The actual vs. desired outcome

[JMO8778]

Interesting comment, JMO. Do you mean some people who post on boards may be someone there to act as a shill?

do you mean the shill you mentioned a few posts back,I think you said this person posts on crime library? I haven't read his/her posts.

 

[JMO8778]

Holdon, since you seemed puzzled I'll elaborate. I speculate that Patsy thought she was being coy and cute when she touched Steve Thomas's arm. There's no other realistic way to take that action, in my opinion. As to agreeing with Thomas on live national television about the killer being the person who wrote the ransom note, I think she was being a dumb instead of a smart .

Bye now. :dance:

and she also said 2 knew who killed her daughter-the killer and someone that person confessed to.I believe she was her own frame of reference for that one.
btw what happened to the SFF,and the '2 others'? why did she not mention those?

 

[BOESP]

...Nobody can come to any rational conclusion unless there is sufficient information. Your statement seems to assert that there is, and that the public is somehow in a position to make a valid conclusion based on what is publicly available....

Reading what is available to the public and deciding that you cannot determine who killed JonBenet based on that information is also a conclusion. Many have decided to sit on the fence for that very reason. You seem to have wrongly assumed that everyone must be a yeah or nay.

If you've read any of my earlier posts (and I suspect you have) you seem to ignore the fact that I've often stated that until all the evidence in the evidence locker can be viewed no one really knows what data is available. However, I've seen enough from the Ramsey interview and deposition transcripts and their numerous PR appearances and those for which they were paid that I believe at best they have knowledge of what happened and who killed JonBenet. At worst, I think the finger points to Patsy. Your ad hominem comments have not swayed my opinion one iota.

So Holdon, you seem to have come to a conclusion that the Ramseys are innocent. If that is a misjudgement on my part then please state your stance. Either you have access to all the evidence or your thoughts and ideas are no better than anyone else's.

 

[BOESP]

do you mean the shill you mentioned a few posts back,I think you said this person posts on crime library? I haven't read his/her posts.

There is a "Shill" (his nickname) who used to post on Crime Library. I left there several months ago so don't know if he's there now or not. What I meant in my post today is there are probably shills posting on all the JonBenet boards. They seem to be posting as hall monitors with an attitude. Why they should care what you or I think is interesting. If they have access to all the evidence then why are they here? If they don't have access then they are grossly over-selling their wares, so to speak. :croc:

 

[Solace]

You may be versed on this crime, but not versed in criminology. Ability, opportunity, and intent are needed. PR by herself lacks the ability to carry out all the things that took place without disturbing other occupants or neighbors, especially on the spur of the moment.

PR also hasn't the opportunity to sneak away from her husband for hours and hours while accidentally murdering her daughter.

Nor has it been established anywhere that PR ever had the intent to murder or even injure JBR.

Three people with a garrote and a plan would have the ability. They had ample opportunity because of the layout of the house, and the R's schedule that evening. Their intent evidently ranged from kidnapping to sexual assault to murder. It may have varied from one intent to the other.

Firstly, who said Patsy had to disturb the neighbors, Secondly, who said Patsy had to sneak away from John for hours. Thirdly, who said Patsy INTENDED to hurt her child.

Again, all assumptions by you Holdon. There is always a certain amount of assumptions, but the degree to which you assume things in a murder case is more than one can take. We are dealing in facts here, not assumptions. Please just deal with the facts or the argument gets lost.

 

[Solace]

I'm not sure if this is coy, cute, or just being a smart a--, but its been repeated ad nauseum, and doesn't add to any discussion. Really, who are you to say that it doesn't add to any discussion. It is a statement from Patsy Ramsey herself. If that does not warrant discussion, nothing does. And by the way Holdon, BOESP, is one who comes up with some very very insightful theories. I cannot say the same for you. But you are getting nasty lately. Why is that? Finding it hard to back up your claims.

Nobody can come to any rational conclusion unless there is sufficient information. Good point. So what is your information that leads you to believe that THREE people took part in this murder. Your statement seems to assert that there is, and that the public is somehow in a position to make a valid conclusion based on what is publicly available. Thats an assumption, You should talk about assumptions, I am still waiting for the proof or circumstantial evidence that would convince beyond a reasonable doubt that three people committed this murder. it assumes the information is there and that it is valid. Its a very long list of RDI so-called facts that are presented as facts that aren't really facts. Maybe thats your idea of what most people should study.

Why are you so concerned with what conclusions most people come to? Are you involved in politics or something?

Holdon, have you been frequenting My Space lately and talking to those under the age of 20. You might want to stop that, it is starting to show.

 

[Solace]

Go to crimelibrary.com and read about the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey. It'll be an eyeopener for you.

Okay, so that is where Holdon learned about the Ramsey Case. CrimeLibrary. Crimelibrary is part of Court TV. Court TV was sued about three or four years ago by the Ramseys and a settlement was made. Freshwater runs CrimeLibrary.com (message board) and is paid by them. You cannot say "boo" over there against the Ramseys without getting an infraction, you may not have a theory without getting an infraction. It is true however, that the likes of Shill and Evening 2 (who happens to slander the MacReynolds beyond any libelous slander I have ever seen) gets away with it on an ongoing basis. Now why do you think that is?

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I happen to believe in this case, the Ramseys asserted themselves as such that CourtTv and CrimeLibary are going to be PRO Ramsey and they are.

Which bring me back to another well known fact about the CrimeLibrary message board. It attracts theorists who, if they are not on medication, probably should be.

Holdon, I have read CrimeLibrary's account. And I have read at least 10 others sites on the subject. I really hope you have too and are not just reading one site and stopping there - because there is other information out there. One example, as Ames pointed out recently, is the DNA. This is damaged and degraded and older than JonBenet's DNA. That means it was there before that night, before the murder, probably in the underwear when being packaged. IT IS OLDER DNA. Crimelibrary does not tell you that Holdon. Just for the heck of it, why not read other sites on the subject.

THIS BE MY OPINION. :slap:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Firstly, who said Patsy had to disturb the neighbors, Secondly, who said Patsy had to sneak away from John for hours. Thirdly, who said Patsy INTENDED to hurt her child.

Again, all assumptions by you Holdon. There is always a certain amount of assumptions, but the degree to which you assume things in a murder case is more than one can take. We are dealing in facts here, not assumptions. Please just deal with the facts or the argument gets lost.

If the facts are 'RDI facts,' like PR wrote the note, PR used cord for slings, PR got mad? Spare me, none of these are facts. Here's some facts: Cord not seen prior to the murder, PR has no history of harming JBR, not one CDE concluded PR wrote the note. FBI and secret service dont conclude PR is
the author.

 

[Solace]

If the facts are 'RDI facts,' like PR wrote the note, PR used cord for slings, PR got mad? Spare me, none of these are facts. Here's some facts: Cord not seen prior to the murder, PR has no history of harming JBR, not one CDE concluded PR wrote the note. FBI and secret service dont conclude PR is
the author.

It is interesting that you preface your post with "if", because I notice that RDI's when presenting their theory do it with circumstantial "backup"evidence, such as Patsy's fibers from her jacket entwined in the garrotte, under the tape that was over JB's mouth, in the paint tray - you know that sort of thing.

By the way, do you have any of that? Please don't use the overdone DNA proposed by that very well known liar John Ramsey in the back of his book as evidence that was overlooked. The man knows just what the DNA is and you can be sure of that, but he also knows that most people will swallow it especially if they read the one and only Crimelibrary's account of things and believes it without going further.

And, by the way Chet Ubowski, of the CBI was prepared to say that Patsy wrote the note. I did not get that from Steve Thomas, it was from Mr. Schiller somewhere around page 500 something in his book. Chet says that 24 out of the 26 letters of the alphabet at one point match Patsy's. He says it is uncanny how you can interpose them upon one another.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It is interesting that you preface your post with "if", because I notice that RDI's when presenting their theory do it with circumstantial "backup"evidence, such as Patsy's fibers from her jacket entwined in the garrotte, under the tape that was over JB's mouth, in the paint tray - you know that sort of thing.

By the way, do you have any of that? Please don't use the overdone DNA proposed by that very well known liar John Ramsey in the back of his book as evidence that was overlooked. The man knows just what the DNA is and you can be sure of that, but he also knows that most people will swallow it especially if they read the one and only Crimelibrary's account of things and believes it without going further.

And, by the way Chet Ubowski, of the CBI was prepared to say that Patsy wrote the note. I did not get that from Steve Thomas, it was from Mr. Schiller somewhere around page 500 something in his book. Chet says that 24 out of the 26 letters of the alphabet at one point match Patsy's. He says it is uncanny how you can interpose them upon one another.

What makes you think you can just disqualify the DNA as evidence? LE used it on JMK and entered it into CODIS. Who are you to say? Using your logic, I can disqualify fiber as secondary transfer too. Finding R fiber inside the R's house I guess seems significant to RDI.

 

[JMO8778]

There is a "Shill" (his nickname) who used to post on Crime Library. I left there several months ago so don't know if he's there now or not. What I meant in my post today is there are probably shills posting on all the JonBenet boards. They seem to be posting as hall monitors with an attitude. Why they should care what you or I think is interesting. If they have access to all the evidence then why are they here? If they don't have access then they are grossly over-selling their wares, so to speak. :croc:

ITA !
Ok,I got ya.I've read a bit,it appears they have some personal interest in promoting the IDI theory;why else would anyone care what the reputation of the R's is? If one does enough research on the case,I really don't see how anyone can come to any conclusion other than that the R's are guilty;at the least they do know who killed JB,but IMO,I think one is guilty,and the other helped cover it up.And that is without reading a word from the tabloids.
I've seen something similar on another site;I won't mention the name here but PM me if you want to know.
I have a feeling this thread is going to go on forever b/c of the nonsensical logic they use.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It makes sense that RDI will exclude evidence. Anything that doesn't fit must be thrown out, even if LE didn't throw it out. So RDI is out there all by itself on its many issues:

RDI: The DNA is a lie.
LE (BPD): Tested JMK against the DNA and put the DNA into CODIS.

RDI: PR wrote the note
LE (FBI, secret service): Unable to conclude PR wrote the note.

RDI: JBR was chronically abused
LE (FBI): Injuries not consistent with prior abuse.

Its no wonder LE has made no arrests. They have no cause to.

 

[Solace]

It makes sense that RDI will exclude evidence. Anything that doesn't fit must be thrown out, even if LE didn't throw it out. So RDI is out there all by itself on its many issues:

RDI: The DNA is a lie.
LE (BPD): Test JMK against the DNA and put the DNA into CODIS. What did you expect Lacy to say she was going to do? She already made a complete joke of herself in front of the world. It is in CODIS. Have you heard of any matches yet? I have not. Don't hold your breath. They did not need to test it against JMK. They already knew he was not there. This is another statement made by the Ramsey team and Lacy's of the world so that you and all your true believers will believe them when they say we are waiting for a match. Righhhhhhht. Those of us who are dealing in reality know that putting this DNA in CODIS is problem standard procedure becuase it is DNA, but we also know it is a legal ploy on the part of Lin Wood and his team to exonerate Ramsey and it works, for you.

RDI: PR wrote the note
LE (FBI, secret service): Unable to conclude PR wrote the note. Not according to Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. He was prepared to testify.

RDI: JBR was chronically abused I am an RDI and I do not say she was chronically abused. Why do you insist on posting things that are untrue?
LE (FBI): Injuries not consistent with prior abuse. Some would disagree but we have been over this. There are experts such as Cyrill Wect, a well known and respected forensic, who says she was.

Its no wonder LE has made no arrests. They have no cause to.

Not if it is being handled by Alex Hunter and Lacy, who did not even take the time to read up on the case and she would have seen that the information Karr gave was free for anyone to get.

You have to do better than this. Come on.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Is that the guy who made his 'expert' analysis based only on photos he received from tabloids? Thats just junk. Is that the guy who was indicted by the feds for fraud? C'mon, you should be able to do better than that.

 

[Solace]

Is that the guy who made his 'expert' analysis based only on photos he received from tabloids? Thats just junk. Is that the guy who was indicted by the feds for fraud? C'mon, you should be able to do better than that.

No, you have him confused with Tom Miller. Tom Miller has a book out now in Japan called Prostitution of Justice, all about the Ramseys and their financial means and how it kept them out of jail. He was indicted with Craig Lewis. I believe the charges were dropped against Lewis. Miller went on to trial (which he wanted by the way) which lasted three days. And not surprisingly, he was acquitted. You really should check out ForumForJustice. If for nothing else, just to read another voice. You don't have to read the message board, there are lots of stickers with interviews, etc.

Everyone here is trying to give you the "facts" of the case and you insist on snubbing your nose at them. At least do yourself the service of reading up on this case. There are lots of players and sometimes we can get them confused, or read something and assume, which is what is happening here. What are we going to do with you?

 

[BOESP]

Is that the guy who made his 'expert' analysis based only on photos he received from tabloids? Thats just junk. Is that the guy who was indicted by the feds for fraud? C'mon, you should be able to do better than that.

It's probably the same expert who told Patsy to say on CNN a few days after JonBenet died, and before she would allow the police to question her about the homicide, that there was one killer and one person who that killer probably confided in. That's at most two people and maybe even only one. Her expert forgot the note mentioned that three people were involved. I see you believe the author of the ransom note. I believe Patsy. Of course, it is possible we both believe the same person but if so then that implies that person lied. So, if they lied, that impeaches their credibility. Obviously, the ransom note writer lied several times in that note. Any way you slice it we're dealing with at least one liar, probably two.

You started this thread Holdon. How is it you think anyone could know what the desired outcome was? That question can never be answered so this topic is kind of hard to take seriously. Maybe there are some writers monitoring this thread and they are looking for ideas????? That's the only reason I can think of for starting a thread like this.

 

[DeeDee249]

Isn't it strange that PR, in that very CNN interview, mentioned the "2 people - the killer and the person the killer confided in"? Because that statement alone, but someone who claims not to know what happened to her daughter, implies that she did, indeed, know who killed her. To know there were 2 people implles that you know who they are. Otherwise, how do you know it was 2? Why not 1 or 3 or 10?

IMHO the 2 people were her (the confider) and her husband (the confidante).

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Obviously, the ransom note writer lied several times in that note.

Really? What proof do you have that at the time the RN was written, the author's original intention wasn't to kidnap JBR for money, and she wasn't being watched by 2 gentlemen?

Please don't explain to me over and over again how because JBR was found dead in the basement that the RN had to have been lies. I agree the author probably lied about the money.

You started this thread Holdon. How is it you think anyone could know what the desired outcome was? That question can never be answered so this topic is kind of hard to take seriously. Maybe there are some writers monitoring this thread and they are looking for ideas????? That's the only reason I can think of for starting a thread like this.

In the case of Leopold and Loeb, they themselves explained their crime. So your claim that the question can never be answered assumes we can never hear it from the perp.

My guess is that the desired outcome was JBR as property. Otherwise it would have to be the cheapest SFF in the world, if they get excited and get their representatives to take all those risks for just $118K.

 

[BOESP]

....So your claim that the question can never be answered assumes we can never hear it from the perp....

Actually, I don't think it can be heard from the perp, so I believe I correctly stated things the first time. But for you Holdon here's a re-write: "That question can never be answered by anyone posting on this board unless they confess and the confession can be proved legitimate so this topic is kind of hard to take seriously."

If you wanted the topic properly set you should have worded it "actual outcome vs desired outcome as confessed to by the perp." That way we'd have a clearer picture of the topic and what you are looking for.

See ya.

 

[Solace]

Really? What proof do you have that at the time the RN was written, the author's original intention wasn't to kidnap JBR for money, and she wasn't being watched by 2 gentlemen?

Please don't explain to me over and over again how because JBR was found dead in the basement that the RN had to have been lies. I agree the author probably lied about the money.



In the case of Leopold and Loeb, they themselves explained their crime. So your claim that the question can never be answered assumes we can never hear it from the perp.

My guess is that the desired outcome was JBR as property. Otherwise it would have to be the cheapest SFF in the world, if they get excited and get their representatives to take all those risks for just $118K.

Holdon,

In the case of L&L, one of the killer's glasses was found at the scene of the crime. They were clearly there - they spoke up so as not to receive the death penalty, and their lives were saved - and lets not forget defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, who in his summation that went on for hours and hours, had the whole Courtroom crying including the Judge.

Why are you equating that case with this one. It has nothing to do with anything.

Post some evidence to back up your claim. BOESP's last post on their being three people mentioned in the ransom note and Patsy saying one other person besides the killer knows who did this because the killer must have told someone, tells us SHE DOES NOT BELIEVE THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE INVOLVED, but yet you do. Give us some credible evidence, instead of arguing over the smallest detail when it is obvious you have not even dealt with the largest of the details of this crime.

It is true that many people have been wrongly convicted and wrongly fingered, but this case is OVER TEN YEARS OLD and still there is no match in CODIS and never will be, unless we include Taiwan and even that is a stretch. There is no evidence of an intruder and no ONE, not one person has told anyone else about the murder - you would think one of those three perps you talk about, would have said something to someone at some time or at the very least LEFT SOME TRACE EVIDENCE IN THE HOUSE.

If the Ramseys were on trial and you were serving up their defense with what you have posted, you would lose.