Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 40
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    More:-

    01:00 p.m. - Officers in the home inform John Ramsey they are going to get a search warrant, and request that he check the inside of the home for JonBenét, and to see if any of JonBenéts clothing, toys, or items are missing. What does John do? He immediately heads to the basement, followed by his friends Fleet White and John Fernie. No. No warrant claim, no asking about missing clothes etc, no Fernie.

    (Apparently, JonBenét's bedroom slipped his mind. It also must have slipped the officers' minds to escort him to every room since it was becoming increasingly clear he or someone present was a "person of interest.")

    01:03 p.m. - Fleet White comes screaming up the stairs for someone to call an ambulance while he goes to the back office to get on the phone (???). Female detective Linda Arndt ran to the basement door and sees John Ramsey running up the stairs holding the body of JonBenét. (No mention of what John Fernie was doing.) John Fernie was upstairs. If this woman knew anything about the case she would know that.
    Here Tipper slams Stacy D ("this woman") for several reasons but particularly for saying that John Fernie went with Fleet White and John Ramsey to search the house. Tipper says "No Fernie" and "John Fernie was upstairs, if this woman knew anything about the case she would know that"....

    Unfortunately, if Tipper had taken a few seconds to Google, she might have found Stacy D's source for her statement about John Fernie. I found several sources which might be considered "reliable" on details such as this for anyone researching the case:-

    1) the documentary "Anatomy of an Investigation".

    http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co....estigation.htm

    2) Crimemagazine:-

    http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

    3) Mame's timeline at jameson's forum (not that jameson does NOT correct this particular detail even although she is correcting others)

    1 p.m.:
    Detective Arndt asked John Ramsey, Fleet White, and John Fernie to check the interior of the home. They started in the basement. Fleet White reportedly opened the door to the wine cellar and did not see anything. He did not turn on the light.
    http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/d...um=DCForumID79

    4) Oh... and the Ramsey search warrant itself:-

    Detective Arndt monitored incoming phone calls to the Ramsey residence from approximately 0800-1300 hours. John Ramsey answered the incoming phone calls. None of the incoming calls were from the reported kidnappers. At approximately 1300 hours Detective Arndt asked John Ramsey, Fleet (friend of the family, and John Fernie to check the interior of the residence for any sign of JonBenet, or anything that may have been left or taken that belonged to JonBenet. JonBenet's bedroom had been sealed off by Detectives Arndt and Fred Patterson at approximately 1030 hours. John Ramsey immediately went to the basement of the house, followed by Fleet White and John Fernie. Within a few minutes, Fleet came running upstairs, grabbed the telephone in the back office located on the first floor, and yelled for someone to call for an ambulance.
    http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ram...7/09/29-2.html

    Whether or not John Fernie did or didn't join the search party with Fleet White and John Ramsey may be a matter of confusion, but the FACT remains that there are numerous well considered sources which claim that he was and that "this woman" has obviously consulted these sources before writing her article.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  2. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    More:-

    Stacy D>>John had found JonBenét in an obscure room off the basement underneath two blankets. In a monstrous house with a gazillion rooms in it I'd say that's damn good luck, John! (Now there's a guy that should play the lottery.) Not two blankets. House with a 'gazillion rooms? We're not talking Buckingham Palace here.
    Not, she wasn't two blankets in the bassement although there was another covering when her body was upstairs - a sweater of sorts - which further contaminated the crime scene.

    But deary me - why the need for a snide jab about Buckingham Palace? Stacy D never mentioned Buckingham Palace. She used a fictitious word whose definition simply means "a large number" to describe the size of the house. The remark about Buckingham Palace was simply as silly and immature response.

    Stacy D>>Oh, did I mention he pulled off the tape that was covering her mouth? (evidence contamination #3,456) The autopsy report showed that JonBenét's pelvic area was most likely wiped off with a wash cloth as well. Did he do that too? (evidence contamination #3,457) What? She thinks he wiped off her pelvic area when he found her?
    Did Stacy D say John wiped off JonBenet's pelvic area "when he found her"? No she did not. Once again Tipper demonstrates difficulty with basic reading comprehension ... (or is she deliberately twisting what is being said - namely )
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  3. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    More from Tipper/Louisadelmar:-

    SD>>Det. Arndt notes green garland wrapped in JonBenéts hair is most likely from the garland decoration wrapped around the staircase where the note was found. Funny, Patsy must have missed the shambled decorations on her way down to make pancakes—or write a ransom note. There were no 'shambled decorations'
    Well I don't know what shambled means in this context so I can't comment here. It must be an American term. Perhaps someone will "enlighten" me :-)

    SD>>Ah, the ransom note. Another key factor in the investigation. Granted, I'm not a profiler, but I've talked to enough barbaric child molesters to know that they wouldn't know what the word "attache'" means—let alone how to spell it. So one of the requirements to be a pedophile is a small vocabulary? Or maybe its bad spelling.
    Stacy D didn't use the word "paedophile", she said "barbaric child molester" so this is classic learned at the Susan Bennett UNiversity.

    Paedophiles come from all walks of life and I'm pretty sure many of the more intelligent ones hide it well. But in the Ramsey case, we are talking about someone who came from the kind of background where their nearest and dearest weren't going to miss their absence on the one night of the year where families get together and do family things. I'm sure that in itself could be part of a profile of the "intruder".

    He supposedly broke into an empty house without any guarantee that the family were even going to come home that evening (does that sound intelligent?) DIDN'T take away anything of value despite the house being full of valuable items, then brutally murdered a beautiful and innocent 6 year old.

    Bear in mind that despite having all this time alone, completely undisturbed with a "paedophile's dream", this "paedophile" chose instead to kill her brutally and then make a comparatively feeble sexual assault on her before writing a letter saying he didn't respect her father's business! THen he hid the body away in a remote part of the basement. Was he a paedophile... or not? Was he a sadist... or not? Was he intelligent... or not? The Ramsey case is full of disjointed contradictions which give cause for belief that the killer was none of these and that the clues which suggest he was are mere staging.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  4. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles View Post
    More from Tipper/Louisadelmar:-



    Well I don't know what shambled means in this context so I can't comment here. It must be an American term. Perhaps someone will "enlighten" me :-)



    Stacy D didn't use the word "paedophile", she said "barbaric child molester" so this is classic learned at the Susan Bennett UNiversity.

    Paedophiles come from all walks of life and I'm pretty sure many of the more intelligent ones hide it well. But in the Ramsey case, we are talking about someone who came from the kind of background where their nearest and dearest weren't going to miss their absence on the one night of the year where families get together and do family things. I'm sure that in itself could be part of a profile of the "intruder".

    He supposedly broke into an empty house without any guarantee that the family were even going to come home that evening (does that sound intelligent?) DIDN'T take away anything of value despite the house being full of valuable items, then brutally murdered a beautiful and innocent 6 year old.

    Bear in mind that despite having all this time alone, completely undisturbed with a "paedophile's dream", this "paedophile" chose instead to kill her brutally and then make a comparatively feeble sexual assault on her before writing a letter saying he didn't respect her father's business! THen he hid the body away in a remote part of the basement. Was he a paedophile... or not? Was he a sadist... or not? Was he intelligent... or not? The Ramsey case is full of disjointed contradictions which give cause for belief that the killer was none of these and that the clues which suggest he was are mere staging.
    Great post Jayelles.

  5. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Louisadelmar asks :-

    When did the Tracey documentary with the Gigax paper run in this country?
    It didn't!

    As a result of the documentaries fraudulent claims being exposed after the British showing, the documentary was completely reworked with all references to Gigax' possible involvement being removed. We have evidence which strongly suggests that Tracey & co KNEW exactly how to get hold of Gigax but for reasons known only to themselves chose not to and to run with the "compelling disappearing suspect" storyline instead.

    If a complaint had been lodged with Ofcom at the time, Tracey & co may well have been heavily fined for thast documentary. It totally breached Ofcom's code of ethics.

    It is no coincidence that it does not re-run in this country.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  6. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    More:-

    I find it "off the beaten" path that a highly organized group of kidnappers seeking money would resort to low-grade child rape and murder. Or, on the flip side, a low-grade child rapist who has the "kahunas" to perform the rape and murder inside the home taking a high and probable risk of getting caught. Could she possibly mean 'cojones?'
    I *really* struggled to see Tipper/Louisa's point with this snipe and in fact, this snipe was the straw which drove me to start this thread. It is by no means the most relevant catty remark and is arguable one of the least relevant but for that very reason, it underscores the gratuitous bitchiness of Tipper's entire commentary.

    StacyD used the word "Kahunas" and Tipper saw fit to ask "Could she possibly mean 'cojones'" - as though Stacy D was expressing herself incorrectly.

    From Onelook.com:-

    kahunas n.pl. testicles; cojones. Also kahoonas. Subjects: English, Body, Slang

    Editorial Note: Can be used in all the same ways as other slang terms for “testicles.” This kind of transformation of a Spanish word into substantially different Anglicized spellings, which in turn represent a different pronunciation, is a sign of its nearly complete adoption into English. There may, however, be some confluence with kahuna ‘a powerful person or leader,’ especially in the common form big kahuna. Mark Liberman at Language Log has written more about cojones/kahuna. Etymological Note: From the Spanish cojones ‘testicles.’
    Very difficult to see Tipper's point - other than cattiness for its own sake.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  7. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Most would be "out of their element" and transport the body to an outside location where they wouldn't be bothered. Most of whom wouldn't bother locking doors on their way out. Which leads me to my most prized theory:

    JonBenét's body was hidden inside an obscure room underneath blankets where a "suspect" would assume she wouldn't be found. But, his plan fell through. Assuming law enforcement would be out of the home searching for the victim, would allow him plenty of time to grab his "stash" and go dump it somewhere. But when officers indicated they would search the house, the panicked "suspect" ran to his "stash" first. A likely scenario? Maybe.

    The time of death is also a questioning factor. The autopsy showed rigor mortis in lower extremities and joints only, an effect that occurs five to eight hours after death. This would put JonBenét's death around the early morning hours. Rigor was leaving not arriving at the time of the autopsy
    Good grief! Where did StacyD say that rigor mortis was arriving at the time of the autopsy? Answer - she didn't.

    Did she quote the autopsy report inaccurately? Answer - no she reported accurately.

    At
    the time of the initiation of the autopsy there is mild 1 to
    2+ rigor mortis of the elbows and shoulders with more advanced
    2 to 3+ rigor mortis of the joints of the lower extremities.
    http://edition.cnn.com/US/9703/ramse...l.autopsy.html


    She stated that JonBenet's death could be placed in the early hours of the morning. Early morning hours are 1am, 2am ... that is NOT inconsistent with what we understand. We know that she was pretty much in full rigor when John carried her upstairs shortly after 1pm and that full rigor sets in approximately 12 hours after death (give or take depending on the environmental circumstances). We also know that rigor mortis can take up to 72 hours to subside (or whatever the correct medical term may be).

    The autopsy was performed on 27th December at 8.15am - some 30+ hours after death.


    And so we see that once again StacyD has given a perfectly accurate account of events which fit with all we know about the case and of medical science..... so WHY ON EARTH did Tipper see fit to make the seemingly daft and random comment "Rigor was leaving not arriving at the time of the autopsy"???

    I have to say that I wonder if she is applying a tactic of jameson's. i.e. if you make the response noticeable enough or indignant enough, no-one will bother to read the question!
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  8. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default Hmm

    Did Patsy Ramsey walk in on something? Giving all the benefit of the doubt, I contacted my most favorite and respected coroner's assistant. Since the body was in the basement, the cooler temperatures easily could have delayed the process. Still, it's another question. The basement was warm not cold. Frightening that people just make assumptions and run with them.

    Hmm. JonBenet's body was found in the room the Ramseys referred to as their "wine cellar". Does Louisa/Tipper really find it "frightening" that people might assume the Ramsey winecellar was ... ahem... cool??

    (I don't think we actually know the temperature of the wine cellar, however, if the Ramseys used a warm room for their wine cellar, it would IMO be most unusual etiquette - especially for people of their social standing!)
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  9. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles View Post
    I have to say that I wonder if she is applying a tactic of jameson's. i.e. if you make the response noticeable enough or indignant enough, no-one will bother to read the question!

    The post Tipper made responding to Stacy Dittrich's article is a jameson tactic, imho.
    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.

  10. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JC View Post
    The post Tipper made responding to Stacy Dittrich's article is a jameson tactic, imho.
    Yes it is.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  11. #35

    Default Thanks Everyone!!

    I was alerted to this fantastic site by a mutual friend and have to tell you all how great this is!! In my own defense against this "Tipper" woman, I obtained my facts for my article strictly through actual search warrants, affidavits, witness statements and articles written about the Jon Benet case. I commented on it strictly through the eyes of an experienced law enforcement investigator and what I perceived to be "flaws" in the case. Of course, this will always open up room for differences of opinions and I welcome them all. Jayelle, your rock-solid defense on my article is no less than wonderful!! It's great to see so many people taking interest in a case that deserves undivided attention like Jon Benet....Again, thanks to all of your supporting comments and be safe!!

    Best,
    Stacy Dittrich
    www.stacydittrich.com

  12. #36

    Default

    Welcome Stacy...we love new voices of reason here.

    You ARE aware of our wee little hazing welcome ceremony of course???.......



Similar Threads

  1. Exposing Ramsey Spin Team games and dishonesty
    By Jayelles in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 293
    Last Post: February 28, 2010, 4:07 pm, Sun Feb 28 16:07:28 UTC 2010
  2. Fantastic Article! Actions of Hunter/Haddon/Smit/Tracey/Lacy In Ramsey Case
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: September 10, 2006, 12:14 pm, Sun Sep 10 12:14:36 UTC 2006
  3. Gaylord Times article about Support Ramsey Truth
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: June 14, 2004, 2:37 pm, Mon Jun 14 14:37:43 UTC 2004
  4. Charlie Brennan's new Ramsey article
    By Watching You in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: May 10, 2004, 8:12 pm, Mon May 10 20:12:39 UTC 2004
  5. This week's Globe article about Patsy Ramsey
    By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: May 13, 2002, 7:55 pm, Mon May 13 19:55:24 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
  •