The REAL target?

[Toth]

Originally Posted by Ivy
Toth, you are WRONG. JAR did say he thought the appropriate punishment for JonBenet's killer would be forgiveness. It is on videotape in the police files.

This is true, Ivy, you are correct.

Nope. The same article that erroneously claims JAR made that comment erroneously claims its on some police videotape that the author claims exists but has not viewed.
I have no idea if JAR will someday hold those views or if someday he will express those views, but so far he has not expressed those views. Now if you merely want to believe that Vanity Fair article because it is good stuff for your preconcieved notion of family-involvement of some sort, that is a totally different matter. Maybe you want him to have said it in the past and maybe you want him to say it in the future, but so far it has not happened. You may ofcourse keep your fingers crossed in the hopes that he will at some time say it. Perhaps that will be of some comfort to you, but it won't change the fact that so far he has not said it.

 

[Imon128]

Originally Posted by Ivy
Toth, you are WRONG. JAR did say he thought the appropriate punishment for JonBenet's killer would be forgiveness. It is on videotape in the police files.

Nope. The same article that erroneously claims JAR made that comment erroneously claims its on some police videotape that the author claims exists but has not viewed.
I have no idea if JAR will someday hold those views or if someday he will express those views, but so far he has not expressed those views. Now if you merely want to believe that Vanity Fair article because it is good stuff for your preconcieved notion of family-involvement of some sort, that is a totally different matter. Maybe you want him to have said it in the past and maybe you want him to say it in the future, but so far it has not happened. You may ofcourse keep your fingers crossed in the hopes that he will at some time say it. Perhaps that will be of some comfort to you, but it won't change the fact that so far he has not said it.

All I can say is read Steve's book.

 

[BloodshotEye]

With regard to the the interview of JAR, reported to have been conducted by police:

As I posted up there...
Various news papers, reported that Attorney Dave Heckenbach, who ran grand juries for the Denver District Attorney's office from 1986 to 1992, said that this exchange between JAR and police, could be one of the issues the jury wanted to ask him about.

Not sure that both the magazine, and Attorney Dave Heckenbach would refer to a police interview that did not exist, but I guess strange things have happened.

 

[Ivy]

Thanks for the laugh, Toth, but I don't take kindly to people who make me choke on my coffee.

 

[Imon128]

I do believe that info regarding JAR saying this, is in Steve's book.

 

[Toth]

Thanks for the laugh, Toth, but I don't take kindly to people who make me choke on my coffee.

You must have a real tough time then reading that Vanity Fair article and reading the Steve Thomas book.
Coffee? You should try tea. The leaves will give you are more authoritative source than Steve Thomas.

 

[Britt]

Not sure that both the magazine, and Attorney Dave Heckenbach would refer to a police interview that did not exist...

Nope, not likely that they would. What purpose would that serve?

I'm surprised the Reverend Toth doesn't simply attribute JAR's statement to his being a Good Christian, consistent with Ramsey perfection... lol.

 

[Imon128]

Yeah, JAR, that good little Christian boy who was known to have drinking problems (with the law) and a very hot temper. Your typical God fearing teenager, who might hope for a little (????) forgiveness for himself as he spewed his words? Yeah, probably. JMO, though.

 

[Ivy]

Toth, how do you know that JAR didn't make the forgiveness comments? Did he tell you he didn't? If he did tell you that, then that settles it...he didn't make the forgiveness comments. lol

 

[Tristan]

No intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

I wholeheartedly agree.

"With all that was done to that little girl there should be a plethora of forensic evidence left behind by the perp.
There is not."

Excellent point. There would have been SO much evidence left behind, seeing as the supposed "intruder" was in the house for so long. (Lying in wait for them to get home, then to fall asleep, proceed to abduct Jonbenet and then molest and kill her.)

"It is utterly absurd to think that this was a stranger."

While there are several different theories that *could* work, ALL are Ramseys!!!

 

[Toth]

He took his duct tape with him but he left his dna under her fingernails and in her panties. Are you complaining that he didn't leave muddy footprints on the carpet? Do you really think such a magnum opus of a fanciful ransom note was concocted by the parents after some sort of bedwetting accident? IF she wet the bed, how did her bladder once AGAIN void urine at the place of death in the basement?

 

[Maxi]

One possibility is that she did not completely void her bladder the first time.

Another is that the incident that took place upstairs happened because she didn't urinate when Patsy or John wanted her to.

Yet another possiblity -- perhaps the urine in the basement floor came from her already urine soaked longjohns.

 

[Toth]

Another is that the incident that took place upstairs happened because she didn't urinate when Patsy or John wanted her to.

So now you have the parents going berserk and killing her because she did NOT wet the bed?

The lengths to which you will go to avoid simply saying "an intruder".

 

[lannie]

No intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

I wholeheartedly agree.

"With all that was done to that little girl there should be a plethora of forensic evidence left behind by the perp.
There is not."

Excellent point. There would have been SO much evidence left behind, seeing as the supposed "intruder" was in the house for so long. (Lying in wait for them to get home, then to fall asleep, proceed to abduct Jonbenet and then molest and kill her.)

"It is utterly absurd to think that this was a stranger."

While there are several different theories that *could* work, ALL are Ramseys!!!

Reply ,there was a lot of evidence left behind and as much as we know it all belongs to the family in the house ,the (ramseys) .

 

[Toth]

Not the cord, the duct tape, the stun gun, the male dna, the action-movies of the note, the handwriting of the note.
No motive, no pathology.

 

[Shylock]

The lengths to which you will go to avoid simply saying "an intruder".

What I find interesting is the same people who so easily say "intruder" are the ones that lack the common sense to realize that any 10-year old can swing a baseball bat hard enough to crack the skull of a 6-year old.

 

[Toth]

Can they leave dna that doesn't belong to them in three separate spots on their victim?

 

[Jayelles]

Can they leave dna that doesn't belong to them in three separate spots on their victim?

Can you provide a source that says the three different DNA samples are a match? At least LovelyPigeon has the integrity to state:-

I have not read a credible published source claiming that the male DNA from the nail clippings is either consistent with or inconsistent with the male DNA from the panties,

Are you saying you know something she doesn't?

 

[Ivy]

Toth, if the mystery DNA is real and not a false positive from the amplification process, it probably came via a sneeze or cough from a worker in the underwear factory. There is no way your intruder would leave smidgens of degraded DNA on the body.

 

[Shylock]

Toth, if the mystery DNA is real and not a false positive from the amplification process, it probably came via a sneeze or cough from a worker in the underwear factory. There is no way your intruder would leave smidgens of degraded DNA on the body.

Ivy, see the new thread I just posted which really details what DNA contamination is all about.