Someone needs to get Easy Writer at FFJ to post here ...

[Maikai]

I believe the pineapple is considered very relevant indeed AND it cannot be satisfactorily explained. The pineapple is important for establishing the time of her death.

If it was eaten late afternoon prior to going to the Whites, then JBR was killed very shortly after arriving home that night.

It it was eaten after her return from the Whites, then the Ramseys are lying about her being asleep (and Burke is telling the truth).

Lou Smit called it the "bugaboo" in his interview with John Ramsey.

I strongly believe there is evidence in the case which has not been made public. I also think the reason the investigators don't discuss the pineapple is because it may be considered very relevant indeed.

I question the motives of anyone who dismisses the pineapple as "irrelevant".

If she would have eaten it after they returned home, why would the Ramseys lie about that? Being in the proximal part of the small intestine it might place the time of death earlier than later during the night, but that doesn't help in indentifying the killer. About the only thing the pineapple proves is someone on the BPD may have been smart enough to associate the bowl of pineapple left on a counter/table top with the pineapple JBR had eaten...but doesn't pinpoint the time, because of the variables in digestion time.

 

[Barbara]

If she would have eaten it after they returned home, why would the Ramseys lie about that? Being in the proximal part of the small intestine it might place the time of death earlier than later during the night, but that doesn't help in indentifying the killer. About the only thing the pineapple proves is someone on the BPD may have been smart enough to associate the bowl of pineapple left on a counter/table top with the pineapple JBR had eaten...but doesn't pinpoint the time, because of the variables in digestion time.

Please re-read TLynn's post above.

If she had eaten it any other time, wouldn't Patsy have been familiar with her own pineapple being out, etc?

Why would they lie? The reason I believe is that then the whole story would have become complicated in that they would have to admit, like Burke did, that she was in fact awake when they returned home and then a whole different relating of events would have been mandated.

Ever notice that all stories by the Ramseys involve sleeping?

Burke was asleep-so no ability to relate events "I don't know anything"
JonBenet was asleep-obvious as to why they would say that
The parents were asleep-again "I don't know anything"

That negates having to relay any knowledge of what happened and the events preceeding. Easy answers to dangerous questions

 

[Jayelles]

If she would have eaten it after they returned home, why would the Ramseys lie about that?

That is precisely my point. Why would they lie? This is something that many seem not to ponder at all.

We have expert input about the digestion time and it ranges from 2-5 hours. Even at the slowest, if she'd eaten it just prior to their 4-5 pm departure for the Whites, that would place time of death at between 9-10pm. The Ramseys were still faffing around that that time.

Either way, the pineapple is indeed a BUGABOO! Did Judge Carnes address the small matter of the pineapple at all?

 

[vicktor]

An expert from Canada spent 6 days examining the knot. He, quire rightly, has kept his opinion out of the newspapers.

Isn't that a contradiction, an expert who didn't give his findings to newspapers, and make himself available to news programs, and talk shows?

 

[Shylock]

If she would have eaten it after they returned home, why would the Ramseys lie about that?

She DID eat it after they got home. Everything she ate at the party was already digested and the pineapple was behind it in her digestive tract.

Why did they lie? - Simple... They wanted it to look like she had no contact at all with any family members after they arrived home.

More importantly, they wanted to distance Burke from the crime. Thats the same reason they lied about him being awake during the 911 call.

 

[Shylock]

Also, no credible person will post their valued thoughts under a 'hat.' You cannot copywrite a hat's opinion. No way, no way. And Delmar England is a hat. There is no such person.

Oh God...I hope Mark Twain didn't hear you.

D-U-H
:banghead:

 

[twilight]

Totally different. You can publish under another name, with a registered ISBN but Internet publication does not work that way. There is no protection for 'hats,' despite what some think. There is contention about whether there is protection for anyone, which is why most people only publish abstracts of their work. IMO, hiding under a hat means one of two things...either you don't think much of your opinion, or you have something to hide. Delmar England has something to hide. He is purporting to be an expert and using a 'hat' to do so. Doesn't wash. He is also plagiarizing...tsk...tsk.

 

[Shylock]

You can publish under another name, with a registered ISBN but Internet publication does not work that way.

You obviously know nothing about copyrights. Just saying something is "copyright" makes it so, and the rights belong to the author whom, or whatever they call themself--person or company. Depending on the circumstances the author may choose to register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office, so it's in a searchable public database.

Delmar England could call himself "Yuk, The Wonder Buffalo" and it wouldn't mean a rat's .

If you decide you do want to learn about copyrights, here's the place to start: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

 

[twilight]

The Internet 1) is international, not American, and 2) there's nothing about Internet copyright at the site you posted because it's an unresolved issue. That's why academics only post abstracts because it is an unresolved issue. Ya wanna read the paper, ya buy the book.

I am not an expert on copyright but I do know that unless you can prove you authored something, you do not own it.

And if you have a hat that is not tied to who you are, you have no copyright...your 'hat' does.

What you put on the Internet is out in the public domain. Do you understand that terminology? Public domain means up for grabs. That's why adobe acrobat...but a good techie can tell you how to lift that stuff as well. So, stuff on the Internet is not protected. {{that's why it's a good idea to keep your better ideas to yourself, or publish them in copyright protected mediums like books, etc.}}

So, tell me how you would prove that you are Shylock? Can't be done. Your computer terminal is Shylock. Your posts are in the public domain.

 

[Tricia]

You obviously know nothing about copyrights. Just saying something is "copyright" makes it so, and the rights belong to the author whom, or whatever they call themself--person or company. Depending on the circumstances the author may choose to register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office, so it's in a searchable public database.

Delmar England could call himself "Yuk, The Wonder Buffalo" and it wouldn't mean a rat's .

If you decide you do want to learn about copyrights, here's the place to start: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

Shylock, you are 100 percent correct.

I spent a pretty penny to learn what you just posted.

Twilight, Delmar is real and he is an excellent poster. You are wrong about Mr. England. He is a respected poster as well as a wonderful person.

Here is the problem with copyright on the Internet. If someone steals your posts on the Internet, and you want to take action, you have to do the following;

*Actually copyright the post with the U.S Copyright Office

*Take the person who stole your work/post to court and prove that you have a copyright on it and this person took it.

Too costly for anyone.

Twilight, my hat is Tricia. My real name is Tricia. By your way of thinking my hat isn't real, yet, it is my real name. You see your logic doesn't work.

Now if you post a public document, or a document that someone can get by paying a fee, it doesn't belong to you. You can't post, "Do not take this to any other forum" and have it stick. Even if you bought the paper through a company that does searches it's not yours because you didn't write it. If you put it up on the Internet you can't stop people from taking it.

Shylock knows what he is talking about Twilight.

Shylock may I have your permission to use, "Yuk, The Wonder Buffalo," as my next hat? It has a nice ring to it.

 

[Blazeboy3]

Evidence Vs Pretense

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My intended short stay, beginning in the year 2000, has turned
into a four year plus marathon. There’s not much I can say that I
haven’t said before; just change some wording a little. Be that
as it may, it serves to let the Ramseys know that not all of us
are taken in by the con.

After over seven years, the Ramsey case is still officially
unsolved. What is very disturbing about this is that from an
evidence point of view, it hard to imagine a case more
elementary. Many talk about the absence of a “smoking gun” when
in truth, there is an entire arsenal. The problem is not the lack
of evidence, or even a shortage of evidence. The problem is the
scene is saturated with “investigators”, LE and otherwise, and
theorists who apparently have no idea what evidence is.

SCHILLER: It doesn't make a lot of sense and I'll get to why.
Because, as it was said at the head of the show, there's a lot of
evidence against the Ramseys and there's a lot of evidence to an
intruder theory. (Dan Abrams show July 17, 2003,)

Evidence of intruder AND evidence of Ramsey guilt? In a condition
of either\or, how can there be evidence of both? Mr. SCHILLER is
by no means the only one who proposes to follow the evidence
without knowing what evidence is. Indeed, the failure to
differentiate evidence from pretense is the “norm.” It is the
singular reason why in over seven years and millions of dollars
beyond the death of JonBenet Ramsey, there is nothing to show for
it except fiscal waste and psychological carnage with no end in
sight.

This ignorance of evidence and subsequent pursuit of illusions
did and does result in a protracted scene of chaotic rhetoric
proposing the contradiction of coexistence of opposites in
conjunction with the contradiction of evidence via the unknown.
I am haunted by the impression that even if Mary Keenan had an
unedited video of the whole crime scene just as it happened along
with signed confessions, she would continue to waste taxpayer
money chasing a mythical intruder.

The following analysis proposes to zero in on just the core
elements of the case from a perspective of actual evidence.
Actual evidence presents a seamless theory inclusive of all known
facts while rejecting as contradiction all ideas opposing. Let’s
begin with the fact that the victim and all items KNOWN connected
to the crime are localized to the Ramsey household. When this
framework fact is integrated with other relevant facts, all
evidentiary doubt is removed. Duly note, I said evidentiary
doubt. Obviously, there are those who have and will continue to
doubt Ramsey culpability on faith, not facts.

Excellent post! IMHO there is truth in that "those that have eyes to see WILL SEE"...we humans mindfully EDIT OUT what we do or do not want to see FWIW...plain/simple but most can't grip the courage to do so IMHO.

 

[Blazeboy3]

The Internet 1) is international, not American, and 2) there's nothing about Internet copyright at the site you posted because it's an unresolved issue. That's why academics only post abstracts because it is an unresolved issue. Ya wanna read the paper, ya buy the book.

I am not an expert on copyright but I do know that unless you can prove you authored something, you do not own it.

And if you have a hat that is not tied to who you are, you have no copyright...your 'hat' does.

What you put on the Internet is out in the public domain. Do you understand that terminology? Public domain means up for grabs. That's why adobe acrobat...but a good techie can tell you how to lift that stuff as well. So, stuff on the Internet is not protected. {{that's why it's a good idea to keep your better ideas to yourself, or publish them in copyright protected mediums like books, etc.}}

So, tell me how you would prove that you are Shylock? Can't be done. Your computer terminal is Shylock. Your posts are in the public domain.

Yuppers you're rightoe...it's like that book "you can't afford a negative THOUGHT" because IMHO it's "free-for-all-up-for-grabs thought-energy-go TWISTER GAME NON-STOP" FWIW...good to see/read your post(s) Twilight!!!

 

[Blazeboy3]

Before you begin reading the immediately following, may I suggest
listening to Patsy’s 911 call to form a physical, geographical
and psychological (emotional) image of Patsy as she makes the
call.

CNN INTERVIEW SIX DAYS AFTER THE DEATH OF JONBENET
THE “RANSOM NOTE” AND 911 CALL

CABELL: Mrs. Ramsey -- you found the note. Was it a handwritten
note, three pages?
RAMSEY, P: I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing
And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and
I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. (CNN - An
interview with John and Patricia Ramsey January 1, 1997}

PATSY: I kind of turned around and looked at it to see what it
was and I started reading the first couple of lines. It just
wasn't registering but somewhere it said, 'we have your daughter'
it clicked, you know, 'Your Daughter' and I just bounded back up
the steps and threw her door open and she was not in her bed.
(07-09-1998 Michael Tracy's "Who Killed JonBenét?" documentary
airs in Britain.)

PATSY: I turned around to start to see what it was and realized
after I'd read the first couple of lines… (Friday, March 17 2000,
BARBARA WALTERS, ABC NEWS)

Patsy repeatedly stated that her knowledge of the note was
limited to only the first few lines sufficient to discern that
JonBenet had been kidnaped. She indicated that she was so upset
she could not read further; that she went bounding off to look in
JonBenet’s room and scream for John. Her story does not jell with
the recorded facts of the 911 call:

Boulder Police Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

Patsy Ramsey: What?

Boulder Police Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

Patsy Ramsey: No. I don't know... it's there... there's a ransom
note here.

Boulder Police Dispatcher: It's a ransom note.

Patsy Ramsey: It says SBTC... Victory... please.

The question about who took her is answered in the first line of
the note:

“We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign
faction.”

However, this answer at the beginning of the note is not the
answer given to the 911 operator. Patsy gave the answer found at
the end of the note. Without the note in hand, conversing
frantically in immediate response to the 911 operator’s
questions, she stated precisely, clearly and without hesitation
the ending of said note inclusive of the letters of the acronym
in the correct order.This obviously contradicts the projected idea of only a quick
knowledge of the first few lines of the note by swift initial
reading. This tells of a familiarity with the note far beyond the
first few sentences. How did she know the ending IF her first
look at the note was only the first few lines on the morning of
Dec. 26, 1996? Having been caught in a horrendous contradiction
(bald-faced lie), Patsy makes a desperate, but failing attempt at
damage control.

Probably because Patsy KNEW WE WOULD KNOW WHAT SHE KNEW...SO SO SO OBVIOUSLY "IN OUR FACE" that most (not me) refuse to see it!
THANKS FOR THE EXCELLENT INSITE/POST!

 

[Barbara]

I don't know a whole lot about copywriting and I don't know a damn thing about Delmar England other than what I have read on the forums

I don't think Mr. England is charading as an "expert" or "professional" regarding this case. He is someone who writes papers on various issues. Granted, his use of elaborate vocabulary can be mistaken by some as "professional" or "expert", but I do not think he is claiming to be any better than anyone else.

I wrote papers in Grad school, as did others. Doesn't make me a professional or expert, but my papers made sense.

It doesn't matter who he is to me as it doesn't matter who any of the posters are. We have had professionals and experts write things that are incorrect and in some cases, totally ridiculous.

We have had more posters who are not professional or expert who have written wonderful posts with great intelligence and insight.

So for most of us, it doesn't matter who he or anyone else is. If the posts make sense to us, that's the whole point of the forums. Take the content of the post and evaluate it according to our own thinking.

 

[Barbara]

And Barbara you make some interesting points about who posts here and who does not. My question to you is how do you know who is an expert and who is not? Do the hats or their terminals give off an aura, or what? I'm hard pressed to keep track of whether or not they're even the same poster from day to day, and I have the tools to do it. What's your methodology?

Hi Twilight,

I DON'T know who is an expert and who is not. For me, I read the posts and take what I deem to be good and bad points and absorb them accordingly.

I don't care what hats are used at all. Matters not to me.

Tools?
Methodology?

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Tricia]

As you can tell Amraann is out of town.

I am disappointed in the name calling in this thread. I am sending a couple of official warnings to some posters. More of the name calling and you will be banned.

Thanks
Tricia

 

[Shylock]

I am disappointed in the name calling in this thread. I am sending a couple of official warnings to some posters. More of the name calling and you will be banned.

Geez, I miss all the fun. Is that BlazeBoy causing trouble again? I have Blaze on ignore because I really can't understand his/her posts unless I read them in the same context they were written in--with a snoot full.

Tricia, feel free to use the "Yuk" hat....

LOL

 

[twilight]

Wow - did I hit a nerve, or what? Sorry Tricia I won't mention it again. I will publish it elsewhere as I have in the past. Print that is. Because there is no 'you know what' on the Internet. hehe...

I've been around before????? Of course I have. Many of the original posters here know me from way, way, way back. I am a linguistic consultant who has analysed the Ramsey ransom note and can show that Patsy Ramsey wrote it. That is a fact. In fact I have presented a paper on just that topic, and published it academically. My paper had sources and copyright protection. I make no secret of this. {{I am busy right now, but make no mistake, I intend to get back to Mrs. Ramsey}}

So, Twi, after all these years, has been threatened. Why, I wonder? Because I tried to point out something to some of the more intelligent posters here? Guess I was wrong.

By the way, Tricia, this is my warning. You don’t really want me looking too closely at your posts – and I have quite a few of them. I have been planning to investigate for some time now – what the heck has happened to this forum. I have a pretty good idea. So long…your loss, not mine.

 

[Jayelles]

Twilight is our resident linguistic expert. She's been around longer than I and I have a huge respect for her. We've debated often and I remember when she got some recent work published.

I hope Twilight doesn't leave. I know she hasn't posted a lot recently, but she would be a loss to the forum IMO.

 

[Tricia]

Twilight,

You can disagree all you want with something. You just don't need to be rude about it or call people names.

So, Twi, after all these years, has been threatened. Why, I wonder? Because I tried to point out something to some of the more intelligent posters here? Guess I was wrong.

You got a warning Twilight. Don't make it more dramatic than it is. You got a warning because your posts became personal. As did others. You were rude plain and simple.


By the way, Tricia, this is my warning. You don’t really want me looking too closely at your posts – and I have quite a few of them. I have been planning to investigate for some time now – what the heck has happened to this forum. I have a pretty good idea. So long…your loss, not mine.

Wow. I must have hit a nerve for you to have been collecting my posts and planning to "investigate" them.

The only thing that happened to this forum is I forgot Amraann was on vacation. I should have stepped in sooner.