Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 17 of 17
  1. #13

    Default The experts

    Bob, Bob, Bob, you are a gas, you really are. I enjoy your posts, I do.

    But, c'mon. Neither the CBI or FBI experts have ever fingered Patsy and you know it. The best any of the REAL experts can do is "not ruled out." That ain't good enough to nail her. And Darnay's "experts" have made the most elementary errors -- and they had access to only a very small number of doubtful samples, one of which (Rainbow Fish Players) was probably written by Burke.

    The really experienced people, with access to ALL the exemplars have NOT been willing to accuse her. So why, if you have such respect for these experts, are you?

    My take on John is simply that he too cannot be ruled out. And I think there's good evidence for that. Experts can be wrong (as I'm sure you'll agree) and I think they are wrong on that. Many other experts claim it's impossible to rule out a viable suspect wherever deliberate deception is involved. I would never claim I or anyone else can PROVE John wrote that note. Nor can it be proven that Patsy did it.

    It's only when we look at things like motive and logic that it becomes clear that JOHN is our real suspect, NOT Patsy. She'd have had no REASON to write such a note. John might well have.

  2. #14
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Doc, Doc Doc. Oh but yes they did.

  3. #15
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Cool

    Doc why is all the other evidence pointing to Patsy then? It's not John's fibers, paint tote, pad, pen, blah blah blah.

    MOMMIE DID IT!

  4. #16

    Default BobC

    >Doc why is all the other evidence pointing to Patsy then? It's not John's fibers, paint tote, pad, pen, blah blah blah.

    I think this is one of the real sources of serious misunderstanding in this case. We have two adults in that house, only two. And as far as can be determined, every item used in the crime or coverup came (or could have come) from inside the house. It stands to reason, therefore, that items used in the crime would be linked with Patsy or John. Even if there were an intruder that would be the case. So the mere fact that there is some sort of link to someone living in the house is NOT really evidence against that person. You have to have something stronger than just a link. If Patsy did it, then maybe she would have used her own pad, her own pen, her own paintbrush, etc. But the same items could have been used by an intruder. And the same items could have been used by John. As I see it, if Patsy were our perp she'd have avoided using her own things. Same for John. And since Patsy's things were used and John's weren't, then for ME that points to John and NOT Patsy. If he did it and he's covering his own :(:(:(, WHY would he have used things that would point to HIM?

    As far as the fiber evidence is concerned, there is a simple explanation for Patsy's fibers being on the tape, as I'm sure you know. The crime scene was compromised by John and Fleet, the tape was removed and placed gummy side down on the blanket. The blanket could very well have had Patsy's fibers on it for perfectly innocent reasons. The paint tote likewise -- after all it was used by her on many occasions. These fibers are, for that reason, NOT evidence.

    I'm much more intrigued by other fiber evidence that the police have been holding very close to their chest. In the NE book we learn that John was told by one of the interrogators that there was a match between fibers from his shirt and fibers found in JonBenet's crotch. John challenged that statement, called it bull :(:(:(:( and the matter was dropped. Was there really a match? We still don't know. If so, that is FAR more compelling fiber evidence than Patsy's, because there is NO innocent explanation for fibers from JonBenet's father being found in that particular, very private, place. That's more than just a link and cannot so easily be explained.

  5. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    A friend just e-mailed me. Said it's being reported that the judge dismissed the Wolfe case. Wish I could say April Fools but I can't. Seems to be true.

    Evil wins again.

    You know what? This has been a crappy day.



Similar Threads

  1. John Ramsey Deposition - Wolf Case - December 12, 2001
    By Moab in forum Transcripts: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 15, 2010, 3:41 pm, Wed Sep 15 15:41:19 UTC 2010
  2. Patsy Ramsey Deposition - Wolf Case - December 11, 2001
    By Moab in forum Transcripts: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 15, 2010, 3:38 pm, Wed Sep 15 15:38:20 UTC 2010
  3. MOTION for NEW TRIAL: Judge to Rule on 3-14-05
    By DocUMento in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 15, 2005, 9:09 pm, Tue Mar 15 21:09:51 UTC 2005
  4. Wolf v. Ramsey Updates
    By LurkerXIV in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 21, 2002, 4:01 pm, Mon Jan 21 16:01:01 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •