Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1

    Default Nine Years And Nothing

    
    I haven’t posted in a while because I really have nothing new to
    say. I am posting now with an abiding feeling of futility, yet
    motivated to let the Ramseys and the RST know the truth has not
    gone away, nor have I.

    If you are wondering why NINE YEARS AND NOTHING, the answer is
    simple. The reason for this is a combination of favoritism,
    ignorance, pretense, stupidity and gross incompetence. The
    favoritism may be difficult to prove. The rest are a matter of
    record. Never in the annals of crime investigation has there been
    such a convention of dumb.

    It takes only a few minutes to read Dr. Meyer’s autopsy report.
    If what he reports is even close to the truth, the evidence
    leaves no doubt he is describing a staged crime scene. It’s
    pretty hard to logically fit an intruder into the staged crime
    scene; indeed, impossible. Nevertheless, the trio of dumb,
    dishonest and downright stupid managed to manufacture an
    “intruder” and they were off to the races to wage millions in
    taxpayer money on a sure loser.

    The fiasco has had and still has a lot of support via LE, the
    media and assorted “experts” stirring the mix. From the git go,
    there has been an endless parade of “professionals” getting in on
    the act. Lou Smit, a creator of Ramsey-serving fantasies. John
    Douglas, a Ramsey shill. Jack Parson, a pretender long on
    credentials, but short on smarts; and Van Tassel, a rope and
    knot “expert” who would surprise me if he could tie his own
    shoelaces. There are a lot more, but these will do for a
    representative sampling.

    The “garrote scene” is by far the most important evidence in the
    case. You may or may not have read my analysis on this. What is
    clear to me is that I failed to communicate what I wished to
    convey. I will try to remedy that. It is all well and good that I
    understand the “garrote scene”, but my fervent wish is that you
    understand it too. Then and only then will you realize its
    importance.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that Patsy Ramsey wrote the so called
    ransom note. I also know that it would be difficult to prove as
    an isolated item. There have been and would be an assortment of
    “experts” on both sides of the question. Not so with the
    “garrote scene.” This is physical evidence that talk and claim
    cannot change; not even by “expert opinion.” This evidence is
    literally irrefutable. It’s just a matter of seeing it.

    Much has been said and written about the “garrote scene”. I have
    written much about it myself. I have a request. Mentally set
    aside what I and others have said about it; or at least, don’t
    take anyone’s word, including mine, for any part of the “garrote
    scene.” I will simply point out certain things for your
    examination, evaluation, consideration and conclusion. I elicit
    YOUR conclusion derived from what YOU see. Contrary to what you
    may have read or heard about “complex and sophisticated”, the
    “garrote scene” is elementary and well within your comprehension.

    Far and wide, Lou Smit described the “garrote” as “complex”,
    “sophisticated” and “professional” requiring a lot of “expertise”
    and previous experience in such constructions. From here, he
    concluded that the Ramseys had no such expertise, hence, were
    exonerated.

    What about the flip side? If the Ramseys are exonerated on the
    grounds that they did not possess the expertise found in the
    “garrote”, what happens when it is revealed there is no such
    expertise in the “garrote”, that it is grossly amateurish? Does
    this pronounce them guilty?

    Probably, your first thought is, “No, of course not. Anyone could
    construct a flawed “garrote.” Yes, of course, he\she could, but
    this does not tell the whole story. What about the setting and
    framework of the crime scene? When this and natural law of mind
    and matters is added to the mix, what then?.

    Motivation is often sought in investigating a crime; and well it
    should be since by nature every action presupposes the intent to
    gain or protect. What happens when we factor this into the
    actual physical evidence? By nature, the person or persons who
    constructed the “garrote scene” was motivated by the intent to
    gain or protect. Who was it? What did the person or persons
    intend to gain or protect. The answers lies in the “quality” of
    said “garrote scene.”

    Due to my background, cords, ropes, knots, lassos, snares, etc.,
    are second nature to me. Because of this background, experience,
    and knowledge, I can often instantly sees errors in cord or rope
    constructions that are missed by most others. However, the staged
    crime scene in the death of JonBenet Ramsey is such an amateurish
    mess, just about anyone and everyone has enough experience to see
    the flaws. You need only look and rely on what you know. Forget
    the idiotic “experts” and prattle of Loony Lou who try to lead
    you astray. Just, look, think and prove the staged crime scene to
    yourself.

    In combining the autopsy report and photos, what evidence is
    revealed? The autopsy report says double knot. A double knot is a
    double throw, non slip knot. The double knot reported is
    incorrect. However, since the actual knot is the small cord
    wrapped around itself in a non slip manner, the relevant physics
    are the same. Observe the cord is TIED around the neck; tied in
    a non slip situation. This is further confirmed by the autopsy
    report in that Dr. Meyers cut the cord loose that was embedded
    because of the non slip feature and post mortem swelling.
    (Circumferential embedding by post mortem swelling, not by
    vicious strangulation as has been often declared.)

    When you think of someone being strangled, don’t you think of a
    means to reduce the size of the loop to effect strangulation?
    None here! Lock down, won’t move to reduce diameter to choke. How
    is this going to work to strangle? Idiot, Jack Parson says,
    “...she was strangeld (sic) with a garrote tightened with a
    paintbrush."

    Since pulling the “paintbrush” will not reduce the diameter of
    the cord around the neck due to a non slip construction, just
    exactly how is the “garrote tightened with a “paintbrush?”
    Parson’s ignorance displayed here is commonplace. It is precisely
    this ignorance repeated over and over again that underlies the
    widespread fallacies about the “garrote scene.” It is blind
    acceptance by millions largely due to incessant, voluminous
    propaganda that sets a psychological barrier to the simple truth
    that anyone can understand. I repeat forget the “experts:” You
    look at the evidence. You evaluate the evidence. YOU DECIDE.

    So far, do you see anything complicated about the evidence? Cord
    Lock-tied around the neck and won’t slip. This is the evidence.
    Killing device via strangulation? How? Further observe the
    wrapped handle attached 17" away. If this is part of the “killing
    device”, just exactly what part does this handle play? The
    logical inference is that a handle is for pulling. WHAT IF you
    pull this handle? What will happen as determined by the physics
    of the situation?

    Since it’s is non slip situation, what won’t happen is that the
    diameter of cord around the neck will not be reduced to effect
    circumferential strangulation. What will happen in pulling the
    handle is that if pulled hard enough, it will drag the body as
    the cord pulls away from the neck in alignment with the pull. If
    that alignment via position of the body exerts pressure on the
    back of the neck, there won’t be any strangulation even then.
    Even if you hold the body as you pull the handle, the “noose” is
    still not going to slip and constrict to effect death by
    circumferential strangulation. If killing by strangulation is
    the aim, can you find any “working expertise” in this apparatus?

    I dare say that if you go back a thousand years and look at every
    death by strangulation, you will not find a single instance of a
    locked tie around the neck and a “dragging handle” attached to
    the other end. (Can’t you just envision all the “expert idiots”
    going round and round looking for a “match”?)

    There are many ways to cause death by strangulation.
    Straightforward manual strangulation is one. A cord, rope, or
    wire cross pulled around the neck with or without handles is
    another. Hanging by a noose is still another. A belt could be
    used in strangling by running the belt through buckle, then
    putting it over the head and sliding it down with choking
    pressure. Yes, there is a lock tie means of strangulation. It
    requires a cord or rope around the neck tied with just a little
    slack. A stick or pipe is put under the cord, pulled upward and
    twisted to tighten. The smaller the cord, the less efficient this
    method is, and the amount of slack is critical. In the evidence
    in focus, this was not how the stick was used, so it’s irrelevant
    anyway. All in all, I can’t think of ever seeing or even
    hearing of a strangling device with a non slip tie and a single
    handle seventeen inches away. It makes no functional sense
    whatsoever. As a “killing tool”, the “garrote” construction is a
    total flop.

    Why is this absurd construction, this useless contraption, a part
    of the crime scene? What image was it intended to convey? Who
    stood to protect or gain if end result was as desired? What was
    the motive for this deliberate action? Whose motive? The RST
    talks about a motive for murder. Murder didn’t happen, hence, no
    motive. On the other hand, there has to be a motive for the
    staged “garrote scene.”

    Logical trace: We know for certain the “garrote scene” was a
    conscious and deliberate act. Someone intended to gain or protect
    by the action. What was the motivation for tying the cord around
    the neck if not intent to create a “looks like” death by
    strangulation? To create a “looks like” contrary to the actual
    evidence is deliberate staging. What would or could a long gone
    intruder intend to gain or protect by this? This is THE QUESTION.

    Where do we go from here? What’s left? What motivation? How
    about the theory there was intent to frame one or more of the
    Ramsey via the flawed “garrote scene.” How is this going to work?
    By what stretch of imagination can it be visualized that an
    intruder accidentally or deliberately creates a flawed garrote
    scene with all the marks of staging that somehow is to be matched
    to one of the Ramseys to create the frame up? (I await RST
    response to this question.)

    Since the “garrote scene” was staged, the face value impression
    of death by strangulation has the singular purpose to hide the
    truth about the actual cause of death. This sets the alternative
    as the real; ergo, skull fracture as the primary.

    The intent to deceive indicates the person or persons intending
    to hide the skull fracture as primary cause of death had reason
    to keep it hidden to “gain or protect.” The intent to deceive and
    hide cause of death indicates a mind acting upon a psychology of
    culpability with a desire to deny and escape responsibility. The
    amateurish construction with local materials indicates a lack of
    know how and lack of planning; therefore, strongly indicates
    accidental followed by an ad hoc constructions and panic staging.

    Summary:
    The RST position is that JonBenet died by strangulation at the
    hands of an intruder. The entire “Ramsey Defense” rests on this
    proposition. The claim is that she was strangled to death by the
    “garrote” apparatus found at the crime scene. Words and claim do
    not create reality. Let’s put the RST claim to the test.
    In every respect, construct an accurate replica of the “garrote.”
    Get out your video camera and ask for a volunteer to demonstrate
    exactly how JonBenet was strangled to death with this device.

    I will lay very long odds you will not find a single RST member
    to accept the challenge. Why? The very fact they claim that
    JonBenet was strangled to death with this device tells they don’t
    understand it. It is claim for the sake of claim; not evidence.
    The idea of demonstrating it terrifies them. The reason it
    terrifies is that IF any of the RST were fool enough to try to
    demonstrate how JonBenet was strangled to death with the device,
    by the attempt, the fool would wind up proving the exact
    opposite.

    Think I don’t know what I’m talking about? C’mon RST, give it a
    try. Anybody can talk and claim anything. Put it on the line.
    Close mouth, open hands and demonstrate what you claim to be
    true. (Do you mind if I want it on record and filed as an
    official investigative document? If there ever turns up a Boulder
    DA with at least minimal smarts and a lot of gumption, I may have
    use for it later.)

    How did something so abundant in evidence and so simple in layout
    get so far out of hand unto fantasy land? I believe I already
    answered that: favoritism, ignorance, pretense, stupidity and
    gross incompetence. Read on for the incontrovertible proof.

    Smit: "The knot-tying of the garrote used on JonBenet shows
    special knowledge. The paintbrush was broken to create a perfect
    handle. "It almost looks like a lawn mower starting (handle). . .
    Somebody really knew what they were doing when they did it and
    somebody has done this before."

    What image does this convey? What is the actual? Loony Louis is
    talking about a piece of string with one end tied around
    JonBenet’s neck and the other end wrapped around part of a paint
    brush handle. Instead of “special knowledge” and
    “Somebody really knew what they were doing”, this “sophisticated
    garrote” is a product of dumb and desperate that is laughable as
    a killing tool.

    Smit goes here and singing the praises of the “expert garrote
    maker.” He weaves his theory around this “expertise.” Others pick
    up on it and likewise develop theories on the “murder by
    garrote.” On and on it goes about the “expert” and “sophisticated
    garrote”. What is truly amazing (and scary) is that with all the
    professionals in LE, the outside analysts by the dozens,
    newspaper reporters, columnists, authors, etc., etc, etc,, when
    Looney Louie says. “Somebody really knew what they were doing”,
    not a single one of these “investigators” stepped up to Lou and
    said, “Show me.”

    Among all this esteemed list of “experts” and renowned
    “investigators”, NOT A SINGLE ONE followed the first rule of
    competent investigation: demand evidence. Instead, these “expert
    idiots” take the word of an addlepated sycophant and go off on
    “investigative” and writing tangents with all of it resting on
    and dependent on the aberrations of Loony Louie. Truly
    incredible!

    If just one of those in the “public eye” with means to prosecute
    or publicize had insisted that Loony Lou demonstrate the
    “intruder expertise” he claimed, what would have happened? C’mon
    Louie, show how the strangling happened when the cord wouldn’t
    slip to reduce the size of the loop? Hey, Louie, just what part
    does this mummy wrapped handle play? Will you please demonstrate
    how it was used in strangling JonBenet? A handle is to pull,
    isn’t it. Hey Louie, what happens when you pull the handle?
    Exactly what is the expertise you keep talking about? How do you
    get expertise out of “won’t work?”

    A simple “show me” would have revealed that Loony Louie hype is
    nothing but hot air lies; fairy tales; Ramsey-serving propaganda
    completely void of truth. A simple “show me” would have exposed
    the non working “garrote” as amateurish staging. Now try to fit
    staging to an intruder. “Show me” leaves no doubt the
    investigation has no reason to go beyond the Ramsey household.
    Without the “show me” and quick resolution, fantasy ran wild unto
    NINE YEARS AND NOTHING.

    Has this truth and its significance really registered yet? A few
    minutes reading the autopsy report reveals a staged crime scene.
    A fraction of a second looking at a photo confirms it. Staged
    crime scene pretty much excludes intruder with nothing to gain or
    protect, hence, no motive. (Not to mention all the other evidence
    against the Ramseys) In less that ten minutes of investigation,
    the evidence confines the investigation to the Ramsey household.
    As fact vs fiction, ten minutes vs nine years - and counting.

    At any time, if the “show me” had been invoked, the amateurish,
    non working “garrote” would have been revealed, thereby,
    exposing the truth: staged crime scene. Instead, these highly
    paid and much heralded “experts” evidenced the mentality of a
    retarded chimpanzee and committed the cardinal no no of an
    investigation. They took the word of Loony Louie and others in
    lieu of demanding evidence. In the context of investigations,
    this is maximum incompetence. It has come with a high cost that
    is still ongoing.

    Has the significance of the truth about the “garrote scene” sunk
    in yet? This truth can be demonstrated. It is irrefutable; no
    chance to circumvent. Had the highly-visible-readily-available
    evidence been heeded at the beginning, the case was, by the
    evidence, confined to the Ramsey household. There would have been
    no official, nor unofficial mountain of document clutter about an
    alleged intruder. There would not have been millions spent in an
    absurd chase of a non existent intruder. There would have been
    few, if any books, written about the case. There would have been
    no lawsuits, ruined finances and ruined careers by Ramsey
    instigation. ALL, and I do mean ALL of this is due to nothing
    else except the “powers that be”, the officials, the “experts”
    that didn’t and don’t have enough investigative sense to say,
    “show me.”

    I cannot imagine a more amateurish and obvious attempt to hide
    the truth. Yet, via favoritism, ignorance and stupidity of such
    degree as to be beyond description, the guilty have legally
    gotten away with it. (So far) Ironically, it was and is the poor
    quality of the staging that helped gain acceptance by many as
    authentic. It’s hard to believe what eyes and evidence reveals;
    that anyone could be that inept. The Ramseys simply could not be
    guilty, therefore, the “garrote scene” must be truth. The
    $118,000 “ransom amount” could not be due to panic and confusion.
    It was some trick of an “intruder” to make the “innocent Ramseys”
    appear guilty. For every item of evidence pointing to the
    Ramseys, it is by the most absurd declarations claimed to be
    “evidence of an intruder.”

    Forget the “Christian exoneration”, and “No mother could have
    done this”, and, what you would have done, the evidence doesn’t
    lie. The evidence tells what was done, and in large part, why it
    was done. We do not need to know every detail to know the
    critical ones.

    The evidence is clear and clearly explains. JonBenet was dead due
    to a severe skull fracture. Someone did not want cause of death
    known, nor the circumstance surrounding it. This someone was so
    desperate to keep the truth hidden, this person decided to stage
    a kidnaping\murder scene even though this person didn’t have a
    clue as to what it took to make the scene look authentic.

    There was little to no chance of pulling it off. To go into this
    staging blind and ignorant tells of the level of desperation
    along with mental\emotional chaos. This panic driven person could
    not even tie the wrist together in a convincing manner. One “tie”
    fell off is was so poorly done. This panic driven person
    gathered up some random materials at hand and cobbled together a
    “garrote” that doesn’t work.

    The flaws are everywhere. The sham is exposed at a glance. As big
    of a fool as this person was, there were (and are) bigger fools
    who see an inept, panic-driven mess as “expertise.” They have
    made such fools of themselves for so long with so much cost and
    so much negative fallout, they will never admit the truth and
    their responsibility. These “investigators” of a crime, by their
    stupidity have now become allies of the criminals in order to
    protect themselves.

    Am I wrong? SHOW ME.

  2. #2

    Default

    Here's my take on it. I believe that Patsy went into a rage when she finally saw what she had deep down suspected for quite some time- her husband and daughter engaged in a sex act. Chaos ensues and JonBenet, unable to stand it anymore, does something to provoke her mother who, as a result, strikes her on the head. (Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter.) With a gravely and mortally wounded JonBenet on the floor in front of them, John and Patsy, after getting over the shock at what just happened have to think quickly. What if she should happen to regain consciousness? What if she wound up brain damaged? They couldn't face that option, nor could they tell anyone what went down. Patsy tells John that he must have a part in this, too, so this "garrotte" is fashioned. (Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded.) So, John makes this pseudo-garrotte to make Patsy think that he also got his hands dirty.


    -Tea

  3. #3

    Default

    Hello EasyWriter

    You pointed out, again, that the choice of words that have been accepted as gospel, have served the RST well, and that the bottom line is someone staged the scene to save their own hide.

    EasyWriter wrote:
    Logical trace: We know for certain the “garrote scene” was a
    conscious and deliberate act. Someone intended to gain or protect
    by the action. What was the motivation for tying the cord around
    the neck if not intent to create a “looks like” death by
    strangulation? To create a “looks like” contrary to the actual
    evidence is deliberate staging. What would or could a long gone
    intruder intend to gain or protect by this? This is THE QUESTION.
    Good question!

    Little

  4. #4

    Default

    I've tried this double knot thing myself by taking a length of yarn, making a small loop to fit around my thumb, and tying a double knot. When I pulled up on the remaining length of yarn attached to the double knot, all it did was lift up my thumb. It did not tighten around it at all.

    -Tea

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Welcome back Easywriter. I think of your analysis every time I come across the mention of the ligature being pulled up on JonBenét's neck, with the handle, which was part of the brush shaft. Even Steve Thomas writes this in his book. I admire him tremendously. I just wish he was still working on the case, and I wish he had read your analysis.




    Steve Thomas:

    As I envisioned it, Patsy returned to the basement, a woman caught up in panic, where she could have seen - perhaps by detecting a faint heartbeat or a sound or a slight movement - that although completely unconscious, JonBenét was not dead. Others might argue that Patsy did not know the child was still alive. In my hypothesis, she took the next step, looking for the closest available items in her desperation. Only feet away was her paint tote. She grabbed a paintbrush and broke it to fashion the garrote with some cord. Then she looped the cord around the girl's neck.

    In my scenario, she choked JonBenét from behind, with a grip on the broken paintbrush handle, pulling the ligature. JonBenét, still unconscious, would never have felt it. There are only four ways to die: suicide, natural, accidental, or homicide. This accident, in my opinion, had just become a murder. Steve Thomas PB page 320-321
    According to your theory, Patsy would have just succeeded in lifting the top part of JonBenét's body half up from the floor, and pressing down on her body, the cord around her neck would still not have tightened as you state above, due to the wrong knot on the ligature. It was not a slip knot.

    Although Steve Thomas might not have this part of the scene perfect because of the slip knot "not' being used, I agree with all he has to say above. That it was definitely Patsy who caused the accident, and this accident had just become a murder. I'm unsure just exactly when John Ramsey enters the staging (?), but I do think he was involved in it.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #6

    Default

    [QUOTE=Elle_1]Even Steve Thomas writes this in his book. I admire him tremendously. I just wish he was still working on the case, and I wish he had read your analysis.(QUOTE)

    I admire Steve as well. It took a lot of guts to put himself in
    front of the Ramsey juggernaut. My regret is that he was not
    better prepared when he met the Ramseys on the LKL show.

    Had he produced a replica of the crime scene and asked John and
    Patsy to show how the “garrote” worked, they would have gone into
    a full blown panic. They would have nervously spouted one excuse
    after another as to why they wouldn’t do it. If Steve has just
    asked John and Patsy to explain how the “garrote” worked and why
    it was “professional”, they would have hummed and hawed and
    eventually retreated to “Somebody said”; namely Loony Lou.

    As you know, Elle, from the outset, I have always said the
    “garrote scene” is the BEST EVIDENCE. Purse this truth, and the
    rest will fall into place. Accidental and fatal head injury
    followed by staging are the pivotal elements which all evidence
    revolves around. Speculation about certain elements of the crime
    may be correct or incorrect. The truth about the “garrote scene”
    is without evidentiary doubt.

    The RST may lie, and do quite often, but they can’t fake the
    truth in physical demonstration. They can claim that pulling the
    handle choked JonBenet to death. They can also claim that pulling
    the handle will cause Mars to go out of its normal orbit.

    Claim, then run and hide, is the modus operandi of the RST. For
    years, I have asked one and all of them to meet me online and
    answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged intruder.
    Not a single one has accepted the challenge. Excuses, they have
    in abundance; guts to appear, they have not. The same is true of
    the request for one or more of them to demonstrate how JonBenet
    was strangled to death with the “garrote.” No takers.

    It is easy to show just how much of an amateurish, non-working
    mess the “garrote” is. From here, staged crime scene is an easy
    conclusion. From here, there is no escape for the Ramseys. I
    have no doubt that given the opportunity, I can convince a jury
    of the truth. I doubt that I will every get the chance, but it’s
    something for the Ramseys to think about.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    EasyWriter:

    Had he produced a replica of the crime scene and asked John and
    Patsy to show how the “garrote” worked, they would have gone into
    a full blown panic. They would have nervously spouted one excuse
    after another as to why they wouldn’t do it. If Steve has just
    asked John and Patsy to explain how the “garrote” worked and why
    it was “professional”, they would have hummed and hawed and
    eventually retreated to “Somebody said”; namely Loony Lou.

    As you know, Elle, from the outset, I have always said the
    “garrote scene” is the BEST EVIDENCE. Purse this truth, and the
    rest will fall into place. Accidental and fatal head injury
    followed by staging are the pivotal elements which all evidence
    revolves around. Speculation about certain elements of the crime
    may be correct or incorrect. The truth about the “garrote scene”
    is without evidentiary doubt.

    The RST may lie, and do quite often, but they can’t fake the
    truth in physical demonstration. They can claim that pulling the
    handle choked JonBenet to death. They can also claim that pulling
    the handle will cause Mars to go out of its normal orbit.
    It's just too bad we haven't seen a reenactment of this case with the garrote being used, to fully demonstrate your point, EW, because as soon as one sets eyes on the handle, the first think people think of, is the handle being pulled to tighten the loop around JonBenét's neck. It just hasn't been investigated enough by LE. I cannot understand why they don't draw more attention to this part of the evidence, and provide some kind of demonstration to prove the RST have it all wrong.

    Steve Thomas should have had more backup from LE when he confronted the Ramseys on this LKL show.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    I think Steve did a great job on LKL, while the Ramseys acted like childish snobs with big tempers. Steve kept his cool. Ramsey did not.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Yes, Steve Thomas did a good job all by himself WY, but I wish there had been more detectives there backing him up, and challenging the Ramseys, but I expect too much here, I know. I just wish I had some strong connections in the TV world to get Delmar before the cameras, to demonstrate why the Ramsey ligature was an amateur attempt which didn't strangle JonBenét.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  10. #10

    Default

    EasyWriter, you are dead on in every point you make about the garrote, the panic, and the totally ridiculous rambling called a ransom note. Susan Bennett and company will certainly not try the experiment you suggested, because then they will have to admit there was no intruder. Even if both John and Patsy confessed, I think Susan and her blind followers would put a spin on THAT and continue to look for "Sick Puppy."

    A jury would convict in a heartbeat.

  11. #11

    Default

    "Steve Thomas should have had more backup from LE when he confronted the Ramseys on this LKL show."

    Shameful.



Similar Threads

  1. 16 years ago
    By JC in forum Butts - Triple Murder Case
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 27, 2008, 9:03 am, Sun Jan 27 9:03:05 UTC 2008
  2. 10 Years Later - Ever Wonder
    By Barbara in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 2, 2006, 5:28 pm, Fri Jun 2 17:28:46 UTC 2006

Posting Permissions

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