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 SteveThomas or any of his associates leaked to the public, Alex Hunter, Mary Lacys exconeration nor Carnes report or how many bats were found doesn't matter. Anyone who still believes the families innocent with knowledge this little girl ate fruit cocktail still undigested an hour before her death while an intruder sat and penned the infamous ransom note and Burke played in the basement after everyone was asleep has been duped or refuses to see the truth, just my opin.
Mine too...was a kid when the first men landed on the moon and my old Irish Grandma till the day she died believed it was staged...fast foward 40+ years later and my kids come home from their "theory of knowledge" class and tell me "Mom did you know we never landed on the moon?"
Well...I think dr Phil got it halfway right, they don't think Burke did it, they know he did. Theres no evidence of an intruder. They compaigned like a couple of deceptive politicians who'll look you straight in the eye while lying through their teeth. She had a sweet peaceful look, keep telling yourself that. Autopsy photos tell a different story....yeah the brutal honesty hard to stomach.
Just read John Douglas’ The Cases that Haunt Us; only the chapter about the Ramsey crime. (I skimmed through the chapter about the Lindbergh baby, and didn’t realize that Lindbergh himself was suspected of killing his son, even after the baby’s mangled body was found and evidence pointed to a kidnapper.) Douglas writes about when he was brought in to assist with the Ramsey case. He explains to Ramseys’ attorneys the difference between a preferential and situational child molester, and he told them that from the little he had heard and read in the media about the case, he thought it didn’t look good for their clients.
He goes on to explain how the evidence and his interviews with JR changed his mind. He notes that in his experience with staged domestic homicides, the killer will generally maneuver and manipulate to have someone else find the body. It's apparently much easier for him/her to react and to maintain some distance from the crime. (He notes how easy it would have been for JR to manipulate FW to find the body.) He wrote about the fact that in this particular case, he was sure before he was told--since there was a rumor about it--that there was no semen found at the crime scene. He believed that anyone who could kill with that degree of force and aggression would not spend time on traditional penile intercourse. He would "abuse her in some other ways, such as by inserting his fingers or an object to demonstrate his control and contempt..."
Haven't been keeping up with posts in this thread for a while because, for one thing, I'm making my way through all of the previous posts in the four JBR threads, and trying to keep track of what has been discussed before, especially as regards actual evidence (though it's about 19 opinion/gut/I heard... posts for every one that cites actual evidence, at least so far), in order to avoid as much as possible rehashing or asking for sources on things that have already been covered. I'm a little disappointed at the report I finally got from the Oregon authorities on one suspect, it isn't much more than can be found on various sex offender web sites, but at least I know the exact extent of the official record (and through different sources have found out that he is still considered very much a suspect by people actively investigating the case).
I've also bought several of the better JBR books, and intend to read those carefully, making use of the long Thanksgiving weekend to start organizing my thoughts on a few specific areas of the case I am currently focusing on. It will probably be another couple of weeks before I've caught up on all the threads, read a couple books, and continue to do some research on the areas I'm interested in. I intend to document as much as possible the sources for everything I post, and just compiling that info on sources is tedious and time consuming. I hope when I do post it will be seen by most to be on balance a positive contribution to the discussion.
Despite the work ahead, I'm encouraged by some of the progress I've made already. On the one hand, I got nowhere with Erin Moriarty by email in confirming the info I was interested in. Two different people who would know say she is just too busy to spend any time answering random questions on an old story she's not currently working on. Luckily, it looks as if I might be able to get some confirmation another way, though I haven't got there yet.
But on the other hand, you might remember I said earlier that I have no pretension or expectation that I would be able to turn up any information at all that wasn't already known to authorities or to those still investigating the case, and I still quite honestly believe that. At least, not anything earth-shaking or that could remotely help crack the case. But, to my surprise, according to jameson, I've already turned up some new information she thinks some of the investigators working one angle of the case would be very interested to know and follow up on. I admit that sends a little tingle down the spine, but I expect that it was a lucky fluke, and will most probably lead nowhere. I'm not fooling myself (or trying to fool you) that I'm becoming an insider or an expert whom you should trust. I just find it more pleasant to try to get at the primary sources and experts myself and see what I can learn or confirm, rather than endlessly debate back and forth here over the same questions that have multiple, conflicting evidence from sources of varying reliability or accuracy.
When I'm satisfied I've understood and made some sense of the various sources I'm absorbing, I'll share what I think is relevant and of interest, and try to document sources wherever appropriate. Once I catch up to the last two weeks or so of posts here, I may also have a comment or two on some of those, so I hope you'll excuse those comments for being a bit tardy.
I'm making my way through all of the previous posts in the four JBR threads
In addition to those four threads, there are several others, now closed, regarding this case, below. Some of them have more information than others. It's interesting to see how much has been uncovered about this crime in the past few years (e.g. the supposedly unmatched palm print on the wine cellar door, later found to be Melinda Ramsey's), as well as what has been proven to be rumor, as opposed to actual evidence.
In addition to those four threads, there are several others, now closed, regarding this case, below. Some of them have more information than others. It's interesting to see how much has been uncovered about this crime in the past few years (e.g. the supposedly unmatched palm print on the wine cellar door, later found to be Melinda Ramsey's), as well as what has been proven to be rumor, as opposed to actual evidence.
Gee, thanks. Even more to read is just what I need... Seriously, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to point me in the direction of relevant discussions. And I can add to all this about another 500 posts, as I didn't realize until yesterday that j has a new forum (and may be starting yet another soon).[CENTER]Save[/CENTER]
A short video clip of an interview with Lou Smit from 2005. He said he got the message from way up, possibly even the governor’s office, "Get on the same side, or we’ll have to do something about it."
Who did the Ramseys throw under the bus when they starting feeling the heat from BPD?
A. Fleet White
B. Priscilla White
C. Linda Hoffman Pugh
D. All of the above and more...Jeff Merrick, etc.
Who handled the case unethically and tried to lead it pro-Ramsey?
A. Alex Hunter, who knew the grand jury wanted to hand down indictments against the Ramseys, but knowingly led the public to believe that the grand jury didn’t want to indict
B. Mary Lacy, who knew the DNA results, most of which she chose to ignore, shouldn’t have been used to exonerate the Ramseys, but exonerated anyway
C. Lou Smit, after getting cozy with the Ramseys, with his intruder and stun gun theory
D. All of the above and more
Who committed crimes to try to turn this case Pro-Ramsey?
A. Both John and Patsy Ramsey by lying to BPD about what actually happened
B. Susan Stine by impersonating Mark Beckner and using a fabricated e-mail address of becknerbpd/hotmail to send messages to people affiliated with the investigation
C. Susan Bennett by selling sealed court documents to National Enquirer
D. All of the above and more
Who are the victims in this whole travesty?
A. Jonbenet Ramsey
B. Burke Ramsey
C. Both Jonbenet and Burke Ramsey
D. All of the above
Answers to all questions...surprise...D!
Last edited by PennyLane2; 11-19-2016 at 02:17 PM..
I'll add some to this one.
Who did the Ramseys throw under the bus when they starting feeling the heat from BPD?
A. Fleet White
B. Priscilla White
C. Linda Hoffman Pugh
D. All of the above and more...Jeff Merrick, etc.
One of the very first questions any competent police would ask (and reportedly BPD did) is "do you know of anyone who might have a grudge against you? Anyone who owed you money? Any disgruntled employees?" Their first answer, from everything I've ever heard or read, was "we don't know anyone who is capable of this." The police--any competent police, and even the BPD--would persist, and ask them to think hard, and answer the question.
So, should they lie to the police about Linda Hoffman Pugh, owing them money, asking for a loan? Whatever they honestly say to that question that the police ask, the police will follow up aggressively to check out and eliminate those subjects. Hoffman Pugh may have interpreted the aggressive questioning by police as the Ramseys having deliberately thrown suspicion on her, which would explain why she told so many dubious and unsubstantiated stories about the Ramseys. When the police asked on the day of the murder, Patsy reportedly said Pugh asked for a loan, but there's no way she was capable of this. That's throwing her under a bus? Whatever they are supposed to have said about the Whites that constitutes throwing them under a bus, I have never heard. Do you have a source for just how they threw the Whites under any bus?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PennyLane2
Who handled the case unethically and tried to lead it pro-Ramsey?
A. Alex Hunter, who knew the grand jury wanted to hand down indictments against the Ramseys, but knowingly led the public to believe that the grand jury didn’t want to indict
B. Mary Lacy, who knew the DNA results, most of which she chose to ignore, shouldn’t have been used to exonerate the Ramseys, but exonerated anyway
C. Lou Smit, after getting cozy with the Ramseys, with his intruder and stun gun theory
D. All of the above and more.
Hunter quite rightly judged that there was not nearly enough evidence to convict, so an indictment would be a waste of time and money and would be just for show; what the public knows or thinks about the indictment or any evidence is completely irrelevant to the case itself. What does public opinion have to do with solving the case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PennyLane2
Who committed crimes to try to turn this case Pro-Ramsey?
A. Both John and Patsy Ramsey by lying to BPD about what actually happened
B. Susan Stine by impersonating Mark Beckner and using a fabricated e-mail address of becknerbpd/hotmail to send messages to people affiliated with the investigation
C. Susan Bennett by selling sealed court documents to National Enquirer
D. All of the above and more
Whether the Ramseys lied depends entirely on your opinion on what actually happened. That's quite simply begging the question. And a dizzying number of people have sold information--some true, some false, some hearsay, some questionable, some actual official legal documents. Is leaking information or documents to the press objectionable only if it isn't damaging to the Ramseys? If you concede that what Susan Bennett sold was genuine and accurate legal documents, how does that turn the case pro-Ramsey in any way that is not the truth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PennyLane2
Who are the victims in this whole travesty?
A. Jonbenet Ramsey
B. Burke Ramsey
C. Both Jonbenet and Burke Ramsey
D. All of the above
Answers to all questions...surprise...D!
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.
Seriously, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to point me in the direction of relevant discussions. And I can add to all this about another 500 posts, as I didn't realize until yesterday that j has a new forum (and may be starting yet another soon).[CENTER]Save[/CENTER]