The actual vs. desired outcome

RDI loves to linger on JR 's call to arrange his flight out of town, as if that implies guilty behavior.

Were they being chased down the freeway by police cars? No.
Were they just targeted by an unknown and vicious killer? Yes.
Would they spend the next night in their house? No, would you?
Would they impose on a friend with a killer on the loose? No, would you?
Would they stay at the Holiday Inn? No, would you?

I think you're getting the point.

If I remember correctly, the police offered to put up the Ramseys in a motel, with guards. I would do that because I would want to help the police find my daughter's killer. If I was guilty I'd get the heck out of Dodge the fastest possible way.

The cutesy remarks don't bolster your IDI theory. It is more convincing when the sarcastic remarks are eliminated if you are wanting to change opinions. Apparently, your real goal is showing readers how clever you think your comments are, which has nothing to do with discussing evidence in JonBenet's death.

As to your points, they are based on the assumption that your speculations are the correct ones and that both you and your readers can read the minds of the Ramseys and predict the future. Your sarcasm aside, that in itself makes for a weak argument.
 
The autopsy says no such thing. I thought you were expert on this case but you sure don't know what the autopsy says. Are we just making this stuff up as we go along or what? Where in the autopsy does it say anything about three days??

Excuse me Holdon. Don't get your knickers all in a twist. One of the forensics on this case says there was abuse three days prior. He gets this from the autopsy report. I don't have the correct nomenclature. Does anyone around here so we can ease Holdon's anxiety about my post.

What is it with you IDI's. Does nasty run in your blood or something? Get some facts and get last nasty, that should do it. So I said the autopsy, should have said a forensic doctor who gets it from the autopsy, Try reading Cyrill Wecht's book, he is probably the one. His translation is great. :croc:

And another thing, I never said I was an expert on this case; hardly, although there are several people on this Board who I consider experts.
 
Excuse me Holdon. Don't get your knickers all in a twist. One of the forensics on this case says there was abuse three days prior. He gets this from the autopsy report. I don't have the correct nomenclature. Does anyone around here so we can ease Holdon's anxiety about my post.

What is it with you IDI's. Does nasty run in your blood or something? Get some facts and get last nasty, that should do it. So I said the autopsy, should have said a forensic doctor who gets it from the autopsy, Try reading Cyrill Wecht's book, he is probably the one. His translation is great. :croc:

Concerning JonBenet's vaginal trauma, experts used the words acute and chronic, which in medical terminology means immediate to or at the time of death or at the onset of a disease, and chronic, which means at least more than one occurrence has happened, one of which is at least old enough to have healed and left "scaring" or partially healed, or there's old inflammation or other evidence of it being 48 hours old or more. I think Wecht is the one who said it could be as old as three days (72 hours). As you suggested Solace, his book provides a lot of professional opinion useful to this case.

There is no doubt that at least two occurrences of vaginal trauma were found on JonBenet's body. Wecht teaches classes (or used to) on this stuff. He knows what he's doing when it comes to pathology and autopsies.
 
If I am not mistaken, she is talking about John sticking his tongue out so many times, they call him "lizard lips" over at FFJ. (My take on that....when people lie, their mouth and lips get dry....therefore he licks them 50 million times...it was really gross).

Ames, that is interesting. Is that true when people lie, their mouth gets dry? Because John has a severe case. That is a sincere question though.:D
 
This is false.

Of course they answered police questions before April 1997. It makes sense though for RDI to make this claim, because it portrays character. Lacking hard evidence against the R's, defamation is the only thing RDI has to do. Eventually, RDI has to ask why there's no hard, corroborative evidence against the parents.

How come you're claiming that the cord fibers were rope fibers, and then telling me to go look for facts supporting rope fiber? There was no rope fiber in JBR's bed, thats an RDI fabrication.

When did they answer questions? Can you give me some dates Holdon to back up this claim. Surely you cannot be talking about that fiasco the day JonBenet was found? Because at 2:00 p.m. that afternoon, the questions were over. John tells detectives THAT NIGHT when Detective Arndt arrives at the Fernsies that Patsy is in no condition. They have lawyered up by that time. This is straight from Lawrence Schiller's book and his movie of the same name. The third day they gave SAMPLES because they had to. That is it. So please let us here when they answered questions for the police.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation. :p
 
I can't say for sure how I would react in the same situation, but this thought had always bothered me. I know JR made comments about looking under JBR's bed in his underwear. But WHY would anyone do that? If she was simply MISSING (with no ransom note) I could understand why. But...there's the NOTE. The supposed RN said clearly it was a kidnapping. So she wasn't HIDING. Under the bed or anywhere else. So once again, the note is shown to be fake by the Rs themselves. So by his statement I can only conclude that he made that statement for the sole purpose of providing an excuse for his underwear fibers to be found in that room.
That RN points to the R guilt more than anything else in the case, followed by their lying about the pineapple. Those 2 things do it all for me.

Yeah, that makes no sense. He simply would have stated that he searched under the bed for her....I mean, who cares what he was wearing. That would be beside the point. UNLESS...this is what I think happened. John was probably already in the bed, when JB was injured. Patsy screamed for him, when she couldn't revive JB...and he came a running...in his underwear. I don't believe that he had been molesting her...that night...if at all. But, he couldn't tell the police that...because that wouldn't have meshed with him saying that an intruder did it.
 
Ames, that is interesting. Is that true when people lie, their mouth gets dry? Because John has a severe case. That is a sincere question though.:D

Yep, I have posted..and someone else posted it too....on a board (don't remember which one)....ways that the FBI can tell if a person is lying. There are several clues that they look for...(this is before giving them a lie detector test). And dry mouth, and licking of lips is just one of many. I will see if I can find that link again for you.
 
Yeah, that makes no sense. He simply would have stated that he searched under the bed for her....I mean, who cares what he was wearing. That would be beside the point. UNLESS...this is what I think happened. John was probably already in the bed, when JB was injured. Patsy screamed for him, when she couldn't revive JB...and he came a running...in his underwear. I don't believe that he had been molesting her...that night...if at all. But, he couldn't tell the police that...because that wouldn't have meshed with him saying that an intruder did it.


and another thing he wrote in DOI that he *had to put in,IMO,is when he talked about Patsy shrugging it off that JB didn't like the MyTwinn doll.I think she threw a downright nasty mean FIT over it,and just in case Burke might decide tell the truth about it someday,John could go back and say,' NO,it didn't happen that way...look,it's even in the book!'
 
http://www.pattiwood.net/article.asp?PageID=2316

And there are alot more where this one came from..


Here is part of it..


Patti Wood is quoted in these four articles published in The Toronto Sun.
Take her quiz on “Body Honesty”.
www.pattiwood.net 404-371-8228
The Toronto Sun, Friday, July 23, 2004​
© Copyright 2004, Sun Media Corporation​
LIAR, LIAR: FINGER POINTING, BALD-FACED LIES.
WE'RE SURROUNDED BY THEM.​
BY JOANNE RICHARD, TORONTO SUN
WE'RE CONSTANTLY fascinated by tales of moral bankruptcy. Recurrent reports of greed and deceit mesmerize us, and denials of wrongdoing echo over and over again in corporate America. Witness the lurid details of the Martha Stewart trial and Ken Lay's involvement in Enron.
Finger-pointing, bald-faced lies, intellectual depravity. And that's just for starters! "There's so much lying going on all around us -- we've lost our morals and values," says New York psychologist Dr. Bonnie Eaker Weil. "The lying that goes on in the business arena alone is representative of what is going on in society. "It started with the Clinton era, continued with the Bush election and so on."
Eaker Weil says that people have come to believe that lying, in order to attain financial reward and power, is acceptable: "It's an entitlement. We've become a society of narcissists. It's all about greed - people are overcompensating for the terror and uncertainty and are trying to get rid of an emptiness. Money is viewed as a comfort."
According to experts, lies surround us -- "but there are good lies and bad lies," stresses Eaker Weil. "White lies are fine because they prevent hurt because honesty can be cruelty. Lies are wrong when it's done for their own selfish gain and create pain and hurt -- like innocent people losing their pensions or infidelity."
And, say the experts, we all fib. Up to 500 white lies a day, says Patti Wood. "We lie to have smooth social interaction, have people like us and to get away with things," says Wood, an Atlanta-based body language expert. Lying, in general, has become much more acceptable, says Wood. "It's scary how our culture is rationalizing and justifying serious lying. It breaks down the social structure and makes us feel that we can't trust anyone." Wood says research reveals "college age people are more likely to lie and justify it. Eighty percent feel justified to lie on a resume by padding it. In the '60s, only 10% felt that was an okay thing to do. There's been a big cultural change in what is viewed as acceptable."
Wood, who was asked by ABC and CBS news to analyze Gary Condit during the infamous Connie Chung interview, conducts seminars on Body Honesty: How to Spot a Liar in order to recognize deception cues as well as establish credibility through body language. Losing credibility can be disastrous, she says. "In the most important interview of their careers, Gary Condit sucked in his lips and stuck out his tongue, Bill Clinton touched his nose about every four minutes and Enron's Ken Lay over-acted and was overconfident,' says Wood, adding that all these are nonverbal cues of deception and crushed their credibility.
"You can send and receive up to 10,000 nonverbal cues in less than one minute of interaction," she says. "... These cues give the most accurate indication of a person's truest emotions and can reveal most accurately when someone is lying." A liar leaks out cues from the eyes, head, voice and hands, she says, adding that 80% of lies go undetected. Many people think they're good at detecting lies, but they're not, and most of us actually incorrectly interpret nervousness cues as lying. Wood says true deception cues include a higher pitched voice, more pauses when speaking and 64% less body movement -- "as people try to control the lie from coming out." On the other hand, common honesty signs include synchronicity -- words, voice and body language are all in sync, says Wood.
Dr. Alan Hirsch has researched deception signs for the past 17 years and has come up with a list of 23 signs of lying in order to help the medical profession detect truthfulness. He says anyone can become "a human lie detector" by using his signs, including cuing into his "Pinocchio phenomenon" -- engorgement of the nasal erectile tissue which leads to a liar rubbing and scratching his nose.
Hirsch, a neurologist and psychiatrist from Chicago, became interested in lying while researching odour and sexual arousal at the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago. He says that within the first three minutes of meeting someone, deceit can be determined -- unless they're a sociopath and there's no guilt present.
---
NEUROLOGIST Dr. Alan Hirsch's research has turned up 23 signs of lying. But, he cautions, stress alone may generate lying signs and make someone appear guilty. So be sure to compare a high stress time to one when lying is suspected.
WATCH FOR THESE VERBAL CUES:
- QUALIFIERS: Liars tend to use words such as "not necessarily," "but," "however," "generally," and "basically."
- EXPANDED CONTRACTIONS: Liars tend to emphasize the "not," for example, that they were "not" involved -- as in could not, would not, etc.
- DENIALS OF LYING: "The liar denies lying and emphasizes the truthfulness of his answers," says Hirsch; e.g. "to tell you the truth," "believe me," and "honestly." (FROM AMES: PATSY DID THIS ALOT...INCLUDING..."I SWEAR TO GOD")
- SPEECH ERRORS: Watch for grammatical errors and changes of thought in midsentence.
- PAUSE FILLERS: Listen for lots of "uhs," "ers," "ums," and "ahs." (FROM AMES: I HAVE A LINK ON FFJ DEVOTED TO THIS REGARDING THE RAMS, ON FFJ)
- STUTTERING: "The liar becomes tongue-tied, stammers and stutters," says Hirsch.
- THROAT CLEARING: Liars tend to throat clear, moan, groan and grunt.
WATCH FOR THESE NON-VERBAL SIGNS:
- LESS FINGER POINTING: There's a lack of pointing or of raising a single finger to illustrate a point.
- LIAR'S LEAN: "The liar tends to lean forward, resting elbows on knees or a table, constantly changing posture or position in a chair."
- LIP LICKING: Increased frequency. (FROM AMES: AND JOHN DID THIS ALOT!!!!)
- LIP PUCKERING: "Tightening the mouth as though to let nothing get out," says Hirsch.
Page 4 www.pattiwood.net As quoted in The Toronto Sun 2004
- DRINKING: Increase in drinking and swallowing. (FROM AMES...I IMAGINE THIS WOULD BE FROM THE DRY MOUTH)
- SMILING: Watch for more smiles and inappropriate laughter. (FROM AMES: AND GOODNESS KNOWS, JOHN DID THIS ALOT TOO!)
- HAND GESTURES: Liars use fewer hand gestures.
- GROOMING: Increased touching of the face, ears and hair.
- SIGHS: Increased sighs or deep breaths.
- HAND AND SHOULDER SHRUGS: Flipping the hands with the palms up and shrugging the shoulders.
- HANDLING OBJECTS: Toying with objects such as eyeglasses, pen, paper, etc.
- AVERTING GAZE: "Looking away, to the side or down after having made eye contact."
- BLINKING: Liars tend to blink less often.
- CROSSING ARMS: Folding the arms across the chest as if to create a barrier.
- CLOSING HANDS: Holding either hand in a fist or interlocking fingers together of both hands.
- TOUCHING NOSE: Scratching, touching or rubbing the nose.​
 
Fits John and Patsy perfectly. John answers Larry King's question of why they hired lawyers immediately with "We not only hired lawyers Larry, we also hired the best detectives in the country". And stupid goes on to the next question instead of saying I did not ask you that. :rolleyes:

It's unfortunate that psychological profiling and other behaviorial sciences aren't better accepted. This case would have been closed ten years ago if what is known now was known then. Fascinating stuff and thanks for your link to the Patti Wood article (maybe she's Lin Wood's cousin :eek:).
 
It's unfortunate that psychological profiling and other behaviorial sciences aren't better accepted. This case would have been closed ten years ago if what is known now was known then. Fascinating stuff and thanks for your link to the Patti Wood article (maybe she's Lin Wood's cousin :eek:).

I think the credit goes to Ames for the Patti Wood article. Both articles were very very interesting.
 
My oversight. Apologies to Ames. (She won't mind.)
 
Fits John and Patsy perfectly. John answers Larry King's question of why they hired lawyers immediately with "We not only hired lawyers Larry, we also hired the best detectives in the country". And stupid goes on to the next question instead of saying I did not ask you that. :rolleyes:

he gets on a cushy first-name basis with him,and Larry just eats it up.
 
he gets on a cushy first-name basis with him,and Larry just eats it up.

He wants him to come on the show for the ratings. When he had Steve Thomas and John and Patsy, he completely lost control of the interview. John interrupted nonstop and threatened to leave at one point and Larry said we are making history here, don't leave (something to that effect). And then he let the idiot interrupt at every turn and then said in his book that Steve fumbled the interview. For once I saw two sides to a story - Steve's and John's. John is lying in his book. All he did was interrupt. He was so livid that he had to stop when speaking in order to put together a thought.

Meanwhile Patsy is touching Steve - while he is saying she is good for this-. She is stoned and saying "he's a young man". John looks disgusted and Patsy just sounds stoned.

I wonder if they had an argument after that. Probably not.
 
He wants him to come on the show for the ratings.

no doubt


When he had Steve Thomas and John and Patsy, he completely lost control of the interview. John interrupted nonstop and threatened to leave at one point and Larry said we are making history here, don't leave (something to that effect). And then he let the idiot interrupt at every turn and then said in his book that Steve fumbled the interview.
Larry is a wuss who can't even take control of his own show.
For once I saw two sides to a story - Steve's and John's. John is lying in his book. All he did was interrupt. He was so livid that he had to stop when speaking in order to put together a thought.

Meanwhile Patsy is touching Steve - while he is saying she is good for this-. She is stoned and saying "he's a young man". John looks disgusted and Patsy just sounds stoned.

I wonder if they had an argument after that. Probably not.

I doubt it either.As long as John had his say,I think he could have cared less what Patsy was doing.
 
RDI loves to linger on JR 's call to arrange his flight out of town, as if that implies guilty behavior.

Were they being chased down the freeway by police cars? No.
Were they just targeted by an unknown and vicious killer? Yes.
Would they spend the next night in their house? No, would you?
Would they impose on a friend with a killer on the loose? No, would you?
Would they stay at the Holiday Inn? No, would you?

I think you're getting the point.

And he probably thought the parting gifts would be nice. :D
 
Holdontoyourhat,
But, surely not in the crotch of their dead daughter, or in the knotting in the restraints, or on the underside of the tape affixed to her mouth? Especially when one parent stated she had not been in the basement!

Gravity is mean like that.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
526
Total visitors
629

Forum statistics

Threads
625,960
Messages
18,516,472
Members
240,907
Latest member
kaz33
Back
Top