Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 338
  1. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Texan

    Daniel - you conjecture that someone attempted to frame the Rams - I think they could have done a better job. After all, the Rams have never been charged with anything. Maybe someone was pointing a finger at a Ramsey. Another Ramsey maybe.
    Yeah like the 'intruder' should not have left a ransom note....better to frame the Ramseys with.

    Daniel doesn't want the truth because it hurts to think parents can be abusive to their children....even parents who give the impression of a normal family.

  2. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Show Me
    God wouldn't lie...he'd say look at the evidence.
    Show Me,

  3. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI
    Dear Ploppy:

    My contention of what likely happened constitutes just one piece of a much larger puzzle. The logistical aspects of how an intruder could have made his or her way into the Ramsey house is much better left to experts like Lou Smit, whom I disagree with regarding motive and regarding his stun gun part of his theory.

    Once again, I am contending the killer was motivated by a personal grievance, the exact nature of which one could only speculate upon. As to whom would have known of the $118,00 figure, besides those with access to that information at his business, who knows whom either might have confided that information to. This is why I say I would suggest the police look closer to the family rather than further. This sort of venom points to someone close, or once close. "It is always easier to hate where one has once loved, than to remain indifferent."
    And, once again, Daniel, I ask what makes you think the police haven't investigated everyone "closer" to the Ramseys, like years ago? This is the kind of mentality we see at the swamp - the investigators should investigate this one or that one. Well, they did investigate this one or that one, but telling them that seems to fall on deaf ears.

    Regarding Lou Smit, the man is an idiot. Sorry if you don't like that.

    I'm a little curious - why would you come to a forum full of people who have studied this case for almost 10 years and know more about it than you obviously know and start a thread not only with gross inaccuracies in it but also one guaranteed to get some strong reactions? Why not go to the pro-Ramsey forum with your theories. You'll get all the pats on the back you need there. I'll even give you the URL if you want to go there. Or maybe you already know where it is?
    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---

  4. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Show Me
    Hi Wenchie, did you post at WS?

    Not only did John pace he went upstairs and looked into the alley with binoculars and saw a STRANGE van.

    After watching it for a few minutes (not sure what exactly John was looking for) he decided...MONITORING THREATENING KIDNAPPERS couldn't possibly be in the van. John was sooooooo sure of this he neglected to tell the cops to check out the STRANGE van. (From DOI, the Ramseys own book.)

    Yet John wanted to cordone off the city of Boulder!!!!

    Hi, yes - I'm the same PITA wenchie from WS.

    Didn't John also close the open basement window?

  5. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BobC
    oh for god's sake. All the evidence against the Ramseys and we're quibbling over where a note was started on a pad of paper? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
    Hold on a sec BobC, the new poster has given me pause for thought.

    "She "flipped to the middle of the tablet, and started a ransom note, drafting one that ended on page 25. For some reason she discarded that one and ripped pages 17-25 from the tablet. Police never found those pages."

    Wouldn't it be the icing on the cake if JMK had the missing pages! Could this case be any more bizarre?

  6. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wenchie
    Hi, yes - I'm the same PITA wenchie from WS.

    Didn't John also close the open basement window?
    Yeah that slipped John's mind also.
    What was John thinking? Foreign monitoring kidnappers go through DOORS only?

  7. #55

    Default

    When a child is bludgeoned in their own home, this is usually done in anger by a parent or guardian. Offenders stage crime scenes because they are well aware that the crime would logically point back to them. JonBenet was strangled to draw attention away from the fact that she'd been bludgeoned. The ransom note (part of the staging) was written to focus attention away from the Ramseys as suspects and to provide an excuse why their child's dead body is in their basement. Why would a stranger/intruder need to do any of that? They wouldn't, but persons in the home would. The only reason the intruder theory exists at all is because of the ransom note, that being its primary goal. Only someone in the home would have such a need, not an intruder.

  8. #56

    Default

    Subdivision I agree with you. No one can come up with any other case involving a foreign kidnapping pedophile who leaves a ransom note and forgets to take the body.

    The Ramsey's own actions speak guilty knowledge.

  9. #57

    Default

    Something I can't remember (and I no longer have my JBR books): was Fleet White with John when he found the open window, or did John come up with that story later?

    I remember that Fleet was with John when they saw the BROKEN window, but nothing about it being open.

    What a huge shame that the detectives didn't immediately separate John & Patsy and insisted on questioning them - pinning them down on these things.

    John and Patsy got to throw out a lot of edited versions of their story to the public, without ever having to follow up with any proof of them.

  10. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI
    The logistical aspects of how an intruder could have made his or her way into the Ramsey house is much better left to experts like Lou Smit .....
    What a cop out. The logistical aspects are better left to someone else? Why is that? If you have a theory that the parents didn't do it, then you'd better have thought of the logistics of how an intruder COULD HAVE DONE IT.

    Anyone who thinks Lou Smit is an expert is ignorant of the facts about Lou Smit. He's a washed-up, delusional, old man who is still riding on his one claim to fame ... the Heather Dawn Church case.

    So now Smit is a one-trick pony ... Heather's parents were innocent; the Ramseys must be innocent. Smit's a Christian; the Ramseys claim to be Christian. Smit asks John to swear to God he didn't do it; John swears to God he didn't do it. That's good enough for Smit. He doesn't even interview Patsy. Later, he meets Patsy, and she piles on the Southern charm, becoming Dulcinea to his Don Quixote.

    Lou Smit blackmails Hunter into giving him the PowerPoint presentation that NO ONE else is allowed to have. Then, because Lou is so blinded by his own ego, and smitten with the Ramseys, he goes on a mission to prove them innocent by finding someone, ANYONE, to be the intruder. Michael Tracey tells Lou that he can help if Lou will give him access to case evidence available in the PowerPoint.

    Michael Tracey then proceeds to make not one, but three crock-u-mentaries featuring innocent people as the killer of JonBenet in order to influence public opinion. Smit "stars" in Tracey's films, and becomes so hell-bent on finding an intruder, he helps Tracey groom a suspect by providing case information to an anonymous e-mailer with an obsession with JonBenet.

    Smit is no expert at anything other than obstructing justice and letting the Ramseys get away with murder.

  11. #59

    Default

    Dear Show:

    "And, once again, Daniel, I ask what makes you think the police haven't investigated everyone "closer" to the Ramseys, like years ago? This is the kind of mentality we see at the swamp - the investigators should investigate this one or that one. Well, they did investigate this one or that one, but telling them that seems to fall on deaf ears."

    --I know they have. On one hand, you all seem so critical of the Boulder DA's office, and police, but on the other you seem to think it not possible that they were fooled by a guilty suspect whom the cleared. You certainly all seem to think that now about the Ramseys.

    "Regarding Lou Smit, the man is an idiot. Sorry if you don't like that."

    --His career credentials seem solid to me.

    "I'm a little curious - why would you come to a forum full of people who have studied this case for almost 10 years and know more about it than you obviously know and start a thread not only with gross inaccuracies in it but also one guaranteed to get some strong reactions? Why not go to the pro-Ramsey forum with your theories. You'll get all the pats on the back you need there. I'll even give you the URL if you want to go there. Or maybe you already know where it is?"

    --To learn and to present what I thought was an insight I've yet to read of anywhere else. I'm aware I'm not the first to theorize that the motive was a personal grievance against one or both of the Ramseys. However, I have never read all I've put forward here and I hoped to get people to thinking in a search for truth and justice.

    --By the way, why exactly does one buy numbered stationary if one doesn't seem to care about the numbering and simply flips somewhat randomly to the middle of the pad?

  12. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subdivisions
    When a child is bludgeoned in their own home, this is usually done in anger by a parent or guardian. Offenders stage crime scenes because they are well aware that the crime would logically point back to them. JonBenet was strangled to draw attention away from the fact that she'd been bludgeoned. The ransom note (part of the staging) was written to focus attention away from the Ramseys as suspects and to provide an excuse why their child's dead body is in their basement. Why would a stranger/intruder need to do any of that? They wouldn't, but persons in the home would. The only reason the intruder theory exists at all is because of the ransom note, that being its primary goal. Only someone in the home would have such a need, not an intruder.
    Welcome to FFJ, Subdivisions!

    There are so many newbies right now, I'm sure I've forgotten to welcome some of them ... so please don't be offended. The omission is not intentional.

    What you said is what many of us here at FFJ have been saying for years. Intruders don't stage crime scenes in other people's home. PERIOD.



Similar Threads

  1. Karr--what to say? Karr's Lawyers: Porn Case Can't Go on - No Evidence
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: October 7, 2006, 5:26 pm, Sat Oct 7 17:26:18 UTC 2006
  2. 'Scott Peterson Is Innocent'
    By "J_R" in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 1, 2004, 2:54 pm, Mon Nov 1 14:54:42 UTC 2004
  3. 'Scott Peterson Is Innocent'
    By Moab in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 26, 2003, 2:59 pm, Sat Apr 26 14:59:42 UTC 2003

Posting Permissions

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