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.
Just a general comment about these JonBenet threads:
Although I absolutely agree that we all have a right to our opinions, I wish that posters would say "could have" and "I think" more often. This is particularly irritating to me because the fact is that NO ONE can say for a fact what someone else was thinking or what their motivations were or are.
In my opinion, stating opinions as fact just creates a lot of confusion as to what is fact and what is opinion.
Just a general comment about these JonBenet threads:
Although I absolutely agree that we all have a right to our opinions, I wish that posters would say "could have" and "I think" more often. This is particularly irritating to me because the fact is that NO ONE can say for a fact what someone else was thinking or what their motivations were or are.
In my opinion, stating opinions as fact just creates a lot of confusion as to what is fact and what is opinion.
I agree with this. If we could work together and post our theories, and try to help each other, we might actually make some progress.
One thing I just wanted to make sure of. The feces thing--is there proof that it was Burke's? It's claimed that he smeared feces in his bathroom, but the feces on JBR's chocolates--was that proven to be from Burke? If it is, that's a sign of anger and probably violence but are we 100% sure that it was from Burke? They both had bathroom problems.
I agree with this. If we could work together and post our theories, and try to help each other, we might actually make some progress.
One thing I just wanted to make sure of. The feces thing--is there proof that it was Burke's? It's claimed that he smeared feces in his bathroom, but the feces on JBR's chocolates--was that proven to be from Burke? If it is, that's a sign of anger and probably violence but are we 100% sure that it was from Burke? They both had bathroom problems.
Just a detail but can anyone clear that up?
I wish we could a sticky with the Jonbenet timeline as we know it. I.e. Ramseys got home X, Police called at Y, ect.
As to your question, I don't think you can prove with dna who feces or urine belongs to.
Re: Candy Box Smeared with Feces
From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by A. James Kolar; pages 367-70....
So I take this to mean that investigators discovered the candy box smeared with feces, and that this was not a made-up story. Is this correct or not?
No idea. I do recall reading that that housekeeper, Geraldine Vodicka, lost her adult daughter in some sort of accident earlier the same year JBR died. However, the daughter was an alcoholic and it was ruled accidental, not a homicide. The BPD did not investigate further.
If relentless pressure was put on certain subjects, as we have seen in all these videos and transcripts (look at Det. Trujilo taking PR's deposition), I can only imagine what they did to those we rarely hear about.
And I believe that Kolar's book contains a great deal of misinformation. He states a lot of what he terms as evidence, but does not list any of his sources.
I disagree. Having just seriously wounded or killed a child, a certain amount of panic would be natural. If it was a person known to the Ramseys and he thought there was a chance they might have come to suspect him, misdirection with a cockamamie note and staged basement break-in might (or so the killer might think in that panicked state of mind) confuse the police enough that they might not catch onto the real killer. At the very least, it might delay discovery of the body for some time and allow the killer to get away and/or work on establishing an alibi.
Well, we can definitely agree to disagree on this. Again, any criminal who commits a heinous crime like the death of a child would know that the parents/LE would do everything they could to find the culprit; especially in the case of the Ramsey's, given that this was a wealthy & influential family. So, removing any & all evidence from the crime scene would have been paramount in their mind(s). Also again, the ransom note would definitely provide at least some evidence against them. They would have been far better off getting out of the house without leaving any kind of note behind, thereby leaving no clues as to their identity. You don't agree?! Fine.
Going along with this, I also disagree that the handwriting "experts" - or rather, "so-called" handwriting experts" proved that PR didn't write the RN. Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science. Anyone looking at the handwriting in the RN & PR's handwriting can see the obvious similarities. Plus, as I also mentioned before, if PR didn't write the RN - why did she refuse to admit that she wrote underneath the family pictures - when it's extremely obvious that she did?! Very suspicious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevee17
One thing I'll agree with is I didn't agree with that they said either. I also didn't agree with what Burke said. They were trying to force their opinion down your throat. They were even getting snippy with the sound tech when he wasn't hearing their version.
I agree with this. Though I thought most of the CBS special was great, it would have been better if they had left out the part where they tried to understand what that muffled audio was (after PR thought she hung up the phone, after the 911 call). I have extremely good hearing, and that was quite difficult to make out - even when enhanced.
That being said, the CBS special was great otherwise.
Last edited by The Big Lebowski Dude; 10-07-2016 at 04:25 PM..
What do you people think about the lawsuit? First it will be against Dr Spitz for what he said on a CBS radio program. Then it will be against CBS. Will it get very far? Some random food for thought if anyone would like to play along:
First, WHY ON EARTH did JR allow Burke to come out and say that he had been downstairs in the middle of the night? (on the Dr Phil show.) I would have thought that JR would have had the right to have that possibly incriminating statement removed. Was it an oversight on JR's part? Or is there some good reason that he let it stay in there?
Another thing. Remember on the CBS show when they were trying to interview the Whites? They said the Whites refused to be shown on tape (or something to that effect, not photographed?) but I don't think they said the Whites refused to SPEAK to them. Just didn't want it to be visual. I kept waiting for that interview with the Whites even though it would just have been words, not pictures. Then when I found out that TWO HOURS of the show were held back, I wondered if maybe those two hours contained the interview with the Whites!
What else was in those two hours that CBS decided not to show? The Whites interview, some other interviews, some more evidence?
Both sides are pretty smart. I mean, CBS is not dumb enough to open themselves up to a lawsuit that they would lose. They did provide written disclaimers at the end saying that people should make up their own minds. If that wasn't good enough to protect them, then they must have known it. So when they get sued, do they have something up their sleeves? A winning card? Something they didn't make public that would have proven that Burke did it? Something that would get Dr Spitz off the hook?
Does CBS have some sound evidence that they are holding back? Maybe it's in the two lost hours that were never aired? Maybe what they DID show was a teaser, just enough to provoke the Ramseys into suing them? Was it a trick to make greedy JR (he must be behind the lawsuit) sue them so they could prove something in court with evidence that is yet unknown? LW would happily launch the lawsuit no matter what--all he wants is money--I don't think he would necessarily advise JR not to sue. What does he care as long as he gets money.
Sorry for so many questions but, as usual, this doesn't make sense. Who has the upper hand here? JR for knowingly letting Burke admit to being downstairs in the night? Is that a trick of some sort? Or CBS for setting themselves up for a lawsuit? Is that some sort of a trick and they have unreleased ammunition to back up what they said?
What do you people think about the lawsuit? First it will be against Dr Spitz for what he said on a CBS radio program. Then it will be against CBS. Will it get very far? Some random food for thought if anyone would like to play along:
First, WHY ON EARTH did JR allow Burke to come out and say that he had been downstairs in the middle of the night? (on the Dr Phil show.) I would have thought that JR would have had the right to have that possibly incriminating statement removed. Was it an oversight on JR's part? Or is there some good reason that he let it stay in there?
Another thing. Remember on the CBS show when they were trying to interview the Whites? They said the Whites refused to be shown on tape (or something to that effect, not photographed?) but I don't think they said the Whites refused to SPEAK to them. Just didn't want it to be visual. I kept waiting for that interview with the Whites even though it would just have been words, not pictures. Then when I found out that TWO HOURS of the show were held back, I wondered if maybe those two hours contained the interview with the Whites!
What else was in those two hours that CBS decided not to show? The Whites interview, some other interviews, some more evidence?
Both sides are pretty smart. I mean, CBS is not dumb enough to open themselves up to a lawsuit that they would lose. They did provide written disclaimers at the end saying that people should make up their own minds. If that wasn't good enough to protect them, then they must have known it. So when they get sued, do they have something up their sleeves? A winning card? Something they didn't make public that would have proven that Burke did it? Something that would get Dr Spitz off the hook?
Does CBS have some sound evidence that they are holding back? Maybe it's in the two lost hours that were never aired? Maybe what they DID show was a teaser, just enough to provoke the Ramseys into suing them? Was it a trick to make greedy JR (he must be behind the lawsuit) sue them so they could prove something in court with evidence that is yet unknown? LW would happily launch the lawsuit no matter what--all he wants is money--I don't think he would necessarily advise JR not to sue. What does he care as long as he gets money.
Sorry for so many questions but, as usual, this doesn't make sense. Who has the upper hand here? JR for knowingly letting Burke admit to being downstairs in the night? Is that a trick of some sort? Or CBS for setting themselves up for a lawsuit? Is that some sort of a trick and they have unreleased ammunition to back up what they said?
( I think ) John Ramseys orchastrated e v e r y t h i n g since day one. Hes responsible for Burkes appearence on Dr Phil; Burke leaks out he snuck downstairs after everyone was asleep, says his parents never spoke to him about what he heard during the nite when Patsy had said in deposition she had asked Burke. Then dares anyone to make assumptions or accusations.
F o l l o w...the...m o n e y. Greedy narcissists are never satisfied.
What do you people think about the lawsuit? First it will be against Dr Spitz for what he said on a CBS radio program. Then it will be against CBS. Will it get very far? Some random food for thought if anyone would like to play along:
First, WHY ON EARTH did JR allow Burke to come out and say that he had been downstairs in the middle of the night? (on the Dr Phil show.) I would have thought that JR would have had the right to have that possibly incriminating statement removed. Was it an oversight on JR's part? Or is there some good reason that he let it stay in there?
Another thing. Remember on the CBS show when they were trying to interview the Whites? They said the Whites refused to be shown on tape (or something to that effect, not photographed?) but I don't think they said the Whites refused to SPEAK to them. Just didn't want it to be visual. I kept waiting for that interview with the Whites even though it would just have been words, not pictures. Then when I found out that TWO HOURS of the show were held back, I wondered if maybe those two hours contained the interview with the Whites!
What else was in those two hours that CBS decided not to show? The Whites interview, some other interviews, some more evidence?
Both sides are pretty smart. I mean, CBS is not dumb enough to open themselves up to a lawsuit that they would lose. They did provide written disclaimers at the end saying that people should make up their own minds. If that wasn't good enough to protect them, then they must have known it. So when they get sued, do they have something up their sleeves? A winning card? Something they didn't make public that would have proven that Burke did it? Something that would get Dr Spitz off the hook?
Does CBS have some sound evidence that they are holding back? Maybe it's in the two lost hours that were never aired? Maybe what they DID show was a teaser, just enough to provoke the Ramseys into suing them? Was it a trick to make greedy JR (he must be behind the lawsuit) sue them so they could prove something in court with evidence that is yet unknown? LW would happily launch the lawsuit no matter what--all he wants is money--I don't think he would necessarily advise JR not to sue. What does he care as long as he gets money.
Sorry for so many questions but, as usual, this doesn't make sense. Who has the upper hand here? JR for knowingly letting Burke admit to being downstairs in the night? Is that a trick of some sort? Or CBS for setting themselves up for a lawsuit? Is that some sort of a trick and they have unreleased ammunition to back up what they said?
I think this was it. Even on the online tv guide, it said the last part was airing the week after the part. I wonder what said. I know in the promos they CLAIMED they would name a killer. Why aren't the other being sued? I can see Lee, the Simpson DNA guy, not being charged as he didn't seem to buy the Burke theory. Spitz wasn't the only blaming Burke. I wonder why he's being sued.
"Wrapped around the neck with a double knot in the midline of the posterior neck..."
Although I wouldn't expect a coroner to be an expert on knots, I would think that even laymen could -- don't have to, but could -- come to the conclusion that a double knot is a double knot is a double knot. Hard then to conclude that the garrote rope was moveable and adjustable to provide as a torture tool of slow strangulation using increased levels of tightness. If it was used to kill, tightening it all at once would make more sense when using a double knot.
Meyer indeed seems to be a non-expert on knots, or he likely would have been more specific. What is a "double knot" (is a "double knot", is...)? There are several knots called double-something (double overhand--which is what I think you're assuming-- double bowline, etc.), but I'm not aware of any agreed-upon standard of something universally called a double knot, so I don't think anyone could be sure such a knot described as double would definitely be a non-running knot (un-noose-like, if you will; and now that I think about it more, I think "slip knot" actually was correct; so, I clearly comprehend that you don't think it appears to be a slip knot, but it appears that way to me). There is a method of tying a tie like a half-windsor that I have seen called a double knot, and that is a slip knot, like a noose. Double knot doesn't have a clear, unambiguous meaning that I'm aware of, but "noose" does, and he used that word at the scene when first inspecting the knot. Moreover, there is no reason to think he inspected the knot more closely at autopsy than he did at the scene, rather than the other way around, because at autopsy he quickly cut the cord off to get on with the examination, apparently not considering closer inspection of the knot to be important.
I think a "noose-like" slip knot makes perfect sense for quick killing, as one could quickly and easily pull it as tight as necessary, rather than having to be sure to tie a fixed knot tight enough to be fatal, perhaps requiring a couple twists of the stick. To me, a fixed knot would be like wrapping a bow on a package, i.e., you'd need a third hand to hold the initial hitch taut in place while you make the second to fix it there. Doesn't seem a likely technique to me, compared to a noose. A subjective call, I admit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Free-R
John tried to untie the wrist knots, so that's why they're so loose, although they also look like double knots. A brutal killer probably wouldn't be gentle when tying wrists together, but no wrist abrasions are noted in the autopsy.
The evidence of the cord on one wrist indicates that if her hands were tied, the cord on both wrists would have been over her sleeves, which in the absence of exceptionally and unnecessarily rough application of the cord, quite likely would have insulated the wrists from abrasion or other marks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Free-R
The complex knot on the garrote handle is a different beast.
The knot on the noose (garrote) clearly looks like a running knot to me, but it is not necessary that it be. A person can be effectively strangled with a fixed knot, if tied tight enough and pulled tighter manually, especially if the stick was twisted several times with the ligature in place. None of this is inconsistent with the scenario I have described. I just don't think that's as efficient or likely.
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.
