Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What struck me and I am being honest here.... as I mother with an album of kid photos, in those the handwring is mine. At least it is for the older children. By the time my baby was born, that changed. My older children helped with our scrap books and photo albums. When my son got his name in a little local paper with his photo (so cute) HE put the clipping in his book and wrote on the page. When the baby's stuff was added, his older sister's writing identified what was happening.
In that tape, Darnay admits she took ownership of other samples. Why weren't THOSE shown? I can tell you why. This is a BORG film and the dead can't sue. Simple as that.
So if that was the case, why didn't either Patsy or John immediately say, "Oh, Burke wrote that; that's his handwriting"?
At 3:04, John said "Jonbenet wanted me to take movies, but my battery was dead." This family documented a LOT of things on film, but he didn't make sure his battery was charged for Christmas Day? Was he preoccupied by something?
[No one John saw that Christmas Day, not family, not company, not people he chatted with at the airport, not the large group of people at the Whites' that night. Maybe you think his choice of sock color that day is also some proof of guilt here.
At 6:08, John said, "The police...asked to use our cell phones because theirs were dead, uh, they asked us to do a number of things that required us to leave that room" (the sunroom). NONE of the idiot police don't even charge their phones?
You are getting a glimpse into how unprofessional they were.
At 6:23, John said, "I didn't understand how someone could have gotten in; of course I learned later that one of the doors was found wide open." What door was wide open? Never heard that before.
He is referring to the door from the butler's pantry. That door was close to the baseball bat that has never been linked to any owner. Burke's were accounted for but that could have belonged to a neighborhood kid. Or an intruder. We don't know whose it was.
On the door being open. Some think it was open all night, others think a police officer left it open as he was checking the property. I tend to believe it was the cop because Luther Stanton heard that metallic sound, maybe the grate falling into place. Still, others think the sound might have been the metal bat being tossed off, hitting the brick wall. I really can't clear up that mystery at all.
At 7:21, John said, "I have a vague recollection of telling Linda Arndt that I found an open window with broken glass, but that I perhaps had broken that glass myself months earlier." [Why wouldn't Arndt have investigated that if she had that information? I thought he was CERTAIN he broke that glass; he's described over anI'md over how he had to break the glass to shimmy his way in late one night when he was locked out of the house.
He knew he had broken it months before and hadn't ever checked to see if it had been fixed. Linda Pugh's boyfriend, later husband, Mervin, was supposed to fix it. He had been their handyman before.
At 7:58: John said, "...showed Fleet the broken window, ah, explained to him that I might have broken it myself months ago. Um, showed him the suitcase that I saw under the window, which I thought was very out of place." Again, why didn't he tell Linda Arndt that he thought the suitcase was very out of place and thus could have been a clue?
Who says he did not?
At 10:12, Patsy is asked whether she recognizes the handwriting on the photo. She says, "Not particularly." PARTICULARLY? You recognize it or you don't. She is asked about another handwriting sample, says "Not particularly" again.
interesting line of questioning. Darnay carefully avoided certain questions that could have identified the writer of the captions in the photo album. Interesting.
At 32:39, while being asked very specifically if she killed her daughter, she nods her head "yes" while being questioned, only to shake her head "no" briefly when she says "no." She is breathing very heavily the entire time.
____________________________
1) The video shows proof of at least FOUR professional, expert handwriting analysts and linguists who concluded in their official reports that Patsy's writing and the ransom note writing are the same. all hired by Darnay to provide reports that could be used in an interview. Read Carnes' decision, they weren't credible.
2) It also brings up something I've never considered, and that I find very chilling -- that Patsy could have killed Jonbenet without John's knowledge..
Wow, but at least it's movement. Yes, it is another theory.
3) While being interviewed, John seems much more focused, direct, assertive, (justifiably) angry (if he didn't do this), and unwavering in his answers and body language than does Patsy. I've never seen him this angry.
Interesting that you can see that now. Once to open your mind to the possibility someone is innocent you interpret many things differently.
4) While being interviewed, Patsy's body language and vocal tone are not as sharp, to the point of being even slightly casual; she sometimes shrugs and even smiles/flirts slightly when making a joke about how there's "an opening in the middle" of an "O." She does not appear angry. She seems relaxed.
I would be foaming at the mouth in abject, white-hot fury if I were accused of something I did not do -- let alone kill my own child.
Patsy and John were always rather 'cordial' with people. Medicated or not, they didn't lose it or blow up. But even though you are commenting on that now, you still think Patsy bashed in her kid's head over a wet bed that wasn't wet that night. Think about that.[/quote]
Just a note about formatting to ensure that no one is putting words in someone else's mouth: Jameson, could you please show attribution regarding to whom you are responding? That's the easiest way to determine who is speaking to whom via this board.
To verify, in this post above, you, jameson, are responding to me, Tobiashen.
I think Jameson liked the parents when she met them. I understand that completely. She felt they couldn't possibly do this crime--genteel people and not capable. Lou Smitt felt the same, on his Larry King transpcript he said he "really, really liked the parents." Understood. I get it. It's hard to wrap your head around something like this w/ people you "like."
Sounds simplistic, but how you feel about people does paint your perceptions and willingness to believe them.
When I was in my 30's, I worked with a man and we would chat. I really liked him. We did not socialize. I was married with kids and he was single and ran with a crowd I knew fairly well, a group who partied hard. Long story short, one night he murdered an aquaintance of mine. Motive was money, her tax refund, money he wanted for drugs. He butchered her.
I did not defend him because he seemed nice to me. I wanted him to get put away fordamnever because he is a danger to society, a person who would kill for money.
I didn't defend the Ramseys because I liked them. I defended them because thet were wrongly accused. The evidence never went against them. If it had, I would have changed sides with no regret.
Patsy and John were always rather 'cordial' with people. Medicated or not, they didn't lose it or blow up. But even though you are commenting on that now, you still think Patsy bashed in her kid's head over a wet bed that wasn't wet that night. Think about that.
How do you KNOW they were both ALWAYS "cordial" with people? You met them only after this happened, when you said you sat with Patsy for several hours. You cannot back this up; did you know her since childhood? No.
Yes, I do think an otherwise calm person could blow up; many people have two sides to their personality. Perhaps that figures in with a possible change in handwriting (we know her handwriting was "feminine" when she wrote to other adults, as we've seen in letters that have been publicly posted).
We do not know whether her handwriting might have changed if she were writing while in another state of mind.
Patsy and John were always rather 'cordial' with people. Medicated or not, they didn't lose it or blow up. But even though you are commenting on that now, you still think Patsy bashed in her kid's head over a wet bed that wasn't wet that night. Think about that.
Just a note about formatting to ensure that no one is putting words in someone else's mouth: Jameson, could you please show attribution regarding to whom you are responding? That's the easiest way to determine who is speaking to whom via this board.
To verify, in this post above, you, jameson, are responding to me, Tobiashen.
That would help eliminate possible confusion.[/quote]
sorry for confusion. Often I am using a tablet and can't copy and paste. I try to delete things and lose a bit more than I should. Will try harder in future to be less confusing.
Originally Posted by CA4Now So where's the DNA evidence pointing to the Ramseys? Whose DNA was scraped from underneath JonBenet's fingernails?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Lebowski Dude
I believe the body had been cleaned/wiped down when it was found. And, yes, I would like to know whose DNA was scraped from underneath JBR's fingernails as well - the intruder's?! If so, who is this mysterious intruder?! Maybe the source was completely innocuous, and had nothing to do with the crime. I guess we'll never know.
This is where I pause for thought, as well. Perhaps the killer was overlooked by the bumbling police when taking DNA samples from hundreds of people. Perhaps the coroner who did the autopsy (rather rapidly, as I recall, and was accused of not being thorough enough after Jonbenet was buried) made a mistake.
I haven't followed this closely enough over the years to have developed a list of all the things that remain "mysterious."
How can anyone simply overlook or dismiss the jury's indictment of the Ramseys, despite the fact that DA Alex Hunter refused to sign it? These are the findings of a jury of their peers; this is the American system of justice. But one person in power objects, so it's nullified?
sorry for confusion. Often I am using a tablet and can't copy and paste. I try to delete things and lose a bit more than I should. Will try harder in future to be less confusing.
[b]He is referring to the door from the butler's pantry. That door was close to the baseball bat that has never been linked to any owner. Burke's were accounted for but that could have belonged to a neighborhood kid. Or an intruder. We don't know whose it was.
[b]interesting line of questioning. Darnay carefully avoided certain questions that could have identified the writer of the captions in the photo album.
[b]Interesting that you can see that now. Once to open your mind to the possibility someone is innocent you interpret many things differently.[/B]
Haven't quite got the hang of the CD quote feature either.
I'm assuming because bolded, this would be jameson's responses and who my post addresses.
Why were everyone hung up on the basement window theory? Here you've got an open door, next to it, an unidentified baseball bat? I'm completely baffled?
With Darnay, He wanted Ramseys to answer the questions. This is an example of games played by the Ramsey's, who didn't like Darnay. Period.
Reminds me of the polygraph exam they denied ever being asked to take, while on Death of Innocence book tour.
Yeah, its all about perspective. What I hoped would be convincing perspective, disappointing.
the detective stated that there was evidence that the bed had been recently changed.
there was plastic under the sheet, not carefully washed each morning. The sheet was not wet that night.
lets summarize what the ramseys are saying:
one night, somebody entered our home with out us realizing it. Though there are no signs of forced entry, they found a way in. Though the house is large and does not flow well, they found, moved and killed our child with out us hearing anything. The motive for the murder is not clear. The murder took place in a distant part of the basement which is hard to get to. At some point the murderer looked for and found pen and paper. He (or they) wrote a lengthy ransom note, then fled.
those certainly are not quotes. But yes, that is what happened. Similar crimes have happened in other cases. Remember stephanie crowe? T
though it is entirely possible that this is what happened, in the case of the ramseys, the ransom note contains the following coincidences:
- both the writer and the ramseys are educated. Are are many in boulder, co
- the writer knows the ramseys by name if he was targeting the family he would. If he was that homeless intruder he could have seen it in the house on many items
- the writer names the ransom at $118,000 (strange sum given the wealth of the ramseys and that most kidnappers favor round numbers "$125,000" or "$200,000"). Strangely, mr. Ramsey just earned $118,000 as a bounus.
If i was that rich and faking the letter i would have demanded a million
- the writer uses an archaic and increasingly rare english construction of "and hence". Mrs. Ramsey is known to use that construction.
No evidence she ever used that before the murder
lets continue with the claim:
though we are grieving, desperatly want this person caught, and willing to cooperate with the police, we have hired a team of experienced and high dollar criminal defense attorneys. This is done for a variety of reasons. Please direct all police inquires through our team of lawyers. By the way, please note that we have seperate attorneys.... .
not knowing if one or both were guilty, attorneys had to insist on separating them.
Anyone who can afford a lawyer needs to hire one if being accused of murder.
Police press releases from those days say they were cooperating. They weren't refusing to give evidence, they signed papers allowing le to look at private records, they answered questions in writing until interviews were scheduled that met very simple needs! Like not to start when most people are getting ready for bed?
conclusion:
it is a matter of occam's razor. Jon benet was not killed by a political terror group, was not killed in a sexual kidnapping gone bad. Rather she was killed by somebody in the house. That would be her parents. Had " 'barb 'n 'billy " from the trailer park down the road made a variation of the above claim (sans the high priced attorneys, the starter mansion and levels of wealth and education), they would have been aggressively investigated starting day one. In the case of the ramseys, however, their wealth, intelligence and social status kept that from happening. Instead, they received a very token and very friendly investigation.
really. It was a sex crime and the ransom note shows the intent to kidnap but clearly that failed
the investigation and persecution went on for years! Not token and not friendly
posters here and elsewhere really hate that they had money. That's clear
had they been poor and convicted then cleared by dna in 20 years the same posters would have accepted that but they didn't get wrongly convicted and that is their crime
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
