Why_Nut

Actually, having read the thread, Barbara is right. It is pathetic. It is pathetic that the RST cannot comprehend that a great many people perceive the Ramseys failure to co-operate with the investigation to be odd/suspicious. That they cannot comprehend that the evidence does not clear the Ramseys and that they remain under the umbrella of suspicion. Instead this tiny group of people (and it is a very tiny group of people) look for a "profile" for everyone who doesn't see things the way they do..... perhaps it's because their mothers couldn't cook... LOL

The RST comprises of people who "know" the Ramseys are innocent because they had a shower vision, or because they saw JonBenet's face in the grain of a wooden door. They IGNORE the hard evidence (which does NOT clear the Ramseys) and instead they decide that Santa must have done it because he wrote a message on a card saying (paraphrased) "Enjoy your Christmas. Somebody loves you". They think this is sarcastic and indicative of a murderous mind.

The RST includes people who think all named murder suspects are innocent and that the "real kilers" are always out there.

The RST are people who hate the police and who believe the police will always prefer to frame an innocent person rather than just follow the evidence to the real killer.

Hey - could this be a profile?

 

Jay,
If there is ever another kidnapping case anywhere else (?), with a three page ransom note, two parents and another young child still in the house, I'm sure the parents will now be taken into custody, regardless of their wealth, and the child removed for protection.

Kidnappers don't write three page ransom notes. The Ramsey ransom note was a fake.

 

Just for fun, I've taken a few psychological and personality type tests on line. I've also, just for fun, taken some of the personality type and psychological tests given by our Psychology Department, and I've taken an IQ exam. I've always known I'm boringly normal, but these tests prove just how normal (and boring) I really am. I have no bad personality quirks whatsoever, according to these tests. My IQ was 138, my psychological tests came back as normal.

The only thing apparent in all the tests is that I am the one who will always be found on the outer limits of a crowd. That surprised some of my co-workers, who thought I was rather gregarious and social. I am not a social creature, though, except on a one-on-one basis. I don't go to many social events. I prefer to be by myself or with family or in a very small group of people I know very well.

I would pay to see psychological and personality profiles of Susan Bennett and her little gorps, not to mention IQ tests. I already know what Bennett's tests would show - controlling personality with indications of severe personality defects.

 

I figure the reason the Ramseys want nothing to do with her is because they are guilty as sin.

 

I betcha it wouldn't show such a controlling personality at all. People like that who can't control things in their personal life, will often be "leaders" when on the internet or on the phone, etc.

When nobody can "see" them, they become a force. Behind, in their personal life, they are often meek and controllED by others.

 

Maybe, but the fact that Bennett has entrenched herself into the JBR case to the extent of possessing information and being on a personal basis with some of the players shows a manipulative, controlling person, to me.

I just read the thread she started. Her attempts to analyze anyone who doesn't agree with her delusions about the Ramseys are ignorant.

At any case, she would be dead wrong about me. I grew up in a loving home along with four sisters. My mom and dad loved each other very much, and they loved and supported each of their five daughters. None of us was ever abused in any way - quite the opposite, in fact. We were not spoiled - we were disciplined when we did wrong, but we were part of a family unit that did a lot of things together. My dad never saw the inside of a bar and never had alcohol in the house. I never saw him touch a drop of alcohol. Neither did my mother. They were home with us all the time, except when they had to work.

We went to church, learned how to treat other people with respect and kindness and how to stand up for ourselves. My father was one of the best men God ever made, and my mother, who will be 90 next month, lived her Christianity. I have never heard her say a bad word about anyone, and her spirit is sweet and gentle. We love and respect her so much that we personally take care of her now that she is unable to take care of herself.

Jameson is an instigator. That's why she starts provocative threads like that one. Consider the source. I suspect she may be projecting her own childhood onto others.

 

You could very well be correct, however, in psychology, more often than not, there are no "true explanations" for everything life puts forth.

Having said that, my personal belief is that Jameson was no stranger standing in a shower or otherwise when she interjected herself in this case; it has always been my feeling that she was known to at least one player in this case, which allowed her entry into the case at full throttle

Just for the record: We had lots of food growing up in my house, and even had pineapple frequently

I think the Ramseys are guilty, so whatever will Freud Jr. think of that?

 

oh shoot - it doesn't work... how did I know that!!?? LOL! Thanks KK!

 

Niner, seems jams took the thread down. hahaha We knew she couldn't stand having someone as intelligent as Why_Nut refute their spin.

I don't know jams and I don't want to know jams. What I do know is she came to the forums and rode a big lie as far as she could: she was a man with a wife, family. She will go to her grave bragging that she foiled an ivy-league professor with her lies. That pretty much says it all. Claim to fame: good liar.

Now she implies she is actually an investigator in this murder case. I expect her to start calling herself the lead detective any day now. I guess she promoted herself from journalist. :beammeup:

I wonder if she really thinks she knows how to profiile a killer. She certainly doesn't know squat about psychology. Or even common sense: I've spent years analysing in detail the evidence in this case, asking for information, studying science and forensics, reading what others have to say and know. While I speculate as much as anyone, I always say this is my opinion, speculation, etc. Jams has seen what I write. She has seen how I think through the evidence. So she disagrees. OK. Fine. But to state that I am "happy" to accuse the Rams, because my parents weren't rich or perfect "like the Rams," I guess she's saying, shows how illogical jams is. Or deliberately misleading. It's spin. There is no evidence to support her conclusion. All evidence is to the contrary. Even if I am wrong, who can argue with a straight face that I don't come to my conclusions with great effort and analysis? To imply I'm just maliciously accusing the Rams because I want to lash out at rich people is too absurd in the face of all I've written.

Jams might make a decent argument on that point, except that she dismisses all evidence to the contrary, doesn't she? It's classic swampthink: dismiss the actual evidence and pound the talking points, denying the facts and spinning what little they have left to put an "intruder" in the home. Personally attack those not agreeing and then call them disruptive. Do they actually believe this makes them good advocates? It only reveals those who support the Rams at the swamp are naive, not too smart, and duplicitous, as well, repeating everything jams claims, regardless of the facts. That's the 80% followers rainsong's daddy mentioned....

Yes, I believe the Ramseys had a night from hell, at the end of which JonBenet was dead and they staged her murder as a kidnapping. That's my opinion. But what is indisputable is that they hired lawyers and obstructed the investigation from day one. Jams can lie about that all she wants, but it's a fact. Even Lin Wood stated on LKL that hiring that law firm kept the Rams out of prison but made them look guilty to the public. Argue all you want about their rights and how smart it was and blahblahblah. But only a fool would ever think that by doing so, they were HELPING the investigation. They weren't. It's a well known fact among LE EVERYWHERE that the longer it takes to investigate, the colder the trail goes. So while the Rams protected themselves from those bad old Keystone cops, they let the "killer" off the hook. Since that "intruder" has never been found, there's no question about this. Many, many parents have gone through the same hell of having a murdered child, and the Ramseys are the only ones I can think of who refused to cooperate with LE, take polygraphs, be interrogated IMMEDIATELY, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE POLICE, so they could be eliminated and LE could move on. The Rams even told their family and friends not to cooperate with LE. The result of the Ramsey's actions is that NO ONE has ever been named or found linked to this murder...BUT THEM.

Jams, on the other hand, declares routinely she has met the Rams and they are not capable of committing this murder. How naive is that? How uneducated? If she's so lucky as never to have met a true sociopath, she has little experience or knowledge to declare people innocent or guilty based on her personal assessment of them after a few hours of coffee talk. What does she think? A child killer is going to sport fangs, drool, and shoot fire out of his butt? Her swampsters constantly spout "no history" of abuse blahblahblah. Yeah, there is history of abuse, but they just DENY DENY DENY: THE AUTOPSY PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT JB HAD VAGINAL INJURIES AT LEAST SEVERAL DAYS OLD, OR MORE. To dismiss those as bubble bath when the child is found molested and murdered is the height of stupidity.

But I guess that's the Smit school of investigation. Talk about two peas in a pod.... I so wish I could have heard Haddon and his law firm of hellions laughing about those two "advocates" of the Rams. Every time they show that movie with Al Pacino playing a lawyer/the devil, Devil's Advocate, I think of the Haddon firm. Unfortunately, each time I've watched it, it's become less "horror movie" and more "reality" as I've seen how firms like Haddon's actually work.

 

What is Rainsong doing on the melting patterns thread? It appears to me as though she is making fun of black people. That would be deemed very offensive in the UK.

 

You fine people have asked, and shall be answered. I have had a skeleton of a webpage at http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/ . I have decided that my LiveJournal base for comments is problematic, so I am moving over to Blogger. The link there will be http://whynut.blogspot.com/ .

 

I'm not imaginative enough to be neurotic - although there is a little matter of a stapler....

Anyway - another school story. A few years ago, a ditsy blonde student came to see me with an overdue assignment. She came into the office bowing and scraping and after much hair tossing and jangling of bangles she presented me with a filthy wad of papers.

There were tyre tracks all over her assignment.

She then explained that the school bus had reversed over her assignment .... but that she thought it would be OK .... because she had ironed it.

 

koldkase wrote:

Although I admit I know virtually zero about the person you are referring to, the tale of her spinning reminded me of school days when the little girls wanted to be the best friend of the "popular kid", and would knock anyone over who got in their way. It was sad the way they would bow and scrape to get close to them, and sad to realize that once they had served their purpose, or the became boring to the object of their adoration, they were tossed aside. Maybe it's a star struck thing?

I sounds to me like she's a koldkase wannabe but doesn't know howtobe

Little

 

Oh lord. I'm afraid to look....

 

Aaaiiiieee! Thank you Why_Nut! I knew we couldn't be lower than the swamp. We'd have to be in New Orleans to be lower than the swamp!

A Why_Nut blog! Oh goody goody! I'm soooo there!

 

I know what you mean, Little. Jams interjected herself into the Ramsey murder case simply by serendipity, according to her. I bet she never thought in a million years she'd be hobnobbing with the rich and infamous, not to mention professionals from production companies, talk show celebrities, and tabloid reporters, all to jam$' advantage.

I dont' really blame her for that. Not many wouldn't have their heads spun around a few times under those circumstances. And for all I know, maybe she was recruited by the RST from the beginning. By her own admission, jams had the autopsy report long before it was released to the press. It was released to the press in Feb. or March of 1997. How'd that happen? Only one way I can think of, knowing what we do: Hadden got it from Hunter's office, the Rams got it from Haddon, and they lived with Stine. I think it's a fair guess that Stine and jams have been thick all along. John says in DOI that Stine was on the internet forums from the beginning; Stine told the Rams about jams, didn't John say? I think Pam Paugh and Stine have long been jams' sources, especially before Smit and Tracey joined the RST. Pam Paugh has been at jams' chats, according to docg.

So jams got in with the siege mentality of the RST early on. She got a taste of that privileged group and she will never be able to see beyond that. She can't admit the truth, no matter how it's staring her in the face.

Well, it's a human failing, isn't it? Who wants to bite the hand that feeds them. Even if they discover the hand is connected to the devil himself. That's how corruption works, isn't it? And it works.

Anyone who thinks that the Rams' connection to Lockheed Martin meant nothing has no idea how money and power at that level operate. It's willful ignorance to claim it's nothing but ANOTHER COINCIDENCE that the Rams had a cell phone record with no calls on it ONLY DURING THE MONTH OF THE MURDER. "It's a lost cell phone." Never reported. And Patsy never says the cell phone in question is the one John "lost." Her entire story about the cell phone being lost and then her getting its replacement is a convoluted non sequitur. It explains nothing about their cell phone with a blank record only for the month of Dec. '96. No search warrants were ever obtained by LE or the DA for it. Period. No self-respecting LE in the country would admit to that incompetence.

Yeah, sure, innocent excuses...and more innocent excuses...and more...and more...and before you know it...a child killer is long gone....

 

There is an older what I consider close to saintly Christian woman I know and highly respect. We both know a couple whose son has been charged in a horendous drug related double murder.

In conversations with her, she has told me that should she be in a situation like unto what they are in, she would not hesitate to lie. She would protect those she loves - from legal consequences of murder. I guess I'm thinking about that Lou Smit thing and who would and who would not tell the truth. Knowing this particular woman would do that, I have no doubt that the "Christian" Ramseys would lie without hesitation to protect each other or any member of their family. And I would guess their priest would, too.

It's like I wouldn't think this is what "Christians" would do, but it is. And I guess I might, too, if I were in, God forbid, for instance theirs or the Ramseys shoes. I don't know.

Thanks Why_Nut for the links!

 

JC, I've heard this said before. I guess we should thank our lucky stars, then, because if I had to live the life of never-ending lies these people live, I'd have to become someone I never want to be.

 

The basic tenet of true Christian faith is accountability and confessing wrongdoings but with understanding that forgiveness is given freely. We are all made of the same stuff and all have the potential to commit any sin.

The hardest thing to understand with the Ramseys is the fact that knowing they were involved, they chose to put the blame and cast suspicion on completely innocent people. Stretching the scenario a little.. suppose their aspersions actually resulted in someone else being arrested or charged, would they then still feel that the ends justified the means? Would they thank God that it wasn't them that got arrested?

I can understand wanting to do everything in our power to protect our loved ones, particularly our children from terrible situations, even when self-inflicted, but I could not and would never understand letting someone else take the rap or trying to point the finger at someone else. It would eat me up inside.

I could understand the Ramseys taking the 5th and saying "if you think I did it, prove it"..the reality is that with the way this case was stuffed up, they would probably still be free anyway, but I will never ever understand how they could try and cast suspicion on innocent people, including their supposed closest friends and then profess to have wonderful Christian faith and favour from God. That's about as delusional as it gets.

 

Even jameson has commented on Rainsong's bizzarre posts:-

Amen! ( - for once)