You, the jury

[UKGuy]

Assuming any of this were true, how does it exclude an intruder?

There seems to be the assumption that an intruder would not stage but a parent would.

You are suggesting that the tape on JBRs mouth came from the doll and this somehow implicates the Rs. Therefore they needed to get rid of the doll.

But having done so they ordered (secretly) another one just in case BPD asked them for it.

Wherever the story came from (and if it's real or not), I honestly can't see how it could implicate the R's. Please explain.

As I said before, the Santa Bear is also (apparently) missing. Does that implicate the Rs too?

So as RDI must insist that there was no intruder, then they have to say the Rs, PP or BR must have taken both items out. So PP gets the blame for taking it, doubtless in the golf bag.

Why would they then want to replace the doll (and not the teddy) and even sillier still, have it sent to AG?

MurriFlower,

Once you go down the road of critically questioning the RDI scenarios, which these questions do, so invoking an IDI then you must answer the even more difficult questions as to why an intruder needs to even bother staging never mind find the wine-cellar in the dark, and source the size-12's which were an intended gift apparently already gift-wrapped, but whether an intruder or a Ramsey made use of the American Dolls materials, either way its a reasonable explanation for atrifacts found at the crime-scene, which IDI enthusiasts normally describe as unsourced!

.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Once you go down the road of critically questioning the RDI scenarios, which these questions do, so invoking an IDI then you must answer the even more difficult questions as to why an intruder needs to even bother staging never mind find the wine-cellar in the dark, and source the size-12's which were an intended gift apparently already gift-wrapped, but whether an intruder or a Ramsey made use of the American Dolls materials, either way its a reasonable explanation for atrifacts found at the crime-scene, which IDI enthusiasts normally describe as unsourced!

.

That's a bit of a convoluted (and extremely long), sentance! Ok, I think what you are trying to say is when I question scenarios that RDI proposes, I then declare myself as IDI? Then (you are assuming) that as IDI, I need to explain this from the opposing point of view?

You see, I don't even think there was ever a replacement doll ordered by the Rs. Perhaps someone else did it to try to implicate them, perhaps it was simply a false statement intended to implicte them. I really don't think the doll had any bearing on the crime at all.

The reason I say this is that the doll seems to have been introduced by RDI to account for the tape that wasn't sourced to the house. This way, they source it. So, we have a piece of duct tape supposedly attached to the doll, taken off and used on JBR. This is the piece that SD refers to as 2" x 2"? SD (BTW) has retracted this subsequently, saying he may have been misinformed. The reason he did this UK, is that there is an extremely long piece of duct tape attached (stuck) on the blanket that she was found in. It is clearly seen in this photo: http://crimeshots.com/csblanket.jpg

The length of the tape might be 10+" and if you look hard you will also see some cord that goes from the tape around the RH corner of the blanket and back to the tape. It even has a twist in it. This was not the tape that the doll company recommended be placed on the dolls neck! In fact, it probably wasn't even the piece that came off her mouth. JR mentioned she was wrapped in the blanket with tape on her legs. (And before you say it again DD - no her legs weren't bound together with tape, it was just on the blanket where her legs were.)

Now, this has never been mentioned in anything from LE. Why? Probably for the same reason that many pieces of evidence have been withheld. When the real perp is found, all these things that are not known by the public can be verified, and help to convict him.

 

[claudicici]

I see a piece of duct tape about 2 x2 ,I don't see an "extremely long piece of tape" and as hard as I'm looking I don't see the cord either...

 

[MurriFlower]

I see a piece of duct tape about 2 x2 ,I don't see an "extremely long piece of tape" and as hard as I'm looking I don't see the cord either...

Take a look here, then look at the picture again.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/album.php?albumid=1224&pictureid=10588

I now think that is just one piece of tape, not several, but it is twisted/turned so it shows the black and silver underside.

 

[UKGuy]

That's a bit of a convoluted (and extremely long), sentance! Ok, I think what you are trying to say is when I question scenarios that RDI proposes, I then declare myself as IDI? Then (you are assuming) that as IDI, I need to explain this from the opposing point of view?

You see, I don't even think there was ever a replacement doll ordered by the Rs. Perhaps someone else did it to try to implicate them, perhaps it was simply a false statement intended to implicte them. I really don't think the doll had any bearing on the crime at all.

The reason I say this is that the doll seems to have been introduced by RDI to account for the tape that wasn't sourced to the house. This way, they source it. So, we have a piece of duct tape supposedly attached to the doll, taken off and used on JBR. This is the piece that SD refers to as 2" x 2"? SD (BTW) has retracted this subsequently, saying he may have been misinformed. The reason he did this UK, is that there is an extremely long piece of duct tape attached (stuck) on the blanket that she was found in. It is clearly seen in this photo: http://crimeshots.com/csblanket.jpg

The length of the tape might be 10+" and if you look hard you will also see some cord that goes from the tape around the RH corner of the blanket and back to the tape. It even has a twist in it. This was not the tape that the doll company recommended be placed on the dolls neck! In fact, it probably wasn't even the piece that came off her mouth. JR mentioned she was wrapped in the blanket with tape on her legs. (And before you say it again DD - no her legs weren't bound together with tape, it was just on the blanket where her legs were.)

Now, this has never been mentioned in anything from LE. Why? Probably for the same reason that many pieces of evidence have been withheld. When the real perp is found, all these things that are not known by the public can be verified, and help to convict him.

MurriFlower,

That's a bit of a convoluted (and extremely long), sentance! Ok, I think what you are trying to say is when I question scenarios that RDI proposes, I then declare myself as IDI? Then (you are assuming) that as IDI, I need to explain this from the opposing point of view?

Not that you declare as an IDI just that you must offer an explanation for the evidence if you reject the RDI one, e.g. unsourced is not an explanation.

This is the piece that SD refers to as 2" x 2"? SD (BTW) has retracted this subsequently, saying he may have been misinformed. The reason he did this UK, is that there is an extremely long piece of duct tape attached (stuck) on the blanket that she was found in. It is clearly seen in this photo:

It is not clearly seen and it is not extremely long. SD's estimate may not be too far out, it was certainly not ten inches long which would have wrapped around her head. We have done the tape before and assumed the side facing upwards is the sticky side which takes on a silver look under the light, with the black side underneath.

There is an optical illusion due to the curvature of the blanket which makes it look as if the tape is longer, that dark patch may simply be the shadow from the upper curve of the blanket or the edging on blaket as it folds under itself.

Also the tape was analyzed by FBI and detectives purchased identical tape from the McGuckin Hardware in Boulder. So I guess any intruder purchased it there?

Also four fibers found on the sticky side of the tape were allegedly sourced to Patsy's red jacket, but Patsy said she had never been in the basement that night, or the next morning!

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

9

STEVEN THOMAS

10

September 21, 2001

11 9:07 a.m.



12 1100 Fourteenth Street

Denver, Colorado
...

...




7 third paragraph from the top, which begins



8 "Two days before we were to go onstage."



9 And would you read that whole paragraph,



10 please.



11 A. Certainly. "Two days before we



12 were to go onstage, we got some surprising



13 big news when the Colorado Bureau of



14 Investigation lab told us that the acrylic



15 fibers found on the duct tape that covered



16 JonBenet's mouth were a quote, likely match,



17 for Patsy's blazer. We were ready."



18 Q. You've been asked earlier with



19 respect to the forensic, you know, not



20 importance, but the forensic views that the



21 ransom note was being made for. Did this



22 become an important piece of forensic evidence



23 in the case?



24 MR. WOOD: You're talking about



25 the ransom note now or the likely match of









156







1 four fibers?



2 MR. HOFFMAN: I'm sorry, thank



3 you, Lin.



4 Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Did the fibers



5 that were found on the duct tape that were



6 covering JonBenet's mouth that were, quote, a



7 likely match for Patsy's blazer, did that



8 become an important piece of forensic evidence



9 in the investigation?



10 A. Yes, sir.



11 Q. Do you know when or at what point



12 in the case the CBI made that report?



13 A. I think it was sometime before we



14 were told -- I think that information may



15 have been held by Wickman and Trujillo and



16 Beckner possibly.

The duct-tape is artifact it was broken at both ends suggesting reuse, it could have come from the back of a painting, from some electrical wiring in the basement, McGuckin's Hardware Store, the American Dolls, a cardboard box, just about anywhere in the basement which was a storage area.

RDI or IDI explanation are both consistent, except that a dead JonBenet did not need to be taped over the mouth, and Patsy's acrylic fibers appear to be found on the tape, unlike the intruders dna which has a count of zero on the tape, but multiple occurences on the longjohns and size-12 underwear, how does that work?

Bring on Columbo ...


.

 

[claudicici]

I'm sure "that dark patch" is part of the basement floor because the way the blanket is folded and "the cord" is just creases in the blanket

 

[DeeDee249]

I think it is reasonable to believe that the tape is bigger than 2x2 and smaller than 10 inches. My thinking is it's about 5-6 inches long, large enough to cover her mouth. Here's another thought on the tape: JB's cheek can be clearly seen as having a thin film of dried fluid (mucous/vomit) on it. This is also noted by Mayer in the autopsy. If the tape were indeed 10 inches long, it would have covered that area where this fluid was, and the fluid does not look "disturbed" (i.e. part of the film pulled off by the tape). And fluid of this exact material would be seen on the back of the tape. Instead, there was a "perfect" set of child's lip prints". Perfect meaning in this case, STILL. Not smeared as in a struggle.
We will not get very far when each "side" believes books written as either favorable or unfavorable to the Rs are lies.
Obviously many IDI do not believe ST's book is factual. And some do not believe Schiller's book is factual. Most RDI believe the Rs own book is not factual. But the autopsy must be seen by both as factual, though Mayer did not put in the report any explanatory opinions (this is standard, as the actual report itself should contain only actual observations and not thoughts as to how they came to be. THAT part goes in the dictated notes, which may then be transcribed. THAT is the part of the autopsy I would like the judge to have released, including all Mayer's comments to those present at the autopsy.
My opinion is that there is factual information in all the books, with some having more than others and some having deliberately misleading or false information. Just because I believe the Rs are lying about what happened that night doesn't mean every word they say is a lie. And just because the BPD presented some evidence as factual that they may not have been sure about at the time of the interviews doesn't mean that evidence was NOT factual.

ST's book isn't gospel either, though I do believe most of what he says and can see no good reason for him to lie OR blame Patsy if he didn't feel it was true. He followed the evidence and it led him to Patsy. Simple as that (for him). While I feel Patsy knew what happened, and I feel completely sure she wrote the RN, I am not completely sure she was the killer. I AM completely sure she didn't stage the crime alone.
So to look at every thing that has been written about the crime in all the books and written reports the only thing we can look at as being presumably entirely factual are the autopsy report and the interviews (because THEY were recorded). Everything else falls somewhere between factual and false.

 

[MurriFlower]

I think it is reasonable to believe that the tape is bigger than 2x2 and smaller than 10 inches. My thinking is it's about 5-6 inches long, large enough to cover her mouth. Here's another thought on the tape: JB's cheek can be clearly seen as having a thin film of dried fluid (mucous/vomit) on it. This is also noted by Mayer in the autopsy. If the tape were indeed 10 inches long, it would have covered that area where this fluid was, and the fluid does not look "disturbed" (i.e. part of the film pulled off by the tape). And fluid of this exact material would be seen on the back of the tape. Instead, there was a "perfect" set of child's lip prints". Perfect meaning in this case, STILL. Not smeared as in a struggle.
We will not get very far when each "side" believes books written as either favorable or unfavorable to the Rs are lies.
Obviously many IDI do not believe ST's book is factual. And some do not believe Schiller's book is factual. Most RDI believe the Rs own book is not factual. But the autopsy must be seen by both as factual, though Mayer did not put in the report any explanatory opinions (this is standard, as the actual report itself should contain only actual observations and not thoughts as to how they came to be. THAT part goes in the dictated notes, which may then be transcribed. THAT is the part of the autopsy I would like the judge to have released, including all Mayer's comments to those present at the autopsy.
My opinion is that there is factual information in all the books, with some having more than others and some having deliberately misleading or false information. Just because I believe the Rs are lying about what happened that night doesn't mean every word they say is a lie. And just because the BPD presented some evidence as factual that they may not have been sure about at the time of the interviews doesn't mean that evidence was NOT factual.

ST's book isn't gospel either, though I do believe most of what he says and can see no good reason for him to lie OR blame Patsy if he didn't feel it was true. He followed the evidence and it led him to Patsy. Simple as that (for him). While I feel Patsy knew what happened, and I feel completely sure she wrote the RN, I am not completely sure she was the killer. I AM completely sure she didn't stage the crime alone.
So to look at every thing that has been written about the crime in all the books and written reports the only thing we can look at as being presumably entirely factual are the autopsy report and the interviews (because THEY were recorded). Everything else falls somewhere between factual and false.

I agree with most of what you have said here DD. Just as there are true and false statements/assumptions made on this forum, each believes what they want to believe.

On ST and the perfect lip prints on the tape. There was a question raised in his deposition about this. I don't think I have the quote saved, but he basically said that this conclusion was not reached by any 'expert' but by the BPD themselves, through their own observation. I know RDI quotes it often as evidence against the Rs, but I take it and everything else ST says with a grain of salt. Why would he lie or fabricate or imaginate in his book? I think you would have to know him better, but I would answer that with a question. Why would he want to write a book about this at all? It wasn't first thought of AFTER he left the BPD either.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree with most of what you have said here DD. Just as there are true and false statements/assumptions made on this forum, each believes what they want to believe.

On ST and the perfect lip prints on the tape. There was a question raised in his deposition about this. I don't think I have the quote saved, but he basically said that this conclusion was not reached by any 'expert' but by the BPD themselves, through their own observation. I know RDI quotes it often as evidence against the Rs, but I take it and everything else ST says with a grain of salt. Why would he lie or fabricate or imaginate in his book? I think you would have to know him better, but I would answer that with a question. Why would he want to write a book about this at all? It wasn't first thought of AFTER he left the BPD either.

I think he wrote it to tell his side of the story, about the problems between the DA and the BPD. He wrote it so people could see he TRIED to solve the case. He may have written it as a way of explaining why he quit and why he was so disgusted with the way it was handled.
Det. Arndt also claimed she was going to write a book. She felt she was vilified for damaging the case and was made a scapegoat. She also wanted to vindicate herself, just as ST did. But I don't think she ever wrote anything. She did develop "amnesia" (her words) about the case- and I think it was because she was saving details for her book.

 

[Ames]

Assuming any of this were true, how does it exclude an intruder?

There seems to be the assumption that an intruder would not stage but a parent would.

You are suggesting that the tape on JBRs mouth came from the doll and this somehow implicates the Rs. Therefore they needed to get rid of the doll.

But having done so they ordered (secretly) another one just in case BPD asked them for it.

Wherever the story came from (and if it's real or not), I honestly can't see how it could implicate the R's. Please explain.

As I said before, the Santa Bear is also (apparently) missing. Does that implicate the Rs too?

So as RDI must insist that there was no intruder, then they have to say the Rs, PP or BR must have taken both items out. So PP gets the blame for taking it, doubtless in the golf bag.

Why would they then want to replace the doll (and not the teddy) and even sillier still, have it sent to AG?

You are mistaken about that Santa Bear. It has never gone missing. Patsy said that she had no idea where the Santa Bear came from (IMO..she was trying to make it look like an intruder had brought it in, just like she did with everything else, including the pineapple, bowl and kleenex box, just to name a few), but it was later discovered that those Santa Bears were given out to all of the contestants of one of the beauty pageants that JB had been in.
Santa Bear

• Where Found. A "Santa bear" was found on a bed in JBR's room (Pam Paugh believed it was on the guest twin bed in JBR's room). The bear appears in crime scene photo #5, but was never collected as evidence.

12-17 Colorado's Little Miss Christmas. JonBenet won "Colorado's Little Miss Christmas" (AngelFire timeline); JBR wins "Santa Bear" in Denver-area pageant (Rocky Mountain News).

 

[Ames]

Assuming any of this were true, how does it exclude an intruder?

The only thing that excludes an intruder, is the lack of intruder evidence.

There seems to be the assumption that an intruder would not stage but a parent would.

That is because, there were three people left in the Ramsey home that night. No intruder is going to take all of that time that was needed to take JB down to the basement (which is said by John's own adult son in his interview...to be a MAZE, imagine navigating it in the dark!) oh yeah, after feeding her pineapple at the kitchen table, while he sipped tea (Neither Paty or John knew HOW the pineapple in the bowl, or glass with the tea bag got there....they went on to say that the intruder must have done it)...take the time to remove her panties and long johns...find and insert a broken paintbrush, hit her in the head and then make and use a garotte (which John referred to as a twister, that he said that he didn't even notice when he brought her up the stairs of the basement), look for and find the size 12 panties that was placed on her (Patsy said that she had bought them for a younger female relative to give as a Christmas gift, she said that she kept the gifts in the basement, where the intruder would have had to have known exactly which gift it was), wipe her down (if it was an intruder, WHY did he do that?), put the size 12 way too big panties on her, pull up her long johns, find a blanket (that was found in the dryer....how did the intruder know where to find it?), and wrap her in John's own words..."Lovingly, papoose style". The only people or person that would take the time to do that, is someone that was in the home ...that lived there, and knew that they had PLENTY of time. That is why RDI's believe that the parents staged the crime, and Patsy's fibers...and not that of any intruder...were found inside the paint tote, on the white blanket that she was wrapped in , on the STICKY side of the tape, and entwined in the garotte. Why would an intruder wrap her "LOVINGLY, papoose style", anyway?

You are suggesting that the tape on JBRs mouth came from the doll and this somehow implicates the Rs. Therefore they needed to get rid of the doll.

No, I have no idea where that tape on JB's mouth came from. I am just saying that it COULD have come from that AG doll, and that would explain why PP took it out of the home...and another one was ordered.

But having done so they ordered (secretly) another one just in case BPD asked them for it.

Wherever the story came from (and if it's real or not), I honestly can't see how it could implicate the R's. Please explain.

The story is true, there is a complete list, that was released to the public...somewhere on the net....if it hasn't been taken off like the interviews have, and the AG dolls are on that list. I have posted it before YEARS ago.

As I said before, the Santa Bear is also (apparently) missing. Does that implicate the Rs too?

Nope, the Santa Bear was "mysterious" because Patsy claimed that she didn't know where it came from. Investigators took a picture of it, but did not take it as evidence. Rocky Mountain News later reported that the Santa Bear was given to JB at one of her beauty pageants. (As I recall, one of the other parents recognized it, because all of the winners (or contestants) got one. Oh, but Patsy didn't remember it....YEAH RIGHT. (Just another case of her pointing the finger at the invisble intruder...imo".

So as RDI must insist that there was no intruder, then they have to say the Rs, PP or BR must have taken both items out. So PP gets the blame for taking it, doubtless in the golf bag.[quote}

I will say...or rather post... it again, the Santa bear was NOT removed..or ever missing. So that just leaves ONE thing...the AG dolls....she took several WITH the police's knowledge. I am quite sure that when they let her go into the home and destroy evidence, that they had no clue that the tape over JB's mouth could have possibly came from one of those AG dolls. She took a TRUNKLOAD of things, and was only supposed to go in for funeral clothes for everybody to wear, including JB.

Why would they then want to replace the doll (and not the teddy) and even sillier still, have it sent to AG?

They would want to replace the doll, in case the police asked them to turn the doll over so that they could test it. If the tape that was over JB's mouth really came from the AG doll, then there would have been sticky residue from it on the doll. The test that would have been ran on that tape, would have shown that it had been removed from the doll. They had to order a new one....because how would they ever be able to convince investigators that the intruder KNEW to look on the back of one of those AG dolls for a piece of TAPE to use over JB's mouth. The reason that they sent it to AG, is because they may have thought that they were being surveillanced by investigators....it would have been pretty stupid for them to have it delivered to their house, don't you think??

 

[Ames]

I think it is reasonable to believe that the tape is bigger than 2x2 and smaller than 10 inches. My thinking is it's about 5-6 inches long, large enough to cover her mouth. Here's another thought on the tape: JB's cheek can be clearly seen as having a thin film of dried fluid (mucous/vomit) on it. This is also noted by Mayer in the autopsy. If the tape were indeed 10 inches long, it would have covered that area where this fluid was, and the fluid does not look "disturbed" (i.e. part of the film pulled off by the tape). And fluid of this exact material would be seen on the back of the tape. Instead, there was a "perfect" set of child's lip prints". Perfect meaning in this case, STILL. Not smeared as in a struggle.
We will not get very far when each "side" believes books written as either favorable or unfavorable to the Rs are lies.
Obviously many IDI do not believe ST's book is factual. And some do not believe Schiller's book is factual. Most RDI believe the Rs own book is not factual. But the autopsy must be seen by both as factual, though Mayer did not put in the report any explanatory opinions (this is standard, as the actual report itself should contain only actual observations and not thoughts as to how they came to be. THAT part goes in the dictated notes, which may then be transcribed. THAT is the part of the autopsy I would like the judge to have released, including all Mayer's comments to those present at the autopsy.
My opinion is that there is factual information in all the books, with some having more than others and some having deliberately misleading or false information. Just because I believe the Rs are lying about what happened that night doesn't mean every word they say is a lie. And just because the BPD presented some evidence as factual that they may not have been sure about at the time of the interviews doesn't mean that evidence was NOT factual.

ST's book isn't gospel either, though I do believe most of what he says and can see no good reason for him to lie OR blame Patsy if he didn't feel it was true. He followed the evidence and it led him to Patsy. Simple as that (for him). While I feel Patsy knew what happened, and I feel completely sure she wrote the RN, I am not completely sure she was the killer. I AM completely sure she didn't stage the crime alone.
So to look at every thing that has been written about the crime in all the books and written reports the only thing we can look at as being presumably entirely factual are the autopsy report and the interviews (because THEY were recorded). Everything else falls somewhere between factual and false.

I remember reading that it was just big enough to cover her mouth...and that's it. (Like the size that would have been cut for her AG doll).

 

[Ames]

I agree with most of what you have said here DD. Just as there are true and false statements/assumptions made on this forum, each believes what they want to believe.

On ST and the perfect lip prints on the tape. There was a question raised in his deposition about this. I don't think I have the quote saved, but he basically said that this conclusion was not reached by any 'expert' but by the BPD themselves, through their own observation. I know RDI quotes it often as evidence against the Rs, but I take it and everything else ST says with a grain of salt. Why would he lie or fabricate or imaginate in his book? I think you would have to know him better, but I would answer that with a question. Why would he want to write a book about this at all? It wasn't first thought of AFTER he left the BPD either.

"Imprint from Strings on Tape. At Jahazafat's Website, she claims: "In experiments with the naked eye, the tape is very revealing of its source and more. If duct tape is placed on the doll's back; when removed, there is a visible imprint from the two stings on the tape, was this the lip imprint Thomas referred to?"

 

[noonie]

I think Colorado really screwed up on this case. Ah yes, they had money, they were credible. NOT. I believe in my heart it was Patsy. Always did. My daughter lives in a suburb of Denver and we went to Boulder and on thru and we actually by accident (I think) drove by the house BEFORE this happened and I had a wierd feeling just seeing the house. I must say, from day one on the news, I think Mom did it!. MOO

 

[MurriFlower]

"Imprint from Strings on Tape. At Jahazafat's Website, she claims: "In experiments with the naked eye, the tape is very revealing of its source and more. If duct tape is placed on the doll's back; when removed, there is a visible imprint from the two stings on the tape, was this the lip imprint Thomas referred to?"

Whom, may I ask is Jahazafat? Just wondering if this was a reliable source to quote? Did he/she see the tape from JBR's mouth? What caused the stings on the tape? I think ST made up what he couldn't source to make the story better.

 

[UKGuy]

"Imprint from Strings on Tape. At Jahazafat's Website, she claims: "In experiments with the naked eye, the tape is very revealing of its source and more. If duct tape is placed on the doll's back; when removed, there is a visible imprint from the two stings on the tape, was this the lip imprint Thomas referred to?"

Ames,

Interesting point.

 

[UKGuy]

Whom, may I ask is Jahazafat? Just wondering if this was a reliable source to quote? Did he/she see the tape from JBR's mouth? What caused the stings on the tape? I think ST made up what he couldn't source to make the story better.

MurriFlower,

Maybe , maybe not. What is important is that you can borrow a doll and repeat the experiment. Do this and then come and tell us if you then think if this confirms your assertion that ST made up what he couldn't source to make the story better?

This way you make a constructive contribution, alternatively like another members you might care to author your own book.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Maybe , maybe not. What is important is that you can borrow a doll and repeat the experiment. Do this and then come and tell us if you then think if this confirms your assertion that ST made up what he couldn't source to make the story better?

This way you make a constructive contribution, alternatively like another members you might care to author your own book.
.

Nah, I was gunna write one once, but then I saw one in a shop for $10......

I'll leave it up to you UK, you've got all the answers.

 

[Ames]

Whom, may I ask is Jahazafat? Just wondering if this was a reliable source to quote? Did he/she see the tape from JBR's mouth? What caused the stings on the tape? I think ST made up what he couldn't source to make the story better.

She is the lady that works for the AG (American Girl...not Access Graphics) company. Remember...I posted an article that she had written on another thread. She is the lady that saw the order for the new AG doll, and talked about the tan fibers. I have no clue if she saw the tape that had been on JB's mouth or not. But, according to Steve Thomas..he said that there were "lip prints" on the tape, Jahazafat said that if a piece of tape that had been placed over the strings, on an AG dolls back, was taken off...you could see the imprint of the strings on the tape. (She should know...she worked for the company that made them...Pleasant Co.), she was just wondering if the imprint on the tape...that looked like JB's lip imprint, could have been the imprint of the strings from the back of an AG doll. Did you even get to read the article that I posted. It talks about who Jahazafat is, and where she worked....and how she fits into this whole thing. If you didn't get a chance to read it, go back when you have time, and take a look...it explains alot about the American Girl doll. (The dolls have a string or cord around their neck...I have to go back and check, but I believe it is to keep the head attached to the soft body....anyway, the company suggests to parents to put tape over the cord, so that it doesn't get caught when their daughters brush the doll's hair).

 

[Ames]

I think Colorado really screwed up on this case. Ah yes, they had money, they were credible. NOT. I believe in my heart it was Patsy. Always did. My daughter lives in a suburb of Denver and we went to Boulder and on thru and we actually by accident (I think) drove by the house BEFORE this happened and I had a wierd feeling just seeing the house. I must say, from day one on the news, I think Mom did it!. MOO

I felt the same way as you. From day one...just call it woman's intuition....I have thought that Patsy was the cause of it all. Judith Miller...she was JB's photographer, and also a friend of the Ramsey's at one time...posts sometimes on here, and over at FFJ, as "COOKIE", she told me that whenever she was inside that house, it was hard for her to breathe. She said that one time, she actually had to run outside...because she had such a bad feeling inside that house. She believes that the Ramsey's are guilty....as does Marc Klaas....Polly Klaas' father.