Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 73 to 84 of 102
  1. #73

    Default

    Does anyone know what their explanation re the date was?Why 25 and not 26?TIA
    M. Lacy: "You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone."

  2. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine_ws View Post
    Does anyone know what their explanation re the date was?Why 25 and not 26?TIA

    John said it was so "the world" would know what "it" did to JonBenet ON CHRISTMAS.

    Again, not THE KILLER, but EVERYONE ELSE. This is a hallmark of the Ramseys and their supporters: they blame everyone BUT the killer and always have. They'd be happy to put the noose around Steve Thomas' neck if they could lynch him. Yet they don't take responsibility for their own part in stalling and obstructing the investigation, which is inarguable. Who withholds evidence for five years in their child's murder? But they blame THE WORLD, and especially BORG--people who spend more time learning about this investigation than they ever have.

    Why is that?

    "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

    Default

    Yeah,I noticed how the RST works.Whenever they have no more arguments left.....it MUST BE ST's fault!
    M. Lacy: "You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone."

  4. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    John said it was so "the world" would know what "it" did to JonBenet ON CHRISTMAS.

    Again, not THE KILLER, but EVERYONE ELSE. This is a hallmark of the Ramseys and their supporters: they blame everyone BUT the killer and always have. They'd be happy to put the noose around Steve Thomas' neck if they could lynch him. Yet they don't take responsibility for their own part in stalling and obstructing the investigation, which is inarguable. Who withholds evidence for five years in their child's murder? But they blame THE WORLD, and especially BORG--people who spend more time learning about this investigation than they ever have.

    Why is that?

    And who put this innocent, tarted up CHILD out to be seen as a sexual object by all the world?
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    And who put this innocent, tarted up CHILD out to be seen as a sexual object by all the world?
    The Ramseys, DeeDee! Awaiting JonBenét in the future were the "Miss World" contests, had she lived.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    And who put this innocent, tarted up CHILD out to be seen as a sexual object by all the world?
    Which brings up MORE RAMSEY LIES....

    Remember "...just a few Sunday afternoons..."?

    Remember how the Ramseys insisted on TV and in their book that the pageants were innocent and anyone who saw them as the sexual exploitation of children were sick?

    Fast forward to THEIR DEAR FRIEND PAM ARCHULETA, a woman whose marriage fell apart because of her husband's devotion to the Ramseys, IMO. Mrs. Archuleta was quoted last year telling a reporter, in a very PRO-RAMSEY piece, that Patsy and John argued about the pageants, because John didn't think they were appropriate. Then Mrs. Archuleta let drop that Patsy told her that JonBenet was FLIRTING AND TOO FRIENDLY. Gosh, wonder what brought Patsy to THAT revelation? Because she sure forgot ALL ABOUT IT when they were so DESPERATE to find that STRANGER INTRUDER, didn't she?

    Often young children who are being molested display inappropriate sexual behaviors.

    The autopsy evidence is proof that JonBenet had vaginal injuries that happened before the night she was murdered.

    Patsy called Dr. Beuf on Dec. 17th three times in one hour, after office hours, but she didn't remember why. Apparently, Dr. Beuf never bothered to call her back or didn't make a note of what was the child's problem if he did. Guess having the child end up in the morgue with a paintbrush shoved up her, her skull cracked nearly in half, and strangled with a fashioned garrote didn't jog his memory, either, did it?

    How STUPID do you have to be believe the lies these people have conspired to tell?

    I have never in my life seen people so many people so determined to DENY DENY DENY the truth.

    On Dec. 17th, 1996, didn't JonBenet compete in a pageant?

    "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

    Default

    Reminds me oh John saying he only went to the talent parts.
    It's either he was jealous (if we consider the taboo subject to be true and I think it is) or he just didn't agree with the circus for other reasons (like what normal parent puts their child in the spot light like this?)


    I was asking this before somewhere else......IF (the hugest IF I can think of) they are innocent,why ignore prior abuse????????????????It would help them narrow down the suspect list fgs!
    IF they are innocent why so proud about JB being a pageant queen if THIS is how she was targeted by some psycho?I would DIE if I'd knew that I was the one who just exposed her to the one who ultimately killed her.I didn't see any signs of guilt,what I saw was PR being proud til the end( her last interview with that pastor) that JB was a pageant queen.Disgusting.



    IF they are innocent it's even worse,what they did to the investigation,how they behaved.It just doesn't make any sense.Why ignore the evidence that might help you catch the killer,how the hell can you reply "Nah,there are no signs that she was sexually assaulted the night she died"...HUH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
    M. Lacy: "You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone."

  8. #80

    Default

    Okay, to answer my own question, I went to ACandyRose.com and again found the discrepancy in the Dec. 17 pageant date which I've been noticing for years. Anyone have any idea which of these dates is correct? I think the discrepancy probably came from transcripts where the date was misremembered by someone and stated incorrectly, then it was on the record.

    If you read these links at ACR, you see how the date changes from source to source. It seems to me the most consistent and probably more accurate sources say the pageant was Dec. 17th. This is the pageant where the "Santa Bear" was given to JonBenet, the one which was yet ANOTHER RAMSEY RED HERRING that ate up police investigation time.

    Also, if you read the second link in full, you will get to see Team Ramsey in full propaganda DISINFORMATION MODE. Amazing, really, when you see Team Ramsey/jams on the forums attacking the BPD, BORG, etc., and making that Santa Bear ANOTHER intruder CLUE for YEARS, all because Patsy told Haney in '98 she didn't recognize the Santa Bear on the bed. Boy, did they get INTRUDER TRACTION out of that one! Even in the Atlanta 2000 interview, Patsy was STILL spinning that Santa Bear as evidence of an intruder.

    Turned out that JonBenet got in at the Dec. pageant. AND IT WAS IN THE RAMSEYS' BOXED UP BELONGINGS, SITTING IN THE PAUGH'S BASEMENT ALL ALONG!! All those years and not one Ramsey thought to go through their belongings to look for this RED HERRING SANTA BEAR? All those WORLD-CLASS DETECTIVES OF THEIRS looking for that INTRUDER never imagined something might have been missed? Come on. If they were looking for that intruder, it's the usual TEAM RAMSEY search: Is the suspect a MENTAL CASE who will either confess or point the finger on TV at someone dead, poor, or otherwise vulnerable to corrupt money and power?

    Oh, yeah, and isn't that WHEN the BLOOMIES PACKAGE was allegedly found, during that search through those boxes for the Santa Bear? Well, that was ONE of jams' stories, at any rate. (Gosh, too bad they didn't keep looking. They might have found the INTRUDER hiding there!)

    Think about it: your child is MURDERED by an INTRUDER, and you are spending a FORTUNE to defend yourself because YOU are the PRIME SUSPECTS, and you don't even bother to LOOK for KEY PIECES OF EVIDENCE among your BOXED belongings from the CRIME SCENE? And when SOMEONE finally tells one of your private investigators to look through your stuff for this Santa Bear years later, HE FINDS THE BLOOMIES PACKAGE AND YOU DON'T TURN IT OVER TO LE FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS?

    If you want to see Team Ramsey's textbook execution, chapter and verse, of "CREATING SUSPECTS OUT OF THIN AIR," from the Handbook for Prime Suspects: How to Obstruct an Investigation and Avoid Wearing Unflattering Prison Stripes, read this:


    http://www.acandyrose.com/s-jonbenet-timeline.htm

    Denver, Colorado
    December 17, 1996
    Airport Holiday Inn

    Santa Bear Prize All Star Kids Christmas Pageant - won "Colorado's Little Miss Christmas"

    One of the events JonBenet was preparing for before her murder was sponsored by Amerikids, a nonprofit youth development group based in Denver. JonBenet and nine other girls ages five to 18 planned to dance next month at the local Ronald McDonald charity ball. "JonBenet and her mother were here every week to practice," says Suzie Dolan, the event's organizer. [Time 1/20/97]
    Now notice that the link provided by ACR for "The Santa Bear" mystery states that pageant was in fact on Dec. 14th, whic would make more sense in relation to Patsy's phone calls after hours to Dr. Beuf. Remember that there was a Christmas party at the Ramseys on Dec. 13th, which I totally merged with the one on the 23rd, which was for the children. Looking at the questions asked of the Ramseys in their '98 interviews, neither Ramsey seems to remember the children there much, so it must have been a separate party?

    http://www.acandyrose.com/s-santa-bear-mystery.htm

    "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.

  9. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine_ws View Post
    Reminds me oh John saying he only went to the talent parts.
    It's either he was jealous (if we consider the taboo subject to be true and I think it is) or he just didn't agree with the circus for other reasons (like what normal parent puts their child in the spot light like this?)


    I was asking this before somewhere else......IF (the hugest IF I can think of) they are innocent,why ignore prior abuse????????????????It would help them narrow down the suspect list fgs!
    IF they are innocent why so proud about JB being a pageant queen if THIS is how she was targeted by some psycho?I would DIE if I'd knew that I was the one who just exposed her to the one who ultimately killed her.I didn't see any signs of guilt,what I saw was PR being proud til the end( her last interview with that pastor) that JB was a pageant queen.Disgusting.

    IF they are innocent it's even worse,what they did to the investigation,how they behaved.It just doesn't make any sense.Why ignore the evidence that might help you catch the killer,how the hell can you reply "Nah,there are no signs that she was sexually assaulted the night she died"...HUH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
    Well, think about how much they ignored and downplayed OTHER possibly CRITICAL EVIDENCE which might have led STRAIGHT to the intruder, unless Patsy was lying about the "lost cell phone". (She was--read the transcript where she tells that convoluted story, obviously making it up as she went. ) You have your child murdered by an intruder, but you stall LE from getting your complete home and cell phone records (thanks to prime suspect-loving DAs Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy). You finally "turn over" records a year later limited to ONE MONTH, with one cell phone having NO CALLS FOR THAT MONTH--even though there are police reports and John Ramsey under oath in a deposition saying LE used the Ramseys' cell phones that morning? Then A YEAR AND A HALF AFTER THE MURDER you consent to a rare interview with "prime suspect-loving" DA Hunter's hand picked detectives and tell them YOU LOST THAT CELL PHONE BEFORE THE MURDER? AND NEITHER YOU NOR YOUR WORLD-CLASS LAWYERS AND PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS EVER THOUGHT THE INTRUDER/CHILD KILLER MIGHT HAVE FOUND IT?

    Yeah, right.

    Either I'm the fricking EINSTEIN of crime investigation, or the Ramseys and their DREAM TEAM were looking for an INTRUDER like Wood and the Ramseys were looking to GO TO TRIAL IN THEIR SUIT AGAINST THOMAS: IT WAS ALL FOR SHOW, SPIN, EVASION OF THE TRUTH, OBSTRUCTION OF THE INVESTIGATION, AND THEY KNEW FINDING AN INTRUDER WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

    So to answer your question, while I'm on a rant this morning, madeleine: The Ramseys did NOT want ANYONE, EVER talking about, questioning, investigating, or even aware of the PRIOR MOLESTATION. THAT'S why they used the paintbrush.

    "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.

  10. #82

    Default

    So...I got sidetracked from the thread topic...sorry:

    Back to it, here is an interesting little swampbyte, compliments of the QUEEN herself....

    In the pineapple discussion about the digestive timeline, some have brought up Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints on the bowl, etc. A Ramsey "shill" has stated at the JB topix form that Burke said in his "grand jury testimony transcript" that Burke put the bowl of pineapple on the table. When it was pointed out that that transcript is not actually AVAILABLE to the public, so how did the "shill" know that, and sources please, he squirmed and hemmed and hawed, and finally the subject was changed because he could not back it up.

    So on the current pineapple thread, when jams showed up with her DENIALS and DISINFORMATION, as per usual, I did ask her about that little claim of the Ramsey's "shill." Others were asking if Burke had in fact been questioned about this by LE. Jams finally posted this:

    http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonb...UAVTNAV02M/p22

    jameson

    Reply »
    |Report Abuse |Judge it! |#426 Yesterday
    Burke was not asked about the pinepple during the interviews. There is nothing in the book on it.
    ...to which I responded with this:

    koldkase

    Reply »
    |Report Abuse |Judge it! |#461 15 hrs ago
    Judged:
    1
    jameson wrote:
    Burke was not asked about the pinepple during the interviews. There is nothing in the book on it.
    Well, how interesting. From a woman who has already told us she'll lie when it suits her, who has been caught in some real whoppers through the years, who changes her story as often as the Ramseys, and who has no credibility because she'll say anything to protect the Ramseys, we're told the following:

    In the investigation of a child's brutal murder; where so many in Boulder LE and on Team Ramsey claim to want to find the killer; with all the lawyers and WORLD-CLASS INVESTIGATORS--we're talking SCORES--from the BPD to the DA to Team Ramsey to the Grand Jury, all spending MILLIONS of dollars to solve this murder...

    You're telling us, jams, that NOT ONE OF THEM bothered to ask Burke anything about that pineapple bowl and glass of tea with his fingerprints on them?

    There are only two possibilities here, jams.

    You're either lying to keep the cover up going--to protect Burke or because Burke's answers on the bowl of pineapple are incriminating for someone named Ramsey; or every single lawyer, investigator, and relative who did NOT ask these questions of Burke is a damned liar if he/she says he/she ever wanted to find out who committed this murder.

    If Burke has never been asked these questions by anyone in the investigation or family who had the opportunity and didn't, then those people know the truth and do not want it to ever be revealed.

    If Burke has been asked, then you're lying.

    So which is it? Because someone is or has been lying about this investigation...as usual.

    And anyone who doesn't know why this murder was never "solved", read it and weep, because this is IT.

    "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.

  11. #83

    Default

    Whenever the R's deny/ignore/fight something it turns out there is something about that issue.

    Prior abuse,the pineapple,the fibers.....already tells us some very important things about what happened.

    "It's not my bowl" ?? GMAB,this is a good one.Wasn't John around her to make up a better "innocent" explanation?
    M. Lacy: "You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone."

  12. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Well, if you can ask Elvis that would be great. Is she still posting on a public forum?

    I've asked learnin, the x-ray tech with whom we're having the pineapple rate of digestion discussion at topix. It will be interesting to see what he says.

    I think we have to keep in mind that, if the pineapple was sitting in a bowl of cream or milk, it doesn't mean JBR ingested much of the cream. I believe JBR reached into the bowl and picked up a piece, maybe two, of pineapple and popped them into her mouth. In this scenario, there would be very little cream or milk in her G.I. tract. There could be so little, that it would probably not be identified. Keep in mind that pineapple consists of mostly water so the little bit of milk or cream would even be mixed with this.

    This is why, when I performed my experiment, I used as little barium as necessary to visualize the pineapple but not enough to falsify the transit time.



Similar Threads

  1. Ramsey Case - pineapple, bowl, and tea glass
    By koldkase in forum Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 19, 2010, 9:43 pm, Fri Nov 19 21:43:55 UTC 2010
  2. Ah ha! John LIED About Pineapple!
    By YumYum012 in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: August 18, 2009, 7:48 am, Tue Aug 18 7:48:23 UTC 2009
  3. The White Pineapple Bowl
    By Why_Nut in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: August 17, 2009, 6:39 am, Mon Aug 17 6:39:47 UTC 2009
  4. What about the Pineapple?
    By Sheila808 in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: August 27, 2006, 2:19 pm, Sun Aug 27 14:19:52 UTC 2006

Posting Permissions

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