Sundance Kid

What? Mame said there was FLESH under the figernails? All you need is one skin cell, sometimes just a partial skin cell, to get a complete DNA strand. If flesh were there this case would have been solved the first month.

People who cannot fathom how tiny DNA is really annoy me. The fact that they had to regenerate the strands tells me that this DNA was degraded or the cell it came from was damaged pretty badly. If a little girl was scratching for her life she'd have quite a few skin cells and maybe even blood under her nails and just having one cell intact would be all you needed to make a definitive match.

This isn't rocket science. If this were a pedophile murder there'd be saliva, semen, all kinds of cells on the body for the forensics guys to identify. Semen and salive were not there anymore because this body was scrubbed down. Pedophiles don't stick around to tidy up the place.

 

Smit's Intruder Theory

Okay, here is my rant...............

My biggest problem with Smit's intruder theory is that things he says to back his claims don't make sense to me. I will get to more of that later........

But the BIGGIE is that he never includes in any of his presentation documentaries that the window was already broken by none other than John Ramsey.

He never mentions that John stated he found the already broken window partially open that morning and that he (John Ramsey) personally closed it and latched it himself. Smit just say there is an open window to prove his intruder theory.

He never mentions that John stripped down to his fruit of the looms except his shoes and socks and slithered his body in that window and that it could have been John's own shoes that made that scuff mark on the wall.

He never mentions that Fleet White moved the suitcase that morning and that BOTH Fleet White and John Ramsey returned together to the broken window and that both men picked up pieces of glass that morning and moved them.

He never mentions that John Ramsey never had the broken window repaired. He never mentions that Patsy claims she was down there sweeping up the glass.

Now I am not saying this proves or disproves an intruder but let's tell the whole story instead of only Smit's version of what he thinks happened so the viewing audience (and ME) around the world where they are broadcasting those shows can make up their own minds. What Smit is doing is no different than what the media was doing on the flip side against the Ramseys. His intruder theory is just coming across in my opinion as damage control.

If Smit wants ME to believe his intruder theory then the first thing he can do is tell me when those crime scene photographs he is using were taken, were they ALL from early morning of December 26th or somewhere within the ten days the police had control of the house or after the Ramseys investigators took over the house or even months later when he and Thomas went into the house? Were they from still shots or from the video tape that was done that morning? He is basically saying that all the very early morning reports by the BPD are totally bogus.

One of the photographs shows the white blanket on the floor of the windowless room with "silver" color duct tape on it and it is being used by Smit as one of the crime scene photos yet John Ramsey said the duct tape he pulled off JonBenet's mouth was "black" tape. So when was that crime scene photo taken and why is there "silver" tape stuck to the blanket?

I personally have never judged the Ramseys by the media reports and certainly not the tabloids as a whole. Oh sure I read them and I include them on my site as part of the documented history following this case (hard copies next to the toilet) and sometimes there are bits and pieces of information that makes me go 'hmmmm' but I am fully capable of separating spin from truth.

Even though the media has done their number on the Ramseys (moreso with the tabloids), I personally have never made a decision based on those media reports. Sure that is about all we had when we all began following this case (along with some having a secret source here and there and some great sleuthing minds too), that and the very early talk shows but again I am capable of separating the white rice from black rice. I know the difference between viewing entertainment and serious discussion.

I don't know who killed JonBenet Ramsey but I have strong feelings that somebody in that house knows who it was even if it wasn't a family member. The ransom note is a target against John Ramsey yet he has no clue in the world who could have hated him enough to get revenge.

The suspicion that makes my eyebrow raise is the lack of interest the Ramseys have shown to really sleuth out this case. Oh sure they speak good words, some verbal, some written but that is all they are, words. Everytime John Ramsey opens his mouth I feel like am sitting at a board meeting with him giving a speech. Patsy is about one of the biggest slobs in America and everytime I hear her say, "no means no!" I want to ask myself why didn't she apply that to her daily life yet she expects us to believe that "no means no."

I am tired of reading or hearing about their selective memory and the their lack of answering a question and their lack of then asking their own questions to themselves or offering feedback in response to being asked a question and lack of providing some feedback so additional questions can be asked and answered. The BPD must have felt like they were talking to a brick wall trying to squeeze information out of them.

Take the pineapple issue for instance. The Ramseys make it sound like Burke or JonBenet would never get up in the middle of the night and eat that pineapple. Maybe the pineapple has nothing to do with the murder but it is possible that either of the two children could have woke up and went to the kitchen and ate the pineapple so why deny it. I mean to imagine this perverted intruder getting JonBenet pineapple and telling her to sit and eat it while he is writing the ransom note or essembling the garrote is beyond anything I can vision.

Instead of just saying they didn't give JonBenet pineapple then start thinking of how that bowl could have got on the table. It was fresh pineapple so was there fresh pineapple in the frig and since it was fresh pineapple then it had to be cut opposed to opening a can of say Dole pineapple chunks. And no, Dole pineapple chunks are not googy as Patsy describes it. The Ramseys say they want open communication but they don't offer to communicate a reasonable explanation. Instead it is just "I don't remember" or "I don't know."

Sure the BPD suspected them early in the case and I can understand why.

And don't even get me started on DOI. After reading many of the BPD interview transcripts from NE, CourtTV and 48Hours (along with that unavailable but not necessarily missing timeline) I can now see with my own eyes where a lot of the resource material came from to write that book. And believe me, I have read DOI front to back, back to front, inside out, upside down, between the lines and standing on my head. I have spent more time over and over again reading DOI than any other book on this case.

I know how it feels to lose a child under unexplained circumstances and my 24 year old sister-in-law was murdered by her husband in front of her two small children as he hit her with a baseball bat and then stabbed her over and over again. My best girlfriend's husband turned out to be the one who raped a young girl on a bike path in our metro park system and I was a major witness to seeing him later that day that exposed his lies. It cost me my friend who couldn't believe the truth. I am well aware of all the emotions one goes through and the support system that is needed, not just the day something tragic happened but every day for years.

Even after six years of following this case I still have questions and there are issues I just can't get past. Even after having all the transcripts (legal and public appearances) and depositions and now the police interviews, I still say to myself, "There is something they are not telling us." On one side of their mouths they are saying they are just ordinary people and on the other side they are painting themselves too perfect.

How come they never said anything in DOI about where that "Fat Cat" phrase could have come from? Was it because they didn't want it to point at their friends, the Westmorelands in Atlanta?

How come John Ramsey never said anything in DOI about him trying to find his ex-mistress wondering if that maybe came back to haunt him with JonBenet's death? Was it because that would have taken away from his Christian image?

And how come John Ramsey was wandering around the house to different floors doing this and that during the period of time when he was suppose to be answering the telephone if the kidnapper(s) called? Who cares if he didn't know if tomorrow meant that day or the next day. Why was he upstairs looking for the kidnapper(s) out of the window when he was suppose to be waiting at the telephone for the kidnapper(s) to call? What if the telephone rang while he was wandering around in the basement and he missed the call?

How come they didn't wake up Burke and ask him if he heard anything during the night? Sure he would have been upset, the whole family was upset but he was there in that house and that was his sister who was missing. So what if he was only nine years old. Was the child's mental state of mind that bad prior to the murder that they didn't think he might offer some information?

What if Burke had been murdered and was lying under those covers dead and they just ran to the door, opened it, turned the light on and then just turned it off and said they might as well leave him sleeping?

What if this intruder was still in the house? And they left Burke all alone up in that room? I mean I can understand them being frantic but they had another child in that house who, in my opinion, they showed total disregard to his safety. Then they allowed Burke to be taken to the very home for safety that they had no problem with turning in that family as suspects.

The Ramsey have pages and pages in DOI on how everything reminded them of Beth's death and how it added to their devastation, shock and having to be medicated and how every turn of an event surrounding JonBenet's death investigation came back to haunt them with reminders of Beth's death.

Yet on January 8, 1997 when their son, Burke was interviewed at Child Advocacy Center the Ramseys never said one word in DOI that that was the same date that Beth died five years earlier. All their devastation reminders of Beth's death in DOI was associated with JonBenet and never Burke.

Okay, I am done ranting for the night.

ACandyRose

 

Re: Volley 2

Good evening WY, how are you?
<I>**
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. **</I>

<B>Yeah, I am aware that some of the photos were taken later than the 26th - in some of them it was very obvious. The autopsy photos made a big impression on me. I've worked in hospitals since 1975 in ER and Surgery (I was a critical care Respiratory Therapist before I threw my life away on computers) and still those photos of her skull were amazing. The force behind that head blow was massive to say the least. </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 with 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.

<I>**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.**</i>

<B>Oh, sorry, I wasn't being clear I guess - it was very late last night when I was posting. I know Lou Smit went through the window, when I made the statement above about not being sure if "he" went through the window or not, I was referring to the possible intruder, not Lou Smit. Again, I probably was not very clear about it</b>

<I>**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.**</i>

<B>Yes, I knew about her changing her story. I think she at first said that she felt JBR's 'negative energy', if I remember correctly. However, the husband has not backed off hearing the metal grating on concrete sound to my knowledge. Or maybe he has and I don't know about it. </b>

<I>** 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.**</i>

<B>This is true. Everyone makes mistakes. I bet Lee regrets the OJ trial, but it still doesn't change the fact that he is not only a excellent pathologist, but he's very intelligent as well. And I don't fault him nearly as much as I do Johnny Cochran; talk about a circus side-show...</B>

<i>**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. **</i>

<B>I concur. I did not equate the marks on her neck above the ligature to with an attempt by her to fight, although I don't doubt that she did struggle. But to me, the marks Lou Smit is referring to look more like petechiae than scratch marks to me.</B>

<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 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.</I>

<i>**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. **</I>

<B>The saturation started out huge and has only gained mass as it rolls on, and I think the frustration level must be about mach 1 for the people involved. The media was like a bottomless pit of hunger that had to be fed, and the whole shooting match was just a circus. Although I have to admit, I was one of the ones who was glad to have any information at all about the case, so I can't say much I guess.</B>

<I>**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).**</i>

<B>Yeah, she had selective memory on many things, and I think she was heavily medicated for months afterward which doesn't help to improve recall. I was more intrigued with the logistics of the event and what happened before and after - for example, I remember that there was talk of JBR being sick in bed Christmas day and as it turns out, she wasn't sick at all. So things such as this were cleared up, in my mind anyway. </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.

<i>**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.**</i>

<B>The autopsy photos aren't hearsay, they speak volumes about the violence that was inflicted on that poor child. I do not think that being shoved into something, or falling against the tub after being pushed would have caused such a massive fracture. It would take tremendous force to crack her skull that way. </b>


<I>**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.**</i>

<B> Thanks for that info. I believe I read on another forum though that the hair belonging to Melinda was not true. But I can't remember who was saying it, so take that with a huge grain of salt. The first time I heard about it, it was supposed to be Melinda's palmprint on the door, do you have any info about the veracity of that?</B>

<I>**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.**</I>

<B>You are right about that - he would be eaten alive on the stand. If there is one thing we should have learned from the OJ Circus, it's that your own words can and will come back to bite you in the butt. However, I believe the marks on JBR's back and face to be from a stun gun. It may turn out I'm wrong, but it won't be the first nor last time that happens. </b>

<I>**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. **</I>

<B>Another thing I learned from The Simpson Matter is that experts are a dime a dozen. For the right money you can have them say whatever you want. There are always experts who support one side or the other, and at times they cancel each other out. Other times they can add to the value of the evidence in the case, but seems to me that the majority of the time they only muddy the waters with contradictory testimony.

I would be interested to learn if there could be a definitive answer from an exhumation versus a subjective answer. Again, I think it might depend on the quality of the embalming, coupled with the condition of the casket and/or vault and considering the length of time that has passed, but that's only an opinion. Do you have a source that could answer this for us?</B>

Take care,
Sundance

 

Seeing the photos with my own eyes, especially after years of reading others describe them.

 

Thanks Tricia.

<I>To me they are guilty. Yes it's hard for me too when someone can't see what I think is so plain.

However I am very glad Sundance is here and talking. I love it when someone can logically discuss a different point of view.

The fact that Sundance has been here and basically in the thick of it from the beginning makes her/his stance that much more interesting. Remember Sundance is only saying she/he is not 100 percent sure about their guilt. </I>

Thank you again. It's good to hear that someone is listening to what I say.

Although I still don't see why my changing from a '100% sure they're guilty' to a 'I thnk there's a possiblity they are not' has caused so much uproar and disapproval. To me it's a personal decision. It's not like it's a big deal or it changes anything or affects anyone.

Or as if I were trying to change everyone's mind, or fault them for what they think. I was minding my own business and simply responded to being summoned here. I know BobC said he was bored, but surely there must be more important things to discuss than my change of opinion.

I will admit to feeling like I was encircled by hungry wolves just waiting for me to step wrong in this forum, but there have been some polite and kind posters that have addressed me as well, yourself included, and that's nice; it outweighs the other feeling.

I enjoy intelligent discussion and appreciate being allowed to register here, and I thank you for your kindness and ability to see where I'm coming from. It's not necessary that you agree with me, and I have no expectations of that, but we can still conduct intelligent conversations without agreeing. I can, and I hope others here can as well. It's diversity of opinion that sparks intelligent discussion I think.

Anyway, thank you.

Take care,
Sundance

 

Hello Shadow, nice to see you again. Long time since the days of JW isn't it?

You take care now,
Sundance

 

Re: Smit's Intruder Theory

Good catch BJ, and a good question. I wonder if this photo was one of the reenactments?

 

Re: Smit's Intruder Theory

Dudette, here's something we need to research - the whole Jeff Merreck thing with John. (I think it's Merreck) The story goes that they were friends for almost 20 years and then JR suddenly moved Merreck into another division or department, and then just a short while later that dept/position was phased out and Jeff M was out in the cold.

DOI speaks of it slightly, but of course that's only one side of the story. I'd like to hear more about it. Not that I think Merreck is a suspect in the murder, but more that I am curious as to what really happened. Do you know more about it?

 

Re: Smit's Intruder Theory

And why did he shut the window, move the chair back and then NOT mention it to the police upstairs on the first floor? When in DOI he says that he went to see about the window because it could have been an access point? And why didn't he mention the strange car he said he saw out the window?

<I>**How come they didn't wake up Burke and ask him if he heard anything during the night? Sure he would have been upset, the whole family was upset but he was there in that house and that was his sister who was missing. So what if he was only nine years old. Was the child's mental state of mind that bad prior to the murder that they didn't think he might offer some information?**</I>

I know that we can never say what we'd do in a given situation until we're actually in it, but I believe that waking Burke to ask him if he'd seen or heard anything would have been one of my first responses. After all, he could have had information that may have been vital to the return of JBR for all anyone knew.

 

Hello, is this microphone on?

WY, the hair was deemed to be Patsy's. The palmprint, Melinda's. As per Brennan's piece.

Investigate Merrick? So we can see another innocent person brutalized? I'll pass.

Do Ram-fans realize how close Patsy was to being arrested? The warrant was filled out, just not finalized. Doesn't that kinda tell you the cops knew what they were doing? They just lacked the oomph to get a solid conviction.

----------

Lurker, while I'm here...

Another killer doctor in New York!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/50388p-47293c.html

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/52987.html

 

Wow!

Hey allright! Everyone has such detailed posts, that actually my head is spinning.

I wish the 'stun gun' theory would go away since neither side seems willing to go the final distance to prove it one way or the other. It's a moot point to me, in that case, so everyone should either fish or cut bait on that issue. Besides even if every one were on the same team, the stun gun could apply to the Ramseys or an intruder. Nobody one one side will ever convince anybody on the other side - of that I am sure.

Love that line about the ransom note being the elephant in the room that just won't go away for Lou. Was that you WY?

Speaking of Lou, I lost every bit of respect I could ever garner for him, the night I watched him with Diane Sawyer in the Ram's basement pointing out the window. Even when she questioned him about the window, he neglected to tell her that it was not the same window. He no longer is dealing with a full deck and I actually question whether he was an unbiased detective to begin with. It may sound like paranoia, but I have actually entertained the thought that he was brought into the Ram case to throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings.

"Sometimes crimes are just what they seem". Can you believe these were the words of our Lou Smit? Looks like Lou doesn't listen to his own words.

The crime scene is just what it seems ... plain and simple ... a little girl overkilled, found dead in her parent's basement, and the mother of all ransom notes neatly displayed across the staircase. Staged crime scene - end of story.

BTW, regarding the media hammering the Rams???? I don't remember it like that at all. Whenever I turned on CNN, MSNBC, 48 hours or any other show, it appears to me that it was always 2 for the Rams side and 2 for the other side. It actually got to be pretty boring. The Rams had their very own personal crocks and The Tabloids, well, they do what they do and stangely, some times they get a few facts right.

Like most here, I've become pretty good at judging what is spin and what is not and have acquired the ability to cancel each side out when the situation requires it.

Anyway, great posts everyone - haven't seen this amount of activity in a long time. Gotta run, off to the airport to pick up our daughter.

Regards,
Mandarin

 

Bravo

Welcome SunDance - You have been around the forums long enough to understand the anxiety that goes around with a new arrival. This group has taken great meassures to provide an arena for those here not on the forums for game playing or case muddling. Quite a Select Crew we have here at FFJ, I wouldn't be surprised if this group's case knowledge and common sense results in you picking up the phone and saying "Patsy, about that apology......."

Thanks Fed - yes, it was Patsy's hair. Not a word from Lou. Not a word about the chair in front of the door. Not a word about the Ramseys admitting that Burke was awake that morning. No wonder ten percent of his cases went unsolved!

ACR - please rush down and fill out an employment application at the DA's office on Boulder. JonBenet needs somone to refute the BULLSMIT back underway.

SunDance - did you notice my avatar? It's a picture of Pasy posing over JonBenet's grave. Patsy has her hands around her own throat. Enlarge it for the full effect and let me know your thoughts!

RR

 

uhhhh I can't actually go along with much of anything on this thread. The ramseys were there in the home with their murdered little girl and a staged crime scene. Suggesting that anybody BUT the Ramseys should be put through the meat-grinder, while THEY themselves are anything but cleared, is absurd.That is NOT how an investigation is run.

Except when the prime suspects are millionaires.

You know what I think? I think this is boredom. I'm not about to give these creeps any slack because I already did that six years ago before I knew the evidence against them. We may never know exactly what happened that night or why but these people are as guilty as hell.

 

Thank God for Sundance

The vast array of characters associated with this case cover the gambit from the extraordinarily dedicated to the evil and corrupt. They are the baseball toting pasta makers, Lonely Santa’s, dressmakers, housekeepers, convicts, D.A.’s with deep pockets, rabble-rousers, cowards, money grubbers, liars, thieves, arsonists and a Police Chief who sounded like Gomer Pyle.

There’s the Grand Jury who was intimidated, and the ham sandwich that couldn’t get indicted. There are the convoluted “clues,†including the extraordinary spider, which spun his web, overnight, in freezing weather. There’s the suitcase, under the window, with a blanket inside, saturated with JAR’s sperm. There’s the never ending “ransom note,†with its’ idiotic ramblings, phony instructions, and looking and sounding (for all the world to see) like PR’s handiwork. There are the maniac groupies with the nutty-head honcho.

There’s the female Detective who was scared silly, and the silly sister who scared everybody. There’s the “casual†father, the peek-a-boo mother, and the intendo brother. There’s the family friend who turned into the family enemy, and the Detective who formed a prayer club, and ended up stunning a pig. There’s the toothy English Professor who coined a new word: “Cockamentry.â€
There are the pink swans and that awful stripped wallpaper. There are the eight purple Christmas trees and the leg of lamb for eight. In all of Agatha Christi’s books (put together) there are not as many plots within plots, strange characters, outrageous clues, and never ending high drama.

I could go on, but enough is enough. Those who have followed the case need no explanation.

Although all this is very serious, there are moments of levity, which keeps us going; i.e., the poster with the worm farm who had amazing “insights;†the amateur “interviewer,†with the chameleon-like subject; the elusive running man; the “Betty Crocker†event; the sex glove; the robber who loved cheap jewelry; the stunned pig man; the infamous tree house; the giveaway, non-barking dog; and the man in the Gym who described JR’s manhood as no bigger around than a dime.

Thank God for Sundance. She will, God willing, set the record straight for us all.

Greenleaf

 

Re: Hello, is this microphone on?

I'm sorry, but just because it was in an article Brennan wrote doesn't mark it in stone for me.

And I should clarify that I my remark to ACR to "investigate" Merrect meant nothing more than I would like to know about the situation with the job at AG - I do not in any way think he was involved in the murder, nor have I ever. So that's what that was about, I just would like to know more about what happened with that.

 

Re: Bravo

Hello RiverRat, and thanks for your welcome. And yes, I do understand the anxiety that is caused by a new arrival on a forum and certainly appreciate that fact.

<I>Quite a Select Crew we have here at FFJ, I wouldn't be surprised if this group's case knowledge and common sense results in you picking up the phone and saying "Patsy, about that apology......."</i>

HAHAHHAHAHAAA Stranger things have happened, and I'll be the first to admit that.

Yes, I noticed your avatar, but have not looked at it closely or enlarged. I will do that. I also admit to finding several shots of PR that I felt were posed for effect, and this one fits into that category for me. But I will look at it more closely.

Thanks again for your welcome.

Take care,
Sundance

 

Re: Thank God for Sundance

Well, I don't know about that Greenleaf, but I certainly appreciate your comments. And it's nice to see you again, I remember you well from JW.

 

Re: Hello, is this microphone on?

Sorry FedoraX, I sent that reply before I was ready - I meant to go back and add another comment about the Brennan piece and the hair.

Is there a source for this that you know of? I am open to all and any information, and don't mean to imply otherwise by my shortened answer. I've only been active again in this for a short while and realize there is much that you all know that I am not even aware of, and I'm not trying to be a smartass when I ask if there's another source for the hair belonging to Patsy. I am earnest in that question.

Sundance

 

Fabulous post, Greenleaf!

You have summed it all up, with your remarkable panache, and inimitable style.

Good to have you here with us at FFJ!

 

Sundance, we all love to have

sources here at FFJ....the more the better.

And I am unanimous in that.