Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 74
  1. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee
    [Spoken with the voice of Mae West], "Is that a peanut you're packin', or are you just glad to see me?"
    Cough, splutter!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  2. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee
    [Spoken with the voice of Mae West], "Is that a peanut you're packin', or are you just glad to see me?"
    LOL...okay, now the thought of Lou Smit's "peanut" is making me sick.


  3. #51

    Default Thanks ELLE!

    The QUOTE button under your post about Tricia being on MSNBC, disappeared. I wanted to thank you for posting that Youtube link, the link worked perfectly. That's the first time that I have ever seen Tricia before. I know that she has been on other programs, and I need to find the time to view those also. So, I guess that the BPD does know about FFJ....unless they live under a rock. (Hmmmm) I wonder if they ever lurk on these boards? Even if they did...I am sure that it would make no difference to them. There is hardly no crime in Boulder, so I guess if they ever visited FFJ, then that would mean that they would have to check something out...which means that they would have to get off of their butts and actually work for their paychecks for a change. SO, they are content to just let this be a coldcase.

  4. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AMES
    The QUOTE button under your post about Tricia being on MSNBC, disappeared. I wanted to thank you for posting that Youtube link, the link worked perfectly. That's the first time that I have ever seen Tricia before. I know that she has been on other programs, and I need to find the time to view those also. So, I guess that the BPD does know about FFJ....unless they live under a rock. (Hmmmm) I wonder if they ever lurk on these boards? Even if they did...I am sure that it would make no difference to them. There is hardly no crime in Boulder, so I guess if they ever visited FFJ, then that would mean that they would have to check something out...which means that they would have to get off of their butts and actually work for their paychecks for a change. SO, they are content to just let this be a coldcase.
    I had to remove the full quote from Google, Ames, because it wasn't working, but the url itself worked, so I put this one in instead. Glad you could view it.

    I thought Tricia was fabulous on camera, and very professional, but she does work on radio, and has had good practise.

    I'm sure BPD has browsed here often. I think if you browse through Why_Nut's youtubes, you will find a lot of interesting youtubes. His collection is amazing. Today, for some reason or another they weren't working for me, so I googled and received.

    Hope your beautiful little baby is keeping you busy.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  5. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1
    I had to remove the full quote from Google, Ames, because it wasn't working, but the url itself worked, so I put this one in instead. Glad you could view it.

    I thought Tricia was fabulous on camera, and very professional, but she does work on radio, and has had good practise.

    I'm sure BPD has browsed here often. I think if you browse through Why_Nut's youtubes, you will find a lot of interesting youtubes. His collection is amazing. Today, for some reason or another they weren't working for me, so I googled and received.

    Hope your beautiful little baby is keeping you busy.
    Yeah, I was watching some of WhyNuts youtubes, but didn't get through them all. Very interesting. I think that TRICIA should run for PRESIDENT!!!
    I would vote for her!

    Oh definately....my baby is keeping me VERY busy!!! I'm loving every minute of it though.

  6. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default Keith Andrews

    It's interesting that several IDIs still hold Keith Andrews up as some sort of expert on the Ramsey case (and of Fleet White in particular). I find it astonishing that they would accept his word that he is a criminologist and/or detective without verifying any of his credentials whatsoever! It's one thing to find information - and plenty of posters are good at that, but it needs to be verified for credibility and some people just don't seem to get that part.

    I have debated this in the past with Athena who described him in glowing professional terms and cited several wiki-style pages which appeared to corroborate his claims of credentials and now another poster at Sycamore is doing the same. Athena just would not be persuaded that Andrews is to be taken at face value.

    In fact, it takes very little amateur detective work to discover that every page which refers to "distinguished Criminologist" Keith Andrews was either written by Andrews himself or by his pal Tom Slemen who writes local ghost stories and who co-authored an article on a local unsolved murder with him.

    Keith Andrews' original website appeared to cite credentials from police, Scotland Yard etc but these proved entirely false and an English poster from Websleuths reported that she had been told by a genuine police detective that Andrews had been told to remove them. Certainly they did disappear from his website soon after.

    Then Websleuths River received a "lawyers letter" warning about defamation of his client. We checked out the lawyer - the practice didn't exist. We checked out the Law Society, the lawyer didn't exist. A lawyer with a very similar name and address did exist. We called him - he didn't write the letter and was pretty upset about the whole thing.

    Then Andrews wrote his Fleet White theory - it was so packed full of misinformation about the Ramsey case that it was a complete embarassment. It was more fiction than fact.

    Criminologist? No more than any of us.

    Last year, I came upon a website where the members were serious amateur criminologists and they were discussing Andrews and Slemen - in less than glowing terms. Now I see that Andrws' misleading wiki entries have been flagged for deletion by Admin:-

    The footnote cites a theory by a Keith Andrews, who decribes himself as a criminologist and author. An exhaustive search of the internet has not turned up any published work by this person and he description of himself as a criminologist applies in the same way it might to anyonw who has read a book on crime.
    I have nominated Keith Andrews (criminologist) for deletion as an obvious vanity piece with no external sources to establish notability (and only 35 Google hits, of which most seem to be either his own or Wikipedia).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive84
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  7. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    It's interesting that several IDIs still hold Keith Andrews up as some sort of expert on the Ramsey case (and of Fleet White in particular). I find it astonishing that they would accept his word that he is a criminologist and/or detective without verifying any of his credentials whatsoever! It's one thing to find information - and plenty of posters are good at that, but it needs to be verified for credibility and some people just don't seem to get that part.

    I have debated this in the past with Athena who described him in glowing professional terms and cited several wiki-style pages which appeared to corroborate his claims of credentials and now another poster at Sycamore is doing the same. Athena just would not be persuaded that Andrews is to be taken at face value.

    In fact, it takes very little amateur detective work to discover that every page which refers to "distinguished Criminologist" Keith Andrews was either written by Andrews himself or by his pal Tom Slemen who writes local ghost stories and who co-authored an article on a local unsolved murder with him.

    Keith Andrews' original website appeared to cite credentials from police, Scotland Yard etc but these proved entirely false and an English poster from Websleuths reported that she had been told by a genuine police detective that Andrews had been told to remove them. Certainly they did disappear from his website soon after.

    Then Websleuths River received a "lawyers letter" warning about defamation of his client. We checked out the lawyer - the practice didn't exist. We checked out the Law Society, the lawyer didn't exist. A lawyer with a very similar name and address did exist. We called him - he didn't write the letter and was pretty upset about the whole thing.

    Then Andrews wrote his Fleet White theory - it was so packed full of misinformation about the Ramsey case that it was a complete embarassment. It was more fiction than fact.

    Criminologist? No more than any of us.

    Last year, I came upon a website where the members were serious amateur criminologists and they were discussing Andrews and Slemen - in less than glowing terms. Now I see that Andrws' misleading wiki entries have been flagged for deletion by Admin:-





    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive84
    All of which makes it easy to understand those who believe the IDI without question, not unlike how people are bilked out of their life savings or follow some self-proclaimed preacher and drink the kool-aid. Keith Andrews (IMO) is a whack job.

    Little
    No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man. -Heraclitus Fragments c. 500 BC

  8. #56

    Default

    Is it true that a pubic hair was found at the crime scene?
    If yes, could it be sourced to someone?

  9. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,632

    Default

    My understanding is that the hair was not a pubic hair and was sourced back to one of Patsy's underarm hairs
    PATSY RAMSEY WROTE THE RANSOM NOTE
    SHE WOULDN'T DO THAT FOR AN INTRUDER.
    PLEASE READ CHEROKEE'S ANALYSIS

    http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/s...ead.php?t=6404

  10. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    I have read this too Barbara, but I'm not sure about the source. I think this is one of the pieces of "evidence" for which there is conflicting informaiton and one which I therefore keep on the back burner.

    If they did have a hair, they could only determine actual ownership of it if it had a root bulb from which to extract nuclear DNA. Otherwise, they wouldn't know whether it was male or female and even then they might be able to say it was one of, but not which of Patsy's Nedra's, Pam's, Paulette's or brothers and sisters of Nedra... etc
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  11. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    Is it true that a pubic hair was found at the crime scene?
    If yes, could it be sourced to someone?
    It was found to be an ancillary hair (from the forearm) NOT an axillary hair (from the underarm) belonging to PR. It was not a pubic hair. And defense attorneys would of course, say that it is no surprise to find a hair from a parent on a child's blanket. Now- that blanket is thought by many (me included) to have been pulled right out of the basement dryer to wrap the body in. Housekeeper LHP said that JBR's sheets and blanket were washed every day because she wet the bed every night. LHP also said that the blanket was always washed and dried in the basement because the smaller washer and dryer outside JBR's room wasn't large enough. LHP said when she saw the crime photos that the sheets on JBR's bed were not the ones she put on the bed when she was there last (Dec. 23 for the party), so PR must have washed and changed JBR's bed herself. Also, if you look at the photo of JBR's bed, the foot section looks undisturbed...no way anyone pulled a blanket off that bed and left the bedspread undisturbed at the foot of the bed. And no way an intruder stopped to tidy up just the foot section of the bed, replacing the clothes tossed there for packing, while trying to get the kidnap victim out of the room.
    IMHO, PR had to change the sheets twice herself- the 24th and 25th, and simply didn't bother to go to the basement and get the blanket out of the dryer, simply putting clean sheets on the bed without a blanket. They were going away, no one would be sleeping there for 2 weeks, and LHP could make the bed up properly when they returned. PR had too much to do with Christmas and preparations for the trip to bother about the blanket. Would a freshly laundered blanket just out of the dryer still have a parent's hair on it? That's tough to call and could be argued either way. If PR was the one who wrapped the body or handled the blanket while someone else wrapped the body, certainly that's how the hair got there. But it couldn't be totally ruled out that a hair deposited there innocently could still have adhered after laundering.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  12. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    It was found to be an ancillary hair (from the forearm) NOT an axillary hair (from the underarm) belonging to PR. It was not a pubic hair. And defense attorneys would of course, say that it is no surprise to find a hair from a parent on a child's blanket. Now- that blanket is thought by many (me included) to have been pulled right out of the basement dryer to wrap the body in. Housekeeper LHP said that JBR's sheets and blanket were washed every day because she wet the bed every night. LHP also said that the blanket was always washed and dried in the basement because the smaller washer and dryer outside JBR's room wasn't large enough. LHP said when she saw the crime photos that the sheets on JBR's bed were not the ones she put on the bed when she was there last (Dec. 23 for the party), so PR must have washed and changed JBR's bed herself. Also, if you look at the photo of JBR's bed, the foot section looks undisturbed...no way anyone pulled a blanket off that bed and left the bedspread undisturbed at the foot of the bed. And no way an intruder stopped to tidy up just the foot section of the bed, replacing the clothes tossed there for packing, while trying to get the kidnap victim out of the room.
    IMHO, PR had to change the sheets twice herself- the 24th and 25th, and simply didn't bother to go to the basement and get the blanket out of the dryer, simply putting clean sheets on the bed without a blanket. They were going away, no one would be sleeping there for 2 weeks, and LHP could make the bed up properly when they returned. PR had too much to do with Christmas and preparations for the trip to bother about the blanket. Would a freshly laundered blanket just out of the dryer still have a parent's hair on it? That's tough to call and could be argued either way. If PR was the one who wrapped the body or handled the blanket while someone else wrapped the body, certainly that's how the hair got there. But it couldn't be totally ruled out that a hair deposited there innocently could still have adhered after laundering.
    In Judge Carnes' report, it says:

    • A pubic hair found on the blanket covering JonBenét's body did not match that of any Ramsey.
    I know Carnes' ruling is a cascade of errors, so she may have got the type of hair wrong.

    Does there exist any other source besides Carnes' report (which contains many mistakes) which mentions a pubic hair found on the blanket?


    On Sycamore, Mame claims she spoke with Lou Smit a few days ago, and he allegedly told her this hair could be sourced to someone.
    When I asked her to whom, she became evasive, claiming not to be at liberty to reveal the info.
    I know Mame has often told lies, but suppose Smit did tell her something she "can't reveal", then he has leaked confidential info.

    Mame btw only admitted the hair had been sourced to someone after she was pushed into a corner. For at first she claimed that mtDNA analysis had shown the hair to be "Caucasian" and male. She was wrong, because mtDNA analysis is incapable of revealing his, and a poster ponited this out to her.

    Now that she has learned, a few days ago from Lou Smit, that the hair has in fact already been sourced and is no longer an issue, she must realize that she was wrong about that too.

    Her refusal to tell the forum posters whose hair it was speaks volumes. For suppose it had been from one of the 'bus victims', she would of course have screamed this from the rooftops. Imo this leaves only a Ramsey as the source of the hair.



Similar Threads

  1. Fact or Fiction?
    By Barbara in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: January 1, 2005, 6:07 pm, Sat Jan 1 18:07:08 UTC 2005

Posting Permissions

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