Stephen Singular

[sissi]

Hey that's exactly what Patsy did.
Left her precious daughter like a discarded toy next to that tree, just walked out and left her there all by herself....

No, she did not want to leave her daughter, the police emptied the house, forcing her to leave, as well.

The police followed, asking questions, getting answers, but for days Patsy is incoherent, drugged and sick . Patsy in a very sedated state went in to offer handwriting samples, hair, dna ,etc. I have to laugh at the people who claim Patsy hid behind lawyers and did not cooperate, remember she was available and interviewed for days, and gave FIVE separate handwriting samples. This in CO OPERATING! She came back to Boulder after the funeral and continued to offer whatever they needed. BUT by then the climate had changed,(no that's a lie, the cops trying to hold jonbenet ransom before the funeral is when the climate changed) a rogue cop, and an emotionally upset one, had formed opinions, theories if ya will, and that closed the line of communication. The questions became repetitive, it appeared a game to the cops, ask the same question until she "screws" up, it became very OBVIOUS they were NOT looking for a killer. Meanwhile Burke was being questioned illegally without parental permission . Even after that ,with her permission she allowed Burke available for a more in depth interview held in a more responsible manner. The offer of a lawyer, was timed perfectly, he SAW the underhanded tactics, and took over for them. They were victims and naive ones at that!

 

[narlacat]

<<No, she did not want to leave her daughter, the police emptied the house, forcing her to leave, as well>>

I know she had to leave, I'm just surprised we didn't hear about it, like we did when JonBenet was found.

 

[narlacat]

What I am saying is that Seraph's analysis of the ransom note is the most ridiculous I have ever read. It is absurd in it's conclusions, that because it talks about bringing a sacrifice to the altar and binding it with cords, that Patsy, in her delusional state, had therefore misinterpreted the Scripture and was bringing JonBenet to an altar to sacrifice her and bound her with cords.

For anyone interested in reading this garbage, it is here: http://www.seraph.net/jonbenet.html

For anyone interested in reading an intelligent analysis of the ransom note, this is where you'll find it: http://www.acandyrose.com/04212000delmaranalysis1.htm

I dunno, maybe it's not garbage, god knows Patsy wasn't normal.

As I remember it on the morning of the 26th, the Ramsey's bible was open to the psalm 118 on John Ramsey's desk, maybe I'm wrong about that..correct me if I'm wrong.
Apparently when Patsy was sick with the cancer she used the psalm 118 as a source of spiritual strength.

Psalm 118 Verse 27 can be seen as offering a person as a sacrifice to God.
Genesis 1:18 could be seen as saying God approves of separating the light from the darkness.
Revelation 1:18 I am the living one.
I was dead and behold I am alive for ever and ever!

 

[BBB167893]

"a rogue cop, and an emotionally upset one, had formed opinions, theories if ya will, and that closed the line of communication."

That "rogue cop" had expert opinion behind him.

"She needed her to feed Patsy's shallowness and ego. So, why in the world would she kill her?"

A lot of us don't think it was intentional, julianne.

"I think that picture of Patsy is just horrible, she was grieving, and I do have a problem with making fun of victims."

I think it's horrible, too, but for different reasons. She was POSING her butt off! It's so obvious! Before then, she couldn't be bothered to visit her daughter's grave. And I would NEVER make fun of victims, and I get very angry when people do. Ask anyone who knows me.

"No, it wasn't Patsy."

I'm afraid the evidence (the majority at least) says it was. More evidence, I point out, than what put Scotty Peterson away for good! But he didn't have million-dollar lawyers!

"Didn't Patsy arrange to have that photo taken??Like they arranged other things...the church service..."

I'm afraid so, nc. The performance of a lifetime. Sleazy!

 

[sissi]

who was that expert

"a rogue cop, and an emotionally upset one, had formed opinions, theories if ya will, and that closed the line of communication."

That "rogue cop" had expert opinion behind him.
who was that expert
"She needed her to feed Patsy's shallowness and ego. So, why in the world would she kill her?"

A lot of us don't think it was intentional, julianne.

Many of us know she didn't do it.

"I think that picture of Patsy is just horrible, she was grieving, and I do have a problem with making fun of victims."

I think it's horrible, too, but for different reasons. She was POSING her butt off! It's so obvious! Before then, she couldn't be bothered to visit her daughter's grave. And I would NEVER make fun of victims, and I get very angry when people do. Ask anyone who knows me.

And you think this ...WHY?? What on earth makes you think this??

"No, it wasn't Patsy."

I'm afraid the evidence (the majority at least) says it was. More evidence, I point out, than what put Scotty Peterson away for good! But he didn't have million-dollar lawyers!

There wasn't enough evidence to indict, let alone convict. Bill Wise said the evidence the police presented WAS'T EVIDENCE AT ALL!


"Didn't Patsy arrange to have that photo taken??Like they arranged other things...the church service..."
Of course not, she was grieving, it was NOT a phot shoot.

I'm afraid so, nc. The performance of a lifetime. Sleazy!

There is no evidence, a rogue, and I believe I am correct on this, cop,one who wouldn't have kept his job had there been no Jonbenet murder. Cops don't shoot people, he did TWICE, he had little experience, shifting from place to place, holding down jobs normally for under five years. He was not a homicide detective, he was not qualified to handle this case and his theory should be dismissed on the basis that others with far more experience and qualifications do NOT agree with him.

 

[Britt]

...his theory should be dismissed on the basis that others with far more experience and qualifications do NOT agree with him.

Well you've got a point there, sissi. Detective Arndt and Dr. Wecht think John did it.

Plus, the entire BPD thought a Ramsey parent did it and if they didn't agree with Thomas, they obviously also thought John did it.

Maybe they're right and Thomas was wrong: John did it.

Maybe that's even what the grand jurors thought. Based on their statements (allegedly) quoted in the Globe, they couldn't accept that a mother could do this, but they didn't say father couldn't.

In the Court TV documentary grand juror Michelle Czopek said, and I quote: One of the most impressive witnesses was the coroner because he presented evidence about the skull fracture and to me that had the most significance in the case.

Significant because they didn't think Patsy could do that? What about John?

 

[sissi]

"My fear is that there could be compromise or prejudice to the case," said Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter, who has not read the book. "I think it is unfortunate this guy is so tortured by this case...This guy is pecking at the bones of a poor little dead girl; it is blood money. It is very sad."
Hunter concerning steve



DeMuth does not think there is strong enough evidence to prove the Ramseys were involved. Thomas has said he hopes to "sweep that office clean."
DeMuth, along with Hofstrom and Smit, were believers in the "intruder" theory.

Keenan believes an intruder did it. Douglas believes the same.


Barry Scheck, DNA expert hired by the Boulder DA early on in the investigation, said that the DNA did not point to the family so you have to exclude them. He said you can't have it both ways. Using DNA to exclude suspects but not the Ramseys.

We can all pick our experts. I believe when looking at this case, we should follow the most experienced among them. IMO

 

[rashomon]

who was that expert
He was not a homicide detective, he was not qualified to handle this case and his theory should be dismissed on the basis that others with far more experience and qualifications do NOT agree with him.

Speaking of people with 'far more experience': the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer (CASKU) experts agreed with Thomas' theory that there was no intruder.
And what is interesting, during the whole session with the CASKU experts, Lou Smit did not open his mouth once to present his own intruder fantasy. Why? If he was such a great detective, surely he would not have kept his mouth shut so cowardly in front of the highly experienced CASKU people who are the cream of the crop when it comes to profiling and investigating killings like that?

 

[BBB167893]

"who was that expert"

That would be the FBI's CASKU division, Dr. Richard Krugman, Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. Werner Spitz, etc.

"And you think this ...WHY?? What on earth makes you think this??"

Because, as an actor myself, I know the difference between real and phony. Besides, it totally goes against her behavior patterns.

"There wasn't enough evidence to indict, let alone convict. Bill Wise said the evidence the police presented WAS'T EVIDENCE AT ALL!"

If he said that, it's news to me. Michael Kane believes she did it, and he probably knows this case better than anyone. The problem is not the evidence, it's figuring out which parent did what. Would you like me to list the evidence as I see it for you?

"Cops don't shoot people"

I sure hope Rudy Giuliani doesn't find that out!

"He was not a homicide detective, he was not qualified to handle this case and his theory should be dismissed on the basis that others with far more experience and qualifications do NOT agree with him."

The others with far more experience DIRECTED him!

"Keenan believes an intruder did it. Douglas believes the same."

Per Keenan: "she clearly hasn't reviewed her own case file."-Michael Kane. Keenan is a radical feminist who believes all women are automatically victims. And Douglas? That's a real laugh. He threw all professionalism to the wind and totally disregarded his own writings to give them a pass. And he still can't admit it.

"Barry Scheck, DNA expert hired by the Boulder DA early on in the investigation, said that the DNA did not point to the family so you have to exclude them. He said you can't have it both ways. Using DNA to exclude suspects but not the Ramseys."

Scheck is wrong. DNA cannot exclude suspects except in rape cases, and even then if there's only one rapist. In virtually all other cases, DNA can only include suspects, not exclude them. If the cops and DA didn't know that, then they were stupider than I thought. Scheck is one of the biggest proponents of using DNA evidence to free murderers, and he went against his own teachings on DNA to say it wasn't reliable in the OJ case. He's a pimp.

This is not a hypothetical: there is a case right now that I could tell you about where a child-killer is looking to be freed on DNA "evidence" worth no more than this one! I'd be glad to tell you about it.

The DNA was old, much older than it should be, and could have come from anywhere. The investigators say it most likely came from either the manufacturing plant or during transport.

Thank you, rashomon! Someone's gotta keep it straight around here!

"Great" detective! Bah! I've reviewed his record. It's not all it's cracked up to be.

 

[Britt]

Great posts, SuperDave and Rashomon.

The theory of a cop (rogue or not) doesn't change what's in the case files, and that info has led many professionals to believe Patsy did it.

Can't blame the messenger(s) for what's in the files.

 

[Eagle1]

Psalm 118 Verse 27 can be seen as offering a person as a sacrifice to God.

When Cain whacked his younger brother Abel, in the original family on earth, it was because somehow they already knew the ideal sacrifice would be a lamb, not produce, and not a younger brother. Right?

Wasn't it hundreds of years later when that was made law, through Moses?
The lamb symbolized Christ, "the lamb of God", until His becoming the only human sacrifice, right? If PR knew enough about Christian faith to go to a healing service the first time she had cancer, (did she try that the last time?) she'd know we don't sacrifice humans.

In the original 1970's movie "Stepford Wives", men belonging to the town's "Mens' Association" were sickened by having to let the organization kill and replace their wives, with robot replicas, or they wouldn't be permitted to make a living in the town. (Even if they moved away, I guess.) The robots were really dolls, overly-polite, just did their work, no independent thoughts.

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix. Fiction, but has anyone heard a new "doctrine" that people who've been "stars" in any way need humbling, and children need to be taught to be humble? (Christians' instructions are to be "humble as a little child" already is, naturally.) What's up with that? The Stepford Wives weren't considered "humble"? Fiction, I know. How's that for "far out"?

 

[BBB167893]

I don't know how it could be staging, Eagle1, but I'm certainly willing to hear it.

"The theory of a cop (rogue or not) doesn't change what's in the case files, and that info has led many professionals to believe Patsy did it.

Can't blame the messenger(s) for what's in the files."

Damn straight, Britt!

KANE: Well, I don't think you can rule anybody out in this case. And I think that a lot of what's being pointed to as evidence that exonerates anybody is just simply information that's out in the public domain that doesn't necessarily correlate with what the police investigation established in this case.

 

[UKGuy]

Since this topic is being aired, thought I might mention that head bashing followed by garroting was an ancient form of sacrifice.

This could also have added features such as cutting the throat with a knife, and/or drowning face down!

Some people have suggested , controversially, that this was how Lindow Man came to be found face down in a peat-bog in middle england. And that he was a Druid sacrifice.


.

 

[BBB167893]

I saw that on TV. Yes, one of the Bog Mummies was found with a cord around the neck.

 

[UKGuy]

I saw that on TV. Yes, one of the Bog Mummies was found with a cord around the neck.

SuperDave,

Yes not a palatable subject, but more probably a druid sacrifice than not, its grist to the mill, for all those ritual killer did it theories.


.

 

[BBB167893]

Even when I was an RST, I never bought those "ritual" notions.

 

[Eagle1]

I'd forgotten about those.

So where did they first get their human sacrifice ideas, and/or when? Would they know anything about the Psalms?

SuperDave, you know me, I frequently say something could be "staging". And mean it, of course. Someone who knows about the Psalms, besides Father Rol I guess, may have been involved and deliberately left the open Bible.

BTW, If the R's did the staging, wouldn't they have staged something pointing very definitely to an intruder?

In a way, that's what the suitcase under the broken window looked like, but JR said he'd broken the window much earlier and just never fixed it.

Would he have said that to "cover for" somebody, folks?

 

[BBB167893]

"SuperDave, you know me, I frequently say something could be "staging". And mean it, of course. Someone who knows about the Psalms, besides Father Rol I guess, may have been involved and deliberately left the open Bible."

Yes, I know you like to do that.

"BTW, If the R's did the staging, wouldn't they have staged something pointing very definitely to an intruder?"

They tried. The garrote was part of it; the note too. The wrist ties, the tape, etc. They just couldn't decide whether they wanted a pedophile or ransom kidnapper. You have to remember: what a real crime scene looks like and what a person thinks it looks like are different things.

"In a way, that's what the suitcase under the broken window looked like, but JR said he'd broken the window much earlier and just never fixed it."

That suitcase didn't get there by itself, now did it? I think his claim WAS part of the staging. But don't go by me. Ask the feds.

 

[sissi]

I have always wondered about God, why he needed sacrifices, did the people give him lamb to quench him , because they feared he would eat them? I remember thinking this when I was a child, like "whew" then along came Jesus to save us. It was that mixed marriage of my parents, as well as my grandparents, grandma married a Jew, she was Catholic, raised her kids Baptist because it was close. Grandpa was the assistant pastor, preaching only the old testament in German. No one knew . He gave up his religion when his family decided he was dead. Then the same with my parents, no one preached, but it sure was a confusing mix of ideas. We were taught to believe it but with a scientific twist. Lord that would be so much easier these days with invitro, for virgin births, and cloning that rib. I'm not sure if we had a different Bible, but I do remember in ours, after Cain murdered his brother he was sent to live in Nod, where he married. Well now ,just who did he marry?
Aside from my nonsense, I would not think, can't think that there are actually religions that sacrifice people. Then again it was Boulder, who knows who was beating the drums and smoking mushrooms in the hills.

 

[rashomon]

When Cain whacked his younger brother Abel, in the original family on earth, it was because somehow they already knew the ideal sacrifice would be a lamb, not produce, and not a younger brother. Right?

Cain's offering was cereal. The Canaanites were an agricultural tribe who planted cereal, as opposed to the Hebrews, who were nomads. Which is why the Hebrew writers of that story wanted to show that their god scorns the agricultural Canaanite people and prefers "his own" Hebrew people, who as opposed to the Canaanites, were sheep and goat keeping nomads. Therefore 'Cain' means the doomed Canaanite people, and Abel means the preferred (chosen) people.