JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

Hi Wickerman - Here's some advice. Instead of spending time nit-picking my posts, (which you know I always have answers to and can justify my sources) why not try posting something new and interesting about the case?

You have accused me of lying, and I have proved you wrong each time. (Btw I don't remember getting an apology from you for these slurs). You say that I don't understand the lives of people with money. That is making a big assumption isn't it? You would probably be surprised if you knew my background.

You say I give emotional answers. If I were you I would be asking for justification of this, wouldn't I? You seem to be the one with your oversized panties in a twist.

The funniest part is that you nit-pick my fairly mundane posts but IGNORE the important ones (presumably because you know I am correct) and make no comment at all.

You have made no comment on the most tellingly important post of all - my post number 518 - Patsy's handwriting sample. It was written with her right hand btw. I forgot to put that.

Maybe you could remove your blinkers for a while and take a look.

Bye for now! x

[Wickerman]

You see Wickerman, there you go - making the kind of unsubstantiated statement that you criticize ME for making.

Lou Smit DID present his case to the Grand Jury.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm

Of course he did, but he wouldn't have been able to without the intervention of his own D.A. in Colorado Springs, Bob Russel.

Here's what happened, after Lou Smit resigned a Special Prosecutor, Michael Kaine who had been appointed to take the case before a Grand Jury sought an injunction against Lou Smit to seize his evidence and have it erased from the record. Though this injunction was filed in Alex Hunter's name..

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03301999huntervssmit.htm

Lou Smit had to seek the advise of his own D.A. in Colorado Springs, Bob Russel, Russel then turned to Greg Walta a Colorado State Public Defender, to protect Smit. Their collaboration was successful and Smit was allowed to keep his evidence and use it at the Grand Jury, but the Boulder Police dominated the presentation with their biased evidence, even so the conclusion had been reached that the Boulder Police response to this case had been misguided and irrational.

Greg Walta went on public record as saying, "I think the case is in deep trouble, and I think it is in deep trouble because the Boulder police department has staked it's reputation on the Ramsey's being guilty, and once that's happened that police department can't perform it's function. So I think the Boulder Police department is virtually incapable of solving this case at the present time".

That is a hugely damming accusation from a state public defender.

Thats the sequence of events, which is why I sought to remind you just who you are throwing your trust behind. This was a police department, assisted by a legal team who attempted to circumvent the course of justice.
Yes, they failed, but success or failure was not the issue, it's what they did that was the issue.

[louisa]

Smit was allowed to keep his evidence and use it at the Grand Jury, but the Boulder Police dominated the presentation with their biased evidence.

"With their biased evidence"! That says everything I needed to know about your source of reference, which incidentally you have not furnished.

Greg Walta went on public record as saying, "I think the case is in deep trouble, and I think it is in deep trouble because the Boulder police department has staked it's reputation on the Ramsey's being guilty, and once that's happened that police department can't perform it's function. So I think the Boulder Police department is virtually incapable of solving this case at the present time"

That is a hugely damming accusation from a state public defender.

That isn't "damning" it's simply the personal opinion of another pencil pusher in the DA's office.

Why would the opinion of one of the DA's staff be more valid than another's? I could copy and paste Michael Kane's comments if you like and he was of the opinion the Ramseys were guilty as hell.

There were those in the DA's office who most certainly didn't want to prosecute Patsy and John Ramsey, Walta was one of them - so what? It isn't "hugely damning", it's just an opinion. The police department were "unable to perform their function" because of the obstacles that the DA's office and the Ramsey's lawyers kept putting in their way. No wonder the Boulder police department could not make an arrest. However.....they DID solve the case. They knew who the murderer was.

It's lucky for the Ramseys that the police were unable to make an arrest because otherwise they would have been doing time in the Colorado State Penitentiary, where they belonged.

The Police Department did nothing that was worse than that of Team Ramsey. The DA himself and the Ramsey's lawyers did everything within their power to prevent true justice being served.


Wickerman - Are you going to reply to my last post? I want to know what you make of Patsy's handwriting sample.

[Wickerman]

You have made no comment on the most tellingly important post of all - my post number 518 - Patsy's handwriting sample. It was written with her right hand btw. I forgot to put that.

Maybe you could remove your blinkers for a while and take a look.

Bye for now! x

Ok, lets get to the bottom of the matter why I do not react to every point you make in every post.
Here is one prime example, what you wrote is in the format of a novel.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=394721&postcount=478

It would be my preference to take your novel apart line by line and ask you to provide sources so any reader can separate your beliefs and assumptions from stated facts.

The reason is this, you have demonstrated a penchant for jumping to conclusions in several post in this thread so my attitude towards the above named post, among others, is well justified.

Just yesterday you assumed I meant Lou Smit never attended the Grand Jury, when what I had pointed out was that the Boulder Police had blocked his request to attend. Which they did, the block was only removed after Smit sought legal assistance.

Likewise in an earlier post I wrote about an intruder entering through a basement window, so obviously he was well placed to familiarize himself with the basement - but you jumped to the conclusion that I said there was a window in the room where JonBenet was found.
I never said any such thing, and yet you have pressed this more than once. I have asked you where you think I said that but you never responded.

This shows how easy you jump to conclusions, which is why I prefer to see you provide references in an argument rather than just your opinion. It might play well for those who already believe your line of argument but from a debate perspective it merely shows how much you have bought into an idea, but little else.

Ok, now to the examples of writing.
What you posted (the pics), only shows selected words from one suspect. What you posted explains why "you" believe Patsy wrote the RN, but not why anyone else should believe Patsy wrote it.
Where are all the other examples which look similar?
I might be safe in assuming you are not a document examiner, or graphologist, or linguistic expert, so your opinion only matters to you. You have no experience on the subject yourself, so why should your opinion matter to me?

When you present an argument I would like to see some comments prefixed by, "Linda Arndt said", or "Steve Thomas wrote", or "Mike Buckner stated", etc.
The fact that you are writing on a subject that for all we know you have no expertise in except as an interested student of the case, like most of us, does not require me or anyone else to respond to every one of your beliefs.

When I bring up DNA evidence, or official opinions, I make sure I have the reference to hand, and in most cases provide it because I am not making the argument myself. I am presenting an argument that has been given by those experienced in the field.

The above is what you term as nitpicking, but to me it is necessary to get to the basics behind your beliefs, and avoid just accepting what you believe to be true.

I hope you understand now.

[louisa]

Oh get over yourself you silly man! It's just a discussion, there's no need to get yourself all worked up. Stress is not a good thing for someone of your advanced years.

I think you've probably just won the Most Boring Post of the Week Award

Ok, now to the examples of writing. (Post 518)
What you posted (the pics), only shows selected words from one suspect. What you posted explains why "you" believe Patsy wrote the RN, but not why anyone else should believe Patsy wrote it.
Where are all the other examples which look similar?

I laughed out loud when I read that!

"Where are the other examples which look similar?" Nowhere - because there nobody else's examples looked similar. Everyone else who gave samples was eliminated from the enquiry.

Have another look. What are the chances of an intruder having almost identical handwriting as the woman sleeping upstairs?

IF YOU FIND THE WRITER OF THE RANSOM NOTE THEN YOU HAVE FOUND THE KILLER.


Now this time, Wickerman, remove your blinkers and put on your glasses, the ones with both lenses in them, and have another look......



ORIGINAL RANSOM NOTE





EXAMPLE OF PATSY'S HANDWRITING

[louisa]

Wickerman - I don't know why you want to keep putting yourself through this. You're drawing attention to your own mistakes.

Ok, lets get to the bottom of the matter why I
In an earlier post I wrote about an intruder entering through a basement window, so obviously he was well placed to familiarize himself with the basement - but you jumped to the conclusion that I said there was a window in the room where JonBenet was found.
I never said any such thing.

My post reads:

"The basement room where the body was found was down a maze of hallways that few people knew was there. The 'intruder' stopped to latch the door on his way out (the latch being very stiff and hard to turn, according to police and Fleet White)."

But, as he came in that way, then he knew where the room was.
It's not like he entered the house through the front door then looked for a basement room. He came in through the basement room, so what is the question?

[Pcdunn]

Hi, Louisa,

While I agree that Patsy probably wrote the "note", I'm puzzled by your reasoning that "if you find the author of the note, you've found the killer." Why do you believe this? Couldn't the author of the note simply be trying to cover up something which had occurred in the house and would be too scandalous to let come out in every detail?

Also, you keep stating that the city of Boulder (or the BPD?) would be bankrupted if the Ramseys went to trial. That only makes sense if there was concern that they could be sued if the trial failed, which I'm uncertain about. Is that what you mean? Because I get the impression you think Boulder is podunk cow-town, when in fact it is a very large city in its own right, with a large university and many businesses making it a flourishing place to live and work.

https://bouldercolorado.gov/

Thank you.

[louisa]

Hi, Louisa,

While I agree that Patsy probably wrote the "note", I'm puzzled by your reasoning that "if you find the author of the note, you've found the killer." Why do you believe this? Couldn't the author of the note simply be trying to cover up something which had occurred in the house and would be too scandalous to let come out in every detail?

Hi Pat,

I don't think I'm following you. Could you be a bit more specific and give an example of what you mean. I don't really see how the note could be covering up something else that had occurred? Unless you're thinking more 'outside the box' than I am?

One thing I am convinced of - No intruder was in the house that night.

Also, you keep stating that the city of Boulder (or the BPD?) would be bankrupted if the Ramseys went to trial. That only makes sense if there was concern that they could be sued if the trial failed, which I'm uncertain about. Is that what you mean? Because I get the impression you think Boulder is podunk cow-town, when in fact it is a very large city in its own right, with a large university and many businesses making it a flourishing place to live and work.


Thank you.

The Police Department were strapped for cash and the officers were constantly being told this. For instance, when two investigators (including Steve Thomas) requested permission to fly to Atlanta to interview some key witnesses they were informed the Department could not afford to let them.

The DA's office was also on a budget, cuts had already been made, and Alex Hunter knew that a trial of this magnitude (one that had the entire world talking about it) was going to run into millions. If it went to trial and the Ramseys ended up walking free then it would be his head that would roll for agreeing to a trial when the evidence was purely circumstantial. He honestly didn't think they would win against the might of the Ramseys. (Probably NOT because he thought the Ramseys were innocent, although that is the line he took).

I am going on what I have read and my own opinions. I have to state this because old Wickerman is going to ask for my 'sources'

[louisa]

what you wrote is in the format of a novel.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=394721&postcount=478

It would be my preference to take your novel apart line by line and ask you to provide sources so any reader can separate your beliefs and assumptions from stated facts.

If it's your 'preference' Wicks, old man, then please go right ahead. I can provide all the info you need. (and you know it!)

But actually you already have asked for sources for that post of mine #478 and I have provided what you asked for.

You're a little jealous, I think, of that post aren't you? If it reads like a novel that I'll take that as a compliment because novels are readable, unlike some of your posts.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman - I don't know why you want to keep putting yourself through this. You're drawing attention to your own mistakes.

My post reads:

"The basement room where the body was found was down a maze of hallways that few people knew was there. The 'intruder' stopped to latch the door on his way out (the latch being very stiff and hard to turn, according to police and Fleet White)."

Your post that initiated this seemed to suggest the murder room would take some finding. You wrote, below:

Patsy's mother told police that somebody would need to be extremely familiar with the house in order (even) to find the door to the basement because there were about 15 doors that could have been basement doors. The light switch to the basement was not in a place where one would expect a basement light to be (at the top of the stairwell) but was outside the basement, on a wall in the main room, around a corner.

The room where the body was found was down a maze of hallways that few people knew was there. The 'intruder' stopped to latch the door on his way out (the latch being very stiff and hard to turn, according to police and Fleet White).

My reply was to point out that an intruder came in through the room in the basement (via the broken window), he was down there already, so he didn't need to look for a room.
At no point did I say JB was murdered in the room with the window - the floor plans have been on-line for years. Being in the basement already, and the house being empty, the intruder had all the time in the world to check out every room on every level. Presumably, starting in the basement.

Which is why I wrote:

But, as he came in that way, then he knew where the room was.
It's not like he entered the house through the front door then looked for a basement room. He came in through the basement room, so what is the question?

You jumped to the wrong conclusion - again!

[Wickerman]

You're a little jealous, I think, of that post aren't you? If it reads like a novel that I'll take that as a compliment because novels are readable, unlike some of your posts.

Novels are fiction.

[louisa]

Your post that initiated this seemed to suggest the murder room would take some finding. You wrote, below:


My reply was to point out that an intruder came in through the room in the basement (via the broken window), he was down there already, so he didn't need to look for a room.
At no point did I say JB was murdered in the room with the window - the floor plans have been on-line for years. Being in the basement already, and the house being empty, the intruder had all the time in the world to check out every room on every level. Presumably, starting in the basement.

Which is why I wrote:


You jumped to the wrong conclusion - again!

You still up and about Wicks? I thought you'd have had your cocoa by now.

Man up and admit you are wrong. You're still trying to wriggle out of it aren't you?

I could probably find a load of links with comments from people who describe that tiny room as almost impossible to find for somebody not familiar with the house.

Stop making a Charlie of yourself. You said what you said and I copied and pasted it. End of.


NN x

[louisa]

At no point did I say JB was murdered in the room with the window

At no point did I accuse you of saying she was. You seemed to think the 'intruder' came in through the same room where JB's body was found. I merely pointed out your error.

Novels are fiction.

So are the bogey man, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and Patsy's 'intruder'.


My post was more of a list than anything - merely posing this question:

Why would a 'kidnapper/murderer' NEED to stage the scene to make it look as though the child had been the victim of a sex fiend? It would have taken him quite a while to do all of it.

Look back at the list #478 of staged features. Look at the ransom note. Look at Patsy's handwriting example. She may as well have signed the ransom note.

[Harry D]

If there's one thing working against the inside job, it's the garrote.

The garrote had been pulled so aggressively around JonBenet's throat that it was barely visible. If you want to argue that John/Patsy were sadistic enough to strangle their daughter like this, that's one thing. It's another to believe that they could've possibly done this as part of a cover-up. Whether the initial blow to the head came from the parents or Burke, I'm having trouble picturing a scenario where either John or Patsy reluctantly crouched over JonBenet and brutally strangled her to death. Even if they assumed she was already dead, it would be messed up. I would expect the neck wounds to be far more superficial than the deep-cutting ones we see on JonBenet. To me, this suggests that the perpetrator did it for psychosexual gratification, not to stage a murder scene.

[Abby Normal]

If there's one thing working against the inside job, it's the garrote.

The garrote had been pulled so aggressively around JonBenet's throat that it was barely visible. If you want to argue that John/Patsy were sadistic enough to strangle their daughter like this, that's one thing. It's another to believe that they could've possibly done this as part of a cover-up. Whether the initial blow to the head came from the parents or Burke, I'm having trouble picturing a scenario where either John or Patsy reluctantly crouched over JonBenet and brutally strangled her to death. Even if they assumed she was already dead, it would be messed up. I would expect the neck wounds to be far more superficial than the deep-cutting ones we see on JonBenet. To me, this suggests that the perpetrator did it for psychosexual gratification, not to stage a murder scene.

I pretty much agree. The garrote and brutal strangulation point to an outsider.
but.. But..

Parents have been known to brutally kill there children-look what casey Anthony did to her daughter.

and extremely odd to me-neither parent when JonBenet was found, tried to take the garrote off. Even Jon Ramsey said when he first found her he thought she might still be alive. I would have ripped that god dammed thing off her neck the second I found her. even if they knew she was dead, you would do it for pure psychological reasons. yet neither ever tried to take it off.
extremely odd.