So Many Idiots - So Little Time

Well, if I'm going to have to compete with Why Nut now for lowest of the low, I better call my pimp and see if he can find me some truth to murder, quick!

Oh, Yuuuuuuum Yuuuuuuuuum.... Pimp roll yourself over here and help me out....

Oh, there he is --->>> :cool2:

 

Here we go... :viking: Bring it!! I'm not lettin' go of my doublestuffed oreos without a fight! :fishslap: :bigstick: :knight: :fight: :gavel:

 

Excellent!

Have you ever heard the expression, you get the gov't you deserve?

 

ROFL! Now I've heard everything!
jameson says:-

Once, when I was very unwell, I went to the doctor. I walked into the surgery and the doctor's eyes immediately went to my feet. Her grin made me look and to my embrassment, I was wearing odd shoes.

jameson is aff her heid if she thinks someone wearing one Hi-Tec boot and a shoe wouldn't have stood out like a sore thumb! Not clever at all.

 

Now, how is this supposed to work? A person who may or may not have ever been in the cellar room, and who may or may not know that there is debris on the floor which may or may not hold a fresh shoe soleprint, is going to definitely decide beforehand that wearing mismatched shoes is a good idea? If this person thought no print would be left, then why wear mismatched shoes? If this person thought there was a good chance prints would be left, would not the fact that the prints were in close proximity to each other due to them being from the feet of one person, and furthermore, revealing the left foot wore one brand and the right foot wore another brand, NOT be a tremendous giveway that mismatched shoes were worn, and that this would be interesting for investigators to know?

 

Jambo is a MORON!


...YumYum

 

hahaha They will stretch this case into pretzels to make the evidence fit their intruder, won't they?

 

If this mythical intruder wore two different shoes and if he was ever caught and still had both pairs - would not the fact that two shoes from two pairs of shoes in his home matched the crime scene be a slam dunk for the prosecution?

Why didn't the intruder simply put socks over his shoes like the guy who 'attacked and robbed' JR in his home that time, who wore socks on hands..or did I dream that?)

 

You beat me to this! This occurred to me after I went offline last night. Yep - this "clever" intruder would have left prints of TWO pairs of his footwear instead of just one - all the more evidence to catch him with.

As KK said - pretzels.

 

:yay: :yay: :yay: :yay: :yay: :yay:

 

I believe jammy sue has solved this case. The Inturder was Harry Potter.

Harry's a very smart boy, but he really messed up, if his idea was to fool the investigators into thinking there were two people there. Now, instead of one one-legged guy, we now have two one-legged guys. Furthermore, why didn't Harry wear those mismatched shoes through the house and up the stairs, thereby leaving more evidence of two one-legged guys. Boy, that really would have fooled them.

The more I think about it, the more I am sure it was Harry Potter. A wizard would be the only one who could swoop down that grate without disturbing the spider's nest, appear in JB's room and take them both to the basement without leaving a trace of himself anywhere in that house. He could read Patsy's mind and produce a ransom note filled with Patsyisms and her handwriting with just a flick of his eyebrow. This wizard with two different shoes was so smart, he didn't leave anything of himself in the house, and being a wizard and all, he only has partial DNA, so he knew they'd never identify him with his DNA. That would also explain the cord and tape - he produced them with his magic wand.

One of the reasons Susan Bennett aka jameson defended Molesterfield, little Danielle's rapist and killer, was because there was no evidence to show he was ever inside her home. HELLO? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? There was NO EVIDENCE that an intruder was ever inside the Ramsey's home on Christmas night, either. Not one fingerprint in the kitchen where he supposedly sat for a good amount of time writing the ransom note with one of the Ramseys' pens, not one footprint on the kitchen floor from either of his mismatched shoes, after he had walked in the snow and the dirt outside the home, not a hair after spending all that time in the house that day, not a speck of DNA, nothing out of place...

The RST will say the scene of the crime was in the basement, and therefore the evidence was there - a packing peanut, :tipsy: degraded DNA that can't be dated, a basement window Ramsey admits he flucked with, a cord that could have come from anywhere in that house, tape that could have come from anywhere in that house and also been transported out of the house by any of the Ramseys that morning.

Perps DO NOT spend hours in the living quarters of someone's home without leaving physical evidence of themselves. The RST will claim he could have written the note in the basement, but "could have" isn't good enough. Where the hell is the proof of their claims? The ONLY thing they've got is degraded DNA with 9 viable markers and 1 not so good marker that could be garbage. They also have their beliefs that "the Ramseys were good people and could not have done this."

Sobeit. They are blasted idiots. The DNA is garbage. Their beliefs about the Ramseys are not evidence. There was and never will be any evidence of an intruder in the house that night. They knew it, and so do I.

 

It is unlikely that David Westerfield spent more than a few minutes in the vanDam house. I think he was in and out of that house. The longer someone occupies an environment, the more evidence he/she will leave of themselves there. I personally do not think Jonbenet's killer was waiting in the house. I don't think the killer hung around for as long as the RST claim he did.

 

David Westerfield is a perfect example of how kidnappers work - they are in and out as fast as they can. If they write a ransom note, they write it ahead of time, not in the house, using their victims' writing utensils and paper. Even then, they can't be sure of not leaving a hair, fibers, or other evidence behind.

I think the killer was in the house all night and all the next day.

 

There is only ONE reason jameson defended Westerfield, and that is because the the Van Damms showed the world how INNOCENT parents act when their daughter is kidnapped and murdered. Their actions couldn't have been a greater contradiction to how the GUILTY Ramseys acted.
This is the same reason she hates Marc Klass--because he also cooperated with LE until he was cleared and the investigation could focus on the real killer.
Susan Bennett HATES innocent parents because they make her beloved Ramseys stand out as the guilty people they really are.

 

That's true. She also hates them because they removed the angels she sent to be hung on the tree under which Danielle was found without her permission. Imagine that. They also didn't need her assistance (read that, interference). That pist her off, too.

 

You said it!

 

The pen and paper used for the note were NOT in the basement nor was JBR initially. Neither were the Bloomies, or the Swiss army knife, or the kitchen knife, or the flashlight, or the Barbie nightgown, or the blanket...etc...so what are they saying?

 

And how could the killer have written the ransom novel in the DARK basement with clutter everywhere? Did he have JonBenet there with him, struggling and trying to scream, etc. or was she already dead at that point? If so, why would he even write the ransom novel in the first place. It's insane. But logic doesn't play into the RST's line of thinking.

 

She was on their side at first but when they didn't return her calls or jump at the suggestion that they post a link to her forum on the official Danielle website, she turned against them with a vengeance. The vitriol she posted about that couple at the lowest point in their life was absolutely heartbreaking.