Justice Watch Discussion Board "Steve Thomas: Support Your Local Whistleblower" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Steve Thomas: Support Your Local Whistleblower, Lacey, 20:19:28, 7/11/2000 Lacey, Nandee, 20:36:35, 7/11/2000, (#1) I've always, Ribaldone, 21:08:52, 7/11/2000, (#2) Steve Thomas, straykat2, 21:24:45, 7/11/2000, (#3) Thanks Lacey, Jaye, 21:40:44, 7/11/2000, (#4) Steve Thomas, docg, 22:08:44, 7/11/2000, (#5) docg, Nandee, 22:22:09, 7/11/2000, (#6) docg--as usual, I respect your intelligence,, fiddler, 22:49:14, 7/11/2000, (#7) Fiddler, docg, 08:07:46, 7/12/2000, (#10) All right, Lacey, Watching you, 05:59:25, 7/12/2000, (#8) Hear, hear!!, Sylvia, 06:28:28, 7/12/2000, (#9) Amazing!!!, shadow, 08:29:38, 7/12/2000, (#11) Shadow, Sylvia, 08:49:01, 7/12/2000, (#12) Sylvia..., shadow, 08:56:53, 7/12/2000, (#13) I think that as well, Sylvia, 09:04:29, 7/12/2000, (#14) John's pass, rose, 11:52:09, 7/12/2000, (#16) Sylvia,, gaiabetsy, 11:34:38, 7/12/2000, (#15) Rose and Gaiabetsy , Sylvia, 12:00:55, 7/12/2000, (#17) "JonBenet was found beaten and strangled", Edie Pratt, 13:24:38, 7/12/2000, (#18) Edie, hope it answers your questions., Sylvia, 13:49:34, 7/12/2000, (#19) Sylvia!, Edie Pratt, 15:24:01, 7/12/2000, (#21) Edie, Sylvia, 03:13:16, 7/13/2000, (#23) Hi, Sylvia, Edie Pratt, 12:04:51, 7/13/2000, (#32) Shades of Thomas, Cutter, 14:32:06, 7/12/2000, (#20) ho hum, Matt, 19:05:20, 7/12/2000, (#22) Agree, Sylvia, 03:19:58, 7/13/2000, (#24) Need clarification, Watching you, 05:37:35, 7/13/2000, (#25) It's in the autopsy report and the affidavit., Sylvia, 09:44:10, 7/13/2000, (#28) Points and Counterpoints, Lacey, 05:55:47, 7/13/2000, (#26) Lacey, Real Stormy, 07:13:47, 7/13/2000, (#27) Sylvia, Watching you, 10:05:19, 7/13/2000, (#30) Watching you , Sylvia, 10:29:25, 7/13/2000, (#31) Lacey, Nandee, 09:57:45, 7/13/2000, (#29) docg--we seem to have opposite, fiddler, 12:15:22, 7/13/2000, (#33) respectfully, docg, 16:19:22, 7/13/2000, (#34) I can just see hir, Watching you, 05:34:33, 7/14/2000, (#35) Watching you, Sylvia, 11:26:47, 7/14/2000, (#36) Hey, kids,, gaiabetsy, 12:07:50, 7/14/2000, (#37) 2 cents, Seashell, 12:49:43, 7/14/2000, (#39) gaiabetsy , Sylvia, 12:32:06, 7/14/2000, (#38) Yo, Sylvia,, gaiabetsy, 12:52:22, 7/14/2000, (#40) Gaiabetsy, glad to see you smile again!!, Sylvia, 13:25:36, 7/14/2000, (#41) Darn, you, Sylvia,, gaiabetsy, 13:32:30, 7/14/2000, (#42) Gaia, sebastian, 14:28:16, 7/14/2000, (#44) Gaiabetsy..., Dunvegan, 14:03:32, 7/14/2000, (#43) No matter what, canadiana, 21:03:07, 7/14/2000, (#45) I've got a word for them:, MJenn, 23:39:49, 7/14/2000, (#46) storming out of the interview, Edie Pratt, 10:24:03, 7/15/2000, (#47) Right, Edie, textbook!, MJenn, 17:13:16, 7/15/2000, (#48) Is everyone all played out?, MJenn, 19:55:44, 7/16/2000, (#49) MJenn, Raisedinboulder, 21:07:00, 7/16/2000, (#50) ................................................................... "Steve Thomas: Support Your Local Whistleblower" Posted by Lacey on 20:19:28 7/11/2000 On THIS forum and elsewhere, the popular misconception sees whistleblowers as malingerers, malcontents or incompetents who invent tales of wrongdoing or grossly exaggerate in order to protect their jobs or to get revenge against their employer. In reality, most whistleblowers are overachievers with excellent histories of performance before they felt compelled to "blow that whistle." This describes Steve Thomas to the nth degree. He had a stellar record of accomplishments and continued to achieve high performance evaluations right up to his resignation in August 1998. The true whistleblower is the one who, even after coming to understand that upper management is not going to save him or her, remains unrepentant and even defiant. What follows inevitably is harassment, persecution, and vilification. This is not the path for a malingerer. And though often vilified by superiors and peers as well, one whistleblower can frequently accomplish more good than a roomful of bullshitting bureaucrats. Here are some examples - Write a resignation letter leveling charges of corruption and back it with corroboration and evidence.. and results. Say, empanelment of a grand jury. Write a book documenting your experience and back it with corroboration and evidence.. and results. Say, suspects in the hot seat, and an investigation into prosecutorial malfeasance. Go on national tv with your chief adversaries to prove your position, and back yourself up with corroboration and evidence.. and results. Say, enhanced credibility. Your opponents never knew what hit them. Get suspects to make concessions they will never live up to to prove your point and enhance your credibility, backing yourself up with corroboration and evidence.. and results. Say, .. well, you get the idea. Et cetera. Whistleblowers more often encounter hostility than support, stigma than credit. It goes with the territory.. you have to have the mettle to take the heat. Steve Thomas: Thanks for joining the ranks of the whistleblowers. We know it was not for YOU, and we know it was not without consequences. Lace . [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Lacey" Posted by Nandee on 20:36:35 7/11/2000 Whistle blowers risk everything for their principles. I've been around cops all my life and I have to laugh when the Ramsey's try to discredit Steve because it was his first murder. He was a dedicated detective an played it by the book. I think about the detetcives in the OJ case. They carried blood samples from the crime sceen to the suspects house and put evidence in their trunk and didn't log it in untill the weekend was over. That's what a lot of experience will get you.... lazy, sloppy work...... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "I've always" Posted by Ribaldone on 21:10:06 7/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:10:06, 7/11/2000 felt that Steve Thomas' tenacity for justice was admirable. He made sacrifices and took alot of heat in his decision to stand by his principals and expose the corruption and underbelly politics of Boulder. As Steve Thomas has said before -- a dead child was not found in his basement, and he shouldn't to defend himself against ignorant accusations against him. No one in the law enforcement community (involved in the investigation), local or national, has ever disputed the essence of Thomas' theory -- Patsy killed JonBenet in a rage. Many have expressed their "displeasure" about that he wrote a book and exposed their dirty little secrets, but I have never heard anyone in law enforcement dispute Thomas' theory or the evidence presented in his book. The only people that don't think Thomas is sincere and credible are the Ramseys and Lin Wood. Okay, make that John and Lin. Patsy has already excused the young man of any wrongdoing. Steve Thomas is a good guy in this travesty. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Steve Thomas" Posted by straykat2 on 21:24:45 7/11/2000 How dare those whistleblowers ruin a good scam! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Thanks Lacey" Posted by Jaye on 21:40:44 7/11/2000 ...for an excellent post. As always, you have summed it up perfectly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Steve Thomas" Posted by docg on 22:08:44 7/11/2000 Good show, Lacey. Thomas comes across as a sincere, dedicated and selfless investigator, John Ramsey as a manipulative, self justifying prevaricator, liar and just possibly cold-blooded murderer as well. Strange, though, that the one should want to go to all that trouble to defend the other. Thomas's theory is weak weak weak and definitely hits bottom when the guy pathetically tries, with NO success, to convince John of his own innocence. Thomas is a sincere, sweet and, sadly, VERY naive person. There is a VERY strong case to be made for an inside job. The intruder theory goes nowhere. This much would have been Thomas's strong suit, had he chosen to pursue it, because that argument is extremely compelling. If there was no intruder, there was also a STAGED break-in AND a phoney ransom note written by either John or Patsy. If this had been the gist of Thomas's book, if he had stopped there, he would have made an enormous contribution to this case, no question. What he failed to understand is that it is not necessary for him to then go on with his highly speculative and highly UNconvincing Patsy did-it-in-a rage theory. Sure there is some evidence for that. It remains a possibility. But it's just another theory, one of many, no more provable than any of the others and IMO far less convincing than most. The real point, which unfortunately gets lost in all the controversy over Thomas's insistence that Patsy MUST have done it and John MUST be basically innocent, is the extreme unlikelihood of an intruder. THAT's what should have been pressed home, THAT's what ultimately would have put John and Patsy in the hot seat. By insisting on such a strange, unconvincing theory, Thomas provided the Ramseys and their defenders with a HUGE target, which they've used to trash EVERYthing he's come up with, the good along with the questionable. The bottom line is no one but the killer(s) has any idea what actually happened that night, who did what or why. Our lack of such knowledge is just as important an aspect of the case as anything else. So why not leave it at that, why try to solve the unsolvable, explain the inexplicable. Why mire yourself in quicksand, when there's plenty of solid ground to stand on just a few feet away? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "docg" Posted by Nandee on 22:22:09 7/11/2000 I'm with you. Steve's theory is weak, at best and he would have been in a much better position if he let the information in his book speak for itself. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "docg--as usual, I respect your intelligence," Posted by fiddler on 22:49:14 7/11/2000 but disagree with your post. I think Steve Thomas is about as far as possible from being naive. What he's doing by presenting "his theory" (I'm not sure he's convinced of this particular scenario, himself) the way he does, is putting forth the evidence in the simplest, straightest possible path to conviction. Like this: As he said, "Absent a conspiracy, whoever wrote the note committed the murder." The ransom note is the strongest piece of positive evidence the BPD has. It can be proved way beyond a preponderance of evidence that Patsy wrote it--and if linguistic analysis DOES, in the next few years, become admissible in court, it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy wrote the note. Therefore--absent some conspiracy, which there might have been, but it really doesn't matter--she wrote the note, and is guilty of felony murder. The thing is, "what really happened" in terms of scenarios doesn't matter that much in court, except as a way to organize the evidence for the jury. What matters is what the police can prove. If the police can prove that Patsy DID it, they don't have to prove what her motive might have been, they don't have to prove she was the kind of person who could have done it, they don't have to prove what her exact sequence of actions was--they don't have to prove another damn thing. Did she do it? Yes or no? Keep it simple, stupid (ruder version of Occam's law there, nothing personal intended.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Fiddler" Posted by docg on 08:07:46 7/12/2000 I admire your intelligence too, Fiddler. I admire Lacey's intelligence. HOW - EVER: >Like this: As he said, "Absent >a conspiracy, whoever wrote the note >committed the murder." This whole business of the writer of the note *having* to be the murderer, which has gotten so much play on this forum, is so much whistling in the dark. We have no idea whether or not there was a conspiracy, for one thing. For another thing there is always the possibility the murderer hired someone to write the note. We just don't know don't know don't know. There's always a possibility (I doubt it, but can't disprove it) that both John and Patsy collaborated on the note. And there is always the possibility Burke might have let someone into the house that night and the note might have been written by that person to get Burke off the hook. The ransom >note is the strongest piece of >positive evidence the BPD has. >It can be proved way beyond >a preponderance of evidence that Patsy >wrote it Come again? This is something that's been proven ONLY in the minds of those already pre-disposed to suspect Patsy. As you well know, there is NO ONE officially connected to the investigation who has fingered Patsy as writer of the note. In fact, ALL that's been decided is that she "can't be ruled out." This is simply not enough to hold up in any court of law, as you and Lacey and Thomas should well now. A prosecutor who decides to go to trial with this kind of "evidence" is going to lose big time. The identity of the note writer will have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. "Not ruled out" won't cut it. --and if linguistic analysis DOES, >in the next few years, become >admissible in court, it can be >proved beyond a reasonable doubt that >Patsy wrote the note. If you look carefully at Foster's career you'll see that he did ONE thing that was impressive. He figured out the identity of the author of an anonymous book. A BOOK. NOT a 2 1/2 page note. His role in the Unabomber case was basically to corroborate what was already pretty much proven anyhow, that Kaczynski wrote it. By the time he got hold of the manifesto, K. had already been fingered by his brother. His methods are based on statistical analysis. The note is simply too short (and too deliberately deceptive) for his methods to be meaningfully applied to it. Period. Forget Foster. >Therefore--absent some conspiracy, which there might have >been, but it really doesn't matter--she >wrote the note, and is guilty >of felony murder. She may have written the note. John may have written the note. The note may have been written by a third party let into the house by Patsy, John or Burke. The note may have been written by someone hired by Patsy, John or Burke. We just don't know. What we DO know is that the presence of an intruder in the house is highly unlikely. THAT is what should have been pressed home. THAT is what should have been used to pry the truth out of the Ramseys. >The thing is, "what really happened" in >terms of scenarios doesn't matter that >much in court, except as a >way to organize the evidence for >the jury. What matters is >what the police can prove. Without a credible scenario (Patsy killing in a rage and then covering with a garotte is NOT credible), there is no case. Maybe in the minds of some on this forum. But NOT in the minds of an impartial jury. >If the police can prove that Patsy >DID it, But this is exactly what they CAN'T do. they don't have to >prove what her motive might have >been, they don't have to prove >she was the kind of person >who could have done it, they >don't have to prove what her >exact sequence of actions was--they don't >have to prove another damn thing. IF they had her dead to rights, holding a smoking gun, then I'd agree. But with a hypothetical scenario based soley on circumstantial evidence, they need to do more, a lot more, to convince a jury. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "All right, Lacey" Posted by Watching you on 05:59:25 7/12/2000 kudos to you for saying what needed to be said. I just finished re-reading Thomas' book over the July 4 holiday, and I am amazed at some of the details I must have skimmed over the first time around. I will probably read it again. Although ST does present his scenario in detail, he does temper it with a lot of IMO's. He isn't presenting it as true fact, only what he thinks may have happened. That said, I will also say I am a little uncomfortable with his putting it in his book, although I admire his grit. The name of the game is, discredit. When whistleblowers blow the whistle, they know they are going to be raked over the coals. There is so much corruption in our society that when one actually has the integrity to step forward and stand on his principles, the corruptors will always come after him. The wrongdoers will try to crucify him. Steve Thomas has stood tall throughout all of this. I admire the man, I admire his integrity. And, I like his bod. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Hear, hear!!" Posted by Sylvia on 06:28:28 7/12/2000 Although I do not buy his theory completely about what happened, I am glad he stood up against the injustice. Sure took a lot of courage, I have a deep respect for someone who dares to address these points in public. If he wouldn't have published his book, maybe the dealing would be still going on, thanks to him all eyes are on the DA's office and on Hunter in specific. Am only sorry he is no longer an detective, because the world needs detectives like him, who have their hearts on the right place. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Amazing!!!" Posted by shadow on 08:29:38 7/12/2000 I am continually amazed at how much more we (who haven't seen the "real" evidence)know than ST, the BPD and DA's Office... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Shadow" Posted by Sylvia on 08:52:58 7/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:52:58, 7/12/2000 No offense but, even good detectives can make mistakes, he might be going in the right direction, but that doesn't mean his story is right. He has no prove or otherwise they wouldn't be walking on the streets of Atlanta, but be in jail by now. He forgets the chronic abuse. He didn't know JR would state on TV "I was there". As for the "real" evidence, what? The evidence ruined by the BPD and the Ramsey, crossing through the house the morning after the murder, cleaning up, contamination the crime scene and the body? As for the DA's office, the evidence the forwarded to team Ramsey? I admire the man, he's a good detective, but he's not exactly experienced on murder cases, that is a simple fact. There are also some very good expert books who give a similar but somewhat other story. So it doesn't amaze me so much. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Sylvia..." Posted by shadow on 08:56:53 7/12/2000 You seem to think that I'm backing ST's theory... truth is, I don't know who is right and who is wrong. I read with great interest all theories. You are absolutely right - everyone has a right to his/her opinion. And my opinion is that there is evidence that us cyber-slueths have not seen. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "I think that as well" Posted by Sylvia on 09:04:29 7/12/2000 I agree with you on that completely, concerning some evidence being withheld, also by Steve Thomas, as I think he would never do anything to jeopardize the investigation, he is too motivated for that. Only I don't think the DA knows about it, at least I hope not. I was just pointing out that he is being too easy on JR, who is so increadible coldblooded that I think he has more to do with this case and he is going to try to get out of it, shift all blame on PR. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "John's pass" Posted by rose on 11:52:09 7/12/2000 Remember when Thomas looked at John and said I gave you a pass John? Could it be that John is being encourged to turn Patsy in? All the evidence points to Patsy. All john would have to do to become a hero in this case is say Patsy is crazy and murdered JonBenet, that she has blackmailed him for 3 plus years. That Patsy threated him with slander. That she would accuse him and have him convicted of child molestation if he came forward and turned her in. That it was foolish for him to give in to her blackmail to start with and as time passed he just thought no one would believe him if he came forward now. But he is so sorry for what he did to deney justice for his child. Lets face it, John has been given a pass and if he wants to come out of this clean and with a reputation, he'd take it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Sylvia," Posted by gaiabetsy on 11:34:38 7/12/2000 your referral to John Ramsey as "cold-blooded" sure does fit the bill. I've pictured him more than once as one of those slow reptiles that seem to crawl out into the sun and go back to sleep, only to pounce quickly upon unsuspecting prey. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Rose and Gaiabetsy " Posted by Sylvia on 12:00:55 7/12/2000 I honestly believe he will, crawl out of it unharmed. When I see the constant denial about the sexual abuse and the denial in the order of the attack, strangle first, blow next, I immidiately think PR watch your back, he's setting you up! You can take the rap for the whole thing, while I believe it was JR who finished the kill. If PR keeps denying the sexual abuse also and the correct order of trauma, he might say, see she said it as well, never knew she did the other things. If she threatens him, he's got her cornered with statements on tv. Maybe just some crazy feeling I have, but I've never seen anyone so cold as that guy!! Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. ""JonBenet was found beaten and strangled"" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:24:38 7/12/2000 that is in EVERY article I have EVER read, including the ones today. Hmmm, why is that statment SO pat, So cut and dried? Afterall, she was sexually molested,too, yet it is only reported that she was beaten. According to the autopsy report, she was far more molested than beaten, was she not? And, WHEN was she beaten? That night? By an intruder? What were the signs of that beating? A couple of bruises on her calve and lower back? I just want to know how bad the beating was, that it took the headline away from the molestation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Edie, hope it answers your questions." Posted by Sylvia on 13:49:34 7/12/2000 >According to the autopsy report, she was far more molested than beaten, was she not?< Yes it says chronic sexual abuse! >And, WHEN was she beaten? That night? Yes, her head was fractured, to the extend that she only would have had a couple of hours left at the most, even with medical care she probably would have died. Bit difficult for an intruder to come back every time for quite a period to molest her several times, don't you think so? bruises on her calve and lower back? I just want to know how bad the beating was, that it took the headline away from the molestation. According to the medical report other than the skull facture the other bruises were mere scratches. Well rest of my theory you already know. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Sylvia!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:24:01 7/12/2000 I watched another FBI Files or whatever, last night, and one of the murders commited was done by a woman. The "expert" said, what would normally take one blow to the head from a man, it could take possibly four or five hits from a woman to achieve the same damage. That certainly got me thinking JB, tho I must admit at this point, a stop sign has me thinking about her,lol! I got to thinking, perhaps she was strangled to a point where someone trained in firstaid would realize enough oxygen had been deprived, and she would be braindead. Or worse, slow. I think JR did the actual killing, first by the headblow, and then one good twist of his trusty garrOAT, and the rest is history. However, I could be wrong. Patsy might have swung and landed just right, and the rest is history. You say she might have lived, had she been taken to the hospital? If it was an accident, (big IF), seems to me, PR couldn't cope with a slow child, or a vegetable. JBR needed killing at that point, is what I think the mindset was. The hospital would have kept her alive, and the Ramsey's couldn't have that! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Edie" Posted by Sylvia on 03:13:16 7/13/2000 According to the medical information provided by Dr. Brissie, it would have been possible, however her chances would have been almost zero and if they would have been able to keep her alive she indeed would have been a vegetable. According to Hodges, that was inacceptable for dear PR as everything has to be perfect, perfect home, perfect daughter, (perfect murder, sorry LOL). Also he said she is obsessed with the word baby and he points out all the times she uses that, well last time was on LKL. So I guess he is right there again. Leave the S.B.T.C., and fill in baby on the B. now that give a nice sentence Send Baby To Christ. Further he stated that JR would eventually sell PR out and shift the blame on her, well will see what happens, only know that a lot he (Hodges) said would happen, did indeed happen already. Can't wait for his new book!! Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Hi, Sylvia" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:04:51 7/13/2000 forever now, I have been trying to figure/reason how a mother could so coldly, calculatingly, go on living without her "baby". I feel strongly that JR is our culprit, or catalyst, yet up until now, couldn't fit Patsy's act in it. Now, we're seeing a smileing, happy, backless dress wearing, facelifted woman, having the time of her life. JR looks like he's taking all the toll, himself. Is it possible that she has reverted to the PR she was when they first met? Is she once again the object of JR's attention? Is that what it ALL boils down to? A sick love affair? She has something in common with many a psycho,too, I've noticed. Like Andrew Cuahnanen(sp?), she looks different in every picture. A chameleon. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Shades of Thomas" Posted by Cutter on 14:32:06 7/12/2000 Steve Thomas appears to be a very sincere person. I'm certainly glad he came forward and wrote the book for the simple reason that it exposes the corruption and incompetence in the Boulder County District Attorney's Office. Generally speaking, the book is much more of in indictment of Alex Hunter than it is the Ramseys. Not very much new information was reveled in the book regarding the case, it was more confirmation of what had already been leaked or rumored. I'm sure there is other information that Thomas did not put in the book. But I think that his (or his publisher's) intent was to write a book for mass market appeal. To include every finite element of the case would have been fantastic as far as us "JBR case junkies" are concerned, but it would have bogged the book down to the point of boredom for the majority of the reading public. My biggest problem with Thomas is his mental block when it comes to Burke. When asked on the APB Forum about Burke, his reply was: "Burke did not kill his sister. I don't think this killing was in any way related to sex, love, drugs, or money. I believe it was accidental, in the sense it lacked motive. (Not accidental, by way of falling down stairs, for example, but accidental in the sense there was no premeditation). So had Burke committed this act (which I don't think he did, let me stress strongly), why the cover-up? Why would a parent not call immediately for help, instead, to try and save a grievously wounded child?" My answer to Thomas is simple. If Burke had been molesting JBR and killed her either by accident or because she was about to expose him, it would be very easy to see how the parents would want to cover that up and convince Burke he was not at fault. Their motive would be to save Burke from a life of shame and no doubt serious mental problems brought on by a life-long guilt. And if that was their intent, they certainly managed to accomplish it, didn't they? Thomas went on to say: "You may know I am not a conspiracy theorist. That scenario would have involved one or two other people, in this elaborate cover up. Not to mention, (all of this hypothetically, of course) exiling Burke the following morning to an unprotected third party location with enough confidence that a nine year old boy would not make a spontaneous utterance or statement regarding just having killed his sister. I cant buy that." As I've stated before, this reasoning by Thomas and the BPD is very faulty. What would have been the alternative to sending Burke away, having Burke roaming around in a house full of cops asking questions and hope one didn't ask Burke anything and get a suspicious answer? Burke was WAY better off at the home of a third party than he would have been in a house of people trained to ask leading questions. Thomas again: "You and I know that this boy didn't write the ransom note, fashion and apply a garrote, stage a crime scene, etc. it was beyond his wherewithall. Additionally, this is not solely my opinion. Neither did the FBI CASKU or any of the people involved in this investigation ever seriously consider the boy (if there was one thing all were unanimous on in this case, it was that -- Burke didn't do it)." Here's where the mental block really comes in, apparently not only by Thomas, but all the authorities that got involved. It seems that when looking at Burke, they were hell-bent on him either committing the entire crime (cover-up and all) or not being the least bit involved. They seem to totally miss the middle ground which would have the parents creating an elaborate (and obviously very successful) cover-up to protect their son. This totally dumbfounds me and I have to attribute it to Thomas' inexperience as a homicide detective. There are facts in this case that just can't be ignored. Besides there being absolutely no conclusive evidence that an intruder was in the house that night, there is also no history whatsoever that either parent ever abused a child or even had violent tendencies. But the Ramseys ARE two spoiled people that have always been used to controlling whatever situation they were in. It's easy to see how if they discovered JBR dead at the hands of Burke's misadventure they would immediately form a plan to take hold of the bat and the ball and control the game. Isn't that what they have been doing for 3.5 years now? Why would they act any differently on the night JBR was murdered? Thomas concluded: "And is there a "smoking gun" excluding Burke?, As seems to be the case often in this case, everyone wishes it could be more clear cut. But by piecing the puzzle together in a number of different ways, there is nothing to indicate Burke's involvement in any fashion." Maybe instead of approaching this case as a 50-piece puzzle, Thomas and the BPD should have realized it was well over 1000+ and considered other options that weren't so easy to fit together... Cutter (A staunch Burke theorist) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "ho hum" Posted by Matt on 19:05:20 7/12/2000 Lacey: another excellent post by you in this series. Never ceases to amaze me that when anyone wishes to discuss the obstruction of justice and obvious corruption with respect to the DA and his lackeys on this case--er, this is how Thomas is now labeled a whistle blower, case you didn't know that--people will try to steer the conversation away from that and start harping on Thomas' theory. YAWN. That is so OLD. So you don't like Thomas' theory. Big hairy deal. How many times have I heard that song. I don't like all of his theory either. So what. It's a theory just like all the others most of which don't hold as much water as his. That is NOT the issue here (whether his theory turns your crank or not) The issues are what he revealed in his book about the Jelly Fish Hunter and Hoffstrom and DeMuth that are obstruction of justice allegations and why there was never an arrest. How can any of you possibly think an arrest could come about after reading all of the things that Hunter, DeMuth and Hoffstrom did to obstruct this case? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Agree" Posted by Sylvia on 03:19:58 7/13/2000 Absolutely agree, if Steve Thomas would not have published his book, the whole charade would still be going on. His book in first place was written to show a corrupt system. Well he sure did succeeded on that. And to me that makes him a hero, having the guts to go against it, no matter what. Shows he's got his heart on the right place. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Need clarification" Posted by Watching you on 05:37:35 7/13/2000 on something you said, Sylvia - *Yes it (the autopsy report) says chronic sexual abuse!* I don't think the autopsy report said that at all. It has been interpreted by some experts to mean that, but the report itself only identified certain chronic irritations and abrasions. It does not specifically state chronic sexual abuse. There is no doubt there was chronic irritation there. How that chronic irritation got there is still up for grabs. (No, I don't believe it got there from bubble bath.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "It's in the autopsy report and the affidavit." Posted by Sylvia on 09:44:10 7/13/2000 >on something you said, Sylvia - >*Yes it (the autopsy report) says chronic >sexual abuse!* >I don't think the autopsy report said >that at all. It has >been interpreted by some experts to >mean that, but the report itself >only identified certain chronic irritations and >abrasions. It does not specifically >state chronic sexual abuse. There >is no doubt there was chronic >irritation there. How that chronic >irritation got there is still up >for grabs. (No, I don't >believe it got there from bubble >bath.) The autopsy report states: the smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vagina wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. So what caused the erosion to the hymen? Also in the affidavit from Detective Arndt (present at the autopsy) sweared that the coroner Meyer had told her after the autopsy that JonBenét had received an injury consistent with digital penitration of her vagina that it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Points and Counterpoints" Posted by Lacey on 05:55:47 7/13/2000 Thanks Matt, for clarification on the obvious. I started this thread to explain some of how I feel the way I feel about the Thomas disclosures, then I got tied up and couldn't get back to the forum! (And no, not by the forum Thomas-dissers, lol..) I'm not surprised to see some advocates of their own pet perspectives jump in and use this as an opportunity to promote their own theories. So yes, let's remember that Thomas insists only that corruption exists in Boulder, and it soundly sabotaged JfJBR. That said, he also came up with a pretty good explanation of the events that occurred on the night of December 25, 1996, that just so happens to form the foundation of the case against the Ramseys. For that reason it's a theory that's a little hard to ignore. And that's all I have to say about that. In any case, Thomas has accomplished the type of exposure and disclosure that otherwise would remain unchallenged by a system entrenched in corruption. His book and his media confrontations helped establish his credibility and gained ground toward exposing the guilty. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that his revelations will result in JfJBR - but that was lost long ago, I think. Thanks everyone, for your input. Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Lacey" Posted by Real Stormy on 07:13:47 7/13/2000 I agree with you about Thomas. I don't think he sabotaged the case because at the point he wrote his book, there was and is no case to sabotage. I also believe that the reasons for no prosecutable case can be laid firmly at the feet of Hunter et al. I admire Thomas. I think he was filled with righteous indignation and wanted the public to know exactly what went on in the investigation and why. I'm pretty righteously indignate myself! The fact that I agree with Thomas about the likely scenario leading to JB's death probably colors my feelings about him though. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Sylvia" Posted by Watching you on 10:05:19 7/13/2000 >The autopsy report states: the smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vagina wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. So what caused the erosion to the hymen? Sylvia, I'm not arguing the cause of the erosion to the hymen at all. You said the autopsy said there was chronic sexual abuse. All I'm saying is the autopsy did not specifically say that. Now, do I think there was? I think something happened to her to cause this chronic irritation. I don't know what that something was. I THINK someone may have sexually abused her, mainly because of the state of her hymen, but, again, the autopsy specifically describes the state of the tissue in her vagina, including the hymen. The autopsy does NOT explain how that tissue got in that state. I also know what Linda Ardnt said and I most certainly agree that something happened to JB to cause these injuries. I do not know, though, that these injuries might not have been caused through another means than sexual assault by an adult. Again, the autopsy itself does not say chronic sexual abuse. Other people and other reports might say that, but the autopsy report does not. What one chooses to make of what the autopsy does say is quite another thing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Watching you " Posted by Sylvia on 10:29:25 7/13/2000 >Again, the autopsy itself does not say >chronic sexual abuse. Other people >and other reports might say that, >but the autopsy report does not. > What one chooses to make >of what the autopsy does say >is quite another thing. I agree with you on that, it isn't mentioned in such words. It's how you read the report, fully agree with you on that as well. Sorry, but guess I misunderstood your post, as to stating it in the autopsy report word for word. Don't even know if they ever would do such a thing, giving a statement of sexual abuse in an autopsy report. As far as I know it only gives a report of the injuries. Again it's a difficult case, and a lot was wasted in the beginning, due to mistakes by the police and by the Rammers. But still can't of anything else causing the erosion of the hymen. Specially in combination with the other internal injuries. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Lacey" Posted by Nandee on 09:57:45 7/13/2000 We need Steve to post here on JW. Maybe someone knows how to make that happen. I know he told us if we wanted to get a book signing together we could call Gregg at 800 221-7945 x 531. I called, but maybe there wasn't enough response.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "docg--we seem to have opposite" Posted by fiddler on 12:15:22 7/13/2000 proclivities, then, me (according to you) making too much of evidence, and you (according to me) making too little of it. Foster did ONE THING that was impressive? Did you read the article about him from "lingua franca" I posted? If you did, where on God's earth are you getting this "one thing" business? If you didn't, (and there's lots more where that article came from), you don't know enough about him to judge his expertise one way or the other, let alone to blithely wave him away. So. Ahem. Sorry. Once again, two members of the "BORG" agree to disagree.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "respectfully" Posted by docg on 16:19:22 7/13/2000 I have to agree with you, Fiddler. I disagree! >Foster did ONE THING that was impressive? > Did you read the article >about him from "lingua franca" I >posted? If you did, where >on God's earth are you getting >this "one thing" business? I did read that article yes. And what I see is ONE truly impressive accomplishment for Foster, the ONLY accomplishment that was really a meaningful test of his methods. The Shakespeare attribution can hardly be included, since it's never been verified and is still controversial. What else? He was an "expert witness" in the Unabomber case. So what? If he had used his methods to EXPOSE the Unabomber I'd be impressed. He didn't. I'll look forward to reading what he has to say about the Ramsey case in his book. Until then, I'll defer judgment. >If you didn't, (and there's lots more >where that article came from), you >don't know enough about him to >judge his expertise one way or >the other, let alone to blithely >wave him away. Blithely. That's IT. You got it. >So. Ahem. Sorry. Once >again, two members of the "BORG" >agree to disagree.... Jameson would NOT be pleased. LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "I can just see hir" Posted by Watching you on 05:34:33 7/14/2000 rubbing hir little hands together and cackling over you two, Fiddler, and DocG. Divide and Conquer!!! Syvia, normally I would not have jumped on a statement quite so strenuously, but in this instance those few words could have changed the destiny of this case. It's like the head wound - The pathologist described the head wound in the autopsy report, but he did not go on to say, "caused by a blow from a flashlight or a golf club or the edge of the bathtub in JBR's bathroom." He can't say that. Just like he can't describe the damage to JBR's vagina and then say, "caused by chronic sexual abuse." There are other things besides sexual abuse, per se, that could have caused the chronic inflammation. If he had put "chronic sexual abuse" in that autopsy report, most likely this case would have taken a very different turn immediately, because, I think, of obvious reasons. OTOH, knowing the players in this case, maybe not. At any rate, the chronic in this case seems to have been within the previous 48 hours of JBR's death. It's all very puzzling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Watching you" Posted by Sylvia on 11:32:06 7/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:32:06, 7/14/2000 >Syvia, normally I would not have jumped on a statement quite so strenuously, but in this instance those few words could have changed the destiny of this case.< Watching you, come on, don't worry about that, you just said what you wanted to say and I am glad you did. I am always open for discussion and think everyone has the right to an opinion, even if I do or don't agree with it. But that doesn't mean I am angry or anything like that, I am just glad we can discuss these things in a normal way, maybe sometime a little fire in it. But why not, I don't mind, means someone cares. >At any rate, the chronic in this case seems to have been within the previous 48 hours of JBR's death.< From what I understand, reading the books chronic means at least 48 hours upto 72 hours before death, anything within those 48 hours would be named accute. After weeks or months the injury would have been healed completely and would not show up at an autopsy. From what I understand is that there were signs of both accute and chronic injuries. >It's all very puzzling< Yes. It is very puzzling I couldn't have said it beter. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Hey, kids," Posted by gaiabetsy on 12:07:50 7/14/2000 isn't it so sad we're splitting hairs over the terms "chronic" and "acute" yet this little girl is as dead as she's ever been and the people responsible still walk around free (if you can call living with the commission of that death "freedom"). In all likelihood (and bear with me because I feel a bit depressed about this blasted case today) we'll never know for sure who did that murder. Yet, I gotta say, I've always felt I knew who was responsible - right from the "get-go". Why? Probably because I'm prejudiced and felt immediately swayed in a certain direction. I prefer to think (of course) I'm a clearer thinker than that, but I'm not at all sure. What did the rest of you think about who the culprit(s) was upon hearing about the crime? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "2 cents" Posted by Seashell on 12:49:43 7/14/2000 It seems that there is no gray matter in several places, besides some of the authorities heads. First, no one has ever considered that Burke could have fought with JBR and hurt her badly and accidentally in a sibling tiff or while trying to defend her - and the parents "fixed" it. He would be very capable of hiding his involvement in it, especially if coached and threatened by his parents. Secondly, no one has considered seriously that JR could be the notewriter. Thirdly, now we have even PR and JR claiming that the notewriter and killer are one and the same. All of the above indicates black and white thinking - very dangerous in police investigations. Add to the mix ST, who wrote a very good expose but destroyed it by putting in his unsubstantiated two cents about Patsy. His book has turned the public face even farther from looking at JR than before. I'm almost paranoid enuf to think that JR and ST worked together to point the finger at PR and away from JR - but not quite! I am also ALMOST paranoid enuf to think that perhaps FW influenced ST and that FW has vested interests in helping JR look innocent and PR guilty. ST doesn't have a clue as to how the murder went down IMO and was extremely irresponsible to posit his theory, knowing that he'd be listened to and respected by JQ Public. And to say the the crime was not sexually motivated is naive at best. Even LW said she was a "pedophile's dream." And we still have that incest/dictionary pesky problem. So I'm also agreeing to disagree and 90% in docg's camp as well as my own "Patsy's very possibly being framed camp." Oh, and Burke could have been involved as well - unlikely, but still a possibility IMO. I just can't think that black and white and am dismayed that ST does. The whole concept of the note writer being the killer first came from JR's mouth not long ago and PR agreed. This makes me feel very very uneasy as tho JR again is slipping the noose while tightening it around PR's neck. Knowing that she's the target of Thomas, why did he say that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "gaiabetsy " Posted by Sylvia on 12:32:06 7/14/2000 >isn't it so sad we're splitting hairs over the terms "chronic" and "acute" yet this little girl is as dead as she's ever been and the people responsible still walk around free (if you can call living with the commission of that death "freedom").< Why sad, I don't mind getting to the point, so is in all likelihood Watching me, we just have a healthy conversation on a certain subject, sothat we can exchange idea's. >In all likelihood (and bear with me because I feel a bit depressed about this blasted case today) we'll never know for sure who did that murder. Come on, don't give up! We just need to keep the discussion going untill the case is solved. Isn't that what it is all about, so please don't be depressed. I understand you feel bad, about the killers still being on the loose, we all do, but we can't let those killers get away with it. >Yet, I gotta say, I've always felt I knew who was responsible - right from the "get-go". Why? Probably because I'm prejudiced and felt immediately swayed in a certain direction. I prefer to think (of course) I'm a clearer thinker than that, but I'm not at all sure. What did the rest of you think about who the culprit(s) was upon hearing about the crime? Simply no intruders, parents did it. To much happened that was not normal, lawyer, acting guilty, not cooperating. That's what made me suspicious. Probably prejudged too! So come on want to see a smile on your face :-) Don't forget live goes on, no matter what happens and we can only give it our best shot. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Yo, Sylvia," Posted by gaiabetsy on 12:52:22 7/14/2000 you sure are the sunny one. Thanks for the uplifting. I really needed it. Guess you could tell. Sometimes, I swear, it seems like the "good guys" don't finish anywhere but last, yet I know in my heart that really isn't true. I just watch people like the Rams meandering through their lives and doing more than getting by. Sometimes they seem to flourish. That's when it bothers me. When I hear Patsy is fat or they're selling something they love, I truly do believe in karma. But, those sinkers keep bobbing back up to the top. They just continue on. How? Let's just say I'm the mother of this slain child and I had "something" to do with the murder and/or coverup. There is no way I could have lived this long. As much as I detest knives, guns, drowning, etc., there is no way I can imagine living with my participation in that tragedy. No way at all. My life would be worth $0.25. in that exchange. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Gaiabetsy, glad to see you smile again!!" Posted by Sylvia on 13:25:36 7/14/2000 No thanks at all, glad to help in any way I can. Also feel down and lost sometimes, so next time you can lift me up :-) Well yeah, could see it in your mail, the way you wrote. And it doesn't cost a thing to chear some one up. I have a lot real bad experiences, so I know how it feels. Yes, I know it seems like that, but we aren't going to give them a minute rest, right? I also can't imagine that I could live with that myself, I think I would really start hating myself. But they are just ego trippers, selfish, cold, manipulative, it's some people are just like that. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Sylvia ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Darn, you, Sylvia," Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:32:30 7/14/2000 are you someone I already know on another forum or handle? Please let me know via Hdc@ispchannel.com. Thing is, guys, I'm one of those "runaways" looking for a family, so let me know about yourselves. Perhaps you might qualify. Seriously, I saw a documentary on HBO today about kids born addicted or just plain abused. Or both. Mostly both. I saw a little boy (8 yr. old, I think) that no one could subdue when he became violent. Geez, I feel so bad for those kids. I'm not from the "Cleaver" family at all; quite the opposite. Yet these kids give me the shivers. They're lost. But JB was more like me. Not completely lost between the cracks, but certainly messed with. Of that, I am sure. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Gaia" Posted by sebastian on 14:28:16 7/14/2000 I have those days when I am so depressed about the case I can hardly think about anything else. I seem to take on other folks bad feelings. I soak them up and become depressed as well. I had another one of those attacks of great sorrow just now while reading this thread. I have come to know who killed JonBenet by simple intuition. I don't know every detail or exactly who did what, but I do know that John and Patsy are responsible for JonBenet's death. The rest, IMO, are just details. No matter what anyone "thinks" happened or what the theories are or which parent did what, the results are the same, JonBenet is dead. She was brutally molested and murdered in her home on Christmas night by her parents. In my newly formed opinion, it doesn't make a bit of difference who did the killing and who did the covering, they are both just as responsible as the other. I have had many sleepless nights for the last 1 1/2 years and I finally, recently, decided that I am not going to fight with the details anymore. With Alex Hunter in office and one of his puppets most likely to replace him, the Ramsey's will never serve time for the murder of JonBenet. It just won't happen without some serious whistle blowing and some serious detective work inside the BPD and DA's office. The only hope I see for prosecution is if the entire personel of both are replaced and charges are brought against them for obstruction of justice. I would love to see some new laws in place with JonBenet's name on them as a reminder to America that we aren't going to take this type of "special" treatment of criminals anymore. Children are the cornerstone of America and if we abuse them and treat them as objects and posessions and cause them to feel inadequate and belittled then how in the hell are they going to grow up and make a difference in the world we live in. I am so sick of the way our justice system is applied. The innocent go to jail and the guilty run free as long as the money is handed out to the right people. I have to apologize for ranting. When I have one of these attacks of sadness it isn't long before it turns to pain and then anger. Which makes me think of PR and JR's lack of anger. Hummm why would there be a lack of anger on their part? They should be the ones who are angry. After all it is their daughter who was killed by an intruder, right? I think I will have a cig now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Gaiabetsy..." Posted by Dunvegan on 14:03:32 7/14/2000 ...myself, sort-of, too... I've mentioned my upbringing before on JW, and it seems pretty straight-forward that the reason I have such an abiding interest in justice for JonBenet is that I've been ghosted by a few parallels between JB's life and my childhood. Suffice it to say that things were so sick on the inside, and upright on the outside, that I was determined to escape, and fled the "hell hole" at an exceptionally young age to make my way in the world. I believe that my overbearing, over-controlling, utterly twisted guardian is probably sadly passed away now...the thing is that I do not know: my last contact with the immediate family that "raised" me ended many years ago. Its taken years to get over the worst and heal...but survive and heal I did. I was determined to survive AND to prevail...and, I was lucky. I can't shake the feeling that JonBenet was every bit as determined...and very tragically unlucky. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "No matter what" Posted by canadiana on 21:03:07 7/14/2000 the end result in this case is, the Ramsey's behaviour has been despicable IMO. Despicable is actually too gentle a word, but I can't think of anything else. I sincerely hope if any laws are made in JonBenet's name, the Ramsey name is left out altogether. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "I've got a word for them:" Posted by MJenn on 23:39:49 7/14/2000 Monstrous. A la Susan Smith, O.J., the Aisenburgs. People who kill others and then jump in front of the camera to proclaim their victimhood are just monsters, plain and simple. We try to deny this because it makes us feel very insecure to think the person standing next to us in the grocery store could also be a monster. Monsters have bad teeth and greasy hair and a crazy look in their eyes and have "MONSTER" stamped on their forehead, right? Not these average looking people. Not these victims of the media and the big, bad police. They had a show on The Learning Channel tonight on Susan Smith. Her supporters still claim she was a victim, suicidal. But the interviews with the police agents who worked on that case from the beginning revealed hair-raising accounts of how she started giving herself away from the moment she reached in that car and released that brake lever, sending Michael and Alex to their deaths. She kept saying "my children...my children" when talking with police. She didn't see them as separate human beings, they were "hers." She claimed they were with God, now.... Sound familiar? She drowned them, lied and covered up that fact for 9 days with elaborate stories of kidnapping. She had no history of abusing her children, in fact, was considered a model mother. Too bad her rich sugar daddy didn't like kids. So just get rid of them. Simple. Pure sociopathology. Then look at her husband, David. To this day, 6 years later, he is so devastated by the loss of his sons he refuses to have more children and has not remarried. He still cries when he talks of them, and I mean real tears. It breaks your heart to see him. He immediately took a polygraph test and passed. Susan failed two polygraphs. He won't forgive what Susan did and wanted the death penalty for her. She was chatting about unrelated things a few hours after she put Michael and Alex in the lake while the police sketch artist was trying to put together a picture of the "abductor." She'd storm out of the interrogation when she was asked about her involvment in their deaths. Her media "interviews" are text book examples of killer parent pathology. Jeez, there must be a handbook out there for parents who kill children. Sorry for the tirade. Now I'm depressed. Going to soak in a hot bubble bath for a looooong time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "storming out of the interview" Posted by Edie Pratt on 10:24:03 7/15/2000 "what would you say to a polygraph test, John?" "I'd say, I've never been more insulted in my life!" Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Right, Edie, textbook!" Posted by MJenn on 17:13:16 7/15/2000 I went to ramazon.com to look for the handbook, and sure enough, there it was! "How to Kill Your Child and Declare 'Victory!'" by Constitution John and Pageanty On-the-Lambsey. The description went something like this: "A candid and straightforward how-to manual for parents whose bad children ask for it--AND GET IT! The On-the-Lambseys have gathered tried and proven techniques from the many victimized parents and killers that have blazed the trail to end the oppression of child murderers everywhere. Using the practical guidelines of this book, you'll never experience the death of your innocent belief that you, too, can get away with it. "Here's a sample of chapters in the book: Chapter 1: The importance of lawyers early on: O.J. vs. Susan Smith Chapter 2: What to do when "the event" is unexpected Chapter 5: The advantages of an "abductor": staging the crime scene Chapter 9: The all important media blitz: what works and what doesn't (Hint: never answer any questions about evidence unless it's to deny that nagging little detail you can't explain, always talk about God and don't be afraid to exaggerate past miracles in your life) Chapter 10: Don't forget: the lunatic fringe is your ally! Chapter 14: You're home free! Lawsuits, liquidation, and off-shore accounts. "Really a MUST READ if you're on the edge, your medication isn't working, and it's just a matter of time!" I'm ordering this book immediately! My son is grown, but what's that saying? It's never too late! When I finish it, I'll post my review! In the meantime, WHY DON'T ANY OF YOU WHO HAVE READ THIS POST YOUR REVIEW OF THE BOOK? HOW ABOUT IT? DO YOU RECOMMEND THIS BOOK OR NOT? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Is everyone all played out?" Posted by MJenn on 19:55:44 7/16/2000 From the fabulous weekend crime spree at Holly's? No creative juices left in anyone? Bad timing on my part, I guess. But when the muse strikes.... The story of my life. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "MJenn" Posted by Raisedinboulder on 21:07:00 7/16/2000 It's not that everyone's "Creative juices" aren't there or that we're "Played out." We just missed everyone who were away for the JWreunion. Welcome back. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE