If you look at it logically it's very clear who did it!

[CloudedTruth]

Just my opinion but I don't think using the smaller portion of a post to directly address what anyone might want to address is a big deal. I think the key thing is to be sincere in a response and not deliberately try to "twist" the words into something that was never meant in the first place. To be clear, YOU do not do that, Ponytale. I've never seen you do that.

I enjoy reading your posts because even when you might disagree on something - your sincerity comes through crystal clear.

Agree.

However, when you only quote a small part of a single sentence, it’s very easy to manipulate that because you’ve taken away all context that was included in the entire sentence. Not cool.

Snipping an entire lengthy post to concentrate on one point contained in a single paragraph for example, is appropriate and understandable.

 

[GRT]

Are you JR? Seriously.

Surely we can discuss like adults without the snide little jabs.

I was responding directly to your post about the Ramsey's building a narrative that "That started with the RN, then the 911 call."

That's a direct accusation that they wrote the RN and faked the 911 call.

I don't buy into that conspiracy theory so that doesn't work for me.

Why don't we all dial it down a notch and be respectful to one another?

 

[GRT]

Well said. Thank you.

This poster did the same to me earlier. Posting partial quotes changes the context so that it can be manipulated. And that is exactly why the Ramseys lack credibility. It’s deceptive.

I didn't quote you out of context. I simply isolated the claim and explained why you had it wrong. Even if I'd quoted your entire post, it would still have been incorrect. Nothing was manipulated. You were just wrong.

There's a distinct "attack the messenger" thing going on here.

We're allowed to respectfully snip posts for focus, but if you prefer, I'll answer your posts in their entirety. It won't change anything.

At least I try to post sources when I make claims. Several posters here have been caught making unverifiable claims and when asked for sources to back them up -- they don't respond.

 

[Bekind89]

Surely we can discuss like adults without the snide little jabs.

I was responding directly to your post about the Ramsey's building a narrative that "That started with the RN, then the 911 call."

That's a direct accusation that they wrote the RN and faked the 911 call.

I don't buy into that conspiracy theory so that doesn't work for me.

Why don't we all dial it down a notch and be respectful to one another?

Oh, I was being quite sincere with that question, I assure you.

 

[Bekind89]

Surely we can discuss like adults without the snide little jabs.

I was responding directly to your post about the Ramsey's building a narrative that "That started with the RN, then the 911 call."

That's a direct accusation that they wrote the RN and faked the 911 call.

I don't buy into that conspiracy theory so that doesn't work for me.

Why don't we all dial it down a notch and be respectful to one another?

Respectfully, I am allowed my own opinions just as everyone else here is. Just because you choose not to believe the Ramsey's have any culpability in the murder of JB doesn't make my opinion that they certainly do any less valid than yours.
Perhaps we shouldn't respond to each others post in the future.

 

[GRT]

Oh, I was being quite sincere with that question, I assure you.

Well, in that case, let me set your mind at ease.

No, I am not John Ramsey.

 

[GRT]

Respectfully, I am allowed my own opinions just as everyone else here is. Just because you choose not to believe the Ramsey's have any culpability in the murder of JB doesn't make my opinion that they certainly do any less valid than yours.
Perhaps we shouldn't respond to each others post in the future.

Of course, you are allowed your opinion.

But, so am I.

 

[GRT]

That RN seemed to be all about John. Pretty narcissistic imo. Jmo.
Does anyone else often wonder how many Ramsey supporters may actually be paid to do this?
JR certainly isn't above doing this.

I'm not a "Ramsey supporter." I've never claimed that I have always believed the Ramseys are innocent, and I always will. In fact, I've said that if real evidence ever comes up that shows a Ramsey was guilty, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

But right now, based solely on the evidence, or lack thereof, I do believe the entire Ramsey family is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

I believe an "inside" intruder killed JBR. My candidates for that honor are Fleet White, Chris Wolf, or the husband/friends of LHP.

I think there's a real chance that the new Chief of Police will proceed with the advanced DNA testing and that we'll find out who killed JonBenet.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I didn't quote you out of context. I simply isolated the claim and explained why you had it wrong. Even if I'd quoted your entire post, it would still have been incorrect. Nothing was manipulated. You were just wrong.

There's a distinct "attack the messenger" thing going on here.

We're allowed to respectfully snip posts for focus, but if you prefer, I'll answer your posts in their entirety. It won't change anything.

At least I try to post sources when I make claims. Several posters here have been caught making unverifiable claims and when asked for sources to back them up -- they don't respond.

Here is what I said:

The coroner identified the small marks as petechia, which is a common result of strangulation. There was also some bruising noted. If they were her claw marks, one would expect to find proof of that with substantial amounts of her own neck skin under her fingernails. There was not.

Your snipped quote only included the first sentence. As this clearly details, I noted there were other marks present that the coroner noted.

Taken in context, there is nothing incorrect about it. I was not "just wrong". As a matter of fact you previously said this was partially correct, now that's changed to I'm just wrong. I have already admitted I should have included the verbiage about abrasions. However, most of the small marks were identified as petechia by the coroner. You want to deny that truth? That's entirely your choice, however your snipping did change the context of what was said, and I am not the only poster you have done that too. Others have noticed.

Snipping for focus is one thing. Snipping to cherry pick is another. Please stop with the excuses.

 

[GRT]

PR's personality, tendency towards drama, etc. is all over the ransom note. The personal references, the movie quotes. It literally screams that PR was the author IMO.

It's highly unlikely PR would have watched the movies quoted in the ransom note. It's unlikely most females would enjoy those movies, but especially not PR, who was wrapped up in being a social butterfly.

Totally out of her wheelhouse.

MOO

 

[GRT]

Here is what I said:

The coroner identified the small marks as petechia, which is a common result of strangulation. There was also some bruising noted. If they were her claw marks, one would expect to find proof of that with substantial amounts of her own neck skin under her fingernails. There was not.

Your snipped quote only included the first sentence. As this clearly details, I noted there were other marks present that the coroner noted.

Taken in context, there is nothing incorrect about it. I was not "just wrong". As a matter of fact you previously said this was partially correct, now that's changed to I'm just wrong. I have already admitted I should have included the verbiage about abrasions. However, most of the small marks were identified as petechia by the coroner. You want to deny that truth? That's entirely your choice, however your snipping did change the context of what was said, and I am not the only poster you have done that too. Others have noticed.

Snipping for focus is one thing. Snipping to cherry pick is another. Please stop with the excuses.

In context or out of context, your claim is false. Meyer did not identify those marks as petechia. Yes, petechia was present, but he also reported abrasions right above the ligature. He did not expand on how those abrasions got there. It has long been debated that they could have been fingernail marks.

 

[CloudedTruth]

In context or out of context, your claim is false. Meyer did not identify those marks as petechia. Yes, petechia was present, but he also reported abrasions right above the ligature. He did not expand on how those abrasions got there. It has long been debated that they could have been fingernail marks.

"In context or out of context"? Context does matter despite your opinion that you can cherry pick what others have posted.

Again, how was it partially correct awhile ago and now it’s false, wrong, incorrect. Meyer did identify some of the marks as petechia.

How many times are you going to change what you’ve said previously, and how many times do I have to repeat there was petechia, abrasions and bruising present? There was also not extensive skin under her fingernails to suggest she was clawing at her neck.

You have accused people of “attacking the messenger”, and here you are escalating this into ridiculousness.

At this point in time I have to agree with some other posters who have identified a lack of credibility and ceased to interact as a result. Have a nice day.

 

[GRT]

"In context or out of context"? Context does matter despite your opinion that you can cherry pick what others have posted.

Again, how was it partially correct awhile ago and now it’s false, wrong, incorrect. Meyer did identify some of the marks as petechia.

How many times are you going to change what you’ve said previously, and how many times do I have to repeat there was petechia, abrasions and bruising present? There was also not extensive skin under her fingernails to suggest she was clawing at her neck.

You have accused people of “attacking the messenger”, and here you are escalating this into ridiculousness.

At this point in time I have to agree with some other posters who have identified a lack of credibility and ceased to interact as a result. Have a nice day.

You were partially correct in that petechia was present.

You were wrong when you said the coroner identified the marks in question (half-moon marks, remember?) as petechia.

I would suggest reading the autopsy report.

I’m not going to respond to the innuendo. I’ll let the facts speak for themselves.

 

[CloudedTruth]

You were partially correct in that petechia was present.

You were wrong when you said the coroner identified the marks in question (half-moon marks, remember?) as petechia.

I would suggest reading the autopsy report.

I’m not going to respond to the innuendo. I’ll let the facts speak for themselves.

The original poster did not specify half-moon marks. I did not mention half-moon marks.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Thank you for pointing that out!
I have done that too, unknowingly that it is not allowed or may be taken offensively by fellow posters. I really did not know that. I would like to point out that I only did that because I saw that it is sometimes better to answer to smaller portions of text (quote a smaller portion of the text and reply directly to that portion only), than to quote the whole post and answer underneath it.
But I will not do it anymore now that I know that things can be misunderstood or misread by that action.

I don't feel that's a problem.
It's only a problem when you leave out a portion of the post that changes the context.
Also, most on here are open to healthy debate. I want to learn more and will open my mind if it's backed up by facts or known facts.
When posters respond with ' Patsy didnt write the note' or
' that's a conspiracy theory' they are not interested in debate or facts. It feels like there is an agenda. If you are antagonistic in your posts, expect a like response. If you are a bot getting paid just to twist up facts, you are in the wrong place. You are not going to be successful.
You, along with several others know this case to well to roll over when bs is posted.

 

[Bekind89]

I don't feel that's a problem.
It's only a problem when you leave out a portion of the post that changes the context.
Also, most on here are open to healthy debate. I want to learn more and will open my mind if it's backed up by facts or known facts.
When posters respond with ' Patsy didnt write the note' or
' that's a conspiracy theory' they are not interested in debate or facts. It feels like there is an agenda. If you are antagonistic in your posts, expect a like response. If you are a bot getting paid just to twist up facts, you are in the wrong place. You are not going to be successful.
You, along with several others know this case to well to roll over when bs is posted.

When someone actually claims that PR couldn't like crime movies because she was a " social butterfly" they lose all credibility with me.
I'm sorry, not trying to be mean or disrespectful, it's just how I feel.

 

[CloudedTruth]

When someone actually claims that PR couldn't like crime movies because she was a " social butterfly" they lose all credibility with me.
I'm sorry, not trying to be mean or disrespectful, it's just how I feel.

Exactly. Such claims are a red flag. This is an opinion based upon what? I have watched and enjoyed all of the movies referenced and I am a woman. It isn’t disrespectful to call out total BS. Those comments were not only ignorant but insulting. From what expertise or extensive research were these comments made? BS.

 

[Bekind89]

Exactly. Such claims are a red flag. This is an opinion based upon what? I have watched and enjoyed all of the movies referenced and I am a woman. It isn’t disrespectful to call out total BS. Those comments were not only ignorant but insulting. From what expertise or extensive research were these comments made? BS.

Thank you, all I could think was how in the world could this person know what she liked and disliked? Red flag, as you correctly stated and I can not take that person seriously any longer.

 

[Gigiky]

Exactly. Such claims are a red flag. This is an opinion based upon what? I have watched and enjoyed all of the movies referenced and I am a woman. It isn’t disrespectful to call out total BS. Those comments were not only ignorant but insulting. From what expertise or extensive research were these comments made? BS.

I agree. I'm a women. I retired with a back ground in LE. I'm social. And I enjoy crime movies.
Esp. when they are based on true stories. I really don't understand what PR social standing has to do with anything.

 

[AddieBoo]

They hid behind the layer of protection the attorneys offered. Everyone knows that the early days in an investigation are critical. After months go by, memories fade. They could've submitted to interviews with counsel present to advise. They did not until they had favorable terms and access to the investigative files, which again is unprecedented. I have often referenced the Polly Klaas case and the marked differences in how the parents chose to respond. That was also a high profile case. The parents allowed themselves to be interviewed and investigated right up front so that the investigation could then focus on finding the perpetrator. Mark Klaas used the media effectively to put focus on the investigation and his daughter. He did not allow it to become a media circus. Huge difference.

It may not be flattering, but that's how many people described PR. She was so heavily medicated that she could barely function. She needed help bathing and dressing. When Pam Griffin and her daughter saw PR on the 27th at the Fernies, they thought she was 1 step away from overdosing. Dr. Beuf was a pediatrician and not PR's doctor. One can argue the ethics of him giving her high doses of Valium to begin with and then continuing on well after her own doctor should have been consulted. I'm not sure it would be considered standard practice to heavily medicate a mother in this case. That implies it's done all the time. Are there statistics that show this? In particular for the amount of time PR was medicated to the point where she could not function? I can recall interviews with Sharon Tate's mother after the murder of her daughter. She was nowhere near as dosed as PR was, if at all. Of course she spoke to LE first way before she spoke with the press.

The point is, she did not need to be that heavily sedated. It was OTT. I think most people would agree speaking to LE about the murder of your daughter should be a priority. As soon as you are able so valuable information and memories are fresh.

Again, who went to the press first? The Ramseys. At that time there was no huge presence of tabloids, etc. hounding them. The story went hugely national when the Ramseys chose to do a prime time national broadcast and it took off from there. They weren't pacifying the press at that point, they were getting ahead of the story to put out their narrative and they used the press to do so.

Let's not forget how DA Hunter used the press and in particular a specific reporter for a tabloid to put "all manner of lies" in the public's ears and eyes.

Only those involved with the investigation would know the specifics. Barb Fernie called police with her concerns, not the other way around. Until then the Fernies were staunchly supporting their friends. They like the other friends, cooperated with police immediately. It was only the Ramseys who did not cooperate. Where is the evidence that police were pitting them against the Ramseys? I have heard no such claim from any of the friends. Barb Fernie saw what she knew to be an obvious lie by the Ramseys, how was that a result of police pitting her against them? She came forward because she knew it was a lie. She came forward because she had justice for JonBenet at heart.

The media? How many interviews did John and Patsy Ramsey give the tabloids? How many photo shoots? How many interviews? They had a PR team.. gimme a break…IMO they loved it. That spectacle at their church? That “Ramsey Press Conference” on and on….
MOO