Author: Vicki
Friday, 20 September 2002 - 10:05 pm |        |
Eliza,
I read that book a long time ago, and it is good for details. The index is great. I still go back and check details.
Breaking a window seems more like what a kid would do, when they come home and are locked out. It also seems inconvenient to go thru THAT window.
Vicki |
Author: Eliza Cline
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 08:39 pm | |
Vicki,
You are right, it would be silly for a grown man to do something like that. Ramsey's story doesn't hold up. I am sure the Ramseys are responsible for the murder but I can't quite figure out which parent committed the crime and which one is covering up. Right now I lean toward John Ramsey being the actual murderer. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 04 October 2002 - 12:36 pm | |
At 20:00 Eastern Time CBS's 48 Hours will feature a segment on the JonBenet Ramsey case. The police interviews of Patsy (50+ year old woman still wants to be called Patsy) and John will be shown to the public for the first time. A former co worker (now employed by CBS) sent me an E-mail saying "It will knock your socks off".
Just an FYI.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Vicki
Saturday, 05 October 2002 - 01:26 am | |
Kevin and Eliza,
I watched the 48 Hours show tonight, and it did look like someone came through that window. Smit pointed out leaves up against the right and left panes, but the middle was clear, and there were leaves inside the house by the suitcase.
What do you think about the new suspect?
Vicki |
Author: Jack Traisson
Saturday, 05 October 2002 - 05:30 am | |
Vicki,
You should have watched more closely. There is no new suspect. Gary Oliva was only introduced to show how a man like him (a convicted sex offender) may have perpetrated the crime, and to deflect away some of the public's negative feelings toward the Ramsey's. A manipulative journalistic ploy in my opinion.
From the show: "Police have dismissed Oliva because his DNA doesn’t match evidence at the scene. (and later on) Just this week, police said Oliva is not a suspect. Sources say his DNA doesn't match evidence at the scene."
If awards for poor journalism were given out, Erin Moriarty would certainly deserve one for this program.
The promise of new information? There was nothing in the telecast to add to our understanding of the case. In fact, it was misleading. People are going to think Oliva had something to do with the killing of JonBenet Ramsey when he clearly didn't. As for the Ramsey's, it is obvious they did the show for PR value, hoping to improve their image in the public's mind.
I found nothing in this program to aid me in figuring out this murder.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Kevin Braun
Saturday, 05 October 2002 - 09:30 am | |
I must agree with John. The program was misleading. A show that, in a different forum, I could see the Ramsey's paying to produce. Certainly nothing to "knock your socks off". I am sorry for bringing it to the board's attention.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 05 October 2002 - 04:55 pm | |
| Kevin....thanks for telling us about the program. My fat ass learned something from it. The little girl's mom is a pretty arrogant person. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Saturday, 05 October 2002 - 07:03 pm | |
Howard,
You're welcome. I agree with you, "The little girl's mom is a pretty arrogant person", maybe a decent actress. My fat ass still gets the impression that Patsy and John are hiding something. Anyway, have a good Sunday evening.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Eliza Cline
Saturday, 05 October 2002 - 09:03 pm | |
| I ALWAYS get the impression that Patsy and John are hiding something. Every time they give an interview they seem shifty and evasive. For one thing, they would always say they were "ready and willing" to take a lie detector test. However, they waited 3 years after their daugher's murder to take the test. |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 05 October 2002 - 10:11 pm | |
| Has anyone ever considered Jonbenet's bro? A kid could read in a book or on the internet about garottes and decide it would be a cool thing to try never considering that the results might be fatal. |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 05 October 2002 - 10:18 pm | |
| Dear Diana........Anything is possible. But wasn't the brother just a year or two older than the poor little girl? The detective on the recent program stated that there was considerable force applied by the garroter to the girls neck. He would have had to knock her out to be able to do the strangling. If I am not mistaken,the detective also added that she did put up a bit of a struggle. What a shame,the whole murder and subsequent rigamarole........... |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 06 October 2002 - 04:19 am | |
Hi all,
Has Patsy ever given an explanation for wearing the same clothes the day she called the police as she did the evening before?
Det. Steve Thomas always felt this was an important clue. A woman as wealthy and fashion conscious as Patsy would not have worn the same clothes on consecutive days. His theory is that Patsy was up all evening, covering up her crime, and simply forgot about her attire.
I am wondering if Patsy has ever been asked and answered this question.
Rich |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 06 October 2002 - 05:00 pm | |
| Even somebody as fashion conscious as Patsy would not care what she put on if she woke up and found her only daughter missing. If last night's clothes were draped over a chair and were handy to put on before the police got there -- fine. If Patsy had been beautifully turned out -- fresh clothes, perfect makeup and hair, perfume etc. we would all be asking how she could be callous enough to worry about such things with her daughter missing/dead. |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 06 October 2002 - 08:41 pm | |
Re: Patsy's clothes.
Patsy was asked about why she was wearing the same clothes. According to her story, she was up and about for more than 30 minutes before she found the ransom note and was already dressed. When asked why she put on the same clothes as she had worn to the party the night before she said she habitually did that ( a former beauty queen with a wardrobe the size of Bloomingdales) and then the next night she went on a tv interview wearing the same suit she wore to the police interview the day before ...alibi anyone? |
Author: Vicki
Monday, 07 October 2002 - 10:12 am | |
Hi all,
Jack,
Oliva's DNA didn't match, but neither did anyone in the Ramsey family. Oliva was cleared. What is the difference?
Vicki |
Author: Jack Traisson
Monday, 07 October 2002 - 04:33 pm | |
Hi Vicki,
The difference is that Oliva should never have been on the show in the first place. You were duped into thinking he was a new suspect. This is why the show was misleading and an example of poor (or even deceitful) journalism. How many others out there now think that Oliva had something to do with the death of JonBenet Ramsey? Too many. And this further muddies a difficult case. If I hadn't pointed out that he wasn't a suspect at all would you still be thinking he was? There was no reason for Erin Moriarty to include him -- other than to help the Ramsey's PR campaign, and to introduce a 'type' of person who may have perpetrated this crime.
I don't know who killed JonBenet but I do know this: The last third of the program would have been better spent on something relevant to the case. If you want to create profiles or hypothetical scenarios then do so by telling the audience what you are up to, but it's dishonest and unethical to parade around a person as a suspect when you know he isn't. It made Oliva's movements at the time of the murder, and his old school friend's testimony (if that can be believed because he wouldn't allow himself to be identified) seem incriminating. If you are going to use a real person in creating a possible solution or scenario then they better be closely connected to the case. Oliva isn't. I didn't see Moriarty digging up any past friends of the Ramsey's to discuss what 'type' of people they are.
Erin Moriarty and company went looking for a new suspect and didn't find one, so they decided to pad the show. They should have kept looking for a new suspect, or just simply concentrated more on the police tapes or other facts they brought up before bringing this piece to air.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Eliza Cline
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 11:06 am | |
| One possible scenario that occurred to me is that John Ramsey was molesting the child, and during one of these instances of molestation, accidently killed her. He then went to Patsy and claimed that the child was killed in some kind of accident involving her brother Burke. Patsy cooperates with John to cover up the "accident" in order to spare Burke the ordeal of a police investigation. He dictates the ransom note, she copies it, etc. |
Author: Eliza Cline
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 09:53 am | |
| I saw Larry King last night and he showed clips from a police interview of Patsy Ramsey. Patsy really hedged when it came to the subject of how pineapple got in JonBenet's stomach. She ducked her head, laughed nervously, and hedged on the question. She claimed she never fed anything to the little girl after putting her to bed. Yet her fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple. She is definitely hiding something. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 02:00 pm | |
Hi Eliza,
The case is often reflective, I believe, of the person viewing the evidence rather than the evidence itself.
I agree with your interpretation that the tapes of the interviews shown don't suggest innocence of Patsy but may indeed be suggest guilt. However, Patsy's attorney did an effective job of representing the tapes as exculpatory.
What is interesting to me is how the investigators are divided - some are certain that Patsy is behind the crime. Others are convinced of an intruder.
Rich |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 04:12 pm | |
Everybody of some importance dismisses the pineapple. Yet for the most part, they claim that the killer took JBR down the spiral staircase, which was rather tight and hard to maneuver on. It is possible, that JBR went downstairs by herself and grabbed some pine apple or she was already down stairs with someone she knew and ate the fruit.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Eliza Cline
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 08:17 pm | |
| JonBenet's fingerprints were not found on the bowl of pineapple, which is why police believe someone else served it to her. |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 08:26 pm | |
Was it a large bowl? Might she have picked it up between her forearms?
Just a thought.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 08:47 am | |
There were fingerprints on the bowl but the police could not make a proper determination as whose prints they were. The prints were too smudged or not complete enough to make that determination.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Eliza Cline
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 11:49 am | |
| In the police interview with Patsy, the detective tells her that her prints are on the bowl...the book "Perfect Murder Perfect Town" says the same thing. At any rate, every thing I have read about the case indicates that JonBenet's prints definitely were not on the bowl. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 12:33 pm | |
The police interview is different from the actual evidence list and the Prosecution's answer to the Motion of Discovery filed by the Defense. Both of which, do not list any fingerprints taken from the bowl of fruit. As a former homicide detective I have played these games with suspects more than enough. I bet the book also never mentions the search warrant that was filed for the neighbor's (or friend's) house.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: stephen miller
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 10:36 pm | |
Hi everyone thought you might want to take a look at this I don't know how to post it as a link so address is below
www.detective.mainpage.net
Also I haven't a clue if this theory has been put forward before anyway take a look
from
steve |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 05:14 am | |
The page to "Keith Andrews - Criminologist" is interesting, in that the link to his page about Anne Chapman:
http://www.geocities.com/sleuthandrews/chapman.html
is stolen through direct copying and pasting from this very website. (Although he screwed up and claims that Neal Shelden, who found the photo displayed on that page -- another direct steal from here -- is a decendant of Chapman.)
Judging solely from that blatant copyright violation and plagiarism this person should not be trusted.
(Ally, I figure this email will be forwarded to you as you posted on this thread, so you or Stephen should see about getting Geocities to yank that page.)
Dan |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 06:19 am | |
Hey there Stephen,
The Fleet White theory is an old one and one proposed by Mr. Ramsey himself in his interview with the police if I am not mistaken. And there Fleet was trying to support the Ramseys and he gets splattered on.
Dan,
Thanks for the info. Tom Slemen, Keith's buddy in the Ripper Case used to post here waaay back in the by and bye and he was as uh..interesting...a theorist as you ever did see. Puts some of our current nutters to shame.
Just kidding to all you nutballs out there...I love you all dearly. [bats eyes]
Ally |
Author: stephen miller
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 06:39 am | |
Hi Ally and Dan I came across this site in a search for The Wallace Case it seems he may be copying other peoples theories maybe he should stick to Liverpool Murders
all the best
steve |
