For the last time, BURKE DIDN'T DO IT!!

[DocWatson]

Dave on Webbsleuths???...LOL! What a crock of BS! And where exactly did "Dave" get a copy of the complete, un-edited, un-redacted, version of the 911 tape that Keenan has not released to the public and nobody has heard? You know, the version of the 911 tape that doesn't have the gap at the end which omits Burke's voice... Oh, I forgot, over on the Swamp if you don't have all the facts and information, you just fake the truth and make up the rest by lying..

Dave did a SCIENTIFIC analysis of the identical tapes that many others claim to have heard Burke (what DID you find), John (we're not talking to you) and Patsy (help me Jesus). If you would like to point me to a valid refutation of his analysis, I would be happy to read it. But unlike you, I don't follow the fallacious path of dismissing everything someone says because of where he posts. I follow the EVIDENCE. Dave has convincingly shown that the identical stray sounds that appear at the end of that tape, that RDI theorists love to twist into imagined proof that Burke was up that early morning. His careful scientific analysis stands unrebutted.

You've given yourself away DocWatson, You're one of the Swampettes over here to spread the lies of your skanky leader. Now that we know where you get all your false information we can put it into the perspective it belongs--RST propaganda.

If my purpose were to deceive you into spreading lies, why in the world would I "give myself away" by reporting that I believed Dave's analysis on Webbsleuths? I am solely interested in the truth and am perfectly willing to let chips fall where they may. I have no stake in whether Ramseys are innocent or guilty (can you honestly say the same? you sound pretty biased against them). I have long and carefully followed BlueCrab's BDI theory, for example, because it seemed to explain a lot of the intruder facts. But at the end of the day, I believe that theory fails the commonsense "sniff" test and ultimately creates more evidentiary problems than it solves (he somehow has to explain how TWO invited intruders managed to leave the house without leaving even a trace of having been there AND he has no plausible explanation for why parents would cover up for a teen/young adult who induced their 9-year old son into deviate AEA activities. At the end of the day, his theory doesn't compute. jPDI and JDI theories fail for different reasons.

Try being a real sleuth instead of an RDI groupie. Follow the evidence. Evaluate it objectively. Don't automatically dismiss a valid evidentiary point simply because it was uttered by someone you believe is the "enemy." This case won't be solved by breaking into 10 different "camps" and throwing bricks at one another. But of course some people get a big charge out of throwing bricks, in which case they should honestly acknowledge (to themselves at least) that they really have no genuine interest in finding out the truth about who killed JBR.

 

[DocWatson]

From Doc Watson: I find it amusing to see Lou Smit ridiculed right and left for his various theories when he says things people don't like and then later used as an authority when he happens to say something that supports the cockamamie theories trotted out here. The fact that Lou Smit said the pineapple is problematic doesn't make it so.

What's wrong with that picture?

The problem with an intruder theory IS the pineapple. Smit's answer to it is - there was pineapple in tuberware up in JonBenet's room; she woke up that night and ate it.

So, even Smit admits the pineapple is problematic and comes up with a ridiculous scenerio to account for it.

Let us pray....

Lou Smit isn't God, in my book. I can believe his stun gun theory without supporting the ludicrous claims he has made to support it (e.g., that one can observe the blue arc a stun gun creates on JBR's skin). I'm not familiar with the tupperware claim of Smit's. If there was tupperware in JBR's room, why would we dismiss his claim out of hand? If he's fabricating evidence not present, that obviously isn't compelling.

But what I find interesting is that NONE of you RDI theorists have responded to my challenge to come up with a credible RDI or friendly intruder scenario in which JBR ingested the pineapple a full two hours before death (I am relying on the expertise of the coroner in making this time estimate unless one of you can demonstrate they have superior knowledge on this point). What you will discover is that the only way you can devise a scenario that makes any sense is by SEPARATING the pineapple eating from the crime itself. JBR wasn't "lured" by pineapple downstairs, by John, by Burke or by a "friendly intruder" (or even an unfriendly intruder such as BAD's). That pineapple was consumed in complete innocence either before they left for the party (with digestion delayed by all the excitement of that night) or perhaps sneaked unbeknownst to parents after they were in bed. But neither of these possibilities precludes an intruder later being involved in the murder.

 

[Britt]

But what I find interesting is that NONE of you RDI theorists have responded to my challenge to come up with a credible RDI or friendly intruder scenario in which JBR ingested the pineapple a full two hours before death...

Hi Doc. Where is the mystery here? It could've happened something like this:

When the Ramseys came home from the Whites, whenever that was, 9:00 to 10:00, something like that, the kids ate pineapple and went to bed.

Around midnight (or 11:30 or 12:30 or whenever), JB got up or was woken up to go to the bathroom, or for some other purpose, and she ended up near death after an unintentional blow to the head or unintentional choking during an altercation.

Then the parents staged the scene and the garrote killed JB, whether intentionally or not. IMO Patsy and/or John is/are responsible for the unintentional critical injury prior to the staging, as well as the sexual abuse. (IMO Burke had nothing to do with any of it.) The pineapple is perfectly consistent with such a RDI theory. It's possible the killer wasn't even aware JB ate the pineapple.

 

[sissi]

Britt, that sounds reasonable,however, what reason do you find within that scenario for the Ramseys to claim she was asleep and that she ate the pineapple. There is no sound reason for them to make such claims if she did these things, went to bed, and wasn't there in the morning. It neither makes or breaks their position of innocense.

 

[sissi]

Depositions aren't made public here. We have a whole different legal system where EVERYTHING is classified until there is a trial. There is also a total media blackout on cases until the trial too.

I'd be wary of interpreting someone's words on the basis of a transcript. Sometimes you see something written down, but when it is spoken, it comes across very differently.

Doesn't this sound so sensible!!

In our efforts to grant so many freedoms, we have made many victims by blasting nonsense and lies across our media. This coupled with "creative" editting , and yes I have seen this in the Ramsey case, where a statement is neatly placed with an entirely different question than that which was originally answered. Example, if at some point one was asked what time they checked their mail, and the answer was 11, later, that answer could appear when asked what time did you find the body, neatly editted in, in both print and tape. I have been victim of this, on both taped American news programs, magazine programs and in People magazine. Only when you speak on live television, can you be certain your words are placed where you intend.
Yes to Arnd2it, I am "goody two shoes", I have a reputation for honesty and people tend to trust me because of this . I have uncovered lies in big systems, and called them on it, I have been deposed by lawyers representing major corporations and maintained honesty , so IT CAN be done .

 

[Britt]

Britt, that sounds reasonable,however, what reason do you find within that scenario for the Ramseys to claim she was asleep and that she ate the pineapple. There is no sound reason for them to make such claims if she did these things, went to bed, and wasn't there in the morning. It neither makes or breaks their position of innocense.

Because it made the whole cover story easier, made an intruder theory more credible (if the family was up and about, how and when did the intruder manage his crime without getting caught?), and prevented police questioning about the critical time period. Such questioning would be very risky for the Ramseys. What if JB never went to bed? What if Burke knows that, making Burke a material witness against his parents? What if the three Ramseys couldn't keep their stories straight about everyone's activitites upon arriving home? If they admitted JB was awake at all, it would get very complicated and risky... better to just not go there at all. Hence, the "we were all sound asleep" lie. IMO

Nice to see you, Sissi

 

[TLynn]

Ditto to Britt's post.

JonBenet was simply not asleep when she got home.

 

[Jayelles]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayelles
Depositions aren't made public here. We have a whole different legal system where EVERYTHING is classified until there is a trial. There is also a total media blackout on cases until the trial too.

I'd be wary of interpreting someone's words on the basis of a transcript. Sometimes you see something written down, but when it is spoken, it comes across very differently.


SISSI >> Doesn't this sound so sensible!! ........

I'd just like to clarify that I am in NO WAY suggesting that the ST transcripts are innaccurate. Candy has made a post at Purgatory which suggests that some people have managed to interpret my comment as me "lying" about the transcript being innaccurate. I'm actually at a total loss as to how anyone could take this meaning from my comment, but there we are! I guess some people are just a bit too hasty in their desperation to look clever!

Candy says:-

Jayelles lies on this case are well documented, and Margoo and Jameson have done a good job demolishing hir recent ones.

This one hir posted on Websleuths is false, on ST's depo: "I'd be wary of interpreting someone's words on the basis of a transcript. Sometimes you see something written down, but when it is spoken, it comes across very differently."

ST's depo, as all depos from the Wolf case WAS VIDEOTAPED, and the transcript checks out against the videotape. Hir is a liar. That transcript is accurate. Any jury would be able to request seeing how he answered questions.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/PurgatoryII/messages?msg=2183.76

Just for the record, I'd like to point out that I was NOT suggesting in any way shape or form that the transcript is innaccurate. My comment was a simple, general observation about reading sentiment into the written word. The way that something is said is often very different from how it looks on paper.

It is possible that the miscontrued interpretation of my comment is posted at jameson's forum on a recently bumped up "BORG" thread. I know many of you don't read jameson's at all. I read many of the threads there, but I never read these frivolous threads for the very reason that they tend to contain little more than garbage such as the example above.

 

[Jayelles]

Dave did a SCIENTIFIC analysis of the identical tapes that many others claim to have heard Burke (what DID you find), John (we're not talking to you) and Patsy (help me Jesus). If you would like to point me to a valid refutation of his analysis, I would be happy to read it. But unlike you, I don't follow the fallacious path of dismissing everything someone says because of where he posts. I follow the EVIDENCE. Dave has convincingly shown that the identical stray sounds that appear at the end of that tape, that RDI theorists love to twist into imagined proof that Burke was up that early morning. His careful scientific analysis stands unrebutted.

Hey DocWatson, I did my own scientific analysis of the tape and I found not only John and Burke's voices on the end of the tape, but that of a second adult male saying "Ah did NOT have sexual intercourse with THAT woman"...

How did I perform my analysis? Well, I have this old beaten up computer that still works and I downloaded a free version of some audio software from the Internet. Then, using a little program I wrote myself and my specially "trained ear", I proved that those voices are on there.

My careful scientific analysis stands unrebutted (except by one very distinguished Forensic Audio expert who posed some basic questions about my methodology that I wouldn't/couldn't/refused to answer). How can anyone dispute my findings? For starters, they don't have a copy of my home-spun program OR my specially "trained ear" LOL (Sheesh - who needs Aerospace?) ? If you are interested in reading more, I did write a long waffly report about it filled with superfluous technobabble. No-one can understand a word of it so they can't exactly argue the points in it.....

TIC.

 

[DocWatson]

Because it made the whole cover story easier, made an intruder theory more credible (if the family was up and about, how and when did the intruder manage his crime without getting caught?), and prevented police questioning about the critical time period. Such questioning would be very risky for the Ramseys. What if JB never went to bed? What if Burke knows that, making Burke a material witness against his parents? What if the three Ramseys couldn't keep their stories straight about everyone's activitites upon arriving home? If they admitted JB was awake at all, it would get very complicated and risky... better to just not go there at all. Hence, the "we were all sound asleep" lie. IMO

Nice to see you, Sissi

Let me get this straight: saying that JBR went to bed at 10:00 and intruder came 2 hours later makes things "very complicated and risky/" If Burke can already be a material witness against his parents, that "truth" can't be evaded by lying about JBR being asleep when she got home. On the contrary, every lie they add to the mix merely complicates matters further since now they are not only relying on Burke not to lie about what happened AFTER 10:00 but also about a simple matter of what happened when they got home, even though what they did when they got home has NO BEARING on what happened 2 hours later.

Can't you see how pointless this lie was and how it made their situation more complicated and risky rather than less?

 

[DocWatson]

Jayelles,
Dave has posted his results and methodology for all to see, hear and critique (that's the way science works, by subjecting what one has done to peer review). You can judge for yourself whether the alleged Burke "voice" at the end isn't virtually identical to the mechanical sound at the BEGINNING of the tape. Just because you evidently aren't competent enough to understand Dave's "technobabble" doesn't invalidate it, does it?

Let's pretend the tape really DOES have Burke saying "what DID you find" at the end instead of the more likely (p<.0001) case that all we are hearing is a mechanical sound. What PLAUSIBLE theory of the case has him saying something so ridiculous?
It would rule out BDI/parent's cover-up [which seems to be the favorite BDI "flavor" around here given that it makes no sense for the RN to have so much "insider" about info about John and such a contemptuous attitude towards him] since it would make no logical sense for Burke to inquire about a deed he'd done and his parents had helped cover up! NO LOGICAL SENSE!

Likewise, it would make no sense in the case of Burke knowing what parents did and having observed them up all night.

It would ONLY make sense in a context that Burke had slept undisturbed all night, heard the hoopla surrounding the 911 call, came downstairs and while Patsy was finishing up with 911 operator, innocently inquired what had been found. But such a scenario requires no lies! If that's what happened, then Ramseys are in a position to pull the wool over Burke's eyes as easily as LE's. Indeed, all the better, since while waiting for LE to arrive, they can "prime" him to lie too by elaborating on what happened, "reminding" him that all had gone to bed at X time and then grilling him about whether he'd heard anything during the night and if he said yes, saying "That must have been the Intruder! Oh, honey, we are SO glad he didn't get you!" At that point, it would actually HELP them to have Burke recount what he "knows."

Please give me a CREDIBLE RDI or BDI scenario in which the words "What DID you find?" make any sense whatsoever. They don't because the words themselves never happened.

 

[Jayelles]

Jayelles,
Dave has posted his results and methodology for all to see, hear and critique (that's the way science works, by subjecting what one has done to peer review). You can judge for yourself whether the alleged Burke "voice" at the end isn't virtually identical to the mechanical sound at the BEGINNING of the tape.

DocWatson, Dave's analysis was NOT subjected for peer review because he used a secret ingredient in the form of a program which he wrote himself. Nowhere did he offer proof of the effectiveness of his home-spun program. He could have done so by using some of the "before enhancement" audio clips which are available on the Internet and doing a side-by side comparison with the corresponding "after enhancement" audio clips.

Just because you evidently aren't competent enough to understand Dave's "technobabble" doesn't invalidate it, does it?

First of all, I think you are being extremely rude and presumptious to make assumptions about my competence when you don't know me.

Actually, what invalidates Dave analysis is the absence of the proof of testing his own software, absence of a detailed discussion of spectrographical analysis (fundamentally crucial in forensic audio analysis), the fact that he used outdated equipment and was scathing of the need for the specialised and sophisticated hardware which is used in Forensic Audio Analysis, the fact that he did not allude to any of the standards for Forensic Audio Analysis.....

Another thing that undermines Dave's entire analysis is the fact that he dismissed a question posed by one of America's foremost Forensic Audio specialists as comig from someone who "doesn't know what they are talking about". That was a killer for me. Dave would be pretty embarassed if he knew who had asked that question.

Finally, DAve did his little experiment and REFUSED to discuss it with anyone unless he/she had conducted the same experiment safe in the knowledge that no-one could - because no-one but Dave has the "secret ingredient" in the form of Dave's home-spun little program.

Credibility? Sorry - zilch.

 

[aRnd2it]

Dave did a SCIENTIFIC analysis :liar:
I follow the EVIDENCE. :liar:
His careful scientific analysis stands unrebutted. :liar:

WRONG on all threee counts.
Dave is a liar and a fraud. He claims Burke's voice in not on the tape which is nothing but stupidity since we have all heard the blank spot on the tape where Keenan redacted Burke's voice. How could "Dave" (or anyone else) analize what doesn't exist?

Listen to the tape like the rest of us have. Right after Patsy says her "Help me Jesus" lines the tape goes blank for a few seconds. That is the section of the tape where Burke supposedly appears according to the Thomas transcript. Anyone can hear the blank spot - we don't need "Dave" and his lies to put 2 + 2 together and realize the tape released to the public was edited.

So dispite your claims, DocWatson, you DO NOT follow the evidence. You DO NOT follow the facts. If you did, you would know that "Dave" is claiming that he did an analysis of "thin air" and found nothing...DUH :doh:

 

[jasmine]

This is one of the premier boards to read all of the lies and myths in this case. Facts mean nothing here.

 

[aRnd2it]

This is one of the premier boards to read all of the lies and myths in this case. Facts mean nothing here.

Correction: YOUR facts mean nothing here.

People here discuss all case-related possibilities, and are not banned from mentioning any subject that dosen't support the owner's job of spreading pro-Ramsey propaganda.

 

[DocWatson]

WRONG on all threee counts.
Dave is a liar and a fraud. He claims Burke's voice in not on the tape which is nothing but stupidity since we have all heard the blank spot on the tape where Keenan redacted Burke's voice. How could "Dave" (or anyone else) analize what doesn't exist?

Listen to the tape like the rest of us have. Right after Patsy says her "Help me Jesus" lines the tape goes blank for a few seconds. That is the section of the tape where Burke supposedly appears according to the Thomas transcript. Anyone can hear the blank spot - we don't need "Dave" and his lies to put 2 + 2 together and realize the tape released to the public was edited.

So dispite your claims, DocWatson, you DO NOT follow the evidence. You DO NOT follow the facts. If you did, you would know that "Dave" is claiming that he did an analysis of "thin air" and found nothing...DUH :doh:

Dave has laid his entire methodology and various versions of tapes (original, his enhancements etc.) for all to see. Moreover, NBC News investigated this and found YOUR claims severely wanting:

"But both the FBI and Secret Service — who examined the tapes — said such a conversation could not be heard.

NBC News had the tape tested by experts at two different labs that examine 911 tapes to see if there was any conversation after the hang up.

“I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI’s findings. There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument,” says Frank Piazza of Legal Audio in New York City.

David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/

In short, those wishing to OBJECTIVELY weigh the evidence can entirely dismiss Dave's analysis and instead rely on the FBI, Secret Service and 2 independent audio labs, all of whom found no evidence of the words YOU say are on that tape.

Which gets to your source: no one at Aerospace Corporation has ever talked about this (a credit to their professionalism). Your only "source" is Steve Thomas--a proven liar--and National Enquirer, an organization "outed" by one of its own employees for its shameless efforts to fabricate lies regarding the JBR case. A jury of fair-minded individuals, when asked to weigh these competing claims, would never reach the conclusion you have, which is proof-positive of your bias. Please explain how 4 independent sources could reach a conclusion 180 degrees opposite of the claim advanced by ST. Occam's Razor suggests the simplest solution to this "puzzle:" ST is a lying SOB with an axe to grind. Those who believe his fairy tale quite clearly aren't interested in the truth.

 

[DocWatson]

Who cares about your "competence", DocWatson. The content of your posts prove your agenda here is to do nothing but spread the case myths and lies concocted on the swamp by Susan Bennett and hir trolls.

Right, and the FBI, Secret Service, NBC News and 2 independent audio labs all are liars too. Doesn't that position sound even a wee bit paranoid to you? You're the only one who's right and everybody else in the world has been bought off by the Ramseys! LOL

 

[aRnd2it]

Right, and the FBI, Secret Service, NBC News and 2 independent audio labs all are liars too.

You know darn well the FBI and Secret Service just didn't have the proper equipment--Thomas said so in his deposition. Aerospace Corp. and the Los Alamos lab had the proper equipment and DID find a 3rd voice on the tape.

Furthermore you also know that NBC News and the two independant labs did an analysis of the SAME tape we have--the EDITED one Keenan released.

Posting this type of garbage makes your agenda here PERFECTLY clear.

 

[angelnsb]

. I'm not familiar with the tupperware claim of Smit's. If there was tupperware in JBR's room, why would we dismiss his claim out of hand? If he's fabricating evidence not present, that obviously isn't compelling.

I too was not aware of the tupperware claim. Did they find empty tupperware in the sink or in her room?? I had always assumed the bowl on the table was a regular bowl, not tupperware. If there was tupperware involved wouldn't JB just take the top off and use the tupperware bowl to eat out of. Rather then transfer the pineapple to another bowl??

 

[DocWatson]

You know darn well the FBI and Secret Service just didn't have the proper equipment--Thomas said so in his deposition. Aerospace Corp. and the Los Alamos lab had the proper equipment and DID find a 3rd voice on the tape.

Furthermore you also know that NBC News and the two independant labs did an analysis of the SAME tape we have--the EDITED one Keenan released.

Posting this type of garbage makes your agenda here PERFECTLY clear.

You have confirmed that ST is your source and moreover conveniently overlook that the 2 labs that claimed to have found extra voices also disagreed about what those voices allegedly said--not exactly the kind of rock-solid evidence you'd need to convict someone of killing their daughter beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn't it strike you as remotely curious that the FBI and Secret Service, whose budgets run into the millions of dollars a year and whose responsibility extends to protecting all Americans and the US President, doesn't have the technical expertise to analyze this tape?