More Misinformation Part 2

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Barbara, May 26, 2006.

  1. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    Just wanted to create a new thread to speak to the misinformation out there on the BB. While there are probably many forums that have misinformation on them, the most known forums for JBR are FFJ, WS, and WBBS.

    The BB, or Jameson's or Susan Bennett's forum has printed on their site more misinformation than all the others combined. They have misled the public, they have misled the police, they mislead any new posters (those who aren't already posters with different hats) with statements of fact that just simply aren't true.

    What struck me enough today to post this thread was the continuing chest pounding of Foster being "discredited", while Ed Gelb and Douglas were not.

    Ed Gelb pretended to be Dr. Ed Gelb
    John Douglas not only is not particularly competent (IMO) regarding all his cases, he was paid. The BS about him giving back the money is BS. He may have made a partial refund for something, but he DID NOT DO THIS FOR FREE.

    HE WAS PAID (And that's a fact)

    Two things:

    1. (I posted this at the BB, but like all things unpleasing, it disappeared without a comment)

    My daughters husband (then fiance), before the wedding said he was going to travel and see his old friend, who as chance would have it, lives and works in Colorado. What does he do? He's in law enforcement. Go figure!

    While he is not in Boulder, he does work not too far away in Colorado. Of course, when he left, I begged him to ask his friend about the JBR case. My poor son in law actually asked me "who"?. I laughed and explained, while my daughter was appropriately embarassed by her mother's 9+ year "hobby".

    Anyway, I digress, he came back and said that although the murder did not occur anywhere near where his friend is in LE, he did say that there are those who were not at all happy with Steve Thomas, (although they thought he was a good cop, but didn't like the whole book and resignation thing), but said further that you can count on one hand the amount of LE in all of Colorado who DON'T think the Ramseys "did it". He would not elaborate on much, but did say that there were quite a few LE who think to this day that Burke should be looked at again. What was really strange, my son in law said that it was spoken of almost with a "taboo" like attitude, almost expecting his friend and his co workers there to look around to make sure nobody was listening when they spoke of the Ramseys "doing it" and the cops F-----G up.

    Behind the scenes, they state that Haddon was the reason the Ramseys are not in prison. They bought their way out, plain and simple

    As far as Foster being discredited, let me say this:

    Everyone who knows the whole story, has NOT, I repeat, has NOT discredited Foster. He, like all experts, fell into a trap that was unfortunate, but a trap nonetheless.

    I just wanted to say that after almost 10 years, I felt somehow comforted knowing that Law Enforcement, despite Carnes "decision", believe that the Ramseys are responsible. I know that sounds strange, but it's nice to know that we're really not all tunnel visioned and insane. Well, maybe insane, but we still have it right!

    **They also said they don't speak much of it anymore in Colorado, as they all truly believe that nobody will ever know and nobody will ever go to trial. (that was a little sad)
     
  2. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Interesting post Barbara. I'd love to have an off-record discussion with the key members of LE in Boulder!

    You are right that the Double BB is full of misinformation - it makes very painful reading at times. Speculation and opinion are frequently presented as fact and they go unchecked provided that they are pro-Ramsey. Links are not permitted to other sources. jameson claims that the "BORG" will put porn at the end of the link if she does, but we all know this is rubbish. The simple fact is that she wants to control what people read, learn and post about the Ramsey case. She won't even allow a link to the Ramsey case Wiki which was created by a known believer of Ramsey innocence. Why - she says it usd BORG sources. In fact, these "BORG sources" were only factual documents pertaining to the case. Most of the links on the Wiki are to her own forum! My guess is that the real reason she lashed out at the Wiki was because she wasn't in sole control of it. She repeatedly ignored the fact that one of the benefits of a wiki is that contributors can correct misinformation rather than just argue against it. jameson prefers to run a dictatorship.

    One only has to look at the quality of the few remaining posters at jameson's forum to know that these are not intelligent people in search of the truth, but rather oddities who would sooner argue semantics or who prefer to follow obscure hidden "clues" in historical writings than the stark evidence of the case. jameson considers herself an expert. She has no formal training or education - yet she places herself above those who do. Sadly, her forum comprising of a few oddballs represents Ramsey support on the Internet.



    If these people were looking at a digitial image of all the suspects in the ramsey case, they would clearly see Mcsanta's face, Fleet White's face, Helgoth's face and they would ve happy to discuss them.... but where John and Patsy Ramseys' faces were, they would see only a pixel, and another pixel, and another pixel. They would point out a pixel which seems to be the wrong colour and they might get excited about the cluster of pixels which form Patsy's hair and say it reminds them of Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark. They might even claim that this was a clue that Gorbachev was involved in the killing! They would get into a discussion about colour depth and screen quality and about what a pixel actually is.... but what they would steadfastly refuse to see is John and Patsy ramsey.

    The fact of matter is that the Ramseys have NOT been cleared as suspects and no matter how strongly you believe in their innocence - no-one who really cares about Jonbenet should be giving them "a pass".
     
  3. Elle

    Elle Member

    Great post, Barbara, thank you for sharing this with us. It's not often we get the chance to read anything like this. It was good you had the courage to jump right in there and ask your "in-the-future" son-in-law to do a little personal investigation for you. I suppose you might keep prodding him now and then for an update. :) This is information we would never hear, or read anywhere else.
     
  4. Elle

    Elle Member

    Jay, I'm expecting any moment to see an announcement on the Dr. Phil show, that he has invited you and Jameson to spar it out in public. Hahahahaha! :)
     
  5. Thor

    Thor Active Member

    Very interesting info, thanks Barbara. Especially interesting the comments about looking at Burke again. When I first started at the attorney general's office in 2000, one of the attorneys I worked with was a 70 something woman and she said look at Burke. I'm not saying I think he had anything to do with this for sure, but I still think a male Ram was involved for sure, and am just not sure who. I go back and forth and at this point am more confused than ever. I know Patsy was involved, of course, but I truly think a male Ram was just as involved somehow. And I think incest is very relative in this crime. Just my opinion.
     
  6. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    My Mum thinks Burke was involved and all she knows about the case is what she learned from the Tracey documentaries!

    One of the things I feel about the Ramsey case is that by their lack of co-operation, the Ramseys brought suspicion upon themselves in many people's eyes. They have to live with that - but so does their family. How many people think they are covering for Burke because of the way they acted? I just think that is so unfair on Burke.

    Today I was with a tv producer and he was talking about the qualities he looks for in a person. He said that the quality he admires most is the ability to say "I was wrong" . When a person gets it wrong and they hold their hand up and admit it - people will forgive them - admire them even. John Ramsey certainly doesn't fall into that category. Sometimes I wonder what he'll do if he ever gets to the Gates of St Peter - will he admit to any faults or mistakes or will he continue to say "it was so and so's fault".
     
  7. Tez

    Tez Member

    Thank you Barbara for the information. I have a friend in LE not too far from Boulder. I spoke to him about two years ago about the case. He basically told me the same thing that your future son-in-law said. He thought Burke should be looked at as a witness, because he knows a lot more than he has ever said to LE. My friend thought at the time we spoke that JBR's death was an accident, then became a murder when the staging happened. He wouldn't say who he thought caused the accident. The one thing he did say and I quote, "The Ramsey's are dirty, just like Susan Smith." That told me that he thought both JR and PR were both involved.

    Haddon and Company did a good job of keeping their clients out of jail, I wonder just how much they were paid. I also wonder if any of those lawyers have second thoughts about defending the Ramseys. I don't think the Lin Wood has second thoughts, he strikes me as money hungry.
     
  8. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Bill Salisbury wrote on Webbsleuths (5-27-06)

    I don't want to get involved in personal attacks on posters but the poster who wrote that remark about Patsy on Forums for Justice quoted above is a well known anti-MacDonald poster on most of the Dr Jeffrey MacDonald case forums.
    She writes the same sort of crap on the MacDonald forums. The rather alarming thing is that anybody who disagrees with views like that on the MacDonald forums seems to get banned. I suppose that those sort of posters complain to the TV forum moderators. The result is that the number of posters now who think Dr MacDonald is completely innocent can now be counted on the fingers of one hand.

    B.Salisbury - JFYI: nobody has ever been banned from any MacDonald board just because they believed in MacDonalds innocence. If people have been banned there at all (the A&E board for example is virtually unmoderated, the moderators there never show up in a thread), it was because they launched vicious attacks. And it was mostly rabid MacDonald groupies who went ballistic after being confronted with evidence they couldn't refute. For that's what they don't like: evidence which just screams that JMD is guilty. Just as the Ramsey groupies don't like evidence which point to the Ramseys being involved in the killing of their daughter.
    And if fewer and fewer MacDonald supporters show up on forums, the reason is that he has lost a tremendous amount of supporters over the last years. The damaging DNA test results cooked his goose and probably have convinced even the last gullible followers (except his credulous wife, who hasn't truly studied the case) that JMD has conned them.
    Yes, the MacDonald case and the Ramsey case have a lot in common. They are basically simple cases, 'fifteen minute cases', like Delmar England would put it: an enraged parent killed a family member, did not want to take responsibility for it, but instead wanted to save his/her hide. Which is why a scene was staged. Very poorly staged.
    It's the case history which makes these cases intricate, not the basic crime itself. JMD escaped justice for almost ten years, and the Ramseys are in their tenth year too.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2006
  9. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I weighed my 6 year old two days ago and she weights exactly 45lbs - the same weight as Jonbenet was when she died. She is 46 inches tall which I think is 2 inches shorter than jonbenet (correct me if I'm wrong). If I'm correct, this would make Jonbenet a little bit skinnier than My Tootsie (who isn't overweight by any stretch - the family call her "chicken legs" because of her lean build)

    Now, here's a delicate question. I'm going to be travelling back to New York in a few weeks and will definitely make an opportunity to visit Bloomingdales. We have the Bloomies size 4-6 which fit my Tootsie now (not snugly though). Should I purchase the size 12 pack and show them side by side with the size 4-6?

    I posted a photo of the Wednesday panties once before and was criticised for it by some people who seemed upset by the fact that I'd shopped at Bloomingdales :)
     
  10. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Absolutely!

    I would expect you to shop at Bloomingdales Jayelles...
     
  11. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    I agree with Moab. After all, it's better than buying them from a crackhobo behind a dumpster.

    -Tea
     
  12. Niner

    Niner Active Member

    that would mean she probably couldn'nt even WALK in them... meaning someone HAD to have carried her down to the basement. Were the size 6 undies (Wednesday) ever found? can't remember, it's been so long...

    Thanks Barbara for that report!

    Interesting too, Jayelles, my Mom thought they should look at Burke when this first all came out...

    yeah... that Haddon & Company sure DID keep the Rams out of jail!! :yes:

    so sad for JonBenet, though... :banghead:
     
  13. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    OK - done. I shall purchase both the 4-6 and the size 12 Bloomies so that a real comparison can be made. No point in comparing new size 12 knickers with size 4-6 which have been laundered many times.

    Hey Moab - Bloomingdales is a big tourist attraction for us Brits just as Harrods is for you Americans. Due to the exchange rate, I didn't think Bloomingdales was that expensive - more comparable with a half decent store here. Everywhere else just seemed very cheap! When we visit the States, we take empty suitcases....
     
  14. Little

    Little Member

    I've just now gotten back to reading Henry Lee's book "Cracking More Cases" and this is interesting re: the panties.

    I think this is the first time I have read that they were an adult size 7.

    Little
     
  15. Elle

    Elle Member

    Oh good grief, Little, this is what I hate about this case. Every time I turn around, I'm reading different evidence. Isn't it frustrating? This information about the size 7 panties comes from an attorney of Patsy and John Ramsey's (?). Well I'll be damned. This is the first time I've ever read about the size 7 panties.

    Jay, I hardly think that size 4 - 6 panties could stretch to a size 12 with washing.

    btw Jay, all the Americans also come over here to shop because of the exchange rate of our Canadian dollar being just 70 cents to the U.S. $. :-(
    Not fair! Great business for the local stores, but not good for us when heading for the U.S. on holiday.:)
     
  16. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    Elle,

    It reads to me like the information about the adult size 7 panties is coming from Henry Lee, the book's author. Lee is usually very accurate in his research for his books.

    An adult size 7 could possibly belong to Melinda, who may have left a pair handy in the bathroom used by guests.

    They sure as heck weren't Patsy's. Hers would be more like a size 17 Just-My-Size by Hanes!
     
  17. Elle

    Elle Member

    Just read that quote from Henry Lee's book again, Lurker. I kind of linked those two sentences together. Thank you for helping me out here. :)

    Quote: Posted by Little from Dr. Lee's book:
    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Page 243:
    Most recently, an attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey has come forward to criticize the lack of investigation on the source for the second DNA traces found in the underpants worn by JonBenet. This was, according to this attorney, an example of the tunnel vision that investigators applied in this case. The underpants worn by JonBenet were an adult size 7. Where this underwear came from is still a mystery. Boulder detectives were able to find that this type
    (continued on page 244 Cracking More Cases)
    of underwear were sold only in Bloomingdale's and manufactured in Asia.
    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
     
  18. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    It's interesting how Candy makes blanket statements about "law enforcement." The fact is, outside of Colorado (and probably many places inside of Colorado), "law enforcement" doesn't know and in many cases doesn't care about the JBR case. They have enough crime in their own cities and towns to take care of, and they don't have enough time or energy to give to the facts of a case not in their own jurisdiction.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice