Has the case fizzled a bit?

[Chelly]

because they were new!

thank you!

 

[Nom de plume]

I am not sure that that is true. We will have to see. I still don't put a lot of stock in books written about cases. It just is one persons opinion on what they think.

It is just a personal thing for me. I am not judging anyone about it, But for me, The information coming from a book is not going to have as much impact on me.

Scarlett,
You don't believe the fibers are from PR's jacket, or if they are that they did not transfer innocently. If BPD were to show you the evidence, you'd probably say that you don't believe they came from her jacket, that it could have been someone else's identical jacket.

You don't believe JK isn't making money off of his book, or if he eventually does, that he will donate it to charity.

So far, I can't find any evidence you DO believe, except of course the touch-DNA. That seems to be the only evidence you give ANY weight to. Let's just be honest, you don't want to believe the family is guilty and choose to ignore, or disbelieve anything that points to their guilt, and it's your right to do that.

No offense intended, really, we were all new to this case at one point, but it's quite obvious you're not as well versed in the evidence of this case as many long time posters here. I've followed this case from day one, but only really got into the actual evidence a few years ago, and still don't know all of it as well as many others do. It's ironic that 99% of all the people that DO know the evidence backwards and forwards think at least one or more of the family is guilty.

Quite a few times you've asked for other posters to provide you with evidence, then when they do, you say you don't believe it. I doubt you'll have many more responses to requests for proof when you disregard it after it's provided. I would suggest that you spend a few days, probably more like weeks, reading ACandyRose. All of the evidence you're looking for is there if you really want to see it. Search warrants, items taken into evidence, transcripts, autopsy reports, etc. You might want to read through past threads here on WS as well.

Sincerely, no offense intended, but it's not our job to do your research for you, or to convince you of anything. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as the rest of us are. If you choose to be IDI, that's your right, but please don't expect RDI to defend, or prove, our theories any more than you can prove yours. No one, at this point, with the evidence available to the public, can prove the Ramseys guilty or innocent. We can only develop theories, based on facts and evidence. :seeya:

BTW I love your avatar! She's my hero!!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Because they were new!

Okay even that.. There are still more innocent reasons it could be there and less nefarious ones. The innocent ones have to be destroyed for me to consider the nefarious.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett,
You don't believe the fibers are from PR's jacket, or if they are that they did not transfer innocently. If BPD were to show you the evidence, you'd probably say that you don't believe they came from her jacket, that it could have been someone else's identical jacket.

You don't believe JK isn't making money off of his book, or if he eventually does, that he will donate it to charity.

So far, I can't find any evidence you DO believe, except of course the touch-DNA. That seems to be the only evidence you give ANY weight to. Let's just be honest, you don't want to believe the family is guilty and choose to ignore, or disbelieve anything that points to their guilt, and it's your right to do that.

No offense intended, really, we were all new to this case at one point, but it's quite obvious you're not as well versed in the evidence of this case as many long time posters here. I've followed this case from day one, but only really got into the actual evidence a few years ago, and still don't know all of it as well as many others do. It's ironic that 99% of all the people that DO know the evidence backwards and forwards think at least one or more of the family is guilty.

Quite a few times you've asked for other posters to provide you with evidence, then when they do, you say you don't believe it. I doubt you'll have many more responses to requests for proof when you disregard it after it's provided. I would suggest that you spend a few days, probably more like weeks, reading ACandyRose. All of the evidence you're looking for is there if you really want to see it. Search warrants, items taken into evidence, transcripts, autopsy reports, etc. You might want to read through past threads here on WS as well.

Sincerely, no offense intended, but it's not our job to do your research for you, or to convince you of anything. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as the rest of us are. If you choose to be IDI, that's your right, but please don't expect RDI to defend, or prove, our theories any more than you can prove yours. No one, at this point, with the evidence available to the public, can prove the Ramseys guilty or innocent. We can only develop theories, based on facts and evidence. :seeya:

BTW I love your avatar! She's my hero!!

First I believe that there could be fibers from PR jacket there but I don't believe it was more than innocent secondary transfer at this point. Her fibers should be all over things in the house. She lived there so for me there is no big AHA moment there. Her fibers belong all over the house. So for me, The fact that the paint brush was taken from HER paint bag the transfer of fibers is easily explained.

Just because someone sees the evidence one way does not mean that is the only answer. The problem for me is if there is an innocent answer to the question that is the one that has to be disproved first. I don't see that here. I see one person posting a question that was posed in a deposition and people take that and believe it as fact. But we have never seen proof of that. Prosecutors are trying to trip people up. The police can lie to get people to confess, I know that prosecutors are held to a higher standard but they can dance around things and throw things at suspects to see their reaction and word it in a way that no proof is offered and still be in the clear.

In the beginning the Prosecutors offer that the whole purpose of the deposition is to get answers so that IF they charge someone else, And they say NO it was the Ramsey's, Then they will have an answer for that. So it is purely a fact finding mission. The asked her a hypothetical. Not a real question. I don't see anything from that deposition of PR as damning or even questionable.


I realize here the mass sentiment is one of the R's did it. I don't believe that. There is nothing at this point that has changed my mind. I respect that many of you have looked at this case, and see it differently. But I don't see evidence of anything that the R's all lived there together.

I don't expect people to convince me but I do expect if there is a claim that it is backed up by some source. That is how WS works right? WE can not make erroneous statements or accusations about people right? We have to back it up.

We can form theories off the facts but don't we need the facts to begin with?

I think that we are all here in good faith. I know I am. I care about Jon Benet also. I want her to have justice too.


Thanks! Scarlett is my girl!

 

[Nom de plume]

Ok Scarlett. How do you explain the fibers from JR's shirt in the crotch of a NEW pair of panties? Or are you going to claim there's no evidence of that too? (You can't say it was from the washing machine if the panties were new.) If it's innocent secondary transfer then why only in the crotch and not on the waistband? What about the RN written on paper from their house with their pen? Not really their pad & pen? How did the "intruder" get in? No evidence of a break in, and you can't say the basement window. That's already been PROVEN that no one entered or left that way due to the spider web. And no, the spider didn't reweave the web either. (I dare you to try to find even one spider in Boulder in December!) Why did the "intruder" wipe her down, redress her and wrap her in a blanket? (Big hint....only someone very close to the victim does that!) Why did the "kidnapper" kill her? Why did the "kidnapper" assault her in the house? Why didn't the "kidnapper" take her with him? (It's a little hard to get $118,000 for a dead body left in the house.)

Can you give a logical answer to even one of those questions, much less all of them? Unless and until you can, the ONLY logical answer is that someone that lives in that house is the killer. I completely disagree with you that you have to prove the family guilty, otherwise it's an intruder. You have to prove there was an intruder, otherwise it was the family. All LE, everywhere, approach this type of case the same way. Look at the family first, and eliminate them one by one, and the vast majority of the time it is the family! Then and only then can the possibility of an intruder be taken into account. So far, there's not one single shred of evidence that someone in that family DIDN'T do it!

ETA: We have plenty of facts, and that's how most of us have come to the conclusion that one or more family member is guilty. Spend the next 16 1/2 yrs going over the evidence like some poster here have, and then come back and tell us that you still think they're innocent. It's not one single piece of evidence, it's the totality of all the circumstantial evidence that points to them and no one else.

 

[Venom]

Ok Scarlett. How do you explain the fibers from JR's shirt in the crotch of a NEW pair of panties? Or are you going to claim there's no evidence of that too? (You can't say it was from the washing machine if the panties were new.) If it's innocent secondary transfer then why only in the crotch and not on the waistband? What about the RN written on paper from their house with their pen? Not really their pad & pen? How did the "intruder" get in? No evidence of a break in, and you can't say the basement window. That's already been PROVEN that no one entered or left that way due to the spider web. And no, the spider didn't reweave the web either. (I dare you to try to find even one spider in Boulder in December!) Why did the "intruder" wipe her down, redress her and wrap her in a blanket? (Big hint....only someone very close to the victim does that!) Why did the "kidnapper" kill her? Why did the "kidnapper" assault her in the house? Why didn't the "kidnapper" take her with him? (It's a little hard to get $118,000 for a dead body left in the house.)

Can you give a logical answer to even one of those questions, much less all of them? Unless and until you can, the ONLY logical answer is that someone that lives in that house is the killer. I completely disagree with you that you have to prove the family guilty, otherwise it's an intruder. You have to prove there was an intruder, otherwise it was the family. All LE, everywhere, approach this type of case the same way. Look at the family first, and eliminate them one by one, and the vast majority of the time it is the family! Then and only then can the possibility of an intruder be taken into account. So far, there's not one single shred of evidence that someone in that family DIDN'T do it!

ETA: We have plenty of facts, and that's how most of us have come to the conclusion that one or more family member is guilty. Spend the next 16 1/2 yrs going over the evidence like some poster here have, and then come back and tell us that you still think they're innocent. It's not one single piece of evidence, it's the totality of all the circumstantial evidence that points to them and no one else.

:goodpost:

Well written post.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ok Scarlett. How do you explain the fibers from JR's shirt in the crotch of a NEW pair of panties? Or are you going to claim there's no evidence of that too? (You can't say it was from the washing machine if the panties were new.) If it's innocent secondary transfer then why only in the crotch and not on the waistband? What about the RN written on paper from their house with their pen? Not really their pad & pen? How did the "intruder" get in? No evidence of a break in, and you can't say the basement window. That's already been PROVEN that no one entered or left that way due to the spider web. And no, the spider didn't reweave the web either. (I dare you to try to find even one spider in Boulder in December!) Why did the "intruder" wipe her down, redress her and wrap her in a blanket? (Big hint....only someone very close to the victim does that!) Why did the "kidnapper" kill her? Why did the "kidnapper" assault her in the house? Why didn't the "kidnapper" take her with him? (It's a little hard to get $118,000 for a dead body left in the house.)

Can you give a logical answer to even one of those questions, much less all of them? Unless and until you can, the ONLY logical answer is that someone that lives in that house is the killer. I completely disagree with you that you have to prove the family guilty, otherwise it's an intruder. You have to prove there was an intruder, otherwise it was the family. All LE, everywhere, approach this type of case the same way. Look at the family first, and eliminate them one by one, and the vast majority of the time it is the family! Then and only then can the possibility of an intruder be taken into account. So far, there's not one single shred of evidence that someone in that family DIDN'T do it!

ETA: We have plenty of facts, and that's how most of us have come to the conclusion that one or more family member is guilty. Spend the next 16 1/2 yrs going over the evidence like some poster here have, and then come back and tell us that you still think they're innocent. It's not one single piece of evidence, it's the totality of all the circumstantial evidence that points to them and no one else.

Maybe he helped her put them on. That is simple enough to me. Sometimes I grab the kids clothes and carry them to them where ever they are. New or not, Fibers transfer. To me if someone else's fibers were on them, Like the mailman, then that is an issue, His should not be there but her own dad? Completely possible that just in helping her put them on or handling them the fibers transferred.

The pad and pen for me are not an issue either as I believe the killer could have been in the house before they got home. They had plenty of time to write the note.

Why did someone wipe her down? Most likely to remove evidence. That does not have to be someone who knew her but someone worried about evidence.

I think the kidnapping was the intent but for whatever reason it changed and they killed her right in the house. They had already left the note so they just bolted.

For me, I really think if there is a reasonable possible explanation then that has to be exhausted and removed first before you leap to the conclusion that it means something bad.
I appreciate that people have looked at the case for a long time, But I am having a hard time with some things that people call evidence of the R's doing this.

I think people weave the evidence how it works for them. That is why there are split verdicts. People can all see the same thing and find a different conclusion.

The thing is that just because I and I suspect others believe that there was an intruder does not make us not informed or our thoughts less valid.

It really seems that if you do not believe as the mass does here you are not welcome and I hope that is not the case.

 

[Nom de plume]

Maybe he helped her put them on. That is simple enough to me. Sometimes I grab the kids clothes and carry them to them where ever they are. New or not, Fibers transfer. To me if someone else's fibers were on them, Like the mailman, then that is an issue, His should not be there but her own dad? Completely possible that just in helping her put them on or handling them the fibers transferred.

The pad and pen for me are not an issue either as I believe the killer could have been in the house before they got home. They had plenty of time to write the note.

Why did someone wipe her down? Most likely to remove evidence. That does not have to be someone who knew her but someone worried about evidence.

I think the kidnapping was the intent but for whatever reason it changed and they killed her right in the house. They had already left the note so they just bolted.

For me, I really think if there is a reasonable possible explanation then that has to be exhausted and removed first before you leap to the conclusion that it means something bad.
I appreciate that people have looked at the case for a long time, But I am having a hard time with some things that people call evidence of the R's doing this.

I think people weave the evidence how it works for them. That is why there are split verdicts. People can all see the same thing and find a different conclusion.

The thing is that just because I and I suspect others believe that there was an intruder does not make us not informed or our thoughts less valid.

It really seems that if you do not believe as the mass does here you are not welcome and I hope that is not the case.

Scarlett, that's a whole lot of excuses and "what ifs". Why couldn't the mailman's fibers and DNA be in the crotch of her panties? He handles the mail doesn't he? And the family takes the mail inside and handles it don't they? See how ridiculous that is? Theoretically, anyone's fibers or touch-DNA can be anywhere. It's all a matter of what makes sense, and what has to have an excuse made for it.

As I said earlier, no amount of evidence, or common sense, or reason is going to open your eyes to the possibility of a family member being guilty. You say you're still researching, and open, but you're not. Your mind is made up, and that's fine. For some reason you can't fathom a family doing something so horrible to their daughter (sister). You want to believe in their innocence, so you find reasons to do so. We're all entitled to our own opinions.

You're just as welcome here as anyone else, but when you start denying evidence, and making wild excuses for the Rs, you're going to get some flack. Face it, at least 95% of posters here are RDI. You can't expect to dispute and ignore evidence, find innocent reasons for every single thing regarding the Rs, and not get some grief from people. If you just want everyone to agree with you that the Rs are all innocent, then you're in the wrong forum dear. If you want to open your mind, learn some facts, and see there's other possibilities, then you've found the right forum.

I'd feel safe in saying that I don't think there's a single poster here, myself included, that hasn't changed their theory at least once, if not a dozen times. Many here will tell you that they too were IDI until they did more research, thoroughly examined the evidence, and added it all up. Now they're RDI too. We may differ on which R we think is responsible, but once you have all the facts, it's just too overwhelming to believe IDI.

 

[midwest mama]

Scarlett, that's a whole lot of excuses and "what ifs". Why couldn't the mailman's fibers and DNA be in the crotch of her panties? He handles the mail doesn't he? And the family takes the mail inside and handles it don't they? See how ridiculous that is? Theoretically, anyone's fibers or touch-DNA can be anywhere. It's all a matter of what makes sense, and what has to have an excuse made for it.

As I said earlier, no amount of evidence, or common sense, or reason is going to open your eyes to the possibility of a family member being guilty. You say you're still researching, and open, but you're not. Your mind is made up, and that's fine. For some reason you can't fathom a family doing something so horrible to their daughter (sister). You want to believe in their innocence, so you find reasons to do so. We're all entitled to our own opinions.

You're just as welcome here as anyone else, but when you start denying evidence, and making wild excuses for the Rs, you're going to get some flack. Face it, at least 95% of posters here are RDI. You can't expect to dispute and ignore evidence, find innocent reasons for every single thing regarding the Rs, and not get some grief from people. If you just want everyone to agree with you that the Rs are all innocent, then you're in the wrong forum dear. If you want to open your mind, learn some facts, and see there's other possibilities, then you've found the right forum.

I'd feel safe in saying that I don't think there's a single poster here, myself included, that hasn't changed their theory at least once, if not a dozen times. Many here will tell you that they too were IDI until they did more research, thoroughly examined the evidence, and added it all up. Now they're RDI too. We may differ on which R we think is responsible, but once you have all the facts, it's just too overwhelming to believe IDI.

Hey Nom: :rockon:

Have to bolster you with confession I was IDI long ago. When JB was killed I could not fathom parents or siblings, living that lifestyle of blessings, could ever have been involved with her death.

When JMK was brought in, I couldn't wait to get over to my Dad's and give him the raspberries! He was my sleuthing adversary for years, and from the beginning he was RDI or 'close family friend' having been invited in. Once Karr was released I slowly started considering the family friend aspect, discussed the molestation aspect more with my Dad, and realized I should begin allowing, in my own mind, for the possibility of sexual abuse being at the core of the crime. From that point forward nearly every source I studied led me to look at the family - particularly the adult males.

Today, I am in the same boat as you: pretty confident my R of choice is the killer, but have to concede when considering some other very plausible aspects of other family members' involvement, I have moments of doubt that lead me to look at other theories.

Those on the forum who are IDI now may always be IDI. Being IDI does have a perk......you never have to face the realities, and all the details which are so disgusting, that force us to accept the raw, sickening truth that parents or close family members abuse and kill children in very horrendous ways.

 

[Nom de plume]

:waitasec:

Hey Nom: :rockon:

Have to bolster you with confession I was IDI long ago. When JB was killed I could not fathom parents or siblings, living that lifestyle of blessings, could ever have been involved with her death.

When JMK was brought in, I couldn't wait to get over to my Dad's and give him the raspberries! He was my sleuthing adversary for years, and from the beginning he was RDI or 'close family friend' having been invited in. Once Karr was released I slowly started considering the family friend aspect, discussed the molestation aspect more with my Dad, and realized I should begin allowing, in my own mind, for the possibility of sexual abuse being at the core of the crime. From that point forward nearly every source I studied led me to look at the family - particularly the adult males.

Today, I am in the same boat as you: pretty confident my R of choice is the killer, but have to concede when considering some other very plausible aspects of other family members' involvement, I have moments of doubt that lead me to look at other theories.

Those on the forum who are IDI now may always be IDI. Being IDI does have a perk......you never have to face the realities, and all the details which are so disgusting, that force us to accept the raw, sickening truth that parents or close family members abuse and kill children in very horrendous ways.

BBM How true! The truth is so ugly, it's just much easier to pin the blame of some nameless, faceless monster. I'm sure there are a handful that will always be IDI, even when faced with ALL the evidence, and ALL the facts, however I do believe most IDI eventually "see the light" and realize it couldn't be anyone but RDI. I'm sure there are still people out there that think OJ was framed, CA was just misunderstood, and JA is innocent too.

But I also believe that there are still some IDI out there that are employed by the RST to create as much doubt about RDI as possible. Pretty sure I saw one on a very popular news site the other day, comparing the JB case to a current case. The person was either the most misinformed I've ever seen or intentionally misleading the public.

So has this case fizzled a bit? Yes and no. It has been over 16 yrs and people tend to move on to the next sensational case, yet IMO, the RST is still actively attempting to CYA the remaining Rs. Now just why would someone still be spending money, 16 yrs later, in an attempt to repair/protect his reputation? :waitasec:

 

[eileenhawkeye]

:waitasec:

BBM How true! The truth is so ugly, it's just much easier to pin the blame of some nameless, faceless monster. I'm sure there are a handful that will always be IDI, even when faced with ALL the evidence, and ALL the facts, however I do believe most IDI eventually "see the light" and realize it couldn't be anyone but RDI. I'm sure there are still people out there that think OJ was framed, CA was just misunderstood, and JA is innocent too.

But I also believe that there are still some IDI out there that are employed by the RST to create as much doubt about RDI as possible. Pretty sure I saw one on a very popular news site the other day, comparing the JB case to a current case. The person was either the most misinformed I've ever seen or intentionally misleading the public.

So has this case fizzled a bit? Yes and no. It has been over 16 yrs and people tend to move on to the next sensational case, yet IMO, the RST is still actively attempting to CYA the remaining Rs. Now just why would someone still be spending money, 16 yrs later, in an attempt to repair/protect his reputation? :waitasec:

I really don't think people who comment on news websites defending the Ramseys are being employed anyone. I always see people bring up the JBR case when other cases are being talked about, mostly to say don't accuse X because the R's turned out to be innocent. It's still a well-known case so people referencing it is not that weird. There aren't that many examples of someone being accused in the media for years, and then being "cleared". I think of the RST as being more professionals...people like Lou Smit, ones who go on TV and defend them. Personally, it's pretty common for me to bring up other cases when discussing one.

Now, I do think that in some much more recent cases, suspects might have friends or family who go on local news websites and forums and defend him/her. I just don't see that happening here? I feel like John would get Douglas to write a new book about JBR instead of caring about making random comments on a news site.

 

[midwest mama]

:waitasec:

BBM How true! The truth is so ugly, it's just much easier to pin the blame of some nameless, faceless monster. I'm sure there are a handful that will always be IDI, even when faced with ALL the evidence, and ALL the facts, however I do believe most IDI eventually "see the light" and realize it couldn't be anyone but RDI. I'm sure there are still people out there that think OJ was framed, CA was just misunderstood, and JA is innocent too.

But I also believe that there are still some IDI out there that are employed by the RST to create as much doubt about RDI as possible. Pretty sure I saw one on a very popular news site the other day, comparing the JB case to a current case. The person was either the most misinformed I've ever seen or intentionally misleading the public.

So has this case fizzled a bit? Yes and no. It has been over 16 yrs and people tend to move on to the next sensational case, yet IMO, the RST is still actively attempting to CYA the remaining Rs. Now just why would someone still be spending money, 16 yrs later, in an attempt to repair/protect his reputation? :waitasec:

:drumroll: !!

 

[madeleine]

:waitasec:

BBM How true! The truth is so ugly, it's just much easier to pin the blame of some nameless, faceless monster. I'm sure there are a handful that will always be IDI, even when faced with ALL the evidence, and ALL the facts, however I do believe most IDI eventually "see the light" and realize it couldn't be anyone but RDI. I'm sure there are still people out there that think OJ was framed, CA was just misunderstood, and JA is innocent too.

But I also believe that there are still some IDI out there that are employed by the RST to create as much doubt about RDI as possible. Pretty sure I saw one on a very popular news site the other day, comparing the JB case to a current case. The person was either the most misinformed I've ever seen or intentionally misleading the public.

So has this case fizzled a bit? Yes and no. It has been over 16 yrs and people tend to move on to the next sensational case, yet IMO, the RST is still actively attempting to CYA the remaining Rs. Now just why would someone still be spending money, 16 yrs later, in an attempt to repair/protect his reputation? :waitasec:

yep,could be very true..cause what I don't get about some IDI's is...the only thing they do is talk about the Ramseys innocence but not much about who the intruder ...who he might be,why he did it,how he did it,let's do something to get the guy!
I had my IDI moments (SAntadid it,CWdid it,FWdid it,etc) and my main interests were who could the intruder be and why he did it....this isn't necessarily connected with protecting the Ramseys reputation IMO...but this is what most IDI's do,it's all about "the R's didn't do it" and not about let's find out who did

 

[questfortrue]

:waitasec:

BBM How true! The truth is so ugly, it's just much easier to pin the blame of some nameless, faceless monster. I'm sure there are a handful that will always be IDI, even when faced with ALL the evidence, and ALL the facts, however I do believe most IDI eventually "see the light" and realize it couldn't be anyone but RDI. I'm sure there are still people out there that think OJ was framed, CA was just misunderstood, and JA is innocent too.

But I also believe that there are still some IDI out there that are employed by the RST to create as much doubt about RDI as possible. Pretty sure I saw one on a very popular news site the other day, comparing the JB case to a current case. The person was either the most misinformed I've ever seen or intentionally misleading the public.

So has this case fizzled a bit? Yes and no. It has been over 16 yrs and people tend to move on to the next sensational case, yet IMO, the RST is still actively attempting to CYA the remaining Rs. Now just why would someone still be spending money, 16 yrs later, in an attempt to repair/protect his reputation? :waitasec:

Not accusing anyone here of being an R shill (whether paid or not), but note that posters’ polite responses, contributing so many explanations which are never accepted by IDI proponents, slows a researched effort and honest discussion to discover what occurred in the death of a precious child. It is reminiscent of the manner in which the R’s slowed the LE investigation by dredging up anyone possible, most of their friends in fact, as people who should be investigated.

Here’s a wild thought: Maybe some of the ws honestly researched theories are uncomfortably close to the truth.

 

[questfortrue]

Here ya go, BB01:

The cross-fingerpointing defense - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Now, don't say I never did anything for you.

Thank you for the link. Cynic's discussion on FFJ regarding felony murder also informative for me. In any event, AH wasn't in the same league as Bugliosi! Some even question which league AH really played for.

 

[KoldKase]

Just a thought: nothing in a case is determined to be a "fact in evidence" until it is tried and determined by a jury to be such. The jury is the finder of fact.

So all we have is what we've been told in various media and LE interviews, books, articles, and see in crime scene photos which are also "hearsay" until submitted at trial as evidence. Not one piece of it has ever been tested or challenged in a criminal trial.

Just saying...it's all speculation and that's all it ever will be.

Having said that, we certainly can determine for ourselves, in this context, when Patsy was lying and when John was lying. I've seen enough to use my skills of reason, in this context, to believe that the Ramseys were the only people in the home that night, that Patsy wrote that faux ransom note, and one or more of them caused every injury to, and finally, the death of JonBenet.

From his own words, if we are stipulating for the sake of argument that the LE transcripts are not faked and in fact are reasonably accurate, John Ramsey did not dress his child in her panties Christmas morning or Christmas night. He also never said he dressed the child in anything at all. Nowhere in the Ramsey's own book did he ever claim such a thing. Patsy, in fact, tried to distance herself from dressing JonBenet in the suspect size 12-14 Bloomies.

So either they lied in their own book about that--and they certainly lied about many things in that book--or he did not handle her underwear BEFORE she was cleaned up after being attacked.

If JR is innocent of being involved in her death, why would he lie about simple facts of life like dressing her earlier that day or night? (Among countless other lies...?) It would have explained his shirt fibers in the Bloomies. But he said the opposite. And he wore the Israeli wool shirt that evening to dinner at the White's house. He'd been to work on his airplane earlier that afternoon to prepare for the trip the next day, so it's doubtful he wore an expensive wool shirt to do that.

It always helps to study the sources and do the research and make your own mind up. That's what many of us have done.

 

[otg]

:waitasec:

BBM How true! The truth is so ugly, it's just much easier to pin the blame of some nameless, faceless monster. I'm sure there are a handful that will always be IDI, even when faced with ALL the evidence, and ALL the facts, however I do believe most IDI eventually "see the light" and realize it couldn't be anyone but RDI. I'm sure there are still people out there that think OJ was framed, CA was just misunderstood, and JA is innocent too.

But I also believe that there are still some IDI out there that are employed by the RST to create as much doubt about RDI as possible. Pretty sure I saw one on a very popular news site the other day, comparing the JB case to a current case. The person was either the most misinformed I've ever seen or intentionally misleading the public.

So has this case fizzled a bit? Yes and no. It has been over 16 yrs and people tend to move on to the next sensational case, yet IMO, the RST is still actively attempting to CYA the remaining Rs. Now just why would someone still be spending money, 16 yrs later, in an attempt to repair/protect his reputation? :waitasec:

Nom, I think you nailed what I, and so many others here, feel: That we would much rather believe in a "nameless, faceless monster" than to think that a family member could be responsible for this tragic event. I've said as much myself on several occasions. But wanting to believe in this "monster" (or Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, or Peter Cottontail) doesn't make it real. Usually (assuming they have no vested interest in defending the R's), anyone who really believes in their innocence doesn't speak for very long before they expose their ignorance of key facts and evidence that is in the public domain (think... Aphrodite Jones). Others have a personal reason for taking this position (think... Jammie).

Are there still people who go to the public forums to shill for the R's? Who knows. But for the sake of anyone new to this forum, and who might wonder about the suspicions some “old-timers” might have of someone new who comes here asking questions or putting up defensive arguments that indicate their “leaning” toward IDI, I’m going to provide some background information that will hopefully explain some of our reservations. I won’t personally be naming any single person, but I might quote from other sources which do. This is all a matter of public record, so the mods should have no problem with it.

There is a family who was (or perhaps is) close to the R’s. JR denied in police interviews that he and PR were “close friends” with them, but that both their sons were “buddies” (JR’s term). The matriarch of this family became known as “Patsy’s pitbull” because of her stridently pugnacious protective actions toward any who dared challenge her keepers. This person went so far as to register on various forums under different names and run defense for the R’s under the pretense of being someone who simply cared about a poor family that was unfairly being “railroaded”.

This person even registered an account under the name of “[email protected]”, and sent emails to various people connected to the case, closing the emails with “Regards, Mark”. (https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/june-04-2003-ramsey-update-86) “According to Earthlink's records, the account holder that has been accessing the [email protected] e-mail account is Susan B. Stine, 5760 Long Grove Drive, Atlanta, Georgia.” BPD never pressed charges even though “Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) went to Ms. Stine's residence in an attempt to interview her on June 3, 2003,” and “she refused to talk with the GBI agent.” “Under Colorado law, Criminal Impersonation is a class 6 felony and Impersonating a Police Officer is a Class I Misdemeanor.” BTW, this incident happened in 2003 -- six-and-a-half years after JonBenet’s death.

Shortly after 1996, this person and her husband both quit their jobs at the Univ. of CO in Boulder to move to Atlanta along with the R’s. Though he leaves it off his resume’ now, the patriarch of this family went to work at the same company as JR. Their son and BR are still close friends.

This person who is known to run interference for the R’s in various ways is probably not being paid to do it, but seems almost to have a personal stake in the matter. Why so?

Also, midwest mama and Nom de plume are both correct on another thread that it was this same person who answered the door through the intercom when police responded to the 911 call that was made from someone at the Dec. 23, party that was held at the Ramsey Hellhole. It was she who refused to let them in.

Something else worth mentioning is related to the grand jury that was assembled to investigate JonBenet’s death. Take it for what it’s worth and draw your own conclusions. After BR’s testimony at the GJ, they took a 4-month hiatus (speculated that they were waiting on DNA testing results). After the break, the first person brought in to testify was this person whose initials are SS. The GJ only met several times after that (much of that time being spent with the prosecutorial team), and then they were dismissed, and Alex Hunter announced there would be no indictments (understanding as we do now the difference between a true bill by the GJ and an indictment by the DA).

The point of all this is simply to show that there are people who have (and possibly still do) deliberately try and throw blame away from the R’s in an attempt to sway public opinion. (Surely I don’t need to bring up the name of Jammie here as well.) Whether it is because they are being paid to do so, or because they have a personal stake in the matter, they are still around. So no one should be surprised if some of us are just a little suspicious when someone new shows up here trying to defend every single action of people who most of us feel are obviously guilty of something associated with JonBenet’s tragic death. And further, when we go to the trouble of answering what we take to be a sincere question, and the answer is rejected because it's not what the person considers "real evidence" or a "reliable source", we tend to become even more apprehensive about that poster.

So for the benefit of anyone who doesn't understand what is going on here, maybe this will help explain it a little. This is not intended to be aimed at any single poster -- it is simply an explanation so some of the newcomers will understand.

Source links for anyone who wants to know:

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer8_gjtl.html

 

[UKGuy]

otg,
I reckon what SS and PR have in common is their male children.

For those new onboard there has been speculation and allegations that SS may have been colluding in redacting her sons's activities from public disclosure?

Fleet White might have agreed to this and become party to offering an explanation for the 911 call?

Little more than two days pass and JonBenet is dead, who do the R's call over, none other than FW.

Given prior events FW probably thought, "Am I being setup?" The wine-cellar crime-scene apparently confirmed as much to FW, he knew an R had murdered JonBenet.

I have often wondered if FW's account regarding the 911 call compromised his subsequent response to finding JonBenet?

Is it possible that there is a direct link between 12/23/1996 and 12/25/1996?


.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

SO if someone does not go along with the mass thoughts here, They can not just be an independent thinker?

How sad is that??

Many of us have looked at this case for years and see something different. WE have done our own searching looking for back up to " facts" and sometimes when you follow that trail, There is no FACT. Just an opinion or speculation that gains fact stated as it is whispered down the lane.


I think this is part of the problem in this case. A HUGE problem. People just accepting things as fact when there is no back up, No searching the evidence out.

 

[Venom]

Please, you IDI believers, give us RDI one fact that isn't correct, or one that points to an intruder being there, something to back up an intruder.
:banghead: