Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 73 to 84 of 274
  1. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,411

    Default Elle,

    Those are the "Lolita" pictures of JonBenet. There are more like that. Bizarre, unnatural, provocative. No wonder Lou Smit said that the poor innocent child was a "pedophile's dream."

    Look at these comments from Adrian Lyne, re: the Lolita-JonBenet connection:

    Lolita Debuts On Video -- Without A Fuss
    14 October 1999 (StudioBriefing)
    Lolita (1997) is debuting uneventfully on home video this week -- without any of the uproar that accompanied its (brief) theatrical release last year -- after nearly two years of rejection by North American distributors. In an interview with today's (Thursday) Los Angeles Times, director Adrian Lyne commented, "I wasn't really prepared for the sort of paranoia that surrounded the subject matter of the film. I think the climate in America was different three years ago. Everybody now talks about violence, but at that time, because of the JonBenet Ramsey case, there was an obsession with pedophilia. So there was a certain amount of paranoia." Lyne has always maintained that the film does not countenance pedophilia, insisting that he wanted it to reflect the Vladimir Nabokov novel. He told the Times: "The novel manages to be many things. It manages to be horrific in what this man does to the kid, and it manages to be funny and tragic and, in the end, a love story."

    *******


    Patsy put her baby out there for all the sickos to see and obsess over.

  2. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1
    From this page which I received from Little, I can see a very dark bruise on the left side of Patsy's chest, just below her necklace. When enlarged it really does look like a bruise, not just shadow.
    I'm not Why Nut, but I think the shadow is from the blouse frilly collar peak to the right of the shadow. When a photog shoots pictures, the subject is lit from both sides, and if you notice the dark spot matches the peak and shape of the frill.

    Well, that's my 2 cents.

    "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. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    I think it might be dark make-up put there for the picture.
    This post, unless it is a legal court document, may not be carried in part, or in its entirety to any other discussion forum or bulletin board without the express written consent of the party who wrote it. It is proprietary to the author and to www.forumsforjustice.org. Violators will be reported to their Internet Service Providers.

  4. #76

    Default

    An important point of debate for many years now is finally cleared up by Dr. Lee in this article.

    Dr. Lee states that he advised Hunter NOT to try for an indictment BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN HAD THE CHANCE TO VOTE ON IT:

    "Thirteen months later, when its deliberations were completed but before the panel had the chance to vote on indicting one or both Ramseys, I told the D.A. that the best course of action would be to not file charges...he knew I was right -- the case at that point was unwinnable."
    I think this is clear at last: THE GRAND JURY NEVER VOTED FOR OR AGAINST AN INDICTMENT.

    The RST has lied for years now, saying the grand jury voted NO INDICTMENT, stating that this is proof there was no evidence to indict the Ramseys. Not true, according to Dr. Lee. Dr. Lee believed "...none of the evidence tied a specific person to the crime." Dr. Lee states that "...there was enough evidence to establish the level of proof needed to indict Patsy Ramsey of, at least, obstruction of justice," but NO LUCK fell their way to give them a solid case of who did what that night.

    That LUCK was clearly undercut by the Ramsey lawyers getting all the evidence handed to them by Hunter's office BEFORE they would let LE question them. THAT'S THE TACTIC THAT LOST THIS CASE FOR THE BDA. You don't GIVE the prime suspects EVIDENCE before you even FORMALLY INTERVIEW THEM. The Ramsey lawyers were careful to time and construct every interview the Ramseys gave LE, demanding specific terms and setting limits to questions. That way, the Ramseys knew what to expect and what to say in response to the evidence.

    You see, when questioning a suspect, you trip him/her up if they are telling lies because they don't know THE EVIDENCE. Once they KNOW what you have, they can construct their story accordingly to explain it. When you have TWO suspects, you hand them the evidence and give them all the time they want, and you have TWO PEOPLE COORDINATING THEIR STORIES.

    That's the Ramsey case in a nutshell. LE had their hands tied behind their backs by Hunter the minute he refused to get elementary warrants for the phone records and the Ramsey's clothes, when he allowed Pam to scourge the house of select evidence, and when he handed evidence over the Ramsey lawyers with the excuse they'd cooperate willingly if Hunter and LE played nice.

    THAT'S NOT HOW YOU BUILD A CASE! THAT'S NOT HOW YOU INVESTIGATE A CASE!

    Hunter sold this case to the devil, and Dr. Lee only THOUGHT he was advising Hunter. Hunter knew he wasn't going to indict the Ramseys from day one. If not for Thomas resigning and writing that letter to the governor, the governor then calling a special panel of lawyers to look into Hunter's handling of the case and then instructing Hunter to call a grand jury TWO YEARS TOO LATE, there wouldn't have even BEEN a grand jury called. Hunter resisted that as long as he could. That's why Hunter HATES Thomas. Michael Kane, brought in as a grand jury specialist, stated that the grand jury should have been brought in as an investigative tool much earlier in the case.

    So there you have it: the Boulder DA deliberately undermined the case of a child murder because the parents were wealthy and influential and had lawyers only that kind of money can buy. Hunter is the single person who allowed a child murderer to go free. Without Hunter's corruption and incompetence, Lou Smit would not have been spinning the case evidence BY HIMSELF, GIVEN THE RIGHTS TO THAT EVIDENCE NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD HAS, to do so year after year after year.

    And now we see that THE GRAND JURY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST AN INDICTMENT.

    Just wanted to clear THAT up at long last. Not that the RST will QUIT telling that lie, but at least we now have it straight from the horse's advisor's mouth, anyhow: NO VOTE BY THE GRAND JURY.

    "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.

  5. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    I'm not Why Nut, but I think the shadow is from the blouse frilly collar peak to the right of the shadow. When a photog shoots pictures, the subject is lit from both sides, and if you notice the dark spot matches the peak and shape of the frill.

    Well, that's my 2 cents.
    I wonder what Cookie's thoughts on this would be (?). I think a professional photographer would have airbrushed this, KK. When enlarged, you see her freckles too.

    I'm, hoping Why_Nut will come across this and tell me more.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JC
    I think it might be dark make-up put there for the picture.
    Now that you mention it, I believe using dark makeup to create deeper-looking cleavage is a common make-up trick used by celebs and beauty pageant contestants. LIKE DUCT TAPE. Good catch.

    "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.

  7. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LurkerXIV
    Those are the "Lolita" pictures of JonBenet. There are more like that. Bizarre, unnatural, provocative. No wonder Lou Smit said that the poor innocent child was a "pedophile's dream."

    Look at these comments from Adrian Lyne, re: the Lolita-JonBenet connection:

    Lolita Debuts On Video -- Without A Fuss
    14 October 1999 (StudioBriefing)
    Lolita (1997) is debuting uneventfully on home video this week -- without any of the uproar that accompanied its (brief) theatrical release last year -- after nearly two years of rejection by North American distributors. In an interview with today's (Thursday) Los Angeles Times, director Adrian Lyne commented, "I wasn't really prepared for the sort of paranoia that surrounded the subject matter of the film. I think the climate in America was different three years ago. Everybody now talks about violence, but at that time, because of the JonBenet Ramsey case, there was an obsession with pedophilia. So there was a certain amount of paranoia." Lyne has always maintained that the film does not countenance pedophilia, insisting that he wanted it to reflect the Vladimir Nabokov novel. He told the Times: "The novel manages to be many things. It manages to be horrific in what this man does to the kid, and it manages to be funny and tragic and, in the end, a love story."

    *******


    Patsy put her baby out there for all the sickos to see and obsess over.
    You're right, Lurker. Not your every day mother-and-daughter casual photo shoots when it came to Patsy.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  8. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    Now that you mention it, I believe using dark makeup to create deeper-looking cleavage is a common make-up trick used by celebs and beauty pageant contestants. LIKE DUCT TAPE. Good catch.
    I think it looks awful whatever it is - sorry! Almost looks as if she was man handled (?).
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  9. #81

    Default

    Thank you!

  10. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1
    I think it looks awful whatever it is - sorry! Almost looks as if she was man handled (?).
    Is it me, or does this mark look quite a lot like the mark on JonBenet's neck in the front? What the autopsy calls an abrasion?
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  11. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    I lightened it up HM. With My screen dimmed, it did look a lot darker, and I am still seeing it as a bruise. It does look more like an abrasion than makeup to me (?).
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  12. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    An important point of debate for many years now is finally cleared up by Dr. Lee in this article.

    Dr. Lee states that he advised Hunter NOT to try for an indictment BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN HAD THE CHANCE TO VOTE ON IT:



    I think this is clear at last: THE GRAND JURY NEVER VOTED FOR OR AGAINST AN INDICTMENT.

    The RST has lied for years now, saying the grand jury voted NO INDICTMENT, stating that this is proof there was no evidence to indict the Ramseys. Not true, according to Dr. Lee. Dr. Lee believed "...none of the evidence tied a specific person to the crime." Dr. Lee states that "...there was enough evidence to establish the level of proof needed to indict Patsy Ramsey of, at least, obstruction of justice," but NO LUCK fell their way to give them a solid case of who did what that night.

    That LUCK was clearly undercut by the Ramsey lawyers getting all the evidence handed to them by Hunter's office BEFORE they would let LE question them. THAT'S THE TACTIC THAT LOST THIS CASE FOR THE BDA. You don't GIVE the prime suspects EVIDENCE before you even FORMALLY INTERVIEW THEM. The Ramsey lawyers were careful to time and construct every interview the Ramseys gave LE, demanding specific terms and setting limits to questions. That way, the Ramseys knew what to expect and what to say in response to the evidence.

    You see, when questioning a suspect, you trip him/her up if they are telling lies because they don't know THE EVIDENCE. Once they KNOW what you have, they can construct their story accordingly to explain it. When you have TWO suspects, you hand them the evidence and give them all the time they want, and you have TWO PEOPLE COORDINATING THEIR STORIES.

    That's the Ramsey case in a nutshell. LE had their hands tied behind their backs by Hunter the minute he refused to get elementary warrants for the phone records and the Ramsey's clothes, when he allowed Pam to scourge the house of select evidence, and when he handed evidence over the Ramsey lawyers with the excuse they'd cooperate willingly if Hunter and LE played nice.

    THAT'S NOT HOW YOU BUILD A CASE! THAT'S NOT HOW YOU INVESTIGATE A CASE!

    Hunter sold this case to the devil, and Dr. Lee only THOUGHT he was advising Hunter. Hunter knew he wasn't going to indict the Ramseys from day one. If not for Thomas resigning and writing that letter to the governor, the governor then calling a special panel of lawyers to look into Hunter's handling of the case and then instructing Hunter to call a grand jury TWO YEARS TOO LATE, there wouldn't have even BEEN a grand jury called. Hunter resisted that as long as he could. That's why Hunter HATES Thomas. Michael Kane, brought in as a grand jury specialist, stated that the grand jury should have been brought in as an investigative tool much earlier in the case.

    So there you have it: the Boulder DA deliberately undermined the case of a child murder because the parents were wealthy and influential and had lawyers only that kind of money can buy. Hunter is the single person who allowed a child murderer to go free. Without Hunter's corruption and incompetence, Lou Smit would not have been spinning the case evidence BY HIMSELF, GIVEN THE RIGHTS TO THAT EVIDENCE NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD HAS, to do so year after year after year.

    And now we see that THE GRAND JURY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST AN INDICTMENT.

    Just wanted to clear THAT up at long last. Not that the RST will QUIT telling that lie, but at least we now have it straight from the horse's advisor's mouth, anyhow: NO VOTE BY THE GRAND JURY.
    Yeah!

    What KK said.



Similar Threads

  1. Forensic linguistics could solve this crime
    By heymom in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: June 3, 2014, 11:47 am, Tue Jun 3 11:47:31 UTC 2014
  2. Forensic Evidence 2: Bedwetting
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: January 7, 2007, 2:05 pm, Sun Jan 7 14:05:19 UTC 2007
  3. Forensic evidence
    By rashomon in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 500
    Last Post: December 31, 2006, 10:57 pm, Sun Dec 31 22:57:09 UTC 2006
  4. Keith Ablow, Forensic Psychiatrist
    By Ginja in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 26, 2006, 12:52 am, Sat Aug 26 0:52:15 UTC 2006
  5. A bug life: 10 questions for a forensic entomologist
    By "J_R" in forum Major Criminal Trial Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 30, 2004, 3:39 pm, Fri Jul 30 15:39:23 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

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