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.
It says they have writing samples from Oliva as well, so you'd have to look at that to see if he has advanced knowledge of punctuation. I don't know his background and don't want to presume, but based on some of his known criminal history, he fits the profile of a common criminal. That's not the profile of the person that did this IMO, based on the ransom note.
Where have you read that they have a writing sample for Oliva? The linked article doesn't, it only says that about Wolf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevee17
I don't think he fits either.
Don't think he "fits"? Based on what? He doesn't fit the speculative profile of the killer that you've each settled on in your mind? What uncommon characteristics not possessed by a "common" criminal would he need to have to fit this crime, and how do you know he doesn't have them?
With all of the parallels to this case--I mean, really, look at them again--even down to the rambling ransom note which makes the most sense coming from a delusional, psychotic person (being psychotic doesn't make someone a raving lunatic spouting nothing but nonsense, it makes him mis-percieve the world around them, and imagine he knows and sees and hears things that aren't real or true, such as perhaps believing that he is in alliance with a small foreign faction, who has charged him with staging kidnappings and/or murders, not unlike the Manson family), and there isn't much of anything in the note he couldn't have picked up from newspaper articles about JR; even the $118K figure (if it really means anything at all), in just fifteen minutes of snooping the house he could have come across any one of JR's 1996 pay stubs that would show that figure (as a matter of fact, to a delusional homeless drifter, $118K might seem like a princely sum, and look like found money; in that state he might not have a very clear conception of just how much money beyond $118K a man like John Ramsey would have).
There is presently nothing publicly known that excludes him, and there is way, way, way more than most any other person that fits him as the perp. Your reasons for dismissing him appear to me to be not much more than that you just don't want to think he fits, because that would threaten your own firmly-believed scenario. If it's more than than that, beyond a "gut feeling", please explain your reasoning, and also accept my apologies for jumping to a conclusion.
Where have you read that they have a writing sample for Oliva? The linked article doesn't, it only says that about Wolf.
Don't think he "fits"? Based on what? He doesn't fit the speculative profile of the killer that you've each settled on in your mind? What uncommon characteristics not possessed by a "common" criminal would he need to have to fit this crime, and how do you know he doesn't have them?
With all of the parallels to this case--I mean, really, look at them again--even down to the rambling ransom note which makes the most sense coming from a delusional, psychotic person (being psychotic doesn't make someone a raving lunatic spouting nothing but nonsense, it makes him mis-percieve the world around them, and imagine he knows and sees and hears things that aren't real or true, such as perhaps believing that he is in alliance with a small foreign faction, who has charged him with staging kidnappings and/or murders, not unlike the Manson family), and there isn't much of anything in the note he couldn't have picked up from newspaper articles about JR; even the $118K figure (if it really means anything at all), in just fifteen minutes of snooping the house he could have come across any one of JR's 1996 pay stubs that would show that figure (as a matter of fact, to a delusional homeless drifter, $118K might seem like a princely sum, and look like found money; in that state he might not have a very clear conception of just how much money beyond $118K a man like John Ramsey would have).
There is presently nothing publicly known that excludes him, and there is way, way, way more than most any other person that fits him as the perp. Your reasons for dismissing him appear to me to be not much more than that you just don't want to think he fits, because that would threaten your own firmly-believed scenario. If it's more than than that, beyond a "gut feeling", please explain your reasoning, and also accept my apologies for jumping to a conclusion.
I'm almost 30 years old and know a bit and some French speaking people (funny enough they're from Egypt), and I've never heard attache used. Never. I've only heard it spoken on specials about this and I've only read on places like this. Also, an attache isn't really a briefcase. It's more of a purse/messenger thing that's considered unisex in Europe/France. An example. http://media.padandquill.com/media/c.../attache_2.jpg Yes, some of the images look like a briefcase, but most of them don't.
When you google attache, the first meaning is a dipolmat. Attache doesn't mean briefcase at all. Attache "case" does according to Google. It's not like saying for example "I want it a black purse" vs "I want it in a black pocketbook". They're not the same thing. I also find it funny it's a pseudo french word. As I said, when I googled it said it was short for "Attache case" and that was a North American version. We do know someone who was fond of faux French words and had similar handwriting. Attache and Jonbenet both have accent marks over the e.
Michael Vail can be seen on tabloid covers with his box full of Olivias confessional tapes. Theres reports of Michael Helgoths confessional tape. Lets not forget Karrs confession.
How many pedophiles will confess to the same murder?
Michael Vail can be seen on tabloid covers with his box full of Olivias confessional tapes. Theres reports of Michael Helgoths confessional tape. Lets not forget Karrs confession.
How many pedophiles will confess to the same murder?
This a 20 year old case. I really doubt they'd let the killer get away with it if it was some weirdo drifter.
This a 20 year old case. I really doubt they'd let the killer get away with it if it was some weirdo drifter.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meibomius
There is presently nothing publicly known that excludes him, and there is way, way, way more than most any other person that fits him as the perp. Your reasons for dismissing him appear to me to be not much more than that you just don't want to think he fits, because that would threaten your own firmly-believed scenario. If it's more than than that, beyond a "gut feeling", please explain your reasoning, and also accept my apologies for jumping to a conclusion.
Disagree with this completely. There are poor/destitute people in jail all over the world for crimes they didn't commit - even if there is very little/no real proof against them....all because they didn't have enough $ to hire a good lawyer.
So, you expect us to believe that the BPD has enough proof to put a destitute drifter in jail for a highly publicized, unsolved crime that is still being discussed 20 years later?! A crime that completely embarrassed them & negatively affected the entire community?! Yeah, right. I think most of us here have more intelligence than that.
Michael Vail can be seen on tabloid covers with his box full of Olivias confessional tapes. Theres reports of Michael Helgoths confessional tape. Lets not forget Karrs confession.
How many pedophiles will confess to the same murder?
Wrong, no one ever said Oliva confessed, much less on tape. His high school friend says he had tapes they exchanged recorded over a period of time before the murder that displayed a dark and disturbing change in Oliva's demeanor. The conversation shortly after the murder where he is reported to have said he did something terrible to a child was not taped, and did not specifically confess to this crime, but was also not initially followed up on by the BPD, nor did they originally take advantage of the written or audio evidence he had.
So, now that misinformation is corrected, let's agree that bringing Helgoth or Karr into it is completely irrelevant to the question, which you still haven't answered:
What logical reasons, based on the known evidence, do you have for ruling out Oliva?
Disagree with this completely. There are poor/destitute people in jail all over the world for crimes they didn't commit - even if there is very little/no real proof against them....all because they didn't have enough $ to hire a good lawyer.
So, you expect us to believe that the BPD has enough proof to put a destitute drifter in jail for a highly publicized, unsolved crime that is still being discussed 20 years later?! A crime that completely embarrassed them & negatively affected the entire community?! Yeah, right. I think most of us here have more intelligence than that.
I don't get what you're trying to say at all. You seem to have misunderstood my post completely.
I didn't say Boulder Police had enough evidence to arrest or convict, I listed verified, undeniable circumstantial evidence that goes far beyond any other person to make Oliva likely for the crime, specifically major aspects of history, motive, opportunity and proximity.These are matters of fact, not conjecture or debate.
I also pointed out that the BPD did not seem to initially take Oliva very seriously as a suspect, despite all this alarming circumstantial evidence, likely because they were still locked into their complete focus on the Ramseys. I also expressed the fervent hope that, in light of his recent arrest on child porn charges, BPD leaves no stone unturned to absolutely and categorically eliminate Oliva as a suspect before they do anything else in this case.
That's all. What innocent people in jail for crimes they didn't commit has to do with this is a complete mystery to me.
This a 20 year old case. I really doubt they'd let the killer get away with it if it was some weirdo drifter.
On the contrary, the Boulder Police ignored or pursued in a half-assed fashion numerous leads, and very likely allowed any adverse information at all to cause them to not pursue a random character like Oliva. Yet, all of those eerie coincidences remain true. RDIs love to wave away all evidence that points toward the Ramseys' innocence, just like the BPD did. Yet the slightest bit of information that complicates someone like Oliva as a suspect is immediately enough to cross him off, in ink. And in this case, none of us even has any concrete knowledge of evidence that rules him out, it's all speculation about "they must" and "it's not likely. It's a blatant double standard.
So, the question remains unanswered:
On what specific reasoning, based on what actual known evidence, do you base your position to rule Oliva out as a suspect?
I'm almost 30 years old and know a bit and some French speaking people (funny enough they're from Egypt), and I've never heard attache used. Never. I've only heard it spoken on specials about this and I've only read on places like this. Also, an attache isn't really a briefcase. It's more of a purse/messenger thing that's considered unisex in Europe/France. An example. http://media.padandquill.com/media/c.../attache_2.jpg Yes, some of the images look like a briefcase, but most of them don't.
When you google attache, the first meaning is a dipolmat. Attache doesn't mean briefcase at all. Attache "case" does according to Google. It's not like saying for example "I want it a black purse" vs "I want it in a black pocketbook". They're not the same thing. I also find it funny it's a pseudo french word. As I said, when I googled it said it was short for "Attache case" and that was a North American version. We do know someone who was fond of faux French words and had similar handwriting. Attache and Jonbenet both have accent marks over the e.
Additionally, he was arrested Dec. 12, 2000, on the University of Colorado campus on allegations that included criminal trespass, possession of marijuana and possession of a weapon by a previous offender. That weapon was a stun gun.
Oliva's possession of a stun gun was potentially significant because some investigators, Smit included, believe such a weapon was used on JonBenet. Other detectives are not convinced on that point.
Oliva was discovered to be carrying a photograph of JonBenet in his personal property. Also, Oliva had in his possession a poem he had written, titled "Ode to JonBenet."
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by meibomius
Don't think he "fits"? Based on what? He doesn't fit the speculative profile of the killer that you've each settled on in your mind? What uncommon characteristics not possessed by a "common" criminal would he need to have to fit this crime, and how do you know he doesn't have them?
I said I didn't know his background; I said exactly that. None of the articles I've briefed mention his education. The person who did this is educated is what I'm saying, and what most of the investigators believe. Also, he was a homeless drifter. A homeless drifter isn't going to know John personally like in the ransom note, nor have the intimate knowledge of the layout of the home. So you look at his poem and compare the linguistics and punctuation. Easy to do. And his criminal background indicates that he is a sloppy criminal, too, and that's definitely not the profile of the killer.
Last edited by Free-R; 10-14-2016 at 02:43 AM..
Reason: added link
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.
