Question for both IDI and RDI

[DeeDee249]

DD, you are the only person who maintains that PP took incriminating evidence out in the golf bag. You back it up by relaying a third hand conversation that 'someone' overheard JR ask PP to get his golf bag. You have never sourced the comment and I have not found anywhere else it was suggested, let alone a credible source.

Frankly, I believe you invented PP taking the golf bag as a way to explain the missing evidence and therefore not contradict your RDI theory!

It is plain to anyone who wants to see, that items were brought in and taken out of the house.

Making up a story that this was done by someone associated to the Rs (PP) with the assistance of the Cops (who lent her a Police jacket and looked the other way while she did it) and was contained in a golf bag (big enough to take away anything your imagination can conjur) might satisify your ideas that one or all of the Rs were involved, but it has no basis in fact.

By continually repeating it, somehow it has gained a kind of validity. New posters read it and believe it.

This is why it makes me angry. You can believe whatever you like, but please don't present fiction as fact. If you preface what you say with "I believe" or "I think" or "perhaps", I would have no problem.

If you DO have source or evidence, please 'show and tell'.

How dare you accuse me of making things up in this case. I resent your comment immensely. ALL my statements are opinions and a nearly always preface with "I believe or I think". I shouldn't have to do that anyway, because my signaure states that all my comments are my opinions (and you already knew that). Some ARE facts which we are all aware of. Some are unproven. There is a lot of heresay in the case, true. But to say I make things up is a truly low blow- not surprising, though.

 

[MurriFlower]

How dare you accuse me of making things up in this case. I resent your comment immensely. ALL my statements are opinions and a nearly always preface with "I believe or I think". I shouldn't have to do that anyway, because my signaure states that all my comments are my opinions (and you already knew that). Some ARE facts which we are all aware of. Some are unproven. There is a lot of heresay in the case, true. But to say I make things up is a truly low blow- not surprising, though.

Source it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Source it.

Why? Plenty of people have said it. And you have seen it said before. Believe it or not- your choice. I don't have to source everything I say. Especially for someone who accused me of making things up.

For everyone else- here's the link: http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-pam-removed.htm

This is on the right-hand side of the page in the blue boxes. Scroll down through PP's interview with Larry King till you come to the mention of the golf bag

 

[madeleine]

The only one who mentions the golf bags is ST on this page.

Page 48:

"That evening John went to Crist Mortuary to discuss funeral arrangements. In addition to the usual rites, transportation was needed for burial to Atlanta. Patsy awoke while he was gone and staggered from the bedroom to a couch, bearely able to speak, and told her sisters she needed some things from Fifteen Street. John was overhead to ask somebody quietly, "Did you get my golf bag?" When I learned of that statement, it seemed totally out of order. There had been two golf bags in the house, but he had not specified which one he wanted. Neither bag was collected by police."


So there is no credible source .But there is something more important,you have a victim with a head bash and you don't collect the golf bags?What DID these guys collect?Whenever I read about an important piece of evidence it says it wasn't collected.Like the tupperware container in Jb's room.

 

[BBB167893]

How dare you accuse me of making things up in this case. I resent your comment immensely. ALL my statements are opinions and a nearly always preface with "I believe or I think". I shouldn't have to do that anyway, because my signaure states that all my comments are my opinions (and you already knew that). Some ARE facts which we are all aware of. Some are unproven. There is a lot of heresay in the case, true. But to say I make things up is a truly low blow- not surprising, though.

That's telling 'em. Well, you know what they say about "turnabout..."

 

[BOESP]

The only one who mentions the golf bags is ST on this page.

Page 48:

"That evening John went to Crist Mortuary to discuss funeral arrangements. In addition to the usual rites, transportation was needed for burial to Atlanta. Patsy awoke while he was gone and staggered from the bedroom to a couch, bearely able to speak, and told her sisters she needed some things from Fifteen Street. John was overhead to ask somebody quietly, "Did you get my golf bag?" When I learned of that statement, it seemed totally out of order. There had been two golf bags in the house, but he had not specified which one he wanted. Neither bag was collected by police."


So there is no credible source .But there is something more important,you have a victim with a head bash and you don't collect the golf bags?What DID these guys collect?Whenever I read about an important piece of evidence it says it wasn't collected.Like the tupperware container in Jb's room.

If I may ask, why do you consider Thomas as "no credible source?"

 

[madeleine]

If I may ask, why do you consider Thomas as "no credible source?"

1.Because he made people think that his book is full of facts and it's not.
2.Because he claims things and then when asked under oath for a source he says I heard or X said or Y told me.
3.Because his bed-wetting theory is not supported by the evidence.
4.Because he gave JR the pass wayyyyyyyyyyy to soon and way to easy.
5.Because he didn't change his investigation after finding out what the experts said re prior abuse which could be sexual abuse.
6.Because his personal opinions are as good as anybody elses and those are not facts.
7.Because he saw nothing else,except PDI PDI PDI PDI PDI moo

I got more.But I already said it so many times.

 

[BOESP]

1.Because he made people think that his book is full of facts and it's not.
2.Because he claims things and then when asked under oath for a source he says I heard or X said or Y told me.
3.Because his bed-wetting theory is not supported by the evidence.
4.Because he gave JR the pass wayyyyyyyyyyy to soon and way to easy.
5.Because he didn't change his investigation after finding out what the experts said re prior abuse which could be sexual abuse.
6.Because his personal opinions are as good as anybody elses and those are not facts.
7.Because he saw nothing else,except PDI PDI PDI PDI PDI moo

I got more.But I already said it so many times.

1. What people think is their responsibility.
2. Same could be said for the Ramseys and others involved in this case.
3. The evidence as known to the public does suggest that as a good theory. Forensic statistics support the probability as well.
4. Maybe. Maybe not. We have no idea what information Thomas had access to that we do not. We have no idea of Thomas's motive for any comments he made, especially since anyone's statements are open to interpretation.
5. I'm not privy to that information but perhaps you are.
6. Please, he was a trained detective and an experienced officer of the law.
7. The evidence as the public knows it supports the probability that Patsy did it. At the very least she knows more than she told.

Your arguments could also be said about the Ramseys who, in my book, had far more bias than Thomas.

 

[DeeDee249]

The only one who mentions the golf bags is ST on this page.

Page 48:

"That evening John went to Crist Mortuary to discuss funeral arrangements. In addition to the usual rites, transportation was needed for burial to Atlanta. Patsy awoke while he was gone and staggered from the bedroom to a couch, bearely able to speak, and told her sisters she needed some things from Fifteen Street. John was overhead to ask somebody quietly, "Did you get my golf bag?" When I learned of that statement, it seemed totally out of order. There had been two golf bags in the house, but he had not specified which one he wanted. Neither bag was collected by police."


So there is no credible source .But there is something more important,you have a victim with a head bash and you don't collect the golf bags?What DID these guys collect?Whenever I read about an important piece of evidence it says it wasn't collected.Like the tupperware container in Jb's room.

Yes, there WERE two golf bags, but if you look at the evidence lists, several golf clubs were taken into evidence. They can be seen in the photo depicting the wineceller door, with one golf bag plainly seen in front, and some of the second bag, which can be seen leaning against the back wall by the washer/dryer, right under the Christmas decoration hanging on the wall by the door. I can't imagine they'd take the clubs and not the bags, but they did. One can only hope they'd actually LOOK in the golf bag (and all the pockets) but I am afraid they probably didn't. I assume they wanted to match the clubs to the hole in her skull, yet we have not seen if this was done.
I am also puzzled why you say there is no credible source. Whatever you feel about ST, he was an experienced officer of the law, and it seems unlikely he would make a comment like that about the golf bag considering the officers accompanying PP to the house to retrieve it may be able to confirm that a golf bag was placed into on of the cruisers.

 

[MurriFlower]

Yes, there WERE two golf bags, but if you look at the evidence lists, several golf clubs were taken into evidence. They can be seen in the photo depicting the wineceller door, with one golf bag plainly seen in front, and some of the second bag, which can be seen leaning against the back wall by the washer/dryer, right under the Christmas decoration hanging on the wall by the door. I can't imagine they'd take the clubs and not the bags, but they did. One can only hope they'd actually LOOK in the golf bag (and all the pockets) but I am afraid they probably didn't. I assume they wanted to match the clubs to the hole in her skull, yet we have not seen if this was done.
I am also puzzled why you say there is no credible source. Whatever you feel about ST, he was an experienced officer of the law, and it seems unlikely he would make a comment like that about the golf bag considering the officers accompanying PP to the house to retrieve it may be able to confirm that a golf bag was placed into on of the cruisers.

"83.
The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime by allegedly removing evidence from the scene of the murder on the day after the death of his daughter:

…John was overheard to ask someone quietly, "Did you get my golf bag?" When I learned of that statement, it seemed totally out of order. There had been two golf bags in the house, but he had not specified which one he wanted. Neither bag was collected by police. Moreover, it was winter in Colorado, Michigan, and Georgia, not exactly optimal golfing conditions. Why would a man whose daughter had just been murdered be wanting his golf clubs anyway? I wondered what else might have been in the bag that was so important that Ramsey would even think to ask about it.
The hardback book at 48, the paperback book at 53 (emphasis added).
"

In ST's deposition, was this addressed? Perhaps there was more information about just who "overheard" and who the "someone" was that he was alleged to have asked? Does anyone have a copy of this depo, because it's disappeared from the Web.

 

[MurriFlower]

The only one who mentions the golf bags is ST on this page.

Page 48:

"That evening John went to Crist Mortuary to discuss funeral arrangements. In addition to the usual rites, transportation was needed for burial to Atlanta. Patsy awoke while he was gone and staggered from the bedroom to a couch, bearely able to speak, and told her sisters she needed some things from Fifteen Street. John was overhead to ask somebody quietly, "Did you get my golf bag?" When I learned of that statement, it seemed totally out of order. There had been two golf bags in the house, but he had not specified which one he wanted. Neither bag was collected by police."


So there is no credible source .But there is something more important,you have a victim with a head bash and you don't collect the golf bags?What DID these guys collect?Whenever I read about an important piece of evidence it says it wasn't collected.Like the tupperware container in Jb's room.

And the ridiculous thing about this is that the person who wrote it WAS Police!! Not only that, he was one of the lead investigators in the case, not just a foot soldier standing about waiting for orders! If evidence wasn't collected, as he says, if someone was permitted to wander through the house picking up potential evidence, as he says, why did he report it as if it was not up to him or not his responsibility? What is wrong with this man??

 

[madeleine]

Please, he was a trained detective and an experienced officer of the law.

So was LS for example.Why is it ST more credible then?Why is LS the biased one and why is ST the one who's right?Because you like what he says?Lucky me,I don't like what neither of them say.
Their actions speak for thermselves anyway,they both quit.And they should GMAB with "it was outta desperation".They were both too extreme and therefor biased.

 

[madeleine]

I am also puzzled why you say there is no credible source. Whatever you feel about ST, he was an experienced officer of the law, and it seems unlikely he would make a comment like that about the golf bag considering the officers accompanying PP to the house to retrieve it may be able to confirm that a golf bag was placed into on of the cruisers.

He mentions this in his book.I can write a book as well and say in it whatever I want.Because it's in his book doesn't mean it's true.And he says JR was overheard.By whom?And how do we know ST's source is telling the truth.

 

[madeleine]

Your arguments could also be said about the Ramseys who, in my book, had far more bias than Thomas.

The R's are civilians ,their duty isn't to be unbiased and it wasn't their responsability to thoroughly investigate this murder.It was ST's.

 

[madeleine]

7. The evidence as the public knows it supports the probability that Patsy did it.

Your opinion.
ST's opinion.
Not mine and I am part of the public too.

 

[madeleine]

I'd be more interested in knowing what AH thought about the BDI possibility than keep listening,analyzing to what the bed-wetting theorist has to say.

Hunter declared publicly in 1999 that Burke wasn't a suspect in his sister's death. But later events suggested that statement wasn't as definitive as it seemed. In 2000 Hunter refused a request by Ramsey attorney Wood to sign a statement declaring under oath that "all questions related to" Burke's "possible involvement" in the death of his sister "were resolved to the satisfaction of investigators."

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0



So if you can't be sure that it wasn't BR,you can't be sure that it wasn't JR how on earth can you be so damn sure it was PR.Maybe they thought she would be the one who can be cracked.

 

[madeleine]

It's one thing when you're investigating a murder and the evidence is telling you that X did it and another thing to desperately wanting to find evidence that points to X(and if it's not there you still don't start over) .If talking about a normal person I would call it denial,but it's LE and I'll call it incompetence.

 

[BOESP]

So was LS for example.Why is it ST more credible then?Why is LS the biased one and why is ST the one who's right?Because you like what he says?Lucky me,I don't like what neither of them say.
Their actions speak for thermselves anyway,they both quit.And they should GMAB with "it was outta desperation".They were both too extreme and therefor biased.

I haven't made any comments one way or the other about Lou Smit.

 

[DeeDee249]

LS made his mind up, IMO, based on the fact that the Rs were Christians. ST tried to follow the evidence. That's why I'd view him as biased.
LS ignored some parts of the case in order to put his own spin on it. The suitcase is one that comes to mind. Though FW said he was the one who moved it under the window, LS kept pushing the theory that the intruder put it there to use it to climb up on. In reality, if anyone had tried to stand on that suitcase in the upright position it was found in, it would have tipped over as soon as they pushed off on it.
I don't think ST started out wanting to blame Patsy. I think as he continued with the investigation, it seemed like Patsy was, as he put it, "good for it".
I am not 100% PDI. But I am 100% that Patsy knew what happened.

 

[MurriFlower]

LS made his mind up, IMO, based on the fact that the Rs were Christians. ST tried to follow the evidence. That's why I'd view him as biased.
LS ignored some parts of the case in order to put his own spin on it. The suitcase is one that comes to mind. Though FW said he was the one who moved it under the window, LS kept pushing the theory that the intruder put it there to use it to climb up on. In reality, if anyone had tried to stand on that suitcase in the upright position it was found in, it would have tipped over as soon as they pushed off on it.
I don't think ST started out wanting to blame Patsy. I think as he continued with the investigation, it seemed like Patsy was, as he put it, "good for it".
I am not 100% PDI. But I am 100% that Patsy knew what happened.

I think LS made up his mind based on the evidence and his own assessment of the Rs.

ST, hmm. I'm not sure of his motivation at all.