Justice Watch Discussion Board "White Speak - Part Deux (DOH!)" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... White Speak - Part Deux (DOH!), MrsBrady, 03:26:23, 5/12/2000 Reposts from end of first thread, MrsBrady, 03:27:19, 5/12/2000, (#1) I couldn't imagine, Househazard, 04:36:46, 5/12/2000, (#2) Lake is certainly a fountain of info lately, Cassandra, 05:53:50, 5/12/2000, (#3) I will play , luvsflowers, 06:12:26, 5/12/2000, (#4) mame, fly, 07:45:10, 5/12/2000, (#5) Fleet , Aurora, 12:38:38, 5/12/2000, (#6) Aurora, Gemini, 13:02:12, 5/12/2000, (#7) MW, Phantom, 13:37:55, 5/12/2000, (#10) Lake...silly me, Cassandra, 13:16:34, 5/12/2000, (#8) If Fleet White is so heroic,, Holly, 12:55:46, 5/13/2000, (#62) Holly, Ajila, 19:20:11, 5/13/2000, (#67) Darby / Shadow, Ryder, 13:21:33, 5/12/2000, (#9) Cassandra, Gemini, 13:51:57, 5/12/2000, (#11) Darby, lake, 13:55:46, 5/12/2000, (#12) Drip, drip, drip, Greenleaf, 14:38:20, 5/12/2000, (#13) Yeh, Greeny, lake, 14:56:11, 5/12/2000, (#14) Why, Greenleaf, 15:11:51, 5/12/2000, (#15) PatsyPooP, straykat2, 15:23:42, 5/12/2000, (#16) Major fallacies are throwing you all off course, Ginja, 16:39:31, 5/12/2000, (#20) But wait, Greeny, lake, 15:46:30, 5/12/2000, (#17) Please listen, Lake--, fiddler, 16:26:26, 5/12/2000, (#18) Pugpug lurks a lot, pugpug, 16:39:21, 5/12/2000, (#19) Lake,, listener, 16:45:33, 5/12/2000, (#21) Ginja, darby, 18:20:36, 5/12/2000, (#27) Well, lake, 17:33:55, 5/12/2000, (#22) ????, Greenleaf, 17:37:49, 5/12/2000, (#23) Oh, good, lake, 17:44:54, 5/12/2000, (#24) Lake, you're a glutton for punishment.., Greenleaf, 18:28:53, 5/12/2000, (#30) Thanks, Greeny, lake, 19:20:26, 5/12/2000, (#31) Lake, please keep posting,>>, ayelean, 18:10:43, 5/12/2000, (#25) Hey, lake, 18:17:15, 5/12/2000, (#26) Lake, you make no sense>>>, ayelean, 18:24:36, 5/12/2000, (#28) Yeh, lake, 18:27:40, 5/12/2000, (#29) Darby, Ginja, 19:21:12, 5/12/2000, (#32) We should all know, lake, 19:37:23, 5/12/2000, (#34) And her face turned BLUE>>>, ayelean, 19:29:32, 5/12/2000, (#33) Well...., Pedro, 19:43:28, 5/12/2000, (#35) Lake, Real Stormy, 19:58:07, 5/12/2000, (#37) Yeh , well, lake, 20:06:32, 5/12/2000, (#39) Yes, Lake, Real Stormy, 20:59:20, 5/12/2000, (#42) Lake...., Pedro, 19:48:26, 5/12/2000, (#36) Pedro, lake, 20:03:30, 5/12/2000, (#38) lake..., Pedro, 20:10:53, 5/12/2000, (#40) Gemini and Ginja, Aurora, 20:44:38, 5/12/2000, (#41) Wrong Again, Lake, Real Stormy, 21:04:39, 5/12/2000, (#43) Well R/S, lake, 23:31:12, 5/12/2000, (#44) Let me straighten this out., starry, 23:58:40, 5/12/2000, (#46) But R/S, lake, 23:47:13, 5/12/2000, (#45) Must I point out to you, Lake, Real Stormy, 06:30:08, 5/13/2000, (#51) Oooooo Darby, Ginja, 00:19:05, 5/13/2000, (#47) Ginja, darby, 00:55:42, 5/13/2000, (#48) Darb, Ginja, 08:32:45, 5/13/2000, (#56) lake, darby, 00:59:22, 5/13/2000, (#49) starry , Greenleaf, 04:50:23, 5/13/2000, (#50) JonBenet's hair, mary99, 06:56:15, 5/13/2000, (#53) LOL Greenleaf,, Real Stormy, 06:31:31, 5/13/2000, (#52) Flaming, Coolteach, 09:24:24, 5/13/2000, (#58) Mary99>>>, ayelean, 07:26:58, 5/13/2000, (#54) Accident vs. Pre-meditation?, mary99, 08:21:27, 5/13/2000, (#55) 99!, Ginja, 09:06:55, 5/13/2000, (#57) Ginja!!, mary99, 10:02:28, 5/13/2000, (#60) More, 99!, Ginja, 09:35:19, 5/13/2000, (#59) Lake, for a person, Real Stormy, 11:06:26, 5/13/2000, (#61) ginja, Seashell, 15:09:54, 5/13/2000, (#63) Sea...., Ajila, 18:57:47, 5/13/2000, (#66) Seashell, Real Stormy, 17:56:59, 5/13/2000, (#64) Coolteach, Greenleaf, 18:36:08, 5/13/2000, (#65) Greenleaf, Coolteach, 19:35:04, 5/13/2000, (#68) Talking to Steve, Coolteach, 20:05:25, 5/13/2000, (#69) I think..., Pedro, 17:07:25, 5/14/2000, (#70) ................................................................... "White Speak - Part Deux (DOH!)" Posted by MrsBrady on 03:26:23 5/12/2000 References the Whites communications with the Daily Camera and the Camera response over the Mystery Woman implications - First thread is too long...post below will be coments #44 through #91 from the first thread... [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Reposts from end of first thread" Posted by MrsBrady on 03:27:19 5/12/2000 for our WebTV folks... _________________________________ 44. "And, Rat White" Posted by lake on 15:19:31 5/11/2000 roars with the war and peace of letters to the editors of State papers when he is attempting to get Hunter removed from the case back in 1998. But when Jane Doe contends that the elder White sexually aboused her when she was a child, Rat White squeaks with a private letter to the editors of the BDC complaining about a piece that connects his family to sick, twisted child sexual and physical abuse? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46. "Well, Mary" Posted by lake on 15:42:33 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:42:33, 5/11/2000 You are taking a big leap of faith when you assume that the Ramseys knew on 12/26/96 about the sick, twisted sexual, physical and mental child abuse that may have been practiced by someone the Rs met through the Whites. Without further supporting evidence, it might be safe to assume that White knew about it on 12/26/96, but there is no evidence to support your belief that the Ramsey parents knew about it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47. "Ya had to push it,lake...!" Posted by mary99 on 15:51:31 5/11/2000 Patsy or John killed JonBenet...it all points to them, and only them. Any other person who used a garrotte on JB would have gotten the info from the same place as the Ramseys did; from FW or a family member or friend. If anyone besides PR or JR killed her the Ramseys would not cover for them. Nope, nopey, nope. They 'loved that child' and would only cover for their own actions. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49. "Mary" Posted by Gemini on 15:58:12 5/11/2000 What makes you believe they (the Ramseys) and covering for them (the Whites)? I haven't seen any statements or comments either way. It seems likely the Ramseys are a little too busy in the main ring (with non-polygraphs, civil suits and what-not) to insinuate themselves into this side-show, wouldn't ya think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51. "Protecting the Whites...?" Posted by mary99 on 16:52:20 5/11/2000 Gemini, I said I don't think the Ramseys would cover for any third party who killed Jonbenet. Only for themselves. As far as lawsuits flying like spitballs, they're as busy as beavers, so they don't have to address this issue, now or ever, if they can help it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48. "So Then, Mary" Posted by lake on 15:56:45 5/11/2000 Your belief that one or both of the Rs killed JBR means that they were involved in some sick, twisted sexual association with the Whites or some people that the Whites introduced them to? What exactly is your evidence of that? Or is that just your belief because you cannot put the puzzle together any other way? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52. "not my theory, lake..." Posted by mary99 on 17:06:07 5/11/2000 Give credit where credit is due, lake. Ayelean first hypothesized that Patsy scooped this idea from the MW/FW connection. How she learned of it, who told her, we don't know at this time. But if PR or JR knew about garrotting little girls from family or friends of the Whites, it stands to reason either: one or both Ramseys of them was practicing these sick games or, one or both of them was staging a coverup in the form of the pedophile/intruder/kidnapping, and borrowed heavily from what resources were available: MW's story and movies. That they alone are under suspicion and still refuse to accept the FBI as the only BPD-approved polygraph experts tells me more than ever they are GUILTY . Who but a guilty party would stall when the whole world is laughing at them??? Their high standards and 'unbiased' examiners mean squat when they wish to redeem their image so desparately. Take the FBI test, already, or be called 'guilty' forever!! At this point, passing a test given by anyone else will not make them look any less guilty, it will just look like more Ram-spin. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53. "So now, Mary" Posted by lake on 17:21:17 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:21:17, 5/11/2000 Your belief is that if the Rs do not subject themselves to the voodoo of an FBI polygraph, they killed their daughter? Pretty iffy stuff, Mary. Fleet White has not be charged with any crime. Should he take a polygraph to show that what Jane Doe alleges is false and his family name is being tarnished without cause? And what if he were to refuse to take a FBI polygraph on that subject or how that subject might relate to the murder of JBR? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50. "Because, Mary" Posted by lake on 16:13:38 5/11/2000 That is really an iffy theory you have going there. And apparently none of the cops or tabloids that investigated the Rs for about 3 years seem to have reached that conclusion. But the fact that the cops under Eller and Thomas may not have throughly investigated the other possilble angle of this case that does not include the Ramseys as killers, certainly does leave room for possiblilities that do not include the Rs as part of some sick, twisted child sexual, pyhysical and mental abuse tight knit group of adults. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54. "What do you think, lake?" Posted by mary99 on 17:28:13 5/11/2000 Spit it out, you think they are part of sick group? Or you think they are innocent but their friends were the sick group? I think Patsy staged it. I think she was trying to dye her hair at midnight, and bashed her in a rage, or got up to wake her to pee and found JB's bed wet, and then had an argument, who can really say? But Jonbenet was sexually abused recently before she died, possibly at the Ramseys own Christmas party That's a lot of coincidences in 48 hours: 1. sexual abuse...Ramseys say no 2. 911 call...a mistake 3. party at Ramseys had Whites and their friends...did anything happen? 4. JB refused to sing for the guests, didn't feel pretty...why? 5. then off to the Whites party, where no pineapple was served 6. home and supposedly asleep, still no pineapple 7. sexually assaulted, garrotted, dead by 1 AM...who, how, why, when? 8. FW and JR search the house and find JB, 1 PM 9. pineapple found at autopsy belies parents claims...why did they lie? 10. parents later belie their own claims about their arrival time home...why did they lie? 11. 911 tape later belies their claims that Burke was asleep at the time...why did they lie? And if the parents didn't kill her, why do they lie? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55. "Well, Mary" Posted by lake on 17:40:38 5/11/2000 Now it turns on the pineapple that JBR could have been given by a parent, a brother or an unknown person in the house? Pretty iffy stuff again, Mary. And the hair dye bit is just absurd. JBR's hair was in the same braided style that it was when at the Whites. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62. "Lake says.." Posted by rico on 19:30:24 5/11/2000 "JBR's hair was in the same braided style that it was at the Whites". Did you not read the entire autopsy report? The coroner stated in detail the hair style-two ponytails. No braiding, just one ponytail at top of head and one below tied with blue elastic bands. If her hair was braided at the Whites (I assume you are making a factual statement) then it was changed when the R's arrived home which doesn't give me any reason to believe she was asleep at the time. Where did you get the info that JBR's hair was braided at the Whites? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60. "Lake, you are a fountain of information>>" Posted by ayelean on 19:48:59 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:48:59, 5/11/2000 Your spinning is going to drive you into the ground like a well driller's bit! So now are we suppose to know that JBR's hair was in braids at the Whites or that you don't know that it was in 2 pony tails on autopsy? Everytime Mary99 logically answers one of your questions, you twist the answer to make it into another misinformation fact. Someone better be paying you well. If you think you are influencing the posters here, you are right. The influence is just 'countermeasured' to its intent. FWIW, all the info I have on MW knowing PR I got here on this forum. The first day this MW's news broke, I didn't sleep for 24 hours, trying to reconcile how IMO the only possible person to commit the crime coincided with what the MW was telling us. At that time there was no mention of any commonality with the Rams. Then, here in print it was stated that, I believe Carol McKinley said that she had met the Rams prior to JBR's death. My concept of the deviousness of Patsy fit like the OJ glove! Later when I pressed for details of the extent of MW vs Rams relationship. Mum was the word. I don't care that this forum knows the details, all I care is that the BPD and the FBI know about the association. I figured that the mumness was because it was important info. It is not a stretch for me to see that gal talk between the wives (Rams/Whites) could include the the scandalous deeds of Sr.White. I believe that as sure as God made little green apples, that at least Patsy Ramsey knew the story of the MW. This method of sexual asphyxiation, even though practiced by others on themselves is still likely rare when it is done to a child by someone else, and adding the head bashing as part of the practice. IMHO if JBR was truely a victim of this type of abuse (not just staged) the damage to her vagina would have been much more severe. Mary99, I want to thank you for carry my standard so well. I know it isn't even your primary theory, but you are so good with words, you get the point across ever so much better than I do. Lake is just busting your chops, which tells me someone doesn't like the direction of the discussion. edited to correct typo7 2 not 3 ponytails [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61. "Well" Posted by lake on 19:25:20 5/11/2000 The hair was braided and in 3 pony tails to be exact. Certainly not being dyed or bleached as Mary is suggesting. And I guess FW is a bit out of sorts about the current topic of the Jane Doe. Does that mean to you also that he is "protecting" the Ramseys in some way? I think some of you presumed guilty posters need to regroup and get your stories straight. Some of you make less sense than the Whites or the Ramseys. And you make Steve Thomas look like a blooming idiot. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63. "Now it's 3 ponytails" Posted by rico on 19:37:44 5/11/2000 "Her hair was braided and in three ponytails to be exact." I'll ask you again, Lake, where are you getting your erroneous information. The body was found with two ponytails and this is confirmed in detail in the autopsy report. No braids, no three ponytails. Sincerely, I respect your right to your opinions but don't confuse that with the facts; it only makes it more disagreeable to....disagree! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64. "rico" Posted by lake on 20:07:37 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:07:37, 5/11/2000 I believe that it is you who are confused or uninformed. It is well known, and has been for years that the hair of JBR was braided (or was it platted) and in what one could call pony tails at autopsy. But this issue being addressed was Mary's contention that JBR and PR got into some kind of fight over hair dye or bleaching. The known evidence in no way supports that speculation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 72. "Is that your final answer? " Posted by rico on 20:49:35 5/11/2000 "(or was it platted)"; you don't know what you're talking about Lake and that little question proves it. Please reconsider your position and do the homework and if you still believe "It's well known fact", show me the proof (which btw, is what you have always demanded of other posters and fairly so). And if you can't support your claim, lets just leave well enough alone. As for the hair dyeing, don't know anything about that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73. "well, rico" Posted by lake on 20:59:45 5/11/2000 That was the issue being address with the hair bit. You or somebody else injected the pony tails. Plaited, braided or pony tails. Who cares? The point is that the hair of JBR was not in a condition that would lead on to conclude that PR was attempting to dye or bleach the hair of JBR that night. Now if you have evidence that JBR's hair was different at autopsy from the the style at the White's, that would make a differnece. But of course, if that were true, one would think that the BPD would have leaked that bit of info. to support their theory that JBR was not put right to bed. Sort of like the pineapple business, you know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74. "Lake eerie" Posted by mary99 on 21:10:59 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:10:59, 5/11/2000 Patsy was busy sectioning off JB's hair to fix the dark roots so they wouldn't show when she was re-united with the rest of the family, Mindy and JAR. But she accidentally prepared her to be re-united with Beth. I doubt if they knew how much JB's blondness depended on bleach and hair dye. But, seeing the dark roots would be a dead giveaway. Oops, bad. Well, Patsy made a mess of the dye job and killed JB by accident. It was just a smelling mistake, she let it go, why can't you? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75. "well, mary" Posted by lake on 21:20:28 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:20:28, 5/11/2000 speak to rico. That person seems to think that if the hair was in pony tails or braided or plaited makes some difference regarding the original issue. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66. "To Guppy in the Puddle" Posted by Ruthee on 20:03:49 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:03:49, 5/11/2000 I have no idea where you get your information. I also have no idea where you get the definition of "braided". Now if you look at the back of a pony as in pony tail, you'll see that the hair growing is allowed to hang free. Now some of the horse rears that you have examined may have had "braided tails", but the term refers to free hanging strands of long hair. In this case the hair was secured with a band. I hope this clears up this muddy matter for you. When I was growing up we had a horse named "Faye", and we did braid her tail before a show. That was so the tail would be wavy for the horse pageant. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68. "Ruthee" Posted by lake on 20:22:42 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:22:42, 5/11/2000 I have a pig that wallows in the mud and she is named Ruthee. And when I call that pig named Ruthee she comes a running. And my pig Ruthee loves beer. Do you like beer too Ruthee? And my pig Ruthee likes to wear a little pink bow on her tail. How about you Ruthee? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70. "no, but..." Posted by mary99 on 20:22:16 5/11/2000 Ruthee always swims in the lake afterwards... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67. "Ruthee" Posted by Hannah on 20:05:29 5/11/2000 Good one, I love your sense of humor. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57. "Remote Control" Posted by Lacey on 18:32:40 5/11/2000 Man, I wasn't gonna post tonight.................. 1. Most likely, MW copied the Ramsey crime in recounting her story 2. Agent 99, repeat after me: Its Not a Garrote. That's media spin (reference: the autopsy) 3. Patsy Ramsey got the idea from a movie or crime novel, just like the ransom note. Try Presumed Innocent, for example. Almost identical crime scene. 4. I see a few folk foaming at the mouth here. Get thee to a rabies clinic Flame baby, flame . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58. "Lacey" Posted by Ribaldone on 19:00:50 5/11/2000 yep. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59. "Lacey" Posted by lake on 19:05:18 5/11/2000 Nope! No evidence of that. And there is no evidence that PR wrote the note. Just you opinion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65. "mame is right..." Posted by shadow on 19:46:46 5/11/2000 The Camera is "covering its ass." Bad mojo to follow!! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71. "This is so funny>>" Posted by ayelean on 20:45:08 5/11/2000 What area in the US uses 'plaited' for braided? That pig story is so much like some of the other prankish tales we've heard about. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76. "But" Posted by lake on 21:26:49 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:26:49, 5/11/2000 What about the rat that roared about Hunter but just peeped when someone called his old man a molester of little girls? Seems to me that FW is hiding something. And if the Jane Doe accusations are of substance, it is much more likely that JBR was molested by someone associated with the Whites and by a Ramsey. And by extension, likely that someone other than the Rs were behind the murder of JBR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78. "lake" Posted by darby on 21:50:21 5/11/2000 What gives? How come you feel that every single solitary soul should be saved from any scrutiny concerning the murder... EXCEPT FOR THE WHITES AND THEIR CIRCLE OF FIENDS? Just asking. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80. "Lake..." Posted by shadow on 22:20:16 5/11/2000 I know that I agreed to not "bother" you anymore. But I just can't ignore this statement ... "Seems to me that FW is hiding something. And if the Jane Doe accusations are of substance, it is much more likely that JBR was molested by someone associated with the Whites and by a Ramsey. And by extension, likely that someone other than the Rs were behind the murder of JBR." It's really a "no brainer" to throw crap like this out on internet forums... 1) What do you think FW is hiding? Quit the BS and tell us! 2) "...it is much more likely that JBR was molested by someone associated with the Whites and by a Ramsey." Tell us who this person associated with the Whites and a Ramsey is! 3) "And by extension, likely that someone other than the Rs were behind the murder of JBR." So you don't think the Rs were involved? Why do you have to play these mind games, Lake? Can't you just say what you think? shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 79. "darby" Posted by lake on 22:52:04 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:52:04, 5/11/2000 Are you meaning to imply that the Ramseys have not be extensively investigated over the past three years? What do you know about any extensive investigation of the Whites and the others from California that were in Boulder on 12/25/96? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 81. "lake" Posted by darby on 22:48:45 5/11/2000 You answer my questions with questions. So I'll answer YOUR questions with one of my own: Who do you think killed JonBenet? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82. "darby" Posted by lake on 23:04:45 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:04:45, 5/11/2000 Someone from California who was in Boulder on 12/25-26/96 would be a more viable suspect than either of the Ramsey parents IMO. I would dig deep into about 5-7 peoples background and forensics and see what I came up with and then go from there. And I doubt that the person who wrote the note actually killed JBR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83. "lake" Posted by mary99 on 23:37:17 5/11/2000 So the Ramseys have spent three years and millions of dollars to protect a perfect stranger who waltzed into their life and their house for one night to kill their daughter and then return home unblemished by investigation? All the private detectives have done is chase innocent people and spend Ramsey millions while the the killa sat in the sun, back in CA? Tell me why the Ramseys are so charitable, cause you really don't make any sense a'tall. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 84. "Oh, Mary" Posted by lake on 00:04:06 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:04:06, 5/12/2000 I think the Rs spent all that money on lawyers to protect themselves from a bunch of incompetent cops that had a gut feeling and knew nothing at all about following evidence. The only way Thomas could have solved this case was with a confession. And he was looking for a confession from the wrong people. Read his book. His story gives him away. If the evidence did not fit his theory, the evidence must not relate to the crime. I could build probable cause case against you if you knew the Ramseys and were in Boulder at the time of the killing if that was the standard that should be followed in a murder investigtaion. You say you have an alibi. Well someone is just lieing for you. You say your handwriting is not a match to the note, well you just disguised your handwriting. You say you have no prior history, well that does not matter, there has to be a first time for everything. And if I had a woman on 12/26/96 who told me that you and your father had sexually abused her, I could have your butt in jail on suspicion of murder if I found any of your forensics in that house, no matter how they got there. And any cop with the attitude of Thomas could do the same unless there was someone with an understanding of the law to reign him in. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85. "lake, answer the question" Posted by mary99 on 00:02:20 5/12/2000 You said its much more probable that a friend of the FW family from CA killed JB, and yet you can't explain why this 'fiend' of the family hasn't been identifed and arrested. Are you saying that the Ramseys can't find him, don't want to find him, or know who he is and where he is, but for altruistic reasons prefer not to turn him into police and see justice served? And, if they know the killa and have no confidence in Boulder police, why then haven't their ex-FBI and BPD detectives gone out and built an iron=clad case and handed it to the BPD and AH? I thought that was the ostensible point of hiring those two, or are they really working for free? It makes no sense for them to be innocent and refuse to take polygraphs if they can produce the killa. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 86. "Well,mary" Posted by lake on 00:20:34 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:20:34, 5/12/2000 I doubt that the BPD has made all the crime scene evidence collected by the BPD available to the Ramseys and their lawyers and their detectives. Do you think they have? But even if they have (which I think we should know they have not) would that evidence be conclusive and exculsively related to the crime? Maybe not. I think JR said that the BPD had the killers DNA. He did not say that his investigators had the killers DNA. And what else might the investigation have that the public and the Ramseys investigators are not privy to? I would think, some important evidence. If the cops have the crime scence evidence, it is they,not the Rs who can to tie the evidence to someone, not the Rs and their investigators. But the BPD has dug their hole of speculation and theory. Some other law enforcement agency is going to have to tie the evidence to the killer, not the BPD or the Ramsey investigators. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87. "You said..." Posted by mary99 on 00:44:06 5/12/2000 You can't have it both ways, lake. First you said the killa is a FW friend or family member from CA, and the BPD needs to check out 5-7 people and do forensics tests. That still doesn't explain two things: ***Why the Ramseys aren't telling all they know about this friend of a friend, preferring apparently to reside permanently under the umbrella of suspicion while killa-guy goes scot-free and drinks up the sun. Makes no sense, lake!!! ***Then you switch and say its up to the BPD to find him and match him to forensic evidence, like we're talking about the unknown pedophile/intruder/kidnapper all over again. Which is it, lake, you're going in circles here. Friend of family of FW/MW? Unknown maniac? Can't be both. You say the Rams didn't do it, look at 5-7 guests from CA. So the MW sex ring theory is alive and well? Yet Patsy wrote the note. The killa isn't neccessarily the author of the note. Therefore, Patsy didn't do it (kill JB), you say. Are you now saying she wrote a coverup note for either an unknown maniac or a friend of a friend, who came in and murdered JB while they slept? Why would she write a ransom note for a kidnapping that never happened? While JB is dead and the killa goes home. I think you have spun yourself dizzy tonight. One more time: If the killer was a friend of a friend, she would not write a ransom note and cover up the murder, she would turn them in after calling 911. If the killer was an unknown maniac, who knew all about using rope to slowly strangle little girls, then explain all the Ramsey lies about the activities and events for the 48 hours before the murder. If MW knew the Ramseys, or they knew of her, that explains the method. It implicates them more than any guest they may have had or met. There was no intruder!!! Are you saying the person who killed JB was unknown to the Rams, yet also knew of FW/MW/CA? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 88. "Wrong, Mary" Posted by lake on 01:08:45 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 01:08:45, 5/12/2000 You think Patsy wrote the note. Some experts think otherwise. Some experts, including the CIA concluded that there is no evidence that PR wrote the note. And the BPD had apparently dismissed the Ca. connection without an extensive and through investigation. So sure they have find the person. I understand that there are people who were in Boulder, Co. at the time of the murder who are now in Europe. Do you know where they are? Do you know that someone else handwriting out of that group might not be an even closer match to the note than PR? Does the BPD know? I doubt that you know that. And if you find in believable that PR would leave a ransom note in an attempt to deflect attention away from her, it is just as likely that someone who knew the Ramseys would do the same to deflect attention away from them. Especially if they were not going to be around to give a handwriting sample to the police. After all, the police have handwriting samples from people (other than PR) in this case who cannot be excluded as the writer of the ransom note based exclusively on their handwriting sample alone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 89. "Patsy, Patsy all Patsy all the time" Posted by mary99 on 01:12:07 5/12/2000 The note is Patsy through and through. Linguistics, psychology, commonality of phrases, margins, and text blocks, all common to Patsy. Do you really think the handwriting of a woman who has just killed her daughter is going to match a handwriting sample given in a tranquilized, medicated state later on? I'm sure her hands were shaking so badly she could hardly form letters. That would be very hard to duplicate in a medicated state the following day. So I think the handwriting test being inconclusive is irrelevant. Linguistics, phrases, blocking, margins are less likely to change under extreme stress or excitement. What she formed in her mind is unique to Patsy and it shows in the note. Regardless of the handwriting being inconclusive, as tested by the CBI, other experts found her to be the author. Which goes to show, you can try to change what you are aware of, but what you aren't aware of doing will stay the same. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90. "If there is one thing that I do know" Posted by lake on 01:41:12 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 01:41:12, 5/12/2000 It is that it is highly unlikely thatPatsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note. And if that is what you are hanging your hat on, you are dead in the water just like the BPD. Why even that nut Donald Foster does not attribute the content of the note to Patsy Ramesy. But I guess you are a better expert than Donald Foster and the CIA handwriting experts? Your handwriting ID table does not even have one leg, much less 2. And if you know anything about this case you know that PR gave 5 handwriting samples. The last one in June or July of 1997. They never asked for any more. And although many people in the public seem to think the the note was written with the left hand, they only took one left hand sample from PR. And that was the last sample. PR very likely did not write that note, and that is reality. And anyway, that ransom note sounds more like Bill McReynolds than it does PR. But so what? Does that mean he killed JBR? I think not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91. "But" Posted by lake on 01:47:10 5/12/2000 What about Rat White and the charge by the Jane Doe that has proof that she is a long time "friend" of the White family and claims that the senior White molested her as a child? Like father like son, do you think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "I couldn't imagine" Posted by Househazard on 04:36:46 5/12/2000 someone who knew about the sex ring (or White Sr's doings) sitting around telling an outsider about his doings. This would be like a death wish. So my opinion is, if the Ramsey's knew anything about it, they were part of it. The fact that MW is in hiding proves that point. As far as the hair, it was two pony tails. One on top of the head and one at the back. I stated on another post to Rico it was 3 pony tails and I apologize. I must have read on another forum or article it was three. THIS time, I read the autopsy report, so I'm certain now. Sorry Rico. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Lake is certainly a fountain of info lately" Posted by Cassandra on 05:53:50 5/12/2000 about the MW, etc. What lake are you named after, Rabun or Lanier, or some other Georgia lake? Plaits. LOL Regional expression. You gave yourself away. Now let's explore the possibilities. Are you on a list of friends? Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "I will play " Posted by luvsflowers on 06:12:26 5/12/2000 the FW game with you Lake. I find the trip he made to Aspen before Christmas very interesting. Heres what I remember from PMPT. FW drove to Aspen on the 22nd--a 5 hour trip. Who went with him? Friends? Wife and kids? He spent the night and came home on the 23rd in time to attend the Rams party. Another 5 hours home. Why didnt he fly? why go at all if he has to turn around and come right home? Why not skip the Rams party and stay an extra night. After all his mom is sick in the hospital and its Christmas. Strange trip to me. Then at the party he secludes himself at the party with a phone. Leaves the Rams party with a pad of the Rams on which he had been making notes. why not tear out the notes? why carry the whole pad? was he making doctor notes or ransom notes? LOL sorry couldnt help it. who leaves with him? goes to the airport. Theres the airport thing again. Why, even JR spent all day Christmas day at the airport too. What is up with these men and the airport? Then Christmas Eve the Rams stop by the Whites while they are out looking at Christmas lights (this I think was in DOI). Then Christmas Eve the Rams are back at the Whites for dinner. Thats a lot of visiting back and forth for a 3 day period. But then they WERE best friends. But not anymore. So anyways--Im trying to figure out where you are going with this Lake. Heres one plan--you say the note sounds like Bill McR--well he doesnt fit in my book. So lets substitute another man from that generation. Say FW Sr. Okay--FW Sr has been molesting DW or JBR. JBR is getting too old and wont keep secret. FW Sr decides to murder her but FW wont play ball. So FW Sr calls in homeboys from CA to do the deed. The ransom note is written when FW goes to Aspen and the plan set into place. FW picks up killer from airport. Deed goes down on Christmas night. Killer leaves for CA as soon as possible without arousing suspicion. No testing or DNA taken from killer. I dont know. This sounds a little farfetched to me. But then so deos every other plan. Comments Lake? Oh and one other thing. Do you know the exact date of the "Daphne White is missing but was hiding under the bed" scenario? And have you told the Rams your theory? and if so why arent they screaming about this? why do they still believe someone was in their house for hours before hand and is a sicko pedophile stranger intruder? why arent they getting on TV and outing these out of town mysterious guests of the Whites that had access to JRB in the 48 hours before her death??? I really wanna know. Luvs [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "mame" Posted by fly on 07:45:10 5/12/2000 mame - Wrong. Your answer D is not correct. My question was a reasonable one and was in direct response to statements you made. The DailyCamera stated MW had met the Ramseys. You suggested that is wrong, but did so in a way that is open to multiple interpretations. My questions attempted to get the facts straight (something I thought good old-fashioned reporters value). What your comments involved was the same old story: MW has been done wrong (misrepresented, in this case), but I'm not going to back up my statement with facts (or even a straightforward statement of what the actual situation is), just trust me that my accusation is correct. If darby's (?) interpretation of the Camera statement is correct - that MW knew of, not knew, the Ramseys - then why not say that? If there is some other, more accurate representation than given by the Camera, wouldn't it be better for that to be known? Or would the truth not help MW's credibility? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Fleet " Posted by Aurora on 12:38:38 5/12/2000 White was white as snow before the MW came on the scene. To discredit him...you have to believe the MW's story. I believe she was molested by someone...but think there is NO LINK in this to the JBR murder. PR must be thrilled when you guys get off the track and try to squeeze this piece of the puzzle into fitting the crime scene. For crying out loud..maybe someone is trying to smear Fleet's reputation ..for his silence.. in what he really does know about the murder. Throw stuff up and see what sticks? More roadblocks to the REAL killers... is all this is. I bet Ram's love it when you are dissecting ole Fleet. *sigh* He is not the one that will one day..hopefully...stand trial for killing JBR! He is innocent of anything as far as we know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Aurora" Posted by Gemini on 13:02:12 5/12/2000 Does getting "off track" mean actually thinking instead of repeating the party-line over and over and over and over until the stepford-gene kicks in and the goose-stepping starts? hmmm ... I may need to rethink some of the previous diecussion, Brightlight. The mind control thingy may be wider spread than I want to believe. I know you're sincere, Aurora, no disrespect intended, but that kind of mind-set sends me right off into knee-jerk mode. Thanks just the same, I'd rather not abdicate my ability to reason independently in favor of 'track monitoring'. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "MW" Posted by Phantom on 13:37:55 5/12/2000 Maybe I can remember sometime if I had ever heard her real name, and maybe not, but I have heard of someone being abused since as a child. I live very close to where MW lives and I think I have also heard the name "Ramsey" mentioned before around here, so it seems very possible that the MW could be telling the truth, or the truth as she knows it. I guess since the MW did some kind of ads in magazines that someone could look up the child ads of the 60's to see what her name was? Is there some kind of place on the net? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Lake...silly me" Posted by Cassandra on 13:16:34 5/12/2000 must be Charlesvoix where you hail from. Do you think her death was an accident? Or deliberate, in a cover up? Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "If Fleet White is so heroic," Posted by Holly on 12:55:46 5/13/2000 why did Beckner say he was "morally empty"? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Holly" Posted by Ajila on 19:20:11 5/13/2000 >>>why did Beckner say he was "morally empty"?<<< 1. For one thing, we aren't even positive that Beckner is even working with his eyes wide open. He may be wrong about FW. 2. I have one theory going that would put FW in the porn business (not sure in what capacity) in which he shared knowledge of kinky sex play with JR. In this theory that would be the catalyst to John's molesting JonBenet. I have read that many molestations occur after the perp has indulged in some form of porn. This could be why these events didn't occur with John's other daughters. JonBenet's talents may have been more than this latent pedophile could resist. I think FW could be guilty of not sharing important case evidence or testimony that could have value concerning John's behavior and motive. Maybe FW isn't ready to shout it to the world but has put two and two together and realized that his good friend slipped over the edge. That's why he called for a special prosecutor to see if someone else could put it together. Especially, since AH didn't seem to be making any progress. The above is purely speculation and an attempt to fit in the new MW information. I really do hope that Beckner is wrong about Fleet White's character. It goes against what I always thought. But I have to look at all semi-reasonable paths. Ajila *;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Darby / Shadow" Posted by Ryder on 13:21:33 5/12/2000 You make very good points here. I find it amazing that in all the criticism both JR and Lake throw at the police for not getting anywhere with the investigation, that their (both JR and Lake) own contribution to the leads is "someone who was in Boulder on Dec. 25/26." Well, now, that should certainly narrow the list of suspects. I forgot "well-dressed" from PR - where the heck does this come from. Finally "approaching children" because this well-dressed, in Boulder, intruder was a pedophile, even though, JR neither knows for sure, nor wants to know whether or not JB was sexually molested. I don't know, but I think that if I was paying a bunch of money to get to that intruder, I would have done a lot more reflecting on this and would have a more precise image. Lake, I will say it again: your fixation on FW is nothing short of truly bizarre. There is so much pent-up anger resonating in your posts regarding FW, that most of us just can't fathom where the heck this is coming from. There are miles and miles of missing logic between the strength of your animosity towards FW and the argument which you put forth to justify yourself. Your position regarding FW does not make one iota of sense to the on-looker who just hears you rant and rave, never truly explaining your solitary road on this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Cassandra" Posted by Gemini on 13:51:57 5/12/2000 I think pooper-scooper is the poster from the Charlesvoix area. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Darby" Posted by lake on 14:19:23 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:19:23, 5/12/2000 Make that: Luvsflowers I have considered all of the points you bring up in your post. I think they are good points. Would you happen to know if Bill Cox is the biological son of Fleet White? But if the person were "brought in" he could have been in the house while the Rs were at the Whites. I have no problem with that as a possibility. But does that mean the Rs would have proof of anything any more than the BPD who has all the evidence in this case has proof of anything? And I find it interesting that FW thought JR did not need lawyers. That lawyers would just take all the money, and people should handle their own problems without lawyers. And why PW would call Don Paugh and tell him that the Rs should cooperate with the BPD, they did not need lawyers because she knew things that nobody else knew. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Drip, drip, drip" Posted by Greenleaf on 14:38:20 5/12/2000 The anagram for Lake is leak. Drip, drip, drip. Old LakeyPatsyPooPoo is on a roll. On the basis of IQ alone you could identify the author of the Lake posts. I mean, it's not just stupid talking, it's silly stupid. It knows no boundaries; it is the epitome of abnormal thinking. It lashes out at any semblence of logic and giggles at the most serious things imaginable. It preens in its own dull light while attacking all things beautiful and truthful. It doesn't belong in the same room with serious posters; posters who dedicate time and energy to finding justice for JonBenet. Yes, Lake is a drip, who drips bits and pieces of information on this forum, to suit her needs. "Hold on!" Some of you might say, "Lake has every right to be here." No she doesn't. She doesn't want to discuss, debate or share information. She desires only to disrupt the flow of truth and all those expounding it. An example of her warped mind: "I have a pig that wallows in the mud and she is named Ruthee. And when I call that pig named Ruthee she comes a running. And my pig Ruthee loves beer. Do you like beer too Ruthee? And my pig Ruthee likes to wear a little pink bow on her tail. How about you Ruthee?" I don't care who flames me, but I have every right to respond to such hatefulness. There is only one pig on this forum and it's LakeyPatsyPooP. So, get thee to a mental institution, Lake, before it's too late. Drip, drip, drip. You are a first class stupid drip. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Yeh, Greeny" Posted by lake on 15:03:55 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:03:55, 5/12/2000 But what about all the strange stuff about Rat White? Do you think he was one of the abusers of Jane Doe? He would been about 12 years older than the Jane Doe, would he not? And who do you think the young niece of Jane Doe belongs to. You know, the one Jane Doe says was at the Whites dinner party on the 25th along with one of Jane Doe's abusers? Think we will get the answers to some of these questions when the a civil action against Steve Thomas goes to trial? Or do you think the suit against the Globe will bring that stuff out before the Thomas case? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Why" Posted by Greenleaf on 15:11:51 5/12/2000 Why do you call Mr White a "rat?" answer: The mode at Stupidville is fear, and fear causes hysteria. Let's see if I get this straight: MrWhite is a "rat," and Ruthee is a "pig." The rest of us are "brain dead." Does that pretty well sum up your thoughts, Lakey? G*O*O*D*B*Y*E!!! Geeze! Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "PatsyPooP" Posted by straykat2 on 15:23:42 5/12/2000 Greenleaf, I couldn't have said it better. If Lake isn't being paid by Patsy, then Lake IS Patsy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Major fallacies are throwing you all off course" Posted by Ginja on 16:39:31 5/12/2000 First, JonBenet was not garotted. That fabricated contraption around her neck was not a garotte. The "value" of the stick is simply to thwart. As far as its usefulness, there is none. The stick wasn't even used to twist the ligature in any way. If it had been, there'd have been an abrasion on the ligature line, as well as the ligature line being broken. Arndt noted that the ligature was wrapped around the throat twice and then pulled. The stick played no part in that -- it couldn't. Second, JonBenet died from strangulation, not asphyxia. So why all the talk about autoerotic asphyxiation? First problem here, this was not "auto" anything, unless you want to believe JonBenet tried to hang herself to get the maximum orgasm while she masturbated. JonBenet did not masturbate. JonBenet was digitally penetrated and manipulated by someone else...she didn't do this herself. She did not suffer hypoxia, nor did she suffer ischemia. She was not hung or suspended, not by her throat or her wrists. My personal belief here is that there are two separate crimes: first, JonBenet was sexually abused that night. It was done while she was alive. Her abuser did not control her or 'get off' by wrapping a cord around her neck. If her abuser was into this mode of control, he/she used another ligature, i.e., scarf. The second crime is her murder. More to the point in my mind, a sacrifice. The evidence leads to sacrifice, not sex gone awry. It's possible it was just a matter of the child being silenced, so the killer "justified" the killing by making it 'religious', ergo sacrificial killing. But the killer loved this child and in their own twisted thinking, hit her in the head as hard as they could to knock her unconcious. In this way, the child wouldn't "suffer". Going back to the control mechanism being a scarf, or something like it. It didn't kill her. Even if it had cutoff the vegus nerve, the most that could have happened was she convulsed, but came out of it. It was the double-wrapped cord that strangled her to death. She was alive when that cord was wrapped around her throat and tightened, thus the swelling around the ligature line, and abrasions, and petechial hemorahging. MW never said that her abusers hit their victims over the head with great force, especially not the same force used against JonBenet. There's a difference in what MW's abusers did to her, and what JonBenet's abusers did to her. IOW, there really aren't similarities. Head blows and ligatures in MW's case were mechanisms for control and torture; in JonBenet's case, they were mechanisms for murder. In MW's case, her abusers wanted her to survive in order that they could continue their vicious games. In JonBenet's case, her abuser(s) intention was that JonBenet not live. There's no mistaking these differences. And what about Fleet White? Does he really fit into this? Do you think if there was any way the Ramseys could turn this whole thing around to show White involvement, thus taking the heat off them, they wouldn't? White is about the ONLY one Ramsey didn't actually throw under the bus. Ramsey's afraid of White, and it's not because of an MW/sex ring connection. Such a connection would surely bring joint liability into this wrongful death. Why take all the heat if you only have to take some of it? Why cover for someone if that someone had something to do with your daughter's death? MW came out when? January? February? The states of Colorado and California, together with the FBI have investigated MW, the Whites, and any kind of links possible to the Ramseys. If there was one, they'd have found it by now. And that's why Fleet's not come out publicly to show how such a link is nonexistent. Why humiliate himself and his family because of something his father was involved with thirty years ago? Or even recently? Why draw attention to family skeletons, especially if they have nothing to do with the crime at hand? Fleet knows the Ramseys killed their daughter, and it has nothing to do with his father or MW or himself, for that matter. Fleet was one of the last people to see JonBenet alive. And when he looked into the wine cellar in the morning, he didn't see her laying on the floor. But she was there when John ran down several hours later. That alone would make me suspicious. Obviously, it's what's got Fleet so enraged. He knows who killed JonBenet. But like the state of Colorado, he can't prove it! FWIW, I've read that article over and over and no where do I see any indication that Fleet or his attorneys contacted the paper. The paper would have said so. That they didn't makes me think seriously of word of mouth. The entire article was cya, but nothing to indicate it was 'provoked' by a writing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "But wait, Greeny" Posted by lake on 15:47:27 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:47:27, 5/12/2000 What about the civil trial? Do you think any of this Jane Doe stuff will be tested in any of the civil suits that the Ramseys are bringing? Do you think that Steve Thomas really looked into the Whites? Did Thomas cover it up, or did he just plain miss it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Please listen, Lake--" Posted by fiddler on 16:26:26 5/12/2000 I am one of those who said you had every right to be here. I really believe in the freedom of the press, you know? Plus, I actually enjoy your challenge to complacency, and the points you make are usually worth considering--when you're rational. But the post Greenleaf cites IS, well, just plain hateful. It's really disgusting. I would be ashamed to have written it. You don't have to lower yourself to that, but if you insist on doing so, I think you should leave. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Pugpug lurks a lot" Posted by pugpug on 16:39:21 5/12/2000 but posts very seldom. This time she justs wants to say to Lake, "go jump in yourself and drown and leave our "Greenie" alone!" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Lake," Posted by listener on 16:47:48 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:47:48, 5/12/2000 A l o n g time age when you suggested that FW's son might be involved in JB's murder, could you have been referring to FW Sr? edited for sp. 4th word is suppose to be *ago* [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Ginja" Posted by darby on 18:20:36 5/12/2000 I didn't read your entire post yet--I will, but I did want to say something that I think is important. I agree that the "garrote" found on JBR's might not have been a "real" garrote. But did you ever consider the possibility that a real garrote was initially used on the child and then later replaced by the ligature in an attempt to point away from the true nature of the events surrounding the murder? Let's say that a real garrote, the kind with a real slipknot, was used on JBR solely for the sick sexual purposes of the abuser, who ultimately killed her. I would guess that since there was an effort to point away from the sexual nature of the crime, as evidenced by the staged kidnapping, the real garrote might have been removed and replaced by, as John would later call it, "an elaborate device meant to KILL". Also, the perp may have been concerned that the real garrote could have been tied to him in some way (no pun intended), via DNA or by some other means. Now, you might ask, why not just remove the real garrote and leave nothing in its place? Well, there still would have been obvious injuries to JBR's neck which would have told investigators that JBR had been strangled by a rope-like device. If the garrote had simply been removed, investigators might have focused upon the question of why anybody would be motivated to take a rope with them after strangling someone with it. Coupled by the fact that JBR had sustained genital injuries, the disappearance of the garrote may have provided a stronger case for a sexually-motivated crime. By replacing the garrote with a freshly-fashioned rope, and tightening that rope way, waaaaay beyond necessary for erotic asphixiation purposes, the killer might have hoped that people would assume that the rope had been used simply as a device to kill JonBenet. Steve Thomas seems to think that there was evidence of TWO events concerning JBR's neck--He conjectured that the first event was caused by JBR's turtleneck being pulled and tightened, with the second event involving the ligature that we know about. Perhaps there could be other possible reasons for the dual neck injuries. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Well" Posted by lake on 17:33:55 5/12/2000 There appear to be two males that go by the name of FW Jr. in the family of FW. Sr. is the old man in his 80s. Maybe fiddler could clear that up for you. But I doubt it. And who is the father of the Jane Doe anyway? Personally I think she was treated like somebody out of wedlock child. Boykin was not her biological father. Who was her biological father anyway? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "????" Posted by Greenleaf on 17:37:49 5/12/2000 Koby? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Oh, good" Posted by lake on 17:44:54 5/12/2000 You are back Greeny. Now what about FW jr not defending his old man when she made the accusations that the old man sexually abused her as a child? Think maybe he felt free to do that because she was in fact his child. Sooo many questions, so few answers. Jane Doe said that her mother referred to FW sr as her godfather. Maybe just an explination to a child for why the guy was always hanging around? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Lake, you're a glutton for punishment.." Posted by Greenleaf on 18:28:53 5/12/2000 O.K., here goes. You wrote: "Now what about FW jr not defending his old man when she made the accusations that the old man sexually abused her as a child?" You have desperately been attempting to connect FW with JB's murder for over two yrs. now. Either FW was involved with JB's murder or he was not. If I had information that FW was, in any way whatsoever, involved in the death of my child, I would be taking a different course than you 're taking. I would not be dripping out innuendos nor engaging in character assassinations. I would be screaming to the roof tops for the FBI to get involved. I would refrain, at all costs, from joining a forum where most posters think the parents are guilty. I would refrain from ever calling fellow posters "pigs," "rats," and/or "brain dead." Such demonstrations are childest, to say the least. They will get you nowhere fast. "Think maybe he felt free to do that because she was in fact his child. Sooo many questions, so few answers." Listen to yourself for a minute. You are accusing FW,Sr. of being the father of MW? Even if that is true, which I doubt, what in God's name does that have to do with JB's murder? "Jane Doe said that her mother referred to FW sr as her godfather. Maybe just an explination to a child for why the guy was always hanging around?" So what? If the Whites are connected to JB's murder, let the authorities finish their investagation before you come slinging your arrows everywhichway. Poor Lake. You simply don't get it. You are sinking into quick sand; your words are hitting the fan of public opinion and slapping right back at you. You are so sad. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Thanks, Greeny" Posted by lake on 19:23:16 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:23:16, 5/12/2000 I guess I should just do like you and the rest of the presumed guilty posters and waited for John and Patricia Ramsey to be charged with murder before I posted anything about the White clan. My mistake. After all you folks set such a good example. Why oh why could I not have seen that. Thanks again, Greeny. But you are certified brain dead. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Lake, please keep posting,>>" Posted by ayelean on 18:10:43 5/12/2000 everything you say is so revealing! What could this mean: Now what about FW jr not defending his old man when she made the accusations that the old man sexually abused her as a child? Think maybe he felt free to do that because she was in fact his child. Somewhere in the shallow recesses of your psyche you accept as reality that if a man incests a child he has some rights by the nature of his fatherhood. What else can you tell us about what Jane Doe may have experienced that is not public knowledge? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Hey" Posted by lake on 18:17:15 5/12/2000 I am just asking. It is FW sr that Jane Doe is accusing. And if you read up on the subject, you will find that that is the way sickos like you think about out of wedlock children. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Lake, you make no sense>>>" Posted by ayelean on 18:24:36 5/12/2000 I never thought about Jane Doe's parentage. If there is a sicko here it's the poster that wrote-----"Now what about FW jr not defending his old man when she made the accusations that the old man sexually abused her as a child? Think maybe he felt free to do that because she was in fact his child." Those are YOUR words. If you a are not Patsy, or her mouthpiece, you have as a convoluted mind as she has. It's amazing that 2 people could be as equally bizarre. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Yeh" Posted by lake on 18:27:40 5/12/2000 Well you are a piece of work yourself. You should read the tripe you post. Who are you anyway? The forum witchdoctor? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Darby" Posted by Ginja on 19:21:12 5/12/2000 Your last statement: Steve Thomas seems to think that there was evidence of TWO events concerning JBR's neck... . I could agree with that. I noted that if her abuser used a control mechanism while he/she molested JonBenet, it most likely was a scarf or something else, perhaps her collar even. But I also noted that if that was the case, it was used simply to control, it did not kill her. IOW, I don't believe the abuser lost control and strangled her. She died when she was strangled with the cord wrapped tightly around her throat twice (imo)and intentionally. But did you ever consider the possibility that a real garrote was initially used on the child and then later replaced by the ligature in an attempt to point away from the true nature of the events surrounding the murder? . . . Let's say that a real garrote, the kind with a real slipknot, was used on JBR... . Let's first define what a real garotte is. It's a ligature with handles at each end. The killer holds each handle, comes up from behind the victim, drops the ligature over the victim's head to the throat, and then from behind the victim's head, tightens the cord by pulling the left handle to the right, and the right handle to the left (crisscrossing them behind the neck). Some garottes are fashioned with a knot in the middle of the cord, so that when the ligature is tightened, that knot is in the front of the victim's neck and cuts off/crushes the windpipe. There are no loops, no nooses. Now, does that sound like something a sexual predator would use to control his victim? A garotte is a weapon of murder. There is no evidence (or windpipe damage) to indicate a knotted ligature was used on JonBenet. John knows the garotte is a murder weapon, not a control mechanism. And he points to this saying, what parent would/could garotte their child? The thing is, this was no garotte. This was a ligature with a stick tied to the end of it. If there's any staging here, that's it. The intention here was to make it look like a garotte, e.g., someone intentionally murdered JBR...and a parent couldn't be that cold and cruel. So the 'garotte' was made to divert attention away from incest and toward a sick pedophile. Now, you might ask, why not just remove the real garrote and leave nothing in its place? Well, there still would have been obvious injuries to JBR's neck which would have told investigators that JBR had been strangled by a rope-like device. You go on with an elaborate explanation. But the bottom line is that she was strangled to death...complete with petechial hemorahging along the ligature line, and I'm pretty sure the tongue artifact was also due to strangulation. The ligature or strangling was intentional, Darby. If a scarf or collar had been used, the most damage it could have done was cause her to convulse and/or lose conciousness momentarily. But she would have survived without any markings. She wasn't strangled accidentally by a collar or scarf with the cord later covering up any marks. No marks. The marks were left by the cord; she died because of that cord. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "We should all know" Posted by lake on 19:37:23 5/12/2000 That Steve Thomas would likely have a difficult time distinguishing between a knife wound and a gunshot wound, so who really cares if he thinks JBR was strangled with something else as well as the cord attached to the stick? The strangulation is looked upon as staging by only those with limited analytical ablity or those whose reasoning process has been taken over long ago by the taboid rumor mill. The cord was wrapped twice around the neck of JBR and secured to a "stick" for one purpose only. And that was not to stage a stranglation, but in fact to strangle and kill. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "And her face turned BLUE>>>" Posted by ayelean on 19:31:10 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:31:10, 5/12/2000 and that is why Pats went weak when she saw that National Geographic Mag. cover picturing the Blue face of Ghingis Khan. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Well...." Posted by Pedro on 19:43:28 5/12/2000 .....MW could have been abused, all the info we got from sources make me think she did, when , how, by whom and all other questions are a mistery to me. But I don't think she has any relation with the murder of JBR. So far I don't have any reliable information about her regarding her involvement with the JBR case from any source like FBI, CBI, BPD nor BDA. I personally prefer to wait for those folks to look at her, meanwhile, I am clueless, she was abused, but that's all I know. Pedro/MidWest [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Lake" Posted by Real Stormy on 19:58:07 5/12/2000 Have you ever taken an IQ test? Was your score larger than your bust measurement? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Yeh , well" Posted by lake on 20:11:27 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:11:27, 5/12/2000 R/S I can tell your IQ is below normal body temp. So forget it. But I hope you are doing well picking up beer cans from the side of the road. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Yes, Lake" Posted by Real Stormy on 20:59:20 5/12/2000 I'm doing very well indeed. Thanks for asking. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Lake...." Posted by Pedro on 19:48:26 5/12/2000 .....any clue why ST complain against the Boulder DA for not get a warrant? Can't the BPD apply for a warrant to a judge by themselves? That use to be the right procedure?. In my experience cops ask for a warrant and the DA could help them to redact the text and base their request in law correctly as look for a probable cause for teh warrant. I think ST is way too far from reality if he espect the DA to investigate crime, such request warrants, soon cops will be prosecuters in a court of law. Pedro/MidWest [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Pedro" Posted by lake on 20:03:30 5/12/2000 Well I think Thomas is a bit of a nut and should never have been employed in police work. But, his contention that the Rs should have been arrested is just absurd. He said the BPD had probable cause. So what? If the Rs had been arrested they could not have held them for but about 48 hours and then would have to have released them. The Rs lawyers would have been at the jail within less than a hour and the cops never would have been able to question the Rs without their lawyers present. The the Rs would have had a damn good excuse for never talking to the police. Thomas is a moron. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "lake..." Posted by Pedro on 20:10:53 5/12/2000 ....I think you're right, I like ST as a person, but he's a *muscle* cop, SWAT, Drugs...don't need much brain there,...he doesn't has the acknowledge of the law required for the job, or he is very much obsessed with his *personal* opinion to see reality, yes, the R's will be out 1 hour later and will never talk again to the cops, they still don't have to, but looks many people knows nothig about these things. Pedro/MidWest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Gemini and Ginja" Posted by Aurora on 20:44:38 5/12/2000 Gemini... Getting off track to me is the assumption that Fleet White had anything to do with this. I am sorry I do not share all the sexual pervert theories ...where he is concerned. I do defend my right to my opinion and the right of your opinion to reject mine. Wouldn't this world be dull if we all agreed on everything? Ginja... Well.. you and I concur with all the Fleet White fallacies running rampant. I totally agree with your post. Thanks for sharing that with the others. And they think I have a "mind set". *LOL* [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Wrong Again, Lake" Posted by Real Stormy on 21:04:39 5/12/2000 Had the Ramseys been arrested, where in the world did you get the preposterous idea that they could only have been held 48 hours? The 48 hours is the length of time they could have been held without being charged. Even a turnip head knows that they would have been charged with whatever was appropriate; murder, manslaughter, etc. Depending upon the charge and whether or not Colorado allows bail on a charge of murder in the first degree, a capital offense, they would most likely have been released on bail. You have so many inaccuracies and misspellings in your posts, they are hard to follow. I will not attempt to do so again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Well R/S" Posted by lake on 23:41:15 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:41:15, 5/12/2000 That is good because you are obviously deficient in an understanding of the law. Thomas would not even have known who to charge with what in 1/97. That should be clear even to a moron like you today. What was he going to charge who with? Thomas had 18 months and he came up empty. He should kiss Hunters ass for holding him back from that probable cause arrest in 1/97. But Thomas is likely a much a moron are you are. Now get back out there a pick up those beer cans. And spelling does not count on the internet to anyone but idiots like you R/S. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Let me straighten this out." Posted by starry on 23:58:40 5/12/2000 1. JonBenét's hair was bleached not dyed!!! 2. A lake is really a swamp. 3. Steve Thomas is a hero. 4. Delta looks good in pink. 5. Greenleaf rules! Sheesh! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "But R/S" Posted by lake on 23:47:13 5/12/2000 Getting back to Fleet White. Why do you think he raised so much hell prior to the GJ and then went as quiet as a field rat when the GJ did not indict either of the Rs? This guy is hiding something big time or he is a really morally empty human being. The kind of guy that might be able to kill and think nothing of it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Must I point out to you, Lake" Posted by Real Stormy on 06:30:08 5/13/2000 The legal definition of Libel? Something about willful and malicious reckless disregard of the truth? Something about speculation with no basis? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Oooooo Darby" Posted by Ginja on 00:19:05 5/13/2000 My comment about your 'elaborate explanation' wass terrible! I should have at least followed it up with a qualifier, something like, 'elaborate explanation about how the killer could have strangled her twice'...and then...But the bottom line blah blah blah. Mea culpa! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Ginja" Posted by darby on 00:55:42 5/13/2000 No offense taken. I guess my point was that, yes, people can and do get strangled to death when a neck ligature is applied to restrict oxygen. But the initial intent in JBR's case may not have been murder or even staging. The purpose might have been solely for the perverse enjoyment of an abuser who had no intention of killing JBR. But maybe JBR came irreparably close to death, either via the ligature itself, or due to the head bash. In either event, the ligature already in place might have been tightened afterwards to "finish her off" when it became obvious that there was no hope in reviving her. Afterward, the ligature might have been removed and replaced with another, for reasons I stated above. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Darb" Posted by Ginja on 08:32:45 5/13/2000 >But the >initial intent in JBR's case may >not have been murder or even >staging. The purpose might have >been solely for the perverse enjoyment >of an abuser who had no >intention of killing JBR. But >maybe JBR came irreparably close to >death, either via the ligature itself, >or due to the head bash. Okay, this is where I get 'stumped'. To get to this stage, we have to assume that her molester was 'strangling' her while molesting her. So what's our foundation? If you're claiming there was no intention to kill, then the foundation is strangulation as a control mechanism to force JonBenet to perform and/or be used sexually. This scenario, Darby, bears out if we're to believe/assume that JonBenet wore all the costume chokers to either (1) hide marks from previous deviant behavior of her molester, or (2) the chokers were carried over from the deviance (i.e., sado/masochism / domination) as some kind of 'symbol' or recognition of such behavior (i.e., body piercing, tatooing, other types of 'mutilation'). Assuming this deviant practice was basically par for the course (e.g., part of the 'routine') -- what happened the night of the 25th to turn it all around? The biggest hangup here is the molester's behavior turning, not JonBenet's. She was the victim and had no control, not that night or any other night. So if control was lost, it was the molester's. But how? Was it a loss of control due to orgasmic pleasure? Or intentional tightening of the ligature because JonBenet wasn't 'submitting' and fighting back? There was a struggle that night. But were her secondary injuries (abrasions and bruising) a result of some skirmish she had with someone because she didn't want to do something (e.g., being molested? having her hair dyed?) or because she was fighting for her life (the ligature being tightened and she couldn't breathe)? Let's go with your theory of sex gone awry and the 'first' strangulation was accidental (the abuser lost control). The problem here is that this strangulation didn't kill her, so query why the abuser would have to finish her off by "restrangling" her to kill her. This is a major hurdle, i.e., leap. With the next hurdle, or leap, being the head blow. The blow was intentional. The abuser can only do so much at the same time and in this scenario, he's lost control with the ligature because he's either in the throes of orgasmic pleasure, or JonBenet's fighting back and he's trying to control her. The head blow doesn't fit and wouldn't play into "loss" of control due to orgasm. (He/she would have one hand tightening the ligature while the other was used to either masturbate or digitally penetrate the victim.) Now if JonBenet's fighting back and the perp is trying to regain control, query why he'd smash her skull in half if his purpose is to control the victim so he can 'play' with her? The deviant behavior here is that of pedophilac domination, not necrophilia. Take it a step further and consider the possibility that the perp was caught in the act and this head blow was intended for the perp, not the victim. That blow would have rendered the victim unconscious, so I see where you're coming from when you say 'they' had no choice but to finish her off. But why "they". Query why, if that person was so furious as to intentionally swing the weapon to 'protect' the victim, why the 180 degree turn to then 'protect' the molester? It doesn't jibe. >In either event, the ligature already >in place might have been tightened >afterwards to "finish her off" when >it became obvious that there was >no hope in reviving her. As I noted above, I don't think the head blow played into it at this point, at least not where one spouse tried to deter the perp and then turns around and protects that perp. So we backstep and deal with the strangulation. Supposedly the perp either (1) looses control and tightens the ligature too tight, or (2) the ligature isn't that tight but cuts off a nerve or artery. I think in either situation, the injuries weren't fatal. True, her heart could have stopped or her brain didn't get oxygen. But that didn't happen. Any signs of hypoxia or ischemia would have shown up in the autopsy report. There's nothing in the AR to indicate anything happened to her that would make the perp (or both parents) believe she had been irreparably harmed and therefore had to be finished off to protect their reputations. Even if the perp freaked out if she convulsed and stopped the convulsing by hitting her in the head, you'd have to query why the perp struck her so hard. Slap her in the face, shake her...but instantly make a decision she must die and then crack her skull in half? It doesn't jibe. Besides, you'd have to query why the perp would have this 'weapon' at his/her side just in case it was needed. If that's the case, this can't be considered sex gone awry as the perp came prepared to kill, "just in case". Afterward, >the ligature might have been removed >and replaced with another, for reasons >I stated above. The problem I see is that if something other than the cord had been used for perverse pleasure or as a control mechanism, it didn't cause any injury that would have been irreparable, therefore, no need to 'replace' ligatures after the fact. There was chronic esophagal inflammation indicating a pattern of perverse behavior. IOW, this deviant behavior wasn't new to JonBenet or her abuser. They'd done it before. The abuser knew how to handle the ligature, how tight to pull, and how JonBenet would react. If the perp decided that night to go beyond past practice, for example, using a cord rather than a scarf, there's nothing to support his losing control or inability to loosen the cord once problems began. He'd have been aware of the possibilities. He'd also have known enough not to tightly wrap the cord twice around her throat if there was going to be any control or pleasure. And if sexual pleasure/gratification was the reason for this perverse activity, this 'chronic' activity, why bring a weapon, or have a weapon on hand, just in case things got out of hand? Another thing to consider are the neck injuries themselves. No tiny bone breaks or fractures, no crushed windpipe, no injuries indicating the perp 'lost control'. The injuries indicate a slow death by strangulation. If there was any irreparable damage, it was due to the slow strangulation. Why would an "innocent" parent go along with that? I don't know Darb...the more I look, the more I see intent. Jmho. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "lake" Posted by darby on 00:59:22 5/13/2000 I agree with you that it would appear that Fleet White has been hiding something. But what it is that he is hiding, I don't know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "starry " Posted by Greenleaf on 04:50:23 5/13/2000 The only thing I claim to "rule" is my kitchen and myself. GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "JonBenet's hair" Posted by mary99 on 07:03:57 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:03:57, 5/13/2000 If JB's hair was lightened from brown to blonde, it needed to be bleached then dyed, what's known as double-processing. First all the color is stripped away, then the final color (blonde) is added back in. It's time-consuming, smelly, and if one's roots are showing, essential if one wishes to appear well-groomed. The last pictures of Jonbenet seem to show a fair amount of dark roots. The busy days before the holiday and the time-consuming, unpleasant process of the hair-dying might have caused Patsy and JonBenet to put off dying JB's hair until after the Christmas parties were over. There's no way Patsy would have sent JB to the Hawaiian Tropic Pageant without re-dying her hair first. Since they were leaving to meet Mindy and JAR in Michigan the 26th, it seems reasonable to me that PR might have decided to do JB's hair before she met up with the rest of the family. Might Mindy and/or JAR have thought the hair-dying was 'too much' if Patsy did it in Michigan and JonBenet complained loudly in front of them? Maybe when PR arrived home that night, the 25th, she decided to 'get it over with' now, at 10 pm or even later. Patsy's critical eye might have noticed the roots over the last 48 hours and two parties, and decided it was 'now or never'. Maybe she made a comment to JonBenet at the Ramsey party that caused JB to say, "I don't feel pretty". Something along the lines of, "You should have let me do your hair, the roots are showing and now all your pictures will look ugly". If JB wasn't happy about having her done, maybe that's how the argument started. There was a strong chemical smell in the bathroom off JB's room the next morning. I can imagine the hair being much more of a battleground than bedwetting because it requires considerable time, much more than a quick sheet change after a an accident in bed. First the chemicals to strip the hair color are mixed and applied to the hair. Then wait for say, half an hour for them to work, then rinse thouroughly and apply the blonde color, wait another half an hour, and rinse again. Sectioning the hair into a few ponytails is one way to touch up the roots without doing the entire head. But, if the roots are dark and the desired color is light, the process remains the same. All color out, followed by adding the blonde back in. If Patsy started the process that night, just sectioning the hair, maybe feeding JB pineapple as a way of getting some co-operation, and then an argument ensued, of course the processing would be abandoned. The smell of chemicals in the bathroom was noted the next day; it would linger even after PR poured it down the drain. So what does this have to do with MW? If there was an argument, and Patsy hit her hard, knocking her to the tile floor, causing JB to suffer the skull fracture, where did she get the idea of covering up the 'accident' with a rope around the neck, and a staged pedophile/intruder/kidnapping? If JB was recently sexually molested, leaving the vaginal trauma noted at the autopsy, and PR knew about it, calling 911 was out of the question. Even if PR had grabbed and twisted the turtleneck, leaving signs of abuse on JB's neck, would a strangulation device/rope and another sex assault have seemed like the best course of action? The MW link to this case might be no greater than PR having knowledge of a scenario which seemed to fit the existing circumstances after this 'accident'; JB had already been sexually assaulted, she had marks on her neck from struggling with PR, and PR staged the crime scene to fit. Did she then she consciously follow the same script MW's abusers used, or did she even know of the parallels between them seems to be the area of dissent on this issue. Is it just a coincidence that JB's death was staged to resemble what Patsy might have imagined MW's abusers did to her? Did she in fact know of what MW's abusers had done to her? Even if the FW/MW allegations shed no proof of PR killing JB, his contradictory actions, and PW's comment, "We know things you don't know", make Mark Beckner's "Morally corrupt", comment right on the mark. Can anyone even admit that FW may not be the great man we once thought he was? A Fallen Hero? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "LOL Greenleaf," Posted by Real Stormy on 06:31:31 5/13/2000 Ditto, except sometimes not even myself, and rarely my two dogs. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Flaming" Posted by Coolteach on 09:24:24 5/13/2000 I just returned from a long trip and decided to get caught up with what's been said here at JW. While I was gone, I read Steve Thomas' book. I was very drawn to this case from day one, and believed that Patsy had written the note the very first time I saw it. I joined the old forums very early on, and saw them fold, due to mean-spirited posters who would flame others mercilously. There were a couple of game players who, instead of playing games like "Dungeons and Dragons", seemed to get their kicks by stirring up the pot on any forum that had to do with JonBenet. I seem to recognise their style here. In those days, about 2 years ago, I became friends with Wanda, aka "Panico"...who I found to be a really caring person who would take the time to inform the posters of what was going on in Boulder, since many of us who lived in other states, would not get the inside scoop, or could listen to the local shows. Wanda desired justice for JBR more than anything else in this life. Wanda lost her battle to cancer and was never able to see that dream come to fruition. But now, she would be turning over in her grave at some of the mean remarks here, delivered most recently, and in this string by people like "Lake." It is one thing to have a different opinion, but it is another to call or compare posters to pigs, etc. It is shameful. As I am an only occasional poster, it may be easier for me to stand back and see what is happening here. Why is this person getting so very angry? Why the name calling? What motivates someone to get so terribly upset? Could it be that the person is personally involved and is trying desperately to direct the attention to someone else? Aren't the people on this forum, and people like Steve Thomas the biggest thorn in the side of the Ramseys? Or could the person be a family member or staff person to those involved? The other possibility is that the person is in need of psychological help. Sometimes there are signs of multiple personality disorder exhibited. The old posters would wear different hats and even bragged about doing so back then. One of the signs of schizophrenia is of course "word salad" in which a person makes up funny combination of words and rhymes, or speaks like a little child. I thought that when I read the posting about Ruthee and the pig. But even word salad can be faked...like a handwriting can be disguised. I know of one serious poster, an old friend from the old forum, who privately has written to me that he is no longer going to post here because it's getting to be a flaming contest just like the old forum. As a veteran teacher who is very concerned about child abuse, I would like to call for a disarming of verbal weapons aimed at each other. We should have one purpose here, and that is to help solve the murder of little JonBenet, and see that justice is done to those who are doing a pretty darned good job at covering it up so well. I am one who believes that the truth will come out, no matter how many lawyers have been hired, or how many law suits have been filed. I'm not trying to push religion at anyone here, but a common aspect of most of the major religions of the world is that God's anger is against anyone who practices child abuse. God is still on the side of justice and truth, and even the killers cannot escape the judgement of his wrath....as the Bible says that it would be better that a millstone be hanged around their neck and that they be dropped to the bottom of the deepest sea...than that they harm even one hair on a child. Millstones weigh over a ton and there would be no way to swim to the top...even with the help of a lawyer!! I still am hoping and praying every day that the killer/coverup person/s will be convicted in their consciences and that they will realize that a few years in a minimum security prison is not as bad as forever in separation from God. Justice for JonBenet! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Mary99>>>" Posted by ayelean on 07:26:58 5/13/2000 Good reasoning in your post. PR would already have been wearing gloves for the hair job. The only trouble that I have with an accidental or spontaneous event is, could all the intricate staging and note content been reasonable under the stress that she would have have had? That was some pretty complex staging, which I have always thought would have taken premeditation. Your scenario would also make it understandable that she did not get John to help, if what we've heard about him not allowing her to discipline JBR. I strongly believe that her plan was more to deceive John than the authorities. There appeared to be real animosity between the two on the morning of the 26th. The friends were called, I think, by Patsy, to insulate her from John. John's actions and attitude that morning was 'company is in the house, put on a good front' until he found the body at 11. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Accident vs. Pre-meditation?" Posted by mary99 on 08:21:27 5/13/2000 Ayelean, if PR killed JB accidentally, she had to form this coverup quickly, that is why i think she used knowledge from what happened to MW. At least on a subconscious level, she had to have had the scenario in mind when the fatal head blow made survival unlikely and calling 911 out of the question. She must have known about the vaginal trauma, or why go to these lengths to stage a crime following and accident? On the other hand, what if she knew of the vaginal trauma and the murder was pre-meditated to silence JB? This requires a greater leap...to believe that she wanted to kill her and planned the coverup to obscure the sexual abuse. Still, if that scenario is true, how/why did the strangulation method occur to PR? Could she have thought of any other way to 'sacrifice' her daughter and make it believeable? That's why the MW allegations, if PR knew of them on 12-25-96, seem too coincidental to be discounted. Whether it was a ritualized, sacrificial, pre-meditated murder to spare JB and the family name from revalations of sexual abuse, or if the skull fracture was an accident that triggered the coverup, it seems to me that she copy-catted MW's abusers. And I think the skull fracture was more likely intentional and not an accident. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "99!" Posted by Ginja on 09:06:55 5/13/2000 You make some good points, as did Darby, but I can't see them as the precursor to murder. The greatest hurdle of all that must be contained is the fact that the sexual injuries were chronic. IOW, there's a pattern here of deviant sexual behavior. How does that deviance play into the night's other crimes? Does it play at all? Was the behavior separate and apart from the murder? or part and parcel? Or motive? As you noted, retouching the roots would have been a two part procedure. First, the roots would need to be bleached -- figure 15 minutes to do, then 25 minutes to wait for the bleach to work, and then figure another 10-15 minutes shampooing it out and drying the hair. You're talking about an hour's prep time and then the procedure repeated, only with dye instead of bleach...another hour. It never happened. Patsy may have opened the bottle and put on gloves, but that's as far as it could have gotten. In bleaching the roots, you have to separate the hair in 1/4" parts over the entire scalp. So JBR's hair being parted into two ponytails was not the prep indicating she was about to be bleached. Besides, where's the bleach? where's the dye? Neither item was found in the house. Patsy's bag was already filled with duct tape, cord, and washcloths, how could she fit two more boxes of chemicals? :-) The odor is ammonia, or ammonia-like, and could have been a cleaning agent found under any sink in the house. The major problem I see in any scenario that revolves around rage rather than sex is the separation of those acts. How does one get from rage over bedwetting or hair dye to molesting JBR and then killing her? The molestation was 'typical' deviant behavior in this family...it was chronic. That night was no different...business as usual; it wasn't staged. If the sexual abuse was staged that night, it would have been staged to cover up her death. IOW, after the fact. Only she wasn't molested "after the fact"...she was molested before. In consideration of that, I tend to agree with you that certain acts that night were intentional. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Ginja!!" Posted by mary99 on 10:02:28 5/13/2000 Hey, I got your e-mails! But I can't reply...somethings up with the configuration. I get a message smpt.****. no server found, it's a headache to re-do everything and I'm afaid of losing my net access in the process. Will try later. About JB and hair-dying, yes, I think the sexual abuse was ongoing and was the reason she was intentionally murdered. The ritual sacrifice of an 'innocent lamb', the Biblical interpretations of the ransom note, pR's post-crime comments ("She's in a better place") are just too significant to be over-looked. So why does Steve Thomas bypass that completely? Is it too hard to lead a jury to that conclusion based on the evidence? Is it a theory which relies on psychological interpretation to such a degree that it may not be considered 'proveable'? Have you seen the web site posted on the 'Let's light a candle' thread which theorizes that PR killed JB intentionally because she wanted to save JB from sexual abuse by JR and others? Is it possible that the 'accidental' injury theory has been adopted because the pre-meditated 'sacrifice' theory is too big a leap? IOW, go for a 'good-enough' theory as long as the right perp is charged and the prosecution can make it stick? To believe the pre-meditated sacrifice theory, one must accept that there was ongoing sexual abuse, more than just the provable 48 hours before her murder, and that PR or JR knew about it and it was related to JB's murder. Ramsey apologists still refuse to admit there was sexual abuse before Dec. 25-6, and can't see the chronic bronchial irritation as a possible indicator of asphyxiation sex abuse. Even though I think they have major blinders on, they are representative of what a potential jury might consist of. I too, find the skull fracture to be too massive to have occurred in a fall in the bathroom, even if JB was pushed, hard. But what do I know? :) If either theory is ever presented as the way it happened, as an accident triggered by rage, with the skull fracture resulting from a blow to the head in frustration (the bedwetting scenario) or from a mis-directed blow intended for JR (interrupted incest/abuse scenario) questions will arise as to how the blow managed to split Jb's skull so fully in one strike. To me, this is the greatest weakness in either scenario; the injury just had to be intentional and the person meant to kill her. Back to the MW sex ring angle; or basic sex abuse using the rope as a control device, with the strangulation as coverup. Still too coincidental not to involve some Ramsey knowledge of MW and her circumstances. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "More, 99!" Posted by Ginja on 09:35:19 5/13/2000 On the other hand, what if she knew of the vaginal trauma and the murder was pre-meditated to silence JB? This requires a greater leap...to believe that she wanted to kill her and planned the coverup to obscure the sexual abuse. Still, if that scenario is true, how/why did the strangulation method occur to PR? Could she have thought of any other way to 'sacrifice' her daughter and make it believeable? You've hit upon the theory/scenario I'm working on. As I've said, this sexual abuse was deviant behavior. Obviously, both parents were aware of what was happening to this child. They may think that we're the deviants for thinking along these lines. But I dare say, it was their daughter they sexually exploited, their daughter who was sexually abused, and their daughter lying cold in their basement. It was also their daughter who was taught to gyrate, bump and wink; their daughter who was tarted up; their daughter who's costumes included matching 'chokers'; their daughter who suffered "mysterious" bruises from falling hamster cages and swinging golf clubs; their daughter who suffered from several bouts of vaginitis; their daughter who showed numerous signs of child abuse from wetting and defacating her bed to telling friends she hated "that" room. It was their daughter who had no hymen, a stretched vaginal opening, internal bruising and hyperemia, all indicating chronic sexual abuse. There are also reports that their daughter had visited the school nurse on several Mondays previous to her murder. Could it be possible that their daughter was about to blow the roof off the Ramsey House of Shame? In my book, that's one helluva motive to silence someone! Mare, I've run so many different scenarios through my head and with all of them, one has to 'leap' to get from a happy Christian family to a sexually abused murdered child in the family's basement! Why a vicious head blow that's not noticeable to anyone if this was sex gone awry? Why would an innocent parent cover for another's heinous acts? Why lie about obvious and seemingly unrelated facts, like late night snacks and the time the family got home that night? Is the strangulation part of a deviant sex act? or intentional sacrifice? Did Patsy and/or John need to search outside their safe enclave to learn about deviant sexual practices? Does MW fit in? The real question is, how long were deviant sexual practices taking place in this home? Why was JonBenet wearing chokers with her costumes? What did John do in his private bathroom plastered with pictures of his dead daughter? IOW, did John and Patsy really "need" MW to show them the ropes? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Lake, for a person" Posted by Real Stormy on 11:06:26 5/13/2000 Who seems to have delusions of grandeur and arrogantly claims superior intelligence, you certainly know very little about the evidence in this case. Good manners prevent my posting more about your shortcomings in the brains department, but suffice it to say, they are many. As for your poor spelling because it "doesn't matter on the internet" that is an excuse to cover your inability to spell correctly. Good spelling matters---everywhere. But, of course, this is just another area in which you are deficient. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "ginja" Posted by Seashell on 15:09:54 5/13/2000 "Query why, if that person was so furious as to intentionally swing the weapon to 'protect' the victim, why the 180 degree turn to then 'protect' the molester? It doesn't jibe." The weapon may have been swung to hit the perp and missed. The perp than said, "You've killed her." The person who swung and missed said, "You were sexually molesting her." Together for life. The second strangulation and vaginal abuse was staging, along with the note. Even if the weapon was swung to purposefully kill her, the result is the same' Murder following sexual molestation. I'll CYA if you do the same. It's never appeared IMO to be a one person crime. Not enuf hands. Let's just go to the dictionary..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Sea...." Posted by Ajila on 18:57:47 5/13/2000 I agree with your theory (and Ginja this is basically yours too, am I right, although you still have questions?). For me it's the one that has worked the easiest for me and seems to answer most of the evidence that we are aware of. I think the person doing the swinging was already emotionally unstable and very easy to emotionally blackmail. I've even wondered if the 'hitter' was jealous of JonBenet in some ways, and felt very guilty and unsure in her own mind whether the blow was unintentional or not. *;^})> (*trying to figure this out*) Ajila [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Seashell" Posted by Real Stormy on 17:56:59 5/13/2000 While I believe that Steve Thomas' theory is probably the correct one, i.e. Patsy unintentionally killed JB in a fit of rage, what you say does make a lot of sense and explains the sticking together like glue. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Coolteach" Posted by Greenleaf on 18:36:08 5/13/2000 I read your post earlier and very much liked what you had to say. My daughter, her husband and my granddaughter are visiting and I got busy with them this afternoon. Now, I went back and re-read your post and wanted you to know, for what it's worth, that I think it is excellent; well thought-out; well written. Where have you been? Come back and post more often. Best wishes, Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Greenleaf" Posted by Coolteach on 19:35:04 5/13/2000 Thank you for the kind words. I've been in Europe for a few weeks. I wish I could post more, but my work prevents it. I do read JW whenever I have the chance. I admire you and several others who are really serious about exposing the truth about this murder. There are always a few spoil sports who try to ruin a good thing, and perhaps such people have a personal stake in this case! Who knows, perhaps those involved actually read this forum and post here too. All the more reason not to give up. Have you heard whether a fund was started to help with Steve Thomas' defense if he is taken to court? Thanks, Coolteach [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Talking to Steve" Posted by Coolteach on 20:05:25 5/13/2000 P.S. to Greenleaf: I saw your other post about the use of the word "brain"...and that struck me too. I also noticed on one of the other strings that we could write to Steve Thomas until the 15th of May on the following address: http://www.apbnews.com/forums/index.asp?section=40&message=54756 Looks like some of our other "brain-y" people like Jameson have been there several times, and it wouldn't surprise me if Lake is there wearing another hat for the day. I think all of us should crowd his mailbox, what d'ya think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "I think..." Posted by Pedro on 17:07:25 5/14/2000 ....There's no enough evidence to charge the R's yet, that's why no one have charged them until today, I believe Patsy did it, but I wouldn't like to have to prosecute them whit what we know as per today, even less when ST wanted to arrest them. He's clueless, only in drug cases one os gulty until proven innocent and your property is to be seized and dispose of before any court order so. Pedro/MidWest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]