What The Hell Is Going On Here??????????

  • #121
Unless the Intruder was naked, if he/she came through that window, there would have been fiber evidence and maybe even a swatch of torn cloth from the seat of the pants!

I admit exhumation is distasteful but in light of what the Ramsey team claims it seems a shoo-in to test those spots. Lots of things besides a taser could cause abrasions with the same distance as shown on the autopsy photos.

I'm still shaking my head over Smit saying the blue line between the abrasions proved it was likely a stun gun -- for pity's sake -- tasers don't die the skin. The continuity editor really should have caught that one!

The Ramsey's don't WANT the body exhumed, because ....you know...forensic science has came a LONG way since 1996. And Heaven forbid, somebody find something that wasn't caught the first time. The Ramsey's would have been DOOMED. And that bullcrap about them not wanting to disturb her, because she is at peace...is a load of bull. I don't think she will EVER be at peace, until her killer is caught. And what parent, in their right mind...would NOT want their daughter's body exhumed, if it meant maybe possibly finding evidence that would help to catch her killer.
 
  • #122
[/color] ... What is going to solve this case BOESP?

I think it is already solved. I just can't see it being prosecuted.

In my opinion, an exhumation should be done - the Ramseys don't have to attend and be subjected to it but as you said, it would settle a lot of questions. I think a Special Prosecutor with no connections to Boulder or Colorado at large or anyone connected to the Ramseys' attorneys or businesses should be appointed. If for no other purpose they could review the evidence and make a formal finding. There has to be enough evidence to indicate what happened and indicate who, if anyone, wasn't thoroughly investigated.

If that isn't suitable, at the very least a new Grand Jury should convene and subpoena several people and records that, apparently, weren't used in the first go-round.
 
  • #123
Well folks, here it is - the BIG one. So who is lying??????


The Bonita Papers - 1999


Within minutes of arriving at the Ramsey home, Fleet decided to look around the house. His own
daughter had been missing a few months ago, and after the police were called they found her
hiding under her bed. Fleet was hoping that JonBenet too was just hiding somewhere in the house.
Since everyone had been told by the police officers not to go upstairs, Fleet went town to the
basement. He noticed that the lights were on. He found a small piece of glass from a broken
window in a room used for model trains. In checking the latch for the window he discovered that
it was unlocked, but closed. Fleet also noticed a blue suitcase was sitting underneath the window.
He continued with his search by opening every cupboard and door. He opened the door to the
wine cellar, reached inside, but could not find the light switch and could not see inside the room.
The wind cellar is completely formed by cement and has no windows. Finding no evidence of
anyone entering or leaving from the basement area and no trace of JonBenet, Fleet went back
upstairs.


John went to the basement door with Fleet following. Fleet first took John to the train room to
show him the unlatched broken window that he had discovered on his first excursion into the
basement. John explained to Fleet, "I broke that window last summer when I misplaced my house
key and had to break in." They searched for broken glass on the floor and found one small
splinter. John and Fleet then looked in a broom closet and another small room. While Fleet was
still checking other closets, John walked to the wine cellar and tried to pull open the door.
Because the top latch was secured, the door would not open. John reached up, undid the latch,
and opened the door. Fleet, who was about 20 feet away, heard John exclaim, "Oh my God, oh
my God," and went running to the room where John was standing. As Fleet approached the door,
John flipped on the wine cellar light switch. Fleet saw the body of JonBenet laying on the floor.
John said he saw the white blanket on the floor as soon as he opened the door, and when the
lights came on he saw his daughter laying on the blanket.


Fleet White states that he found the light switched on. He states that he opened the wine cellar door [containing JonBenet, but he was unable too see inside.

John Ramsey opened the wine cellar door and immediately indicated that he had found his daughter, before switching on the wine cellar light.

Fleet White could not see inside the wine cellar, even though he stated that the basement area light was switched ON. But John Ramsey apparently COULD see inside the wine cellar, with this light ON.


This is easily the strangest thing that I have yet to find. Anyone got any answers?


9 JOHN RAMSEY: With the lights off at night
10 it would have been hazardous because there's a lot
11 of junk piled in here. This door was kind of
12 blocked with boxes and a little chair. And you
13 could move the chair and then walk right in. But
14 it would have been pitch black; it would have been
15 tough.

I think that Fleet was mistaken when he said that the lights were on, unless of course...as I have said before...John left them on, when he went down the first time, to check on JB....and forgot to turn them off. He had other things on his mind, you know...like maybe being charged with murder.

And he is talking about the basement....not the WC...notice how he says that there was alot of junk piled in there. But, as you pointed out...the WC was FREE from junk, the junk was in the BASEMENT. When he says.."this door was kind of blocked with boxes and a little chair. And you could move the chair and walk right in"...he is talking about walking into the the WC from the basement...and by the last sentence...it was pitch black in there too.
 
  • #124
I think it is already solved. I just can't see it being prosecuted.

In my opinion, an exhumation should be done - the Ramseys don't have to attend and be subjected to it but as you said, it would settle a lot of questions. I think a Special Prosecutor with no connections to Boulder or Colorado at large or anyone connected to the Ramseys' attorneys or businesses should be appointed. If for no other purpose they could review the evidence and make a formal finding. There has to be enough evidence to indicate what happened and indicate who, if anyone, wasn't thoroughly investigated.

If that isn't suitable, at the very least a new Grand Jury should convene and subpoena several people and records that, apparently, weren't used in the first go-round.

Well, on a "48 Hours" special, with the Rams...it was stated that there was "a warehouse full of evidence that hadn't even been looked at yet". So, with this sort of thing going on, what more could we expect?
 
  • #125
As far as I am concerned this is proven. Patsy tells one of the detectives that she saw the heart on JB's hand THAT morning. She reiterates it three times at the end of the questioning, she says "that was a real good little heart, really well drawn". (that is about as close to what she said as I can remember without having the book here (the NE depositions). THE NEXT day she says she want to clear something up and says she never saw the heart and that she must have read it in the autopsy report - but John is down the hall at the point saying "we don't read autopsy reports".

Anyway, Callan, the fact that Patsy said "that was a really good little heart, well drawn" leads me to believe that she saw it. She changed her mind the next day because SHE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE SEEN JON BENET THAT MORNING, because Jon Benet was dead.

Now you may feel this is not proving it, but I feel it is. The words are coming from Patsy's own mouth and I choose to believe her. She saw the heart that morning, which means to me she was with Jon Benet in the very early hours of December 26th.

:crazy: :crazy:

7 LOU SMIT: Okay. Because that is important
8 that we know that.
9 JOHN RAMSEY: But I don't think she would
10 have drawn a heart on her hand. The trouble with
11 that piece of information, which is very bizarre.
12 Something is amiss there.

13 LOU SMIT: Okay. So we can investigate
14 that
15 there.
16 MIKE KANE: (INAUDIBLE)
17 JOHN RAMSEY: The person who did this
18 obviously (INAUDIBLE) clues to tantalize us. And
19 that's just another one (INAUDIBLE).


If an intruder was trying to "tantalize" you John, I believe that they could think of a better way, than to draw a heart on your daughter's hand. The picture of the heart, to me...looks faded, and child drawn. It had probably been there for days. Even Patsy said that Daphne could have drawn it. But...its "very bizarre"...and someone is leaving "clues to tantalize us". OH PUHLEEZZZZZ.

So, we have Patsy admittng and then the next day denying that she saw the heart. Hmmmm, and then we have this statement from John. I think that my theory is right....after John found out what Patsy had said about seeing it, he made her change her story. John couldn't very well pin it on the intruder, if Patsy had admitted seeing it...you know.
 
  • #126
11 LOU SMIT: So just one more area. Everybody
12 has heard about -- I can't say that. What have you
13 heard about a paint tray?

14 JOHN RAMSEY: Just what I read, or tried
15 not to read. But can't help but hear the media
16 that tell us a broken paintbrush that was used as
17 part of the -- you see, I found JonBenet. I never
18 saw a cord or that sort of thing. I thought I saw
19 a cord, but I didn't focus on it or realize there
20 was anything in the way of a twister, which
21 apparently it was.

22 It apparently was a paintbrush. And that's based
23 on what I heard in the media. That's my
24 impression. That's all I really heard.

A "TWISTER"? I have never ever heard of these things referred to as a "twister". Maybe John knows alot more about these things, than he is letting on!!!

"I never saw a cord or that sort of thing. I thought I saw a cord, but didn't focus on it....."
What? Makes absolutely NO sense at all.
 
  • #127
Trish of Forums for Justice has a great site on the Lou Smit joke. In it she shows a picture of Lou Smit coming into the basement and using the suitcase to stand on upon coming down through the window. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THE SUITCASE was not that way- he moved it to support his theory. I guess we are supposed to have "suspension of disbelief" when we listen to his theory.

And why would an intruder use a suitcase to exit a window with, when there's a perfecty good chair that he could have used against the WC door. Seems to me that the chair would have been alot more steadier...than trying to balance on a suitcase.
 
  • #128
...
"I never saw a cord or that sort of thing. I thought I saw a cord, but didn't focus on it....."
What? Makes absolutely NO sense at all.

That's pretty unbelievable to think he saw a cord around the neck then instead of focusing on in and trying to remove it he tried to remove the wrist cords instead (which is what John said he did -- tried to untie the wrist cords).
 
  • #129
Aren't the phrases "Never saw a cord" and "Thought I saw a cord" mutually exclusve?


PR did see that heart- that was no mistake. She slipped. Like "we didn't mean for this to happen". Now, I can totally see a parent not looking at autopsy photos, but I think a parent who has had a child die wants to know what happened. Of course, if the parents KILLED their child, they already know what happened. No need to read. Either JR was lying when he said he never saw the autopsy report, which mentioned the heart OR PR was lying about seeing the heart, no matter when she said she saw it. The Rs spin team wants it believed that the "intuder" drew the heart. JBR or her little friend could have drawn the heart herself- kids do thinks like that.
But since the Rs claim not to have seen JBR alive after they put her to bed Christmas night, and JBR's body was covered when PR was brought into the room, she either saw it before JBR died or saw it as they staged the body.
Anyone who actually believes the Rs did not discuss their police interviews with each other is either naive or stupid. Jurors discuss stuff they aren't supposed to too. It's human nature.
 
  • #130
9 JOHN RAMSEY: With the lights off at night
10 it would have been hazardous because there's a lot
11 of junk piled in here. This door was kind of
12 blocked with boxes and a little chair. And you
13 could move the chair and then walk right in. But
14 it would have been pitch black; it would have been
15 tough.

I think that Fleet was mistaken when he said that the lights were on, unless of course...as I have said before...John left them on, when he went down the first time, to check on JB....and forgot to turn them off. He had other things on his mind, you know...like maybe being charged with murder.

And he is talking about the basement....not the WC...notice how he says that there was alot of junk piled in there. But, as you pointed out...the WC was FREE from junk, the junk was in the BASEMENT. When he says.."this door was kind of blocked with boxes and a little chair. And you could move the chair and walk right in"...he is talking about walking into the the WC from the basement...and by the last sentence...it was pitch black in there too.


22 LOU SMIT: But when you went to the train
23 room, you had move these things in order to get
24 into the train room?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. I had to move the chair.
 
  • #131
I agree,it's just the theme of the photo.props are used all the time,no mystery there.



Randy Simons
Photographer who took many of JonBenet's photos and sold the portfolio for $7,500. He is responsible for many of the images of JonBenet that have become so familiar. Simons was arrested October 16, 1998 in Genoa, Colorado, on suspicion of indecent exposure. He was arrested while walking down a residential street nude. He reportedly blurted out to the arresting deputy, "I didn't kill Jonbenet," and was sent to Denver University Hospital for a mental evaluation.

September 20, 1999
Dear Mr. Kane, I wish to talk with the grand jury about the subject of the book Presumed Guilty by Stephen Singular: various ways child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 and/or abuse could have been the original motive(s) for what became JonBenet's murder. One obvious possible connection with child 🤬🤬🤬🤬 is through JonBenet's pageant life. Pam Griffin, JonBenet's costume maker, says in the book (p.110) "One time Randy [Simons] wanted to shoot Kristine [Pam's daughter] nude, but I said absolutely not." There are other possible connections between the Ramseys and the child 🤬🤬🤬🤬/sex world that should be investigated. Keeping a lid on this ultimate taboo could mean death for a headstrong child like JonBenet who couldn't otherwise be silenced.
Child 🤬🤬🤬🤬 and abuse are deeply ingrained into Boulder society. Some evidence is:
The Child and Family Advocacy Program provides statistics that 204 Boulder County children under 20 were sexually abused in 1998. (Daily Camera 7/12/99, p. 1C)
"Parent of the Year" Zack Prendergast returns his award when it is found he had been a trainer for The Children of God, a cult which advocated sex from infancy. (Daily Camera 8/5/99, p. 3B)
Mr. Prendergast also runs fathering workshops. (Daily Camera 9/19/99, p. 1B)
First Baptist Church treasurer Jerry Berry is arrested for fondling 3 little girls. Police find albums of child 🤬🤬🤬🤬 and seize 5 computers. (Daily Camera 8/14/99, p. 1B)
The popularity of the late poet, former Boulder resident and Naropa professor Allen Ginsberg, avowed members of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, whose motto was "Sex by 8 or it's too late." ( www.nambla.org/ginsberg.htm )
There have been many other recent child sex abuse cases here, including several with the convicts in possession of JonBenet's photos, including Sean King. The above are all prominent people.
Related evidence includes:
The existence here at 1050 Walnut St. of a large 🤬🤬🤬 🤬🤬🤬🤬 media company, New Frontiers Media, now rapidly expanding (Daily Camera, business section, 7/21/99, 8/9/99, 8/18/99, 8/20/99) An acquaintance of mine says his former girlfriend had been drawn into this world.
SANE rape support program closes. "But two SANE nurses, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said many within the program were frustrated by the constant plea bargaining of Boulder County's sexual assault cases. "We've been operating for two years now and in that whole time, none of us have ever had to go to court to testify," one nurse said. "That's very concerning to us, that none of these cases are going to trial.'" (Daily Camera, 9/2/99, p. 1A)
All the referenced newspaper articles are available from me on request. The inability of the FBI to explain to former Denver DA and Lockheed-Martin executive Norm Early why they never took charge of the Ramsey case BBan apparent kidnapping of a top Defense contractor executive's daughter by foreign terrorists- is suspicious and an apparent violation of the "Lindbergh Law." Det. Linda Arndt stated on TV last week that she specifically asked for FBI assistance and did not receive it. She received no backup of any kind, having been told everyone was in a meeting for hours starting about 7:30 AM the day after Christmas. Were they in a meeting with or about the FBI?
Mr. McFarland has a contact with information that Lockheed-Martin security were in the Ramsey house before the BPD. We have available a video of Mr. Early discussing the issue on a recent TV show. John DeCamp, Esq., former Nebraska State Senator, in his book The Franklin Coverup describing the State of Nebraska's investigation into the failure of Omaha's Franklin Saving and Loan, shows that the FBI protected child molesters and killers and intimidated child victims and witnesses. One of Mr. DeCamp's former-child clients Paul Bonacci won a related $1,000,000 judgment against Larry King, the former president of Franklin, just this spring.
[In the rest of this version of the letter for the public, names have been replaced with 🤬🤬🤬, YYY and ZZZ. In the version for the DA, the real names were used and more details given. Evan Ravitz] The Singular book also concerns BBdisguised to avoid libel- Mr. 🤬🤬🤬, a highly ranked official in Boulder City government. Mr. 🤬🤬🤬 has admitted to two prominent and respected friends of mine that in 1991 a box of sex toys and 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 were found in his City Hall office during an office move that occurred when Mr. 🤬🤬🤬 was out. He further admitted that 3 women employed at City Hall alleged he harassed them, though none filed charges. I was in mediation with Mr. 🤬🤬🤬 when I learned these things, and that City Council had sent him to counseling. I asked who was paying for his therapy and he said that he was.
The late Ron Porter, when he was President of the Boulder Bar Association, moved to investigate Mr. 🤬🤬🤬, but apparently nobody would talk. There should be some record of this. I also have 3 names of eye-witnesses to what was in the Pandora's box. What we suspect is that Mr. 🤬🤬🤬' 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 was child 🤬🤬🤬🤬, for 3 reasons: Mr. YYY, then a City Hall administrator, after we talked 10 minutes on the subject in 1992, told me "He [Mr. 🤬🤬🤬] gives me the willies. I'll keep my kid away from him." He recently denied to me that he knows anything about Mr. 🤬🤬🤬. I received the enclosed anonymous letter in 1992. I gave the original to Det. Tom Wickman on May 5 this year when he and Mr. Trujillo interviewed Dr. McFarland and I. Mr. Porter would not be likely to start an investigation of Mr. 🤬🤬🤬 for the unpleasant but legal possession of non-child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬. If Mr. 🤬🤬🤬 has possessed child 🤬🤬🤬🤬, he would want to keep the spotlight off other people's similar "peccadilloes." This is the "Belgian Syndrome" mentioned in Dr. McFarland's interview with Donald Freed. Because DA Hunter was on vacation incommunicado at the time of the murder he could not be contacted for advice on proceeding with the highest profile case ever here. The grand jury should determine if Mr. 🤬🤬🤬 was consulted. If indeed a network of highly-connected pedophiles exists here as in Belgium and France, Mr. 🤬🤬🤬 or others could have acted to keep (sincere) FBI investigators away.
A one-time "suspect" in this case told me he was shown a bookcase of videos in the home of prominent Boulder drug-case attorney Mr. ZZZ and told these were all child 🤬🤬🤬🤬. Mr. ZZZ left Boulder soon after the murder and moved to a monastery in Wyoming. Phone records of 🤬🤬🤬 and ZZZ should be examined for calls to FBI or Lockheed Martin numbers that morning. DA Hunter and the police might be reluctant to investigate Mr. 🤬🤬🤬. According to the Singular book (p. 90) Hunter said "If this got into the hands of certain people in the media it would further embarrass Boulder and make the town look worse than it already does. What are you going to do with this information?" You the outsider should exhaust all leads, this being a government of laws and not of men. Dr. McFarland and I have been careful not to libel Mr. 🤬🤬🤬 for 7 years. Once we saw the possible connection to the Ramsey case we worked with a reputable author for 2 years to get the story told right. We want to do the right thing and give more complete details to the grand jury. Sincerely, Evan Ravitz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 . "Kane's rejection letter to Evan"Posted by jameson on Oct-21-99 at 09:23 AM (EST)
THE STATE OF COLORADO TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ALEXANDER M. HUNTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY September 20, 1999 Mr. Evan Ravitz
1130 11th St #3 Boulder CO 80302 Re: Request to appear before the Boulder County Statutory Grand Jury
Dear Mr. Ravitz: After due consideration of your request to appear and testify before the Boulder County Grand Jury in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, I wish to inform you that your request is denied. We have determined that your proposed testimony would not serve the interests of justice which is the controlling standard by which to judge your request. Your request discusses the existence of child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 in Boulder County and suggests that there may be a link between that and the death of JonBenet Ramsey. You have not identified any nexus between that and the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, nor any reason to conclude that there might be one. Further, to the extent that one could possibly exist, you have no personal knowledge of any facts, apparently, to make the connection. In addition, you have stated that the grand jury should investigate the response of the FBI to the initial report that JonBenet was kidnaped by a foreign faction. This is not a proper subject for the grand jury to explore. Their mission is to determine, if possible, who killed the child.
A review of the FBI's role in the investigation would not further that goal, and would be more appropriately addressed to the United States Department of Justice Inspector General's Office. Finally, you state that you wish to inform the grand jury that a former city attorney in Boulder might have been in possession of child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 in 1991, that he might have ad a motive to protect others in the city who engage in the same activity and he might have been consulted and presumably have steered authorities away from a child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 connection. You surmise this because Alex Hunter, the District Attorney, was not available to be consulted in the early days of the investigation. You offer no evidence to connect any of this chain of speculation together. I wish to advise you that you have a right to petition the Boulder District Court to review this Decision. The procedure is outlined in Colorado Revised statutes Section 16-5-204 (l) Very truly yours, Alexander M. Hunter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 . "letter to Judge Bailin"Posted by jameson on Oct-21-99 at 09:25 AM (EST)
Judge Roxanne Bailin20th Judicial District6th & CanyonBoulder CO 80302 Dear Judge Bailin, This is my petition to the court for a hearing on the District Attorney's denial of my request to speak to the grand jury, as provided for by CRS 16-5-204 (l). I enclose my letter to Mr. Kane and his reply. [In this public version, a name and position have been disguised. The version to Judge Bailin contained the real name and position. BBEvan Ravitz] I was stunned to discover that Mr. Kane had not carefully read my letter. He refers (last paragraph, 1st page) to "a former city EMPLOYEE" when my letter clearly names "Mr. 🤬🤬🤬, City EMPLOYEE of Boulder," a position he still holds BBand held at the time of JonBenet Ramsey's murder, which is how he might have influenced the case. Apparently Mr. Kane has read the chapters of the book Presumed Guilty that Dr. McFarland and I innocently sent to the grand jury, which, to avoid libel, disguise Mr. 🤬🤬🤬, and refer to him in an ambiguous way, from which one could mistakenly infer his position was "former." Further Mr. Kane (2nd paragraph) says "You have not identified any nexus between that [child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬] and the murder of JonBenet Ramsey." I did, clearly, in the first 2 paragraphs of my letter. Pam Griffin has publicly stated that JonBenet's pageant photographer Randy Simons had requested her daughter Kristine to participate in a child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 session, whether or not she was allowed to talk about this to the grand jury. Mr. Kane states (3rd paragraph) "This [the FBI no-show] is not a proper subject for the grand jury to explore. Their mission is to determine, if possible, who killed the child." The citizens have waited 2 :: years and spent 2 million dollars and we don't know who killed her, possibly because the DAs refuse to look in the yawning pandora's box we and others have opened. The "mission" of justice should also be to prevent more children from being raped and/or killed. Just as we must investigate not just "who sold drugs" but how they were imported, who else profited -and who was paid to look away- so we must, as circumstances demand, find out not just "who killed JonBenet" but what motives and other illegal activities led to the murder, so history doesn't repeat itself! Truth, you will remember, was also found in Pandora's Box. Finally, Kane writing his response the same day I hand-delivered my letter (September 20th), not even having read it carefully, hardly shows "due consideration of [my] request to appear and testifyYY" It seems to me that the prosecutors have pre-determined that the investigation will not broach these subjects even if someone gets away with murder. If you are party to such an agreement, I pray for you. Sunshine will be the best antiseptic. To summarize: I've made a strong case that prominent people in Boulder are involved in pedophilia. Pam Griffin states that JonBenet's photographer was involved. I've made a circumstantial case that pedophilia exists at the highest level in the Boulder justice system. The FBI no-show is evidence that legal procedure has been corrupted in this case BBapparently constituting related crime that has effectively destroyed the investigation of this murder.. Only the citizens can be impartial in a case in which the legal machinery has been corrupted. Keeping we citizens from the citizens of the grand jury seems to violate CRS 16-5-204 (l) which states "any person may approach the prosecuting attorney or the grand jury and request to testify in an inquiry before a grand jury or to appear before a grand jury." (emphasis added) Sincerely, Evan Ravitz1130 11th St. #3Boulder CO 80302


Yeah - just your regular everyday photographer.
 
  • #132
It sounds like either Patsy lied about the heart or John lied about seeing autopsy photos. Patsy should have declined knowledge the first time around or else said she saw it while JonBenet was under the Christmas tree.

The responses from the second day of those interviews sound like a plan to get Patsy out of incriminating herself over the heart. There is no other reasonable explanation.


I really cannot understand all this fuss, over crudely drawn heart. Kids write or draw on their hands, arms, legs etc, all the time. I know I did and I bet that you all did also.

However, with Ames, it was probably to write little memos to herself, such as "that pencil case on my desk, is definately out of place!"
 
  • #133
Why should Lou Smit deliberately show John Ramsey a different colored piece of tape in this situation? The black tape which was on JonBenet's mouth was seen by both John and Fleet White and taken into evidence.

Throughout the interview with John Ramsey, Lou Smit sounded far more like John's defense attorney than an investigator baiting John into a revealing reply.
Ramsey advocate Smit steered exactly in the opposite direction, for he suggested explanations to John allowing him to explain away incriminating evidence against the Ramseys.


12 LOU SMIT: And the duct tape, do you remember
13 if it was adhered all the way to her mouth?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. It wasn't really duct
15 tape, it was -- well I'm sure you've seen it. But
16 it was like black. It wasn't electrical tape. It
17 was kind of white, black, unusual tape, I thought.


Is anything about this case normal????????

Still more to come.
 
  • #134
Yeah - just your regular everyday photographer.

yes,I've read all about Randy Simons,and guess what ? (and btw,nobody said RS was normal) ...but he didn't do it.Just like Santa didn't do it,FW didn't do it, PW didn't do it,etc...

Is there any reason you *really think the R's are innocent? this seems to be a personal contest for you,so I'm wondering what the real agenda is...
 
  • #135
12 LOU SMIT: And the duct tape, do you remember
13 if it was adhered all the way to her mouth?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. It wasn't really duct
15 tape, it was -- well I'm sure you've seen it. But
16 it was like black. It wasn't electrical tape. It
17 was kind of white, black, unusual tape, I thought.


Is anything about this case normal????????

Still more to come.

the R's like to throw whatever ridiculous nonsense they can into the case,just as with denying thier own possessions,in their own home.
 
  • #136
I really cannot understand all this fuss, over crudely drawn heart. Kids write or draw on their hands, arms, legs etc, all the time. I know I did and I bet that you all did also.

However, with Ames, it was probably to write little memos to herself, such as "that pencil case on my desk, is definately out of place!"

It was because Patsy SAW the heart,three times,then denied it the very next day ! that isn't the only time they've changed their stories.
 
  • #137
Callan and I have been arguing about whether that basement light was on, he says that Fleet said it WAS on. He posted it, and it says that in the Bonita Papers. I say that it was either off...or that John turned it on when he went down to MOVE HER BODY so that it would be found easier, and forgot to turn it off. I mean, I guess if you are moving your murdered daughters body, you tend to forget the little things, like turning off a light.


According to Trish who runs Forums for Justice, the light was off that morning. She is a virtual expert on this. So Callan please check out her site. She has everything but everything on the case.
 
  • #138
I really cannot understand all this fuss, over crudely drawn heart. Kids write or draw on their hands, arms, legs etc, all the time. I know I did and I bet that you all did also.

However, with Ames, it was probably to write little memos to herself, such as "that pencil case on my desk, is definately out of place!"

I really can't understand all the fuss over your apparent belief Randy Simons killed JonBenet.
 
  • #139
That's pretty unbelievable to think he saw a cord around the neck then instead of focusing on in and trying to remove it he tried to remove the wrist cords instead (which is what John said he did -- tried to untie the wrist cords).

Well he goes from..."I never saw a cord"...to "I thought I saw a cord"...in the same sentence. So which is it? Did he see it or not? This is just yet another inconsistancy. Funny how one sentence can have conflicting statements. And if he did see it...he says.."I thought I saw a cord, but didn't focus on it"....that is TRULY unbelievable....if it was my child, the first thing that would have came off would have been the cord around the neck, not the ones around her wrists. HMMMM...lets see....which one would do the most damage? The one around the neck, cutting off her air supply, or the ones around her wrists, used to supposedly restrain her. Gee...I guess to John, that was a hard decision. :rolleyes:
 
  • #140
22 LOU SMIT: But when you went to the train
23 room, you had move these things in order to get
24 into the train room?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. I had to move the chair.

What's your point?

You have only proved that all of the rooms were full of junk...making it even harder to manage to get around in the dark.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
1,512
Total visitors
1,642

Forum statistics

Threads
632,353
Messages
18,625,207
Members
243,108
Latest member
enigmapoodle
Back
Top