Page 6 of 29 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 338
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    2,322

    Default

    The intruder theory makes absolutely no sense at all. There are only two possibilities: 1) A member of the family did it and wrote the note to point the finger at someone else or 2) someone who hated the Ramseys killed JBR and wrote the note to frame them. If Fleet White, Santa, or anyone else named by the RST was molesting JBR and killed her on purpose or by accident, they would have gotten the hell out of that house NOW - they would not have written a note.

    I will give number 2 above consideration if a good case is presented - so far, I haven't seen one.

  2. #62

    Default

    Look, I only jumped from page one to this page because I passed out and am way behind, so take what I'm saying with a grain of dummy....

    If Daniel has a theory that makes him happy, I'm ok with that. Sounds like he's just where many of us were long ago. Maybe he'll get to the truth...or not.

    The thing is, jams closed her forum for non-paying guests. She's trying to capitalize again. Maybe not everyone cares about the $25 so much, but maybe they don't want to give her their personal info and have her...an obvious person with issues...calling them at home.

    So as long a people remain respectful and tempers don't flare too much, I hope we can keep the discussion going for those who do have a differernt opinion. Besides, sometimes people do come up with things we haven't thought of, no matter what the theory.

    Look at Jayelles. She's been wrong for almost 10 years now , and she's just put up a very convincing experiment that goes a long way in showing Patsy lied to LE in Atlanta in 2000. Way to go, Jayelles.

    "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.

  3. #63

    Default

    Dear Cherokee:

    "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."

    --Except when the killer has framing the residents of the home as a premeditated part of his or her motive.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee
    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.
    ok.....I was actually applauding this post! Excellent! (my golden got all excited....he thought I wanted to play ball)



  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI
    Dear Cherokee:

    "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."

    --Except when the killer has framing the residents of the home as a premeditated part of his or her motive.
    Well, Daniel, we've of course heard this argument before, and it's a theory.

    But please explain why the Ramseys would help the intruder frame them with their own behavior post-murder: refusing to help LE; lying to them; etc.

    "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.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    827

    Default who said

    the stationary (actually note pad) was numbered?

  7. #67

    Default

    To all:

    For those of you who think that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter and wrote the note, do any of you think that there is any possibilty that her husband could have been in the dark and could be to this very day?

    Thank you.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI
    Dear Cherokee:

    "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."

    --Except when the killer has framing the residents of the home as a premeditated part of his or her motive.
    At least the intruder was compassionate.....he fed JB pineapple before he/she murdered her.


  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI
    To all:

    For those of you who think that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter and wrote the note, do any of you think that there is any possibilty that her husband could have been in the dark and could be to this very day?

    Thank you.

    NO

    You're Welcome

  10. #70

    Default

    Dear Texan:

    If there is any possibilty it wasn't, then please tell me that right now and all of this is moot, and I am very wrong. Please go to my original note and see where I got this from, indirectly from Detective Steve Thomas, a very vocal anti-Ramsey former cop.

    If it wasn't numbered, then what had he been referring to?

    Thank you.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI
    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?
    Ah hem Daniel WHY WONT YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS?

    No rebuttal?

    Patsy was on the phone, John was reading the note on his hands and knees by the spiral stairs....they were apart by at least 10 feet.

    Man that Patsy must have some eyesight!

    Daniel why do you think John let Patsy call over the Whites, then the Fernies, Father Rol and who else....when the note told John he was being MONITORED by kidnappers who would behead his daughter if he so much as talked to a stray dog?

    Man that John is sharp! Heck, he only needed to avoid inviting stray dogs over, monitoring kidnappers surely wouldn't mind a few other guests over...just NO DOGS ALLOWED.


    Can you see the question?

    Here it is again

    Daniel why do you think John let Patsy call over the Whites, then the Fernies, Father Rol and who else....when the note told John he was being MONITORED by kidnappers who would behead his daughter if he so much as talked to a stray dog?

  12. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI
    ...and writing the ransom note--I find at least two curious elements that seem exculpatory to me instead.

    "Thomas theorized that Patsy then went upstairs to the kitchen to write the ransom note, using one of her own writing tablets and a felt-tipped pen that she kept there on a counter. 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. On page 26, she began the 'Mr. & Mrs. I,' then also abandoned that false start. At some point she drafted the long ransom note. By doing so, she created the government's best piece of evidence." [Emphasis mine. Source referenced below.]

    I stressed the sentences noting that there were several missing pages from the writing tablet in the Ramseys' kitchen from which the ransom note was written. Apparently, the pages in the tablet were numbered. ...Why would Mrs. Ramsey or an intruder writing the note then and there have started in the middle of the tablet? Why (and how) would she had somehow destroyed the initial false start but not the second one which was left at the scene? It doesn't sound likely at all. More likely is what I speculated before.
    ...
    Maybe it's a small point, Daniel, but why did you take the enumeration of the pages of a pad of lined paper as being NUMBERED rather than COUNTED? When I read this account, it never occurred to me that Steve Thomas was saying anything other than the pad's stub was compared to known pages and accounted for. I never thought he was saying they were numbered.

    And let's talk about the forest for the trees...You are so focused on the idea of the middle of the pad, the number of pages that you completely missed the point:
    WHY WOULD ANY INTRUDER WRITE THIS LETTER (and it's a LETTER not a note, btw)?? It makes no sense whatsoever that an intruder would write this.

    Who would benefit from a "ransom" letter which seemingly points away from the Ramseys?
    Answer: THE RAMSEYS!!

    Your post reminds me of Scott Peterson defenders who would focus in on a package of fish lures and fishing license and ask "Why would a man buy lures and get a fishing license if he was going to dump his wife's body??" And then they would blithely conclude he must have been really fishing and really innocent.

    Of course, in order to do that, they had to ignore the facts: that Peterson claimed to have decided that very morning to go fishing and yet his license was dated for the day before as well. And the package of lures was unopened. And the quarry, sturgeon, are not legally trawled for and are not lure but live bait fish. In addition he was out on the water such a short time and claimed to have been rained on and yet his jacket was dry.

    Those are the FACTS. And they have to be ignored in order to conclude that Scott Peterson is innocent.

    This question of yours likewise also completely misses the point.



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
  •