Has the case fizzled a bit?

[BOESP]

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 ito out.

It's a sad fact the Ramseys did not cooperate from the beginning. That's the fact of what happened and the other fact is JonBenet's body was not ransomed.

Another sad fact is this case was decided at a Grand Jury to be brought into court for trial and it wasn't. That is a really sad fact.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's a sad fact the Ramseys did not cooperate from the beginning. That's the fact of what happened and the other fact is JonBenet's body was not ransomed.

Another sad fact is this case was decided at a Grand Jury to be brought into court for trial and it wasn't. That is a really sad fact.

The fact was that the police tried to hold that body for ransom and If the Coroner had gone along with them that is exactly what would have happened.

Something else, People want to judge the Ramseys on their intentions, But ill intentions of the Police are just dismissed.

 

[Chelly]

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:

The ignore feature is my friend and it can be yours.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

That's exactly how I felt.

 

[BBB167893]

The fact was that the police tried to hold that body for ransom and If the Coroner had gone along with them that is exactly what would have happened.

Something else, People want to judge the Ramseys on their intentions, But ill intentions of the Police are just dismissed.

Oh, come ON, Scarlett. Don't bother wasting our time with that. Those assertions have been challenged so many times, it's just not funny anymore.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Oh, come ON, Scarlett. Don't bother wasting our time with that. Those assertions have been challenged so many times, it's just not funny anymore.

Nothing funny about it. The facts say the police tried to hold the body. If you want to ignore that that's your choice but it is a fact

 

[Chelly]

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.

Indeed. Appears much of IDI thought process is steeped in denial.
*Refusal to accept evidence. Inability (cognitive) to link events.
*Unwilling or unable to put forth logical theory to support IDI.
*Refusal to read accounts written by respected case investigators.
*Refusal to accept reasonable outcomes worked out by experts.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Is this how this forum works? People can openly mock those who have looked at evidence but still come to different conclusion ?

No opinion is accepted except the mass opinion?

It does not matter what my theory is. As I have said before, for me this is a constant work in process. I have no agenda, no stake in the outcome but I want to see the most probable explanations that bring me as close to the truth as possible.

There are plenty of issues with the RDI theories too. And again IDI RDI are just theories. Nothing more.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Indeed. Appears much of IDI thought process is steeped in denial.
*Refusal to accept evidence. Inability (cognitive) to link events.
*Unwilling or unable to put forth logical theory to support IDI.
*Refusal to read accounts written by respected case investigators.
*Refusal to accept reasonable outcomes worked out by experts.

I can not speak for everyone who may believe there was an intruder involved, but I know for me, I am not in denial, I see problems with the evidence put forth as support of the RDI theory. That is not denial but it is clarity.

I don't see why people have to put forth a working theory to have a valid opinion or theory about the case. Some of us are flexible about the case and just want to see where it leads overall. I know for me, When I look at all the evidence it does not pinpoint a killer. Certainly not one from the family. It just says there was a killer there. Some one killed her. Im just not there on who yet but nothing leads me to the family at this point.

I don't think there is any refusing of evidence but I see it take another twist than the accepted path of the forum. I like to look at it myself and see where it leads me. I am okay that you don't agree with me, I am just not sure why you are not okay that I don't agree with you.

I have read and am still reading reports but again, I have to consider the source and their motives. So that may affect how much stock I put in that.

I don't have to accept outcomes based on what other people think. I can read it, But just because they put forth a theory does not mean I have to accept it. I have seen plenty of prosecutors put forth cases that really had no basis in reality. So for me, I need to see it myself.

This case is an octopus with many tentacles. It reaches out and grabs us but at it's core it is a mystery. It would be really nice if instead of attacking or ridiculing people, when someone had a different theory it was accepted and discussed, or just considered.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Is this how this forum works? People can openly mock those who have looked at evidence but still come to different conclusion ?

No opinion is accepted except the mass opinion?

It does not matter what my theory is. As I have said before, for me this is a constant work in process. I have no agenda, no stake in the outcome but I want to see the most probable explanations that bring me as close to the truth as possible.

There are plenty of issues with the RDI theories too. And again IDI RDI are just theories. Nothing more.

It does matter! :waitasec:

Those who disagree with the masses (usually, me) need to work hard to present credible alternative scenarios before we can claim anyone elses is erroneous. Having an opinion with no logic or evidence to back it up, is kind of anti-sleuthing.

This isn't a faith based site, it's a fact based one. The facts here tell most people RDI. Faith in some cases really tests the boundaries of common sense, and JB's is one.

We chew the same old bone because there is nothing new, a new viewpoint, explanation, suspect, evidence unearthed by an IDI to make us think "hang on, maybe we've got this all wrong!"

We all have to be about fact not faith, evidence not opinion, truth not rumour. This is a two way street, both for the "masses" and the dissenter. Us dissenters have to present intelligent, cogent arguments otherwise we are just deconstructing the discussion and ignoring the mission of the site.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No it really doesn't. I take it day by day, evidence by evidence. I don't have to offer more than how I feel on a particular point at a time.
The thing is when you let the evidence lead you, and you ponder it, IT does not always lay out a whole theory.

But What I know is that right now, and for some time I see big gaps where people who are RDI see gotchas.

It may be a fact based site but I have already found places where people take things for fact that are not. Theories are not fact. To say the RDI is not a fact, IT is one persons opinion multiplied by however more hold the same opinion but it is not a fact. Just a theory. Just opinion.

As is my feelings when I look at the evidence that I see that it was not the Ramseys.

I agree, It can not be about anything but fact, and when I look at those facts, I don't see a ramsey doing it. Not yet anyway, But since this is all conjecture, Who knows. I still have hope someone is going to come forward or DNA will match someone it should not.

 

[Venom]

I can not speak for everyone who may believe there was an intruder involved, but I know for me, I am not in denial, I see problems with the evidence put forth as support of the RDI theory. That is not denial but it is clarity.

I don't see why people have to put forth a working theory to have a valid opinion or theory about the case. Some of us are flexible about the case and just want to see where it leads overall. I know for me, When I look at all the evidence it does not pinpoint a killer. Certainly not one from the family. It just says there was a killer there. Some one killed her. Im just not there on who yet but nothing leads me to the family at this point.

I don't think there is any refusing of evidence but I see it take another twist than the accepted path of the forum. I like to look at it myself and see where it leads me. I am okay that you don't agree with me, I am just not sure why you are not okay that I don't agree with you.

I have read and am still reading reports but again, I have to consider the source and their motives. So that may affect how much stock I put in that.

I don't have to accept outcomes based on what other people think. I can read it, But just because they put forth a theory does not mean I have to accept it. I have seen plenty of prosecutors put forth cases that really had no basis in reality. So for me, I need to see it myself.

This case is an octopus with many tentacles. It reaches out and grabs us but at it's core it is a mystery. It would be really nice if instead of attacking or ridiculing people, when someone had a different theory it was accepted and discussed, or just considered.

From what I've read on here, no one who thinks an IDI has stated a theory (or even an idea) on who/why/how an intruder did it. That's what I think people (at least myself) are trying to get at. It's ok to have that view, but at least state what makes you think that. Who would the intruder be? Someone from pageants, JR's work? For others to discuss your theory you have to state it. JMO

 

[Venom]

No it really doesn't. I take it day by day, evidence by evidence. I don't have to offer more than how I feel on a particular point at a time.
The thing is when you let the evidence lead you, and you ponder it, IT does not always lay out a whole theory.

But What I know is that right now, and for some time I see big gaps where people who are RDI see gotchas.

It may be a fact based site but I have already found places where people take things for fact that are not. Theories are not fact. To say the RDI is not a fact, IT is one persons opinion multiplied by however more hold the same opinion but it is not a fact. Just a theory. Just opinion.

As is my feelings when I look at the evidence that I see that it was not the Ramseys.

I agree, It can not be about anything but fact, and when I look at those facts, I don't see a ramsey doing it. Not yet anyway, But since this is all conjecture, Who knows. I still have hope someone is going to come forward or DNA will match someone it should not.

BBM. Again, I haven't seen anything here that has been stated as a fact and it turned out not to be. I may be wrong with that, but from what I've read I can find it backed up somewhere. JMO

 

[questfortrue]

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

Excellent explanation. I’ve heard of shills, trolls (and troglodytes too!) but thought it was just me with nagging suspicions. All I can say is thank you for your post.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

From what I've read on here, no one who thinks an IDI has stated a theory (or even an idea) on who/why/how an intruder did it. That's what I think people (at least myself) are trying to get at. It's ok to have that view, but at least state what makes you think that. Who would the intruder be? Someone from pageants, JR's work? For others to discuss your theory you have to state it. JMO

I understand that.

I think it is hard because basically for my Intruder may have done it theory would start with, can I prove to myself that one of the Ramseys killed Jon Benet. And at this point I can not. I look at points people make and roll it over and do some research but most times lately I just find it does not hold water or there may be an innocent explanation that I have to apply before I go out there and make up a scenario that does not feel natural.

Lately I have been focusing on the fibers and when I look at them I can see perfectly normal reasonable transfer theories. If there were fibers that were unique to something that did not belong in the home, I can see them meaning something, But from clothing worn in the home, around the kids, all over the furniture, and I have to look again but I think it was about 8 fibers?? on the duct tape? Which is so not a huge number of fibers had someone being wearing something and then transferred them, It sounds to me it was fibers left at another time, and secondary transfer.

I am still looking at this. But the more I look at it, The less I see gotcha and the more I see, Family living in the same place.

 

[BBB167893]

Nothing funny about it. The facts say the police tried to hold the body. If you want to ignore that that's your choice but it is a fact

Fact, my as**. Just a transparent attempt by the Rs to mislead people and control the narrative. As George Orwell famously said, "he who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Fact, my as**. Just a transparent attempt by the Rs to mislead people and control the narrative. As George Orwell famously said, "he who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."

It is a fact. Whether you want to admit it or not. AS per the Coroner, He was asked by the police to hold the body. That is not innuendo, that is not speculation, that is a fact from a primary participant in the case.

George Orwell was a cool dude but I have no idea how this applies. All I see is the police making a mess and the Ramseys using their right to counsel. Not at all the fairy tale it is made out to be.

 

[BBB167893]

It is a fact. Whether you want to admit it or not. AS per the Coroner, He was asked by the police to hold the body. That is not innuendo, that is not speculation, that is a fact from a primary participant in the case.

There's a big difference between being asked to hold the body for further forensic testing and actually using it as leverage on potential suspects, as you claim.

George Orwell was a cool dude but I have no idea how this applies.

I'll be happy to explain it to you. It applies in this case because, from the very word "go," the Rs were out to control the narrative and thus, control what a potential jury would be exposed to.

All I see is the police making a mess and the Ramseys using their right to counsel. Not at all the fairy tale it is made out to be.

Oh, it goes SO much deeper than that, Scarlett. And it makes me sick!

The Dragon has returned!

The Dragon is Breathing Fire!

The DRAGON WILL SCORCH YOUR BACK!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There's a big difference between being asked to hold the body for further forensic testing and actually using it as leverage on potential suspects, as you claim.

That is not what this was. The coroner said they asked him to hold the body to get the Ramseys to talk. not that he needed to hold the body.

"Boulder police investigators asked the Boulder County coroner's office if it could withhold the body of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey from her family - even though forensic work was complete - to pressure them into submitting to a police interview, Coroner John Meyer confirmed Thursday."

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/04/25-2.html

I'll be happy to explain it to you. It applies in this case because, from the very word "go," the Rs were out to control the narrative and thus, control what a potential jury would be exposed to.

The Dragon has returned!

The Dragon is Breathing Fire!

The DRAGON WILL SCORCH YOUR BACK!

Whatever that means at the end.

The Police were trying to control the ramseys and strong arm them out of their right to be represented by counsel, and remain silent.

 

[BBB167893]

That is not what this was. The coroner said they asked him to hold the body to get the Ramseys to talk. not that he needed to hold the body.

"Boulder police investigators asked the Boulder County coroner's office if it could withhold the body of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey from her family - even though forensic work was complete - to pressure them into submitting to a police interview, Coroner John Meyer confirmed Thursday."

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/04/25-2.html

Seems we have a bit of conflict:

By midafternoon, after studying the autopsy results, Eller still had unanswered questions about the body. Chief Koby pointed out to him that the body itself had become evidence, and to release it at this point could affect the investigation. Eller and the coroner agreed.

...

A short time later, an agitated Pete Hofstrom came into Eller's office. "Pete, we need to talk to the Ramseys."

"You can't ransom the body for an interview," Hofstrom shot back.

"We are not 'ransoming' the body. It's premature to release it."
-Thomas, pp 51-52

Whatever that means at the end.

The folks know what it means.

The Police were trying to control the ramseys and strong arm them out of their right to be represented by counsel, and remain silent.

There were a lot better ways to do that, if that had been their intent.