Sundance Kid

Re: Okay

</b></i>
No, I have not totally flipped over the fence; I have several reservations about this. But I feel that if there is any doubt, and in mind there is, then I personally should not judge them. This is only my personal feeling about it though, and I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind about how they feel. My decision was a decision that was right for me to make at the time, but that doesn't mean that I think anyone else should make the same decision to withhold or change their opinion about it because of MY decision.

<I> 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. </I>

Exactly. The decision I made to apologize to the Ramseys for judging them all these years was a personal decision that I made that was right for me at the time. Doesn't mean it has to be right for anyone else though. It was just something that I felt I needed to do, so I did it.
<I>
There were (and still are) plenty of reasons to think they may be guilty.</I>

I concur. As I said, I still have issues that I can't resolve, the biggest of which is the similarities in PR's handwriting and the note. And it stands to reason that if she DID write the note, then bingo-bango, she's guilty of no less than accessory after the fact, if nothing else, no ifs ands or buts about it.

I also have issues with the polygraphs - rumor has it that PR had to take more than 1 to pass, and that sends up signals to me as well, although in fairness I don't know for sure that this is true, or the circumstances in which this may have occurred.

But, that being said, I still am of the opinion that a stun gun was used on the child, based on the photos of her injuries and the anesthetized pig (which I wonder if it really WAS anesthetized or are they just saying that to keep the uproar to a manageable level). The marks on her back and the marks on the pig were easily recognizable to me as being almost exactly the same, and the coroner has now stated that he too believes the injuries to be from a stun gun. So I factor that in with my evaluation as well.

Of course, there's always the remote possibility that I am wrong.

 

I appreciate

your honesty, Sundance. I have some things to say about the stun gun issue, but not tonight. The only thing I will say right now is that photos can be misleading.

BTW, if I remember right, there may have been more than one pig, and they were killed after the tests, according to the Ramseys' pet rock at the swamp.

 

Re: I do remember Sundance

</i></B>
I have not told anyone that I now believe they are innocent. What I said was that I now think there is evidence that a person outside the family was in the house that night and used a stun gun on JonBenet, and with that thought another comes along right behind it "My God, what if they DIDN'T do it?"

Then it gets personal to me - a personal decision I had to make to apologize for judging them for 6 years, when in truth, NONE of us are supposed to judge anyone else. I decided that to keep peace within myself, I should apologize to them for that judgment.

But I can assure you, that if it turned out today there was definitive evidence that they are guilty, then I would be apologizing to YOU GUYS for doubting you.

Again, and not to beat a dead horse, but I have NOT said I now believe them <B>innocent</b>, only that now I have <B>doubts</b> about their guilt, personal doubts, and to me and my way of thinking, if I now have doubts regarding their guilt, then I was wrong for having passed judgement against them. For 4.5 years I hung them out to dry each and every day, and I regret having done that now. So I apologized to them. I fail to see what the big uproar is about - it's only my opinion, and even if my opinion IS my FAVORITE opinion, still, it's just an opinion.
<I>
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>
No, I have had no access to anything other than anyone else has. It's just that I trusted my own eyes when I saw it for myself.

<I> 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. </I>

I don't know for sure that he did or didn't actually go through the window, all I know is what I saw wih my own eyes - that the dust was disturbed in the window well. I think possibly the window was being setup in case it needed to be used for a quick exit.

Or maybe there was an attempt to take JBR out the window and the scream stopped the game plan.

I think the scream could have been the motive for the blow to the head - to shut her up, and quickly. And once the blow was struck, then the gig's up; hang up the game plan, cause the fat lady has sung. I would think that once she screamed there was a definite change in the plans, but of course, I wasn't there and don't know. It's also possible she could have seen his face and recognized him and this necessitated the blow to the head. :::shrugs::: But I just don't know...

<I>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>

I lost most of the respect I had for Henry Lee, (which was considerable to say the least - I had followed him since the woodchipper trial) during the OJ trial when he testified that a shoe print impression in the concrete walkway (made while the cement was still damp) meant there was another person present at that crime scene. I don't think I'll ever attach the same importance to him that I once did.
<I>
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.</I>

I have not heard this about the tissue under her nails, and I don't agree with it because if there WAS actual flesh under her nails, then they'd have better DNA samples than they do.

<I> 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. </I>

I guess I better start reading ahead before I start answering huh, since I see you are about to say the same thing I did in your next sentences. But I am too lazy to retrack and restructure my answer
<I>
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. </I>

No, not entirely true, althogh in essence I guess it is. But the difference is in the fact that we have now been able to see the crime scene photos and read the depositions and interrogation transcripts and see the tapes for ourselves. We have the ST book, the PMPT book, the DOI book and although each must be weighted accordingly, they do provide information that was not available early on. At least now we can make some attempt at an intelligent decision.

As for sources, Lin Wood is an attorney, that speaks for itself I think. As a general rule I don't think much of attorneys, although there are some good ones around. I have no feelings one way or another about Lin Wood except that he IS an attorney, and my general inclination is to mistrust him for that reason. I think he may be a news hound, but I don't know the man or his character, so that may be totally off base.

Jameson is Jameson and I think her information is so biased toward favorability to the Ramseys that I have to weight that as such.
<I> 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. </i>

There's a big difference in accepting subsequent information as truth as compared to early information: It's in sworn depositions and transcripts. If we can't trust at least <B>partly</B> the information contained in those, then there's no need to be concerned with the case at all - it's too far gone to be saved.

I trust my eyes and I trust my perception; if I make mistakes in evaluating the evidence, they're my mistakes and I can blame no one but myself. There is, I believe, IIRC documentation now that the BPD did enlist the media in a plan to put pressure on the Ramseys. I will see if I can find that again.

<I> Lin Wood is the biggest spinner of all.</I>

You'll get no argument from me on this; I concur.

<I>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. </I>

Again, I concur. Although I was under the impression that the male factor stemmed from the analysis of the hair found on the blanket and not the degraded DNA under the nails, is this incorrect? It could be. But I thought the male factor was in relation to the hair.

<I>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>

Not a big spin eater myself....

<I>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>

I hear you. One of the things I used to use as an example of evidence PR wrote the note was this long convulted answer she gave one time to some question, the question itself escapes me, but could have been answered in one word: Yes or No. And I think her answer was something like 15 sentences. To me the note was like that - it said way way too much in too many words and it reminded me of her answers. There is also the whole Hence thing too, that's an issue I can't resolve....

But, the 3D people in my life demand attention and something to eat, so I must go for now. I will be back later on tonight. :::sighs::: 3D people do get in the way of my online computing at times.

Later,
Sundance

 

Well, it makes sense if the plan wasn't to kill her, but take her with him and all that went out the window :::grins wickedly::: when she screamed and he bashed her skull in. That would explain why he didn't take her with him, as well as why he didn't call for the money.

But I HAVE to go feed these people before they turn into an unruly gang. I'll be back later and try to catch up, OK?

Meanwhile, you be funny while I'm gone. I do love funny. My motto in life is:

<center><B><font color="RED">Ain't fun the very BEST thing to have?</font></B></center>

Sundance

 

Re: Welcome Sundance

</i></b>

Hey!! Where the HELL ya been ACR? I been feeling like the only one at the party in white socks and black loafers...

I'll be back, the gang has turned into a mob and are demanding to be fed. But boy, am I ever glad you're here!

:::jumps up, high fives ACR:::

Back as soon as I can Dudette...

 

The Apology

The letter of apology still gets under my skin, especially when you consider that mame and her gang participated in an almost unbelievable smear campaign of The Whites. NO ONE apologized to the Whites.

Sundance, you must have participated in the old Forum where the conspiracy theories and hatred toward the Whites was rampant, with mame leading the pack.

So, perhaps I'm jumping to a conclusion here, but I'm making the assumption that you are buying into Smit's theory, hook, line and sinker. The resemblance of your scenario to his is uncanny.

You say that you bought into the Ramsey guilt for 4.5 years, so are you saying that you changed your mind 1-1/2 years ago? Did you send the letter of apology to the Rams a year and a half ago?

You say it was your conscience that was bothering you??? Were you that nasty toward the Ramseys in your posts and on your website that you felt they needed an apology from a stranger? I'm thinking out loud here, so bear with me - you weren't afraid of a lawsuit like everyone else on the planet earth was? Lin "Sue" Wood has a very long reaching arm and I've noticed many forums have put disclaimers on them, etc. and seem to be ever vigilant of his attempts to increase the Ramsey family fortunes.

If you found out tomorrow that EVERYTHING Steve Thomas said or wrote or investigated was totally accurate, would you send him an apology?

One last thing, please REMEMBER the crime scene photos that are shown to the public were not ALL taken on the morning of the 26th and are not the actual (Police) crime scene photos.

BTW, whoever mentioned Redd Herring - is that site still up. I really liked that site. It was one of the coolest sites I had ever visited. Although, at times, it had to be revised, it was pretty accurate and very informative.

Regards,
Mandarin

 

Re: I appreciate

 

Re: Welcome, Sundance!

Hello Ayeka, thank you for saying that.

<I>
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>

Well at least I wasn't just being stoopid - I was worried there for a minute. . . I could see they were off, but thought I had to go somewhere and and select to turn them on.

:::rummages in backpack::: I have colors, let's draw on the walls before the others get back, want to?
<I>
I'd like to look at your site... if the URL was posted, I missed it. Tell me where to look.</I>

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have posted it for you this AM. I'll do better.... it's <a href="http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/new_transcripts.htm">realsundancekid.com</a>
<I>
After an initial, er, rocky start, this has turned into a good thread... looking forward to reading more.</I>

It was touch and go there for a little bit wasn't it? But, you guys will see, I'm not a lunatic, I'm not a psycho, I'm not a SwampRat and I only spit on the floor when I'm really really disgusted.

<img src="http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/oops_bear.jpg" width="60" height="60">

 

Re: The Apology

I'm sorry that you let my apology bother you, but I did what I needed to do. I don't see the connection you seem to be attempting to make between this and someone not apologizing to the Whites for something I had nothing to do with. I don't run with a gang, don't belong to a pack, and what's that got to do with the price of apples?

I was reading off and on at JW then I believe, but I didn't post much. I mostly was a worker bee, gathering up things and putting them in one spot, kind of like now.
<I>
So, perhaps I'm jumping to a conclusion here, but I'm making the assumption that you are buying into Smit's theory, hook, line and sinker. The resemblance of your scenario to his is uncanny.</I>

Now I know you've been advised before about assuming, so I won't waste my tired fingers with that.
<I>
You say that you bought into the Ramsey guilt for 4.5 years, so are you saying that you changed your mind 1-1/2 years ago? Did you send the letter of apology to the Rams a year and a half ago?</I>
No, I said that my change of stance in being RockSolidSure began about 4 or so months ago... maybe a little more. I left the cesspool that was the forums and lost track of what was happening in the case about a year or so ago I guess it was.

And why does it bother you so that I apologized to anyone about anything? Maybe you should examine what's up with that.
<I>
You say it was your conscience that was bothering you??? Were you that nasty toward the Ramseys in your posts and on your website that you felt they needed an apology from a stranger? </I>
Well, I'll put it this way - once when Jameson was referring to the "LynchMobHatetheRamseys" crowd, the example she used was mine; it said in big letters that I hoped the Ramseys choked on a piece of steak lodged firmly in their throats. So, yeah, I guess you could say I was not nice at all.
<I>
I'm thinking out loud here, so bear with me - you weren't afraid of a lawsuit like everyone else on the planet earth was? Lin "Sue" Wood has a very long reaching arm and I've noticed many forums have put disclaimers on them, etc. and seem to be ever vigilant of his attempts to increase the Ramsey family fortunes.</I>

Well, it reads to me like you're just trying to bust my butt here and out to dispute every word I say, but I can deal with it. No, I wasn't afraid of being sued. The ones getting sued were the papers and Lin Wood wasn't as visible then as he is now. I wasn't very smart about it I guess, but, no, I wasn't afraid of being sued.
<I>
If you found out tomorrow that EVERYTHING Steve Thomas said or wrote or investigated was totally accurate, would you send him an apology?</I>

Since I've never maligned or spoken with ill-will toward or about Steve Thomas, no I wouldn't send him an apology.
<I>
One last thing, please REMEMBER the crime scene photos that are shown to the public were not ALL taken on the morning of the 26th and are not the actual (Police) crime scene photos.</I>

Yes, I picked up on that pretty quickly. It's not that hard to tell the difference.

 

Re: Welcome Sundance

1. I don't think I fully comprehend the sequence of events about the chair yet, and haven't had time to check into it much with all the webtime I've been putting in. I read where someone had posted some excerpts from the NE book about it I think, and maybe in DOI . . .

(And speakin gof DOI, ACR... GET OUT! what a <U>fantastic</U> job you have done on that index! You are the Queen of Order on the Net! :::bows deeply from waist::: Good job I say!)

Anyway, the way I understand it, and please fill in the cracks, is that JR saw the chair there the first time he went to the basement, and we don't know if Fleet White saw it or not since we haven't heard from him, and I think I read that Officer French does not mention it in his report? And then something about JR saying he moved the chair and then put it back? What's up with that Dudette? Do I have the sequence correct?

2. When I read it, it got my attention, I tell you that. I read about the difference when she came back from the break or lunch or whatever it was. . . my question on this is why she would even think in her mind that she saw it on her hand that MORNING; the last time she saw her was that night, and she wasn't supposed to have seen her at ALL until after 1 PM? So even if she came back and said she couldn't remember whether she had actually SEEN it or just HEARD or READ about it, the word MORNING should not have even been in the equation, at least to my way of thinking.

Bad command or filename. Danger Will Robinson.

What's your take on it Dudette?

 

Volley

**But I can assure you, that if it turned out today there was definitive evidence that they are guilty, then I would be apologizing to YOU GUYS for doubting you.

<b>I don't think it is necessary to apologize for having an opinion, so no apology needed here, Sundance.</b>



**No, I have had no access to anything other than anyone else has. It's just that I trusted my own eyes when I saw it for myself.

<b>The problem I have with this is that some of the photos that appeared on the TV programs with Smit as participant were taken days and even weeks after the crime was committed and after the evidence collectors were long gone from the scene. This is one case where you cannot trust your own eyes because you cannot trust the pictures to accurately show the scenes as they were on December 26, 1996. I'm not saying all of the pictures were taken afterward, but some of them were. Smit took a lot of those pictures himself. He didn't come on the case until weeks after the crime. It's not difficult to figure out those pictures do not accurately depict the crime scene.

Another thing - the basement window has been replaced since the crime, and when Smit slithered down that window well, there was a new and different style window there. To me, that isn't being honest.</b>


***I don't know for sure that he did or didn't actually go through the window, all I know is what I saw wih my own eyes - that the dust was disturbed in the window well. I think possibly the window was being setup in case it needed to be used for a quick exit.

<b>Lou Smit did go through that window on national TV - that is a fact. He didn't do it without contorting himself, and he didn't do it without swiping his body on every part of that window well. Yet, they want us to believe an intruder came through that window without leaving a fiber or a hunk of skin and without bringing in outdoor debris as well as everything on that ledge.</b>

Or maybe there was an attempt to take JBR out the window and the scream stopped the game plan.

<b>Maybe. However, the woman who claimed to have heard the scream has pretty much retracted her story - she isn't even sure she heard a scream. She has discredited herself. If she didn't hear the scream as she first stated, then possible scenarios structured around the scream can't be credited. But, say the scream really did occur - that doesn't eliminate a parent's involvement nor does it prove intruder involvement.</b>


***I lost most of the respect I had for Henry Lee, (which was considerable to say the least - I had followed him since the woodchipper trial) during the OJ trial when he testified that a shoe print impression in the concrete walkway (made while the cement was still damp) meant there was another person present at that crime scene. I don't think I'll ever attach the same importance to him that I once did.

<b>I won't argue with you on this one because I agree about Lee and the Simpson trial. I was sick over that. Nonetheless, I do believe him on the DNA evidence in this case. Look at what Baden did. I had the utmost respect for Baden before the Simpson trial. He was called in on a murder investigation right here in my city after the body was exhumed. He overturned the original cause of death, with good reason, and the DA got convictions on his testimony. He was dead right in that instance, because eyewitnesses accounts backed him up. I wish neither of these experts had prostituted himself for the Simpson defense, but it seems nothing was the way it should have been in that trial. It doesn't change the fact that they are both excellent pathologists.</b>


**I have not heard this about the tissue under her nails, and I don't agree with it because if there WAS actual flesh under her nails, then they'd have better DNA samples than they do.

<b>There was a grass-roots, internet reporter in Boulder who claimed to know there was flesh under JB's fingernails that came from her fighting for her life. This so-called reporter is personally acquainted with Lou Smit. Smit claims JB fought for her life. These same people say the petechiae on JB's neck, which were identified as petechiae by the coroner who did the autopsy) were actually fingernail marks and scratches from JB trying to get the ligature from her neck. Another example of how photographs can lie, I suppose. I looked at those photos but saw no scratch marks. Maybe we see what we want to see, but I also looked at autopsy photographs of people who had been strangled by ligature, and the gouge marks on their necks were plain and visable.</b>



***No, not entirely true, althogh in essence I guess it is. But the difference is in the fact that we have now been able to see the crime scene photos and read the depositions and interrogation transcripts and see the tapes for ourselves. We have the ST book, the PMPT book, the DOI book and although each must be weighted accordingly, they do provide information that was not available early on. At least now we can make some attempt at an intelligent decision.

<b>I've already dealt with the crime scene photos - they can't be trusted because they came from an investigator who took his own pictures but didn't enter the scene until months after the crime. Some may have been actual crime scene photos but others were pictures of certain areas of the basement and such that were taken after the fact. That isn't playing fair.</b>


**There's a big difference in accepting subsequent information as truth as compared to early information: It's in sworn depositions and transcripts. If we can't trust at least partly the information contained in those, then there's no need to be concerned with the case at all - it's too far gone to be saved.

<b>I will agree with you on this, but the fact remains, the past couple of years the media has been saturated with Ramsey spinmasters, Smit being one of them, Wood another. Boulder authorities have said nothing at all. Also, my perception of what is in those depositions and transcripts must be different from your perception, though. The Ramsey depositions show them in an extremely bad light, IMO, with many contradictions and "I don't remembers (especially from Patsy)."</b>


**I trust my eyes and I trust my perception; if I make mistakes in evaluating the evidence, they're my mistakes and I can blame no one but myself. There is, I believe, IIRC documentation now that the BPD did enlist the media in a plan to put pressure on the Ramseys. I will see if I can find that again.

<b>I don't always trust my eyes, because what my eyes are seeing may not be accurate. I also trust my perceptions but not totally. The problem with evaluating the evidence is that we don't have all the evidence, and the evidence we do have isn't really evidence - it's hearsay, with transcripts and depositions being the exception.</b>


** I was under the impression that the male factor stemmed from the analysis of the hair found on the blanket and not the degraded DNA under the nails, is this incorrect? It could be. But I thought the male factor was in relation to the hair.

<b>No, the identification of male DNA was allegedly made in JBR's underpants and under her fingernails (which was said to be degraded and old/cracked). The underbelly/pubic/chest (???) hair has been said to have been identified as belonging to the older Ramsey daughter. This, too, is hearsay, so I can't swear as to the truth of it. Never have I read that the microchondrial DNA tests done on the hair revealed it to be a male hair.</b>


Regarding the stun gun theory - it is exactly that - a theory spun out by the detective who has stated, in so many words, he was going to work for the Ramseys - Lou Smit. I too have seen the photographs of the stun-gunned pig. I can't say for sure there was no stun gun used. What I can say for sure is that the expert, Doberson, I believe his name is, discredited himself in this case when he said no one, including himself, could identify stun gun marks by looking at a photograph. Later on, he claimed he said that before he saw all the photographs in the possession of the BPD and now he could testify those marks were made by a stun gun. Put this guy on the witness stand and the prosecution will impeach him with his own words - no one can positively identify stun gun marks from a photograph.

That leaves exhumation. Boulder authorities do not need the Ramseys' permission to exhume JBR's body, although the Ramseys could try to block an exhumation in court. I'm not sure all the legal steps authorities have to take, but I'm pretty sure a judge can issue a court order to exhume a body. The Ramseys have made it clear they don't want JB's body disturbed. The BPD hasn't seemed inclined to exhume JBR's body because they apparently have experts who agree those marks are NOT stun gun marks.

The only way to know is to exhume JBR's body. Even now her body may be intact enough to get that tissue and examine it microscopically. Or maybe not, but under the circumstances, it's put up or shut up. Bring her up and reexamine her. As matters stand right now, there is no proof, other than photographs that cannot be examined microscopically to determine underlying damage that a Ramsey-supporting detective and an expert who has impeached himself claim are stun gun marks. If I were sitting on the jury, that wouldn't be enough to convince me, especially in light of other experts' testifying negatively on the stun gun theory.

Time for me to get to work.

 

I'm still waiting to find out what has come out lately that would cause anyone to change his or her mind? All of this stuff is years old.

 

I know. But I've considered the Intruder theory and it doesn't line up with the evidence. Staging explains all the evidence. I'm outta here.

 

As far as I can tell....

Only one pathologist believes those are possibly stun gun marks and that is Doberson. I could be wrong but I think there is more than one forensic pathologist that says they probably aren't stun gun marks.

The autopsy describes them as abrasions, not burns. I would think Dr. Meyer would know the difference. (I believe he is not a forensic pathologist but differentiating between an abrasion and a burn is well within his scope of practice.) And he has actually seen the wounds unlike Doberson.

The problem I have with the theory that the whack to the head came in response to the scream is that it seems to me if it was an intruder and he/she whacked a child over the head to stop a scream they would then get the heck out of there as fast as possible and wouldn't stay to strangle her. The strangling must have come after the scream because strangling intense enough to cause petechiae would render her unable to scream, imo.

 

For Mandarin

Here is Redd Herring's site:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/gone_with_the_spin.html

 

Yeah, All Right!! This thread reminds me of the (very early) good ole days at the JW Forum - to wit, opinions and theories were expressed on both sides with no "meanness" and hostility. Glad to see Sundance here…

I believe everyone here knows that I have never maligned or spoken with ill-will toward or about the Ramseys nor have I ever accused any Ramsey of killing JonBenet. I joined the JW Forum just a few months after JBR was killed simply to get information about the JBR case that wasn’t available to those of us on the east coast (who didn’t have cable at the time). Two forums and six years later, I'm still saying "I don't know who killed JBR."

For many, many months, I was a fence-sitter. For all the reasons so expertly presented by BobC, WY, Lurker, FedoraX, Tricia, etc., I did not believe an "intruder" bent on kidnapping or rape killed JonBenet, but I had no suspects. As time passed, Ramsey family members became my prime suspects because of their actions, not media coverage. When someone (even Lou Smit) offers up a reasonable suspect, I will be glad to put him/her on my short list of suspects…

And, by-the-way, “living legend†detective or not, Lou Smit did, in reverse, the same thing that Steve Thomas and the BPD have been accused of doing – he made-up his mind that the Ramseys are innocent and has conviently discarded any “evidence†that does not support this theory… WY’s “the ransom note is like that elephant in the living-room†to Lou is classic.

Anyhow, I love this thread… it reminds me of just how many articulate, intelligent posters we have here (even that lazy, out of work Bad BobC).

 

Random, not Ransom, Notes

Texan is right. Dobersen is the only path who said the marks look like SG marks, but he did not see the slides, and MANY of the paths who disagree with him did. It is not the place of case insiders to abrogate their vows of silence to counter this lunacy -- it will be dealt with later.

Just look at the autopsy report. How many red marks are there, eh??? Smit and Dobie replicated one set and ignored others which have varying dimensions and specifics. If that doesn't tell you they set out to cook the books, I don't know what does!

Mamesey Ramesey was the creator of the flesh under the nails hoax, but then she also told us Kevin Costner was dead, a barking dog doesn't bother anyone, and that I killed her chance of getting a phony on 60 Minutes, when I had nothing to do with that and the show itself realized mame and her golden goose were cooked.

In fact, mame and Lou should take a course on DNA from BobC and WY. They would learn a great deal. But that would require a willingness to learn, and neither of them shows a propensity for intellect.

Sundance, did you send a hard copy or email of your apology to the Ramseys? I have to agree with Mandarin, sorry. It sounds like someone shook your tree. If that's the case you should show the same temerity you're using to address posters here (though you missed me, alas) and tell them to bugger off. Or you might state that you regret the steak choking line and offer to cut their meat if that would help.

As for "not judging," juries do that all the time, thank God.

Hey, Lurker, about St. Paul's "conversion"... did he used to be hetero? ;-)