What small foreign faction?

[SunnieRN]

This post is unusually polite. Is there something wrong?

I am always polite to you! What is wrong however, is if you really feel you have solved this crime, why have you not contacted someone who can research and find a potential suspect. Unless you really don't believe what you are saying? I'm not quite sure where you stand HOTYH. You one time state there may be Russians involved, an Asian SFF from Korea, and now a MAAM. That is pretty darn specific. At least this would once and forever clear the R's, the Whites, the Housekeeper and her family, McSanta and the Mrs.

I will say that I can not, with any kind of conscious, subscribe to your theory, as you have given NO PROOF or suspects. I can say I respect YOUR belief that this 'person' may be involved. Help lead the investigation. Tell someone on the Ramsey Dream Team your beliefs. It really does NO good to tell us. Give the information to someone who can make a difference.

 

[Toltec]

The next day, January 17th, Thomas and Gossage continued an interview at Access Graphics with comptroller Susan Richart, who told them about Sandra Henderson, a former employee, who was in trouble with the law, and her husband Bud, each of them owed the firm $18,000...PMPT ppb page 169

So there you have it folks, the small foreign faction and the ransom amount explained away...

Another source for the ransom amount:

Unknown to Merrick, in March of 1996, Ramsey could no longer justify Merrick's salary to Lockheed Martin and told Merrick he would have to take a large pay cut or leave by April 30. Merrick chose to leave. Later, he claimed the company owed him close to $118,000. He settled for close to half that amount, but one director of the company heard him say he was going to get Ramsey.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Another source for the ransom amount:

Unknown to Merrick, in March of 1996, Ramsey could no longer justify Merrick's salary to Lockheed Martin and told Merrick he would have to take a large pay cut or leave by April 30. Merrick chose to leave. Later, he claimed the company owed him close to $118,000. He settled for close to half that amount, but one director of the company heard him say he was going to get Ramsey.

Do you have a source for this?

North Korea wanted $100,000 and didn't get it. And I have a source.

----------------------------------------------------------

THE KOREAN ENVOY


NOVEMBER 29, 1996

TRANSCRIPT

</B>

REP. BILL RICHARDSON: He was a young man, 27 years old, wanted to be a humanitarian missionary. He felt deeply that he wanted to rediscover his North Korean roots. He's half Korean. His mom is Korean. He unwisely swam across the Yalu River and had no passport, was captured by the North Korea police after being a couple of hours with some farmers on the North Korean side. And then he was detained for 90 days in a very severe incarceration center and charged with being a spy for South Korea, and at the time the North Koreans, up until we got Hunziker released, wanted $100,000 in bail money as a fine for this infraction of being in the country illegally and also for being a spy.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Just briefly--I want to get to that in a second, but how did you get him out and get them down from the $100,000 to what was it, $5,000 that was finally paid?


----------------------------------------

Do you have a source or not?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am always polite to you! What is wrong however, is if you really feel you have solved this crime, why have you not contacted someone who can research and find a potential suspect. Unless you really don't believe what you are saying? I'm not quite sure where you stand HOTYH. You one time state there may be Russians involved, an Asian SFF from Korea, and now a MAAM. That is pretty darn specific. At least this would once and forever clear the R's, the Whites, the Housekeeper and her family, McSanta and the Mrs.

I will say that I can not, with any kind of conscious, subscribe to your theory, as you have given NO PROOF or suspects. I can say I respect YOUR belief that this 'person' may be involved. Help lead the investigation. Tell someone on the Ramsey Dream Team your beliefs. It really does NO good to tell us. Give the information to someone who can make a difference.

I have a theory, and if true then I should be able to find problems with any RDI theory and learn as I go. Sure enough, there are problems within RDI and I've learned. And am still learning. I am surprised, really, as I expected RDI to be right. After all BPD sort of waved the RDI banner for years. Even the FBI said 'oh look at the parents' as they walked off, right? Who said that anyway?

 

[DeeDee249]

Do you have a source for this?

North Korea wanted $100,000 and didn't get it. And I have a source.

----------------------------------------------------------

THE KOREAN ENVOY


NOVEMBER 29, 1996

TRANSCRIPT

</B>

REP. BILL RICHARDSON: He was a young man, 27 years old, wanted to be a humanitarian missionary. He felt deeply that he wanted to rediscover his North Korean roots. He's half Korean. His mom is Korean. He unwisely swam across the Yalu River and had no passport, was captured by the North Korea police after being a couple of hours with some farmers on the North Korean side. And then he was detained for 90 days in a very severe incarceration center and charged with being a spy for South Korea, and at the time the North Koreans, up until we got Hunziker released, wanted $100,000 in bail money as a fine for this infraction of being in the country illegally and also for being a spy.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Just briefly--I want to get to that in a second, but how did you get him out and get them down from the $100,000 to what was it, $5,000 that was finally paid?


----------------------------------------

Do you have a source or not?

And exactly how does this tie in with THIS case? I see no correlation between what you have posted here and JB's murder. Following this logic, anyone in the world who felt they were owed or cheated out of $100,000 (or $118,000.) was a potential killer of JB. I'm sure there are LOTS of Koreans who want $100,000 and didn't get it, but I doubt they are expecting JR to give it to them.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And exactly how does this tie in with THIS case? I see no correlation between what you have posted here and JB's murder. Following this logic, anyone in the world who felt they were owed or cheated out of $100,000 (or $118,000.) was a potential killer of JB. I'm sure there are LOTS of Koreans who want $100,000 and didn't get it, but I doubt they are expecting JR to give it to them.

Does this help? Its from the first post on this thread.

One possibility I have considered is: Koreans. And, in that case, the &#8220;foreign faction&#8221; may mean a faction within the church. Americanized Koreans are into exactly the same style of Christianity as the Ramseys, and indeed the Ramsey&#8217;s church had/has congregations in South Korea. And there are Christian Korean communities in Boulder and Denver etc. since the 1950s.

Two things point to this identification. The word &#8220;Korea&#8221; on the paintbrush used as a garotte. And the threat of beheading in the note.

Remember the thread topic? What small foreign faction? We are discussing foreign factions here. Would you feel more comfortable if we discussed how PR wanted people to believe it was a foreign faction?

I figured the Korean angle is worth exploring because there's no apparent reason for selecting the paintbrush and breaking it, over some other equally suitable object that did not require breaking. Its very possible the paintbrush was selected for symbolism.

 

[DeeDee249]

Does this help? Its from the first post on this thread.



Remember the thread topic? What small foreign faction? We are discussing foreign factions here. Would you feel more comfortable if we discussed how PR wanted people to believe it was a foreign faction?

I figured the Korean angle is worth exploring because there's no apparent reason for selecting the paintbrush and breaking it, over some other equally suitable object that did not require breaking. Its very possible the paintbrush was selected for symbolism.

There are significant SOUTH Korean congregations in many Christian churches, especially those with missionary programs. But South Koreans are very different politically from North Korea. It is North Korea who are the aggressors there.
As far as the paintbrush, I believe it was just a random pick and was not selected because it had the word "Korea" printed on it. ALL the brushes likely had something printed on it.

 

[BBB167893]

I am surprised, really, as I expected RDI to be right.

I wouldn't bet against it.

After all BPD sort of waved the RDI banner for years.

With good reason, might I add.

Even the FBI said 'oh look at the parents' as they walked off, right?

Right. They said it long after that, too.

Who said that anyway?

Senior Agent Ron Walker, among others.

 

[BBB167893]

Would you feel more comfortable if we discussed how PR wanted people to believe it was a foreign faction?

We've tried, HOTYH. But IDI's never game for anything.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There are significant SOUTH Korean congregations in many Christian churches, especially those with missionary programs. But South Koreans are very different politically from North Korea. It is North Korea who are the aggressors there.
As far as the paintbrush, I believe it was just a random pick and was not selected because it had the word "Korea" printed on it. ALL the brushes likely had something printed on it.

my bold.

The question is not which paintbrush to use, but why select a paintbrush in the first place? Esp. if it is too long and needs to be broken. They found splinters on the floor, so it would appear the breakage was from that night. Why not pick an object of suitable size and length rather than break the 3/8" dia. wooden handle twice?

I haven't tried breaking a similar paintbrush by hand yet but my guess is its not that easy or that quiet. However knowing if the handle was hardwood or standard soft wood might help. Probably it was soft wood. Anyway there's no RDI scenario that explains the advantage of selecting a paintbrush and then breaking it twice , over simply choosing an object of suitable diameter and length. The key is that the paintbrush held high symbolic value to the user, and was therefore worth the work and risk of breaking it twice. Thats why they can't find the missing non-bristle end of the paintbrush. It was taken as a souvenir.

Thanks for the helpful political pointer: "Its North Korea who are the aggressors there." Although I already know a lot about that.

ETA I checked the paint tote photo and found there were other paintbrushes that would've worked as a garrote handle and not require breaking. RDI should now explain why both ends were broken, the bristle-end discarded and the opposite end missing.

 

[joeskidbeck]

my bold.

The question is not which paintbrush to use, but why select a paintbrush in the first place? Esp. if it is too long and needs to be broken. They found splinters on the floor, so it would appear the breakage was from that night. Why not pick an object of suitable size and length rather than break the 3/8" dia. wooden handle twice?

I haven't tried breaking a similar paintbrush by hand yet but my guess is its not that easy or that quiet. However knowing if the handle was hardwood or standard soft wood might help. Probably it was soft wood. Anyway there's no RDI scenario that explains the advantage of selecting a paintbrush and then breaking it twice , over simply choosing an object of suitable diameter and length. The key is that the paintbrush held high symbolic value to the user, and was therefore worth the work and risk of breaking it twice. Thats why they can't find the missing non-bristle end of the paintbrush. It was taken as a souvenir.

Thanks for the helpful political pointer: "Its North Korea who are the aggressors there." Although I already know a lot about that.

ETA I checked the paint tote photo and found there were other paintbrushes that would've worked as a garrote handle and not require breaking. RDI should now explain why both ends were broken, the bristle-end discarded and the opposite end missing.

Has anyone ever considered that when "whoever" broke the paintbrush, they cut their hand? If that piece of the brush had their blood on it, it had to be done away with (that pesky dna). This could also be the reason JonBenet was wiped down, to get rid of the perps blood (from the cut on their hand). Now, I'm not saying that this means IDI by any means. Patsy owned a box of latex gloves (I also own one). Anyone who dyes their own hair should own one as the ones that come with the dye are not good quality. Now we have a reason that the one piece of the brush HAD to disappear. Why use the brush at all? It was right there. Why rummage around that huge house looking for something when everything needed was right there in the cellar? When IDI states that an intruder had to bring the things used in the crime, I have to wonder why? Is it because this is the only evidence you can find for an intruder? Everything used on JonBenet was already in the house and it was not a problem for these items to be snuck out, as a matter of fact, it was so easy as to be funny. Like something you would see in a bad comedy. Nothing that left that house that day was so big that it couldn't have been stashed in Patsy's coat, boots, or Burkes bag. More than likely it was Burkes' bag as John is the one that helped him get ready to leave. Even the Ramseys may have been to nervous to try to sneak things out in Patsy's coat and boots. Are these things so unbelieveable to IDI? If so, why? It's a simple question, please, someone provide a simple answer.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Sorry, I forgot the reason the brush was broken. A broken pain brush will do more damage than an unbroken paint brush. Why use it all if it doesn't destroy the evidence that it's meant to? It was meant to hide prior abuse and it almost worked. Too bad they didn't break a bigger brush and use it. It might have done the trick. But then, maybe Patsy tried and couldn't break a bigger brush.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Nothing that left that house that day was so big that it couldn't have been stashed in Patsy's coat, boots, or Burkes bag.

This is magical or wildcard reasoning. RDI's magical ability to explain away missing evidence. If its smaller than a breadbox then RDI doesn't have to account for it. Your remark would have more meaning if we were using what, pianos or TV's?

In reality, if IDI then there would be missing items because the perp would bring stuff in and take stuff out. Applying this simple rule, we can see that the perp brought cord and tape with him. This makes sense because the cord was a very important part of the crime and an intruder wouldn't want to not be able to find suitable cord at the house. IOW there is a coincidence that the primary weapon was not sourced to the house, while the ransom note pen which was not critical to the crime was sourced to the house. See what I mean?

If RDI then the cord should be easily sourced but it wasn't. Major fail for RDI, to have the murder weapon not sourceable to the house.

 

[DeeDee249]

Has anyone ever considered that when "whoever" broke the paintbrush, they cut their hand? If that piece of the brush had their blood on it, it had to be done away with (that pesky dna). This could also be the reason JonBenet was wiped down, to get rid of the perps blood (from the cut on their hand). Now, I'm not saying that this means IDI by any means. Patsy owned a box of latex gloves (I also own one). Anyone who dyes their own hair should own one as the ones that come with the dye are not good quality. Now we have a reason that the one piece of the brush HAD to disappear. Why use the brush at all? It was right there. Why rummage around that huge house looking for something when everything needed was right there in the cellar? When IDI states that an intruder had to bring the things used in the crime, I have to wonder why? Is it because this is the only evidence you can find for an intruder? Everything used on JonBenet was already in the house and it was not a problem for these items to be snuck out, as a matter of fact, it was so easy as to be funny. Like something you would see in a bad comedy. Nothing that left that house that day was so big that it couldn't have been stashed in Patsy's coat, boots, or Burkes bag. More than likely it was Burkes' bag as John is the one that helped him get ready to leave. Even the Ramseys may have been to nervous to try to sneak things out in Patsy's coat and boots. Are these things so unbelieveable to IDI? If so, why? It's a simple question, please, someone provide a simple answer.

As far as the perp's blood on the broken paintbrush- yes, certainly a possibility, but ONLY JB's blood was found when her thighs and pubic area were swabbed.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

As far as the perp's blood on the broken paintbrush- yes, certainly a possibility, but ONLY JB's blood was found when her thighs and pubic area were swabbed.

Its not possible that blood is the reason for the breakage. The bristle end was broken off and the reason wasn't blood because no blood was found on either piece. Try again.

 

[SunnieRN]

I have a theory, and if true then I should be able to find problems with any RDI theory and learn as I go. Sure enough, there are problems within RDI and I've learned. And am still learning. I am surprised, really, as I expected RDI to be right. After all BPD sort of waved the RDI banner for years. Even the FBI said 'oh look at the parents' as they walked off, right? Who said that anyway?

Ahhh, so we are talking theory here. There is usually very good reasons that multiple LE agencies name their suspects. They don't practice slander as they know the consequences. Also, you made it sound as if you had solved this crime. I am now set straight to the fact that this is a 'theory', not facts, in your mind.

As for the paintbrush, it was handy. It was sturdy enough. It fit into your topic theory, despite the fact that you are REALLY reaching! Oh, and how DO you explain the fibers from PR's sweater that were entwined into the rope tied on the paintbrush? This I imagine will be interesting, to say the least.

Also, HOTYH, sometimes the best way to disprove a theory is to try and PROVE it. Than you can see where the evidence lies. There is NO proof that there was an intruder in the house that night. Find solid PROOF, that cannot be disputed or disproven. Proof that is beyond approach. You may find that in your 'theories' you are spending more time refuting the R's guilt, than you are trying to prove your theories reality or existence. Unfortunately, that leaves too many unanswered questions. Remember, there is NO doubt as to the presence of all four Ramsey family members that night.

 

[SunnieRN]

Do you have a source for this?

North Korea wanted $100,000 and didn't get it. And I have a source.

----------------------------------------------------------

THE KOREAN ENVOY


NOVEMBER 29, 1996

TRANSCRIPT

</B>

REP. BILL RICHARDSON: He was a young man, 27 years old, wanted to be a humanitarian missionary. He felt deeply that he wanted to rediscover his North Korean roots. He's half Korean. His mom is Korean. He unwisely swam across the Yalu River and had no passport, was captured by the North Korea police after being a couple of hours with some farmers on the North Korean side. And then he was detained for 90 days in a very severe incarceration center and charged with being a spy for South Korea, and at the time the North Koreans, up until we got Hunziker released, wanted $100,000 in bail money as a fine for this infraction of being in the country illegally and also for being a spy.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Just briefly--I want to get to that in a second, but how did you get him out and get them down from the $100,000 to what was it, $5,000 that was finally paid?


----------------------------------------

Do you have a source or not?

You're asking for a source concerning a Ramsey ex employee, but you can name a Korean man who was accused of being a spy as a potential killer of JBR?? Oh my gosh. Do you realize how bizarre this makes your theory sound? Why would this cause the death of JBR? At least this other man worked for and promised to get even with JR! Do I believe either of these men were involved, of course not. But look at this logically and tell me logically why your suspect is a better choice. If you can. Use proof please, not theory, as you asked the other poster to do.

I am truly starting to wonder about the 'motivation' of your posts HOTYH.

This is magical or wildcard reasoning. RDI's magical ability to explain away missing evidence. If its smaller than a breadbox then RDI doesn't have to account for it. Your remark would have more meaning if we were using what, pianos or TV's?

In reality, if IDI then there would be missing items because the perp would bring stuff in and take stuff out. Applying this simple rule, we can see that the perp brought cord and tape with him. This makes sense because the cord was a very important part of the crime and an intruder wouldn't want to not be able to find suitable cord at the house. IOW there is a coincidence that the primary weapon was not sourced to the house, while the ransom note pen which was not critical to the crime was sourced to the house. See what I mean?

If RDI then the cord should be easily sourced but it wasn't. Major fail for RDI, to have the murder weapon not sourceable to the house.

I would advise you to consider your 'wild card theories' before putting down any theories presented against RDI's. As I have stated previously, no one can deny that all four R family members were present that night. Next, you have no idea whether the 'missing piece' of the paintbrush is in police custody or not. There is a listing of cellulose, but it is not identified. Proof HOTYH. Produce PROOF!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Remember, there is NO doubt as to the presence of all four Ramsey family members that night.

This is worthless.

There is proof of an intruder in the house: DNA on two separate items of clothing JBR was wearing at the time.

The touch DNA provided two (2) complete DNA profiles that matched each other, and matched the CODIS DNA found years earlier in a spot of blood on the inside crotch of JBR's underwear.

The touch DNA is fragile, and wont survive a trip thru the laundry. Touch DNA is represented by skin cells, and the best most effective way to produce a profile is by a touch from the DNA owner. The waistband produced not one but two separate and matching profiles, so its very obvious the DNA was deposited that night by touches from the unknown male.

RDI cant prove another scenario that would result in these three matching DNA deposits. Heck RDI can't even invent a plausible scenario to replicate this evidence.

Proof of an intruder has been provided. The DA helped discover it. Its real proof, and its the best proof of anything so far in this case.

Its not my fault if RDI ignores proof and continues as if DNA doesn't exist, claiming that the DNA owner is needed to prove anything. As if you need to have the green car in your hand to prove a green car hit your white car.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You're asking for a source concerning a Ramsey ex employee, but you can name a Korean man who was accused of being a spy as a potential killer of JBR?? Oh my gosh. Do you realize how bizarre this makes your theory sound? Why would this cause the death of JBR? At least this other man worked for and promised to get even with JR! Do I believe either of these men were involved, of course not. But look at this logically and tell me logically why your suspect is a better choice. If you can. Use proof please, not theory, as you asked the other poster to do.

I am truly starting to wonder about the 'motivation' of your posts HOTYH.

my bold.

What ARE you talking about?? Are you even reading these posts? The context wasn't the man, it was the $100,000 that North Korea wanted in November of 1996, but didnt get.

The man in the post was dead a month before JBR was murdered. Where did I name this guy? Are you even reading this stuff?

 

[SunnieRN]

This is worthless.

There is proof of an intruder in the house: DNA on two separate items of clothing JBR was wearing at the time.

The touch DNA provided two (2) complete DNA profiles that matched each other, and matched the CODIS DNA found years earlier in a spot of blood on the inside crotch of JBR's underwear.

The touch DNA is fragile, and wont survive a trip thru the laundry. Touch DNA is represented by skin cells, and the best most effective way to produce a profile is by a touch from the DNA owner. The waistband produced not one but two separate and matching profiles, so its very obvious the DNA was deposited that night by touches from the unknown male.

RDI cant prove another scenario that would result in these three matching DNA deposits. Heck RDI can't even invent a plausible scenario to replicate this evidence.

Proof of an intruder has been provided. The DA helped discover it. Its real proof, and its the best proof of anything so far in this case.

Its not my fault if RDI ignores proof and continues as if DNA doesn't exist, claiming that the DNA owner is needed to prove anything. As if you need to have the green car in your hand to prove a green car hit your white car.

I'm not ignoring the evidence, I know for a fact that any touch DNA on JB's waistband had to also have been mixed with JR's touch DNA. He carried her upstairs by the waist HOTYH. PR's DNA should also have been isolated and found. Why were the R's DNA ignored or not tested for. What about Linda A. who moved JB after she was carried upstairs?

LE was unable to pull a sample with all 13 markers to submit. They submitted a sample with 10 markers. I never said the DNA didn't exist, I said that the only people proven to be in the house that night were the R's. There is no way to prove when those items were last worn, if they had been laundered prior to her having them put on that night or why ONLY certain areas were tested for DNA.

my bold.

What ARE you talking about?? Are you even reading these posts? The context wasn't the man, it was the $100,000 that North Korea wanted in November of 1996, but didnt get.

The man in the post was dead a month before JBR was murdered. Where did I name this guy? Are you even reading this stuff?

Wow, HOTYH, how soon you forget our previous discussion about a MAAM and his motive and guilt. Why in heavens name would a MAAM who is NOT involved with your mans case, kill JB for 118,000 dollars. Not 100,00 like you said. Also, what would $100,000 do for a country as large at N. Korea? Wouldn't go very far. You seem to be throwing out unrelated information, hoping that something may happen to stick. Kind of like throwing spaghetti on a wall to see if it's done.

As for reading your posts, yes, I do read them, even when they are not answering the questions you are asked, or change with the wind.

You posted the story of this Korean man whom you now state was an example of N. Korea wanting $100,000, and for no other reason, transfering to a MAAM, who asked for $118,000., not $100,000 and as I said before, asked for links concerning an ex employee of JR. Where is your proof that this mans swimming to N. Korea and being arrested and having bail set at $100,000. has a relationship to JBR's death? Proof, not theory please.