Video Links with Discussion

[BBB167893]

But I did see, to my utter shock, Larry King Live press him and he finally said, we were told that the police were out to get us, what would you do?

Isn't it interesting how they'll swear up and down that they cooperated fully with th cops, then, practically in the same breath, will say that the reason they didn't cooperate was because the cops were out to get them?

Can't be both. Pure and simple.

 

[JMO8778]

And there have, sadly, been other little girls murdered in these 10 years but none of them has ever been the cause of such a media frenzy as JBR.

I would venture to say that besides Kennedy,hers is the most famous grave in America(?)

 

[BOESP]

... Her face was plastered over every media outlet for months. And there have, sadly, been other little girls murdered in these 10 years but none of them has ever been the cause of such a media frenzy as JBR.

I agree with all you said but in my opinion the Ramseys were the ones who kept JonBenet's image before the public eye. I doubt the media would have stayed with it any longer than they did in the Susan Smith or Jessica Lunsford cases if the Ramseys hadn't made public appearances touting their supposed innocence every few months.

 

[JMO8778]

I agree with all you said but in my opinion the Ramseys were the ones who kept JonBenet's image before the public eye. I doubt the media would have stayed with it any longer than they did in the Susan Smith or Jessica Lunsford cases if the Ramseys hadn't made public appearances touting their supposed innocence every few months.

And they keep on doing it ! they would have been better off letting the case die with Patsy,as much as possible..but then here comes Karr...suspiciously not long after Patsy's death....now I think more ppl than ever can see that there truly never was an intruder.keep it up.

 

[BOESP]

And they keep on doing it ! they would have been better off letting the case die with Patsy,as much as possible..but then here comes Karr...suspiciously not long after Patsy's death....now I think more ppl than ever can see that there truly never was an intruder.keep it up.

The Ramseys should have gracefully kept away from television appearances if they wanted to be seen as innocent. They did not come across as grieving parents looking for an Intruder. In my view, after the first few appearances, they came across as publicity hounds.

 

[JMO8778]

absolutely,BOESP! they came off as arrogant,'it's all about US',people.whiney and attention-seeking as well.did Patsy really think she appeared *innocent when she was doing the fake crying at the piano,and then driving the boat? it screamed of arrogance to me..like she was proud they'd gotten away with it.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree with all you said but in my opinion the Ramseys were the ones who kept JonBenet's image before the public eye. I doubt the media would have stayed with it any longer than they did in the Susan Smith or Jessica Lunsford cases if the Ramseys hadn't made public appearances touting their supposed innocence every few months.

However, in THOSE cases we HAVE a murderer. They were solved. This case remains open (HA).

 

[BOESP]

However, in THOSE cases we HAVE a murderer. They were solved. This case remains open (HA).

In case one, the police were allowed to do what they needed to do and the parents cooperated and an arrest was made; in case number two, the police were allowed to do what they needed to do and the parents cooperated and an arrest was made. Ramsey case: no cooperation and the case remains open. Surely there is some logical deduction in this somewhere. :crazy:

 

[DeeDee249]

Funny coincidence, right? I've always believed there ARE no coincidences. Innocent parents of murdered children WANT to help the police. They want to talk to them EVERY DAY. They want that killer/kidnapper found. Lawyers or no.
Guilty parents lie about stupid things...whether their child had a late-night snack, whether they wrote the captions in a family photo album, whether simple household items belong to them, whether they ever bought pineapple (with pineapple IN the fridge and on the table), what clothing they were wearing when they disappeared, etc.
They have lied about things no intruder would do:
Feed a child they planned to kill/kidnap pineapple IN her home WITH her parents and brother asleep upstairs
Look for and find family photo albums and fill in missing captions so that it can be matched to a 3-page ransom note they plan to write with paper and felt-tip from the home, which they replace after writing it.
Bring in a large flashlight, box of Kleenex, fresh pineapple ( which was identical upon analysis to the pineapple in the R fridge) which they cut up and fed to their soon-to-be victim,
Bring duct tape and cord bought from a local hardware store that coincidentally sold items of the exact price from the exact departments to PR.
The list goes on and on, with the Rs insinuating an intruder had done things NO intruder would do.

 

[JMO8778]

Funny coincidence, right? I've always believed there ARE no coincidences. Innocent parents of murdered children WANT to help the police. They want to talk to them EVERY DAY. They want that killer/kidnapper found. Lawyers or no.
Guilty parents lie about stupid things...whether their child had a late-night snack, whether they wrote the captions in a family photo album, whether simple household items belong to them, whether they ever bought pineapple (with pineapple IN the fridge and on the table), what clothing they were wearing when they disappeared, etc.
They have lied about things no intruder would do:
Feed a child they planned to kill/kidnap pineapple IN her home WITH her parents and brother asleep upstairs
Look for and find family photo albums and fill in missing captions so that it can be matched to a 3-page ransom note they plan to write with paper and felt-tip from the home, which they replace after writing it.
Bring in a large flashlight, box of Kleenex, fresh pineapple ( which was identical upon analysis to the pineapple in the R fridge) which they cut up and fed to their soon-to-be victim, along with duct tape and cord bought from a local hardware store that coincidentally sold items of the exact price from the exact departments to PR.
The list goes on and on, with the Rs insinuating an intruder had done things NO intruder would do.

right on,and the IDI's and the R's think the rest of us are too stupid to be able to see right through it all.and they get angry bc we are NOT too stupid to see through it all.so go ahead and twist.oh hey,I wonder what they've said about the captions..no doubt there is some twist lie on that one.But I don't read other sites bc most of them are just ridiculous,except for FFJ.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think PR just said she didn't write them. And as far as I know, no one she told that to asked her "Well, if you didn't write them, who do you think DID?"
She got a pass. Add it to the list of suspicious things the Rs said/did that were ignored.

 

[Ames]

I think PR just said she didn't write them. And as far as I know, no one she told that to asked her "Well, if you didn't write them, who do you think DID?"
She got a pass. Add it to the list of suspicious things the Rs said/did that were ignored.

I think that you are right...it seems like I remember reading that Patsy denied writing the captions. It is almost always the mother in the family that writes the captions. I know that I do. And John was never home long enough to write them. And why in the h*ll would an intruder look for photo albums, so that he could write captions under photos, so that it would match the RN. Those captions would have been written when BURKE was a baby. And I am quite sure that they could do a test to determine how old that ink was, and how long it had been there. BUT REGARDLESS...the fact that an intruder would take the time, to find the albums and then write CORRECT captions under them borders on being INSANE!!!! How would HE have known who the picture was of, or how old the baby was, etc? Oh, yeah...I forgot...John has stated numerous times that the intruder was "very cleaver".

 

[DeeDee249]

Y'know, the things the Rs would try to have people believe just astound me. I just cannot comprehend how they have been allowed to twist things, lie and not one time were they even called out on it. I've read those interviews. The interviewers pussyfoot around, dance all around the pertinant questions, and every 2 seconds a R lawyer pipes up saying they can't ask that question or their client can't answer it. THAT was the real reason the Rs lawyered up so fast (that very morning, actually)- because they needed someone to prevent the important questions from even being asked. And the DA's office just gave the case away to them, so there you have it....or don't have it, as it turns out.

 

[Ames]

I found this on FFJ...

MR. LEVIN: I can state to you, Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of the scientific examination of fibers, that, based on the state of the art technology,that I believe, based on testing, that fibers from your client's coat are in the paint tray.
MR. WOOD: Are you stating as a fact that they are from the coat or is it consistent with? What is the test result terminology? Is it conclusive? I mean, I think she is entitled to know that when you ask her to explain something.
MR. KANE: It is identical in all scientific respects.
MR. WOOD: What does that mean? Are you telling me it is conclusive?
MR. KANE: It is identical.
MR. WOOD: Are you saying it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: You can draw your own conclusions.
MR. WOOD: I am not going to draw my own conclusions.
MR. KANE: I am saying it is identical.
MR. WOOD: Well, what you are saying in terms of how you interpret a lab result may or may not be the lab result. If you have it, let's see it. I would be glad to let her answer a question about it, but I don't want to go into the area of where we are dealing with someone's interpretation of something that may not be a fact and have her explain something because she can't explain something that might be someone's opinion or someone's interpretation. She can try to answer something if you are stating it as a matter of fact.
MR. LEVIN: Well, I believe that Mr. Kane's statement is accurate as to what the examiner would testify to.
MR. WOOD: Will he testify that it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: Yes.
MR. WOOD: Everybody is -- you all want to take a minute and confer on that?
MR. KANE: No.
[more arguing the "consistent with" point]
MR. LEVIN: Given -- and I want to answer your question. I am going to try to answer your question before I phrase it to your client. Given the status of fiber analysis, the state of the art, that fiber is identical in all respects to fibers from your client's coat; however, as is the case with any type of scientific evidence, even DNA evidence, where you get numbers that say, for example, the likelihood of a random match would be 1 in, say, 14 trillion. An expert is not going to get up, they'll talk about numbers, but they are not going to get up and say that that is the DNA from that man.
[more arguing, then Beckner offers a compromise on the wording of the question that may satisfy Wood enough to allow Patsy to answer]
CHIEF BECKNER: Let me try to offer a compromise.
MR. WOOD: We are ready to hear it.
CHIEF BECKNER: Instead of wording the question in terms of fibers from the jacket or appear to be from the jacket, maybe if you word it fibers that by scientific analysis are identical to fibers from the jacket and not say, not identify those fibers from the jacket but say identical to fibers --





OH GOOD GRIEF!!! For heaven's sake, this made my eyes bleed. Talk about dodging the question.....Patsy couldn't even answer because Wood is arguing the difference between IDENTICAL and CONCLUSIVE. Kane said that the fibers were IDENTICAL....how more CONCLUSIVE can you get?? GEESH!!!! Give me a break!!! It seems that this happened every single time a question that was suspicious, was asked of the Ramsey's. They were STONEWALLING...

 

[JMO8778]

I found this on FFJ...

MR. LEVIN: I can state to you, Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of the scientific examination of fibers, that, based on the state of the art technology,that I believe, based on testing, that fibers from your client's coat are in the paint tray.
MR. WOOD: Are you stating as a fact that they are from the coat or is it consistent with? What is the test result terminology? Is it conclusive? I mean, I think she is entitled to know that when you ask her to explain something.
MR. KANE: It is identical in all scientific respects.
MR. WOOD: What does that mean? Are you telling me it is conclusive?
MR. KANE: It is identical.
MR. WOOD: Are you saying it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: You can draw your own conclusions.
MR. WOOD: I am not going to draw my own conclusions.
MR. KANE: I am saying it is identical.
MR. WOOD: Well, what you are saying in terms of how you interpret a lab result may or may not be the lab result. If you have it, let's see it. I would be glad to let her answer a question about it, but I don't want to go into the area of where we are dealing with someone's interpretation of something that may not be a fact and have her explain something because she can't explain something that might be someone's opinion or someone's interpretation. She can try to answer something if you are stating it as a matter of fact.
MR. LEVIN: Well, I believe that Mr. Kane's statement is accurate as to what the examiner would testify to.
MR. WOOD: Will he testify that it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: Yes.
MR. WOOD: Everybody is -- you all want to take a minute and confer on that?
MR. KANE: No.
[more arguing the "consistent with" point]
MR. LEVIN: Given -- and I want to answer your question. I am going to try to answer your question before I phrase it to your client. Given the status of fiber analysis, the state of the art, that fiber is identical in all respects to fibers from your client's coat; however, as is the case with any type of scientific evidence, even DNA evidence, where you get numbers that say, for example, the likelihood of a random match would be 1 in, say, 14 trillion. An expert is not going to get up, they'll talk about numbers, but they are not going to get up and say that that is the DNA from that man.
[more arguing, then Beckner offers a compromise on the wording of the question that may satisfy Wood enough to allow Patsy to answer]
CHIEF BECKNER: Let me try to offer a compromise.
MR. WOOD: We are ready to hear it.
CHIEF BECKNER: Instead of wording the question in terms of fibers from the jacket or appear to be from the jacket, maybe if you word it fibers that by scientific analysis are identical to fibers from the jacket and not say, not identify those fibers from the jacket but say identical to fibers --





OH GOOD GRIEF!!! For heaven's sake, this made my eyes bleed. Talk about dodging the question.....Patsy couldn't even answer because Wood is arguing the difference between IDENTICAL and CONCLUSIVE. Kane said that the fibers were IDENTICAL....how more CONCLUSIVE can you get?? GEESH!!!! Give me a break!!! It seems that this happened every single time a question that was suspicious, was asked of the Ramsey's. They were STONEWALLING...

yes,it's ridiculous.and IDI's do this all the time.just how much lack of common sense ( in respect to evidence) do they expect us to lack? like everyone else is stupid and they are the only ones who can ever figure anything out?? comon' now...GET REAL.

 

[Solace]

I found this on FFJ...

MR. LEVIN: I can state to you, Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of the scientific examination of fibers, that, based on the state of the art technology,that I believe, based on testing, that fibers from your client's coat are in the paint tray.
MR. WOOD: Are you stating as a fact that they are from the coat or is it consistent with? What is the test result terminology? Is it conclusive? I mean, I think she is entitled to know that when you ask her to explain something.
MR. KANE: It is identical in all scientific respects.
MR. WOOD: What does that mean? Are you telling me it is conclusive?
MR. KANE: It is identical.
MR. WOOD: Are you saying it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: You can draw your own conclusions.
MR. WOOD: I am not going to draw my own conclusions.
MR. KANE: I am saying it is identical.
MR. WOOD: Well, what you are saying in terms of how you interpret a lab result may or may not be the lab result. If you have it, let's see it. I would be glad to let her answer a question about it, but I don't want to go into the area of where we are dealing with someone's interpretation of something that may not be a fact and have her explain something because she can't explain something that might be someone's opinion or someone's interpretation. She can try to answer something if you are stating it as a matter of fact.
MR. LEVIN: Well, I believe that Mr. Kane's statement is accurate as to what the examiner would testify to.
MR. WOOD: Will he testify that it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: Yes.
MR. WOOD: Everybody is -- you all want to take a minute and confer on that?
MR. KANE: No.
[more arguing the "consistent with" point]
MR. LEVIN: Given -- and I want to answer your question. I am going to try to answer your question before I phrase it to your client. Given the status of fiber analysis, the state of the art, that fiber is identical in all respects to fibers from your client's coat; however, as is the case with any type of scientific evidence, even DNA evidence, where you get numbers that say, for example, the likelihood of a random match would be 1 in, say, 14 trillion. An expert is not going to get up, they'll talk about numbers, but they are not going to get up and say that that is the DNA from that man.
[more arguing, then Beckner offers a compromise on the wording of the question that may satisfy Wood enough to allow Patsy to answer]
CHIEF BECKNER: Let me try to offer a compromise.
MR. WOOD: We are ready to hear it.
CHIEF BECKNER: Instead of wording the question in terms of fibers from the jacket or appear to be from the jacket, maybe if you word it fibers that by scientific analysis are identical to fibers from the jacket and not say, not identify those fibers from the jacket but say identical to fibers --





OH GOOD GRIEF!!! For heaven's sake, this made my eyes bleed. Talk about dodging the question.....Patsy couldn't even answer because Wood is arguing the difference between IDENTICAL and CONCLUSIVE. Kane said that the fibers were IDENTICAL....how more CONCLUSIVE can you get?? GEESH!!!! Give me a break!!! It seems that this happened every single time a question that was suspicious, was asked of the Ramsey's. They were STONEWALLING...

Well, when you have a guilty client, you have to use everything you have.

 

[Ames]

Well, when you have a guilty client, you have to use everything you have.

True...and I believe that WOOD, himself, actually thought that Patsy was guilty, if he had thought that she was innocent, he would not have had a problem with her giving an innocent explanation as to why her jacket fibers were in the paint tray. My guess is, he KNEW there was no innocent explanation, so he had to cause a scene by arguing the difference between identical..and conclusive. Therefore, helping her to dodge the question. He threw a tantrum....that's what he did. Or...should I say...a DIVERSION...

 

[Ames]

yes,it's ridiculous.and IDI's do this all the time.just how much lack of common sense ( in respect to evidence) do they expect us to lack? like everyone else is stupid and they are the only ones who can ever figure anything out?? comon' now...GET REAL.

I know, this reminds me of something that an IDI would argue...."now are you saying that its IDENTICAL, or that its CONCLUSIVE?" "What do you MEAN by IDENTICAL?" Give me a break....you can't get more conclusive than something that is IDENTICAL.

 

[coloradokares]

Y'know, the things the Rs would try to have people believe just astound me. I just cannot comprehend how they have been allowed to twist things, lie and not one time were they even called out on it. I've read those interviews. The interviewers pussyfoot around, dance all around the pertinant questions, and every 2 seconds a R lawyer pipes up saying they can't ask that question or their client can't answer it. THAT was the real reason the Rs lawyered up so fast (that very morning, actually)- because they needed someone to prevent the important questions from even being asked. And the DA's office just gave the case away to them, so there you have it....or don't have it, as it turns out.

IF this had gone to court, then all these things would have come out. The DA would not prosecute as that is how it was in Boulder, tap on the wrist justice and lets gather and sing the Barney sing along. I may not be brightest crayon in the box, however I see this case as solved but not prosecuted. What I have wondered is can "we the people" bring to account those who would not uphold justice and prosecute.

 

[solvy]

Hi posters. I have been lurking for some time, reading and trying to catch up on threads. I am not up on your justice system, even though our borders meet. imo the DA did not procecute either because they were scared, or they didn't want to try to define which one of the parents was responsible for the death.