Why_Nut

Thank you, thank you, thank you. You are correct in every way.

Not only would the "scuff mark" on the wall likely have been from environmental issues and not from a shoe, but the same mark was there years later when Bill Kurtis took a tour, and just as you said there would be there are also similar marks in the upper left corner of this picture, near the ceiling corner, where moisture would have done its work.

 

Thanks for the fabulous lesson on cement and concrete, Wombat. I knew a little bit about this, but now I know more, thanks to you. It makes so much sense what you're saying, here.

What's the next lesson?

 

John Ramsey page 303 of "Death Of Innocence"

I don't think it would have made much sense for the Ramseys not to have been connected to the Internet with them being in the computer business. Jameson was havering. Strange that Jameson should have been a big part of their lives through the Internet, and now want nothing to do with her, isn't it?

 

Would anyone truly want their little six year old daughter to look like this on stage?


http://maketoast.com/videos/jbrpinkdress.swf

 

I personally wouldn't mind if my six year looked like that on stage as long as the child received balanced teaching that it was simply stage affect, and that real life is different from that. My child would therefore have mandated times to play in the ditch with the crawfish, and to make mud pies.
There has to be a balance. Not all of life exists in the painting of nails and the doing of the hair.
Learning to field dress a deer is handy, too.

 

snip...

darn!! I ALWAYS miss the good stuff!! :steamed: Tell me that NO one here didn't 'save' that thread - did ya?? :laffbig: If so!!??!! let me know 'where' to read it!

a day late, and a dollar short... :violin:

 

snips...

and then there are people who just LIKE to take the opposite side of a case! i.e. Van Dam... don't know.. but she probably thought Scott Peterson was innocent!! it's just like LovelyPigeon; she likes to 'see' the evidence first, and believe the person is innocence (like in a court of law) - even when the evidence staring right in your face says GUILTY all the way! !LOL!

yea... scary thought! guess I just grew up naive! and just TOO honest! :blush:

WOW! never thought of that!!

I thought they (LE) DID finally receive the phone bill, but as you say it was "blank". no?? and YES! that is the strangest coincidence!

great read Koldkase! :cool2:

 

I'm with you Zotto... never could I do this ! :yow:

 

I just feel that JonBenét looks more like a 20 year old here, JustChillun. I've no objections to children being in concerts, with a small amount of makeup. My own granddaughter is in ballet concerts. It's the length Patsy went to, to make her look like this I'm objecting to. The little girl look is gone.

 

Niner is looking for this thread and has asked if anyone has it saved. If you tell me what it was about, I'll check and see if I have it saved. Give me the title of it OR any uncommon words you know were used in posts there.

 

ITA, Elle. For me, it's not so much the dress, but the hair and the make-up. If the make-up had been kept at a minimum and the hair not teased, JonBenet would have looked more like her age in that video.

-Tea

 

My little girl would love to have that dress. Anything which shimmers/glitters/poufs out/is pink .... is on her wishlist. I do not exaggerate when I say that she has two wardrobes - one for normal clothes and one for dressing up clothes. I have never known a child who liked to dress up so much. She ALWAYS has something on her head whether it be a headband with pom-pom "antlers" or a barbie tiara affair. She found one of my Ramsey books one day and begged me to make her the Folie Bergeres outfit (EDITED TO ADD - I didn't!). She cannot see past the fluff and the sparkles. She's been like this since she was born (literally) so it cannot possibly be the influence of the media as we don't allow her to watch tv (and when she does she likes Scooby Doo). There must be a pink/glitter/tiara gene - I'm sure of it.

When she was 2 years old she started protesting if I dressed her in trousers or shorts. She would clamp her legs together and make it impossible for me to dress her. I refused to pander to this and we made an agreement - that she would wear trousers/shorts every second day and a skirt/dress every other day. Any nonsense and she would wear trousers/shorts ALL the time. She continued to wear long faces on trouser days for a long time although I ignored it. Most other mothers had the opposite problem and they couldn't get their little girls into dresses.

We took her into town to choose a dress to wear at her birthday party recently and she chose a traditional red velvet dress with white collar, short puff sleeves with white cuffs and a sticky-out petticoat. I used to have a dress just like it!

 

As best as I can remember, the thread ended up being an argument about the window sill and the window well. Why_Nut posted some pictures. It might have been a DocG thread, with his hat in the title. They had several ones with his hat. I'll check and see which ones are still up, and maybe I can figure out which one disappeared.

EDIT:

I don't know if this thread is the same one, but it might be. I see a series of threads DocG started, but not with his hat in the title, and this was a follow up one with his "premise" of "solving the case" in the title. Perhaps it was this series. Maybe I put the wrong one up before. This one is in the swamp archives and has the WN posts with the window pics. Let's see if this link works:

http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/...thread&om=1194&forum=DCForumID61&viewmode=all

 

I probably didn't save it then because I think the whole window entry thing is weak.

Just because an intruder *might* have come in through the window doesn't mean one did. Proof of a disturbance at the window well isn't evidence. The debris could just as easily have been disturbed by investigators.

I think Jonbenet knew her killer and I don't think her killer came in through a window. I think the killer walked in through the door that night.

 

The little pink dress was beautiful Jay, and nowhere near the Follies Beregere style that Nedra suggested. It was her teased up hair and makeup which made her look like an adult. I've seen young girls in makeup for their concerts many times, but they still looked like little girls.


Maybe your little girl is gonna be a star, Jay (?). I'm not a TV watcher during the day, but I did turn it one day when I felt on the tired side this week, and Dr. Phil was on. and lo and behold they had an addicted pageant mother sitting there trying to explain why she enjoyed putting her daughter into pageants.

Dr. Phil started reading out her interview letters for the show, and he counted about 15 to 19 I's in the letter, and he said not once did she mention her daughter's name. Does this remind you of anyone girls? He also mentioned that many people thought these pageants were an attraction for pedophiles.

The mother's sisters and her own mother talked about how much the little girl had changed with these pageants, plus she had turned very bratty. They didn't like her with all the makeup on, and extra teeth.

They showed us a before and after session of her daughter, getting ready for a pageant. Her daughter was on the plain side, and had big spaces in her teeth. You saw them pushing false teeth into the spaces; adding false hair, and slapping on the makeup. When she smiled and showed a mouthful of false teeth, I switched it off. I couldn't take any more of it. I understood what her grandmdother was saying. The young girl was 8 years old. I don't know how it ended(?).

Dr. Phil looked as if he was socking it to her, but I couldn't stand this pageant mother. She talked like a machine gun. I could have fishslapped her. :fishslap:

 

Not so much the dress, for me either, Tea. I should have posted that. Sorry! It is the hair and the makeup, as you stated. In a way, little JonBenét reminded me of the Marilyn Monroe situation. Marilyn's makeup artist said you wouldn't give Marilyn Monroe a second glance in the street, without her makeup on. She was just an ordinary girl, but she became an illusion with the hair, makeup and glittering clothes.

JonBenét without any makeup and her own natural hairstyle, was a nice pretty little girl like the ones we see every day, with a nice scrubbed look, but with her rinsed blonde hair; the heavy makeup; her hair teased, a glittering dress, she became an illusion.

 

I understand what you're saying, Elle. Don't forget that JonBenet wore hair extensions, as well. Teasing alone would not give her that much hair. It's common for pageant children to have hair extensions woven into their hair to give them the "big hair" effect. If you go to those pageant sites online, the little girls look like they're 25 years old. It's disgusting beyond belief.

Of course, I come from a time and culture when I wasn't even allowed to wear lipstick until I was well in my teens. Kids were kids, and nobody was going to allow their daughter to "age" herself by putting makeup on. I guess in those days, women knew no matter how you want to sugar coat or deny the facts of life, men have a natural lascivious response to females made up to look like Marilyn Monroe. Why a mother would ever want to create that image for her six year old little girl is something I hope I never understand.

Since JonBenet was molested the night she was murdered, and since she had vaginal and hymenal injuries that were already days old, at least, as many medical experts have stated straight up, anyone really looking for who molested and murdered her on Christmas night would not hesitate to consider that her killer already had access to her before that night. Knowing this, it's impossible not to contemplate if the "sexing up" of JonBenet for her pageant activities played a part in the predator targeting her, whomever you believe that person to be

Those who flat out deny the old vaginal injuries resulted from her being molested are simply not willing to face that the killer WAS from the inner circle. The RST will go to any length to deny this troubling information. If they admit it's even possible, then they have to consider WHO in that inner circle was molesting JonBenet. They also have to consider what part that played in the murder. They refuse to do that, because that means one of their precious Ramseys might be responsible for the prior molestation and/or the murderous behavior on Dec. 25, 1996. It also makes the "intruder" theory even less probable. And they hold onto that intruder theory for dear life. No, it was bubble bath that done it!

This alone proves how desperate they are to "clear" the Ramseys. Me, I'm desperate to find out who committed these horrors against a child. I have no stake in proving it was or wasn't a Ramsey. All I see is the evidence, and that it leads to the Ramseys, IMO, is not my fault. It's just the facts.

 

I mentioned the false hair in the Dr. Phil post KK. Yes, JonBenét had hair extensions too. I was aware of that. I honestly don't agree with all these false extras. The natural beauty of the child is lost. This little girl looked like a giant doll. More than likely false eyelashes are added too. To please who? To achieve what? Trophies for being the best dressed doll?

Having a strict father, I was in the same position as yourself, KK. I was 17 before I wore lipstick. My two older sisters stood up for me there. I just remember my father saying to me ..."You look like a hussy!" when I headed for the youth club dance. All I had on was lipstick. I had natural wavy hair, so my hair was just the way it always was. Reason for his attitude was I looked too much like my mother. He never married again after her death. How thankful I was to have two older sisters to pave my way.

I can well understand your thoughts here KK, and quite rightly so. It would be good to find out much more about this very touchy subject. Whether, or not John Ramsey was involved, there are thousands out there who think some family member was.

I will admit to having thought along those lines myself, KK, but they have faded, and I feel there may have been much more to this than I first thought. The Ramseys were too keen to remove JonBenét's body away from Boulder, as fast as their plane could fly. I do think one day, JonBenét's body will be exhumed against the Ramsey's wishes. Someone out there with the proper authority should give this order. JonBenét's body should have been taken with force until LE had finished all the proper testing. I think this might happen yet (?). I'm hoping it will!

I agree with you, KK. All the evidence leads back to the Ramseys. Many of us have thought this for quite a number of years, and wonder why nothing has been done about it (?).

 

Much grass Koldkase!! I'll be reading it tonite!!

:thumbsup:

 

Note for Moab

Moab,

Not too long ago we were discussing the particle found in JonBenét's vagina, and mentioned "wooden shards" and couldn't find the article where I saw it at that time. I came across it this morning, and since it's difficult to now find the thread we were posting in, I hope you don't mind me posting it here. I have to tie up loose ends. It's funny how we fall over something we we're looking for, a few weeks ago, while looking for something else (?). In this case, I was discussing exactly the same topic "wooden shards" with Bob on FFJ.

................................................................................


Wooden shard/s Bob (?)
Bob, you will remember we were talking about the wooden shards found in JonBenét's vagina. It appears to be shards in this document: