Justice Watch Discussion Board "Trying to put the pieces together" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Trying to put the pieces together, fran, 09:15:07, 5/26/2000 fran, Colorado-an, 09:50:18, 5/26/2000, (#1) Fran, 1000Sparks, 10:06:33, 5/26/2000, (#2) You may want, Gemini, 10:10:20, 5/26/2000, (#3) Gemini, fran, 10:28:16, 5/26/2000, (#4) fran,, Sioux, 10:36:52, 5/26/2000, (#5) Fran, momo, 10:50:29, 5/26/2000, (#6) fran, fly, 11:02:10, 5/26/2000, (#7) Well, WHATever, Lacey, 11:49:08, 5/26/2000, (#8) Fly - just a "philosophical" question here, lee2, 11:52:25, 5/26/2000, (#9) Fran, Gemini, 12:15:45, 5/26/2000, (#12) First Choice, janphi, 12:40:00, 5/26/2000, (#17) lee2 & Lacey, fly, 12:10:59, 5/26/2000, (#11) Fly, lee2, 12:29:17, 5/26/2000, (#13) fly, fran, 12:08:23, 5/26/2000, (#10) OK, my question continues, gaiabetsy, 12:35:43, 5/26/2000, (#16) gaiabetsy, Gemini, 12:45:02, 5/26/2000, (#20) Gaiabetsy, lee2, 12:41:01, 5/26/2000, (#18) what I don't quite get, Edie Pratt, 12:29:27, 5/26/2000, (#14) to the fence sitters:, Sioux, 12:51:32, 5/26/2000, (#24) Edie?, Gemini, 12:33:33, 5/26/2000, (#15) Gemini, fran, 12:47:02, 5/26/2000, (#22) Gemini, lee2, 12:46:36, 5/26/2000, (#21) no Gemini, by all means stay, Edie Pratt, 12:41:16, 5/26/2000, (#19) Paid Poly's, Lacey, 13:03:46, 5/26/2000, (#28) LOL Edie, Gemini, 12:47:34, 5/26/2000, (#23) Gemini, fran, 12:58:13, 5/26/2000, (#27) But, how can that be Gem?, Edie Pratt, 12:57:53, 5/26/2000, (#26) Fran and lee2, Gemini, 12:57:18, 5/26/2000, (#25) fence-sitters (or leaners) etc., fly, 13:30:15, 5/26/2000, (#36) Fly, Edie Pratt, 13:44:52, 5/26/2000, (#38) Edie and Fran, Gemini, 13:10:38, 5/26/2000, (#32) The Fence, lee2, 13:41:51, 5/26/2000, (#37) lee2 re post#9, Ryder, 13:07:47, 5/26/2000, (#31) Sioux, fran, 13:48:08, 5/26/2000, (#39) Ryder, lee2, 13:24:36, 5/26/2000, (#35) Gemini, fran, 13:05:05, 5/26/2000, (#29) Just my opinion, Jeanilou, 13:05:22, 5/26/2000, (#30) well Gemini, you're a saint, Edie Pratt, 13:14:01, 5/26/2000, (#33) Fran, Gemini, 13:20:57, 5/26/2000, (#34) Edie, fly, 14:18:40, 5/26/2000, (#40) Fly,, Edie Pratt, 14:41:49, 5/26/2000, (#42) fly, Sioux, 14:28:07, 5/26/2000, (#41) Sioux, , gaiabetsy, 14:51:10, 5/26/2000, (#43) gaia, Sioux, 15:06:08, 5/26/2000, (#44) Sioux, I , gaiabetsy, 15:20:21, 5/26/2000, (#45) gaia, Sioux, 15:35:32, 5/26/2000, (#47) LOL,GB!, Edie Pratt, 15:29:58, 5/26/2000, (#46) LOL, Seashell, 16:28:50, 5/26/2000, (#48) Gem--you asked me , fiddler, 16:56:40, 5/26/2000, (#50) ..boxers or briefs?, Nikki, 16:50:17, 5/26/2000, (#49) Fiddler, Gemini, 17:50:11, 5/26/2000, (#53) I wasn't sure where this would fit in, lee2, 17:26:04, 5/26/2000, (#51) don't forget, maundy, 17:48:35, 5/26/2000, (#52) Oh, fly, FT, 20:30:23, 5/26/2000, (#54) Excellent thread, Fran!, Ginja, 09:01:31, 5/27/2000, (#55) ................................................................... "Trying to put the pieces together" Posted by fran on 09:30:00 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:30:00, 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:27:41, 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:22:33, 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:16:40, 5/26/2000 I don't like to start a new thread, but I feel so compelled to that I just can't help myself this time. There has been a lot to digest in the past few days, and I have to get this off my chest. Here is what I have come up with - JMHO of course. Why I think the Ramsey's had to take their own LD test, and why I think they would not take the FBI LD test. First, the reason(s) that I think that they had to take their own LD test (in order of what I perceive their priorities to be). 1. They have several civil law suits coming up and want to use the 'passed my LD test' in the civil court to help prove their innocence. It would weigh heavily against them, and they know it, if they totally refused to take any LD test. 2. I'm sure that they don't give a rats ars one way or the other what the beer can collecting public thinks about them. However, they DO care what the BPD thinks about them, and would like to get them off their case so they can get on with their lives. Patsy said it herself. Here is what she had to say about "who really matters here". quote: "P. RAMSEY: Everything we've done for three years we've hoped would make a difference. You know, I think this is a big thing. I hope it will make a difference. But we needed to make a difference in Mark Beckner and the Boulder Police. That's who really counts here." end quote There you go!!! And, Lin Wood told us why they will NEVER take a LD test given by the FBI, and I quote. quote "Now, I spoke with the FBI agents in Denver and the FBI polygraph examiner in Denver, who has conducted polygraph examinations for the Boulder police in connection with this very investigation. I asked those individuals: Tell me your protocol. The first thing that happens when you walk in the door, you sit down with a stranger and you are read your Miranda Rights, intimidation tactic number one." "You then are not allowed to know in advance whether you will take a zone comparison test or another type of technique where evidence connecting questions are asked; and it's extremely difficult to prove truthful. You are then subjected to not knowing whether you are videotaped or audiotaped, even if you want it for quality control. You are not told what type of machine, computer or analogue, will be used. And you are going in the door, told that if there are any reactions, you will be subjected to an FBI interrogation that could last for hours." end quote They would have absolutely no control over the situation. They have never wanted to answer any questions - and on, and on, and on..... I say that if the R's are innocent and they have nothing to hide then they should not be afraid of any questions or even the tactics used to get to the truth of who killed JonBenet. They should dam well 'want' to answer anything posed to them - by any authority. Also, they KNOW that even if they took the FBI -LD test and failed, it is not admissible in a court of law. So what are they so afraid of - if they are innocent? I can only come to one logical conclusion. BTW, here is a quote from Lin Wood further down in the transcript, where he actually contradicts what he previously said about he Ramsey's not trusting the FBI. "Now let's clear up another misconception. It's not a matter of John and Patsy not trusting the FBI, John and Patsy do not trust the Boulder police department." Ok, so are the Ramsey's wanting us to believe that he FBI can be bought, coerced, or intimidated by the BPD. That is absurd? The BPD could not (even if they wanted to), they could not sway any LD test results given by the FBI. Nor could/would the FBI ever be coerced by the likes of the BPD, into compromising the integrity of their department. Do they really expect us to believe this flawed reasoning of theirs? Yes, they do expect that, and actually become indignant when we don't fall for it. Why I think they will not take a LD test from the FBI because: 1. They would have absolutely NO control over the questions or the procedure. 2. They would be subjected to their worst nightmare - a real interrogation by authorities, which they could not withstand. 3. During an FBI interrogation they would 'finally' have to give answers to too many unexplained questions, and that is not in their best interest (unless they are innocent). 3. They would NOT pass and they know it. Hence, this could and would be used against them. Maybe not in a court of law during a murder trial, but from important information which could finally! be gained from them by the authorities. Greg McCrary said on Geraldo (5/24), it is not just a matter of answering the control questions yes or no and getting it right. Where I might add they had a great deal of input and control over the questions in their own LD exam, and they would have absolutely NO control over an exam given by the FBI. But rather, it is the entirety of the test, and what goes into the pre-exam and the exam itself. Here is what he said about that. quote "I think what we have to keep in mind, and some people have touched on it, is that polygraph is simply an investigative tool, and it has to be put in context of all the other facts and all the other evidence that we have. To the degree that it supports the totality of circumstances and evidence, it could be reliable. To the degree that it's outside of that, it may not be. " "I've had it in many cases go both ways. Some have been correct, some have - I had a case where parents were polygraphed in the abduction of their child, or the alleged abduction. They flunked, when in fact they had nothing to do with it. They showed deception. We got that one straightened out. And then I had another case where a mother actually killed her two-year-old and allegedly passed a polygraph exam showing no deception when she denied it. So you can't look at the polygraph in a vacuum. By itself it really means nothing. It has to be looked at in the context of all of the evidence." end quote So what does all of this mean? I'm a bottom line kind of gal.... Note: To Alex Hunter. Circumstantial evidence cases are some of the most powerful cases ever to be won! And, you have in your possession, more circumstantial evidence than most cases have been won on. So I ask you, what's your problem? To the Ramsey's I'd like to say: Keep digging that hole. I'll be one of many standing there with the first shovel full of dirt to throw on your murdering, deceitful, manipulative and arrogant heads! To you Patsy, since I believe that you or someone very close to you reads/posts to this forum, and most of all since I know how you always like to look on the bright side of things. Well, maybe after they throw your butt in jail you can make nice with Susan Smith, Diane Downs, and possibly Marlene Aisenberg. They can show you around. You know, kind of teach you the ropes. Get it? Quite fitting, I'd say. Oh, and btw, they will tell you there was absolutely no history of child abuse before they murdered their precious little babies either. ** 3 year-old Michael and 14 month-old Alex Smith found dead strapped in their little car seats in the John D. Long lake - drowned by their mother; ** 8-year old Christine Downs (dead), 7 year-old Cherly Downs (survived), and 3 year-old Danny Downs (survived/paralized from the waist down). All shot with .22-caliber bullets by their own mother ** Sabrina Aisenberg (???) The list goes on.... Are they all just "Small Sacrifices"? And, just for you Patsy here is an entire page devoted to 'Mother's Gone Bad'. And you wanted me to believe that 'this kind of thing doesn't happen in a good Christian family such as your"? Tisk, tisk . Murder of Children by Parents http://www.pangea.ca/~blueyes/childp.htm [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "fran" Posted by Colorado-an on 09:50:18 5/26/2000 I think I can answer one question for you, in re: to Alex Hunter. fear (noun) 1) agitation or dismay in the anticipation of or in the presence of danger Synonyms: alarm, cold feet, consternation, dismay, dread, fright, horror, panic, terror, trepidation, trepidity Related words: apprehension, foreboding, misgiving, presentiment; angst, anxiety, concern, worry; agitation, discomposure, disquietude, perturbation; chickenheartedness, cowardice, cowardliness, faintheartedness, timidity, timorousness; funk, scare [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Fran" Posted by 1000Sparks on 10:06:33 5/26/2000 I think you've got it there in a nutshell. These games the Rams are playing must be frustrating everyone. We know what they are doing, as they do, but what's to stop it? It's just a game. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "You may want" Posted by Gemini on 10:10:20 5/26/2000 to consider the fact that Beckner was asked to use Gelb as a compromise, with FBI in attendance, but refused. I think the sum total of the testing should be carefully scrutinized and analyzed by the BPD and the FBI, but the fact remains that Wood and the Rams would have preferred the BPD and FBI to be involved, albeit with an independent examiner. Never hurts to see the entire picture before jumping to conclusions based on only part of the story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Gemini" Posted by fran on 10:28:16 5/26/2000 I don't think I have 'jumped to any conclusions'. In fact I have weighed everything very carefully. It is, and will remain, my opinion that if the Ramsey's are truly innocent, and want to assist the authorities in finding 'the real killer' they should and would submit to a LD test given by the FBI. If they are innocent and if what they want is to be cleared once and for all that is what they should do. This is what they should have done 3 1/2 years ago - if they are innocent. I do see the big picture. This, from The American Polygraph Association" "An attorney can argue the polygraph would not be accurate because their client would to be put in an inherently stressful situation. For instance, that of being tested by a police officer involved in a possible investigation against him. This argument is effective for those without knowledge of the polygraph." Examiners utilize a variety of procedures to guard against errors by identifing the presence of factors which might cause a false responses; such as: * an assessment of the examinee's emotional state medical information about the examinee's physical condition * specialized tests to identify the overly responsive examinee and to calm the overly nervous * control questions to evaluate the examinee's response capabilities * factual analysis of the case information * a pre-test interview and detailed review of the questions * quality control reviews [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL fran ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "fran," Posted by Sioux on 10:36:52 5/26/2000 well said. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Fran" Posted by momo on 10:50:29 5/26/2000 Thanks for jumping to conclusions for me anyway. LOL Your post was a great read. Keep 'em comin'. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "fran" Posted by fly on 11:03:58 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:03:58, 5/26/2000 fran - I think Gemini made an excellent point concerning BPD's decisions concerning the polygraph. I don't think BPD has looked very good during their responses to the Ramsey polygraphs the past day or so. Not surprising, given they're in almost a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. I've read many excellent comments from people on both sides of the issue, and have concluded that this is a case in which diametrically opposed viewpoints can both have decent validity - mostly because the whole polygraph issue is about as grey an area as you can find. For example, you and many others have suggested that if the Rams really want to help, get the BPD somewhat off their backs, and are truly innocent, they shouldn't hesitate to let the FBI test them. In principle, I agree. However, at the same time, the experts have repeatedly said that the accuracy of a polygraph is highly dependent on the specific questions, how the test is conducted, and the person giving the test. That is, there are lots of ways an incorrect conclusion can occur. Although I'd generally trust the FBI to try to be as unbiased as possible, I'm not sure that total objectivity is really possible. It's almost inevitable that they will approach the situation with a suspicion that the person might be guilty and try to lie. Even you point out that the FBI's test would put them through the ringer, so to speak. Even if the bias is very subtle or unintentional, there is a risk that it could affect the results. Remember that in studies of polygraph accuracy, the type of error that is by far the most common is incorrectly concluding that a truthful person is lying. Another example concerns the nature of the questions used in the Ramsey test. Some have complained that they were so limited and didn't address more case issues, too easy to prepare for, etc. That's a reasonable complaint. On the other hand, the bottom line really is pretty simple: did the Ramseys kill JBR, write the note, or know who did kill her? Those are the big ticket questions, and those were what they asked. Whether the downside of limiting the questions is serious enough to invalidate the test is up for debate by the experts. Basically, then, the position you have taken has merit, but because of the complexity or ambiguity of the whole polygraph situation, there is also merit to very different takes on the situation. Now how often do we see a situation in which everybody can be "right?" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Well, WHATever" Posted by Lacey on 11:49:08 5/26/2000 I guess we can continue to go our of our way to give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt in order to appear OBJECTIVE. However.. It seems apparent to me that what the Ramseys took were publicity polygraphs, as characterized by Mark Beckner, and the procedure utilized apparently seems to fall short of the standard. There are standards, are there not? And even so, there were still inconclusives, distortions, excuses. There are always excuses. I wonder why they bothered. LOL, Jay Leno's got their number Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Fly - just a "philosophical" question here" Posted by lee2 on 11:52:25 5/26/2000 regarding your statement: "It's almost inevitable that they will approach the situation with a suspicion that the person might be guilty and try to lie" Isn't anyone who is asked to take a polygraph test under some kind of suspicion in the first place??? After all - they don't administer polygraph tests at random (like drug testing). It usually involves an incident that has put the person to be tested in a suspicious light. I'm not flaming here - just observing . . . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Fran" Posted by Gemini on 12:19:46 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:19:46, 5/26/2000 I probably should have explained exactly where I was coming from and/or quoted from your origin post. The part I was replying to had to do with the Ramseys PREFERRING to take their own test. I just wanted to point out the first choice was to use the independent examiner WITH FBI/BPD PRESENCE. Since the BPD (probably with FBI advice) chose not to be involved, the test went on as planned. The point is, the first choice was not to hide away and do the test without official involvement ... just what they were left with after Beckner refused the request. Just a matter of using accurate information to reach an opinion. Otherwise, I'd like to see the test transcripts and hear from any and all who offer an analysis ... especially the FBI people. However, after carefully reading the entire transcript of the press conference, especially the input from the poly experts involved, I don't think this should be brushed off so quickly on the say so of Beckner (who has a powerful vested interest) or Jay Leno ... who seems to be bucking for an advisory position in this case ;-) . (edited to add that, as I've said several times, I agree the FBI testing would have been best.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "First Choice" Posted by janphi on 12:45:43 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:45:43, 5/26/2000 >The part I >was replying to had to do >with the Ramseys PREFERRING to take >their own test. I just >wanted to point out the first >choice was to use the independent >examiner WITH FBI/BPD PRESENCE. Since >the BPD (probably with FBI advice) >chose not to be involved, the >test went on as planned. >The point is, the first choice >was not to hide away and >do the test without official involvement >... just what they were left >with after Beckner refused the request. > Just a matter of using >accurate information to reach an opinion. Accurate information is that the BPD was not invited to the first test. The first test (that we know of) was run by Toriello and no one was invited to sit in. So yes, their first choice was "to hide away and do the test without official involvement." On top of that, they chose to go on national television and mislead the public into believing they had not taken the test, when in fact they had taken the test and had not passed it. Edited to correct type "has" to "had" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "lee2 & Lacey" Posted by fly on 12:10:59 5/26/2000 Lacey - Yes there are standards, and apparently what Gelb did falls within those standards according to what I've heard the polygraph commentators say. Whether the techniques used are the best is debatable, of course. lee2 - No argument from me. That was my point. Except in cases where a huge number of people are being tested to find the one person who did something wrong, the person taking the test is probably going to have significant suspicion on them. That is probably more true in the Ramseys' case. Thus, there's a potential for at least a subtle bias to exist in the examiner's attitude, procedures, and interpretation, and that might be cause for some worry on the Ramseys' part, even if innocent. Don't get me wrong. I think the Ramseys, if innocent, should have taken the FBI test, despite the potential risk. However, I can understand why they might be reluctant, even if innocent. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Fly" Posted by lee2 on 12:37:03 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:37:03, 5/26/2000 I know other "suspects" were given polygraph tests in the course of the investigation of JBR's death. I can't recall if they were FBI administered (and I'm too lazy to go upstairs and leaf through the books). However, had those other "suspects" had enough money (and motivation?) they may have hired high priced attorneys and their own polygraphers. However, would the BPD have accepted those test results? I doubt it. After all, the police department conducts the investigation and gathers the information that points to guilt or innocence. I guess my point (which I seem to be having a difficult time making) is that, seemingly, all potential suspects in a case should be held to the same standards - be it questioning, polygraph testing, etc. If Suspect 101 (NOT the Ramseys) refused a polygraph test administered with the authority of the BPD or FBI it would immediately provoke further suspicion (I would think). However, the Ramseys - as usual (in what I view as their attempt to control everything and everybody) hold themselves to different standards/rules despite the fact that fiber evidence and physical evidence (i.e. they are the only proven ones in the house that night) leave them open for suspicion. Whew - talk about a run-on sentence. Oh well, in any case - the fact that they won't submit to FBI testing just adds another nail to the coffin (IMVHO). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "fly" Posted by fran on 12:08:23 5/26/2000 I agree with you to a point. However, I think the BPD would be more than stupid to back down and accept anything less than a LD administered by the FBI. Yes, I am sure that the FBI would approach the situation with a great deal of suspicion. But, I do not believe their suspicions would effect the outcome of a LD test given by them. In fact, and because of this, I would imagine they would go to great measures to make sure their 'suspicions' would not in any way influence the outcome of their test. If they were not suspicious there would be no need for a LD test in the first place. And why are they suspicious? Did the Ramsey's give them or anyone else any reason at all to be suspicious? Yes, you bet they have. Wasn't it the FBI who finally cleared Richard Jewells (sp)? - after he took a LD test administered by them? They were convinced going in that he was guilty, but ultimately cleared him because of that test. They were suspicious enough of him that he was arrested. The LD test is what ultimately cleared him. All this talk about whether a LD test is valid or not gets me off track of my question as to the Ramsey's motive for taking one. In the first place, I think they got cornered by Barbara WaWa, and LK into saying 'yes, they would absolutely take one if they were asked'. Big mistake! Well, that's what happens when you keep on flapping your lips. Even if they had failed all of these 'self-serving / private LD tests it wouldn't prove their guilt or innocence one way or the other as far as I'm concerned. Why, because it is subjective "Voodoo Science" - as Patsy would say. The point of the validity of a LD test can be argued to death. If the Ramsey's motive here is to clear their name and find the 'real killer' of JonBenet, then I say let them take the FBI test. If that is not their motive, and I don't believe that it is - then they will continue to pull this pr crap. I look at what people do (not what they say), and I look at their behavior and base my opinion of whether I should believe them or not on that. Based on this, and other facts in this case - the R's are definitely suspect. Momo - Sorry, did I do that? ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "OK, my question continues" Posted by gaiabetsy on 12:35:43 5/26/2000 to be why (because they are rich and can afford to hire anyone and everyone?) are the Rams unable to take the FBI test with all the circumstances surrounding how that test is performed, if any one of the rest of us would have to or be willing to? I hate the idea of "rich-man's" justice. I keep remembering other families who "might" have been able to hire their own polygraphers but didn't because they were possibly more interested in finding the truth. Anyone going to the kind of trouble the Rams went to about everything concerning this case seems to be hiding something. I know when I have something to hide, I go through all sorts of mental and physical gymnastics to accomplish the ruse. These guys smell like that to me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "gaiabetsy" Posted by Gemini on 12:45:02 5/26/2000 I think it has to do with the fact that the BPD has not declared them suspects. Other potential suspects were also asked to take Polys, yet refused. An AG employee comes to mind, who responded he'd take one if and when JR did the same. The BPD couldn't demand he agree to their request any more than they could force the Ramseys to do everything they wanted. Individuals do have rights within our justice system, rich or poor, but many simply don't realize it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Gaiabetsy" Posted by lee2 on 12:41:01 5/26/2000 "I know when I have something to hide, I go through all sorts of mental and physical gymnastics to accomplish the ruse" EXACTLY! They say they didn't trust the BPD because they "held their daughter's body hostage" - YET they had their own private investigators (hired by their attorneys) on the case immediately - practically before the poor girl's body had cooled! Their immediate (and continued) machinations do nothing but point to guilt, guilt and more guilt. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "what I don't quite get" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:29:27 5/26/2000 is why are all the fence sitters still here? Wasn't the Ramsey's polygraph enough for them to pack it up and leave? They all have countered the guilty argument for three plus years, always keeping the door open for the simple explanation as to why, what, how, who, where, and when. Doesn't this new revelation satisfy them? It should. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "to the fence sitters:" Posted by Sioux on 12:51:32 5/26/2000 There is a time for everything, time for harvest.....no, no, that's not the way it goes, let me get the right paper: There is time for being objective, that is the time of evaluating all the facts,(the way they are presented to us, however flawed), time to follow different lines of thinking, time to come up with an opinion. When we DO come up with one, after CAREFULL thinking, it's a RESPONSABLE OPINION, an EDUCATED GUESS.Some might keep saying to the end of time that it is not OBJECTIVE. DUH!! As long as the opinion is formed by a SUBJECT (and we all are ) it will always be SUBJECTIVE . I am a little tired of the cry for objectiveness in the case of the Ramseys. While I appreciate the good intencion of these posters, I think that they fail to see that the Ramseys do everything possible to mantain themselves as the most likely suspects. They do this and then they cry like babies because people is "biased"against them.They act, as always, like little children. They want EVERYTHING. The FBI is "biased"?.Why some don't see that they are falling into the Rams' game, using the best virtues of these posters, like their need for objectivity and the respect for fairness? Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Edie?" Posted by Gemini on 12:33:33 5/26/2000 You want us to leave? Would you be happier with a forum of bobbing heads? Pashaw! I don't believe that for a minute. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Gemini" Posted by fran on 12:47:02 5/26/2000 I think what it amounts to is that since the Ramsey's will not take an FBI-LD test, they wanted them present to witness their pr LD-test in order to gain the fringe benefit of validity that would come with it. Then they would have achieved credibility without having to submit to a 'tough' LD-test, and all those pesky pre-exam questions that the FBI would give them. Unfortunately for them, the BPD did not give them their blessings. That's just how I see it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Gemini" Posted by lee2 on 12:46:36 5/26/2000 I have such a hard time keeping track of everyone and their sentiments that I can barely see the fence for the trees - let alone who's sitting on it and whether or not their cheek is slanted toward guilty or innocent. The lively debate is what keeps things interesting . . . although I do object to name calling tactics (i.e. turnip head and moron) - but hey, I'm on Prozac - and even that doesn't bother me that much (and you can strap me up to a polygraph machine to prove it!). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "no Gemini, by all means stay" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:41:16 5/26/2000 I am just curious as to why the results of the test are not enough for you to say, "I told you so", as it is positive (on the surface) for the Ramseys. You are always championing their cause, I would think this would be enough for you all to fall off your fences and say "They didn't do it. No need to argue it anymore." That's all. If you were of the mind that SOMEONE IN THAT HOUSE did it, but couldn't decipher who, that'd be one thing. But you are pretty clear in your posts that you are looking anywhere for the answer but at the R's. Therefore, I would think you'd be satisfied by now and perhaps grow weary with those of us who cannot agree with YOU. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Paid Poly's" Posted by Lacey on 13:03:46 5/26/2000 Well, speaking for myself, I haven't seen a fence-sitter HERE trying to get us to agree with them (they wouldn't dare) (Lest you take that seriously Gem and offer a terse rebuttal, I'm just kidding) The appropriateness of some jump-to-it conclusions here has been called into question many a time, though, not only by avowed fence-sitters like Gem but leaners like fly and even guilty-side posters like me! Sure, I think they did it but not 'cause one or both looks cross-eyed at a camera. Some of the speculation on this forum, it's like.. well, if ya speculate something for long enough, it becomes TRUE. LOL, don't get me started That said, I fail to see how polygraphs conducted over an apparently spread-out time-frame to finally produce a "pass" are valid at any level. I believe the standard procedure is to go in one day and have your polygraph and that's it. Let several experts review for concurrence if you disagree with results. Publicity poly ploys like the Ramseys took reek of a bit of a tweak.. They can't be taken seriously. Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "LOL Edie" Posted by Gemini on 12:47:34 5/26/2000 That might be because I'm not pro-rams, but a fence-sitter. Some of you guys keep wanting to mix the two. Stay sweet. You add a lot of smiles to the threads. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Gemini" Posted by fran on 12:58:13 5/26/2000 An honest debate is good. I'm always willing to listen. I have had my (however brief) moments of doubt about the R's guilt, and all of thier smoke and mirrors start getting to me. Then I go back to basics, and ask myself what do I think is really going on here? Why? I always come back to the reasons why I believe 'with the whole of my heart' - why I believe that they and only they killed JonBenet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "But, how can that be Gem?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:57:53 5/26/2000 when do you make up your mind on this? What will it take for you and other fencers to decide an opinion either way? I think you are a bit pro-Ram, because let's face it, they have done and said so much in the past years that it is impossible (IMO) not to form an opinion. I can't see how that works when I know you are a very strong, dare I say opinionated, woman. You have definite ideas and feelings and judgments, just like the rest of us. Yet, on this, nomatter how much comes to light, you remain indifferent. I wonder, did you feel as ambivalent about OJ's guilt way back then? I guess it's something lacking in me, and to be admired about you, but damn girl, I ALWAYS have a view, right or wrong! And thanks, nobody has ever called me sweet, lol. I will now try my best to be:-)Edie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Fran and lee2" Posted by Gemini on 12:57:18 5/26/2000 I agree in part, Fran. But, also see how they may have been anxious that the FBI see there was no hanky-panky, and the examiner took care to do it right. If they'd wanted to fool around with the results, I don't believe they'd have wanted the authorities in attendance. lee2, thanks for the feedback. It takes a variety of opinions to make good discussion. Some of us have been here so long we're pretty well versed on where each poster is coming from, but it's not terribly important because POV can change each time we have new information to work with. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "fence-sitters (or leaners) etc." Posted by fly on 13:30:15 5/26/2000 Sitters and leaners aren't going to say "I told you so" just because of the polygraph because the reason many of us are sitter/leaners is that we have all along acknowledged that the evidence is sometimes contradictory. This is just one more contradictory bit. If someone were listing so seriously that they were in danger of going into a nosedive to one side, this probably would be enough. For those on the fence or leaning up against it, it might increase our list, but isn't necessarily enough to cause a fall. Sorry, but you'll have to continue to put up with us for awhile yet. :-) As a leaner, I definitely have an opinion. I think there are definite reasons to suspect the Ramseys. I'm just not willing to hang them quite yet, because I also see things that argue against them being involved. The polygraph is just another (if questionable) example of this. I also think the Ramseys have been their own worst enemies, especially if they do happen to be innocent. I agree that they have done things an innocent person probably shouldn't do. The polygraph now is at least in large part a PR move, and it might well backfire. Before you read their motives in the worst possible way, reconsider what lake posted somewhere earlier: People wanted them to take a polygraph. Screamed that if they were innocent they would. OK, they took one - maybe not the ideal one, but one using a person of good reputation and techniques that I haven't exactly seen called bogus. If they had not taken one at all, people would be yarfing about that. Now some are yarfing about motives, saying the test is bogus, etc. Also, by saying they ought to take a polygraph, people are saying that they think that polygraphs have validity. With the "wrong" answer in hand, now people are finding all sorts of problems with them. It would be valid if the FBI did it? Well, maybe, but even McCrary said he'd had errors occur. fran - I don't really fault the BPD for sticking to their guns, etc. That might be the best/only thing to do. I see them as being rather between a rock and a hard place. There's almost no way for them to look good right now - except for the Ramseys to keep making excuses about not coming in to answer those new questions or some other way of shooting themselves in the foot. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Fly" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:44:52 5/26/2000 I have no problem with their polygraph, it's just that all this tooth-pulling to get them hooked up in the first place seems to arouse my suspicion. As Patsy said, she's "tired of playing games", so why not just comply with BPD's request, and take their test, too? Is THAT unreasonable? Why can they control this entire investigation, why the kid gloves for their rights? THEY sighted TWO cases from the beginning; Susan Smith and OJ Simpson. WHY? What did those cases have to do with the murder of their daughter? Why would supposedly grieving parents even THINK about two cases that, for all purposes, don't resemble theirs? Especially one day after burying JB? It is strange enough that they did that interview, but stranger than that was the concern that America is "disillusioned" by the fact that they were duped by two seemingly innocent killers. Seems they were being judgmental themselves, no? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Edie and Fran" Posted by Gemini on 13:10:38 5/26/2000 Can only speak for myself, but the biggest reason I stay on the fence is because I don't make judgement calls based on rumor, gossip ... or behavior that can be seen from various POV. Some of you may think the Rs' behavior (post murder) is an indication of guilt because it isn't the way you'd behave. Well, I don't go with that because I'm pretty sure these people are not like me in a LOT of ways, so how could I possibly judge them, using myself as a yardstick. Then, when it comes to the actual murder, I have a couple of problems with someone from the outside as the perp (not a stranger, I don't believe that for a minute), but OTOH, see huge holes in each parents dunnit theory that makes the rounds. I can't just say, "I don't like 'em, they did it" ... I have to see how it could have happened, and so far ... can't get there. But, as you say Fran, people are different ... not better or worse ... just different. It took me a long while to be polite about posters who entertain themselves joking about this murder. Now, I usually skip those threads and move to something I find more interesting. So, it takes tolerance from all of us to get along and make variety of opinion work. JW does a pretty good job I think, and JW is all of us. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "The Fence" Posted by lee2 on 13:43:05 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:43:05, 5/26/2000 I have done my fair share of squirming around on the fence and I'm willing to bet almost everyone has at one time or another done the same (regarding this case). After all - the idea that a parent (or parents) played a part in the death of their child contradicts everything moral within the majority of us (as does the innuendo of incest). I would like nothing better for the truth to eventually come out (and by truth - I mean the impossible - a video tape of what really happened - step by step - not that I would want to watch it - but something like they do in the movies - where they finally go back and play through what "really happened" as the mystery is unraveling and before they run the final credits). I would like that truth to include a sick puppy (one that didn't have the initials P.R., J.R. or B.R.) who somehow managed to pull off this dreadful act. It wouldn't bring JonBenet back - but it would put a period at the end of this sad, sad sentence. However, it takes a huge leap for me to get from their actions starting at 5:30 a.m. December 26 up to - and including the present - to believing a sick puppy/intruder entered that house December 25 and pulled off what may end up being the real crime of the century. Their actions - combined with the evidence and the circumstances - make that leap an impossible task for me right now. In all honesty - I hope someday my suspicions are proven wrong because I would like to believe that family members don't take it upon themselves to kill one another. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "lee2 re post#9" Posted by Ryder on 13:07:47 5/26/2000 You are absolutely right. There is ALWAYS suspicion on the part of the examining body towards the individual taking a polygraph, otherwise why do a polygraph in the first place? Again these 2 are wanting like heck to no longer even being suspects when they've done nothing but justify INCREASING suspicion from the police regarding themselves. BTW - nice chatting with you the other night + Lizzie & Colorado. lee2, you type faster than I can read but I enjoyed the immediate feedback. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Sioux" Posted by fran on 13:51:40 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:51:40, 5/26/2000 Well said. I am so sick of the "poor Ramsey" cries. Why don't they just do the right thing for once? Take a lesson from Mark Klass. Yes, I agree that everyone is different, and will react different in certain situations. But, as a whole and as human beings we all have certain 'like' qualities too. That is why I can say what I expect an 'innocent' Ramsey's to act like. Lee2 - Amen to that. Edited to say that what I meant to say was I am tired of the "poor me" cry from the Ramseys. Not directed at anyone who believes in their innocence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Ryder" Posted by lee2 on 13:24:36 5/26/2000 I enjoyed chatting with you as well the other night! I thought your responses were quite timely and didn't notice any lag between comments! Sometimes my typing gets ahead of my thinking . . . (I met my husband on the internet and we spent many hours typing back and forth to one another long distance!) Have a good Holiday and glad to know you could see my point about the suspicion associated with a polygraph test! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Gemini" Posted by fran on 13:05:05 5/26/2000 Didn't intend to imply that the R's want to fool around with the results. Only to be as much in control as possible, and not have to go through any pre-exam interrogation by the FBI. I have a feeling that they were just as much afraid of the FBI pre-exam as they were of the actual LD-test. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Just my opinion" Posted by Jeanilou on 13:13:40 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:13:40, 5/26/2000 >but >the fact remains that Wood and >the Rams would have preferred the >BPD and FBI to be involved, >albeit with an independent examiner. Never >hurts to see the entire picture >before jumping to conclusions based on >only part of the story. It is all about control. The Ramseys put out a situation they knew the BPD would not agree to. What police dept conducting an investigation wants to have the rules set up by the suspects. Even with them overseeing the LD, the Ramseys would still have more control over it. I think the BPD made the right decision NOT to participate in a LD done under those circumstances. If the Ramseys are so innocent of either doing the murder or covering it up, then do the LD the right way and with the BPD and the FBI, no holds barred. Also I wonder how much of the fact that the Ramseys passed have to do with the fact that they have had over 3 yrs to convince themselves they are NOT guilty. You tell it to yourself enough times, you believe it. And being the bizarre person that I am, I have wondered if ANY of the Ramseys, John, Patsy or Burke, have been hypnotized to NOT remember the murder and the cover up. If you can be hypnotized to remember things, why not to forget? And the Ramseys do have the money, or at least they did, to buy people off. Jeani [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "well Gemini, you're a saint" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:14:01 5/26/2000 you stay "sweet" too, ya hear?:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Fran" Posted by Gemini on 13:20:57 5/26/2000 I agree (and Jean makes good points, too), a lot of it has to do with control. If they are innocent, I think they're very concerned that the BPD will somehow manage to manipulate the results of any tests or twist their words during interviews. If they're guilty, the concern would be for obvious reasons. Looking back over the BPD actions and (apparent) intent over the past 3 years, I can see why they'd want to try to have some control ... even if they're innocent. Although the BPD claims to have just busted their butts checking out other people, it's been continually obvious the Ramseys ARE their focus (and the core of the case they've attempted to build), and the other work done mostly for the purpose of eliminating suspects and trying to tie up loose ends. And yet, there ARE people who (I believe) should be eliminated but have been passed by. So, the polys are interesting, but, until we have a greater share of information, not enough for a conclusion. jmo, of course. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Edie" Posted by fly on 14:18:40 5/26/2000 Edie - You asked why the Rams would not comply with the BPD's request for an FBI polygraph. As I've posted before, there is real reason to worry about false results in a polygraph, especially if you are innocent. Even the FBI gets the wrong answer sometimes, as McCrary noted in one of his interviews. Maybe they worried too much about this, but it is a legit worry. You asked why they should be able to control the entire investigation. Our system strongly favors the rights of the accused. The Ramseys have taken maximum advantage of this. While I'd never say that they have been truly cooperative, they could actually have done less to cooperate than they have. That extends to the polygraph, too. You ask why they would bring up SSmith and OJ, given that the cases are not like JBR's, and suggest that by doing so, they were being judgemental of themselves. The reason they brought up SSmith and OJ was in connection to the "disillusionment" of the US public. People are much more suspicious of "good" people, thanks to these cases. So although the nature of the cases isn't similar, they are relevant to the overall situation. I don't think this indicates they were judging themselves. I think it was an expression of concern that they were being considered suspects, unfairly, they'd claim. I'm with you 100% that the Ramseys have acted in ways that make them look really bad. Maybe they are really bad, and their behavior accurately reflects that, or maybe they are just fools. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Fly," Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:41:49 5/26/2000 thanks for your pleasant reply:-) I see your points, taken one by one, it's just that all of these things add up to be suspect, in my mind,anyway. I think they were really jumping the gun on the business of how we the people feel/think. I can honestly, unequivically state that I did NOT have an opinion UNTIL they went on CNN and told us what our opinion IS. They were, at the very least, arrogant in believing they were of any importance to us in the first place. I am a strong believer that cases belong in court, that is, until the suspects themselves decide to bring their case to me. Well then, I have every right in the world to form an opinion and judge, because like it or not, Fly, that's exactly what they asked us to do! And, I will not be made to feel petty because I judge. Nor will I believe I'm judging people that are anything like me, it does NOT take one to know one. All of us have been lied to, at one time or another, and would be robots if we didn't use those lies as examples of what to look for the next time. Otherwise, Jo Ellan Demetrius should be in lock-up for thinking the way she does. And, Fly. Think about the Susan Smith deal, and how the resounding "Wow!" rang out when the truth emerged. Patsy sights that case, and I have to ask what for? Is she telling me people are not who they seem to be? That's the only reason I can come up with at this late date. Why didn't she sight the Lindbergh kidnapping, or Polly Klaas? Those (on the surface) fit into their scenario much nicer, don't you agree? And, those are equally famous in the anals of crime. So, it goes on and on and on, and my judgment tells me the "Real Killer/s" would have been apprehended 3 1/2 years ago if the Ramsey's wanted him/her/them to be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "fly" Posted by Sioux on 14:28:07 5/26/2000 **Maybe they are really bad, and their behavior accurately reflects that, or maybe they are just fools.** Fly, I think you are too smart to allow yourself such a naivete. They might be bad, true, or they might be fools, but it's pretty clear that they are both mentally ill. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Sioux, " Posted by gaiabetsy on 14:51:10 5/26/2000 it's sure hard to give such people as these the benefit of the doubt. Geez, we've been offering them an open forum to prove themselves free of guilt about this murder, but instead, all they do is try to find ways to circumvent the normal practices that determine that outcome. I'm appalled and will stay that way until they come out of true hiding and let themselves be truly investigated from top to bottom. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "gaia" Posted by Sioux on 15:06:08 5/26/2000 Certainly. I am about to stretch even Mr.Hodge's platform of thinking, but what the heck: Patsy left us her unconcious confession and the accusation of John's incestous realtionship in the ransom note.(Hodge) But they also are unconsiously asking us to NAIL THEM for more than three years!! Don't you see? they can't STAND each other and they know in jail they'll be separated ,FINALLY!!. (Me) Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Sioux, I " Posted by gaiabetsy on 15:20:21 5/26/2000 was finally called tonight to say "Booksamillion" had the Hodges book. Can't wait to get it tomorrow. Sounds like there is a lot to be gleaned from this book. I can heartily believe these two don't much care for one another and are bound together by something far more insidious than a marriage certificate. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall in their home? Yet, I think they've become smart about the possibility of bugs. So, let's just be a bug on their clothing or car or something. I'd love to hear them talk and argue while taking a walk. It's gotta be good. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "gaia" Posted by Sioux on 15:35:32 5/26/2000 I am glad you are going to get Hodge's book, I'll be interested in disscussing it with you. I'll e- mail you probably tomorrow morning regarding this. (Today is going to be hectic after school) Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "LOL,GB!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:29:58 5/26/2000 yeah, a stroll down the primrose psychopath:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "LOL" Posted by Seashell on 16:28:50 5/26/2000 Good one, Edie OK, the Rams have taken the test with someone of their choosing, without any BPD/FBI meanies around and possibly influenced the outcome by using their usual manipulation and control techniques (JR hands them money and PR gives them h***!) :-) So now, in all fairness, they should take a poly according to the BPD wishes. What could be more fair? They want to control or at least mostly control how this goes down, which is INSANE. They are suspects, like it or not, in a murder investigation. No one else can dictate terms and conditions, what makes them think they can? They don't dislike the BPD becuz they don't trust the BPD. They hate the BPD becuz the BPD has their number and it's UP! Even if they flunked a FBI poly, they could still wave the recent one along with the American flag. My question for the day: Why aren't they declared murder suspects? They know what the BPD/DA know - so why not? That would give the authorities more power over them, would it not? Can't we make a citizens arrest and get these ear and eyesores off the streets? I agree with that fabulous woman on Geraldo last night (notice how the men and women were polarized on some issues?), when she said that they look worse than before. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Gem--you asked me " Posted by fiddler on 16:56:40 5/26/2000 for feedback on another thread, but I had no time to respond. I agree with you that groupthink is a real phenomenon, and I would definitely NOT prefer a "forum" where everyone thought the same. At the same time, regarding the DNA (Is it old? Is it new? What does "degraded" actually mean? If it's mixed with JBR's own blood, are the blood and the DNA both degraded? Does "mixed with" mean the sources were together originally, or that the mixture was an end product? Could they have been deposited at different times? How much DNA was there? Is the amount consistent with someone touching the panties recently, or more consistent with an older deposit? etc. etc.) I agree there is just too much we don't know. Just as crimes are sometimes solved by some slight bit of forensic evidence, so suspects can be exonerated by a slight bit, too. It bothers me that I dislike the Ramseys--do I think they're involved because I WANT them to be involved? And, more importantly: What if these people ARE just really big jerks? Maybe they're actually not guilty of JBR's murder. Maybe they're just massively obnoxious control freaks by nature. After all, we know they're into control in a big way. Look at JBR and the pageants, John and his company, PR and having the living room repainted five times in a week to get the exact right shade. What if they really are innocent, but the reason they look guilty is that they CAN'T CEDE CONDUCTING THIS INVESTIGATION TO ANYONE, not even the proper law enforcement agencies? I mean, they may not trust the Boulder Police, but that's who's stuck with investigating and prosecuting this crime. If JR and PR refuse to accept anyone having authority over them, then what hope of justice do they have? Could they really be THAT BIG A****LES, and at the same time, not be guilty? The answer isn't "out there", it's in the physical evidence. And until we know in detail what exactly that is, any judgment of the Ramseys we make has to be provisional. Even Henry Lee doesn't know FOR SURE (to use a famous phrase) what's going on, so why should we? That said, I also have to say I provisionally think the Ramseys are guilty, about 85%. Much more than probable, but less than beyond reasonable doubt....drat it! (I really just don't LIKE those two.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "..boxers or briefs?" Posted by Nikki on 17:01:29 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:01:29, 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:55:25, 5/26/2000 ..the foxy one, Lou Smit, wants us to rethink this thing..trust the 3 year waiting period poly and step out of the Box and find the killer... ..I could see that 36 months ago..and if the FBI had done their testing..then! ..I could see that if the R's had returned to Boulder and stayed put long enough to do anything and everything in their power to find the killer.. ..I could do that if the note didn't scream Patsy ...I could do that if they had stayed off CNN in the beginning..and planted themselves in my memory as 'suspicious'... ..I could do that if Patsy's fibers weren't on that duct tape... ..so forth and so on...... ..OK Lou, I say great..but where do we go? How many people can mimic Patsy's writing and coin all those phrases complete with fatcats and percentage rates? ..and carry on about brown paper bags with such a warm fuzzy hatred of the man, John? ..did some enraged and starving skinhead do this because they had major $$$ in the bank...was it a babbling schizo--out for a xmas thrill kill and forgot his/hers/its teddy bear as they headed back through the no/snow snow to the looney bin... ..a super jealous and love starved window popping juvenile ...high on dust and the killing of angels? ..a sicko member of an Olympic ChildRaping Team from Ca....one of MW bongbong family members? ..a Satanic Santa? and Wife? ..who hasn't been swabbed from head to foot?\ ..which direction do we head once out of this Pandora's box... ..where do we look? ..who is left that knew the house and the R's so damned well they had no problem latching the door to the windowless room from the outside! Used Burke's knife and maglite...knew where to switch on the hidden basement lights...and could easily find and use Patsy's pad and paper while wipping up the war and peace of ransom notes for a kidnapping that never happened... .and I am not going to mention the foyer..:):)ah, the memories of the sickpup and the velvet glove.... ..a child is dead ..her dreams died with her ..and there is no where to go! ..JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Fiddler" Posted by Gemini on 17:50:11 5/26/2000 Thanks for the thoughtful response. For what it's worth, I wouldn't choose them to chum up with either ... or any of their close friends from what we've seen of them so far. Why? Well, from the Christmas letters alone, not to mention the pageants, I get a neg. impression of the value system. But, face it, there are lots of people who think and behave in similar ways ... all over the place, in RT and here, on line. Now, of course, some materialistic, self-concerned, control freaks may be killers, but the vast majority are not. I can't WANT them to be guilty because I have differences with their human choices. While my choices suit me (most of the time), I'm sure not all of them are perfect or admirable by the standards of others who think differently. So, to me, that means I'm not in the position to slam anyone just because they aren't like me. You're just kind of a fence leaner because your opinion is quite heavy on the side of guilt. I see it as 60-40 in favor of not guilty. That's for a couple of very simple reasons. To me, the elements that make up the crime and possible cover-up could just as easily lead elsewhere. In addition, while the Ramseys have been under a microscope for 3 plus years, others who bother me, have (apparently) not. If I knew, really knew, the people who keep skipping around my peripheral vision had given all the samples (and they were tested, not just taking up space in a fridge) and had reasonably good alibies, my percentage for parental guilt would go up. As it is, and in spite of BPD protests, I just don't believe they've seriously considered others who need attention. I've enjoyed this thread. Hope you all have, at the very least, a peaceful weekend with a few smiles. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "I wasn't sure where this would fit in" Posted by lee2 on 18:48:19 5/26/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:48:19, 5/26/2000 this was in reference to BadSusie's post before I knew she had a "hat" here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "don't forget" Posted by maundy on 17:48:35 5/26/2000 father [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Oh, fly" Posted by FT on 20:30:23 5/26/2000 You said: "Edie - You asked why the Rams would not comply with the BPD's request for an FBI polygraph. As I've posted before, there is real reason to worry about false results in a polygraph, especially if you are innocent. Even the FBI gets the wrong answer sometimes, as McCrary noted in one of his interviews. Maybe they worried too much about this, but it is a legit worry." ***** Honey chile, you left yourself WIDE OPEN there. There is real reason to worry about "false positive" results, even with the FBI? Fair enough. But your comments imply that there was NOT real reason to worry about "false positive" results with the hired-gun polygraphers that the Ramseys used. And, sadly, you are probably right. JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Excellent thread, Fran!" Posted by Ginja on 09:01:31 5/27/2000 I think I agree with you on every point you've made. FT, touche! This has been a Ramsey publicity stunt ever since the Ramseys stuck their foot in their mouths on LKL. They no more want to take the polygraph, or answer further questions, or participate in any way, shape or form in the their daughter's murder investigation today, than they did 3 1/2 years ago. And from Day One, they have always pointed their fingers at the police for screwing up -- point to anyone but themselves. They want to help the FBI form a task unit to investigate such heinous crimes against children. But don't ask them to allow that same FBI to participate in their own "situation". There is no "criminal defense" value to these polygraphs, regardless of the inconclusive/artifact/pass (finally!) results! The tests would have been inadmissible even if the FBI had administered the test. Couple that with the fact that privately gained 'evidence' is also inadmissible, (and that's what the Rams were looking for along, wasn't it? to be cleared if the test were positive?!) and you're left with publicity stunt, e.g., absolutely no value, in or outside a court room. It's "added value" they don't even need in the civil courts, even though bought tests are admissible. First, there was a "Crockumentary". This week, it's a "Polycrap" test. What will these two think of next? Actually, I don't think that's the problem. The Ramseys react...especially to and for public opinion. They're trying their own case before the public. And they're taking their cues from that same public. Of course, they're only taking on cues they can control and minipulate. If it's something they can't control, something they can't manipulate, something they're not sure of the outcome...you can rest assured they'll be no press conferences! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Ginja ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]