Sundance Kid

Thanks. I understand.

 

Thanks Tricia ...

Well Tricia now that you've uncovered me as a "sweet person" I'll have to see what I can do to salvage my nasty disposition.

Like BobC, the hat Sundance meant absolutely nothing to me. I had NEVER heard or viewed anything posted by her/him.

And I do respect people's opinion, regardless of what side of the coin they fall on. What stood out to me though, was that someone posted that 'Sundance' had sent a letter of apology to the Rams. Did I imagine that?

A person can change their mind (women do it all the time) but if the reason they do it is 'media driven' then I do have a problem. We are all fully aware of the 'spin' put out on the air waves, but lately we are not even getting spin - we are just getting propaganda, 24/7 as each and every newspaper, television show, etc. bows down to the almighty Limp Wood.

It may surprise many here to know that in the first few months of the Ramsey saga, I actually thought LHP's husband Merv or Santa were likely suspects. But then, the evidence (not spin) started to come out, the ransom note was released and the Ramseys were playing games with the BPD. I never agreed with the political games the DA's office & the BPD were playing, any more than the games the Ram's lawyers were playing.

Still their daughter was dead and they chose to remain silent for months - they created their own misery by their television appearances, crocumentaries and every member of their family appearing on TV. They were in on the circus like everyone else, if not more so. They did not hesitate to cast suspicions on each and every person that was close to them, including past employers and their best friends, for heaven's sake.

Guess it's pointless to argue here but if it is true that Sundance actually sent a letter of apology to the Rams, then I give up.

I'll say one thing Sundance, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART - your website proved invaluable to me. You see, it wasn't any TV show or NE or Globe or BORG or anyone in the entire universe that convinced me of the Rams guilt, except you. Again, thank you for posting Patsy's recreation of the ransom note on your website - I have waited 6 years for something like that. Who says I'm not patient. Perhaps I should visit your site more often - never know what I might find.

Now that's what I call irony.

Regards,
Mandarin

 

I do remember Sundance

from all these years ago. She has been an invaluable source of information in the past and truly does know this case inside and out.

The problem I am having right now is from something I just read -

"I do not believe 100% that they are NOT involved, but I no longer feel absolutely sure that they ARE, and so......"

This is not a flame, only a question - if you still have doubts (i.e., the obvious similarities between the ransom note handwriting and Patsy's handwriting) and do not believe 100 percent that they are NOT involved, why would you send them an apology and tell others you now believe they are innocent? Isn't that commiting yourself to their innocence? I could understand that if you have indisputable proof they had nothing to do with JB's death, but you do still have doubts. That is a contradiction to me, but you must have your reasons for commiting yourself that way.

Another person comes to mind - Don Foster. Remember how he was so positive the Rams were not involved and he put it in writing in a letter to them? That action came back to haunt him.

Another question, Sundance, do you have, or have you had, access to evidence in this case other than that we have all seen on TV? I understand that you have checked Lou Smit out and respect his reputation for being a good detective. Fair enough. Have you gone beyond his spin on TV and really torn apart his so-called evidence? I saw him go through that basement window, too, and I saw the "disturbance" in that window well that was supposedly caused by an intruder. There is no way anyone can convince me an intruder went through that window and didn't completely obliviate the debris in that window well, leaving traces of it all through the house as he crept silently up and down stairs, across carpets. It would have clung to his clothing, transferred to blankets, anything he touched.

One of the world's most respected and knowledgeable forensic pathologists, Dr. Henry Lee, has stated emphatically this is not a DNA case. The miscellaneous DNA debris or partial strands of DNA have been spun by the RST to mean something that it most likely does not mean at all, but when people do not understand DNA, they believe whatever the spinmasters say about it, debate it from an uneducated standpoint, and tout it as gospel truth. I am no expert in DNA, but I work for a microbiologist and DNA expert, and I will believe him on this. Not even he would make a statement about that DNA without seeing the test results himself.

There have been those who have said there was flesh under JB's fingernails. The spin is so thick I can never figure out if it is supposed to be her own flesh (marks on her throat identified as petechiae in the autopsy report being spun into scratch marks by the RST et al) or the flesh of her attacker. None of it will fly, though, because it is common sense, and no one has to be a DNA expert to figure out that if there were fresh flesh under her fingernails, there would undeniably have been a rich source of DNA evidence there - beautiful full strands of DNA easily identifiable. Instead, the alleged DNA found under her fingernails has been proffered by the RST as proof of an intruder, or proof JB was alive and scratched her neck (but they couldn't get a complete DNA strand from it, right).

There is absolutely no evidence that DNA is from an intruder to begin with. When one talks about the fact that all information at the beginning of this case came from the media and leaks from sources inside the investigation, one also has to accept the fact that all subsequent information also came from (1) media sources, (2) Lou Smit, (3) Lin Wood, (4) Jameson, (5) leaks from all camps, (6) the Ramseys, (7) unnamed sources. At no time have I seen official information from the BPD or DA's office in Boulder, so I don't really think it is fair to classify the information obtained early in the case as media driven and therefore unbelievable but accept the subsequent information as truth. Lin Wood is the biggest spinner of all.

Back to the DNA. Unless you have been inside the investigation and had access to the DNA results, you are basing your conclusions that DNA evidence places doubt on the Ramseys' guilt on second-hand information and the word of those with agendas. None of us really knows what that DNA says or if it really is DNA or clutter, as I have heard it could be. Whatever it is, it is incomplete and therefore degraded (according to Henry Lee) - certainly not the flesh we have been led by some to believe it was. Basically, it is worthless. To use it to say an intruder was in that house is folly, because if it really is DNA and not clutter, it could have come from anywhere at any time - yes, even in her oversized 12 underwear. A worker in a textile factory making the cloth for that underwear or sewing it together could have sneezed on it - there's your DNA. There are all kinds of explanations for a partial strand of DNA showing up on JBR.

We have been told that it is male DNA. I've heard all kinds of things about that DNA, but the truth is, if the DNA could solve this case, it would have been done. It's also true that I don't believe anything that Lou Smit tells us anymore, because is so firmly entrenched in the Ramsey camp and has been since shortly after he was hired. Everything he says or does is tainted by his devotion to the Ramseys.

I debated DNA evidence several times before, and I don't much feel like debating it further. Until someone from Cellmark or the CBI or other well-respected laboratory tells me that DNA evidence in the Ramsey case is viable, is truly DNA, and that it is capable of implicating or clearing a suspect, then all the other talking heads and wannabe DNA experts on the fora, and yes, even big-headed detectives, are blowing smoke as far as I'm concerned. I don't eat spin like some do, and I surely don't base my conclusions on spin from either side.

I have never stated who I think killed JBR because I don't know who did it. I've been around a lot of years and seen a lot of things. The lack of any substantial intruder evidence (that includes alleged DNA, a body hair, a footprint, a handprint, a packing peanut, all of which may have already been explained as belonging to Ramsey family or could be explained otherwise) is one of the biggest factors with me. A perp who remained in that house as long as this one allegedly did and who wrote a long ransom note in that house would not leave a partial strand of DNA - he would have left a lot of it.

There are too many contradictory explanations coming out of the RST to be believed, some of them right from the Ramseys themselves. As I said, I don't know who killed JBR, but aside from the very beginning when I wanted to believe, and did believe, the parents were victims and not involved, I have never seen one thing to change my mind that one (or more) of the three remaining people in that house that night was responsible for JB's death, and at least one other was involved in the subsequent and ongoing cover-up. There have been times when I have asked myself - what if I'm wrong? The fact is, there is no viable evidence there was an intruder in that house that night. There is no evidence that isn't in doubt - no fingerprints, no viable DNA, no nothing.

This is way too long, but I do want to mention the ransom note. I realize people see things differently, but that ransom note is just soooooo Patsy Ramsey - in style, in general appearance, and in content - it is 100 percent Patsy Ramsey. I believe she wrote that note, because what are the odds that an intruder would write exactly the way Patsy writes? Not.

I haven't even begun to give all the reasons I believe someone in that house was involved in the death of JBR and the coverup, but it's all been said before. It's been my experience that once most people get their mind set on something, it's set in concrete. There are exceptions, Sundance being an example of that, and that's okay. I examine everything before I reach any kind of a decision and after that I am always willing to change my opinion should credible (I said credible, not incredible) evidence be presented. All the sideshows and incredible theories I've seen have not changed my opinion on this case. None of us has read the case files or seen the evidence the BPD collected. We can all only go on what we read in the media or see on TV, none of which can be considered official.

 

My research shows that the money was made available through Rod Westmoreland, a banker from Atlanta. He arranged for the $118,000 to be advanced on JR's Visa, and John Fernie called I forget his name, a banker in Boulder, and this banker arranged for the cash to be at the bank. They were ordered to copy each bill before release to John Fernie, and so were still at work copying the bills when her body was found.

Now I'm at work today, so I don't know how much time I will be able to devote to the forum, so don't get all wadded up if I don't immediately answer a post. :-O

But, I WILL be back, I just don't know when I'll be able to get back, OK?

Can someone tell me how I can enable the smilies? It says they are disabled, but I don't know where to go to enable them.

Take care,
Sundance

 

Thank you for your welcome Tricia, I appreciate that.

 

Morning BobC,
Yes, I am aware that there was a video in the Ramsey house. Are you aware of the fact that it was a demo tape for several products, among them a stun gun, and that it was given to JR at Comdex? It was not an instructional video for a stun gun, rather it was a commercial? Also, that it was unopened? That is to say, the cellophane wrapper was still in place on the video?

I'm trying to hurry and post before I have to go to a meeting, so please forgive any spelling mistakes.

 

Not much....

 

What creep? Thanks for the encouragement

I can pretty much handle myself, but it's nice to have some moral support.

Curious about something BobC, you mentioned in another post that you had talked to case friends and they said good things about me. May I be so bold as to ask to whom you were referring?

 

Tricia, I want to be able to devote some time to address the items in your post, so I will save that for later, OK? But I will answer it, you can be sure.

Once again, your welcome and kind words are wonderful to read, and I want you to know how much it means to me that you took the time to post them.

I feel like I'm naked without smilies, I NEED smilies! I see how to make one appear to the side of the post, but how do I make them appear INSIDE the post?

 

Re: I do remember Sundance

Hello Watching You, I remember you! Let me quickly address this one issue in your post and return later to answer in more detail the others, OK?

I have not said that I think they are <U>innocent.</U> I said <B>I am no longer 100% certain</B> that they guilty, as I was in 1997 and onward. Back then I would have bet you anything you wanted to wager that they were responsible for JBR's death.

It's just that now, I am NO LONGER certain they are, and if I have doubts, ANY doubts about their guilt, then I have judged them prematurely, and my conscience demands that I make an apology for judging them for so long as so.

But, make no mistake about it, I am not certain, convinced, or absolutely sure that they are innocent. I apologize if that is the impression that was given.

As I said, I have some serious issues that need addressing, among them the note and more weighted to me, the 97 Christmas message, "no hope and hence no hope" thing. That whole thing stands out like a sore thumb to me.

So, to make this as clear as I can, I am not certain that they are guilty of causing JBR's death, but I am not certain that they are either. Since this is such a turnaround from my earlier stance on the subject, in all fairness I felt I needed to give the benefit of a doubt here, which I previously had not done.

Does that make sense? I hope I am making sense, but it's a rushed post and please forgive me if it's jumbled and unclear.

I'll be back to answer the other items in your post, OK?

Take care WY,
Sundance

 

Okay

because I was sure I had read you had done a complete turnaround and were convinced the Ramseys were innocent. I may have read it wrong, I'm going to try to find where I read that. I can't say I agree with apologizing to the Ramseys for thinking they might be guilty, though we all have to do what we think is right. There were (and still are) plenty of reasons to think they may be guilty.

It's nice to see you here, Sundance. You are bright and talented, and I look forward to hearing why you've changed your mind and what you based those changes on.

 

I agree Sundance. It is a relief to know you are reasonable about the evidence. I can live with people taking the opposite view as long as they don't lie about the evidence. When someone can explain why an intruder would fake a crime scene in someone else's home then I will consider that theory, but not until.

The business about whether JR withdrew money or not, and believe me there's more than one version of that story, really doesn't change anything. The point is the kidnapper, who didn't actually kidnap anybody, didn't take JBR with him, nor did he try to collect the money. None of that makes any sense unless you view the crime scene as having been staged. There are definately signs of a sexual assault also which doesn't line up with a kidnapping for money. Any intruder theory has to explain these conflicting motives for murder. No one in six years has been able to do that.

You can't argue (Not you in particular, I mean anybody) a pedophile murder and ignore the ransom note and then later argue the kidnapping gone wrong scenario while ignoring the signs of sexual assault.

The only theory that covers all the angles is a paniced, unsophisticated killer who so desperately wants to sidetrack investigators that she stages the scene using a mish-mash of motives. It's overkill, staging wise.

I did notice on your site that you felt you had "arrogantly" pointed the finger at the Ramseys. What is arrogant about coming to a logical conclusion based on the clues of a crime scene, especially when the parents themselves are on television every fifteen minutes? They are public figures. What IS arrogant is accusing the BPD of all the leaks in this case. That is absolutely false. Some, yes--but there were many people involved.

 

Welcome, Sundance

WY, thanks for going first as you covered every single angle I was planning to -- but you did it so much more eloquently. So I shall await how Sundance answers you, and thank her for her responses.

Sundance, I recall your link on Ken Polzin's page but I haven't seen your website. I have seen the same Patsy samples from other sources, and they're compelling.

From the earliest days of BNF there have been dedicated people posting on this case. Many of them have morphed into solid sleuths we all still respect, and some exposed themselves as goofy early on but were amusing nonetheless. Batman and Crow were two who professed to have inside sources but when cornered, scampered away. Since then we've seen other posters go ape-crazy and blame a series of innocent people for the crime that only two Umbrella People should be targeted. Sometimes I've enjoyed rational thinking from a poster who then posts that OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron and s/he can prove it, and I cringe that I've wasted so much time reading the posts of that person.

I admire consistency and logic. While it's possible for one to change one's mind when there is a significant new development I can't see one here. Certainly nothing that would indicate a public apology to the Ramseys is in order. Your mileage may differ.

The BPD investigated the break-in that you described and found there was no connection. While the details were not made public, it is a closed issue. A better example for your purpose would be Richard Tuite who is being charged with the murder of Stephanie Crowe. He's the drifter who broke into a home full of people, slew Stephanie and escaped with no sign of having been there. But there are differences. He did not spend interminable hours at the cite writing a ransom note. The location where Stephanie was found was trampled on by four other family members before the cops and lab techies entered, thus diffusing any footprints or evidence that might have linked to him. And the authorities missed important tests because they were convinced Stephanie's brother did the deed. So you would be hard pressed to find a case as Ramsey where there is no concrete proof of an intruder.

Also bear in mind that the "blame the media" line is not effective since the media are involved in nigh every major investigation you can name, though you may not be aware of it. The media also have layers of supervisors vetting every element of a story that is broadcast or filed, and while circumstances may change, and stories as well, they are for the most part true at the time they hit the waves since there is too much at stake if they're not.

On the other hand, a lawyer or advocate spinning has no such supervision or obligation to facts. Why you would base anything on what Smit or Wood say, other than to put it on a grid and consider it as part of a whole with other info, I can't understand.

As we've learned, the most frenetic and irresponsible reporting comes from anonymous Internet sources who have no dedication to truth and only a need for attention, and should be relegated to the bottom of the pyramid of case lore. I'm not including you in this area because I don't know your work -- I'm talking about people like mame who tout Smit's work product as if it makes sense. In fact, it doesn't pass muster under even sloppy scrutiny.

 

With WY and Fedora on the thread, I can just kick back and relax!

 

Sundance regarding who had nice things to say about you--I don't kiss and tell even when it's good gossip. Everyone says your site is a goldmine of info on the case and your research has been quite thorough. I don't ever get into the personality thing--who likes who, who's friends with who. For me it's all about intelligent debate.

 

Welcome, Sundance!

Welcome! I do hope your mind has been changed about staying, and that you'll stick around. I wanted to wait until you really intro'ed yourself before saying hi.

Smilies are disabled on this forum (scroll the page down when you're composing a message and look on the left side just under the Submit button -- you'll see "Smilies are OFF"). Sorry. We'll have to do with text based emoticons.

I'd like to look at your site... if the URL was posted, I missed it. Tell me where to look.

After an initial, er, rocky start, this has turned into a good thread... looking forward to reading more.

Ayeka

 

There was no flesh under the fingernails. If they had even one complete, undamaged skin cell then the DNA would be completely readable and they wouldn't have had to regenerate the strands.

 

Welcome Sundance

Glad you finally made it !!

For those of you who don't know, it was I who recommended to Sundance to apply for membership here and vouched for her to Tricia. I have known Sundance for as long as we all have been following this case and she knows how to be a good friend and has always been excellent at debate and research and she is fair and has an excellent sense of humor and the woman can kick some *** too !!

Actually Sundance really didn't need me to recommend her for anything as she is fully capable of flying on her own.

Sundance had one of the very early timelines and had a fantastic resource site on the Internet and when she took her little vacation she passed her timeline section over to Matt Causey (I know you guys probably remember him as he also had a vigil site for about four years) and he maintained the timeline section until he left the net. So now Sundance has it back again.

Now a comment and then questions for Sundance.......

First I want to comment regarding what is labeled as "crime scene photographs." I am not saying they are not photos taken of the crime scene at 755 15th Street but I am not 100% convinced the photos being shown as such were all taken the early morning of December 26, 1996. And just because the photos show "crime scene photo - not for publication" (and some have a sequence number) does not mean those were stamped on those photos by the BPD. I have located identical photos on the Internet that have no markings on them so the "label" on them being *THE* crime scene photos (which in all likelyhood should be photos taken early that morning) may not necessarily be the case. I just want to throw that in for your consideration if you are using any of the so called crime scene photos to base your theories on.

Now I will add a couple questions to start (maybe more later)

1. What is your take on the new information about there being a chair pushed up against the train room door?

2. What do you think about the new information that Patsy claimed she saw the red heart on JonBenet's hand in the morning of the 26th then turned around later during the same interview and changed her mind?

Well I got to run, later and welcome

ACandyRose

 

Tricia, thank you so much. I appreciate that.
<I>
I can't speak for Mandarin other than to tell you Mandarin is truly a sweet person. Please understand we are all rather jaded and I think that may be where some may have eyed you with a bit of mistrust. Don't let the rocky start scare you off. Ok?</I>

'K. I understand the mistrust, and apologize for my quick reactions last night. I guess I should have been more aware of this before.

<I>Sundance I am sincere when I tell you I would love it if an intruder truly was the perp. I would dedicate this forum as a lifelong apology to the Ramseys if it was an intruder.

I can say that because I am certain it was not.
Let me start with one thing.
Behavior and the stun gun. Ok so that's two.
The Ramsey say a stun gun was used.
Why in the world have they NOT demanded JonBenet to be exhumed? This would settle it. Done. </I>

I can understand their not wanting to exhume her ordinarily (if there IS an 'ordinarily' about exhumation) <b>but</b> I also think that if I were <u>sure</u> that they would be able to say with any degree of certainty whether or not the marks were from a stun gun that I would have opted to exhume her body.

I don't know for sure if it would though, and have not researched that aspect, so I can't say. I would think just off the top of my head that it would depend on how much time had passed and the efficacy of the embalming.
<I>
On the latest 48 Hours appearence John and Patsy were dead set against an exhumation to prove their stun gun theory. </I>

Yes, I saw that, and I remember JR's comment about it. I think he said something to the effect that it wasn't a body, it was his baby. Something like that I think. Oh, I see in your next paragraph the quote and I think you're right. We have the gist of it at any rate.
<I>
So if this intruder really did use a stun gun and the only way to prove it is to exhume JonBenet why in the world wouldn't the parents demand it?</I>

I can't answer this, but I understand the reasoning behind your thoughts.
<i>
The cops don't want to because they know it's not true. Why waste their time. </i>

I'm not so sure the police are worried about wasting time, I tend to think more that maybe it means it still couldn't be proven. But again, I have not researched it, and maybe you have and know this. Would an exhumation at this late day be definitive?
<I>
What if this "intruder" kills again and uses a stun gun? Would John and Patsy feel responsible? They sure as hell should. </I>

Even if they exhumed her body and even if they could definitively state whether or not a stun gun was used, they still wouldn't have an actual <U>suspect</U>, so I fail to see why JR and PR should feel responsible if that were to happen. The knowledge that a stun gun was used or not would serve no purpose in apprehending the culprit that I can see.

<I>The Ramsey could do the one thing that would not only clear their names but perhaps stop a killer from killing another innocent child. </I>

Again, I fail to see how exhumation and determination that a stun gun was without a doubt used would do anything except maybe take some of the heat off the parents. They have no other suspects to investigate, so knowing that a stun gun was used would still serve no purpose in helping to stop another murder. It would be different if there were others they were looking at, but if there are, I don't know about them. But I've been gone a while, so it's possible that they are looking at others and I am not aware of it. Are there other suspects? (Not trying to be a smartass, just thinking you might have info that I don't.)

<I>There is only one reason. Only one reason why the Ramsey's have not had their hired gun Limpwood screaming into court to order an exhumation. ...

The Ramsey's know. They know there was no stun gun.

To me Sundance that is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence. </I>

You could very well be right about this, but I don't have enough information about the results of exhumation after such a period of time to intelligently discuss it, so I have to put this into the "Look into it further" column for now. (Unless you already have info that already determines the accuracy with which they could determine whether a stun gun was used or not of course. If you do, then that's different.)

<I>Once again welcome. We are really a nice group. I promise. </I>
And once again, thank <B>you</B> for the welcome. AND for allowing me to register here at your forum - I really appreciat that.