JonBenet's ghost??

Bloomingdale's and Macy's are both Federated stores. They often, but not always, sell some of the same merchandise. I'll try to check out the panties in Macy's the next time I am in a Mall. There is no Bloomies near me anymore.

 

Bloomies re made by St Eve. The Macy ones looked similar but were definitely not the same.

 

That's what he told you but he was lying. He was actually giving massages in a Sheraton in the US. Aha - caught ROTTEN! One morning at breakfast, my husband was trying to pour his coffee without success. I had my mouth full but I motioned to him that he had to "unscrew" it (makes silent screwing motion with hands). Eddie, the breakfast waiter misinterpreted my gesture and thought I was threatening to wring my husband's neck and he came flying over and offered my husband an appointment with Swedish Anja and her twin sister for a neck massage later on. When we explained his mistake he was very embarassed and tried to redeem himself by offering ME a massage with Swedish Sven instead but I told him that I knew for a FACT that Sven preferred hairdressers of the male kind and that I wasn't into THAT kind of arrangement. In the end we settled for a complimentary waffle with maple syrup and a handful of coupons for some art museum.

(names have not been changed in order to incriminate the guilty).

 

Halloween is the 2nd largest holiday in the US, second only to Christmas. This year it happens to fall on a Friday, which will mean LOTS of parties, etc. Of course the current economy will have people cutting back slightly, but everyone loves Halloween and I'm sure there will be much frivolity. My SIL from California wanted her son to have a traditional American Halloween and so they always had a party (Bristol England) which was well attended by my nephew's school friends...He's 14 now, so I doubt if they are still holding the party...

I miss doing Halloween - with teenagers, it's not the same...Our block here at home has almost no kids living on it, and the adults are single and don't turn their lights on. Since we are in the middle of the block, even if I turn my light on, I get little traffic. I love to see the little ones all dressed up and holding out their baskets for candy!

 

I STILL dress up for Halloween. This years' theme will be "Come as the worst job in the world". I have my costume all ready for my selection as worst job.

 

Ha ha...well OK, but I'm telling you...waffles and maple syrup don't even come CLOSE to a Sven foot massage......

 

Next stop LaLa Central

KK summed this up beautifully:-

Yep, ACCORDING TO MAME, Lou Smit is now claiming that there is a second eye-witness statement of a man crossing the Ramsey lawn on the evening of the murder. And she is indignant that anyone should question this:-

Mame>>

I am not questioning Lou Smit, I am questioning Mame's version of what he actually said least of all because she has a long and established record of getting her facts A*SE about FACE!

Let's examine the facts:-

1) We know about the Barnhill's "sighting" of a man they thought was JAR crossing the Ramsey lawn on the evening of the murder.

2) We know JAR had alibis who confirmed he was in Atlanta at the time so the chances of it being him are for another debate entirely. A man who looked like him from a distance perhaps?

So how do we know this isn't the same sighting? If Smit is now saying that there was another eye-witness who saw a strange man headed towards the Ramsey house, why has he never before used this as exculpatory evidence of an intruder (preferring instead to use the pathetic packing peanut evidence?) THAT is certainly not professional detective work.

And if there is indeed another eye-witness (i.e. not Barnhill) who claims to have seen a strange man approaching the Ramsey house, why make the assumption that it was a SECOND man and not just another sighting of the SAME man? I wouldn't be satisfied with variations in where the man was seen walking. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Variations in precise route across the lawn and time of sighting can be easily explained by faulty recollection.

Most importantly, why keep this information a secret for 12 years? Why not issue a sketch of this strange man? If indeed there were two separate eye-witness accounts of this strange man walking towards the Ramsey home just hours before the brutal murder of a beautiful child, then suppressing that information rather than employing it as part of the investigation is unforgivable!

Of course, I am just musing here because the bottom line is that we are dealing with Mame - possibly the most inaccurate Ramsey poster of all. Someone who name drops constantly and who claims insider informationn whilst refusing to name her sources. Information which rarely turns out to have any basis in fact.

Yes, consider the source. Someone at the doubleBB needs to tell Mame "We aren't questioning Lou's credibility on this, we are questioning YOURS!"

 

Well, you've covered everything, Jayelles...except of course the fact that Lou "Psychic" Smit is certainly to be questioned by any discerning case follower.

Consider all the "bugaboos" Smit has unleashed upon the public:

1. His standard for guilt or innocense is "Swear to god you didn't do it."

2. He admitted under oath in his depo that his first criteria for dismissing the Ramseys as suspects was "They had no history."

3. He admitted under oath in his depo that his second criteria for dismissing the Ramseys as suspects was "They had no motive." Obviously he IGNORED the autopsy evidence that JonBenet's body provided evidence of prior molestation, so what more can be said about his "objectivity" when he's IGNORING such CRITICAL EVIDENCE that would indeed provide MOTIVE for the murder and cover-up.

4. He believes "psychics" and endorses THEIR "intruder" visions, either missing entirely how they "saw" HIS very own theory, lock, stock, and barrel, and NOTHING MORE, or he simply unconscionably promoted THEIR endorsement of HIS theory on national TV because he's corrupt to the core.

5. Smit has been wrong about so much in this case, there is no reason for ANYONE NOT to question what he says, especially when it is so suspect, as your breakdown illustrates.

And I've only mentioned the tip of the iceberg.

This latest claim is just more of the same manufactured "evidence" we've seen come from the RST so often. Intruders running all over the lawn that day, but no one can come up with ONE NAME OR FACE in 12 years.

Except ANOTHER PSYCHIC, of course.... Sketch Man, move over.

 

I also find certain members of the RSTs apparent obsession with the supposed sexual element of the murder rather disturbing. Before it's demise, Sycamore was full of such discussions. You'll find them at the double BB too. I cannot see what this type of discussion can achieve other than some form of perverse gratification for those participating since it's entirely speculative anyway. There is no proof that the motive was sexual in nature and indeed seems quite likely that the sexual element (minor as it was) was carried out for the purposes of staging.

 

Well said!

 

well

lou smit lost any credibility as an investigator after the notorious "blue line" between the "stun gun" marks statement. He should have been led quietly away to never be heard from again after that extreme stupidity. How can he bear to show his face in public after that?
He should be the laughing stock of LE after that one.

 

Yeah, you'd think.

But apparently, Lou "psychic" Smit has no low to which he won't descend in his quest to get his mug on camera and his name promoted with this case. I don't believe the man has a clue. He's STILL a legend in his own mind.

 

Texan...

So well expressed...And I could never believe that after his making such an ignorant, uniformed, unscientific, bizzare observation, that anyone would ever listen to his mirranderings again....

Lou Smidt is one of the most foolish and yet damaging characters in the entire Ramsey case and this fool somehow does not even realize how he was used by the Ramsey family and supporters to divert suspision and evidence from them and on to other innocent people....He is an arrogant fool. If he has not benefited financially (I actually believe he has) he has had an ego trip of major proportions...

Well, I am here to tell him that he is a fool who is abhord by those who have studied this case and who know the truth about the Ramsey family...The Final Judgement will most likely be the only place where Lou and the Ramseys will receive their just rewards....We know that their judgement is coming...

Voyager

 

A vivid dream...

This has nothing to do with ghosts, but, after reading through this thread, a poignant moment came to mind, in my early association with the first Ramsey Forum.
A few weeks after JonBenet's death, and while I was only vaguely familiar with all the players in this tragedy, I had the most vivid dream of my life. It was a long time afterwards that I shared it with the Forum, but received little response. Except, that is, from "Ruthie," our late great poster. She sent me a note, via P.M., and we shared emails and telephone numbers. We had several conversations about the case in general and one about my dream in particular.
This was my dream:
I saw JB's body laid out on a table or some kind of trunk. It was covered in a red cloth. Patsy was standing over it, crying and shaking. She was holding a gold ring in her right hand.
The following is the part that I have never before or since experienced:
I actually felt her tremendous grief. I awoke, trembling in despair. It upset me so much that I stayed away from the forum for a period of time.
That dream convinced me that J.B.'S demise was the result of an accident, at Patsy's hands. I believe that somehow I was able to tap into her tremendous sense of grief. I never want to tap into anything like that again. Even now, I shutter at the thought of rethinking, however briefly, that horrible moment.
When I think of all the people who really know what happened to J.B.R., like Pam and J.R., I wonder how they live with themselves. Imagine how deeply they have buried the truth and how committed they are to their evil "rationalizations." Yes, they continue to eat, sleep and carry on their daily functions, seemingly without remorse, but, from what little I know of life, I believe that someday, perhaps, a sense of guilt, that they have kept so neatly bottled up for so long, will surface in strange and unforgiving nightmares, and the "ghosts" of all those they have defiled (in blatant efforts to keep suspicions from themselves at bay) will expose them for what they really are.
GL

 

Wow, Greenleaf. That is an amazing post.

I, too, believe that whatever happened that night, the Ramseys have spent 12 years compartmentalizing and burying the truth, hiding it even from themselves.

What you said about the bus victims, though, is the part that I find is key to who the Ramseys really are. I would have felt a lot of compassion for their tragedy, based in human weakness that we all can empathize with, none of us being perfect beings. But the fact of the Ramseys is their characters are completely narcissistic. IMO. They have no compunction when using and abusing anyone and everyone to save themselves from facing the truth and abiding by the laws. They have laid their sins at the feet of completely innocent people, and they haven't hesitated for an instant to do that.

Whatever you felt, Greenleaf, I imagine you did tap into some Universal thread of human grief which Patsy did suffer through. I have no doubt she suffered deeply from the events of that night, the aftermath, and from losing her little girl. But what Patsy did not do is TELL THE TRUTH about it. Instead, she perpetuated a web of lies so evil, we're all still caught up in them 12 years later. Finally, that became the core of her life on earth: lies, deceit, immeasureable injury to others.

Patsy wanted to be famous, rich, and powerful. She achieved all that. But it's the old "be careful what you wish for" adage: her money, fame, and power was her undoing.