Sundance Kid

Greenleaf....

Great summation of this cases "wierdness factor"....would you remind me of the "Betty Crocker Incident"....sounds familiar but can't quite recall....and what was the "famous tree house"...have forgotten that one too....Does it seem to you that we are growing old here waiting for justice and our memories starting to fail us?! LOL....

Also, want to welcome Sundance....I do remember your hat from JW, Sundance but did not remember your exact philosopy or your change of heart about the Ramseys....good that you are here with us for some good review and honest debate though....

Lurker, what does the 100th post on a thread get you? Is there a prize or do you just get to start a new thread? Can't remember any of the good stuff today....what is wrong with me?

Voyager

 

To all...

Sundance, I’m glad that you didn’t take offence. I read every word of all your posts, and every word of all the replies. It left me breathless. We can all agree to disagree in a civil manner. I, for one, do not know how you reached the conclusions you reached, but you are, without doubt, the most intelligent of the “pro-Rams.†I guess I know as much about the case as anyone (except for the most recent events) and I cannot get away from the Rams guilt. It is, in my little, distorted mind, tattooed across their foreheads in big bold letters.

They talk like they’re guilty, they walk like they’re guilty, and they ACT like they’re guilty. (They even eat like they’re guilty.) I know, I know, I’m just this old demented lady, down here in the South, sipping my mint juleps, under the old magnolia trees, just waiting for the South to rise again.

Well, not really. I do have a semblance of a mind, steaming with curiosity and a desire to have mother justice visit the guilty parties and tie a noose around their necks.

As for Lou Smitty, he isn’t exactly what he appears to be. He’s a friend of Jams, for God’s sake, and has a mutual admiration society going on with mame. He slithered his skinny butt through that basement window, after the glass was cleaned up and the window was repaired. Hasn’t anyone noticed that a pig’s thick, coarse hide is a far cry from a baby’s smooth and delicate skin? Geese. I don’t have to be old Dr. Lee to figure that one out.

I heard a Detective on T.V. say that, while Smitty did an adequate job, that on most of his big, successful cases, he was a member of a team, and did not act solo. I believe that the Ramsey case came along, as his last hurrah. He milked it for all it was worth. Does anyone really believe that Smitty could be objective, after he broke bread and prayed with the Ramsey’s? Get real! That’s like the old Duke of Windsor, dinning with Hitler, and coming back to England, in an objective mode.

I have studied hand writing analysis, and the ransom note SCREAMS, “Patsy Ramsey wrote this.†Think of all the coincidences that would have to be in place to EXPLAIN away the Ramsey’s innocence. Let me count the ways. Gosh, I can’t count that high. We’ll have to consult with Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s like putting a round disc into a square hole.

Nevertheless, I am in awe of Sundance’s reasoning. She’s smart; she’s articulate; she’s personable and she’s knowledgeable; however, she has missed the boat on this one. I am so disappointed that she wrote a letter of apology to the Rams, that I almost feel like she has aided and abated the enemy. Did they communicate back with you, Sundance? I would be anxious to learn what they said. I write this in all due respect, as you certainly have a right to express your opinions. All of the posts on this thread are “an interesting read.â€

Lurker IV: Thank you for your nice comments. “What does the 100th post mean?†It means that Patsy will come to you, in your dreams, and slap you silly with a leg of lamb.

Voyager: You asked about the “Betty Crocker†incident. Well, on the old BNF, a poster started a thread, thinking she was on the Betty Crocker forum. We gave her hell. I mean it was one of the funniest threads ever. Even she came back and laughed.
You also asked about the tree house. Early on, when Jams was writing about the sex glove, she also started opining about the possibility of an intruder hiding in the Ramsey’s tree house and spying on JonBenet. After we made so much fun of her theory, she dropped it like a hot potato.
Thanks for your nice comments.

To everyone: I love your smart, wise, cocked full of information posts.
Greenleaf

 

Re: Hello, Sundance!

Hello Lurker, I'm sorry that I missed your post among the others. I hope your husband is better, and I'm sure your TLC is the best medicine he could receive. And I'm glad you told me the reason for your absence - I was beginning to think that I had been set up, and it's good to know that's not the case.

No apology necessary for the 'summons'. I'll admit I was taken aback at the intensity of the posters' questions regarding my apology for judging prematurely the Ramseys, but I think I've held my own. At least I haven't crawled off babbling into a corner as yet, so I guess I've held my own here.

The Redd Herring website is one of the few that I found to still be intact when I came back to the case after such a long absence - it is a great site isn't it?

Broken links and 404 Not Found errors were probably the deciding factor for me in putting a webpage back up. It seemed to me that there was no one place to find all the information, and very few that actually had links that still worked, and hence :::gives evil grin::: the rebirth of my website. So I dug out the files I had archived and starting sticking them up just in a table. And, as is the way with websites, soon I decided the design was in need of reworking. :::sighs::: And many hours and days later, the new design was ready and I stuck it up.

I have all sorts of documents on the site; they are not just pro ramsey by any means. Because I wanted people to be able to find things they might be looking for in the case, and not just a 404 message.

How many times I wished I had archived the threads on JW that were such a wealth of information - before they were gone.

Good to see you again, and I look forward to conversing with you on the JBR case.

Take care now,
Sundance

 

I agree with everyone about Greenleaf's posts. Actually, I respect the hell out of everyone here at this forum.

Sundance, welcome. I was not a poster during the early days cause I simply did not have internet access, nor a computer, until 2001. But I have been following the case since the beginning, nevertheless. So I am a relative newbie to the forums and do not know a lot about what was on JW before that time. I will say I have no doubt that the 3 Rams in left alive in the house that night know what happened to JonBenet. I have flip-flopped back & forth between who the killer could be, and the scenario, but will say at this point I am still up in the air on that. And Loose Mittens is a delusional old coot, altho I think he means well. But I don't care for him. I will leave it at that. Anyway, glad to see you here, and I WAS familiar with your site so knew who you were. I may have even printed stuff off from it, but would have to go look at my Ram stuff in the closet.

 

Exhumation

Tricia, sorry, it seems I missed this post as well. That's what comes of late night browsing I reckon.

I just wanted to say that I read on another forum, the Purgatory forum maybe? - a series of posts by someone whose family was in the mortician business, and she stated unequivocally that with the techniques available today, that an exhumation at this time would still be definitive in determining the use/nonuse of a stun gun. This information, if as knowledgeable as it appeared to be, would be a factor in my voting for an exhumation. Not that anyone gives a rat's butt for my vote, but....

I thought I had saved it, but then again that late at night I can't be responsible for doing things like that. I will try and find it again today, as the poster seemed to be intelligent and her answers regarding an exhumation were well thought out and informative.

Again, my apologies for missing your post. And to anyone else whose missive I have overlooked. - I assure you it was not intentional.

Take care,
Sundance

 

Re: Greenleaf....

Thank you for your welcome Voyager. I remember you from JW as well. I appreciate being here, and as I have said before, I love a good discussion.

I have found several well informed and articulate posters here on this forum, and now that the brouhaha has subsided it's much more comfortable for me to be here.

Good to see you Voyager.

Take care,
Sundance

 

Thor

Hello Thor, nice to meet you. Thanks for the welcome

I love your avatar BTW.

I just posted the Gideon Epstein deposition in the Chis Wolf suit. Lots of info in there about the handwriting analysis.

It's long, but worth the read I thought.

Tricia, I have now reviewed the rules of the forum, and all I can say is, I'll try to do better. :::shoulders slump:::

:::brightens::: But have you noticed? I haven't spit on the floor one time since I've been here.

Take care,
Sundance

 

Sundance

you said -
"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. "

Which coroner said he believes the marks are from a stun gun?
Someone other than Doberson?

What do you think about more pathologists thinking they are not stun gun marks than think they are? I know the question is confusing but I think you will know what I mean.

I don't remember where I read some remarks made by a rep. of a stun gun manufacturer that stated the stun gun would not be used to subdue someone in an attempt to make them be quiet - it would create alot of fuss and fighting from the victim. It just does not make sense that an intruder would sneak around a house at night where he/she knows the parents and brother are home and bring in a stun gun to use on a six year old that would be easily and more quietly subdued by another method. I mean, I'm sure it would be hard for any of us to put ourselves in the shoes of an intruder who would do such a thing, but if you give it some thought you may come to the same conclusion I have - it just wouldn't be necessary or very smart to use a stun gun under those circumstances.

Earlier you posted that you thought the head wound was caused by a bash on the head with an object as opposed to her falling or being shoved into something. I totally agree with that assessment. However; do you think that someone would bash a child over the head like that in response to a scream and then hang around to strangle her after that? And why strangle her after you had already hit her on the head?

I have visited your site several times in the past and I think you have done an outstanding job on it. It must represent alot of hard work.

I'm glad you came to be part of the forum. Dunvegan and all her geek helpers and then Tricia and all her geek helpers have done so much to make this a comfy place to discuss and hash different theories.

 

Kwikie for Greenleaf

I'm gonna do a 'drive-by' post here, kind like going to Wendy's.

GREENLEAF - wow! Now there's a hot I haven't seen for far too long. Sincerely missed you, thought you given up on all of us.

And your wit has not diminished one iota. Hail, hail, the gangs back here! Time to pop the champagne.

Maybe you can do some of those great .gifs you used to treat us all to, but actual you have a creative talent with words, especially when you do them with such taste.

Gotta run!

Regards,
Mandarin

 

Mandarin

Well, well, well, my old friend. So good to see you again. I haven't posted much lately, but hope to get back into the groove before long. Thank you, my dear, for your nice comments. You are a Jewel.

Best wishes,
Greenleaf

 

Thor

Thank you, Thor. You have made my day!
love,
Greenleaf

 

Hey y'all

Please scroll back to see what I posted about the abrasions. I feel this is critical info and some of it has never been discussed here.

Sundance, I trust Charlie Brennan implicitly. He has always had excellent sources and, in fact, is the only Colo. reporter I can think of who ever had a scoop that wasn't already in the hands of some other reporter (Lisa Ryckman aside, since she had Ram POV only). More important, at the time that bombshell was given to Brennan the Rs were on a media blitz. I wouldn't be surprised if one of his insiders was offended by what was going on and gave Charlie the info to provide balance.

The Brennan story knocked down several of the elements listed in DOI which pointed to an intruder. It wasn't a haphazard leak, it was purposeful. Beyond that, Charlie has layers of people who vetted that story, from his editor to the publisher to their counsel. A significant article like that would never have seen print had it not had the go-ahead from numerous sets of eyes. I consider it one of the most profound articles ever done on the case. And I notice there's been neither a retraction nor anti-spin from the Ram camp. That tells me a lot.

Anyone who watched the Elizabeth Smart/48 Hours piece last night must have enjoyed, as I did, the part where the chief detective spoke of the kitchen window being a staged entry point. He called it a "hoax." Why? Because it was too narrow for a perp to get through without leaving a lot of forensic evidence behind. Then again, maybe it just takes a special kind of person to shimmy through such a small place. Do Smit and JR have alibis for June 5, 2002?

 

Fed & Greenie

You know, interstingly neither of you ever give out your true feelings like the rest of us are so willing to do.

That's an asset you both have, I on the other hand have had to learn how to read between the lines of your articulate posts. Not an easy task. I generally look for things that pass over most people's heads. But regardless, I tend to think that Greenleaf is a very committed person with a good sense of what is logical in this insane world. Fedorax, on the other hand, with less emotions, gets right to the point, and does it well, but in a different way than Greenleaf. But, this much I'll say, in spite of our differences, I'm willing to bet that we are all cut from the same cloth, even though we do not always agree.

In any event, I'm always glad to see people like Fedorak and Greenleaf posting, because it really makes the board interesting. And it's nice to know that most of us posting have nothing against the Ramseys, but rather finding out what really happened to a little gir murdered in her parents home..

Like me, and most here, Fedorak and Greenie are simply trying to find out what went wrong in what appeared to be a very upwardly mobile home in Boulder on Dec 26th/1996.

I guess we'll never get it out of our systems, even if we don't become 'lifers" on any given discussion forum

Regards,
Mandarin p.s. sooooooooooo Glad Greenie came back!

 

Volley and folly

I have seen the error of my ways, Sundance. When first this thread commenced, I was sure I had read elsewhere that you had swung completely to the Rams Camp, apologized in writing to them that you were wrong about them and asked forgiveness for judging them. There is an example of perception misconception for you. I've seen this type of thing happen over and over on the forums - it's also how the rumor mill works - one person misconstrues the words of another, repeats it with his/her own spin, and pretty soon, well, we all know what happens.

Nonetheless, that misconception has sparked a great thread and some thought-provoking posts. The truth is that Sundance has not decided the Ramseys are innocent; she has stated that she now has some doubts while acknowledging there is still plenty of incriminating evidence against the Ramseys. Did I get that right, Sundance?

The trouble I'm having now is with all the excellent reasons put forth on this thread of why the Ramseys are prime candidates for having been involved in this murder, I've seen nothing that explains to me why you (Sundance) have enough doubts as to have stirred your conscience to apologize to the Ramseys for judging them. You have agreed with some of the top reasons to suspect them but have used Lou Smit's presentation of autopsy pictures and his spin to create doubt in your own mind.

Just as there is said to be no smoking gun (although I disagree - the ransom note is a smoking gun to me) in this case, neither is there anything of substance that I can see that could negate all the evidence pointing toward the Ramseys. I had hoped you could provide that something of substance to explain your doubts, but what I understand now is that you have changed your opinion based on your interpretation of the autopsy pictures. I accept your opinion and respect it but I don't agree with your interpretation (or Smit's or Doberson's) of those pictures, and while I love discussing the facts of the case as we know them, my logical mind now tells me we can volley back and forth forever but to what end? The facts are the facts, and the fact is no one can prove those marks are stun gun marks without exhuming JB's body and perhaps not even then. Why, then, are they even an issue? Why use an unprovable perception as reason to doubt other undeniable evidence against the Ramseys?

The best evidence is the autopsy, flawed though some may think it is, and the ransom note, which, IMO, implicates Patsy, no doubts in my mind. Under extreme pressure from the RST, Meyers did say the marks in question on JBR "could be stun gun marks," but so could they be cigarette burns or marks from fingers or knuckles pressing into the flesh when the ligature was tightened or simply abrasions as Meyers first identifed them as being. The truth is, those pictures do not identify the cause of those marks, and that is a fact. So, saying the marks "could be" stun gun marks just doesn't cut it - there COULD BE aliens among us, too; in fact, I'm sure many of them hang out at Purgeatory, but I can't prove it.

Additionally, even if those abrasions (identified as such by the pathologist who did the autopsy and saw them first-hand) were stun gun marks, that does not preclude either parent from having committed the crime. I personally think lots of evidence went out the door with the Ramseys that day - no one questioned anything they took with them in Patsy's purse or any luggage they took. Big mistake.

This thread has generated renewed interest and it shows the depth of knowledge of many of our posters on the JBR case. I am afraid, though, that there cannot really be extended debate meant to come to a conclusive result when opinion is based merely on perception and none of the parties involved have the facts - were they or were they not stun gun marks? Only scientific examination of the affected tissue can prove or disprove that theory, and no one has seemed willing to pursue that avenue. I can't change Sundance's doubts based on her perceptions (or mine) no more than she can change my opinions based upon her perceptions. I need real meat to sink my teeth into, and I haven't seen any regarding the stun gun theory. Someone prove to me those marks were stun gun marks and then let the debate begin on what that could mean. It is folly to debate whether they are cause for doubt of Ramsey guilt, or innocence, when we don't even know what they are for sure.

One more thing - BobC keeps saying it and we keep blowing him off - why would an intruder need to stage a crime scene? Whether JBR was killed accidentally or intentionally, an intruder would have needed to get the hel! out of Dodge after killing that little girl, not wrap her in a blanket like a papoose and place her in a filthy room, which is only the tip of the iceberg of the staging that took place.

That coupled with the Patsy ransom note weigh heavily in my opinion that Patsy was heavily involved in at least the coverup and staging of her daughter's death as was John Ramsey. No picture of dubious stun gun marks in a third or fourth reproduction of autopsy photos, presented by a detective who defected to the Ramsey camp will ever outweigh the evidence pointing to the Ramseys, including their own lies and contradictions, their failure to cooperate with authorities from the very first, and their subsequent media blitz thick with their own importance and spin.

Some day I hope we get all the missing pieces to this puzzle. The case is a fiasco, marred by human error, stupid decisions, obstruction of justice by many, and corruption in high places. The stun gun question could be answered quite simply, though - exhume JBR's body. What does anyone have to fear but the truth? If it turned out they were stun gun marks, so be it. It still wouldn't sway my opinion that the Ramseys were involved because of the heavy weight of other evidence saying they were involved.

One last thing - ACR, that was an as$-kicking post. I don't think anyone has a more in-depth knowledge of the Ramsey case than you do. I have things to do and places to go and people to see, but I will return to this thread, because there are so many good posts and great posters here. Keep it coming - I thirst.

 

watching You

Damn, you're good!

GL

 

Re: Sundance

Sorry, I was wrong. Yes, I meant Doberson, I had him confused with the one who performed the autopsy. Hello Texan, nice to see you again.

<I>**What do you think about more pathologists thinking they are not stun gun marks than think they are? I know the question is confusing but I think you will know what I mean.**</I>Yes, I understood it fine. But I don't know to whom you are referring when you say more pathologist think they are not stun gun marks. Can you be more specific as to names?

I have always known that a stun gun will not render someone unconscious - I have one, and am also lucky enough to have a brother-in-law who enjoys alcohol and one time was lubricated enough to stun himself on the leg through his jeans with it. (This was years before JBR, or I would have had him perform more specific tests.) He could hold the stun gun tightly against his leg and press the button and trigger the arc for several seconds with no noticeable effects except the pain. But it did not render him unconscious, it did not incapacitate him, and he was able to do this several times without harm. (But observing his face turn blood red after the third time, we stopped him, as I didn't want to have to explain to his mother that we had sat there and let him do this to himself and cause damage.) But, at any rate, I digress, and suffice it to say that I was never one to subscribe to the theory that the stun gun rendered her unconscious.


<I>** I mean, I'm sure it would be hard for any of us to put ourselves in the shoes of an intruder who would do such a thing, but if you give it some thought you may come to the same conclusion I have - it just wouldn't be necessary or very smart to use a stun gun under those circumstances. **</I>

I have given it plently of thought, and not only was it not smart to use a stun gun, it wasn't very smart to be inside the house with the family home either, but I also know that this sort of thing is not as uncommon as we who do not have the criminal charactertistics in our makeup would imagine.

<I>**Earlier you posted that you thought the head wound was caused by a bash on the head with an object as opposed to her falling or being shoved into something. I totally agree with that assessment. However; do you think that someone would bash a child over the head like that in response to a scream and then hang around to strangle her after that? And why strangle her after you had already hit her on the head?**</I>

The head wound would not cause immediate death; perhaps JBR had already seen his/her face and the need to permanently silence her was present. Of course, I am only theorizing.

<I>**I have visited your site several times in the past and I think you have done an outstanding job on it. It must represent alot of hard work.**</I>

Thank you, and yes, it was a lot of work, although I was able to pull most of the info out of my personal archives. But thank you for you comments.

 

Re: Hey y'all

He is also the one who ran the story that told us JR piloted his own plane to the funeral, was he not? I understand your trust and faith in him, and I am not disputing him as a source, nor his knowledge of the case. But I don't take it as truth just on the basis that it came from him, sorry. In fact, I'm not even sure that I have read the article you are referring to, could you tell me which one it is please? I agree with your statement that if there has been no uproar or denial from the Ramsey camp it lends weight to the content, but again, I don't know which article you refer to.

 

Re: Volley and folly

Yes, that's about it in a nutshell

I guess the best answer I can give is that what I saw in the autopsy photos turned the 'abrasions' into stun gun marks for me, which causes doubt in my mind about an intruder being present. The Ramseys had no stun gun, their only sign of a stun gun was a video JR obtained at Comdex that showcased several products, among them a stun gun. Once that seed of doubt is planted my conscious takes over, and my conscious tells me that if there is any doubt in my mind, then I was wrong for having tried, convicted, sentenced and condemed the Ramseys in my personal and public court. Once that connection is made, then my personal makeup demands that I offer up an apology for having done so. As I've said from the beginning of these posts, this was a personal decision for me, one that was made by my evaluation and judgement, and I expect no one to feel the same or adjust their thinking accordingly. It's just me.

I respectfully disagree. The marks do not look like cigarette burns, nor do I think they could be made by fingers or knuckles. If they are simply abrasions, then the exact replication of the size and distance of the marks as compared to the pig photos (ugh, how gross to reduce the discussion of this poor dead child to a pig) is amazing to say the least.

You are correct. This whole debate is folly and pointless and in the larger scheme of things, totally insignificant.

This photo is of sufficient quality for evaluation; I don't consider this to be degraded even if it is third or fourth generation reproduction.<BR><img src="http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/5.jpg"> <BR>I consider these to be stun gun marks, of course, that is only my opinion and I do not expect to change anyone's perception, but it is my opinion that they are caused by a stun gun. I would be interested though, in hearing what you consider to be the cause of them if you care to elaborate.

 

I never really thought

they were burn marks though I am not as sure as you that picture can prove they are not burn marks. I disagree wholeheartedly with the premise that they could not be finger marks or knuckle marks, applied with pressure. In fact, I researched autopsy photos (gruesome job, but somebody had to do it) of several people who had been strangled using the hands and using ligatures. I'm not well-versed in what happens to marks on the body after death; i.e., do finger marks on the neck or knuckle marks turn dark red?), but in every awful autopsy photo that I could find on the internet, marks identified as finger marks or knuckle marks on the neck looked remarkably like those so-called stun gun marks. I have read that pressure marks do turn dark red, but I can't swear to that.

I also think the measurements in those pictures are misleading, because none of us knows what position the body was in when those pictures were taken - IOW, was the skin stretched because of the positioning of the body or was it in a normal position, or was it perhaps compressed? I can't tell by looking only at those pictures. It would be helpful to have the full body picture at the time to show the positioning of the body when the pictures of those marks were taken. The distance between those marks could change depending upon the factors I just mentioned. Move your own head sideways - doesn't the skin stretch on the side furtherest from the direction you are moving your head? And, vice versa - doesn't the skin compress on the side the head is pointing toward? I don't trust those photos as to dimensions at all.

You ask me what I think they could be. I don't know. That's the truth. I am pretty certain (but not positive) that pressure marks to the skin darken after death, at least that's what I've read. It's not inconceivable that JonBenet was lying on something to cause those marks. I read there was an abrasion or abrasion on the back of her leg, am I remembering that correctly? What were they caused by? A stun gun?

I don't know why you believe that the possible use of a stun gun in this case eliminates the Ramseys. You say it is because they didn't have one. Well, how do you know that? Because they said so? Because none was found in the house? But, that is total nonsense, because to believe that as truth, you have to take the word of the Ramseys themselves, and they have every reason to lie about it, don't they? Maybe they did own a stun gun and no one knew about it.

Neither you nor I knows whether the Ramseys owned a stun gun, and that's a fact. Jameson says they didn't own a stun gun, but she doesn't know any more about it than we do - she didn't live in that house, she didn't even know the Ramseys (so she says) before their daughter was murdered. So, is it really fair to base an assumption that the Ramseys couldn't have done it because (1) an unproven theory a stun gun was used, and (2) an unproven statement by the only suspects in the case that they didn't own a stun gun? I think not

I make no judgments on your conscience, Sundance. If you felt moved to apologize to the Ramseys for thinking they were involved in their daughter's death unfairly, then you have to do what you have to do. I feel no such compunction to apologize to them for my personal beliefs based on whatever is available to me at this time.

I have never stated who I think killed JBR - I don't know who did it. I have stated that based on the information that is available to the public, I think the Ramseys were involved - probably one in the murder and both the adults in the coverup. I don't even have a theory of what happened or who did what, except I think Patsy wrote the note. If something happened tomorrow to change my thinking, I would owe no one an apology for having an opinion. But, that's just me.

Now I have to go watch the football game. Go, Bills, hahahaha.