the networks promote the ludicrous IDI theory to the public when they must know better? And if they don't know better, God help us all.

BlueCrab

 

[narlacat]

I'm still so hung up on something that apparently means nothing to most others, and that is Patsy's appearance when the police first came to the door.

For a woman to have a total of about 5 hours sleep, wake up some time around 5 a.m., shower, put on full makeup & jewelry (and Patsy wears a LOT of foundation & other makeup) and then get completely dressed in the clothing she was wearing the night before (including blazer/jacket) before even going downstairs to make coffee is just beyond my understanding.

Who puts on a blazer before they've even had coffee? Who wouldn't dress down a little bit and put on something a little more casual for a private plane ride where only your family will see you? Who does all that before even going downstairs at such an early, early hour?

I don't believe that she ever went to bed the night before.

I dont know if she went to bed or not....but it is strange that Patsy was in full make up and wearing clothes from the day before.
It has been said though, that that goes in her favour because if she had been up all night in those clothes,surely after all that went on that night, she would have changed her clothes.
I didnt see the whole of the tv movie PMPT, but the part I did see, was where Patsy and John had gone on national tv and I forget which detective it was ,but he was really angry that she had worn the same clothes as she had somewhere else previously. He said she was only doing that to prove a point, that she does wear the same clothes two days in a row.

 

[dingo]

Dont know about you Narlacat but the only time i have makeup on my face that hour of the morning is whats left over from the night before

 

[IrishMist]

But how is the media involved in the conspiracy, and who in the media knows the truth? Are you saying that there are multple reporters who know what the GJ decision was?

I still find it unbelievable that no on has blabbed, if that is the case. SOMEONE would be willing to risk jail.

And again, i have said this before.... i am in Australia. If you know the truth, EMAIL ME. Cos no one in the USA can touch me here, like it or not.

The fact that that hasn't happened makes me dubious about a conspiracy.

I have to agree. SOMEONE would have leaked it.

 

[Nehemiah]

Do you think they telephoned their friends to come over very early, per John's statement that there were a lot of people there at 3 a.m. (paraphrased)?

 

[narlacat]

Do you think they telephoned their friends to come over very early, per John's statement that there were a lot of people there at 3 a.m. (paraphrased)?

I havent read that statement before....John has said a few things that dont add up. His 11am statement to JAR is curious too......

 

[dingo]

With the telephone records missing its another thing we,ll never know for sure.If the phone company looses your records do you still get a bill?

 

[GuruJosh]

it is impossible for a phone company to lose records like that. It just doesnt happen...

the only possible explanation i can see is that either John was mistaken about his phone having been used (is that possible? anyone agree with that?)

or else there really has been a deliberate decision to destroy his records for that month, which again, since it would be a conspiracy, strikes me as unlikely. For some reason i just don't buy conspiracies, because i don't think that people are capable of keeping secrets for 8 or 9 years like that. I certainly am not capable of keeping a secret for more than 9 minutes!

(anyone got some goss you want to tell me?)

 

[dingo]

not likely:crazy:

 

[narlacat]

it is impossible for a phone company to lose records like that. It just doesnt happen...

the only possible explanation i can see is that either John was mistaken about his phone having been used (is that possible? anyone agree with that?)

or else there really has been a deliberate decision to destroy his records for that month, which again, since it would be a conspiracy, strikes me as unlikely. For some reason i just don't buy conspiracies, because i don't think that people are capable of keeping secrets for 8 or 9 years like that. I certainly am not capable of keeping a secret for more than 9 minutes!

(anyone got some goss you want to tell me?)

Guru
There is no mistake about John's phone being used. He said so himself in one of the interviews over at ACR.

 

[dingo]

To be more serious Gurujosh, how many times have your phone records gone missing especially at the time like the ramseys were having,why wernt they sueing Ma Bell for loosing them ,after all those records could have been vital to their case .IF they were innocent

 

[wenchie]

wenchie,

What makes you think they haven't told people? IMO they told the grand jurors. And they have the court gag order to save them if the truth slips out once in awhile and needs to be reigned back in. Secrets can be kept when you have the courts and the media lending a helping hand in carrying out a conspiracy of legally enforced silence.

For all intents and purposes the children were 10, not 8 years old. And no one necessarily snuck out of their house that night (although he could have) because the fifth person in the house could have been invited by the Ramseys and gone with the approval of his parents. Also, there may have been a young adult involved as well. The erotic asphyxiation device around JonBenet's neck has young adult written all over it. Most of the more than 500 accidental EA and AEA strangulation deaths in the U.S. each year are males in their teens and twenties.

BlueCrab

Erotic Asphyxiation is used on the self. The sexual thrill is from the loss of consciousness. There would be no sexual thrill in doing it to someone else. And there would be no sexual thrill to Jonbenet to have it done to her - she was much too young. I've never understood Cyril Wecht making those statements about AE. They are opposed to everything else that was ever written about AE.

 

[Jayelles]

jameson has stolen one of BC's posts from here and started one of her pathetic BORG threads.

However, I am VERY glad she did because in doing so, she has presented us with a perfect example of why jameson has no credibility and why anything she posts should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. She says:-

.... Both Beckner and Hunter made it clear Burke was not a suspect. So has Steve Thomas and Mary Keenan. BlueCrab has a BORG theory that is NOT supported by the facts and Jayelles agrees with him. They are both BORG to the bone. A mind really is a terrible thing to waste - - but they refuse to fact the facts and move on - - so here is a thread just for them.
The BORG really is like an old-time lynch mob - - ugly and everready.

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID61/557.html

I am quite speechless! jameson thinks that Jayelles agrees with BlueCrab's theory!!! :laugh:

Quite clearly, jameson has a MAJOR comprehension problem in this respect. I do not and never have thought BDI. In the very first post on this thread, I posted this (after explaining why I didn't think the Ramseys were involved in JonBenet's death):-

The only scenario that really has merit for the Ramseys doing a massive cover-up is one where Burke was involved. This is the only scenario where I can see both Ramseys being involved in a cover-up together - but even it has flaws. I don't think they would have allowed him to leave their sight and I think Burke was almost certainly transfixed by his Nintendo that Christmas and likely to be oblivious to his little sister. I know my son was. I emphasise that I don't believe Burke was involved in his sister's death.

How DOES this woman reach her conclusions????

Does she not read the posts properly?
Does she not understand plain English?
Is she just posting lies....?

This is just one example of jameson's spaghetti thinking - there are many, many more. I have absolutely no idea where she gets some of her ideas from but NOTE that when she decides to quote posters from other forums, she NEVER puts a link to their posts. It is my opinion that she does this to hide the fact that she is spinning and lying about what was posted. Maybe she knows exactly what she is doing but if that is the case, she must really think people are stupid. The jameson groupies will blindly accept anything she says of course, but any respectable investigator/researcher will do their homework and when they see a post like the one above, they will either disregard it entirely (because of lack of sources), or they will seek it out to view it incontext and they discover that jameson has misrepresented the facts! They will also consider that if jameson misrepresents or misinterprets simple posts in such a major way - then she is not a source to be trusted!

Of course it may be no coincidence that she has made this attack on me following my recent criticisms about her selling the Ramsey interview tapes and how THAT would have caused stress which would have contributed to Patsy's ill health.


Therefore - spite or comprehension difficulties?

IMO, anyone who refuses to provide sources has ZERO credibility anyway...

 

[BlueCrab]

jameson has stolen one of BC's posts from here and started one of her pathetic BORG threads.

Jayelles,

In regard to the BlueCrab thread started by Jameson at the Swamp:

Jameson and her little gang of obedient BORI (bent on Ramsey innocence) post as if BORG (bent on Ramsey guilt) is a dirty word. She fails to mention that 77% of the public are BORG and only 23% are BORI.

Moeover, she posts that anyone who believes BDI (Burke did it) must be an idiot. Therefore, she's calling about 1/4 of the public idiots because 1/4 of the public believe BDI -- about the same number who believe that an intruder did it.

Also, note that she started the BC thread while she had her forum on protect, thus blocking rebuttals and the truth.

BlueCrab

 

[angelnsb]

I personally find it horrible that she would devote an entire thread to bashing your theory and entitling "the bluecrab special". I think you have backed up your theory with logical conclusions. I think it is truly a horrible thing that she took posts from here and started that thread. Isn't that the purpose of these forums to discuss different theories and evidence, and draw our own conclusions????? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[JBRMod2]

Jameson has no right to copy posts from here and especially not without a proper link to the original. I am checking the legality of what she has done.

I had been thinking that it might be helpful for new members and lurkers if we had a "who's who?" of some kind. Jameson can be included in this and that way, if she attempts to discredit any of our members, readers can weight up the value of her comments.

Anyone with suggestions of content, please PM me.

 

[Lacy Wood]

Jayelles,

Using ad hominem attacks, evasion, denial, etc, are all adverse reflections on both the accuser and the validity of his/her positions. If the facts and cirumstances are on one's side, you don't need to resort to devious tactics (well, maybe in self-defense as a last resort.) The presumption of being in the wrong points to those trying to label or demonize.

I don't really know your positions but I have read some of her "work" in the past, and if she's attacking you, that's a pretty good endorsement of your thinking. Hasn't she been disavowed by the very family she claims to promote? Something about getting a lot of money to turn over stuff about them? What groups could she still appeal to? Would they be people whose opinions you care about? For what it's worth, here's one who thinks better of you for what was written.