More idiocy from the swamp

From the Swampleader

Exculpatory Evidence - as (the Swamp Leader and her minions) see it:

* Parents had no motive and no history of violence or mental illness that would suggest they were capable or predisposed to do such a thing.

Neither did Susan Smith! Neither did Andrea Yates, although she did suffer from post-partum depression. As to motive, JonBenet was being sexually abused – a fact Ram spinners refuse to admit as this places culpability IN THE HOME by a parent or sibling.

* Evidence of intruder at basement window - leaves and "popcorn" dragged into house, glass on floor, suitcase moved as possible "step"

John broke the window months prior to the murder, and so this broken window allowed all kinds of debris to enter the basement and get blown around. It also explains the glass on the floor! The packing peanuts could also be traced back to the numerous boxes/packages Patsy had received through mail orders for the holidays. Suitcase was not used that night and there's no way to determine who or when it was moved to its spot. As to the debris getting into the wine cellar, John and/or Fleet and/or police easily could have tracked it through themselves that morning when searching for JonBenet.

* Ransom note - too long and clear to have been written in a panic AFTER the crime, I think it was written before. I can explain why an intruder might, (wasting time while he waited for the family to be down for the night) - but why a parent? Who would plan to kill their child and leave a note with a body? In my theory, the note was a red herring, a "joke", by a very sick person like Ted Bundy and Danny Rollins.

Since the kidnapping was a ruse, so too, was the note. It's intent was to divert attention away from the actual crime and send cops off on a wild goose chase. It bought time for the Ramseys to figure out how to cover their behinds. Experts agree the notewriter intentionally disguised their writing. The context of the note is more important than the writing itself, and that content – the familial knowledge, grammar, punctuation, use of acronyms, etc., are all trademarks of Patsy's writing.

* Ransom note - the handwriting doesn't match either parent. On a scale of 1-5 with 5 being "no way", John is a 5 and Patsy a 4.5.

This determination is based on opinions bought by the umbrella people. Upon further examination of the contents of the note, it couldn't have been written by anyone other than a Ramsey, most notably Patsy since it is her habit to use acronyms. We see that in her writings and we've seen it recently on her latest anti-cancer campaign she named, GOSSIP.

* Stun gun was used - parents had no access to any stun gun, never had any interest in one.

There is no evidence a stun gun was used. This idea is purely Ramsey-originated and they offer no proof or evidence other than looking at 2D photos. To prove unequivocably whether a stun gun was used or not could have been proven by exhumation and reautopsy, which the Ramseys refused. The authorities had no reason to exhume because again, there is nothing to indicate stun gun use.

* Child taken to basement - if a parent wanted to abuse or punish a child, why go to the clutered basement? Why not just use the bedroom?

There's no evidence that JonBenet was brought to the basement to be abused...NONE! The evidence points to her being knocked unconscious in her bedroom. The green garland caught in her hair indicates she was carried down the stairs unconscious and the garland caught in her hair from the stair's bannister. Fiber and forensic evidence about her face and body indicates she was placed on the carpet outside the door to the wine cellar while the garotte was fabricated – tiny wood shards are also evident in the carpet/doorway where the paintbrush was broken. Evidence points to the parent(s) cleaning JonBenet and redressing her in the bedroom, and then carrying her to the basement.

* Garotte - not a weapon used by parents.

There's always a first time, which this case seems to indicate! More specifically, the parents rely on this fact to divert attention away from themselves. The whole crime scene was staged, and the use of the garotte was part of that staging. The purpose for staging is to divert attention from the true crime and true perp(s). The umbrella people figured this to be their coup de grace in that parents don't garotte their children and so the cops would just have to look elsewhere for their perp. Nice try, umbrella people!

* Cord - didn't match anything in the house, couldn't be linked to parents in any way.

The cord matches trimming found on Patsy's clothes. What the crime scene suggests is that all the tools used in this crime came from the household. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the cord could have been a remnant in the paint tray (or elsewhere) and was pulled out and used that night.

* sexual molestation - no history of pedophilia in that house at all and when parents DO kill their children, less than 1% sexually assault them.

This crime revolves around sex...it is not a sex crime. IOW, JonBenet was not murdered because of sexual activity or as a result of sexual abuse. The blow to her head was accidental. The subsequent actions were to cover up the abuse as well as using it (sticking the painstick into her vagina) to divert attention away from the parents and unto a sick intruder.

* DNA mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties is unmatched but not from parents.

The DNA deposit is not a result of crimes committed against her that night. It does not belong to an intruder because there is no intruder. The BPD's investigation indicates the high probability that the dna material was already in her underwear when she put it on.

* Dark fibers on JonBenét's clothing and on her genitals doesn't match anything in the Ramsey house.

This is false. Umbrella people and their supporters would have us believe the BPD fabricate evidence. The dark fibers have been matched to John's clothing he wore that night.

* Body was not left in "peaceful pose" as children usually are when killed by parents. She was left in a moldy room, on the floor, not "tucked in", the garotte remained n her neck, arms thrown over head...

Ramspinners refuse to acknowledge that the entire crime scene was staged. It was intentional that the body was left the way it was to look like an intruder had murdered her, diverting attention away from the true culprits. Parents wouldn't kill their child according to the "rules of killing your child" so that they could be snatched up immediately by police! Hello, is anyone home?

* Tape, part of staging, didn't match anything in the house - source roll never found, no one can link the tape to the parents.

Umbrella people supporters will harp on the fact that the tape can't be sourced, ergo it must have been brought into the home. What they refuse to acknowledge is the fact that fibers from Patsy's clothing she wore that night are stuck to that tape. They further ingratiate themselves by stating this is innocent transfer! Such transfer is impossible. There is no other debris on that tape. If there had been other debris, say John's fingerprints or fibers from the blanket, then it might be somewhat more plausible. But that negative evidence pretty much sinks this pipedream of transfer!

* Boot print and palm print in room with body don't match the Ramseys.

Again, Ramspinners are intentionally ignoring evidentiary facts because it doesn't fit their theory of innocent parents. The boot print has been linked to Burke Ramsey in grand jury testimony! And the palm print belongs to Melissa Ramsey.

* Ramseys cooperated with police - called them and gave them full control over the house, signed over 100 consent forms allowing the BPD to access private records, repeatedly allowed themselves to be interrogated - marathon type interrogations.

By calling them, are we talking about the 911 call? Lol The Ramseys didn't 'call' police for months, and only at that point did they make such calls in order to put conditions and restrictions on any meetings they had with police. As far as giving forensic evidence, they had no choice, although they refused to do anything on the 26th. They "cooperated" with the police on the 26th because they had no choice, the cops were called to a crime scene. What's imperative here is that their child was murdered in their home and they refused to cooperate with police for four months! They did what they absolutely had to, but as far as sitting down and going into any kind of detail of what happened, the Ramseys refused.

* Character witnesses - No one can cite a time when the Ramseys were anything but loving parents. Family, friends, the older children in particular - all defend the parents. (Exceptions being Judith Thomas and Linda Hoffmann-Pugh who started out defending them then made THOUSANDS of dollars by "switching sides" and selling information to the tabloids.)

Ha! Does this mean that because Judith and Linda sold their stories, their stories are lies? Does it then mean that since Jams sold her story for $40,000, she, too, is a liar and can't be trusted? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh JammySue?

If a close friend of mine was accused of such a heinous crime, I would also back that person up based on my friendship with that person. However, if my friend then acted as outrageously as the Ramseys did, (and those outrageous acts are too numerous to cite here), I, too, would start questioning their credibility and I would reflect on that friendship. IOW, Monday morning quarterbacking...and with fresh eyes, eyes not blindsighted by friendship, I would see things I had missed or overlooked and subsequently, it could very well change my mind as to whether I thought my friend was innocent or not. As regards family, of course these are going to back each other to the hilt! Duh!

* Ramseys passed polygraphs given by some of the best men in the country - and the results have NOT been disputed by any authority - - they won't accept them but won't contest them either.

How many times did Patsy have to take this polygraph before she passed? Further, the Ramseys refused to take polygraphs given by the FBI, who are recognized as the best. The fact the Ramseys hired former FBI polygraphers taints their test results because of their refusal to deal directly with the FBI, not to mention they PAID for these polygraphs and were given the questions in ADVANCE! Practice makes perfect, eh? Of course the results can't be accepted...the test was bogus in that they had the questions in advance and had to take the test more than once in order to pass...and that's with the questions in advance!

 

Polygraphs

Even more than the fact that they didn't pass the polygraphs taken by Gerry Toriello and that they eventually went to a different polygrapher, what bothers me most about the polygraphs is that the Ramseys didn't answer questions chosen by the people investigating the case. They may have asked different questions.

 

Jamesonian logic:

Yeh, that's right, you tell 'em cabbage, you got the head.

Susan Smith's two boys sure were left in a "peaceful pose" weren't they. And, how about those five Yates kids? One was left face down in the bathtub, the others dumped on the bed. Yep, real peaceful. Gawd, what planet is this jameson person from?

The Ramseys' refusal to take an FBI-administered polygraph was BS. At any rate, there should have been a BPD representative there to witness the polygraphs they allegedly passed. I don't believe any of their malarky, and jameson is just an idiot.

 

Actually, Ginj, both Yates and Smith had long, substantial, documented histories of mental illness prior to commission of their crimes. I would have to respond to Jameson's drivel about the Ramseys' histories a little differently.

Not every child homicide committed by parents bears significant parental mental health histories, nor does the crime itself, never mind the law, require such history in order to prove parental murder. There are two categories of "intent" when it comes to homicides-crimes of "passion" vs. premeditated crimes. Jameson offers flimsy allegations to "prove" that the Ramseys could not have committed this homicide as premeditated, yet has never once offered any credible proof that they could not have committed this homicide as a crime of passion.

Many child homicides are the result of a sudden act by the offending parent(s), usually provoked by some childish act that causes temporary loss of self-control by the parent, or, alternatively, to cover up an initial parental act committed in a temporary loss of control state. Most child homicides committed by parents are not premeditated crimes.

In cases where relative sexual abuse is occurring, it has been known that any threats by the child-victims to expose this crime and its perpetrator result in violent conduct by that perp to keep his victim from exposing him, including murder, which could be the result of a spontaneous act by the perp or premeditated. In these cases, any threat of discovery posed to a sexual offender could rationally form the basis of motive.

As specifically regards the Ramseys, a more factual and truer statement would be that John and Patsy Ramsey have no KNOWN history of violence or mental illness, although again, it doesn't take a history or any propensity toward violence to commit a crime or take a child's life. This is not nearly as significant a determinant as Jameson would have everyone believe. Afterall, not even Westerfield had a history of pedophilia, violent behaviors or mental illness, nevertheless, he was found unanimously guilty by a jury of his peers.

The Ramseys have never submitted to a psychiatric evaluation since the murder of their daughter. No doubt if they ever do, John and Patsy will probably show significant personality disorder characteristics that would lend themselves readily to support of any charges.

"Thrown" over her head? What evidence does Jameson offer to support this allegation? None, because there is none. "Not tucked in"? She was wrapped up in the fashion of a papoose, according to John Ramsey's own statements, unless of course Jameson is calling John Ramsey a liar by this statement. "Left" in a moldy room? There is, again, no evidence that any of the crimes perpetrated that night upon JonBenet occurred in the room in which she was found, and therefore any suggestion that she was abandoned in that room is unfounded. Someone who has just brutally sexually assaulted a child, violently bashed that child's head in, forcefully strangled that same child to death, then cleaned up the body and written a long ransom note using a different hand to avoid detection, doesn't usually then hang around keeping his/her victim company to AVOID abandonment. Any homicidal pedophile intruder would be crazy to do so, the very point being escape and successful nondetection. What a stupid statement!

There is, however, evidence that the "moldy room" was not the actual scene of the crime but the final location where the body was placed, not "left," soas to enhance the appearance of a missing/kidnapped child scenario. Anyone of sufficient mental/emotional disposition to commit the crimes that were perpetrated on JonBenet Ramsey would not be of a mind to do so then tuck her back into her own little bed. And any parent who has the capacity to do this to their own child would certainly not, and not be required to, in order to substantiate a parental homicide.

The very fact that the body WAS abandoned is proof that whomever did so had full knowledge that a crime of some sort had been committed, AND HENCE the need to get away undetected. Had this been an accident, even one committed during a temporary loss of self-control, any loving caring parent would have called 911 and made up a story to cover a fit of destructive rage. Yet this perp, parent or intruder, WITH PRIOR KNOWLEDGE THAT A CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED POSING RISK OF DISCOVERY THAT LED TO FURTHER CRIMINAL CONDUCT, obviously went to great lengths to cover it up. If an intruder was good for it, there is no historical pattern of behavior that simply running away immediately after the commission of that crime isn't SOP, but every historical evidence that a non-related perp would do just that instead of hang around creating an elaborate cover up, all the while risking discovery by innocent parents. Immediate removal from the crime scene by the perp would BE the very difficulty he'd want to create for LE in finding him, not risking leaving fiber, print and other evidence while he hung around obscuring that very crime scene. Could that not be why no such evidence of an intruder was found?

DNA material that cannot be sourced under the victim's fingernails and mixed in her own blood on her underwear, and all the other "evidence" offered up by Smit of proof of an intruder, do not have a clear and strong connection to anyone or can be linked to placement in the basement during the commission of these crimes on Dec. 26, 1996. They never have been and never will be-they are vagaries and will remain so purposely to create illusion that was only ever intended to create reasonable doubt, not proof.

Furthermore, had JonBenet BEEN placed back in her bed for "discovery" the following morning, it would certainly have been far more evident that no kidnapping, contrary to the ransom note, had occurred, and that parental involvement in the crimes was more likely indicated. If some homicidal pedophile intruder was trying to set the Ramseys up as good for it, he certainly committed a gross oversight in NOT putting her back in her bed!

I'd call this a pretty peaceful pose-cleaned up, wrapped in a clean blanket usually kept on her bed, with her favorite nightgown, in her own home. And the device left wrapped around her neck to throw off investigators was not a "garotte" but simply a ligature that was used to strangle a child presumed to be dead already by whomever loving individual who took such tender care of a dead child's body in that basement. I would not imagine the homicidal pedophile intruder that Lou Smit and the Ramseys insist committed such a sudden, brutally heinous murder of a 6 year old little girl would leave her in such a tender state. Certainly Vodicka and Chase's murderer(s) didn't clean them off, wrap them in a warm, clean blanket and purposely put their favorite nightgowns with them when their bodies were left in a construction hole exposed to the elements and abandoned on a public sidewalk to die alone like nothing more than human garbage. Neither did Danielle Van Damm receive any tender treatment like JonBenet Ramsey! The contrasts are pretty clear that JonBenet did indeed receive special treatment. What's terrible is that that special treatment was not afforded her in life, but only after her loving perp raged all over her for self-indulgent purposes.

 

not only that

but we have John Ramsey's own words - this is an inside job.

Staging is done to point suspicion in the other direction from the culprit. No intruder would need to stage at all in this case and especially not a ransom note. Staging with the ransom note was intended to direct attention to someone outside the home, and it worked for awhile.

 

And apparently it's STILL working in the minds of some, Texan. That's exactly why BPD, the FBI and Vidocq all believe the ransom note is the KEY piece of evidence. It is the controlling piece that dictates reasonable explanation of every other piece of evidence in this crime. It was intended to deceive investigators into the belief that a non-Ramsey was at fault, but of course, in healthy, intelligent and rational minds, it has long been considered bogus. While there is no rational, credible evidence of any intruder, there is substantial evidence of Ramsey involvement.

And you're right--another flip-flop by the Ramseys. First, it's an "inside job" then Smit and later Lin Wood's influences cause the Ramseys to jump on the intruder bus. I think that says it all!

 

DonBradley asks this question on one of jameson's many (many, many, many, many) "BORG" threads:-

One might ask the same question of jamesons many (many, many, many) unreferenced "quotes" (pronounce that "twisted and out of context variation of the original) from (often un-named) "BORG" posters.

The question could also be asked of her silly post on her new "Timeline" where, not satisfied with her usual quota of "BORG" rants, she found it entirely necessary to fabricate some ludicrous - and indeed rather sad and pathetic stuff too:-

Yes - good question DB. "Why such a silly and unscholarly approach to such a serious issue?"

You asked it.

 

Psychiatric evaluation

You hit the nail on the head on this one, Dej.

John left reality when Beth was accidentally killed; yet, JonBenet's brutal murder hardly affected him...at least in the same way Beth's death did.

His private bathroom could be made a concern for his political aspirations if that were to come forward!

 

Is this true?

Not wanting to take things at face value, I wonder if the swamp has accurate reporting on this, or if it's a farce. Jann Scott, tsk, tsk, if true. From the swamp

Jann Scott wrote this:

Old Bats from Justice Forum Interfere with JonBenet Case off DA and LE. Five busy bodies from a true crime internet forum came to Boulder with their redneck home style brand of law and order. These are your classic stupid know- it-alls who don’t know anybody or anything about the District Attorney’s office or the JonBenet Ramsey murder case except for what they read on the internet. They had a petition with 1,400 signatures for Governor Owens. Owens' staff shined them on and then promptly canned their moronic request. Yeah, like Owens wants to take on the JonBenet case and ruin his career.

 

Oh my.....

Sounds like someone Crushed his dreams.......

:takeabow:
RR

 

Think he needs to 'get a grip', RR? :did:

 

It's True

http://www.geocities.com/jannscottlive/Weeklyjournal.html

This is no surprise coming from someone like Jann. He actively supported and distributed the petition in Boulder and on his web-site only to turn Turn-Coat as soon as his ratings needed lifting.

The FFJ Bats thought that they were finished having to deal with him when his show was over - only to find him trying to hook up with us for the next two days.

Out of appreciation only for his promotion of the Petition, did we allow him to join us for dinner at Pasta Jay's.

He informed me that everytime he goes to Pasta Jays - Jay kicks him out. Now we didn't know what to expect. The stories that came from Jann's mouth regarding His theories were laughed off after we finally parted ways.

I DO remember Jann asking us a "Hypothetical" question regarding "how much money it would take to pay you off?" We didn't have an answer - of course - but He did.

PASTA JAY - IF YOU ARE OUT THERE - I'd say a Restaining Order may be in order after hearing the tales that Mr. Scott has to say about you - please book yourself on his show immediately and "KickAss" - Like We Did.

Now - off to review my JS e-mails............

RR

 

At least he got that part right.

 

There have been some who wanted to take on the JB case and risked their careers. Steve Thomas was one of the brave ones. In my eyes, though, his career there was one to be praised. Thank goodness he had the courage to take a stand and risk it all. Justice for JonBenét.

 

You Know.....

If he would have had the balls to say this while we were there - face to face - dodging his little Bald Dog in Heat behavior - I'd have respected what he had to say. There is nothing that this RedNeck Woman held back on with him and for some reason I thought that I might Get Back as Good as I was Giving.

Guess I wasn't Giving what He REALLLLLLLLLLY wanted.

:yuck:

RR

 

Consider the source, RR. He makes his living insulting people. Who gives a big rip what that reptilian relative says? If he had any talent, he'd be working for a legitimate news agency.

 

Is it safe to say, then, that hell hath no fury like a man scorned?

 

Imon

Ask the other Ladies/Bats that were there - they were the ones kind enough to keep pointing it out while I was trying desperately trying to ignore it.

RR

 

Gasp. Do you mean he's a dirtbag, RR? Who would have thunk it.

:highfive: