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

[BlueCrab]

Thanks. But if what you say is true, then the sheer brutality of what you describe (especially when coupled with the head blow) would seem to belie the possibility of an "accidental EA death" whether caused by John, Burke or an invited friend of Burke's. Without re-explaining your entire scenario, could you please focus on this one aspect:
in the scenario you imagine, how did it go from an X-rated game of doctor (with Burke either the active participant or merely an observer) to one in which JBR was quite BRUTALLY slain? And in the context of the scenario you describe, do you REALLY think it is credible that the parents would cover it up--ESPECIALLY if the active participant was the invited guest?

This is the problem I have always had with your theory. It does nicely in fitting many of the stray facts, and properly accounts for the evidence that too many RDI theorists ignore (the weight of the evidence exonerates J and P as RN writers) but IMHO it doesn't square with a plausible theory of human motivation. To all appearances, JBR was the Ramsey's "precious child" (if anything apparently "favored" more than Burke). I can ALMOST understand a cover-up of an accidental death, but can you imagine an older teen/young adult saying "I'm terribly sorry, we were just having a little fun, but things got out of hand. I realize I've made a mistake. I hope you'll be good Christians and help me cover this up?"

Multiply my incredulity by 10 if the scenario above entailed replacing the "got out of hand" with "I flew into an uncontrolled murderous rage."

DocWatson,

Good sleuthing. I agree that it sounds incredulous, but the evidence and behaviors of the Ramseys point in the general direction I have been describing. If it pointed in another direction, I hope I would go there instead.

One or more Ramseys were definitely involved in this crime or they wouldn't be lying their heads off and carrying out an obvious coverup. They would do this only for a family member. But the evidence strongly suggests there was also a FIFTH PERSON in the house that night.

There are several scenarios that could account for the Ramseys' behaviors, even if an older and prosecutable non-family person was also involved:

o One of these possible scenarios is if familial incest was occurring in the house, and everyone was involved (but not all that night), including an occasional guest.

o Another possible scenario is if the "fifth person" in the house was one or more children, the case was solved by the grand jury, and the Ramseys must play low-I.Q. to protect their identities under the Colorado Children's Code.

o One more possible scenario is if the ransom note really was from a small foreign faction, but the faction's "representative" was a close and trusted family friend (or was someone from his faction) who had been invited into the house that night by a Ramsey. The coverup in this scenario would likely be motivated by fear of retribution.

The brutality of the staging, as you properly bring up, does not fit well with scenarios one and two. By the process of elimination that leaves scenario three -- the small foreign faction. So I'll start a new thread in regard to scenario three -- a scenario that had gone uninvestigated for years, and still may not be properly investigated.

JMO

 

[DocWatson]

If I have a large knot of cord in my hand and I grab a hand full of your hair, it's going to become "entwined" in the knot. The harder I pull, the more the hair will be pulled into the depths of the knot until eventually the only way to tell if it was PULLED in or TIED in would be to untie the knot and find out.

Your point about there being 17" distance cancels itself out. With that length, why would you assume the knot would have been tied on top of her head instead of 17" away?

Again...It's a case myth until the knot is actually untied and the truth documented. Nobody here can say if that has ever been done.

England's point is that a premeditated AE assault wouldn't have entailed making the garrote "on the fly." Instead, we would have expected the killer to have arrived with the ligature device ALREADY CONSTRUCTED, i.e., with an adjustable loop (think lassoe) that runs through a knot that easily permits the size of the loop to grow large or small depending on how much the cord is pulled from the stick end. There would be a SECOND knot where the cord gets attached to the stick. These two knots were located 17" apart, i.e., the lassoe knot was on the neck where the loop wrapped around to strangle JBR.
This is the knot where even if the device had been constructed in advance, I concur it is theoretically possible for hair to get entangled in the course of tightening the loop around the neck.

What DOESN'T make sense is for hair to get entangled in the second knot UNLESS the entire ligature contraption was constructed after the cord was wrapped around JBR's neck.

For the time being, I will accept Bluecrab's claim that England was wrong and that the neck knot actually did allow for the loop to tighten and loosen as would be desired.

 

[DocWatson]

DocWatson,
One or more Ramseys were definitely involved in this crime or they wouldn't be lying their heads off and carrying out an obvious coverup. They would do this only for a family member.

The brutality of the staging, as you properly bring up, does not fit well with scenarios one and two. By the process of elimination that leaves scenario three -- the small foreign faction. So I'll start a new thread in regard to scenario three -- a scenario that had gone uninvestigated for years, and still may not be properly investigated.
JMO

I'm glad to see you move off BDI scenarios (even temporarily!) and I understand better why you seem so preoccupied with RDI theories. I know your position on the 911 tape so you need not re-explain that. Could you please quickly list the 3 or 5 most significant "lies" told by Ramseys that have pushed you in the direction of concluding they must be involved in a cover-up? In listing these, I think it's important to distinguish instances in which their memories may have been clouded and they subsequently changed a relatively inconsequential detail vs. statements made that if proven to be lies, would point rather dramatically at their being involved in a cover-up.

FWIW, I have been very persuaded by the lies they DIDN'T tell.
1. As an example, if they planned their stories in advance, it makes no sense to lie about the pineapple for reasons I've explained in detail elsewhere. Even if you explain this as them temporarily forgetting they'd left the pineapple out, at that juncture it would make more sense to acknowledge "Oh, I didn't realize that JBR had gotten up hungry while John was working on the model with Burke, so he fed her pineapple" or (since Burke in your theory must be a co-conspirator in the cover-up) "Oh, I didn't realize that Burke got some pineapple for JBR after we went to bed" [a convenient explanation that accounts for why his fingerprints were on the bowl].

2. Another example is why they didn't leave an OBVIOUS exit route. If they were relying on convincing cops that perp used window when in fact no one had been through that window, shouldn't they have staged this more convincingly [such as leaving the window open more than just an inch!]?

3. Why would John insist there was a chair blocking the door when that COMPLICATES his explanation that the perp might have left through that window? I realize you think he inadvertently betrayed that he'd seen that chair prior to cops ever arriving, but think about that: he's had HOURS to think about a credible explanation of how perps left, has decided window sounds good, but then he FORGETS that telling cops about the chair is going to automatically call that whole scenario into question?

4. Assuming they coordinated their story with Burke [who under BDI theory had HUGE incentive to stick to that story and not deviate one inch], why would Burke report to police that JBR WASN'T asleep when they got home [BTW, please remind me how we know he said this? Is this from Bonita Papers or a Steve Thomas leak or what?]? Unless Burke heard the goings-on, Ramseys would have no incentive to even involve Burke in cover-up (and strong motivation not to given that they probably wouldn't want to trust their lives to relying on a 9-year to not break down under pressure). But if they DIDN'T coordinate their stories, it would be HUGELY RISKY to lie knowing that Burke likely would contradict their account. Moreover, if Burke WASN'T involved in cover-up, then either J or P wrote RN, but evidence doesn't support that, etc.

I hope you can see why I keep concluding that RDI theories lead into a maze of unsolvable riddles. To me, if we're finally willing to acknowledge that JBR's murder was a very brutal attack--and I believe this is what the weight of the autopsy evidence suggests--then it makes more sense to consider an uninvited intruder because so long as that individual had access to the house while Ramseys were at the party, that individual would have had sufficient time to collect enough personal details about John (and enough time) to write the RN even if he were a complete stranger.

 

[BlueCrab]

Could you please quickly list the 3 or 5 most significant "lies" told by Ramseys that have pushed you in the direction of concluding they must be involved in a cover-up?
QUOTE]



DocWatson,

Here's some of the Ramsey lies that strongly suggest a coverup:

1. The enhanced 911 call revealed the Ramseys were trying to protect Burke, beginning from the opening minutes of the investigation, by distancing him from the murder by saying he was asleep in bed when he was actually downstairs talking to John and Patsy at 5:52 A.M. Each of the three Ramseys lied to the cops in interviews until they were locked into their stories, and then finally told they had been caught on tape in lies.

2. John Ramsey said he didn't search the basement prior to Patsy calling 911 at 5:52 A.M. to report JonBenet missing. That is just an incredulous statement by a father to make -- his six-year-old daughter is missing from her bed and he didn't search the basement nor outside. This was finally proven a lie when John mis-spoke about moving the chair from in front of the train room when he snuck downstairs later that morning. Officer Rick French searched the train room at around 6:05 A.M. and there was no chair there; and Fleet White searched the train room at about 6:20 A.M. and there was no chair there. So John had to have been in the train room and moved the chair prior to the 911 call at 5:52 A.M. He lied about not searching the basement.

3. Glen and Susan WHO? John lied in a 1998 civil deposition about Glen and Susan Stine not being close friends, thus obviously trying to distance the Stines from the Ramseys -- including Doug from burke. The Ramseys actually lived at the Stines house for 5 months following the death of JonBenet. And before that the Ramseys and the Stines socialized and took out of town trips together. On the night of the murder the Ramseys had dropped off Christmas presents at the Stines. John lied to cover up the Ramsey/Stine friendship.

4. The airport time-line doesn't fit. The Ramseys say they set the alarm for 5:30 A.M., but it's a 20-minute drive to the airport and they had to be there by 6:30 A.M. They say the ransom note was found on the stairway at 5:45 A.M., but the children hadn't even been woken by that time. The time-line doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense then it's probably a lie. The Ramseys had obviously gotten up long before 5:30 A.M.

5. JonBenet was found murdered wearing size 12-14 underwear. When questioned about it Patsy said JonBenet usually wore size 8 to 10 panties. But a search of the contents of her underwear drawer found only size 4 and size 6 panties, plus a package of 12-14's with one pair missing. Patsy knew better, but apparently lied to make the size 12-14 underwear on JonBenet seem less conspicuous, and help point away from Burke as having dressed JonBenet in the ridiculous oversized underwear after death.

6. All of the Ramseys denied anyone in the family having ever owned Hi-Tec footwear, thus trying to shield a Ramsey as having left the Hi-Tec logo mark next to JonBenet's body in the wine cellar. But Burke finally admitted to the grand jury in 1999 that he had owned Hi-Tec boots. As it turns out, Patsy had bought the Hi-Tec boots for Burke during a visit to Atlanta, and they had a hard to forget compass built into the shoe laces. Those boots were memorable, and the Ramseys obviously lied about ever owning them.

7. The Ramseys denied ever before seeing the Santa Bear which mysteriously disappeared from JonBenet's bed after it had been captured in a crime scene photo. This launched a nation-wide search for the Santa Bear. But the Santa Bear turned up much later at the Ramsey's house, buried in moving boxes that had been used to move the Ramseys to Atlanta. The Santa Bear had been awarded to JonBenet on December 14, 1996, just 12 days before her death, for winning the Little Miss Christmas Pageant, and both Patsy and John were at the pageant and witnessed the Santa Bear being awarded to JonBenet. The Ramseys obviously tried to create a mystery to divert suspicion away from the house, when there wasn't any real mystery at all. They had lied.

That's enough Ramsey lies for awhile.

JMO

 

[sissi]

Patsy didn't recognise the bear because it was a gift ,given at an event while the child was in the care of her grandparents.(for this I have no source, does anyone have a source stating this "bear" issue was resolved)

The 911 call was enhanced, IMO, to the degree of picking up previously erased calls. The reason, IMO, for the FBI finding nothing is because they knew to what degree they could go before hitting into previous calls.
Patsy had a history of allowing her children to fly in pj's . She didn't need to dress them or ready them, they could continue to rest on the flight. It was scheduled roughly to take off by 7.

It has not been proven, but suggested that his "compass" shoes ,purchased at his age 8 in Atlanta were Hi-teks, suggested as well that the print was a man's size, not a size three or four normally worn by an eight year old.
Everyone has dropped the ball on the mysterious set of SAS prints..why?

John Ramsey delegates, he likely did a quick search of the upper levels and felt the police should be in charge. Or he was afraid he may run into the killer and in some way put his entire family in danger. (which makes him a bit of a "sissy"..but not impossible) However, this is ONE matter that does seem more than odd, I would have looked in the fridge , under every outside plant, in the crawspace, in the suitcase....everywhere! ( I once lost my sister's dog and crawled behind the furnace to look) I wish at some point they would have addressed this openly..just why they didn't look, maybe they didn't want to waste the time, the call to the police made more sense? Not sure, but it really does deserve an explanation .

 

[DocWatson]

Bluecrab,

1. The enhanced 911 call revealed the Ramseys were trying to protect Burke, beginning from the opening minutes of the investigation, by distancing him from the murder by saying he was asleep in bed when he was actually downstairs talking to John and Patsy at 5:52 A.M. Each of the three Ramseys lied to the cops in interviews until they were locked into their stories, and then finally told they had been caught on tape in lies.

I won't waste time here reiterating why I am skeptical about the alleged voices on this tape. Suffice it to say I disagree. Part of the purpose of my question was to see whether the lying evidence essentially boils down to whether or not Burke's voice was on this tape, since there's not a particularly good innocent explanation I've seen for why Ramseys should lie about this.

2. John Ramsey said he didn't search the basement prior to Patsy calling 911 at 5:52 A.M. to report JonBenet missing. That is just an incredulous statement by a father to make -- his six-year-old daughter is missing from her bed and he didn't search the basement nor outside. This was finally proven a lie when John mis-spoke about moving the chair from in front of the train room when he snuck downstairs later that morning. Officer Rick French searched the train room at around 6:05 A.M. and there was no chair there; and Fleet White searched the train room at about 6:20 A.M. and there was no chair there. So John had to have been in the train room and moved the chair prior to the 911 call at 5:52 A.M. He lied about not searching the basement.

I concur this is hard to believe, but you're judging his actions on presumption that RN was staging. If you'll accept the premise that it wasn't staging and that he really thought he was dealing with a kidnapping, then he might well have reasoned there was no point in searching the house. Remember also that it wasn't that many minutes before police arrived. He might well have reasoned that he didn't know the "proper" thing to do and that it was best to "go by the book" using whatever steps cops recommended once they arrived.

3. Glen and Susan WHO? John lied in a 1998 civil deposition about Glen and Susan Stine not being close friends, thus obviously trying to distance the Stines from the Ramseys -- including Doug from burke. The Ramseys actually lived at the Stines house for 5 months following the death of JonBenet. And before that the Ramseys and the Stines socialized and took out of town trips together. On the night of the murder the Ramseys had dropped off Christmas presents at the Stines. John lied to cover up the Ramsey/Stine friendship.

This is a good example of where I think John may have well been telling the truth. There are at a least a few people we socialize with who are extremely good friends with my wife (because the women all horseback ride together) but I would not necessarily list as good friends from my perspective since the husbands are interested in activities that I don't care for (e.g., golf) and hence we don't hang out together. So you'd probably get a different answer to that question if you were asking my wife vs. asking me. John doesn't strike me as a hugely gregarious guy: he seems pretty serious. If it turned out he were a loner it wouldn't surprise me. So to me it is EASILY possible that the wives were very good friends via their children but that John viewed living with them in more businesslike rather than friendly terms.

Also, didn't John acknowledge that "this may sound strange, but no" or words to that effect? And didn't he elsewhere absolutely acknowledge that Doug was a very close friend of Burke's (or was that Patsy)? Sorry I don't have all these details in my head and no time to plow through transcripts.

4. The airport time-line doesn't fit. The Ramseys say they set the alarm for 5:30 A.M., but it's a 20-minute drive to the airport and they had to be there by 6:30 A.M. They say the ransom note was found on the stairway at 5:45 A.M., but the children hadn't even been woken by that time. The time-line doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense then it's probably a lie. The Ramseys had obviously gotten up long before 5:30 A.M.

But the parents said that they often took the kids in pajamas on trips of this sort, so the timing doesn't bother me at all. Their bags were already packed and it was just a matter of getting dressed themselves and then within a few minutes of departing gettting the kids out of bed and into the car, even if they were still half-asleep. it merely requires that the Ramseys take only 40 minutes to get themselves ready and their kids out of bed. Given that Patsy had already dressed by 5:45, it is no stretch of the imagination to think that 25 more minutes would not have been enought to eat a quick breakfast and get the pajama'd kids into the car.

Moreover, since they were flying in private plane, there's none of the waiting in line that you and I face, and my guess is there was probably some flexibility about departure time. That is, they may have told the pilot to be ready by 6:30, but if the plane didn't actually leave until 6:35 or even 6:45, no big deal. This was a VACATION.

It would seem straightforward to query the older children and/or the pilot about what the "norm" was for such trips. I presume police did this and since Steve Thomas didn't leak any damaging evidence about these interviews, there is no "there" there IMHO.

5. JonBenet was found murdered wearing size 12-14 underwear. When questioned about it Patsy said JonBenet usually wore size 8 to 10 panties. But a search of the contents of her underwear drawer found only size 4 and size 6 panties, plus a package of 12-14's with one pair missing. Patsy knew better, but apparently lied to make the size 12-14 underwear on JonBenet seem less conspicuous, and help point away from Burke as having dressed JonBenet in the ridiculous oversized underwear after death.

I'd not been aware of this detail before. It's puzzling since if anyone knew the panty size, it should be Patsy. Is it conceivable they packed all the 8-10 for the trip to Charlevoix, leaving only the old smaller sizes to be found by police as they searched the house? Sorry I'm not intimately familiar with timeline of the search etc. But taking her statement at face value, it doesn't make sense that she's trying to misdirect away from Burke. First, in your theory, are you saying parents allowed Burke to do all the final staging? Is HE the one who allegedly wiped her down? It's been a few years since I first read your BDI theory, but I thought the parents did most of the staging (although I realize you have Burke writing RN). Second, even if he was the one to put on panties, then unless Patsy at some juncture UNDRESSED JBR, how would she even KNOW she was wearing size 12-14 in order to lie about this? I haven't gone back to Ramsey transcripts, but just as you state that police "locked in" statements regarding 911 tapes before exposing alleged lies, I can't imagine them giving away the important clue that she was wearing oversized panties in the course of querying Patsy about normal size.

6. All of the Ramseys denied anyone in the family having ever owned Hi-Tec footwear, thus trying to shield a Ramsey as having left the Hi-Tec logo mark next to JonBenet's body in the wine cellar. But Burke finally admitted to the grand jury in 1999 that he had owned Hi-Tec boots. As it turns out, Patsy had bought the Hi-Tec boots for Burke during a visit to Atlanta, and they had a hard to forget compass built into the shoe laces. Those boots were memorable, and the Ramseys obviously lied about ever owning them.

I've never known source for either of these claims. First, who leaked GJ testimony (that's serious business and the whole reason you claim that LE is willing to lie rather than divulge what happened)? I vaguely recall that there may have been confusion between Hi-Tec as a brand name versus "high tech" as a description. I've read elsewhere, but have no direct way of confirming this, that Hi-Tec NEVER manufactured a boot containing a compass in them. If Burke actually had such boots with a compass, is it conceivable he simply viewed them as "high tech"?

And second, who proved the trip to Atlanta was when they were acquired? If I recall correctly, that trip was that very December, so while Patsy may be flaky and not necessarily expected to remember every clothing purchase, it would seem odd that she wouldn't remember this (although if it was in an interview several years later even this is conceivable). If Burke had such boots, what is YOUR explanation for what happened to them? That is, if the parents had known of the footprint, wouldn't it have just been easier to erase the footprint than surreptitiously discard the boots? Likewise, I assume the police would have found the footprint in the initial investigation, meaning they should have searched the house top-to-bottom for that boot, no? And since they interviewed Burke shortly after the death, why would have it only come out in GJ testimony rather than a leaked police report [didn't Bonita have full access to those first Burke interviews?] that he even owned such boots?

Finally, I just don't see motivation here. Why bother lying about a detail the cops might conceivably be able to track down when the alternative is simpler? Yeah, that's Burke's footprint. He lives in the house, for crying out loud! There's no way to date that print to the time of the crime etc.

7. The Ramseys denied ever before seeing the Santa Bear which mysteriously disappeared from JonBenet's bed after it had been captured in a crime scene photo. This launched a nation-wide search for the Santa Bear. But the Santa Bear turned up much later at the Ramsey's house, buried in moving boxes that had been used to move the Ramseys to Atlanta. The Santa Bear had been awarded to JonBenet on December 14, 1996, just 12 days before her death, for winning the Little Miss Christmas Pageant, and both Patsy and John were at the pageant and witnessed the Santa Bear being awarded to JonBenet. The Ramseys obviously tried to create a mystery to divert suspicion away from the house, when there wasn't any real mystery at all. They had lied.

But this "lie" doesn't make logical sense. The whole crime scene was REPLETE with items from the house: the RN, the paintbrush handle, yada, yada, yada. What do they possibly gain by this lie in the context of all that other stuff? I think you are sufficiently empathetic with how extremely distraught parents might think and behave in the aftermath of such a tragedy. If this lie occurred in the context of questioning in the immediate aftermath of the murder, I can understand completely their being WAY too distracted to remember this. After all, the bear was relatively new to the house and not yet a "familiar feature" imprinted in their memories. Likewise, if they weren't queried until years after the fact, then the fact that the bear was won 12 days before murder loses a lot of its significance.

That's enough Ramsey lies for awhile.

To recap, lie #1 is by far the most serious and damning IF it can be proven.
Lie #2 doesn't seem "proven" to me. It is speculative at best.
Lie #3 is a matter of interpretation: I view John as answering honestly from his own perspective about what the Stines meant to HIM;
Lie #4 again is speculative: I think the timeline is perfectly plausible
Lie #5 is puzzling, but a memory lapse or the truth (i.e., 8-10 panties were in the Charlevoix bags so cops never found them) seems more credible than trying to divert attention from Burke
Lie #6 seems like a stretch. Again, a memory lapse seems more plausible than the idea that they knew of the need to cover up a footprint in the basement. If they'd known, they'd have erased the footprint; but without knowing, there's no motivation to lie etc.
Lie #7 is equally lacking in a plausible motivation in the context of everything else and is better explained as stress or memory loss etc.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone queried IN DETAIL about events that happened literally years ago. Sure, you can blame the Ramseys for delaying their police interviews so long, but the notion that we should expect them to be PERFECTLY RELIABLE witnesses under those conditions defies what is reasonable to expect of mere mortals. You may not be aware of just how unreliable testimony is in courtroom testimony: http://www.sado.org/19cdn12.htm#19cdn12a
These people swear to tell the truth and they certainly are not covering anything up, yet hard evidence uncovered later proves conclusively that their accounts could NOT have been 100% truthful. Why should we hold the Ramseys to a higher standard of performance than this?

 

[aRnd2it]

For the time being, I will accept Bluecrab's claim that England was wrong and that the neck knot actually did allow for the loop to tighten and loosen as would be desired. The more you post, the less reliable I rate you as a source of either factual evidence or common sense. You are far too sure of your positions in light of the thinness and ambiguity of evidence you cite in favor of your theory of the case.

I haven't posted a single word about England or his pet theory. In fact, I've never heard or read it.

My point is YOU or anyone like you who claims the garrote was tied on her because the hair was tied into the knot doesn't know a thing about it. The only way to tell if that is true would be to untie the knots. If you have proof that the knots WERE untied POST IT, or else just admit you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[aRnd2it]

The 911 call was enhanced, IMO, to the degree of picking up previously erased calls. The reason, IMO, for the FBI finding nothing is because they knew to what degree they could go before hitting into previous calls.

LOL, Even if what you say could possible be true, which it isn't - how would you explain the previous voices showing up at just the right time to coinside with the events happening, and saying things that not only relate to the situation but invoke the mannerisms of the speaker?

Let me guess...the Boulder 911 system is HAUNTED!

 

[sissi]

LOL, You can sure spin it Sissi! Even if what you say could possible be true, which it isn't - how would you explain the previous voices showing up at just the right time to coinside with the events happening, and saying things that not only relate to the situation but invoke the mannerisms of the speaker?

Let me guess...the Boulder 911 system is HAUNTED!

That's correct ,there would be sounds elsewhere,however were they asked to include this in their report. It would certainly suggest more reliability if ,yes, other sections of the same tape, calls made before the Ramseys' were enhanced as well. There is nothing to indicate such a control sample was secured. IMO it negates any value, for these attempts to not be made, as with any finding, an effort should be made to validate by comparison.

 

[DocWatson]

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. I haven't posted a single word about England or his pet theory. In fact, I've never heard or read it..

We'll add that to the MOUNTAINS of evidence you don't know about this case.

My point is YOU or anyone like you who claims the garrote was tied on her because the hair was tied into the knot doesn't know a thing about it. The only way to tell if that is true would be to untie the knots. If you have proof that the knots WERE untied POST IT, or else just admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Take a good look at the garrote handle. It's surprising that someone with the Superman vision to peer through Patsy's disguised handwriting and identify it as hers lacks ability to see what is plainly in front of their own face: the hair CLEARLY is entwined in the wrappings of the cord around the paintbrush. Moreover, you have offered no LOGICAL explanation for why we would expect to see hair in this handle (as opposed to the neck knot) if the perp created the ligature first and then applied it to JBR (as would be the normal chain of events for someone skilled in making ligatures and practiced in applying them to humans.

 

[aRnd2it]

There is nothing to indicate such a control sample was secured.

Two professional audio labs found additional voices on the tape and you don't think they had the common sense to ask if the tapes had been used before....I think you need to wake up sissi.
And lets not forget that the tape was also played for a Grand Jury who you also must not give credit to have asked questions about it.

 

[sissi]

Two professional audio labs found additional voices on the tape and you don't think they had the common sense to ask if the tapes had been used before....I think you need to wake up sissi.
And lets not forget that the tape was also played for a Grand Jury who you also must not give credit to have asked questions about it.

I do give credit to a grand jury who returned with nothing, not even a report after listening to the ramblings and "voodoo" science evidence presented by the BPD.
I believe in this and many incidents Arnd2it, you overstep your area of understanding, you can not source for me any comment from the grand jury concerning this tape, as you can not confirm it was not reused and therefore not the "virgin" tape you hoped for. Interesting ,as well, that two heard "something" yet each heard something different. Think about it!

 

[aRnd2it]

Interesting ,as well, that two heard "something" yet each heard something different. Think about it!

YOU think about it sissi. Or better yet, take a trip over the the Jury Room and look up a recent thread about the strange things people claim were said in song lyrics. Ever heard the CCR song that most people think says "there's a bathroom on the right" when it actually says "there's a bad moon on the rise"? According to your logic that song must say nothing at all...just another one of your ghost sounds.

I think I'll put my faith in the audio experts instead of an internet poster who has never even heard the original 911 tape.

 

[sissi]

Arnd2it quote Clearly to whom? Surely not YOU, a person who doesn't even have the visual ability to see the matching exemplars between Patsy's writing and the ransom note. (I could train a monkey to pick out those matching exemplars--guess where that puts YOU!....ROFLMAO!!! )


I think you are being very harsh on others today. Just because you could train a monkey to do this, does not mean that an intelligent human being would ever consider those exemplars as matching the ransom note. If you see it ,that's fine, many don't . Intelligent humans often differ in their opinions on things, and do not need to "pick at each other".

You call Lou delusional, you do have a problem with experience that I can't understand. If for example my child broke out in spots, who would I call, Camper or the intern at the hospital? ....answer...Camper..eight kids..the woman would know her spots! Give people credit for experience, Smit weighed against a rookie homicide detective allows no room for consideration ..it's a no brainer.

 

[sissi]

Or better yet, take a trip over the the Jury Room and look up a recent thread about the strange things people claim were said in song lyrics. .

I think you just made MY point!

 

[aRnd2it]

I think you just made MY point!

No, I showed you that sound can play tricks in your ears, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The sound can be seen to exist visually on a scope.

The point is there is a third voice on the tape and what it says doesn't matter. It's either Burke or the Ramseys invited the intruder to stay for breakfast. Either way they lied.

 

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by DocWatson
We'll add that to the MOUNTAINS of evidence you don't know about this case.
Of course, an ignoramus who boasts about not even knowing England's theory can't be expected to know the "nuances" of the arguments he presents,

4. Posts containing personal attacks on fellow posters, including but not limited to, name calling, ad hominem argument, and profane or racist language will be deleted. Posters who repeatedly post messages of this nature will have their posting privileges suspended or terminated, at the
discretion of the moderator and/or administration. This rule applies under all circumstances, with no exceptions.

 

[Seeker]

Nobody knows what the GJ did or didn't do, heard or didn't hear, said, or didn't say. It was all secret. We don't even know if they voted on idictment or not....Hunter squelched any info about that too.

 

[sissi]

Originally Posted by DocWatson
We'll add that to the MOUNTAINS of evidence you don't know about this case.
Of course, an ignoramus who boasts about not even knowing England's theory can't be expected to know the "nuances" of the arguments he presents,

4. Posts containing personal attacks on fellow posters, including but not limited to, name calling, ad hominem argument, and profane or racist language will be deleted. Posters who repeatedly post messages of this nature will have their posting privileges suspended or terminated, at the
discretion of the moderator and/or administration. This rule applies under all circumstances, with no exceptions.

Hmm, no one has brought up the rule during these last few days while Arnd2it belittled everyone?

Oh..from an Attorney Site..concerning securing tapes for your defense...
DO NOT DELAY IN HIRING AN ATTORNEY. A qualified attorney can assist in obtaining a low or personal bond if retained by arraignment. Further, your attorney can provide immediate review of the case for defects, move to suppress evidence, and compel the prosecutor to share vital information they intend to use against you. Your lawyer can prevent important evidence such as 911 tapes, police dispatch tapes, vehicle information, etc. from being lost by delay. Some evidence is only kept for a short period before it is recycled or destroyed.

911 tapes are often reused/recycled every 30 days

 

[BeeBee]

Originally Posted by DocWatson
We'll add that to the MOUNTAINS of evidence you don't know about this case.
Of course, an ignoramus who boasts about not even knowing England's theory can't be expected to know the "nuances" of the arguments he presents,

4. Posts containing personal attacks on fellow posters, including but not limited to, name calling, ad hominem argument, and profane or racist language will be deleted. Posters who repeatedly post messages of this nature will have their posting privileges suspended or terminated, at the
discretion of the moderator and/or administration. This rule applies under all circumstances, with no exceptions.

Then let the moderator do it seeker. We are working on the situation now and really don't need reminded of how to do it.