Justice Watch Discussion Board "Mystery Woman part 2" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Mystery Woman part 2, luvsflowers, 16:33:06, 6/02/2000 Luvs, lake, 16:41:10, 6/02/2000, (#1) But, lake, 16:57:07, 6/02/2000, (#2) mame and paralegal, maundy, 03:43:44, 6/03/2000, (#3) Who was at the party., Holly, 06:21:52, 6/03/2000, (#4) access to the victim , luvsflowers, 06:31:23, 6/03/2000, (#5) Luvsflowers, Ginja, 08:33:27, 6/03/2000, (#7) Ginja -You Hit the Nail on the Head, Fernandina, 17:52:48, 6/03/2000, (#15) Holly, Ginja, 07:46:55, 6/03/2000, (#6) Good grief , luvsflowers, 10:01:03, 6/03/2000, (#8) Should be Clear, lake, 14:11:05, 6/03/2000, (#9) Lake grows a Brain, mary99, 16:01:31, 6/03/2000, (#12) Great Post Lake!!!, JuneCleaver, 14:43:56, 6/03/2000, (#11) Lake, short timer, 14:18:49, 6/03/2000, (#10) short timer, mary99 and lake, darby, 17:39:59, 6/03/2000, (#14) coolio, lake..., maundy, 17:37:54, 6/03/2000, (#13) Lake, lee2, 18:39:50, 6/03/2000, (#18) All FW has to do, darby, 18:13:50, 6/03/2000, (#17) yes Mary99, luvsflowers, 18:02:12, 6/03/2000, (#16) The elusive Truth, mary99, 19:20:55, 6/03/2000, (#24) Redaction question, janphi, 18:50:35, 6/03/2000, (#20) Twilight Zone, Seashell, 18:50:17, 6/03/2000, (#19) Seashell, short timer, 19:12:14, 6/03/2000, (#21) if this deliberate confusion, Edie Pratt, 19:17:24, 6/03/2000, (#23) AND, lee2, 19:14:51, 6/03/2000, (#22) Seashell, short timer, Edie Pratt, lee2, mary99, 20:53:00, 6/03/2000, (#29) Darn It All, lake, 20:43:22, 6/03/2000, (#27) further clarification, luvsflowers, 20:24:12, 6/03/2000, (#25) luvsflowers, Gemini, 20:30:28, 6/03/2000, (#26) Gemini, short timer, 20:50:44, 6/03/2000, (#28) What good is DNA... , mary99, 21:49:30, 6/03/2000, (#30) Good analysis, mary99., Holly, 21:59:36, 6/03/2000, (#31) lake, mary 99, Seashell, 23:48:39, 6/03/2000, (#32) Seashell., Holly, 08:13:40, 6/04/2000, (#40) Seashell, darby, 00:56:33, 6/04/2000, (#34) OK, But, lake, 00:47:27, 6/04/2000, (#33) Yes lake., Holly, 08:21:33, 6/04/2000, (#41) lake, darby, 01:17:51, 6/04/2000, (#35) Well, darby, lake, 02:07:15, 6/04/2000, (#36) Oh my stars, luvsflowers, 05:42:10, 6/04/2000, (#37) burke not so free, maundy, 06:21:29, 6/04/2000, (#38) lake and darby, hareen, 07:23:45, 6/04/2000, (#39) The only way, Seashell, 10:15:28, 6/04/2000, (#42) This is such , momo, 11:02:25, 6/04/2000, (#43) Excellent posting, 99!!!, Ginja, 12:02:32, 6/04/2000, (#48) lake, hareen, darby, 11:30:33, 6/04/2000, (#45) Darby, Ginja, 12:23:34, 6/04/2000, (#50) Mary99, Gemini, 11:44:27, 6/04/2000, (#47) JR said the garrOAT, Edie Pratt, 11:39:47, 6/04/2000, (#46) Edie!!!!!!, Ginja, 12:35:34, 6/04/2000, (#51) LOL, Edie Pratt, 16:11:41, 6/04/2000, (#61) Ginja, Gemini, 12:16:34, 6/04/2000, (#49) Gem, Seashell, 12:54:38, 6/04/2000, (#54) Thanks, Gem, Ginja, 12:43:55, 6/04/2000, (#52) Ginja, lake, 14:43:30, 6/04/2000, (#57) We only have Fleet White's , Holly, 21:03:40, 6/05/2000, (#101) LOL, Summon the Fleet, Lacey, 14:41:24, 6/04/2000, (#56) Ginja, darby, 15:38:49, 6/04/2000, (#58) Why does original MW thread keep disappearin?, maundy, 15:49:02, 6/04/2000, (#59) Beeeeeg Sigh, Lacey, 15:59:44, 6/04/2000, (#60) "sigh", luvsflowers, 16:36:39, 6/04/2000, (#64) oh, darby, 16:20:25, 6/04/2000, (#62) Lacey, hareen, 16:42:05, 6/04/2000, (#65) Well, FW, lake, 16:27:53, 6/04/2000, (#63) And, lake, 16:49:02, 6/04/2000, (#67) right, lake, darby, 16:44:04, 6/04/2000, (#66) Just Some Thoughts..., JuneCleaver, 17:47:29, 6/04/2000, (#71) darby, lake, 17:09:34, 6/04/2000, (#69) Darby, hareen, 17:20:21, 6/04/2000, (#70) hareen, darby, 18:28:29, 6/04/2000, (#73) Note the GarOAT, janphi, 21:55:37, 6/04/2000, (#80) Post # 71, lake, 18:01:44, 6/04/2000, (#72) But, lake, 18:58:02, 6/04/2000, (#74) Lake, JuneCleaver, 21:21:54, 6/04/2000, (#77) lake, darby, 20:18:44, 6/04/2000, (#75) and also Lake, luvsflowers, 20:25:18, 6/04/2000, (#76) Well, lake, 21:40:45, 6/04/2000, (#79) Lake says, JuneCleaver, 22:32:16, 6/04/2000, (#83) June, lake, 22:53:26, 6/04/2000, (#85) Thankfully Lake,, JuneCleaver, 23:07:32, 6/04/2000, (#87) Ramseys, short timer, 21:30:28, 6/04/2000, (#78) But, lake, 21:56:43, 6/04/2000, (#81) Lake, short timer, 22:22:29, 6/04/2000, (#82) Well, lake, 22:43:00, 6/04/2000, (#84) Juvenile scenario and Polys, JuneCleaver, 23:04:57, 6/04/2000, (#86) Of course, lake, 23:13:51, 6/04/2000, (#88) Obviously, Seashell, 00:23:33, 6/05/2000, (#89) I say, lake, 01:36:24, 6/05/2000, (#90) Classical garrotting, Dunvegan, 02:58:12, 6/05/2000, (#91) Photo: Garrotting-Phillipine American War-WARNING: Violent I..., Dunvegan, 04:11:18, 6/05/2000, (#92) Thanks, Dunvegan, janphi, 04:26:08, 6/05/2000, (#93) The Philippines and Garrottes..., Dunvegan, 08:15:43, 6/05/2000, (#94) How do they pronounce, Florida, 08:21:49, 6/05/2000, (#95) Yet another use of garottes and scarves..., Dunvegan, 08:32:52, 6/05/2000, (#96) Garrote..., Pedro, 17:51:17, 6/05/2000, (#97) Pedro, darby, 18:02:27, 6/05/2000, (#98) Darby...., Pedro, 20:22:11, 6/05/2000, (#99) Thanks, Pedro, darby, 21:01:00, 6/05/2000, (#100) ................................................................... "Mystery Woman part 2" Posted by luvsflowers on 16:33:06 6/02/2000 I cant load the other thread Lake you say Gwen was at the party at Christmas and not the Halloween party as she told her daughter she was. Well--why dont we call the Rams and ask them if Gwen was at the dinner party? and did JBR and DW play with another female that night? If the BPD and the Whites wont release the guest list why wouldnt the Rams? Luvs [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Luvs" Posted by lake on 16:41:47 6/02/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:41:47, 6/02/2000 Good questions. But I don't say the mother was there. NJK says her mother told her by phone one the 12/27/96 that the mother and the neice of NJK were at the Whites dinner party on 12/25/96. As far as which party it was, ask the Ramseys the Whites and the BPD. My bet is that NJK's mother and the neice were there on 12/25/96. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "But" Posted by lake on 16:57:07 6/02/2000 Patsy Ramsey says there were two sisters of P. B. White at that dinner party. I can only account for one sister of P.B. White in what has been fed to the public. That one is the Allison person that Jams. claims has a last name of Shoeny. The Heather Cox person is represented as a neice of P.B. White. I know of a Heather Danialle Cox who would have been about 10 years old at the time of the murder. And a Heather Boykin (maiden name) who would have been about 21 at the time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "mame and paralegal" Posted by maundy on 03:43:44 6/03/2000 paralegal, i erally liked your response (#100) to mame's post (#64), over on the MW thread (the second not the first...) mame, right up front, post #64, when yuo said, "if i hear one more time....." oh, yeah. that one, and here's another, "i'm sure someone abused her (unspoken, the fruitloop)." that same canard was used by the Grand Jury that cleared everybody ut the victims in the Franklin case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Who was at the party." Posted by Holly on 06:21:52 6/03/2000 That's one thing Trujillo tried to sound confident about. Didn't he say he was ABSOLUTELY certain that the mother and niece were not there? Police are allowed to lie to get information. They can pretend to know something they don't know. They can pretend to be someone they aren't. They can ignore press release statements too. They can change course on a dime. Soemthing tells me Trujillo told a lie in an effort to gauge a reaction or elicit extra details. It is the one critical element of MW's claims. If it is absolutely true that MW's relatives weren't at the Whites, then why did it take 4 months to get to the bottom of it? And why would Mike Kane fly across the country to hear that sort of information for two days? Nope. I don't think it's the truth. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "access to the victim " Posted by luvsflowers on 06:31:23 6/03/2000 It is a known fact that anyone who had access to a victim in the previous 48 hours should be investigated. So the Rams need to release their guest list for the party on the 23rd. Why was JR having such a hard time remembering the guests in the Lee Hill deposition? Looks like he would want any and all possible perps looked at. Why the big secrecy? and if there was another sister of PW ( Gwen) at the White dinner party why are the Rams holding her name and the the name of the niece close to their chest? who is Gwen that she deserves all this hush hush secrecy? I went back and listened again to Robert Ressler the retired FBI profiler on line with Ann Devlin. I wholeheartedly agree with him that if the Rams did not do this crime they are withholding crucial information that the police need to solve this. Although he did say John Douglas should not have made the conclusions he did because of a lack of all the evidence needed to draw conclusions , Ressler did not necessarily disagree with him. A few notes: This is not an aborted kidnapping. The note is false and was used as a diversion to point away from what really happened. This crime is very smelly. Nothing logical or accurate in relationship to a real kidnapping. JB knew her killer. Ressler does not consider the Rams suspects in the actual death of the child but they harbour a guilty knowledge of the circumstances. They are concealing information from the police This is a highly unusual case. He has never seen a kidnap note and body in the same location. Something is really really wrong with that whole scenario. Should have been an easy investigation. The Rams were in conflict with the investigating authorities. A kidnapper does not enter a residence to kidnap. Removes them while playing or when getting off the bus. Greatly increases the risk if entering the home. A sexual predator would have left with the child--not taken her to the basement. Ressler believes the sexual assault was bizarre and was staged. The note was direct evidence for the police and should not have been left with the body still in the house. here is Resslers beliefs: No serilal killer or child predator did this crime. The parents are keeping information from the police. The was accidental not intential the motive was not a sexual assault. Amazed by the hriing of lawyers, PI's, Public relations firm and such early on. The Rams built a legal wall around themselves so that they wouldnt have to deal with the police. usually the family is bending over backwards to help the police. Some accident occurred and the Rams are holding that information from the police. The killer had total acccess to that home past and present. The child knew the killer and the killer knew the child. First observations are usually the best and Ressler is definately one of the best. Who did the Ressler conference and posted all the notes? Starling what that you? Do we still have that thread archived? Luvs [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Luvsflowers" Posted by Ginja on 08:33:27 6/03/2000 >It is a known fact that anyone >who had access to a victim >in the previous 48 hours should >be investigated. So the Rams >need to release their guest list >for the party on the 23rd. And what would it prove? If a woman was raped and murdered on Sunday, should her boyfriend that she had sex with on Friday be arrested? Anyways, where's the evidence that people at that party weren't investigated? Who were these other 73 people who had their dna and handwriting pulled and analyzed? Even the kids at the party had their mouths swabbed. > Why was JR having such >a hard time remembering the guests >in the Lee Hill deposition? Who said he wasn't 'faking it'? If he's clear-headed enough to remember 20+ people at his house 3 years ago, then surely he could remember other details from within his own walls on the 25th and 26th. JR and PR have avoided "answering" all questions. >Looks like he would want any >and all possible perps looked at. > Why the big secrecy? He does want all possible perps (and not possible perps!)investigated...there's certainly been no secret about that! So I find it absurd to think that if others were involved in this crime that he could blame, he wouldn't for sake of saving face. > and if there was another >sister of PW ( Gwen) at >the White dinner party why are >the Rams holding her name and >the the name of the niece >close to their chest? who >is Gwen that she deserves all >this hush hush secrecy? Again, what difference does it make who was at the party on the 23rd? What's of utmost importance is who was in the house on the 25th. Don't get me wrong...anyone with any kind of link to the Rams or who would have knowledge of the Rams personal lives must be investigated. And they were! >I went back and listened again to >Robert Ressler the retired FBI profiler >on line with Ann Devlin. >I wholeheartedly agree with him that >if the Rams did not do >this crime they are withholding crucial >information that the police need to >solve this. Why would the Rams lose everything -- money, status, livlihood, a child -- to protect someone else? If someone else was holding something over the Ramseys heads, this is the perfect out for the Rams to get protection and have the real perps arrested. Immunity has been put on the table, and they haven't requested it or taken the authorities up on it. Why? Because they can no more prove someone else is behind this than they can prove there was an intruder, sick friend or small foreign faction. >Although he did >say John Douglas should not have >made the conclusions he did because >of a lack of all the >evidence needed to draw conclusions , >Ressler did not necessarily disagree with >him. A few notes:This is >not an aborted kidnapping. The >note is false and was used >as a diversion to point away >from what really happened. This crime >is very smelly. Nothing logical >or accurate in relationship to a >real kidnapping.JB knew her killer. And all of the above is obvious, and was obvious to the FBI on the 26th. >Ressler does not consider the Rams >suspects in the actual death of >the child but they harbour >a guilty knowledge of the circumstances. Well this is new information. Where'd you pick this up from? Below are posts of Starry who attended a seminar by Ressler. (You asked and I just happened to have it on disk!) :-) Doesn't sound to me like Ressler doesn't consider the parents. I think the confusion here might be that Ressler thinks it was "accidental". Of course, I disagree. How does one "accidentally" strangle their child? How does one "accidentally" split their child's skull in half? How does one "accidentally" cause chronic sexual abuse? How does one "accidentally" write a bogus ransom note? Anyways, Luvs, I'm not disagreeing with you, really. Here's Starry's posts: "Ressler's Ramsey Analysis" Posted by starry on Jan-16-00 at 03:42 PM Retired FBI icon, Robert K Ressler, former Supervising Special Agent of the FBI Behavioral Science Unit instructed a class of mostly law enforcement and medical personnel, in a Continuing Education Course for George Mason University. Everything says the parents did it. The term would be a Personal cause homicide", "accidental domestic homicide" with staging. A complete description of classifications and lots more can be found in THE CRIMES CLASSIFICATION MANUAL obtained from Ressler's site and Amazon Books. Bottom line: criminal behaviors are consistent globally. They are categorized and identifiable to those trained to recognize the patterns/characteristics . The behaviors apparent in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey are known, documented behaviors. Ressler talked a lot about the ransom note. According to Ressler everything detectives needed to know in terms of "authenticity", is found in the first paragraph. The note is bogus. Some note insights from Ressler: Mr. Ramsey -- starts out formally ends up casually - Don't try to grow a brain John. We represent a small foreign faction - what nice kidnappers to identify themselves. In general mis-spellings unique -- difficult word like attache' correct, simple word like bussiness incorrect. "Harvard" word useage: behead, execution, hence, deviation, proper burial, possession attaché. Instead of killed, and, ignore, bury, have, briefcase A "real" ransom note says - We've got your kid. We want x dollars. We'll be in touch. Amount of money to be split is ridiculous. Kidnappers never identify themselves. Amount could not be coincidentally same as JR bonus. Kidnapper referring to adequate size attache' (what nice kidnappers) Ressler chuckled - "and by the way, pick up some milk". What a nice kidnapper advising John, be well rested. Group, we, gentlemen indicates multiple kidnappers BUT I will call you, is one kidnapper. So, how many people will split a paltry $118,000? Ressler says the note ends S.B.T.C , coincidentally the name that appeared on basement plaque. Ressler said that the ransom note sounded like a "bad ethnic joke". John and Burke gave handwriting samples and were cleared. Patsy gave 5 and has not been eliminated, according to Ressler. The note writer could have been ambidextrous. All night to stage and write, according to Ressler. Ressler says Patsy wrote the note. To be continued "HI Ya, Tee." Posted by starry on Jan-16-00 at 11:25 PM >Starry, First Hi and thanks for >the summary. Second, did >he comment on the sexual >aspect of the crime? Hi ya tee, where ya been? He said that he believed it was an "accidental domestic homicide" staged. It falls under the category of Personal Cause Homicides in the Crime Classification Manual. He also said that kidnappers aren't after sex, they're after money. He's never seen a case of a sexual kidnapping. I know a lot of you will think Polly Klass, but that was a different type of crime. That was a sexual homicide. Sexual Homicide: Involves a sexual element as the basis for the sequence of acts leading to death. This may vary from offender- from rape, penetration, fondling, etc. He removed her from her home for the sex. Not for ransom. "Note;No Body.. No Body;Note" Posted by starry on Jan-16-00 at 08:32 PM Ressler said no note - body found is ok. But if there is a note, there shouldn't be a body. Just prior to FBI arrival, Arndt told JR to search the house.. JR made a beeline downstairs to an already searched area. There's a body this time. Ressler inferred the POLICE had already looked in that room and couldn't find a light switch. He observed, "What's the matter, don't police carry flashlights any more?" Ramsey contaminated scene and even bumped JB's head carrying her up the steps like a plank of wood. He stressed there have been cases that have been worse compromised and still solved. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Ginja -You Hit the Nail on the Head" Posted by Fernandina on 17:59:40 6/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:59:40, 6/03/2000 Why would the Rams lose everything -- money, status, livlihood, a child -- to protect someone else? >>>>>>>>> THERE you SAID IT! Because YOU put it in the correct ORDER!! They care first of the money-then the status then the livlihood -and then last -after everything BAD that has happened to them is the poor little girl. They care more about being mad at Beckner and saying sarcastic things about him and have more anguish and angst about him and the police than they have exhibited about the child's killer.. Yeah yeah yeah - we know -he walks the streets .and so on and so on and so on-(YAWN) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Holly" Posted by Ginja on 07:46:55 6/03/2000 > And why would Mike Kane >fly across the country to hear >that sort of information for two >days? This flies in the face of those who claim the BPD and DA just dropped the ball on this case. Just because many don't like the results doesn't mean MW's accusations weren't investigated. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Good grief " Posted by luvsflowers on 10:19:18 6/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:19:18, 6/03/2000 Ginja here are your quotes And what would it prove? If a woman was raped and murdered on Sunday, should her boyfriend that she had sex with on Friday be arrested? no---go back and read it again---I said investigated NOT arrested. What is with the lack of comprehension lately? Who said he wasn't 'faking it'? If he's clear-headed enough to remember 20+ people at his house 3 years ago, then surely he could remember other details from within his own walls on the 25th and 26th. JR and PR have avoided "answering" all questions. yes this is my point--he can remember but he chooses not too--why???? what is the secret? so Im not sure what you are questioning me about this--I was making that point He does want all possible perps (and not possible perps!)investigated...there's certainly been no secret about that! So I find it absurd to think that if others were involved in this crime that he could blame, he wouldn't for sake of saving face. Yes he would if he is innocent--but it looks like they are withholding info--why?? could it be they must be involved in some way ?? are you attacking me because you think I am trying to absolve them? I assure you that is not the case. This is the point--if he could point to someone else he would--but he cant because there is no one else. Sort of a reverse sort of explanation. Again, what difference does it make who was at the party on the 23rd? because they had access to the house and the child --maybe even they saw some things that could be suspiscious--they were in the house and around JBR . So why is it such a big secret who was there? No one will release this guest list. Im wondering why. And all of the above is obvious, and was obvious to the FBI on the 26th. yes and this is my post and I am making some points so if you dont want to hear it just scroll on by. I dont attack you for your run on foverever posts that I dont consider to be chock full of relevant information so please return the favor. In fact I dont think I have ever spoken one word to you on this forum. If one has a question or comment one should ask it. I dont intend to give you a line by line dissection again. Well this is new information. Where'd you pick this up from? No this is NOT new information Did you not read the whole thread before you started dissecting it?? Comprehension problems again?? Shesssh I said it was RIGHT after the crime in an online interview with Ann Devlin--cant you find the link yourself?? go to Ken Polzins page. I was making the point about first impressions and that is specifally why I asked for the updated notes from the most recent Ressler interview since I knew his impressions would change since we now have way much more information. My god Ginja did you wake up this morning and have no coffee in the house? How does one "accidentally" strangle their child? How does one "accidentally" split their child's skull in half? How does one "accidentally" cause chronic sexual abuse? How does one "accidentally" write a bogus ransom note? These comments were made before hardly any info had been released. See above where I said his impressions would change because we now have so much more info. and that is why I want his updated quotes which you have so thoughtfully provided so your post wasnt a total waste at least. At the time of this interview Im quoting the note had not even been released. Get a grip girl. I have no idea why you are dissecting me. I think the Rams are in this up to their hairy eyeballs and I am trying to figure out why they are screaming they are innocent but their actions are screaming Im guilty please put me in jail!! If they did not do the actual deed they are the cause of it and they know who did. So Im using Ressler to try to get to the bottom. What is your agenda? Luvs ( was this a rant post?? Oh good I never had one!! Im entitled!!) and I do appreciate the newer Ressler quotes which is what I was after all along. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Should be Clear" Posted by lake on 14:25:23 6/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:25:23, 6/03/2000 That the Ramsesy and the Whites are misdirecting in this case. The BPD lets the Ramseys make BPD look like village idiots and the DA lets the Whites make him look like the village idiot. And the Gov. says the case is on the right track. Well the right track is probably the siding track that it has been on for about 2 years. Fleet White allows the media to present him (for 2 years) as someone that has the key to solving the case but is just waiting for a trial to let it all hang out. The Ramseys allow the media to present them as the killers of their daughter for years. The Ramseys blame the BPD and the Whites blame the DA for everything that is wrong in this case. Now, more than 3 years after the killing a woman from Ca. comes forward with info. that she thinks may have direct or indirect impact on the murder of JBR. A "match made on heaven" for the Ramseys if they are pulling a scam. People allegedly connected to some pretty weird behavior with little grils that are friends with the Whites and have visited the Whites within days or months of the murder of JBR. But do the Rs and their team jump on the find publically and demand that the BPD, the FBI and the Russan Army take these charges seriously because even a tree stump should be able to see the probabilities that lay within these allegations? No. The Ramseys move the spotlight to them by taking a PG and debating Steve Thomas on LKL. Even run out the Psychic sketch of the killer. And not a peep out of the Ramseys about the "match made in heaven" with the California connection. Even FW does not appear to think that it is necessary to publically defend his family name from the public allegations of the MW. Contrast that to the need FW had to defend the reputation of the City of Boulder when he said the DA was destroying the moral of the BPD. Hey, the man had lived in Boulder only for about 2 years in 1996. And Beckner just sits at his desk and postures about the need for the FBI to administer a PG and says he needs to interview the Ramseys seperately about "new" developments in the case since the end of the GJ. And honest indian, he tried, but the BPD just could not find any connection between the MW claims and the killing of JBR. Could it be any clearer than that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Lake grows a Brain" Posted by mary99 on 16:01:31 6/03/2000 Lake said: The Ramseys and the Whites are misdirecting in this case. The BPD lets the Ramseys make BPD look like village idiots and the DA lets the Whites make him look like the village idiot. And the Gov. says the case is on the right track. TRUE! The Ramseys and the Whites are both hiding guilty knowledge! The Whites and Ramseys have never stuck up for each other - in fact, both couples have engaged in mutual finger-pointing, a heated argument that 'never happened', and now are estranged, even though JR won't admit it. What's wrong with this picture? The Rams and Whites play the same Catch-22 game that JR and PR play; pointing at each other to deflect suspicion from themselves. JR has done a great job to date framing PR. For a loving and trusting husband, he says the durndest things. JR: "I know she didn't do it, but I was asleep." PR: "I know he didn't do it, but I was asleep." The Whites want the DA removed because he didn't indict their 'friends' in a hurry, despite the lack of conclusive evidence needed to convict at trial. The Ramseys told the police to look into the Whites, announced they had passed out many house keys, and admitted the note writer knew many personal details about the Ramseys. Lake posted: Fleet White allows the media to present him (for 2 years) as someone that has the key to solving the case but is just waiting for a trial to let it all hang out. The Ramseys allow the media to present them as the killers of their daughter for years. The Ramseys blame the BPD and the Whites blame the DA for everything that is wrong in this case. A contrived stalemate! As long as both the Ramseys and the Whites hold crucial pieces of the puzzle, and neither the Ramseys nor the Whites choose to divulge the secret that binds them 'together in animosity', this case will go unsolved. More from Lake: Now, more than 3 years after the killing a woman from Ca. comes forward with info. that she thinks may have direct or indirect impact on the murder of JBR. A "match made in heaven" for the Ramseys if they are pulling a scam. People allegedly connected to some pretty weird behavior with little girls that are friends with the Whites and have visited the Whites within days or months of the murder of JBR. But do the Rs and their team jump on the find publically and demand that the BPD, the FBI and the Russan Army take these charges seriously because even a tree stump should be able to see the probabilities that lay within these allegations? That is most damning; when the scapegoat is close at hand, the Ramseys do -- NOTHING. Lake: No. The Ramseys move the spotlight to them by taking a PG and debating Steve Thomas on LKL. Even run out the Psychic sketch of the killer. And not a peep out of the Ramseys about the "match made in heaven" with the California connection. WHY NOT?? Isn't this the perfect time to announce that new developments have helped to identify the 'intruder' and exonerate the Ramseys, at last??? More from Lake: Even FW does not appear to think that it is necessary to publically defend his family name from the public allegations of the MW. If she's lying, why won't he prove it? A.K. says it took a only few phone calls, so let's hear it, FW!! Lake: Contrast that to the need FW had to defend the reputation of the City of Boulder when he said the DA was destroying the morale of the BPD. Hey, the man had lived in Boulder only for about 2 years in 1996. Because FW is a phony, saving his A$$ and calling it 'public service.' How well he conned so many at JW! He's turned into a phantom lately and missed a great opportunity to fund Ben Thompson's campaign for DA with a fat check, all tax-deductible. WHY? Isn't Ben Thompson the guy who embodies what Hunter lacked? Or has MW complicated his life too much? Lake: And Beckner just sits at his desk and postures about the need for the FBI to administer a PG and says he needs to interview the Ramseys separately about "new" developments in the case since the end of the GJ. And honest indian, he tried, but the BPD just could not find any connection between the MW claims and the killing of JBR. Could it be any clearer than that? Why is it so hard to see that the evidence presented by MW can exculpate the Ramseys, allow them to win all their lawsuits, and then some, yet they are mute. If she is telling the truth, and the Ramseys weren't involved, she is manna from heaven... WHY don't they pursue this woman, her story, her evidence, her leads?? Why aren't they proclaiming the case is solved, in their usual overstated way?? Why didn't we hear at the polygraph press conference about her important new evidence?? WHY didn't they tell Thomas off on LKL when he came right out and accused them?? Thomas: "Patsy, I think you're good for it." How could they sit and sputter, knowing this woman's testimony sits in a shelved police file because the BPD could find 'no link'? WHY didn't they attack Thomas, and rail against the BPD one more time, for botching the investigation into her claims? I can't make it any clearer than Lake's post. I can only add that ANYONE who thinks the Ramseys aren't in some way implicated by MW's evidence, in some hideous scheme to cover up the abuse and death of JonBenet, at their own hands or the hands of a co-conspirator, isn't facing reality. Everything the Ramseys have said and done implies their guilt. Everything MW has alluded to could exonerate the Ramseys unless they were involved too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Great Post Lake!!!" Posted by JuneCleaver on 14:43:56 6/03/2000 You are finally making sense. I hope this is the beginning of a new trend for you. Actually, I have agreed with alot of your posts lately, just haven't had time to let you know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Lake" Posted by short timer on 14:18:49 6/03/2000 Good post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "short timer, mary99 and lake" Posted by darby on 17:39:59 6/03/2000 short timer--thanks for what you said on the other thread. mary99--regarding a certain gutsy post of yours on the other thread--Believe me, you aren't the first one to wonder about that sort of thing. You won't be the last. lake: Clear? I'm not sure. Are you trying to say that there is only one good explanation why FW, who has never before been shy about becoming a public figure (letters, letters, letters), has chosen to remain mum this time? Are you saying that there is only one good explanation why the Ramseys, who normally grab onto any perp in the storm for dear life, have chosen to utter not a peep when the perfect perp is right in front of them? If so, then I suppose the answer is crystal clear. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "coolio, lake..." Posted by maundy on 17:37:54 6/03/2000 and droll, too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Lake" Posted by lee2 on 18:39:50 6/03/2000 Because I'm relatively new to this forum (a few months or so) it has taken me quite awhile to see exactly where it is you're coming from. Ironically - I never realized until your very eloquent post (above) that my own beliefs appear to so closely parallel yours. Thank you for putting it out on the line like you did. Bravo. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "All FW has to do" Posted by darby on 18:18:39 6/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:18:39, 6/03/2000 to clear his name is demand for MW to come up with the documentation she says she has. If she can't come up with it, he's clear. Lawsuits can follow. And no, he shouldn't have to do this. But the reality of his situation is that this is a way to clear things up for good. And if it can ever be shown that the allegations against the Whites are totally false, I'll be very interested in what the motivation was for MW and all of her supporters to want to destroy Fleet White. Who is really behind it? Would the Ramseys do this? Sounds like a great idea until you look at it carefully. I know the Rammers aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, but it would really be especially stupid to dig up a woman to allege that your best friends like to molest and garrote kids at parties--including Christmas parties--with other adults. Not when the Ramseys themselves were also in attendance at their friends' Christmas party the night the Rams' daughter turned up molested and garroted...and dead--and hidden IN the Ramseys' house. If not the Ramseys, then I wonder who else might be behind the scam if indeed MW is just a bad seed? Someone who simply hates FW, perhaps? Someone who will somehow profit big time from the undoing of FW? Perhaps. But what a stroke of luck it would be to happen upon a friend of the White family who has actually been victimized repeatedly by a garrote as a child--the same bizarre device used on JBR! Gee, here I am, a middle-aged woman who was pretty wild in my younger days, and even *I* have yet to bump into a single soul who is either a garroter OR a garrotee. MW would be quite a find indeed for someone intent on destroying the Whites. And to think that she was even willing to go along with the scam--what luck. Maybe there are better explanations? lake, you're on a roll tonight--do you have any? edited to add: "and dead" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "yes Mary99" Posted by luvsflowers on 18:02:12 6/03/2000 thats what I been spouting too. thanks for being so clear. Bravo. If the Rams were innocent they would be screaming from the roof tops about the MW and her claims. But for some reason they cant. And it seems they are not releasing some names of some people who were either at their party on the 23rd or the Whites dinner party on the 25th. So--who are they protecting and why? Because all roads lead to the Rams--er I mean Rome. Else they would be giving up these people in a New York minute. Luvs [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "The elusive Truth" Posted by mary99 on 20:07:15 6/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:07:15, 6/03/2000 Luvsflowers, you want to know WHY the Ramseys 'don't remember' and haven't given the complete list of all their guests at the party on the 23rd. You KNOW the answer; it's because the complete guest list would include people they can't acknowledge, in light of the murder. Amounts to giving incriminating evidence. Of course PR had a guest list, of course they remember who was there, but they have to pretend they can't. To give all the names, except for THE HINKY ONES, (namely the woman from CA and her niece, is incriminating. Better to be stupid-looking than truly stupid by giving the complete list. Leaving out only 'the hinky one' and her niece looks too purposeful to be an accident. Willfully, knowingly concealing evidence is punishable by law. I'm not sure what the penalty is, if any, for lying to law enforcement during an interview, (explains why there was no police interrogation, anyway) but a sworn statement such as JR gave under oath when he 'couldn't recall' the guest list for the party is certainly subject to perjury. Better to be dumb than indicted for murder! I've no doubt that there was somebody there that night whose presence they regret very much. "Too late to change history, but never too late to lie!", is their motto. Just by JR having this type of faulty memory, they both look bad. JR's incredulty at being expected to remember the events of three years ago comes out in the Stephen Miles/Lee Hill interrogatory. If this was just any old party, who would remember the guest list down to the last guest 3 years later? It's not just any old party out of the hundreds PR has hostessed, JR! It's the one 48 hours before she died, the one where a mysterious 911 call was placed, and the one where JonBenet wouldn't perform and didn't feel 'pretty.' But their precious daughter is dead, and all that remains are memories. Surely in the last three years they have gone over those last days, hour by hour, minute by minute, looking for someone to accuse...they have sighted on everyone but the CA guests. Were they ever at the Ramseys? Could it be that by the Ramseys not admitting the CA guests were present at the party, the Rams have squandered a perfect opportunity to 'tie them in' to the subsequent murder and MW allegations? So, if they chose not to name the 'hinky one' and her niece, they have painted themselves into a corner in light of MW's testimony. They can't use the garrotting molester from CA because they deny the CA guests. WHY did they never mention those unnamed guests, or cast suspicion upon them? Given an anonymous person from another state coming forward with a similar description of ritual abuse, sexual slavery and garrotting, I would automaticly wonder if the crimes were related. That MW knows the Whites and her relatives admitted to visiting the Whites in Boulder, though not that Christmas, and given that there is a long and detailed theraputic record citing the names and events which co-relate to the murder, long before JonBenet was even born seems to serendipitous to be true. Just because it's a perfect fit, does not mean it must be false. I see Ginja's point, (and BTW, you were harsh on her as she always brings more knowledge and legal insight than I could ever hope to have to this forum), that the guy who has sex with someone Fri. is not guilty by association of a rape on Sunday. It takes more than that to convict a person of rape. But placing a sex ring member at the Ramsey home on the 23rd will do more than show access to the victim. There's the 911 call. There's also the Ramsey 'amnesia' which conveniently forgot a guest who is a sexual abuser. BUT, if there were people in Boulder from CA who were at either the Ramseys party on the 23rd or the Whites party the 25th, and if those people have a well-documented history of garrotting little girls for sick thrills, that is critical information that shouldn't be swept under the rug. So far the Ramseys can't, don't or won't remember, but MW does. She has laid the entire scenario out for the BPD, yet they found 'no connection'. OK, I'll take that at face value. That means no direct connection to Jonbenet's murder, at this time. Does not mean no evidence that supports MW story. Does not mean she's lying or her allegations of abuse by the White family are false. Just, "We can't make an arrest based on what she says right now." It takes a lot to catch a group of offenders vs one single offender. That PR claimed on LKL that the killer and the ransom note author are one and the same tells me they're NOT. Patsy's as predictable as a cuckoo clock; whatever she says, the reverse is the truth. So, if she wrote the note, which I believe she did do, who bashed JonBenet's head? Who garrotted her?? Part II coming up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Redaction question" Posted by janphi on 18:50:35 6/03/2000 What about that rumor that the mayor was one of the redacted party attendee names. Was that proven to be false and am I perpetuating a lie by bringing it up? If so, very sorry. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Twilight Zone" Posted by Seashell on 18:50:17 6/03/2000 lake is making sense and now I'm really suspicious! lake writes: "The Ramseys blame the BPD and the Whites blame the DA for everything that is wrong in this case." I never looked at it quite this way, and now that I do, it looks planned, diabolically so. To make yourself look good, make the authorities, all of them, look very bad, incompetent, cowardly, dishonest. What comes to mind is the saying partners in crime. And yes, while the focus is on the Ram TV fiascos, MW is in the background. Carnival time Patsy and John! MW is still on our minds. JR better build that frame a littler sturdier and heftier around Patsy. I wonder now if making Patsy the patsy was also planned diabolically WITH HER KNOWLEDGE. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Seashell" Posted by short timer on 19:12:14 6/03/2000 I had never thought of it that way before either. Now that Lake points it out it was a good plan. Both parties end up discrediting the DA, the BPD and the FBI, and they also pit everyone against each other so there are constant rumors and innuendos floating around. FW has an inside ear to the BPD (ST) and PR/JR have an inside ear to the DA (LS) so there are no surprises happening. They can counter anything they hear by starting another rumor. Not only that but it's worked! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "if this deliberate confusion" Posted by Edie Pratt on 19:18:05 6/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:18:05, 6/03/2000 is true, then that means the Ramseys and the Whites are still in communication. There's just no way they couldn't be, and pull any of this off. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "AND" Posted by lee2 on 19:14:51 6/03/2000 if they create a "rift" between the two of them that's witnessed by enough people - you muddy the waters even further. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Seashell, short timer, Edie Pratt, lee2" Posted by mary99 on 20:53:00 6/03/2000 You are all, finally, seeing the picture I've tried so hard to paint. Yes, FW has engineered the perception of a 'rift' between himself and the Ramseys. As the 'White Knight' who stands for justice for a murdered child's, he had us sobbing in our hankies. IT'S A BIG LIE !! He pitted himself against Hunter for a reason; Hunter was not so sure it was only a bedwetting issue that went out of control. Hunter saw the extreme sadism, the brutality, the prior sexual abuse, the almost pornographic sexualization, the parent's reticence to meet with police, the circling of the wagons by the Ramseys attorneys and just knew it wasn't as simple as a parent losing control. Hunter may be many things, and nobody will say he is hasty, but he did know this case wasn't 'ripe' as he put it. Too many pieces missing. Too much flack from the FW camp. IMO, Hunter wasn't bothered by the FW diatribes against him as much as he was curious to know WHY it mattered so much to FW that the Ramseys hadn't been charged. FW was in the Hell Hole first. He neither saw nor smelled a body in that room. How did JR make a beeline for the Hell Hole and discover what FW missed? Only conclusion to come to is: someone's lying. If FW gave witness testimony that there was no body in the Hell Hole when he first searched, charges would have been filed and the GJ would have found sufficient evidence to indict the Ramseys. But which Ramsey? The finger-pointing game again. Patsy wrote the note. John sexually abused her. Patsy hit her on the head. John experimented with a crude garrotte. Did FW write the note? Sexually abuse JB? Hit her on the head? Use a crude garrotte? Who among these people killed JonBenet? But someone the Ramseys knew, who was invited to Boulder for the Christmas holiday, was familiar and accustomed to such degeneraate behavior. How else would they gain access to the Ramsey home? Invited in the front door as guests, tiptoeing in 48 hours later? Extra keys, no problem. FW most likely did have a spare Ramsey key. FW had a rental home down the street that was supposedly unoccupied (by a steady tenant) at the time of the murder. Could the CA guests have slept there, only a minute or two away from the Ramseys on foot? What about the walker thought to be JAR that somebody saw that AMof the 26th? So it wasn't JAR, he was in Georgia. Who, then, might it have been? Wouldn't most Boulderites be asleep and not walking around early/late in the wee hours? Could it have been one of the youngish CA guests? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Darn It All" Posted by lake on 20:43:22 6/03/2000 I must have taken a wrong turn. Too many people agree with that post. Pretend it never happened. Let me back track here. But, the beauty of it is that there is no single answer to the WHY of the obvious suspect behavior of all the players in this case. 1) Did BR do it because of some influence of a juvenile connected to the Whites and mom coverup without really knowing WHY it had happened but suspecting that IT MAY HAVE happen? 2) Did some other juvenile connected to the Whites do the deed and BR played a minor role and PR & JR knew nothing for sure when PR called 911 but suspected the worst and yet "knew in their hearts" that the worst just could not be? 3) I can't go for the adult killer bit, but that is an option. But this one makes the weakest option to me. JR and PR are not likely to let any adult abuse that little girl, kill her and get away with it. And there is no evidence to suggest that the Rs exhibited child abuse or child sexual molestation in the past. That is why Thomas had to come up with that silly hypothesis in his book. But NJK holds the key to that question regarding the Whites. And Fleet White has not set his hair on fire publicly denouncing NJK like he did the DA when he was sooo concerned about the moral of the BPD and how the the JBR case might hurt the tourist trade in the fine city of Boulder. And the absence of conclusive evidence does not equate to absence of invlovement by one in a crime. And that applies to the Whites or one or more of their guests as well as the Ramseys. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "further clarification" Posted by luvsflowers on 20:24:12 6/03/2000 not that it has anything to do per se with this thread--god knows how this got so involved-but Mary now that you have had another excellent post I have to address this one comment you made to me: I see Ginja's point, (and BTW, you were harsh on her as she always brings more knowledge and legal insight than I could ever hope to have to this forum), that the guy who has sex with someone Fri. is not guilty by association of a rape on Sunday. I never said arrest him for anything. Investigate---question--help them to remember details--thats what I said. And harsh is as harsh does--or something like that. No--the guy may not have anything to do with the crime on Sun--but he was with the victim right prior to the crime--and say he noticed someone following the victim and eyeing her--now wouldnt that be relevant to the crime?? but the authorities wouldnt know that if they didnt question him----which is what I said--NOT ARREST him for the crime. And so it follows that the people surrounding JBR on that fateful 48 hour time frame may have pertinent information--so why wouldnt the Rams give all those names that MAY know something about their childs murder-----UNLESS to give those names would incriminate themselves Argghhhhh there I have arrived at the point!!! Blessed day. Good God I must move on to another subject. Had no idea I would have to defend a fleeting passing thought in such a way. Its neither here nor there but I was making a point that the Rams should give up the names of anyone who was with JBR in the last 48 hours because they may have relevant info--but they havent given up the names---and WHY havent they??? because they cant!!! enough--Im out for the night. Luvs [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "luvsflowers" Posted by Gemini on 20:30:28 6/03/2000 I see your point, perfectly. Maybe Ginja just didn't read carefully enough and misunderstood. I'll go you one better. I think the BPD should have taken forensics samples from all the CA folks ... and if they didn't, proceed to do it now. Then, if all seems OK, clear them as they have others. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Gemini" Posted by short timer on 20:50:44 6/03/2000 I agree 100%. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "What good is DNA... " Posted by mary99 on 21:49:30 6/03/2000 In a case without any good-quality DNA forensic samples? JonBenet's degraded fingernail DNA could have come from scratching a friends itchy back. There's no proof lurking in the DNA. With all the testing the BPD has done, there has been no 'match'. Sure, we've been led to believe that the mitochondrial tests were done to isolate JR. Jonbenet and Burke share the same maternal line mDNA. Patsy and JR have completely different DNA. This just can't be a DNA 'proof' case. Parental DNA in the underwear or under the fingernails may be hinky, but without conclusive supporting proof, it proves nothing. Luvsflowers, I knew you were making the connection between what happened the 23rd and the 25th, and I agree. They were proximate, they had access, and they may be sexual abusers. All good reasons to check those guests out thoroughly. Trouble arises when the key people who should be checked out aren't on the guest list. Ginja, I know how you refuse to make any leaps!...read: assumptions. Yes, the party on the 23rd was 'checked out'. But were all the guests checked out? What the Ramseys didn't say may come back to haunt them. True, a man who has sex Fri. night is not guilty of murder on Sunday. But, if the police are doing their job, they will find out where the victim spent her last days and in whose company. If for no other reason than to exclude, the Fri. night companion should be matched against forensic evidence, especially if he is innocent. This case will not come down to DNA, IMO. It's too degraded to take seriously. It's use as an exculpatory tool may be exploited by the Ramsey defense. That's where MW comes in. Her evidence is so clear and precise, linking FW to her family through generational abuse, and the M.O. is so clearly similar to how JonBenet died, its very important to get her to testify. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Good analysis, mary99." Posted by Holly on 21:59:36 6/03/2000 I do think every single person who had contact with JB between 12/23 and the arrival home on 12/26 should be swabbed. Today's crapola DNA is tomorrow's breakthrough. The science improves daily. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "lake, mary 99" Posted by Seashell on 23:48:39 6/03/2000 Ah shucks, lake, you had to go and spoil it all by mentioning the juvies again and trying to exonerate JR and PR. Nope! Mary 99, you say: "He pitted himself against Hunter for a reason; Hunter was not so sure it was only a bedwetting issue that went out of control." ST in his book states that AH had fingered Patsy very early on. What makes you think AH thought it may not have been bedwetting gone awry? I've never heard him say that or anything like that. I'm not yet ready to make nasties against FW Junior, but I'm not in love with Senior or with GPP. The fingers are pointing in so many directions, we need more fingers - and more directions! I still place JR and PR right smack in the middle of the murder. They know what happened. More will be revealed..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Seashell." Posted by Holly on 08:13:40 6/04/2000 I do not buy the juvie theory either. Although ,if we learn differnet down the road, I'll accept it. The weird thing about the MW bashing is that is seems the bashers are assuming this lets the Garroters off the hook, replacing them with Fleet White. That's not it at all. The Garroters are not exculpated by anything MW has said that I know of. BPD says no evidence FW murdered JB and no evidence the Garroters are in a sex ring. Same as saying, the Whites are in a sex ring and the Garroters killed JB. Or purty durn close... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Seashell" Posted by darby on 00:56:33 6/04/2000 About Alex Hunter--I do think that if he ever agreed with the Patsy-in-a-rage-over-bedwetting theory, he must have changed his mind. One obvious reason I think this is so is that he never signed an indictment. Plus, the last time I saw Hunter on television, he specifically mentioned the garroting as something that a mother in a rage just doesn't normally end up doing. What this tells me is that Hunter wisely saw the garrote as the weakness in the bedwetting rage theory. Even the vaginal injury could be seen as some type of abusive punishment for bedwetting. But how is garroting a child a logical next step after a murderous bedwetting rage? Even if you see it as pure staging--what part of a staged kidnapping calls for the use of a garrote? I think that the garrote has always been the biggest hurdle to overcome in the whole crime. Its use removed any hope of a simple explanation for the murder and coverup. Everything else could fall right into place, perhaps, but how the heck did a garrote get around that child's neck? I think that Alex Hunter considered both the garrote and the sexual abuse and decided that either the police were going down the wrong path, or more evidence was still needed to connect the dots in a simple bedwetting rage. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "OK, But" Posted by lake on 00:49:33 6/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:49:33, 6/04/2000 Discount the juvenile angle at your own risk. The BPD has yet to release the 911 tape after more than three years. The BPD has not seen fit to make public the names sealed at the request of the DA in the search warrent of the Ramsey home of 12/26/96. The BPD has not seen fit to disclose the location of and the reason for the search warrent of which the entire contents still remains under seal after more than three years. This spells juveniles. And the GJ was sworn to secrecy and the GJ proceedings are under seal after all the leaking that Thomas and Company did for the first 18 months of this case. And this spells juvenile involvement in the crime. BR was the last to appear before the GJ and the day after his appearance before the GJ it was reported that the BPD was out taking DNA samples from an exteded family of four. And less than a week later, BR was officially cleared by the DA and the BPD. Juveniles. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Yes lake." Posted by Holly on 08:21:33 6/04/2000 The juvie theory IS possible. Nearly every cop I talk to has said that from day one. I just don't quite see it. Morgan will tell you I thought Burke or juvie for 8 months because the stick/garrote looked - well, so JUVENILE/crude. But about the time I joined JW, I re-thought things and my thinking has continued to evolve. Still, the forensics supposedly lead to Patsy Ramsey. Charge her, prosecute her and perhaps the full truth will be revealed. And the full truth will prolly involve a sex ring, the Whites and maybe even juveniles as victims or perps. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "lake" Posted by darby on 01:17:51 6/04/2000 The Ramseys would have no choice but to cover for even an adult killer IF the Ramseys themselves had been involved in something horrible that the killer knew about and could reveal if he ever was taken down. I've often heard talk of a portrait of JBR in the Charlevoix home where she was wearing nothing but a feather boa. If these parents allowed this picture to be taken and then were even willing to display it prominently, who is to say that they didn't allow their daughter to particpate in other, even more unsavory activities that they wouldn't want known? Who is to say that JBR wasn't killed by someone who has knowledge that the Ramseys allowed or even participated in something which compromised their daughter? If this were the case, the Ramseys might have gone to extraordinary lengths to cover up the crime. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Well, darby" Posted by lake on 02:07:15 6/04/2000 A naked picture of a baby does not a child molester make. If that were the case both my parents, the parents of my wife, my next door neighbor and about 1/2 to 3/4 of the parents in America would be child molesters. And you have to look to Burke in such a speculation. The Ramseys were much too free in letting BR go back to school and interact with other kids right after the murder. Heck, they acted like BR was some stranger if you notice him in the news clips. Many just hang on to the Rs and molesters because they need to. Not because of any evidence of that. But the close friends of the Rs may be a different matter from the evidence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Oh my stars" Posted by luvsflowers on 05:42:10 6/04/2000 thanks be to you Gemini. I never brought up no guy having sex Fri and getting arrested for killing on Sunday--just ask the guy some questions. LOL But Im thrilled that you see the point. And yes I agree the post was most likely read in haste and misunderstood. But Lake--if there was a juvenile that committed the crime and all the authorities and parents know it--then it should be announced ( but not their name if they cant) and put the case and us out of our misery. Case closed. Luvs [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "burke not so free" Posted by maundy on 06:21:29 6/04/2000 in the POS, the Ramseys said they had lots of security surrounding him at school. there was even a name for the team. if i were burke i think i'd feel like i were being wactched. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "lake and darby" Posted by hareen on 07:25:34 6/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:25:34, 6/04/2000 Lake, I waited all last night for you to come back and say you were talking about juveniles. I see you finally did. You made a pretty good case for that. But I don't believe it. I asked you a question over on the "Have You Seen This Man?" thread. Are you going to answer it? Darby, your post #34 makes a lot of sense, as usual. But I'd like to hear your take on why the stick/brush was left on the rope. That trips me up in every scenario (JR, BR, friends of MW) in which a garrote might have been a part of the original crime, rather than just used as staging. I can see leaving the rope, since it, or something used prior to it, made marks on her neck. But the stick would point directly to the real cause of the strangulation -- the very thing they were trying to hide. All I've been able to think of is that maybe another "stick" was used originally and then replaced with the brush to make it look amateurish or like an intruder fashioned it on the spot. Or, to really get convoluted, I suppose it could have been intended to look like staging to frame PR. That all feels like pretty weak reasoning, though. So, darby ... ? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "The only way" Posted by Seashell on 10:15:28 6/04/2000 right now I could buy the juvie theory would be if all three Ramseys were involved, with the parents covering for Burke. BUT, they would have found out that he can't be prosecuted within hours - end of case - unless they were afraid themselves of being prosecuted as accessories. Unless they consulted a lawyer in the middle of the night, how would they know that Burke couldn't be prosecuted (assuming BURKE hit her in a bedwetting rage - maybe ST is close to the truth but he's got the wrong perp - I've entertained the notion that JBR climbed into bed with Burke, wet the bed AND Burke and Burke, very angry, grabbed the maglite that Patsy said was kept next to his bed and bopped her. This is not that far fetched). Thinking JBR dead, JR and PR proceeded to stage the crime, thinking that Burke would surely go to jail for killing his sister and maybe the head blow didn't kill her. The other juvie theory is that Burke swung the maglite at a shadowy perp (JR) who was molesting JBR and missed. Burke may have woken up, heard distressing noises from her room and gone in to protect her. That scenario would certainly distance Burke from his parents, and vice versa and keep JR and PR together. It does answer a lot of questions, the first would be, why did Burke hit her in the first place? In this scenario, to admit Burke is involved is to admit to incest - there goes that dictionary thing again. It's looking more 'n more like a whole bunch of people were involved, or at least know what happened. A simple bedwetting bop would not need 3 1/2 years of this incredible expensive and dangerous intrigue. And I don't give a hoot who the authorites say have been cleared. They can lie as easily as the Ramseys, and I hope they do. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "This is such " Posted by momo on 11:02:25 6/04/2000 a good thread. I agree with the fact that the Rams have been too silent about MW as well as the White's. It's so eerily silent, it's deafening. I hope everyone here knows that Lake is not one person. Not wanting to start trouble, just keep it in mind. BTW Mary99, you are an excellent poster and communicator. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Excellent posting, 99!!!" Posted by Ginja on 12:02:32 6/04/2000 FW was in the Hell Hole first. He neither saw nor smelled a body in that room. How did JR make a beeline for the Hell Hole and discover what FW missed? Only conclusion to come to is: someone's lying. And I'm sure your next question would be: who? I draw your attention to the Ressler notes. There, Ressler is implying that the cops also went into that room, citing they didn't see a body either. He follows the statement with the remark, "didn't the cops have flashlights?", seeing as how the 'excuse' was they couldn't find the light switch. So we've got Fleet saying he went in and saw no body. We've got police saying they went in and saw no body. Yet we have JR flying like a bat out of hell to retrieve the body from a room people checked and saw nothing. We also have JR leaving the sitting room for ~40 minutes an hour or more before making that beeline dive for the wine cellar. I don't think anyone's lying. Oops, I mean, I don't think the BPD, FBI or Fleet White are lying. I think JR moved the body. I want to thank you for pointing out that I do not take leaps or make assumptions. Please add to that hearsay evidence that leads to nowhere. With that said, what is the documented proof of MW's? What does it document? How does it link the murderers to JonBenet's murder? Does it even name who the murderers are? Is there any substantiation to its allegations? And finally, how does it tie to Fleet White? Is MW alleging Fleet committed crimes against her? If so, how do those crimes connect, if they do, to JonBenet's murder? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "lake, hareen" Posted by darby on 11:30:33 6/04/2000 Okay, lake, fair enough--forget the naked boa picture. But still consider what I said and think about it in light of the way the Ramseys are speechless about MW. And I suppose that releasing Burke into the public can work both ways--if the Ramseys knew or worried that Burke was involved, would they just let him go? hareen--why leave the garrote stick in place? The killers were counting on the world believing that an outsider did it. In fact, the garrote, stick and all, puts even ME on the brink of considering an intruder. The killer(s) would have left the whole thing in place if it was already there, figuring that it might enhance the idea that an outsider did it. What was NOT counted on, of course, was that the police and most everyone else would determine that this was an in-house job quite early on. As it turned out, leaving the garrote in place was brilliant. We're left puzzled by the near certainty that the Ramseys are involved in some way but with no reasonable explanation for the garrote. In fact, the garrote WOULD have been a great staging tool for that reason. But the truth is that JBR was still alive when the strangulation took place. Indeed, strangulation is what killed her. It's hard to reconcile these parents having the wherewithall, after inflicting a raging smack to JBR's head, to knot up the garrote on the spot and whip it into place before JBR was dead, and even before any major bleeding or swelling could occur. I would think that the lag time between "Oh my God, I think I killed her!" and "How in the world are we going to get out of this one?" would be longer than what appears to be the case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Darby" Posted by Ginja on 12:23:34 6/04/2000 >As it turned out, leaving the garrote >in place was brilliant. We're >left puzzled by the near certainty >that the Ramseys are involved in >some way but with no reasonable >explanation for the garrote. In >fact, the garrote WOULD have been >a great staging tool for that >reason. But the truth is >that JBR was still alive when >the strangulation took place. Indeed, >strangulation is what killed her. >It's hard to reconcile these parents >having the wherewithall, after inflicting a >raging smack to JBR's head, to >knot up the garrote on the >spot and whip it into place >before JBR was dead, and even >before any major bleeding or swelling >could occur. I would think >that the lag time between "Oh >my God, I think I killed >her!" and "How in the world >are we going to get out >of this one?" would be longer >than what appears to be the >case. A lot of questions, eh? But before we start trying to analyze the physical evidence to connect the dots, perhaps we should start with the pathology of the injuries themselves. Yes, she was alive when strangled. And we know she was alive when molested. However, maybe we ought to start considering the fact that each atrocities came in two phases...the actual action, and then the staging. There were no inflammatory infiltrates in the vagina or brain. IOW, although the injuries were incurred while she was alive, she didn't live long enough for her body to react, ergo no inflammatory infiltrates. However, there were areas of interstitial inflammatory infiltrates in her thyroid gland. IOW, even though she died of the strangulation, her body had time to react to it that strangulation! So...here's a possible scenario that connects the dots. She was being molested while noosed (or otherwise strangled). The initial strangulation caused unconciousness, or more likely, seizures. With that, the body immediately dispatched the inflammatory infiltrates to the area of the more 'intense' trauma (to the throat area rather than the vaginal area). To try to bring her out of the seizing/unconciousness, she was shaken, thus causing the bruising to her left and right temporal lobes. She was a goner...the perp realized it. He/she also saw the red mark around her neck and knew they didn't have a chance in hell in either trying to revive her or getting her through an ER without question. So they administered a ferocious blow to the head to take her out of her misery. This would explain why the blow was peri-mortem with little bleeding and swelling (due to the hypoxia caused by the initial strangulation). They then realized they had to cover up not just the reddened (and probably lined) throat, but the sexual abuse. So they tightened the cord around her throat (my personal belief, regardless of how the crime went down, is that the stick was an afterthought...afterall, what parent could garoat their child?). They broke the stick, probably inserting it thinking they'd cover their own 'marks'. This would account for the abrasion, birefringent material and wood sliver. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Mary99" Posted by Gemini on 11:44:27 6/04/2000 The fingernail DNA doesn't seem too important, but the panty DNA does (imo) need an explanation. And, who says DNA is the only forensics match waiting to be made? I'd like to hear that handwriting samples and hair samples have been given by the CA people ... just as they have by many others. Schiller's book tells us a number of potential suspects were cleared via "forensics". According to Lee Hill, so was S. Miles. If they have nothing against which to compare samples, how can this be? Well, you see what I'm saying ... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "JR said the garrOAT" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:39:47 6/04/2000 was a highly sophisticated killing tool. There's the answer seems to me. It was fashioned to fit in with the small foreign faction fluff, and that is exactly what Johnboy had in mind when he made it:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Edie!!!!!!" Posted by Ginja on 12:35:34 6/04/2000 >JR said that garOAT was a highly sophisticated >killing tool. There's >the answer seems to me. It >was fashioned to fit in with >the small foreign faction fluff, and >that is exactly what Johnboy had >in mind when he made it:-) EXACTLY!!!! JR constantly makes a big deal of how this garotte (or garoat) is a sophisticated killing instrument that no parent could EVER use on their own child! That's why I alway stick in parentheses his statement "who could kill their child with a garoat?" That "thing" around JonBenet's throat WAS NOT A GAROTTE, nor was it a GAROAT! The cord was wrapped around JonBenet's throat twice with a piece of stick at the end of it. This sophisticated killing instrument is John's excuse for not only a crappily, ill-made garotte, but his excuse as to why it COULDN'T be used by either him or his wife. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "LOL" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:11:41 6/04/2000 you're right, Ginja, it was ill-made. I've seen more sophisticated gizmos at the Washington Carver Museum. Like I've said many times before, JR has no imagination. I suspect the movie dialogue sounded like the real thing to him,too, whether he wrote it or not. The closest thing he's said to the truth thus far is, "I'm surprised the whole world doesn't think we're guilty!" Well, just look at what we've had to work with,lol. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Ginja" Posted by Gemini on 12:17:24 6/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:17:24, 6/04/2000 You're making me feel better. I was starting to think I was the only one who had over-loaded memory banks where little pieces of info are glitching. The police didn't go into the 'little room' that morning. Koby was asked, point blank, at one his early press conferences, whether they'd checked the room ... to which he replied, "Unfortunately, it appears we did not". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Gem" Posted by Seashell on 12:54:38 6/04/2000 I also remember that Koby quote. It ranks right up there with waving the Constitution. You bet Burke would keep quiet if he was lead to believe that he killed his sister. "We know you didn't mean it, Honey, so mummy and daddy will fix everything and you just be quiet - OR ELSE." But that flies in the face of the 911 call with his voice on it which sounds as if he didn't know what was happening. If no one scenario answers all these questions, we have to start examining other scenarios. Most of us think it odd that neither the Whites nor the Rams have raised some kind of fuss over MW. I would think the Whites would be furious and the Rams overjoyed to have the attention focused on another crazy pedophile who may have been in Boulder that night. But no! Zip from them. Instead, we have a flurry of Ramactivity which is pointing the finger even more so at Patsy; ie polys, ST debate. If the whole world didn't know before that ST suspected PR, it does now and JR kept that subject right out there. So did PR. So I'm now almost convinced that PR as perpette is a smoke screen put out by the Rams and possibly the Whites, since the Whites are way too quiet, and the Rams are now way too noisy. It used to be the other way around!!!! Who are the Whites funding for DA? They should be behind BT, but I read somewhere that they're not. Is that true? A conspiracy of families would answer many of the questions. Off topic: What are the dates for the Boulder gathering? Thanks [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Thanks, Gem" Posted by Ginja on 12:43:55 6/04/2000 I think we both need to visit Dr. Feelgood! LOL It all depends on who you talk to. Either everyone was in that goddamn room, or no one was! Koby says the cops weren't. Ressler says they were. Fleet couldn't see without the light. JR could. And who do you believe? Was Koby cya because his cop didn't go in the room? or because he couldn't see in the dark? Is Ressler cya to support his theory of inside job? Is Fleet cya because at the time, JR was his best friend? Bottom line, the only one who saw a body was John Ramsey, and he knew exactly where to look and didn't need to turn on any lights to know it was there, obviously, since he screamed before the light switch was turned. Put another way, I think JohnBoy's in deep...and he didn't need any help. Running to the room like that is the dead give-a-way (no pun intended!). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Ginja" Posted by lake on 15:23:27 6/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:23:27, 6/04/2000 As long as you understand that you are putting your spin on most everything, then all is OK. But Koby said the cops did not look in the room that morining. You spin against Koby there. Koby talked to the cops in question, you did not and Ressler seems to be confused about that since he did not say he talked personally to the cop. And remember that the original disinformation about the door was that JR was with the cop and the door was painted shut. Disinformtion. As far as FW statement that he did not see the body at about 6:30 am, you take his word for that without question, I suspose. But FW looked into the room at at about 6:30 and maybe saw no body. But there was said to be a differecnce in the lighting at the early morning hour when compared to the lighting at early afternoon when JR is said to have opened the door and saw the body. Also were the two men were standing, the size of the two men and the lighting has been reported to have an effect upon the amount of light that entered the room. This is a non issue to me. You can spin it any way you care to and still prove nothing about the issue being debated. And of course you also must take the word of FW as to why he moved the blue suitcase, moved broken glass, opened the door to the room of the body room and returned to the room and picked up the tape removed form the mouth of JBR after the body was taken up the stairs by JR and Arndt said she told FW to guard the door to the basement and not let anyone down there. But of course you assume the motives of FW were innocent. I find a lot to suspect about FW. And I would not buy a used car from the man or take is word alone for anything about this case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "We only have Fleet White's " Posted by Holly on 21:03:40 6/05/2000 word that he looked in the room. Maybe he's lying. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "LOL, Summon the Fleet" Posted by Lacey on 14:41:24 6/04/2000 >All FW has to do to clear his name is demand for MW >to come up with the documentation she says she has. >If she can't come up with it, he's clear. Lawsuits >can follow. And no, he shouldn't have to do this. >But the reality of his situation is that this is a way >to clear things up for good. For whom? Why? The White's are in the clear, apparently, by all media accounts AND the results of an eleven-week investigation that went nowhere but to the FBI as a matter of procedure and WILL LIKELY end up sitting on a shelf where it belongs. I call that "clear enough," but I'm not surprised it's not good enough for some of YOU. FLOL. Surely you don't think Fleet White has to come in here and "clear his name" to a bunch of bawdy Internet posters who have made up their minds he's part of a child sex ring because there's an abused woman from CA who told them so? LOL, that'll be the day! Yep. They don't call you fanatic fringe for nuthin' Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Ginja" Posted by darby on 15:38:49 6/04/2000 Ginja, good synopsis. I have really come around to thinking that use of the garrote tells us that the crime was probably something other than a bedwetting rage gone to extremes. Plus if peripheral people in the Ramsey/White circle had been into garroting children for sexual enjoyment, maybe this could be the reason the killer used one on JonBenet, especially given that she had also been sexually assaulted. *** Lacey, you really are after me, aren't you? No, I don't think FW has to do that or anything else. But if you think he's not at all concerned about MW and her entourage, the "fanatic fringe" on the internet or the carefully-worded BPD statement, think again. Anyone in his position would be. (Look at your own reactions, and you're not even FW.) I was just saying that there's an easy way to put it all behind him if he so chooses. That's what I'd be doing if I was in FW's innocent shoes. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Why does original MW thread keep disappearin?" Posted by maundy on 15:49:02 6/04/2000 i went back the MW thread t check out some links and the repost of the MW thread which Chris requested is now gone. WHAT's up with this? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Beeeeeg Sigh" Posted by Lacey on 15:59:44 6/04/2000 No, Darby, I am not after you. No one is. You hearing voices? Tell them to go away You also ought to stop telling Fleet White what to think and what to do. Obviously, he is satisfied with the outcome of the investigation or perhaps we would hear from him along the lines that you demand. You are misinterpreting my so-called reaction. I am into NOT PERPETUATING the myth of the mystery woman nor doing any further damage to parties who are most likely innocent. The MW Cult has hurt the integrity of the forum as well but that's something y'all will have to deal with. It's your shame. Whatever Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. ""sigh"" Posted by luvsflowers on 16:36:39 6/04/2000 I refuse to consort further and subject my fellow posters in the derailment of case talk. Thanks Jonesy and Short timer. If I remember correctly French (first officer) walked to the door but it was latched and was looking for ways a perp could exit so he turned away from the body room. He didnt check the room. It seemsif this was a sex game gone awry the rope around the neck and wrists would have been removed. At least the profiler books say "murders" would be "undone" and staged to look like something else. It seems unlikely that an adult playing these kind of games would have left those kind of clues around her body to be found. It doesnt make sense. When parents kill they like to leave the body in a restful pose so it seems unlikely they would have thought that she looked restful with a rope around her neck. She was covered with her blanket though. Its all pointing in every direction at once as someone else said. So Lake--if FW is covering for some one do you think this is the plan--FW expected to be called which he was. He came over earlier and possibly did the staging and left the note to persuade JR to go get the ransom money while PW takes PR back to their house along with BR. That leaves him in the house alone to answer the phone if the kidnappers call. He also would have time to get rid of the body at this time. BUT---that plan went awry when PR had called the cops too--not something FW was anticipating. So he touched things--the glass the suitcase, the tape, checked to see if the body was still there, etc. to make sure his evidence can be accounted for. Just asking--not necessarily saying I believe this is what happened. Im trying to follow your meandering clues. Luvs [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "oh" Posted by darby on 16:20:25 6/04/2000 Lacey, you are ridiculous. I'm not demanding anything from Fleet White. So you think the MW Cult has hurt the integrity of JW? Get a grip--the Cult isn't that powerful. The majority of posters on the forum think MW has nothing to offer. Hell, FLY thinks MW has nothing to offer, and she's usually right. Lacey, you are part of the majority. Revel in it. I believe I've carefully explained my position on MW. I don't blindly think this way or that--my mind remains open. Live with it. There are plenty of other, non-MW threads from which to choose, you know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Lacey" Posted by hareen on 16:42:05 6/04/2000 This is just a guess, but I have a feeling Fleet White isn't sitting back feeling satisfied that the BDP investigation is over and thinking all is well with the world. Time will tell. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Well, FW" Posted by lake on 16:27:53 6/04/2000 Is smart enough to know that if he denies the MW charges publically through a letter to the newspaper of some such way, he has opened himself up for substantiation of the charges in the media by those that know better but may not be able to prove the charges in a court of law because of the lies and coverup by the people involved in the activities. One of those he said she said things. Sort of like the murder of JBR. If the BPD can't prove that one, imagine the problems they would have with a child molestation charge with the baggage of this case hanging over them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "And" Posted by lake on 16:53:58 6/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:53:58, 6/04/2000 Many who are dug in with a RDI theory are satisfied to fabricate reasons why PR or JR would kill JBR. Most of such fabrications being absurd, not supported by evidence or the exaustive investigation into the behavior of the Ramseys over the years with 5 children. But MW who makes claims that the BPD investigates and does not confirm or deny many of those claims publically is viewed as a non issue by those that prefer facbication of the motives for the Ramseys. Go figure that one. MW has photographic proof of a connection between her family and that of FW sr and FW. It would not unreasonable to suspect that the mother of MW is a pimp for people with money who have some pretty weird sexual preferences with children. That mother tells the BPD that she had visited in the home of FW with her neice at a Halloween party in 1996. MW says her mother said that she was at the home of FW on the eveing of 12/25/96. Her mother denies this to the BPD. But what is a possible pimp for child sex molesters doing at the White's Halloween party? Was this an adult or childs party? And since JBR was the best friend of the daughter of the Whites,and the Whites and Ramseys were close friends, what are the odds that JBR was at that Halloween party? I would say that more evidence could be produced that the mother of MW is a pimp for child sexual molesters that can be produced that either Patsy or John Ramsey have every molested any child. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "right, lake" Posted by darby on 16:44:04 6/04/2000 It'll never happen. And MW might be up a creek for reasons you said, unless there is some kind of documented proof. Even then, that might not be enough. Maybe another abuse victim will summon the nerve to go public, now that NJK did. What do you think, lake? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Just Some Thoughts..." Posted by JuneCleaver on 17:47:29 6/04/2000 These are some thoughts that have come to me while reading this thread. This is NOT my theory, just some things to think about. Please correct me if any of my info is incorrect. We have Patsy saying that there were "six in the house". We have a search warrant that conceals the names of 2 people that were in the Ramsey house. Why the need to conceal the names? The only reason that makes sense to me is because these 2 people were juveniles. We have heard that at least one juvenile voice can be heard in the background on the 911 tape, with John supposedly speaking to this juvenile in a harsh tone. Why not release this tape? Again, because of juveniles. Okay, stay with me here. The Whites had a house full of guests. We have heard that they did not live in a large house, 3 bedrooms I think. Is it possible that the Rams took the White children to their house to spend the night to make room for the guests at the Whites? I have done this for friends before and have had friends do the same for me. This could explain why FW was called that morning. If a parent or group of parents were trying to cover up for something done by a child or children, the logical thing would be for them to stage something that could not possibly have been done by a child. The Rams could have called the other set of parents upon discovering what had happened. They all concoct a staging plan. We have learned about accusations of the involvement of at least one of these people in a ritual child sex abuse ring. This person uses some things that he knows about in the staging. They all think of various things to do that could point to many different people, in other words to make the scene as confusing as possible, impossible to prove any one persons involvement or who did what. It has never been a possibility to me that all this was done by one person. At least one of these people, loving being on stage, is getting carried away with the act. She (or he) cannot get enough of the spotlight and media attention. It has now become a game for this person that is getting out of hand. Lawyers, investigators etc. start jumping ship. This scenario would cause anger between the 2 sets of parents at one another, but it would also be something that would forever tie the 2 sets of parents together. They would have to work together yet seperate to continue the confusion and conspiracy to protect these children. Okay, so what do you think? Be gentle, I'm still new around here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "darby" Posted by lake on 17:44:45 6/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:44:45, 6/04/2000 I doubt anyone with eyewitness knowledge will come forward to back the MW up on her claims. My understanding is that her mother, sister and brother did not stand with her on the Mackey Boykin thing. But even if someone did, that would be no direct link to the JBR murder. The BPD does not have the evidence and this case was messed up by the BPD. Killers should not be counted on to confess like Thomas and some think they should be required by law to do. We know that her therapist says she is not making things up, the DA that handled her rape case in 79 stands by her according to reports, and the BPD has said nothing about the woman being from Mars. The BPD just says that they cannot make a direct link between what MW has to say and the evidence in the Ramsey case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Darby" Posted by hareen on 17:20:21 6/04/2000 Continuing the garrote discussion ... thanks for answering my question. What you say makes a lot of sense. I've always had trouble with the short time lag between the head blow and the strangulation, so I do believe she was strangled as part of the crime -- not as staging. And I don't buy the Patsy-thought-she-was-dead-so-she-killed-her argument. Still -- I can't shake this -- it seems like if something as shameful as incest (cult or otherwise) was involved, J & P's overwhelming instinct would be to remove anything pointing in that direction, no matter how much sense it made to leave it there. But maybe they were able to think more clearly than I'd be able to. Or maybe they had help from cooler heads. Edie, I really think you hit something with JR's remark! Maybe it was some combo of what we have all said. She was garroted for sexual purposes, then, since the cord had to stay, the stick-end was modified to look more like a "professional killing device" and less like a sexual tool. Ginja, I need to reread your post, but it looks not too much at odds with this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "hareen" Posted by darby on 18:28:29 6/04/2000 If the garrote had been removed, and the ultimate cause of JBR's death turned out to be the mortal headblow rather than strangulation, there probably would have been marks on JBR's neck or other evidence that a garrote had been used. If this had occurred, it would have been fairly obvious that the garrote had been used for something other than killing. In any event, once the garrote was used to strangle JonBenet, it was no longer a sexual device, but a killing device. Who's to know what the original intent was meant to be? Besides, wouldn't it have looked a little odd if the child had been strangled this way, but the "intruder" then removed the rope and took it with him? So the perp left it in place, over-tightening it, thereby leaving no ambiguity that the garrote appeared to be meant to kill. Later, John would make sure to publicly call the garrOAT a killing instrument, never addressing the possibility that it might have been used for sexual reasons--in conjunction with the sexual assault which he downplayed as well. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Note the GarOAT" Posted by janphi on 21:55:37 6/04/2000 I think it's important to point out something about the garrote. Well, two somethings. First off, it was made of a type of cord that is thinner in width than what the "safe sex play guide for deviants" states on the website that it should have been. They recommend never using cord that is less than 1/2" in width, because of the danger of accidental strangulation (rather than purposeful non-life-threatening asphyxiation). The cord used in the garrote was 5/16". What does this mean? A killer intentionally used the thinner cord expressly for killing JB? Or someone who was fairly new at sexual garroting or fairly careless or not thinking clearly just used the wrong kind of cord for sex play? I think the thinner cord also speaks to the need for the paintbrush handle (the handle also being the thing that makes this a "garrote"--originally from the Spanish word for "stick"--rather than a "simple" ligature), because the the cord would cut through the perp's hands when having to grip it tightly for a period of time (not just for the few seconds it might take to strangle the life out of the child). Secondly, if you haven't experimented with this type of loop, try this. I just used some string and a pencil. (Thicker string works better than thin twine, and don't use that hairy fibrous twine--it should be smooth.) Take a long piece of string and tie a slip knot about 6-8" from one end, leaving a big loop. (Slip knot: hold one end of string in left hand; grab string about 6-8" from that end with the right hand; bring left end to meet the place on the string where you're holding it with the right thumb; bring the loose end over the long piece of string and back under the string toward you, then take the loose end that's now on the left and lay it to the right over the long piece of string, bring it under and through, towards you--you're making a regular double knot or square knot--and tighten the knot right where you're holding it, leaving a big loop.) Make sure the knot "slips" up and down the long piece of string like it should, increasing and decreasing the size of the loop. Now put the loop around the top part of a pencil, or around your finger and pull the long end to tighten the loop. You may find it difficult to do without using your other hand to push the knot towards the pencil or pulling the string all the way around to make the knot go where it should. String doesn't have the same give or torque that the flat braided smooth nylon cord does, so the loop won't act quite the same way, but you'll see the demonstration, nevertheless. When the knot is fairly tightened against the pencil or finger, you'll see that it then loosens and turns the loop around the object. Easily tightened with two hands, easily loosened one-handed, but won't stay permanently tightened. Now, loosen the loop and remove it. Make the loop bigger and twist the loop in half to double it. Put the doubled loop over the pencil or finger and you will see a big difference. The knot tightens easily without changing position and without pushing the knot (can easily be done one-handed without changing position) and remains permanently tightened in place. For realism, you can break the ends off of a toothpick and try wrapping that bow knot around it, but guess what. You had to have already put the "stick" on it before you made the slip knot, in order to pull the loose end through and secure it. Isn't that scary? The same "garrote" loop when single can be tightened and loosened easily, in fact can't be completely tightened at all, yet when it's doubled and tightened, it can kill almost instantly. So, what does this tell us? The garrote could have been--and possibly was--used either way. I still believe there was an initial strangulation prior to the fatal one and I don't think it was manual because there aren't two symmetrical thumb-or fingerprints, but I could be wrong about this, of course. I'm not even sure the garrote was used for both sex play and killing, but I'm saying it could have been. Also, about the breaking of the paintbrush. It seemed when looking at the pic of the garrote that this would be difficult by hand. I tried it with one of mine and couldn't do it. Perhaps someone stronger could do it more easily. I know I was able to break one in the middle easily, I guess because of the fulcrum for leverage. So I would guess someone of less strength would have to have used their shoe to step on each end to break them off--that's how I ended up doing it. My brush was from Korea, too, and I'll be damned if I was able to break off the ends by stepping on them and leave the Korea mark on there on purpose! Some think the brush was whittled, like Burke did constantly before his Swiss Army knife was taken away from him. I couldn't see any straight cut surfaces on the splintered broken ends in the photos, but maybe the knife could have been used to start a notch to help break them. I think the fact that the tip end of the paint brush handle is black or dark blue (mine's black) and doesn't match the varnished natural wood of the rest of the handle, that this could be confusing some into thinking the black had been whittled off of the 41/2" stick part used for the garrote handle. Getting to the DNA which is too degraded to test correctly--I was wondering if it was something mixed in the paint on the brush handle. Some pigments have things like egg yolk in them, but also since there were so many layers of dried paint on the stick, it could have come from the paint--or the paintbrush itself. If the paint was acrylic (don't know what Patsy painted with), some of the newest layers could have reactivated in contact with moisture without leaving any pigment, just binder. Who knows if kids had ever used the paintbrushes or if Patsy had taken them somewhere to paint signs for pageants or something, anyone's skin oils or sweat, spit, nose droppings, whatever could have been on the brushes or in the paint. Just a thought. And I still haven't found a picture on the 'Net of what a real cord garrote is supposed to look like--has anyone else? I won't give up! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Post # 71" Posted by lake on 18:07:44 6/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:07:44, 6/04/2000 Hangs together until you get to the point where both sets of parents are involved in the coverup. On 12/26/96 and thereafter the Whites and the Ramseys were going in different directions. The agenda of the Whites was to cooperate with the police and not call media attention to the crime. The agenda if JR was to have a through investigation and find out the who and the why of the killing of JBR. If both sets of parents were involved they would most likely have pulled together after the 911 call and the Ramseys would have cooperated with the police as the Whites seem to have pretended to cooperate with the police. JR hired lawyers and private investigators and the Whites fed disinformation to the BPD in an attempt to direct the focus of the investigation away from what they might have to hide and onto the Ramseys who apparently had very little if anything to hide in their present or past. I would like to see the investigation release the original and enhanced 911 tapes, the redacted names and the sealed search warrent. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "But" Posted by lake on 18:58:02 6/04/2000 As to who might be most likely to have a connection to child molesters, Fleet White wins hands down over PR or JR. His "family" has remained friends with a womam GLCKB for about 50 years or more. The same woman who NLK says was a part of a number of different people who abused her on various occassions from early childhood until recently. The one constant in the life of the abused woman seems to be her mother, her grandmother, and the Whites. This GLCKB has made visits to the Whites home in Boulder in 1996. The BPD is said to have told NJK that her mother said it was Halloween,NJK says her mother told her it was Christmas. But the fact that the mother of NJK was at the Whites at all in 1996 should rase a big red flag for anyone. There is no proof at all that the mother of NJK is biologically related to the Whites or the Browns. The evidence seems to suggest that the mother is not biologically related to either the Whites or the Browns. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Lake" Posted by JuneCleaver on 21:21:54 6/04/2000 Can we agree on the fact that both JR and FW are powerful men who like to be in control? Isn't it possible that the big disagreement between the 2 in Atlanta that ended the "friendship" could have been over how to handle things from that point on? They parted ways and each handled the coverup from that point on in his own way. This could be true in any scenario which involves Whites and Rams. And, it turns out that this parting of ways probably succeeded in screwing up the investigation more than any conspiracy ever could have. Maybe none of the adults is sure which kid actually caused JB's death. Wouldn't that explain the strain in the relationship? Seriously Lake, wouldn't dissention rather than togetherness further detract from the real scenario? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "lake" Posted by darby on 20:18:44 6/04/2000 Do you happen to know when the Whites met the Ramseys? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "and also Lake" Posted by luvsflowers on 20:25:18 6/04/2000 please check my question to you on post 64. It got lost in the shuffle me thinks. thanks Luvs [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Well" Posted by lake on 21:40:45 6/04/2000 "Seriously Lake, wouldn't dissention rather than togetherness further detract from the real scenario?" I don't think so. Ther Rs are not going to invite the FBI with a ransom note and expect to get a through investitation with the Rs being the prime targets because they were known to be in the house. It was their child that was dead and I don't see it as being reasonalbe to conclude that they were going to take the heat while the other couple kept directing the heat toward them by leading Thomas around like they had a ring in his nose. Darby: PW said they knew the Rs for two years when JBR was killed. JR said the women met first and that he a FW were introduced by the women. Luvs: I think sometimes things happen and you go with the flow. Unless of course there were others in the house (redacted names from the search warrent) and that was the reason for the call placed to the Whites. And maybe a childs voice on the 911 tape that does not belong to BR being the reason why the tape has not been made public after more than 3 years. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Lake says" Posted by JuneCleaver on 22:32:16 6/04/2000 "I don't think so. Ther Rs are not going to invite the FBI with a ransom note and expect to get a through investitation with the Rs being the prime targets because they were known to be in the house. It was their child that was dead and I don't see it as being reasonalbe to conclude that they were going to take the heat while the other couple kept directing the heat toward them by leading Thomas around like they had a ring in his nose. " Okay, am I the only one who sees the ransom note as the biggest monkey wrench in this case? The note is the very thing that would point to intruder/kidnapper while also pointing just as strongly to staging. If the ransom note had not been written, I believe that one or both of the Rams would have been indicted by now for the very reasons that Lake stated above. The person who thought of writing the note has a brilliant criminal mind. Stop blushing Patsy, I said the person who thought of writing it not the writer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "June" Posted by lake on 22:53:26 6/04/2000 One thing is for sure. You do not have a brilliant criminal mind. Risks like that will land you in prison your first time out. Trust me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Thankfully Lake," Posted by JuneCleaver on 23:07:32 6/04/2000 I do not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Ramseys" Posted by short timer on 21:30:28 6/04/2000 The fact remains that the R's are covering for someone. They are either covering for themselves or they are covering for someone else. I do not think they have ever been in the dark about who killed their daughter. It's understandable why they would lose their reputations and most of their money if they are covering for themselves. If they are covering for someone else, there must be something dark and ugly that they are trying to hide. I can't even think about how dark and ugly it would have to be for me to not turn in the killer of my little girl. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "But" Posted by lake on 22:18:34 6/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:18:34, 6/04/2000 I think if the Rs knew nothing about the history of their new best friends and kids were in the house, the furtherest thing from their minds would be that the kids would do something like was done to JBR. And on the morning of 12/26/96 there would be no reason for the Rs to suspect the kids but maybe a lot reasons for the Whites to suspect the kids. And that would go a long way toward explaining the behavior of the Whites and the Ramseys. FW wanting the Rs to cooperate and JR wanting a through investigation to determine the who and the why. PW and FW may have had a pretty good idea of the who and the why on 12/26/96 and the Rs did not find out about the type of stuff NJK claims until months later. But BR could still be under suspicion because of some circumstances or inconclusive evidence. And to get to the juvenile they THINK did it they would have to go through BR because he MIGHT be a part of it. Of course his parents would say no because he says no, the BPD would say. But who really knows? The ones that killed JBR, of course. And of course, the ones with the history would try to keep the focus on the prime public suspects. Maybe even try to get the DA removed when he refused to charge the Rs with the if they did not cooperate and keep the investigation away from the other stuff like NJK is making claims about. Because the longer the case ran, the more danger there would be that a change of focus behind the scenes. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Lake" Posted by short timer on 22:22:29 6/04/2000 You see JR as wanting a full and thorough investigation. I don't see him that way at all. About every 6 months he says something like that but in between I don't see him doing anything but talking about it. They have talked a good story but they haven't walked the walk. IMO. To me they have done everything but cooperate to find the killer of their daughter. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Well" Posted by lake on 22:43:00 6/04/2000 I could not disagree more. The Ramseys PI's do not report their every move to the media like the BPD with their no evidence case have chosen to do. But the Ramseys investigation stopped the BPD dead in their tracks with the GJ. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Juvenile scenario and Polys" Posted by JuneCleaver on 23:04:57 6/04/2000 Think about this juvenile scenario and what I said about J and P not knowing for sure which child actually killed JB. Now think about the carefully worded Ram poly questions. This would explain how they could be involved yet pass. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Of course" Posted by lake on 23:20:55 6/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:20:55, 6/04/2000 Neither killed the child, knows for sure who did, and neither wrote the ransom note. But they both agree that whoever wrote the note is the killer. And JR has an idea of who the killer is but he does not know for sure. PR does not seem to have a clue. That woman could not pass a PG test if she were telling a lie. But she tends to get so carried away at times that she sure could test inconclusive even if she were telling the truth. And you can bet anything of value you have that JR does not think BR killed JBR. The Star tabloid has already settled with the Rs because of the story they ran. And they have several more suits in the works on behalf of BR. I would like to see FW & PW hooked up to one of those voodoo machines. Let Gelb give those two one. The Ramseys would probably even pay for the darn test if money is an issue with FW. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Obviously" Posted by Seashell on 00:23:33 6/05/2000 even JR doesn't think FW killed his daughter. He keeps saying that the intruder waited around for hours in the house til they got home from visiting the Whites. I doubt that FW teleports and can be in two places at the same time. So JR, in essence, says the killer is not FW. Of course, he changes his story every 30 seconds; who knows what he'll claim tomorrow? And we all know that it's not a crazed stranger intruder. And if Patsy and Burke didn't do it, I guess old JR, without being cognizant, is pointing at himself. The Ramseys co-operated and wanted to find the killer? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "I say" Posted by lake on 01:36:24 6/05/2000 That if it is OK for the BPD, the DA the Whites and the press to put to public on about this killing, it should be OK for the Ramseys to engage in the same kind of disinformation. This is a messed up case that has turned into a comedy of errors, bad taste, bad judgement , chaseing the dollar, and just plain stupid acting people. And if I hear Bozo Beckner say one more time that he has some new developments that he needs the Ramseys help with and wants to talk to the seperately, I think I am going to puke. They need to come up with another line. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Classical garrotting" Posted by Dunvegan on 02:58:12 6/05/2000 Here is an old wood carving illustrating a public garrotting: And here is the accompanying description of torture by garrotte from Casanova from the web page on the work "Casanova, The Story Of My Escape From Prisons Of The Republic Of Venice Called "The Leads." Written in 1787 by Giacomo Girolamo Casanova de Seingalt http://idiom.com/~drjohn/casanova.html I found myself in a big filthy ugly attic, 36 feet long, 12 wide, well lit from a dormer window. I thought the attic was my cell but I was wrong...He ordered me in.... As he was opening this door, I was staring at an iron gadget nailed to one of the bulkheads, shaped like a horseshoe, one inch thick and five inches across from one to the other of the parallel ends. I was wondering what it could possibly be when the guard said smiling: "I see, Signor, that you would like to know what this device is for. When Their Excellencies order a strangulation, one has the condemned man sit on a stool, his back to the collar, and one places the head in a way that the device embraces half the neck. Then one end of a silken scarf is threaded through this hole to a ratchet. One cranks the ratchet until the condemned has rendered his soul to Our Father, and God be praised, the Confessor never leaves his side. Until he's dead." "That's really ingenious," I replied. "And I bet, Signor, that you're the one who has the honor of ratcheting." He didn't answer. Obscure...hope this is useful. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dunvegan ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Photo: Garrotting-Phillipine American War-WARNING: Violent Image" Posted by Dunvegan on 04:11:18 6/05/2000 Verry spooky stuff, this.... This image was terribly hard to get because of its' protective Java scripting: I had to take a screne capture and post it on my web site (which seems within the bounds of the owner's allowances for "educational purposes.") This picture comes from a website called "Neely's Photographs: Fighting in the Philippines" at http://www.boondocksnet.com/neely/index.html You'll have to click on the "Captions" hyperlink (or button at the bottom of the window), and then scroll down page 71...or, if you can see the button at the bottom-center which says: "Home", you can use that menu to go to "Page 71." Here is the photo (Warning: depicts graphic violence) The caption reads: Garrote -- this machine has an official record of killing thirty-one men. Note the resemblance to the description I posted earlier of the classic garrote described by Casanova used by torturers during the Spanish Inquisiton. The interesting thing, to me, about these two disparate pieces of garrote information is the use in the device of a twisted piece of fabric or scarf. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dunvegan ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Thanks, Dunvegan" Posted by janphi on 04:29:13 6/05/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 04:29:13, 6/05/2000 Thanks for all your work. Maybe some people here hadn't seen those. I am still looking for a picture or diagram depicting the sexual garrote and how to make one or what a "store-bought" one looks like--the cord kind. I know they can't show the Mafioso piano-wire or cheese-wire kind that can behead people, since I imagine that showing them would be illegal--maybe they can't even sell them. There is also a weighted type of one that wraps itself around (the mobster kind is a two handed, cross behind the neck kind with handles) the neck and is used in martial arts training, which I haven't seen, but still isn't what I want to see depicted. Whenever you put "cord garrote" or "garrotte" or "garotte" in a search engine on the 'Net, over 75% of the links are to JonBenét. Isn't that sad? Anyway, thanks for all your work. I want to emphasize that a garrote is NOT just for killing, because it's not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "The Philippines and Garrottes..." Posted by Dunvegan on 08:15:43 6/05/2000 Janphi: Re. the web references to JonBenet and garrottes...it is indeed poignant and tragic, that a six-year old child is globally synonymous with such a cruel passing. The other eerie thing about the rather shocking reinactment of the "garotte chair" above is the "Philippine reference." From the web page: http://www.boondocksnet.com/neely/index.html Published in 1899, Fighting in the Philippines is one of a series of books published around the turn of the century by F. Tennyson Neely (Chicago) that presented major events of the time through photographs. The book contains no introduction or table of contents. Beyond the title page, the captions for the 127 photographs are its only written text. The book contains an unusually broad assortment of images of the war. There are plenty of standard shots of destroyed Spanish battleships, captured artillery, and groups of U.S. officers, but the book also features many photographs documenting the destruction of buildings and towns, dead Filipinos lying on battlefields or in trenches, and the graves of U.S. soldiers. The book is an important document from the beginning of U.S. imperialism in the Philippines. Like the popular stereoscopic images of the war that mixed entertainment with a clear political message, Fighting in the Philippines presented the war in a partisan manner. Despite its title, the book opens with a tranquil photograph of the U.S. Post Office and telegraph station in Cavite, reassuring readers from the outset that everything was under control. Nearer the end, the captions and pictures became quite violent: The American Artillery did wonderful execution in the battles with the insurgents. In a trench at Santa Ana the Tagal dead lay in piles. The group shown in the picture consisted of thirty-eight bodies. Well, the garotte and the Phillipines (and perhaps SBTC) have a commonality...have no idea if it means anything yet, or not.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dunvegan ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "How do they pronounce" Posted by Florida on 08:21:49 6/05/2000 it in the Phillipines? GarOat or GarOtt? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Yet another use of garottes and scarves..." Posted by Dunvegan on 08:32:52 6/05/2000 The web: it's weird out there... OK...this is from a web page called: "Codex Arcanum - A Compilation of Spell for GURPS" It's basically a harmless compilation of instructions for fantasy game play: Dungeons and Dragons type role-playing games. The author says this about his online game rules: Many of these spells have been adapted from other game systems, notably Ars Magica, Bushido, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Rolemaster, Call of Cthulhu, Empire of the Petal Throne and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay,.... It can be found at: http://php.iupui.edu/~tbarnes/codex.html/ A specific reference to garottes and scarves is found here: http://php.iupui.edu/~tbarnes/codex.html/body.txt Choke - For double cost the subject can actually be strangled as if by a man with ST equal to the mage's skill with this spell. Magic Item: (b) Rope, Garrote, or Scarf which will automatically begin to strangle the subject when wrapped around his neck. Cost to Create: 300 points. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dunvegan ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "Garrote..." Posted by Pedro on 17:51:17 6/05/2000 ....Is the traditional execution in the Spanish Empire, that's why could be found in several places in Spain, America and Phillipines, is very fast when the equipment is the proper one. BTW: COuld anyone tell me if there's any news ref: MW? I am not going to read 2 threads with 100 posts or so and most of them long....long, come on guys, post any news news in the daily, thanks. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "Pedro" Posted by darby on 18:02:27 6/05/2000 Hi--no news yet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "Darby...." Posted by Pedro on 20:22:11 6/05/2000 .....how is going? Any idea if there's any law enforcement agency looking at MW's allegations? I know BPD did it, but I just don't trust them at all. Hope you're doing fine. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Thanks, Pedro" Posted by darby on 21:01:00 6/05/2000 Things are going okay. I'm settling back into my usual routine. Thanks for asking. Hope all is well with you and China. Unless I've totally lost all ability to put bits of information together, I can say that I feel strongly that MW's whole story will be heard in the near future. I'm looking forward to it, because I sure don't know all of it myself yet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]