|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 196
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | 
|
Erin,
If Sarah wished this to be over, she would quit replying. By constantly repeating why can't this just end, as she continually does when replying all she is attempting to do is drum up support while having the last word. When I wish a conversation to be over, I stop replying, I don't care whether I have the last word or not. In this case, I do not currently wish the conversation to end, therefore, as long as she attempts to berate me and shake her finger, I'll keep replying. As for her so-called apology, in life, an apology with a qualifier doesn't count. So you don't feel she has been judgemental, rude or insulting, I believe you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it but unlike some, I won't wish you dead because of it. I'm rational that way.
Sarah,
"I just write in the same tone as those I have been writing to." A different way of not taking responsibility for your actions--in other words, others are to blame for the tone you use, you are just following along.
(Message edited by ally on January 22, 2004) |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Sarah,
"I have not been rude. I have been trying simply to put my point across and considering I have come up against nothing but derogatory remarks."
That is an utter crock. Would you like some specific examples your rudeness? Many times people have tried to challege your beliefs on a facutal basis and you have ignored them. Utterly. You've never responded to a single factual point brought up by any other poster after the initial response to Ezra.
I'd be glad to provide some specific examples for you:
When Ezra stated her opinion that the parents should be under suspicion, and provided her reasons you characterized her rudely to another poster as cruel and nasty.
"Just because people are under suspicion it doesn't mean they deserve it, that's just a cruel and nasty thing to say."
Personally, I find that to be rude. When I tried to point out that your careless language was causing confusion I got a snippy "Picky picky, tomato tomarto" response. Personally I found that to be rude.
When you responded that there was no evidence that pointed to the Ramsey's several people including myself, and Kevin Braun provided several points of evidence which did point toward the Ramsey's you convieniently ignored that and continued your rant towards those that you feel are "ruining people's lives".
When the fact was brought up that they brought this scrutiny upon themselves by their public appearances, and the book they wrote you responded with more outrage that anyone would feel free to comment on those who have thrust themselves of their own free will into the spotlight.
And this comment "Oh well just as long as it doesn't effect these other people, they can point the finger and ruin other people's lives. It's a shame that these people exist quite frankly." was not specific to Ally, but to anyone who believes that the Ramsey's are guilty which is a valid point of view to express whether you like it or not. That comment certainly affected more people than Ally. (Ezra for example.)
And comments like this "They already have to live with the fact that their daughter was taken from them, they shouldn't have to be scrutinised, they should be able to do whatever they want...in the mean time, people should lever them alone." Are offensive to pretty much anyone posting here. The point of this board is to discuss the JonBenet Ramsey case and all that entails. The potential guilt of the parents is a valid topic here, like it or not.
No one has suggested that your opinion is worthless, but you make it appear thus when you respond to valid questions, and comments regarding evidence with insults.
"The only person other than you on here has been Ally..."
Let's have a list, shall we:
Diana
Ally
Dan Norder
Ezra Cline
Caz
Me
Kevin Braun
and Yourself
"...so I have not been rude to anyone else and not even Ally."
Which is false as I demonstrated above.
"I am ok with yours and Ally's opinion but when I offered mine I am shunned."
Do you actually know what my opinion is? Frankly I doubt it. No one is shunning you, we are trying to get you to move your discourse away from insulting other posters and back on the JonBenet Ramsey case. If you feel it's not a valid topic to discuss, you are free not to. But to remain simple to insult those who believe other than you is frankly offensive.
"Also, it is not very nice to try to get me off these boards. I am not going to be put off by you or Ally. I have done nothing wrong in my eyes."
No one is trying to get you off these boards. Read my posts again. I was actually rather hoping you would respond with some rational discourse regarding the evidence. But if you can't respond without emotion, then perhaps you should consider not reading this thread anymore for your own good.
"Again, I am sorry if I have insulted anyone but I find it upsetting that you and Ally feel free to berate me and my opinion and yet I cannot defend myself against your hurtful words. Maybe you think that I have no feelings and don't care what you write but I do and it upsets me to think that anyone thinks that I have been rude when I do not mean to be. I just write in the same tone as those I have been writing to. Please can we just leave this now."
Here's the problem Sarah. You imply we're berating you, which we are not. We're defending our right to express our opinons with being accussed of being cruel, ruining people lives, or being wished out of existence by someone who is unwilling to discuss the subject matter rationally.
You can certainly defend your position. I'd love to see you do so. But what we've had instead has been an endless series of insults, and "just is" complaints instead of actual responses to the reasoned positions expressed on this board by others.
Your argument is that the Ramsey's should not be under suspicion. Can you do that without resorting to calling those who disagree cruel, heartless, etc? It's would be far more interesting to discuss the case rather than being barraged by insults. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Erin,
Anyone should be free to offer their opinion on this thread without fear of being called "cruel and nasty", being accused of "ruining people's lives", being told it's a shame that you exist, or being accused of caring only about yourself, simply because the other poster doesn't agree with you.
If Sarah wants to discuss this case rationally, she is free to do so, as are you. No one will attack you simply for your opinion. (Unless Sarah disagrees with you, then apparently all bets are off.) They may ask you to support that position, but that's what debate is all about.
Personally, I have no strong opinion as to the Ramsey's guilt. But there is certainly some serious evidence that points in that direction and I (and others) should be free to discuss it without insult.
I do however have strong feelings that the Ramsey's behavior has invited the degree of scrutiny that they are now receiving and that to be accused of "ruining their lives" by speculating while they parade around on the TV, and write books is way out of line.
Especially considering that *IF* they are innocent that their lack of cooperation with the police seriously hampered the investigation of the actual killer. Perhaps losing an opportunity to stop a guy who might still be out there preying on children even today.
John |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 5:22 pm: |
|
I must say that I am very surprised that Stephen -- who usually is quite harsh regarding the conduct on the Boards -- doesen't put an end to this nonsense.
Or don't the rules of conduct apply on everyone?
As far as I am concerned, Sarah is not more insulting and cruel than Ally is here on this thread. I think it'is beginning to get out of hand here.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Right, let's get back to business here.
Does anyone have any predictions as to what will come back from the DNA testing? I am particularly curious to know if any tests were done as to whether it is male or female DNA? It certainly seems possible that it was picked up from another child as opposed to the killer. There didn't appear to be any broken nails, or traces of blood that would indicate a struggle if I recall the autopsy results correctly.
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 206
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Do you know that out of all the rudeness possible on the boards, what I find to be the most rude?
Popping in to make an unsolicited comment that also insults/makes a snide aside about the person who hosts this website. So if you have a concern, rather than adding to the animosity why don't you send an email to Stephen rather than commenting on his lack of action? Did it ever occur to you that he might be busy and not aware of the situation?
If you think I have been rude so far, make another comment about Stephen and watch me achieve a level of rudeness unseen before in so-called civilized times.
Love,
Ally |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 207
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 5:47 pm: |
|
John,
From what I understand there is no known info regarding the DNA other than that it does not match any of the Ramseys. The DNA was found under her fingernails and decayed (possibly old? ) DNA was found in her underwear. As far as I know, the only information they are possibly attempting to find is whether or not that DNA might match anything in the database of sex offenders. I could be wrong--memory is faulty--but do not believe that even the gender is known..only that it is foreign.
There were no broken fingernails and she had spent the day playing with other children. It is not inconceivable that the DNA got under her fingernails that way. |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 208
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Just out of curiousity, does anyone else notice that John can say virtually the exact same thing that I can, in the exact same tone and point out the exact same thing..and yet I am the one singled out as being insulting? I wonder if it's because I don't have a penis? Is it that ole..a forceful male is acceptable but a forceful female is a b*tch even if they are saying the same things?
Sweet mystery and misogyny of life! |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 211
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 6:21 pm: |
|
I was wrong. The DNA has been proven to be from a male.
Filler: The Paper Bag Princess by Robert Munsch.
{Just so it' clear, I couldn't find my actual copy of this story so this will be non-verbatim recitation while sticking to the plot)
Ahem.. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Thanks for the additional info Ally!
Have the kids she was playing with undergone DNA testing? It would seem to be a logical thing to do, but I can see where it would be problematic. I would be hesitant to let my kid be DNA tested.
Personally, I doubt seriously that they'll get a match in the FBI database for some reason. The killer was obviously someone very close the family, if it wasn't the Ramsey's themselves.
I don't know why people feel the need to pick on you and ignore me. :-( You probably make them feel inadequate. I'm much less threatening. Plus, I have a cool ponytail.
Glenn,
I have agree with Ally in regards to sniping at Stephen. It's very uncool to make snide comments about the host in my opinion.
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 213
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 6:52 pm: |
|
John,
Don't feel unwanted because no one will pick on you. I'll give ya few swipes if it'll make you feel better.
I agree also that it would have made sense to test the kids...but problematic for the reasons you claim. And also, they were at a party so they would have to test EVERYONE at the party. It would be entirely possible that she grabbed some adults hand or something and got some DNA matter--it wasn't skin or anything just cells which we are constantly shedding. So can you imagine if you were the person who tested for that DNA at the party? Fingers would be sure to be pointed at you no matter what. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:13 pm: |
|
I just want to state, that I don't agree with Sarah's opinions here regarding the Ramsey case -- far from it. I believe the Ramsey's conduct was rather suspicious, and I certainly don't believe in exposing a child to that kind of circus that they did with JoBenet. Even if they didn't have something to do with it, I believe they are not to be freed from responsibility. And their media appearances makes them rather questionable.
And no, Ally, my criticism wasn't directed to Stephen. You know as well as I do that he does a splendid job with this website, something I've pointed out a number of times. I know very well that he is a busy man. I believe we all have to take responsibility ourselves for what we write, but if the bullying on some of the threads are allowed to go too far (regardless of the direction), the rules of conduct becomes a joke.
I don't agree at all with Sarah on this matter, but the outcome of this thread is not entirely her fault. I do believe Erin and Monty has a point here.
As I said, the rules of conduct applies to all of us -- you are no exception, neither is John, or myself for that matter.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 215
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Hey Glenn,
Agreed. I am attempting to move on and discuss the case with John and raise the tone. I, however react irrationally at any hint of criticism of Stephen. You know how somewhere up there I say if you can't argue without emotion, you shouldn't argue? That's why I don't argue in such cases, I go for the jugular. 
I apologise for my overaction. I've said it time and again, that's my hot spot.
Peace,
Ally |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:38 pm: |
|
Apology accepted. I'd rather slit my own throat ... eh, sorry... than discredit Stephen in any way, I want that to be clarified once and for all. I was just trying to raise a point in general regarding the credibility of the rules of conduct.
Now, carry on, lads. Carry on. I believe this subject is a rather sensitive one, but let's try and keep it relatively civilized. Whopee! 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:17 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Civilized discussion is all I've been asking for. :-) I've said my piece regarding what was going on and have no intention of pursuing it any further unless the discussion is derailed again.
I believe that people of all points of view should be welcome to express their beliefs and ideas, as I said in my post to Erin. And as long as the discussion allowed to proceed in a civilized way, I will indeed be a happy man.
John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:23 pm: |
|
Ally,
In a way, the DNA evidence is a shame because with no way to determine how it got there it's evidentiary value is minimal at best. We've grown so accustomed to DNA being the magic bullet of crime solving that in cases like this when it's source cannot be determined it's actually more of a hinderance than a help, IMO.
It certainly doesn't help explain away the bizarre and inconsistent statements by the parents. (The pineapple, the tale of finding the ransom note, etc...)
John |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 217
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Yeah the pineapple thing has always disturbed me. Its such an innocuous thing, I can't help but wonder what the denial of her eating it means. Of course, that is one of the primary points of evidence that proponents of the BDI theory use considering his fingerprints were on the bowl. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:56 pm: |
|
The BDI theory has a lot going for it. It would help explain the childishness of the ransom note, the Ramsey's unwillingness to cooperate with police, as well as the ligature strangulation.
It's understandable that he might feel a degree of resentment toward JonBenet. And it might also help account for the apparent sexual abuse. A real kidnapper would be unlikely to molest her while still in the house. |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 217
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:59 pm: |
|
The hypocrisy here just sickens me. If there's a way to renounce my membership, then I'd like to do it. I'm through here. Have fun folks. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:31 pm: |
|
Erin,
I'm sorry you feel that way.
To renounce your membership, select "Edit Profile", and give it your password if it asks. The "Delete Account" button is at the bottom.
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 753
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:40 am: |
|
Erin
I've told you off before for this sort of thing.
Stop compromising your dignity and obvious worth to these boards, lighten up and please remember there are many of us who appreciate your worth to these boards... me being one of them.
Now, just take a day off or something. |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 220
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:23 am: |
|
I'm not gonna say anything, I'm not gonna say anything.
Speaking of manipulative female tactics, one of the things that always struck me about Patsy Ramsey was the clothing issue. First, here is the notorious clothes horse, who was always immaculately groomed. And on the day her daughters found murdered, she is wearing the same clothes she wore to a party the night before? That seems completely out of character. When questioned about it ( a couple of years later when they finally granted a police interview) she replied that she often wore the same outfit two days in a row and the very next day, when she went on a TV interview, guess what she was wearing? That's right. The same outfit she had worn the day before at the police interview.
That's what I hate about manipulation. It's always so obvious. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 664
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:35 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
Well, since you threw out the question…
Yes, I did notice, but I don’t think it can have anything to do with us girls not having a penis. In fact, we ladies are in the very privileged position of always having at least one penis looking up at us with unconditional admiration – it’s pretty much a biological certainty. 
Have a relaxed weekend all.
I’m off to the place where we can all be what we eat, rather than what we write.
Love,
Caz
PS I agree the clothes thing is mighty sus - I would never put on the same clothes the next day after a party - if I spent the night in my own bed, that is.
(Message edited by Caz on January 23, 2004) |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 221
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:10 am: |
|
Exactly my point on the clothes, Caz. I don't know of a single woman who would. And understanding that this was a wool type jacket suit thing not jeans and a t-shirt either. When you add in that fibers from that jacket were found under the duct tape that was binding her... there is definitely something suspect.
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 512
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:15 am: |
|
I don't wish to continue arguing but I still feel that I am just as much entitled to be on this board as others so I shall carry on on this thread regardless.
Ally,
Why do you think that the mother was being manipulative? Maybe she really does wear the same thing two days in a row? I do on some occasions. This seems quite normal to me.
Sarah |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
