Misinformation on other forums

[Ames]

Hi, I am also a member, but of late they are saying I am not registered and to contact someone there. Cannot take the time. But I am having a problem with posting also.

Yes, its kinda screwy right now for some reason. :crazy: I still enjoy lurking...but, long for the day that I can post, too.

 

[Ames]

No I don't think Patsy did this. I do however think that John led her by the nose in keeping to a certain story which would ensure that certain lines of investigation would not be pursued.

So, okay...you have my attention now, LOL (actually you have always had my attention, you grabbed it with that bloomie's demonstration). Will there ever come a day, when you will tell us who you think is involved? Or are you going to remain :silenced: forever?

 

[Ames]

Little things like "she was fast asleep and didn't wake up when we put her to bed" - that would eliminate a lot of questions regarding their activities when they got home. "Burke was asleep in the morning" - would save Burke being interviewed.

I think John Ramsey "decided" that the police should not be wasting time interviewing the Ramseys and therefore, if they all kept to a slimmed down version of the facts, then the police would accept it and move on. Except that they didn't. The facts don't support the Ramsey version of events - little things like the pineapple, Burke claiming JonBenet was awake when she got home, Burke later admitting he was awake, the possibility of Burke's voice being on the 911 tape...

Okay, so do you think that John did it? Or do you think that John hired a hit woman to do it? Or do you think that John had a jealous girlfriend on the side?

 

[Jayelles]

I wouldn't have used the P word (I am assuming that the P word refers to JB's mother)....if I had of known that Janelle didn't think that P was involved. (Sorry about that Janelle)....I agree with Nuisanceposter, you deserve alot of respect for the time and the effort (and I am sure that it was ALOT)...that you put into making the model, to prove to those unbelievers out there, just HOW big those bloomies would have been on JB.

No, the "p" word refers to her underwear. There are some language differences between Brits and Americans here. You use the word "pants" where we would use the word "trousers". We use the word "pants" to describe a ladies lower undergarment. You add "ies" to the end of this word for the ladies undergarment. That is the "p" word That same word is a sleazy word here which would be used pornographically and makes one think of a dirty old man salivating over ladies underwear in a very lewd and vilgar way.

I know that it's the same for Australians whose use of the English language is closer to British english than American English is. I was also interested to hear Peter Boyles ask a guest not to use the "p" word as he doesn't like it either.

I know it's an odd one for some Americans to understand, but imagine someone using a naughty word in serious conversation and try to imagine yourself using the same word in a serious conversation. I just can't use that word and following considerable debate about it at FFJ, it became known as the "p" word!

Don't get me wrong - I don't get upset at other people using it in posts to me and I don't try to censor them. I did get upset when another poster at FFJ made a video about my Bloomies experiment and he used the word. He had SUCH a deep voice (a wonderful voice actually) and to me, it just sounded very sleazy. Since he was making the video about MY experiment, I politely asked him not to use the word and he was quite rude in his reply. I think I was more offended by that than anything.

 

[santos1014]

No, the "p" word refers to her underwear. There are some language differences between Brits and Americans here. You use the word "pants" where we would use the word "trousers". We use the word "pants" to describe a ladies lower undergarment. You add "ies" to the end of this word for the ladies undergarment. That is the "p" word That same word is a sleazy word here which would be used pornographically and makes one think of a dirty old man salivating over ladies underwear in a very lewd and vilgar way.

I know that it's the same for Australians whose use of the English language is closer to British english than American English is. I was also interested to hear Peter Boyles ask a guest not to use the "p" word as he doesn't like it either.

I know it's an odd one for some Americans to understand, but imagine someone using a naughty word in serious conversation and try to imagine yourself using the same word in a serious conversation. I just can't use that word and following considerable debate about it at FFJ, it became known as the "p" word!

Don't get me wrong - I don't get upset at other people using it in posts to me and I don't try to censor them. I did get upset when another poster at FFJ made a video about my Bloomies experiment and he used the word. He had SUCH a deep voice (a wonderful voice actually) and to me, it just sounded very sleazy. Since he was making the video about MY experiment, I politely asked him not to use the word and he was quite rude in his reply. I think I was more offended by that than anything.

I found this out the hard way when I first met my now best friend. She is from Wales. I said the p word one day in a conversation about laundry, and she went pale. After she explained..then I understood!! I have learned alot from her about language and different words...the first time she asked me to help her get some boxes from the "boot" in her car, I was completely confused!

 

[Ames]

No, the "p" word refers to her underwear. There are some language differences between Brits and Americans here. You use the word "pants" where we would use the word "trousers". We use the word "pants" to describe a ladies lower undergarment. You add "ies" to the end of this word for the ladies undergarment. That is the "p" word That same word is a sleazy word here which would be used pornographically and makes one think of a dirty old man salivating over ladies underwear in a very lewd and vilgar way.

I know that it's the same for Australians whose use of the English language is closer to British english than American English is. I was also interested to hear Peter Boyles ask a guest not to use the "p" word as he doesn't like it either.

I know it's an odd one for some Americans to understand, but imagine someone using a naughty word in serious conversation and try to imagine yourself using the same word in a serious conversation. I just can't use that word and following considerable debate about it at FFJ, it became known as the "p" word!

Don't get me wrong - I don't get upset at other people using it in posts to me and I don't try to censor them. I did get upset when another poster at FFJ made a video about my Bloomies experiment and he used the word. He had SUCH a deep voice (a wonderful voice actually) and to me, it just sounded very sleazy. Since he was making the video about MY experiment, I politely asked him not to use the word and he was quite rude in his reply. I think I was more offended by that than anything.

OHHHHHHHH, okay.....duh, boy do I feel stupid...:slap: I totally understand where you are coming from. I will try to refrain from using the "P" word from now on....if I slip up, just remind me again.

 

[rashomon]

No, the "p" word refers to her underwear. There are some language differences between Brits and Americans here. You use the word "pants" where we would use the word "trousers". We use the word "pants" to describe a ladies lower undergarment. You add "ies" to the end of this word for the ladies undergarment. That is the "p" word That same word is a sleazy word here which would be used pornographically and makes one think of a dirty old man salivating over ladies underwear in a very lewd and vilgar way.

I know that it's the same for Australians whose use of the English language is closer to British english than American English is. I was also interested to hear Peter Boyles ask a guest not to use the "p" word as he doesn't like it either.

I know it's an odd one for some Americans to understand, but imagine someone using a naughty word in serious conversation and try to imagine yourself using the same word in a serious conversation. I just can't use that word and following considerable debate about it at FFJ, it became known as the "p" word!

Don't get me wrong - I don't get upset at other people using it in posts to me and I don't try to censor them. I did get upset when another poster at FFJ made a video about my Bloomies experiment and he used the word. He had SUCH a deep voice (a wonderful voice actually) and to me, it just sounded very sleazy. Since he was making the video about MY experiment, I politely asked him not to use the word and he was quite rude in his reply. I think I was more offended by that than anything.

Linguistic issues (differing British and American English usage of the word 'pants') seem to complicate the JBR case discussion here.
I'm no native speaker of English, therefore my question to the American native speakers (since both interviewer (Tom Haney) and interviewed (Patsy Ramsey) are/were American) - what do you think Tom Haney was referring to when he mentioned JB's 'pants' turned inside out which were soiled?
Trousers? Or underwear?
Quote:
16 TOM HANEY: How about 378?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her

18 pants.

19 TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular

20 pants, when she would have worn those last?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably

22 recently because they are dropped in the middle of the

23 floor, but I don't remember exactly.

24 TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.

25 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

0457

1 TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It

2 appears they are stained.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

4 TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet

5 had a problem with?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at

7 age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you

8 know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.

9 TOM HANEY: Did she have accidents, if you

10 will, in the course of the day or the night, as opposed

11 to just bed wetting?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: Not usually, no, huh-uh. That

13 would probably be more from just not wiping real well.

14 TOM HANEY: Okay. Do you know how long those

15 would have been in that position in 378 on the floor in

16 there?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: It depends when she wore them

18 last.

19 TOM HANEY: Again, do you recall?

20 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.

21 TOM HANEY: On Christmas day were you in that

22 bathroom at all?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Very likely, but I can't say

24 for sure.

25 TOM HANEY: Had you been in there that day,

0458

1 would you have done something with them?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I got, you know -- that

3 night I got -- I know I got the long Johns for her out

4 of that bathroom.

5 TOM HANEY: Right, out of one of the draws in

6 there.

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

8 TOM HANEY: Do you recall seeing those on the

9 floor that night when you got the --

10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

11 TOM HANEY: -- underwear.

12 PATSY RAMSEY: They could have been there. I

13 don't know.

14 TOM HANEY: Could have.

15 PATSY RAMSEY: Could have been there, yes.

16 Don't know for sure.

17 TOM HANEY: Is it possible that some point

18 during the night she would have gotten up and put those

19 on or thrown them down there or changed in some way;

20 trying to account for those being there.

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I just -- I can't imagine

22 that. No, because I put those -- she was zonked out

23 asleep, so I put her to bed. And she had those, she

24 had worn the black velvet ones to Priscilla's.

25 What she had on earlier that day, I just

0459

1 can't remember. It might have been those. I just

2 can't remember. Could have taken those off, you know,

3 gotten the dress to go to Priscilla's and then left

4 them there.

 

[Ames]

Linguistic issues (differing British and American English usage of the word 'pants' ) seem to complicate the JBR case discussion here.
I'm no native speaker of English, therefore my question to the American native speakers (since both interviewer (Tom Haney) and interviewed (Patsy Ramsey) are/were American - what do you think Tom Haney was referring to when he mentioned JB's 'pants' turned inside out which were soiled?
Trousers? Or underwear?
Quote:
16 TOM HANEY: How about 378?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her

18 pants.

19 TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular

20 pants, when she would have worn those last?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably

22 recently because they are dropped in the middle of the

23 floor, but I don't remember exactly.

24 TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.

25 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

0457

1 TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It

2 appears they are stained.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

4 TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet

5 had a problem with?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at

7 age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you

8 know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.

9 TOM HANEY: Did she have accidents, if you

10 will, in the course of the day or the night, as opposed

11 to just bed wetting?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: Not usually, no, huh-uh. That

13 would probably be more from just not wiping real well.

14 TOM HANEY: Okay. Do you know how long those

15 would have been in that position in 378 on the floor in

16 there?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: It depends when she wore them

18 last.

19 TOM HANEY: Again, do you recall?

20 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.

21 TOM HANEY: On Christmas day were you in that

22 bathroom at all?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Very likely, but I can't say

24 for sure.

25 TOM HANEY: Had you been in there that day,

0458

1 would you have done something with them?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I got, you know -- that

3 night I got -- I know I got the long Johns for her out

4 of that bathroom.

5 TOM HANEY: Right, out of one of the draws in

6 there.

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

8 TOM HANEY: Do you recall seeing those on the

9 floor that night when you got the --

10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

11 TOM HANEY: -- underwear.

12 PATSY RAMSEY: They could have been there. I

13 don't know.

14 TOM HANEY: Could have.

15 PATSY RAMSEY: Could have been there, yes.

16 Don't know for sure.

17 TOM HANEY: Is it possible that some point

18 during the night she would have gotten up and put those

19 on or thrown them down there or changed in some way;

20 trying to account for those being there.

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I just -- I can't imagine

22 that. No, because I put those -- she was zonked out

23 asleep, so I put her to bed. And she had those, she

24 had worn the black velvet ones to Priscilla's.

25 What she had on earlier that day, I just

0459

1 can't remember. It might have been those. I just

2 can't remember. Could have taken those off, you know,

3 gotten the dress to go to Priscilla's and then left

4 them there.

I am guessing trousers....I don't know anyone in the U.S. that refers to underwear as pants. Doesn't mean there aren't people that do it though.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I live in Pennsylvania. We call them "pants" in my house. "Pants" or "under pants".
They are taling about there being a stain on the "pants" from not wiping herself properly - that is a reference to underpants, not trousers (which we also call "pants", by the way.)

 

[Ames]

I live in Pennsylvania. We call them "pants" in my house. "Pants" or "under pants".
They are taling about there being a stain on the "pants" from not wiping herself properly - that is a reference to underpants, not trousers (which we also call "pants", by the way.)

I took it to mean, that the pants and the underwear were taken off together....in other words, the underwear was still inside the pants...where she stepped out of both of them. If you read the interview with Patsy, she keeps saying THOSE, when referring to the pants...and then goes on to say that JB may have left THOSE there on the floor, before choosing a DRESS to wear to the White's party....(by the way, JB didn't wear a dress...maybe she was going to but changed her mind....who knows).

 

[Toltec]

My theory is that JonBenet took off her pants in the bathroom...by herself...as evidenced by them being "inside out". She had soiled her pants during Christmas day so it stands to reason that she also soiled her panties.

It is my belief that she did not change her panties when she dressed to go to the Whites. It was during the routine toilet trip that Patsy discovered JonBenet had soiled panties on. It was then that a scuffle ensued...and Patsy wiped JonBenet down at one point. (pre or postmordem)

The size 12 panties were peed, but not soiled.

 

[Jayelles]

OHHHHHHHH, okay.....duh, boy do I feel stupid...:slap: I totally understand where you are coming from. I will try to refrain from using the "P" word from now on....if I slip up, just remind me again.

Sorry, I'm making a terrible job of explaining myself here. I'm not offended by other people using it, I know it has a very different usage in the US. I just can't use it myself without feeling as if I'm being sleazy because (here) it's the kind of word you'd be likely to hear on one of these sex chat lines where men phone up and pay to talk dirty with women.

I cringe when I hear it spoken by men with deep voices and I couldn't use it myself, but I'm honestly not offended by people using it in posts. I'm not asking anyone to stop using it. Just trying to explain the "difference" in it's use here.

 

[kaykay]

I'm from Illinois and we call the "P" "Pants" or "under Pants"....

We feel the same when we hear a male putting *ies* on the end. It just never sound propper, in fact to us it sounds vulger.

Maybe we feel this way because we never hear females saying "ies".

kaykay

 

[rashomon]

I took it to mean, that the pants and the underwear were taken off together....in other words, the underwear was still inside the pants...where she stepped out of both of them. If you read the interview with Patsy, she keeps saying THOSE, when referring to the pants...and then goes on to say that JB may have left THOSE there on the floor, before choosing a DRESS to wear to the White's party....(by the way, JB didn't wear a dress...maybe she was going to but changed her mind....who knows).

Thanks Ames. I think this is the most logical explanation. So it appears there was a pair of soiled underwear inside some pants (= trousers) which were lying on the floor in JB's room.

 

[Ames]

Thanks Ames. I think this is the most logical explanation. So it appears there was a pair of soiled underwear inside some pants (= trousers) which were lying on the floor in JB's room.

Yes, that is my take on it....there were pants (trousers) with the panties (underwear) still inside. My five year old does that...takes them both off at the same time. Before taking a bath, she will just grab both the pants (trousers)...and the panties (underwear) at the same time, and just slide both of them down...at the same time....and then step out of them....therefore leaving the panties (underwear) inside of the pants (trousers). IMO...the pants (trousers) were left on the floor....with the soiled panties (underwear) inside. That is consistant with Patsy's statement in her interview...when saying that she left THOSE on the floor, and got a dress to wear to Priscilla's. She wouldn't have said that, if the only thing that was on the floor was the underwear. In other words....THOSE = PANTS (trousers)...which is left on the floor, and then she picked out a dress to wear. MY question is, though....Patsy says she picked out a DRESS to wear...but, later says that she wore the white shirt, with the black velvet pants....did JB change her mind...or was Patsy lying....yet, again???

 

[BBB167893]

Exactly...if that tape had been over JonBenet's mouth when she was conscious and/or alive, it would have marks on it that show her struggling against it. Not only that, but there was bloody mucus from her nose and/or mouth on it, indicating further that it had been applied after she had died or was unconscious. Whoever put that tape on there knew she wasn't going to wake up and begin screaming - it was put there for staging, to look like she'd had her mouth taped during the assault. And if you want to prevent someone from screaming, you don't use tape that had already been used elsewhere - it won't adhere enough.

That about sums it up.

I think it has been disproven that Burke could be heard on the 911 tape (by the FBI, I believe.)

Not even close.

 

[Jayelles]

There is a poster at Topix who is presenting a SDI theory (Santa did it). This poster said:-

When he was being filmed by the local film crew on 12-21 and 22, small pieces of black duct tape were used during the filming, including pieces placed on their clothing to keep the microphones in place.

This is something I know about. I've done lots of miking-up in my time and there are various tricks which are used to keep microphones in place. However, duct tape is NOT used for this purpose - it's far too sticky and destructive.

The aim of miking up is to place it at an optimum distance from the mouth in as discreet a way as possible. We don't want it to flap about or become detached.

The teeny mikes which are attached to the person come with little clips which can fit onto a jacket edge or neckline. If there is none, we use good old fashioned safety pins on the inside of the outergarment (hooking it around the mike or mike cable on the outside).

Sometimes it's possible to secure the mike in a woman's bosom

If the mike needs to be attached to skin, we use surgical tape which is sufficiently adhesive, but not destructive to the skin. In theatre, stage makeup can sometimes be applied over the top of the tape.

Battery packs have clips which secure to a belt or waistband. You also get little mike belts. Artists can be really fussy regarding how they are miked up. Some are so paranoid about the mike working loose that we've been known to literally bandage the battery pack to them and we stand and watch while he/she (usually a he!) wriggles and squirms about to see if it's "right". In a person with longer hair, the mike cable can be woven through the hair to a point near the front of the head. The cable is often taken over the ear and taped behind the ear.

Miking up is an interesting artform but I have never ever known duct tape to be used for this purpose. Sure it's used on stage for taping cables to the floor. I've also used it to secure boots with broken zips in a costume drama. It has many uses for props but we never stick it onto costumes or skin.

 

[Jayelles]

The poster Sissi asked:-

This question of CNN and the "performance" has been one that has never satisfied my "truth meter".
What really happened? Who persuaded the Ramseys to go on CNN? Was it really a relative of the Whites? The Whites had no Atlanta connections, was the connection one of their CA holiday visitors? Why did no one stop them when they realized Patsy was drugged almost to the point of overdose and bound to look so. I'm sure there must be an interesting story behind all of this.

This is something that also interests me because it's an inconsistency in John Ramsey's story.

In his 1998 interview, there are several instances of where John Ramsey seems at pains to describe Fleet White in a bad light - describing him at as "rabid" and "out of control". John Ramsey also gave an example of how Fleet tended to panic and make poor decisions in a crisis. Yet despite saying they went on CNN "at (Fleet White's) insistence", John Ramsey also admits that it was his OWN decision to do so and it was Rod Westmoreland who set it all up for them!

4 LOU SMIT: Tell me how that kind of came
5 about. Because that's been something that's been
6 brought up a few times.
7 JOHN RAMSEY: You know, I don't remember
8 exactly. But I remember he was just rabid about
9 what the media was saying about us and we needed
10 to defend ourselves. And we needed to go on
11 television and --
12 LOU SMIT: Who actually made the arrangements
13 for that?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, I think I decided to
15 do it. And Bob Westmoreland, who is a friend of
16 the president of CNN, he was around us all that
17 time too, Bob was. And he said well I can call
18 whoever it was, and that was a logical place for
19 us to do it.
20 And so he called the president of CNN. I remember
21 at that time, which was only days after that, that
22 the president of CNN (INAUDIBLE) these people
23 (INAUDIBLE). Do you know this guy, and Rod said,
24 I'd stake my life on it. There's no way he could
25 have done this.
0199
1 And so the president of CNN kind of set up the
2 interview. But it was at Fleets insistence. I
3 remember he was (INAUDIBLE). Once before we really
4 felt like we were making our own decisions for any
5 kind of sanity.

Note - this all took place AFTER Fleet White allegedly alarmed them in Atlanta to the extent that they put the women in the basement and looked out a gun! It took place AFTER Fleet White allegedly caused ructions in both Westmoreland's home and Jeff Ramsey's home. It took AFTER Fleet White allegedly was so out of control that John Fernie wouldn't allow him on the private plane to Atlanta.

Yet despite Fleet White being "rabid" and "out of control" and allegedly offending just about everyone .... John Ramsey meekly agreed to go on CNN at "Fleet's insistence" and Rod Westmoreland meekly arranged it for them!

Anyone else think this is odd? John Ramsey tries to tell us that they were so devastated that they just allowed everyone else to make their decisions for them ....

....(except apparently for the one thing Fleet White was REALLY insisting upon which was for the Ramseys to speak to police!)

 

[Solace]

The poster Sissi asked:-



This is something that also interests me because it's an inconsistency in John Ramsey's story.

In his 1998 interview, there are several instances of where John Ramsey seems at pains to describe Fleet White in a bad light - describing him at as "rabid" and "out of control". John Ramsey also gave an example of how Fleet tended to panic and make poor decisions in a crisis. Yet despite saying they went on CNN "at (Fleet White's) insistence", John Ramsey also admits that it was his OWN decision to do so and it was Rod Westmoreland who set it all up for them!



Note - this all took place AFTER Fleet White allegedly alarmed them in Atlanta to the extent that they put the women in the basement and looked out a gun! It took place AFTER Fleet White allegedly caused ructions in both Westmoreland's home and Jeff Ramsey's home. It took AFTER Fleet White allegedly was so out of control that John Fernie wouldn't allow him on the private plane to Atlanta.

Yet despite Fleet White being "rabid" and "out of control" and allegedly offending just about everyone .... John Ramsey meekly agreed to go on CNN at "Fleet's insistence" and Rod Westmoreland meekly arranged it for them!

Anyone else think this is odd? John Ramsey tries to tell us that they were so devastated that they just allowed everyone else to make their decisions for them ....

....(except apparently for the one thing Fleet White was REALLY insisting upon which was for the Ramseys to speak to police!)

One could feel sorry for the Ramseys if they believed it was a horrible accident and they are saving themselves for their son or some such reason. HOWEVER, the fact that they named every single one of their friends as suspects is about as low as you can sink. And then have the audacity to say if it were someone close to us, I don't think Patsy and I could handle that.

Well if you couldn't handle it, then why are you naming them as suspects. The amazing thing about this case is that the likes of LKL and others like Couric have had the chance with all the information from the interviews, etc. and have had all the inconsistencies at hand and did nothing with them except to ask the obvous bull$%# questions that have been asked time and again such as why hire lawyers so soon.

If you get the chance to interview two people who almost everyone believes had a hand in killing their daughter, accident or otherwise, why would you not hire paralegals to go over the information with a comb and come up with decent questions to ask, SUCH AS WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID JOHN SCREAMED FOR ME WHEN HE CAME UP FROM THE BASEMENT.

or even check out the forums and get some of the more knowledgable posters to kick in. What is John and Patsy going to say, the interview is over.

I did see the Bill Kurtis interview where he opens with John and Patsy (John sweating profusely by the way, profusely), he opens with them saying the FBI was not there and then immediately switches to Ron Wood (I believe that is his name) FBI agent saying "I was there".

 

[Jayelles]

One could feel sorry for the Ramseys if they believed it was a horrible accident and they are saving themselves for their son or some such reason. HOWEVER, the fact that they named every single one of their friends as suspects is about as low as you can sink. And then have the audacity to say if it were someone close to us, I don't think Patsy and I could handle that.

Well if you couldn't handle it, then why are you naming them as suspects. The amazing thing about this case is that the likes of LKL and others like Couric have had the chance with all the information from the interviews, etc. and have had all the inconsistencies at hand and did nothing with them except to ask the obvous bull$%# questions that have been asked time and again such as why hire lawyers so soon.

If you get the chance to interview two people who almost everyone believes had a hand in killing their daughter, accident or otherwise, why would you not hire paralegals to go over the information with a comb and come up with decent questions to ask, SUCH AS WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID JOHN SCREAMED FOR ME WHEN HE CAME UP FROM THE BASEMENT.

or even check out the forums and get some of the more knowledgable posters to kick in. What is John and Patsy going to say, the interview is over.

I did see the Bill Kurtis interview where he opens with John and Patsy (John sweating profusely by the way, profusely), he opens with them saying the FBI was not there and then immediately switches to Ron Wood (I believe that is his name) FBI agent saying "I was there".

THAT programme was the one I saw here last year. It was very balanced - refreshing after the Tracey trilogy!