Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It says it is pineapple. That Meyer identified it. I am sure it is in an actual supplemental report. And as you know, we can't touch the case file.

JMO

Well I need to see that proof. That is not what he says from the autopsy report. He said it appears to be pineapple. I want to know the source and why there would be an additional report..

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

This report actually contains notes like " new" and brackets which leads me to believe this is the final report that was made more clear and more detailed.

I am not buying the other report til I see proof of it.

 

[tezi]

Until I see it I dont' believe it. If there is a report out there that states that then it should be public.. Someone saying they saw it does not mean anything..

That goes against the actual first report.. So the pineapple actually morphed from possible to absolutely with rough edges??? I don't know.. That seems odd.

It's in the case file, I am sure, and as you know, the case file can't be released as long as the case is still technically open.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

We have done this dance for over four months now Scarlett. You know that these detectives did not make this stuff up. You know it came from the case file, which the general public has no access. And wouldn't we all like to see the case file? However, we don't be condescending and rude and say that the source (if it is an accepted source as Thomas's book and Kolar's book are) means nothing to us.

It upsets me when people actually take time to source something for you, and you can't even say thank you for taking the time to do that. You just cut them off at the knees. That is very rude. Rude and condescending is what your post is.

JMO

I want the source. It should be sourced. If not then anyone can say anything. It can be an interpretation or even miscommunication.

That is not rude or condescending that is fact finding. Any one can say anything.. But I have the autopsy report that has been apparently edited and made to have more details than the first one with all the notes on it.. So it looks indeed like a final report.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's in the case file, I am sure, and as you know, the case file can't be released as long as the case is still technically open.

JMO

That would be a guess. I am not even sure another report exists.. It could mean in fact that that report was not the final, But an preliminary and what we have is the final with more correct details.

 

[tezi]

Well I need to see that proof. That is not what he says from the autopsy report. He said it appears to be pineapple. I want to know the source and why there would be an additional report..

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

This report actually contains notes like " new" and brackets which leads me to believe this is the final report that was made more clear and more detailed.

I am not buying the other report til I see proof of it.

BBM: To each their own. It really doesn't matter that you "need" to see proof. You can either accept it or not, but at least two sources have been cited for you and you continue to argue. I am done arguing with you about the pineapple.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM: To each their own. It really doesn't matter that you "need" to see proof. You can either accept it or not, but at least two sources have been cited for you and you continue to argue. I am done arguing with you about the pineapple.

JMO

Well yes it does. How can you decide what is going on, weigh evidence if there is no proof of it. Investigators don't take people's word for things, they look for proof, evidence. That is all I am doing. Looking for proof. For me, I want the truth. To find that I need proof of claims.
I am not looking to defend anyone. I am looking for where the truth leads.

 

[tezi]

I want the source. It should be sourced. If not then anyone can say anything. It can be an interpretation or even miscommunication.

That is not rude or condescending that is fact finding. Any one can say anything.. But I have the autopsy report that has been apparently edited and made to have more details than the first one with all the notes on it.. So it looks indeed like a final report.

You are rude to posters who take the time to find sources for you. And your tone with this post is condescending.

It's funny that you should mention anyone can say anything. Kind of like those talking head lawyers that you rely so much on, that you say have cleared the Ramseys. Most of them don't know anything about the case, but they can get up there and declare the Ramseys cleared, despite the totality of the evidence that they don't even know about. Those talking heads, unlike Thomas and Kolar have no clue about what is in the case file and what led LE to focus on the Ramseys. But, you claim that Thomas and Kolar didn't know anything about the case. Double-standard much?

JMO

 

[Tawny]

Well yes it does. How can you decide what is going on, weigh evidence if there is no proof of it. Investigators don't take people's word for things, they look for proof, evidence. That is all I am doing. Looking for proof. For me, I want the truth. To find that I need proof of claims.
I am not looking to defend anyone. I am looking for where the truth leads.

If we're looking for where the evidence and truth leads us, how can we possibly ignore the physical similarities the substance in her intestines has to PINEAPPLE? I'm being serious here. Based on JUST the autopsy, how can we go about trying to find out what that substance is when it is described as pineapple-y and there is a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen table?

That isn't looking where the truth leads. That's blatantly ignoring what's right in front of us and looking for everything else hoping something will stick.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You are rude to posters who take the time to find sources for you. And your tone with this post is condescending.

It's funny that you should mention anyone can say anything. Kind of like those talking head lawyers that you rely so much on, that you say have cleared the Ramseys. Most of them don't know anything about the case, but they can get up there and declare the Ramseys cleared, despite the totality of the evidence that they don't even know about. Those talking heads, unlike Thomas and Kolar have no clue about what is in the case file and what led LE to focus on the Ramseys. But, you claim that Thomas and Kolar didn't know anything about the case. Double-standard much?

JMO

I need sources. It is that simple. I have been gathering evidence and facts for months now, It matters to me where the first source comes from.

 

[Tawny]

Speaking of evidence and facts, did you find the source that talked about the cigarette butts outside the Ram/Amy homes? I'm interested to see where that leads.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If we're looking for where the evidence and truth leads us, how can we possibly ignore the physical similarities the substance in her intestines has to PINEAPPLE? I'm being serious here. Based on JUST the autopsy, how can we go about trying to find out what that substance is when it is described as pineapple-y and there is a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen table?

That isn't looking where the truth leads. That's blatantly ignoring what's right in front of us and looking for everything else hoping something will stick.

I'm not ignoring it, Not at all. I am not saying that it was not pineapple, just that I want the proof that that was the ultimate finding. From there I will work the evidence to the next step. But I need to know for sure it was pineapple to apply that to the evidence I have so far.

I have a complete autopsy report that says it may have been pineapple. So I need to see where the fact that it WAS indeed pineapple is coming from.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Speaking of evidence and facts, did you find the source that talked about the cigarette butts outside the Ram/Amy homes? I'm interested to see where that leads.

Thanks for the heads up! It has been a crazy few days! I will get to it today.. I have to go through all my files. I know I have it saved somewhere!

 

[tezi]

I need sources. It is that simple. I have been gathering evidence and facts for months now, It matters to me where the first source comes from.

Well, apparently, many of us have you beaten by years for gathering facts on this case. SuperDave has even written a book about it, relying on the facts, not Ramsey spin. Others have written books as well. A well known poster for FFJ, little, wrote an excellent book about this case.

I understand you need sources, but you don't have to rude about it. You could politely explain to folks who bother to source something for you, you could explain to them that you refuse to even consider ST or Kolar as a valid source, even though their books are considered valued sources here on WS. That is the point I am trying to make.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well, apparently, many of us have you beaten by years for gathering facts on this case. SuperDave has even written a book about it, relying on the facts, not Ramsey spin. Others have written books as well. A well known poster for FFJ, little, wrote an excellent book about this case.

I understand you need sources, but you don't have to rude about it. You could politely explain to folks who bother to source something for you, you could explain to them that you refuse to even consider ST or Kolar as a valid source, even though their books are considered valued sources here on WS. That is the point I am trying to make.

JMO

I have been clear from the beginning that I need a valid source. That is what matters to me. Something that can back it up.
People get to choose on their own what is a valid source.

 

[Tawny]

I am wondering, personally, why isn't a former investigator on the case not considered a valid source?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I am wondering, personally, why isn't a former investigator on the case not considered a valid source?

To you it may be. I take the whole of the information I have on that investigator and apply that to their thoughts and evidence. The source matters to me.

 

[tezi]

I have been clear from the beginning that I need a valid source. That is what matters to me. Something that can back it up.
People get to choose on their own what is a valid source.

Exactly, but that doesn't mean you get to be rude to posters who provide what they consider a valid source.

In all seriousness, do you consider that blog link you posted about Rod Westmoreland to be a valid source?

Is the name of the investigator who investigated Amy's case available online anywhere? The reason I am asking is I want to see if he/she is the one that investigated the burglaries and rapes that were going on in Boulder in 1996.

JMO

 

[Tawny]

To you it may be. I take the whole of the information I have on that investigator and apply that to their thoughts and evidence. The source matters to me.

What information do you have on that investigator? He would BE a source, right? Having been an investigator?

 

[Mama2JML]

Speaking of evidence and facts, did you find the source that talked about the cigarette butts outside the Ram/Amy homes? I'm interested to see where that leads.

Below is some info regarding "cigarette butts" collected @ the Ramsey residence, but I haven't begun looking for information regarding the "Amy case" & possible connections to this evidence in the JBR case...

Excerpt from Search Warrant Affidavit:

"The following is an inventory of property taken pursuant to the search warrant:

Notepad w/writing (37BAH)
One black pen (51BAH)
Girls underwear (56BAH)
Black pen (57 BAH)
Cigarette butts, leaves and bag (58BAH)
(1) girls underwear (61BAH)
(1) girls underwear (62BAH)
Envelope w/prayer book (64BAH)
Two magazine articles (68BAH)
Newspaper article (15JRB)
One magic marker (16JRB)
Phone and address book (18JRB)
One Ramsey residence flier (19JRB)
Door from basement (14KRV)
One legal pad (15KRV)
Two legal notepads (16KRV)
One legal notepad (18KRV)
Letter to Santa (86KKY)
Victims research paper and drawings (92KKY)
One felt pen (11MTE)
One bike registration (12MTE)
One felt tip pen (15MTE)
One sheet of paper (72BAH)
One paper w/names and phones # (73 BAH)
Two black felt pens (75 BAH)
Five pair girls underwear (76BAH)
This inventory was made by James B. Byfield, #316, in the presence of Sgt. Wickman and is a true and detailed account of all property taken pursuant to the search warrant.

RETURN AND INVENTORY

COUNTY OF BOULDER

STATE OF COLORADO
I, James R. Byfield, received the within Search Warrant on December 26, 1996, and duly executed it as follows: On December 26, 1996, at 8:00 o'clock p.m., I searched (the premises described in the search warrant and left a copy of the search warrant with together with an inventory of the property."
Source: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/09/29-2.html

Excerpt from Injustice:

(p. 143) "According to Trip DeMuth, one of the Ramsey's neighbors reported somebody trespassing in a shed in their backyard prior to JonBenet's murder. The Ramsey's home is visible from this location. The offender entered the shed and cigarette butts were found in the neighbor's backyard, which were supposedly collected by a BPD officer. I did not hear this information until 2009." (Whitson R, 2012)

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What information do you have on that investigator? He would BE a source, right? Having been an investigator?

Not necessarily. It would depend on the whole of his information, where he got it, What his feelings are and what his motives are.