Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516 LastLast
Results 145 to 156 of 191
  1. #145
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    574

    Default

    I'm halfway reading through PMPT for the first time and I'm sure I just read that the Bloomies she was found in were almost adult size...I did a double take when I read that.

    The WHY interests me: The Ramsey's are determined that JBR went to bed on 25th December and that was the last time they saw her alive.

    They reinforce this with the date on on the gravestone - 25th December.

    They RE-inforced this, IMHO, with the oversized Bloomies...they needed a clean pair of knickers (sorry, I'm English) that had Wednesday on them ie. 25th December. If she'd soiled her normal sized Wednesday Bloomies and her others were in the wash ( ie also solied) perhaps the size 12's - meant to be a present were the ONLY WEDNESDAY Bloomies available. We only have PR's word that JBR wanted the Big ones and JBR isn't around to argue.

    They had to be Bloomies with Wednesday, not only to reinforce the straight to bed on the 25th, but because MANY people at the White's house who could have assisted JBR in the toilet on Christmas day would know she had Bloomies/knickers with Wednesday written on them...so they had no choice. They over-thought the cover up and made themselves look silly IMHO.

  2. #146
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Born under a bad sign.
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber
    They had to be Bloomies with Wednesday, not only to reinforce the straight to bed on the 25th, but because MANY people at the White's house who could have assisted JBR in the toilet on Christmas day would know she had Bloomies/knickers with Wednesday written on them...so they had no choice.
    But Patsy claimed she got JB ready for bed, and could always have said she changed the Bloomies at that time. The real question is why DIDN'T she change them? Why would a mother put her daughter to bed in underwear WAY too large for her if she was changing her clothes? Especially a child who was known to have bed wetting problems.

  3. #147
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStrat
    But Patsy claimed she got JB ready for bed, and could always have said she changed the Bloomies at that time. The real question is why DIDN'T she change them? Why would a mother put her daughter to bed in underwear WAY too large for her if she was changing her clothes? Especially a child who was known to have bed wetting problems.
    Nothing about the Bloomies makes sense. You've all seen the Bloomies on my not-very-bonny model (whuch has the correct measurements nevertheless). However, I have seen them on a living, moving child and they looked even more ridiculous on her. My Model hasn't got much of a buttock-curve (i.e. it's kind of flat at the backside). My Tootsie's buttocks make the Bloomies hang and gape even more than the model does. IMO, it's not just a case of me doubting that Patsy would have allowed JonBenet to wear them, I actually think she would have been HORRIFIED if she'd seen her wearing them. Not that I believe Jonbenet would have worn them. My Tootsie loves to dress up but she's got nothing like Jonbenet's experience of having designer clothing and pageant clothing custom made for her. Yet Tootsie pulled faces when she saw the 12-14 Bloomies. She giggled because they were identical to her 4-6 Bloomies yet they were so big. Her remark was "They look like yours" (or words to that effect). I asked her to try them on and she thought it was a huge joke. There is no way .... NO WAY she would ever have voluntarily worn them as her underwear.

    So the 12-14 Bloomies are a big mystery.

    Excuse the RST have given are:-

    1) In my photographs of the two sizes of Blomoies, the larger ones were high-cut legs - i.e. a different style altogether. FALSE. These are a novelty/souvenir item and come in one style only - full brief. Clearly the person who thought I'd used a high-cut leg style was shocked by the degree of gaping. I was too.

    2) Sizes have changes since 1996 - they've gotten bigger. Hmmm. Maybe they've altered slightly, but I doubt they've altered that much. I bought the smaller Bloomies two years ago, the larger Bloomies this year. Have sizes altered dramatically in the last 2 years? I doubt it.

    3) Although Tootsie and JBR are virtually the same height and weight, that doesn't mean they would have the same measurements. When I did the experiment, Tootsie was exactly the same height as JBR when she died, but half a pound heavier. I have seen Photos of JBR and I know what my Tootsie looks like so I can compare easily. Some folks online have seen photos of Tootsie and I'm sure they'd agree she's a normal sized little girl. I've never had any problems getting clothes to fit - I just buy the regular size for her age and it fits. Tootsie and JonBenet look to be a very similar build but Jonbenet might be very slightly skinnier. Tootsie was certainly half a pound heavier so if anything, the Bloomies would have been even baggier on Jonbenet than on Tootsie.

    4) The larger Bloomies were stretched to make them look bigger. Eh? This was RST logic at its best. No I didn't stretch the larger Bloomies. I took them out of the pack and used them. OTOH, the smaller Bloomies had been worn numerous times and may have stretched so if I'd compared new for new, the size difference might have been even more dramatic!
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  4. #148
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStrat
    But Patsy claimed she got JB ready for bed, and could always have said she changed the Bloomies at that time. The real question is why DIDN'T she change them? Why would a mother put her daughter to bed in underwear WAY too large for her if she was changing her clothes? Especially a child who was known to have bed wetting problems.

    Sorry, I didn't make myself clear - I meant that the huge Bloomies were put on during the staging, not at bedtime...THEN as I stated earlier

    'they needed a clean pair of knickers (sorry, I'm English) that had Wednesday on them ie. 25th December. If she'd soiled her normal sized Wednesday Bloomies and her others were in the wash ( ie also solied) perhaps the size 12's - meant to be a present were the ONLY WEDNESDAY Bloomies available. We only have PR's word that JBR wanted the Big ones and JBR isn't around to argue.

    They had to be Bloomies with Wednesday, not only to reinforce the straight to bed on the 25th, but because MANY people at the White's house who could have assisted JBR in the toilet on Christmas day would know she had Bloomies/knickers with Wednesday written on them...so they had no choice. They over-thought the cover up and made themselves look silly IMHO.'

  5. #149
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Margoo has asked a poignant question:-

    Why would a parent open that package of oversized panties when there were dozens of other pairs to choose from, why put the wrong sized panties on her?
    Exactly. That's what doesn't make sense. Patsy admitted that the knew JonBenet was wearing the enormous Bloomies. If she hadn't, it would have made much more sense.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  6. #150
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Here's a thought ... but it doesn't fit with Patsy knowing about the large knickers unless Patsy was involved in her murder. The fact that she acknowledged awareness of those huge Bloomies is a bugaboo for me.

    Supposing JonBenet's bowels voided as she was killed? I understand that it is a common occurence. Could that explain why she was changed and wiped down? Not because the killer was worried about his/her DNA, but because leaving her in her own poo was something that even her killer couldn't do?
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  7. #151
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Why do the RST refuse to acknowledge an impeccable source for the Bloomies being size 12? i.e. page 62 of Karr's arrest warrant?

    We know they read here, yet not one of them is acknowledging this source. Instead, they prefer to warble on about how there isn't an official source and suggest it's another "BORG myth". Isn't there one of them with the integrity to post this FACT on yonder forum?
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  8. #152

    Default

    Food for thought: Patsy had some "unwrapped" presents in that cellar room, did she not? Would that include the undelivered size 12 Bloomies?

    That package of size 12 Bloomies did NOT get into the hands of the BPD. Ever. Jams claimed--at one point--that "someone" found the remaining 6 pairs "in the boxes" from the Ramsey's home. That "someone" did not then turn those over for the INVESTIGATION INTO THE MURDER OF THEIR CHILD. Even though, as Patsy HERSELF clearly states in Atlanta in 2000 August, SHE KNEW those undies were IMPORTANT EVIDENCE in this case.

    How odd.

    No, the RAMSEY "SOMEONE" KEPT CASE EVIDENCE INTENTIONALLY for YEARS. I'm sure THEIR EXCUSE is that they didn't TRUST the BPD to handle this IMPORTANT CASE EVIDENCE. No, they waited until MARY LACY took the case away from the BPD years later, compliments of LIN WOOD, and THEN Wood turned the remaining size 12 BLOOMIES over to HER. You remember Mary Lacy? PRO-RAMSEY DA who attended Patsy's FUNERAL AS A FRIEND?

    So, let's think about this:

    1. IMPORTANT CASE EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD FROM THE INVESTIGATION FOR YEARS BY THE RAMSEYS...INTENTIONALLY...UNTIL THEY GOT ANOTHER DA IN OFFICE THEY COULD PLAY AND HAD THEIR SHARK WOOD MANIPULATE THE CASE AWAY FROM THE BPD. Then and ONLY then did they turn this evidence over to ANY LE.

    2. Why do you think they didn't just THROW IT OUT ANYHOW? I mean, IF they are guilty, why even TELL anyone about those Bloomies? Why not just get rid of them altogether? Of course, that's the OBVIOUS question. And I believe I have the answer: because the person who FOUND them in those "boxes" from the Ramsey home was NOT John or Patsy or Burke. Maybe it wasn't even a Ramsey. Maybe it was a FRIEND OR RELATIVE, one who actually BELIEVES the Ramseys are innocent. Maybe that FRIEND/RELATIVE followed the case and said OH LOOK! THE REMAINING BLOOMIES! You'll want to give these to LE, won't you? And the Ramseys are then STUCK. If they get RID of them, they now look guilty to this friend/relative. So...they STALL. Use the old "they're out to get us" excuse.

    3. Or one version of this story I've seen jams tell is that the size 12 Bloomies were found AT THE BOULDER HOME BY THE RAMSEY INVESTIGATORS. So, of course, if the INVESTIGATORS found this EVIDENCE, why didn't THEY turn it over to LE? Well, for one thing, THEY worked for the Ramsey lawyers. I'm sure the policy would be "not our job" to do LE's work for them. Of course, they had NO PROBLEM turning over "exculpatory evidence" as they saw it, but that's another thread. No, in this case, seems the Ramsey investigators...which would include Lou Smit de facto, if not by paycheck soon after he quit the BDA's Office...would be left holding this CRITICAL EVIDENCE. Why didn't THEY destroy it? Well, first, destroying evidence in a crime IS ILLEGAL. Any of them, not to mention Haddon's firm, could have been prosecuted for destroying evidence in a murder case. Not that this would have HAPPENED...it IS Boulder, after all...but I doubt they'd have wanted that hanging over their heads. It would have RUINED any professional career they'd spent their lives constructing, after all. So...can't destroy it, can they? Nope, but they CAN hold on to it. Then, if somehow the fact that they're WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE IN A CHILD MURDER CASE gets leaked...they can always say, oops...just an ERROR...got MISPLACED...blahblah. The fact that the RST was never discovered by the BPD to have this CRITICAL CASE EVIDENCE says much about "Ramsey cooperation" with LE, doesn't it?

    No, it took JAMS to enlighten us about THIS EGREGIOUS OBSTRUCTION IN AN INVESTIGATION INTO A CHILD'S MURDER, BY HER OWN PARENTS, no less.

    And people, this is why I treasure jams. Yes, I said it. I treasure her. Because even if she doesn't have the moral character to be truly honest about what she knows and how she knows it, even if she's willing to use and abuse anyone and everyone for her own agenda, even if she's incapable of telling the raw truth when it really implicates her precious Ramseys, opting instead to libel any number of innocent people, even those she drags off the internet unawares they're being sacrificed to the God Ramsey solely BECAUSE they are unaware...in spite of all of this, I do treasure jams.

    Think of it: without her, we'd have no transcript of the Ramsey '98 interviews conducted by the BDA. Didn't Wood release the Ramsey Atlanta 2000 interviews through jams? The Wolf/Ramsey depositions, as well? As selective and biased as they try to make them, the truth is screaming from the Ramseys' own words: they lie, evade, obfuscate, and obstruct justice in the murder of their own child.

    And in the case of the package of size 12 Bloomies: they AGAIN obstructed the investigation by WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE until they could control how it was used. And how was it used? Not at all. How do we know this? Jams told us. Of course, she won't tell THE WHOLE TRUTH. She never does. But this little nugget her ego let slip in part really is so revealing. She didn't know this, of course. She doesn't know the law, and besides, her little heads will take it any way she wants to dish it.

    But we know the truth, and it inevitably leads to the questions that will NEVER be answered: where were those size 12 Bloomies REALLY taken from that night? And by whom?

    Clever Ramseys. They know the answers, but they'll never tell. If anyone else knows it, they might...for a price, of course.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  9. #153

    Default

    I want to clarify some thoughts on the "missing" size 12 Bloomies and what I think happened to them for 5 years:

    Jams said herself the Ramseys OR their investigators (jams actually told BOTH stories at different times--how RAMSEY of her) FOUND the remaining package of size 12 Bloomies in "boxes" from when the Ramseys moved from the Boulder home. When jams said it was the RST INVESTIGATORS, she said the undies were found in the Boulder home after LE dismissed it back to the Ramseys, I believe. Then later, jams said "someone" found them in boxes of Ramsey belongings from the move, and I inferred from that those boxes would have been in ATLANTA when they were being unpacked. Just what jams intended for people to infer, I now believe. I don't believe jams ever cleared that up, as she plays by the Ramsey rule book, and RULE NUMBER ONE: the more confusing, the better.

    Personally, I believe the package was NOT in JonBenet's bathroom at all, because in Atlanta, the Boulder DA/BPD team interviewing Patsy said they had taken 15 pairs of size 6 undies out of JonBenet's drawer. Why would they leave any others behind? Patsy changed her story about where that package of size 12 Bloomies was in JonBenet's bathroom, as well. Why would she do that? Because she was doing what all liars do: adjusting her story to fit the facts in order to keep the lie going.

    I think Patsy got the undies out of the basement where she had them waiting to be packed and sent to her niece, along with other items she admitted she didn't get sent before Christmas. Remember the Christmas wrapping paper that can be seen in a picture of the blanket in the cellar room? Remember that Patsy said herself that she had wrapped presents down there and there were some still there? I think the remaining undies were in that basement. After a pair was taken out to put on JonBenet, I think the rest of the package was then put elsewhere: maybe hidden in another box or area of the basement, which is how they ended up FOUND by the Ramsey investigators in a box later, possibly right there in the basement. I think jams changed the story, using her now infamous method of twisting words, to try to hide the truth, when she asked for more detail and realized the implications: the undies weren't found in JonBenet's bathroom at all, but in a box in the basement--hence, "packed in a box" and "found later" by "someone." Then withheld from LE for 5 years because the investigators did NOT want to tell the BPD WHERE THEY FOUND THIS PACKAGE. Nor did they want them TESTED for DNA, in case they might come back with unknown DNA. Again...RULE NUMBER ONE: CONFUSE, OBSCURE, EVADE, OBSTRUCT. Jams lies for the Ramseys all the time. I think this is no different.

    At any rate, jams said the package was turned over to Lacy. Wood also said this, more or less. That was in 2002, when Lacy took over the case. They waited that long. I'm guessing they didn't just destroy the evidence because it wasn't Patsy or John who FOUND them in Boulder, but someone else who KNEW how important they were and knew that destroying evidence in a criminal case is a felony, not to mention a career buster, if you get caught. So it seems to me it must have been the "investigators" after all who found them in Boulder and then held on to them. It's still OBSTRUCTION, IMO, that the Ramseys withheld evidence in their own child's MURDER CASE for 5 years, especially when Patsy admitted in 2000 in Atlanta that she already KNEW there was an issue over the large undies, yet she STILL said NOTHING about having the rest of the package when LE explained IN DETAIL why it was important to know how those undies got on JonBenet and where they came from. How COOPERATIVE of the Ramseys. NOT.


    Well, that's the best I can do from all the continuing misinformation and confusion the RST create so no one will ever know the truth in full. But ever so often, some kernel slips out and you have to wade through a lot of swampwater to find it, but sometimes, you can. I think this is close to the truth.
    Last edited by koldkase; November 5, 2006, 12:09 pm at Sun Nov 5 12:09:53 UTC 2006.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  10. #154
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    The very fact that the tactic adopted by Margoo & co is one of doubt that my experiment is accurate just goes to underline the disbelief factor about the larger Bloomies. i.e. "My goodness, they are so huge, I simply cannot believe that JonBenet would want to wear them and I simply cannot believe that Patsy would let her wear them ... therefore Jayelles experiment must be flawed. The garment size must have changed in 10 years .... Perhaps it was a different manufacturer?...... Perhaps everyone is wrong about them being size 12-14 and they were actually size 6-10?.....".

    There is no doubt in my mind that this is a severe case of Ramsey-tinted spectacles. There is no doubt in my mind that if Patsy had simply DENIED knowledge of the large Bloomies, that they would have held this up as PROOF POSITIVE of an intruder.

    Patsy acknowledging the large Bloomies is the bugaboo.

    For the record, Margoo makes reference to my Bloomies being purchased 10 years after the murder - in fact, only one set were. The other set were purchased 3 years ago.

    Despite Margoo's continued attempts to apply Ramsey SPIN to the Bloomies, one fact remains - there are numerous documented references to the fact that the Bloomies which JonBenet were wearing were OUTSIZED and very large. At what point does one use terms like these? Not baggy, not "rather big" not even "too big" but OUTSIZED. I would say that the term outsized would be used when the garment was ridiculously large and hanging off the person.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  11. #155
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default Utter piffle posted elsewhere

    jameson posted:-

    I believe Miss Marple was referring to the BORG who made a model of a child and put two pairs of panties on it to show that one size was larger than the other. The reasoning behind that was - - well, obviously Patsy did it because the panties were just HUGE!

    I never trusted Miss Marple, believe she is BORG to the bone and don't care to give any of them more credibility than they deserve. Miss Marple is the leader of the Wiki site - - and it is riddles with misinformation. So I really don't have a lot of interest in her posts.
    This is piffle for several reasons:-

    1) It wasn't a BORG who made the model, it was a fencesitter.

    2) The reasoning behind it wasn't to prove that Patsy did it (I'm sorry but how idiotic is THAT statement?), but to document the FACTS. The Investigators described the Bloomies as "oversized" and the general impression was that the mere size of the Bloomies was something of a big puzzle which might be part of the crime. However, the RST were suggesting that the claim of the Bloomies being huge was a "BORG myth" and that they were probably only just a little on the generous size (after all, Patsy says she let her wear them so they couldn't POSSIBLY have been that big - must be the nasty BORG spinning things).

    3) In fact the experiment shows that the Bloomies were indeed massive. They would have been uncomfortable, hard to keep up and it's very unlikely that JonBenet would have wanted to wear them, let alone any self-respecting parent allowing their child to wear them. They remain a puzzle.

    Thinking readers should ask themselves "why" jameson is trying to dismiss the significance of the huge Bloomies. Perhaps she would be happy to dress her own children (or any of her many foster children) in outsized, uncomfortable underwear which would hang down to their knees, but really, most of us have higher standards than that.

    Yes it's possible that sizes have changed in 10 years - but that would apply to the smaller Bloomies too.

    It should be noted that the RST have also continually fluffed about there being no official source for the larger Bloomies even being a size 12-14 - they have suggested that this too is a "BORG myth". Not so. Pg 62 of John Mark Karr's arrest warrant clearly stated that they were size 12-14. Thinking people should ask themselves "why" none of the RST are achknowledging this official source and why they continue to mumble and fluff about there being no official source.

    Miss Marple runs a wiki about the case. In recent days he TWICE posted the source of pg 62 of the Karr arrest warrant in response to another posters question and TWICE jameson deleted his post. She doesn't want to acknowledge that particular fact on her site. Instead she chooses to try and discredit Miss Marple. In true jameson form, this means calling him a "BORG". Miss Marple isn't a BORG - he supports the intruder theory and as far a I am aware has done so under all of his previous hats. Now I don't agree with all of Miss Marple's theories (I think he leans too much towards RST), but I respect his ability to acknowledge facts even when they don't support his gut instinct. Fortunately, like me, Miss Marple isn't remotely upset by jameson's attempts to rile him by calling him a BORG. He's far too intelligent to think that thinking people would believe what jameson says over what they can see for themselves to be true! These petty tactics only serves to discredit jameson more because it makes her look as though she really doesn't know what she's talking about.

    The FACT is that jameson doesn't like Miss Marple because he made a wiki which documenst BOTH sides of the equation - and jameson, like Michael Tracye, prefers to represent just ONE side of the equation. In jameson's eyes, that makes him a "BORG". Sadly, there are still some members of jameson's forum who follow her blindly and take her word as gospel. If she says Miss Marple is a "BORG" then they will believe her and treat Miss Marple likewise. Some of these poor unfortunates are so brainwashed that they don't even read elsewhere. To them, jameson's propaganda contitutes the facts in the Ramsey case!

    Her reign is coming to an end though. SOme of her more intelligent posters have formed their own forum and are endeavouring to make it a decent one. They have suffered one too many of jameson's phoney "crashes" and seen for themselves that she cares not one jot about their feelings.

    These guys are WAY more intelligent than jameson and it defeats me why they posted under her control for so long. Still, better late than never.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  12. #156
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    I have debated the big Bloomies some more at the Crimelibrary forum and it seems apparent that the sheer large size of the 12-14 Bloomies is too much for some people to take. Some people simply cannot believe it and have come up with all sorts of explanations as to why my "experiment" is misleading or wrong.

    Some people cannot believe that the 4-6 Bloomies would have fitted JonBenet and have suggested that my daughter is unusually small for them to fit her. I've been told to "get real" when I said that the 4-6 Bloomies still fit my 7 year old.

    What really frustrates me is that these people are going by the label size of the underwear. They would rather ASSume that all manufacturers make to the same sizes and that the garments will fit children of that precise age.

    I am therefore going to add a few more images to this thread. I have made a small collection of childrens' underwear which varies from age 2-3 to age 9-10 and I will photograph them side by side. What you will see is that the 4-6 Bloomies are at the top end of the sizes. In fact, the 4-6 Bloomies are the same size IF NOT SLIGHTLY LARGER than the age 9-10 knickers that I bought. They are made big.

    I will take the photos in a week or so when I have time to do so and more importantly when my Hubby returns from a trip (he has the camera with him).
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission



Similar Threads

  1. Book Proposal for "Prostitution of Justice" by Thomas C. "Doc" Miller
    By Tricia in forum ***Sneek Preview*** - Tom Miller's Book
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 4, 2007, 9:15 pm, Sat Aug 4 21:15:02 UTC 2007
  2. John Ramsey's '98 Interview...Things That Were "Strange" or "Out Of Place"
    By AMES in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: June 19, 2007, 11:51 am, Tue Jun 19 11:51:40 UTC 2007
  3. "South Park," "SNL" & "Mad TV" Ramsey Episodes
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 2, 2006, 3:54 pm, Sat Sep 2 15:54:35 UTC 2006
  4. The Ramseys and "lynchings" and "lynch mobs"
    By JustinCase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 20, 2004, 1:25 pm, Sun Jun 20 13:25:02 UTC 2004
  5. Debunking the Seven Pieces of "Evidence" That "Prove" the Intruder Theory.
    By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 10, 2002, 7:34 pm, Tue Sep 10 19:34:10 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
  •