Page 5 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3456714 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 2096

Thread: Jon Benet Ramsey

  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by cjw View Post
    Sorry, but who the f$ck do you think you are? Yes, this is a public forum and even asshats are welcome (obviously), but your opinion may be better received if you took the stick out of your ass while delivering it.

    Just a bit of advice.
    Who the phuck do I think I am . I am the one who is setting the record straight while Jack prints the bs and no one seems to call him on it. You are really going to have to improve your vocabulary asshat. It is totally unbecoming.

  2. #202
    Guest Guest
    wow...... 3 moderators and an administrator at the same time.....

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by panda View Post
    Awwww JESSICA I'm sorry to hear about that awful time in your life. It never ceases to amaze me what people put their children through. Did your dad ever get his life together?
    Who gives a chit if he got his life together. He is out of Jessica's life now and that means he did not.

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica Rabbit View Post
    Yeah he did and I thank god that my step sisters who are the age I was when I went through this madness have the good dad I always wanted and needed. My mom was awesome and put me into therapy the second we got away from my dad and that helped me not to be scared anymore of him or any man for that reason
    Thank you for sharing that JESSICA, its so nice to hear happy endings for a change.

    JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE
    Rest in peace sweet baby Caylee. The world loves you and will see to it that you get the justice you deserve.

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by panda View Post
    Don't even tell me what point I was trying to make, because in spite of thinking you know it all, NEWSFLASH, YOU DON"T KNOW SHIT ABOUT ME OR JACK. And its a good thing you're not here to make friends because you certainly won't. You also don't know shit about this case, all you know is your interpitation of what you've read just like everybody else.
    Quiet down Panda and start reading some books. You still believe there was semen found and a pubic hair and are thanking Jack for misinforming you. Now rather than resorting to personal attacks through vulgarity, you might want to try actually proving me wrong.

  6. #206
    Guest Guest
    I've been able to forgive my father and seeing that he has changed and doesn't hurt those little girls or his wife are a tremendous relief to me. We aren't best friends, but I do see him 4 or 5 times a year and you can see the remorse in him. I feel sorry for him now.... it's kind of a cat's in the cradle type thing with my other sibs

  7. #207
    Well, I'd rather be arrogant than ignorant, personally, but it shows that it takes all types to make a world, right?

    I think the worst thing in this thread not directly related to a dead little girl is this:

    Quote Originally Posted by cjw View Post
    Sorry, but who the f$ck do you think you are? Yes, this is a public forum and even asshats are welcome (obviously), but your opinion may be better received if you took the stick out of your ass while delivering it.
    We really should learn not to escalate things like this. It makes it a hell of a lot harder for me to do my job and warn new people about getting into pissing contests when veteran members are saying and applauding this kind of statement.

    Everyone take it down a notch or you will either find the thread closed or yourselves banned. There is no excuse for getting so out of control. This is not, in fact, a public forum. You have to agree to our forum rules and terms of service to post here, so please, Jessie10 and everyone else, remember we are here to learn and have fun.

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by JefeStone View Post
    Jessie, since you aren't here for friends, I guess you wont take this the wrong way. Quit coming off as a smart ass. Do you tell people in real life they are ignorant when you first meet them? I would rather be ignorant than arrogant. Ignorant people can learn the facts, arrogance is a character flaw that just make's one ugly.
    If you would rather be ignorant than arrogant, you are on the right path. Keep up the good work. What are you people discussing here anyway, the truth or DOI and what you want to belive. And another thing if that is your Avatar, we don't want to get into a discussion about ugly. Trust me.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Well, I'd rather be arrogant than ignorant, personally, but it shows that it takes all types to make a world, right?

    I think the worst thing in this thread not directly related to a dead little girl is this:



    We really should learn not to escalate things like this. It makes it a hell of a lot harder for me to do my job and warn new people about getting into pissing contests when veteran members are saying and applauding this kind of statement.

    Everyone take it down a notch or you will either find the thread closed or yourselves banned. There is no excuse for getting so out of control. This is not, in fact, a public forum. You have to agree to our forum rules and terms of service to post here, so please, Jessie10 and everyone else, remember we are here to learn and have fun.

    Sorry Nick, it did get out of control and you are absolutely right. Have a great evening.

  10. 06-30-2008, 03:07 PM
    Reason
    As I was typing, Jefe & Nick stepped in to save the day.

  11. #210
    Guest Guest
    she would be 16 or 17 if she was still alive. Does anyone know how old her siblings are now?

  12. #211
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cornfield, Middle of Nowhere
    Posts
    1,184
    Wait... I'm confused. I always thought for some reason that they did find semen. Maybe I read it somewhere. Jessie10 is right about semen not being mentioned in the autopsy report though.

    Does anyone know how they were able to prove that it wasn't John Mark Karr that killed her?

  13. #212
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica Rabbit View Post
    she would be 16 or 17 if she was still alive. Does anyone know how old her siblings are now?
    Hmmmm JESSICA, I'm thinking Burke was around 11 at the time, but please don't quote me, I'm just guessing & did not look it up. I don't want to misinform you. And John Ramsey had grown children from his first marriage, not sure if it was 1 or 2. Again, just guessing here.

    JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE
    Rest in peace sweet baby Caylee. The world loves you and will see to it that you get the justice you deserve.

  14. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica Rabbit View Post
    she would be 16 or 17 if she was still alive. Does anyone know how old her siblings are now?
    Berke was 21 this year. John Andrew, a half brother and there is another sister, Melinda. There ages. Something I don't know. That is rare.

    Why don't one of you look it up for Jessica. Jessica, there was a sister Beth who was killed in a car crash a few years before JonBenet Died. It fairly well crushed John Ramsey. I don't think he wanted to go through that again.

    Patsy, different story altogether. She is quite capable of doing this and more than likely did in a rage.

  15. #214
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Wednesday View Post
    Wait... I'm confused. I always thought for some reason that they did find semen. Maybe I read it somewhere. Jessie10 is right about semen not being mentioned in the autopsy report though.

    Does anyone know how they were able to prove that it wasn't John Mark Karr that killed her?
    You know WEDNESDAY, I mentioned the semen because I had just watched the movie again & its mentioned in there. I did not get to watch all of the movie & couldn't remember what the movie said about the semen in the end. According to the movie, they found something on her thigh & suspected it was semen, I guess it wasn't though, wonder what it was?

    JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE
    Rest in peace sweet baby Caylee. The world loves you and will see to it that you get the justice you deserve.

  16. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by Wednesday View Post
    Wait... I'm confused. I always thought for some reason that they did find semen. Maybe I read it somewhere. Jessie10 is right about semen not being mentioned in the autopsy report though.

    Does anyone know how they were able to prove that it wasn't John Mark Karr that killed her?
    Well aside from the obvious that Tracey was leading him on with his e-mails and Karr a known pedophile fell for it, the DNA in the underwear which was unsourced did not match Karr's. The DNA is unlikely to match anyone's except for that worker who packaged it. .

    Wednesday, I don't blame you for being confused, reading what has been posted so far, it would confuse anyone. Read my posts, it will unconfuse you.

  17. #216
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,705
    ^^ I don't know what it was, but when John Mark Karr didn't match it, they released him, so I think those in the know believe it to be more significant than something from the underwear factory!

  18. #217
    Wednesday,

    Tracey is the slime documentary maker, 4 so far on the Ramseys, who was coming out with a book just about the time that Karr surfaced. Coincidences - they never fail to amuse. So anyway Tracey is a documentary maker who is a parasite who has destroyed a few lives on his quest for money and fame through JonBenet Ramsey. But there was never any semen and Karr, whose about as disgusting a human as it gets, had nothing to do with it. Besides the absence of a match of DNA, it was proven he was not in the area. All the questions he answered were AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET. Actually, one does not even have to read a book. Try the internet. A click away from knowledge.

  19. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by FloridaDeathHag View Post
    ^^ I don't know what it was, but when John Mark Karr didn't match it, they released him, so I think those in the know believe it to be more significant than something from the underwear factory!
    Those in the know? That would be Lacy? Yes? Most people would agree with you and that is probably why this case is unsolved. Everyone actually believes that the DNA in CODIS should be checked and someday there will be a match - at least John Ramsey says he does - you know that fragmented crap the Ramseys are trying to pass off as the DNA that was the same age as JonBenet's DNA, is actually that of the killer. No, it was in the underwear for some time. It is older DNA. Never put there that night. Probably put there a while back when the underwear was made in the factory by a worker.

    It is older and fragmented and has 10 markers only. Not the required 13. And guess what there has not been a match yet and never will be.

  20. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by panda View Post
    You know WEDNESDAY, I mentioned the semen because I had just watched the movie again & its mentioned in there. I did not get to watch all of the movie & couldn't remember what the movie said about the semen in the end. According to the movie, they found something on her thigh & suspected it was semen, I guess it wasn't though, wonder what it was?
    Wednesday, they mentioned semen in the movie at the very beginning contrary to what Panda says. Detective Arndt walks into Eller's office and says they thought they had semen, but it is not semen. And again, that was at the beginning of the movie. Like about 30 minutes into it. Hey Panda, have a nice evening.

    And to all a good night. It has been a real pleasure trying to right some of the wrongs that have been posted here. I would like to suggest that Panda and her sidekick take the time to actually read one a chapter or two. It is a fascinating case and gets better and better with knowledge. I know, I know, but give a shot and try reading about the facts of the case and not the hearsay.

    See you later Jessica. You take care.
    Last edited by Jessie10; 06-30-2008 at 03:36 PM.

  21. 06-30-2008, 03:35 PM

  22. #220
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bremerton,Washington
    Posts
    2,702
    Okay how about this.....Everyone stop arguing. Yes. Jessie this is a public Forum but that doesnt mean that you should come on here and treat everyone like a selfish know it all a**hole. People have their own opinions. Respect that. Yes..if they made a mistake KINDLY tell them. Dont come on here acting like we are retarded and you are "ALL KNOWING GOD" or something. How old are you? Because the only people that I know that are this disrespectful to people are middle school kids.So be kind to people...even if you dont want to make friends. Karma is gonna bite you in the butt if you treat people like crap.

    Have a nice day!

  23. #221
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVa
    Posts
    5,064
    Hi to all.

    Folks, let the MODS do their jobs. Trust the MODS, you won't be let down.

  24. #222
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Well, I'd rather be arrogant than ignorant, personally, but it shows that it takes all types to make a world, right?

    I think the worst thing in this thread not directly related to a dead little girl is this:



    We really should learn not to escalate things like this. It makes it a hell of a lot harder for me to do my job and warn new people about getting into pissing contests when veteran members are saying and applauding this kind of statement.

    Everyone take it down a notch or you will either find the thread closed or yourselves banned. There is no excuse for getting so out of control. This is not, in fact, a public forum. You have to agree to our forum rules and terms of service to post here, so please, Jessie10 and everyone else, remember we are here to learn and have fun.
    Sorry Nick- you're right. I shouldn't have played into it on this thread. Consider cjw officially spanked.

  25. #223
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVa
    Posts
    5,064
    "Consider cjw officially spanked."

    ---Well, now, I'm kinda jealous..... Do I have to argue with someone first or can I just go stand in line for mine?

  26. #224
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bremerton,Washington
    Posts
    2,702
    lol...wow. This goes from massive arguing to wanting spankings. lol I love it!


  27. #225
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessie10 View Post
    Hello Jack,

    There was no semen prsent. There was none tested because it WAS NOT present. This case is sad enough as it is so that we do not need false information being posted. There was never a pubic hair found either, it was an ancilliary hair, an arm hair.

    Jack, get the facts. You do this child an incredible disservice by posting these falshehoods.

    Hold on,I've always heard there was semun found.You're telling me CNN is wrong??

  28. #226
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cornfield, Middle of Nowhere
    Posts
    1,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinklovedoll View Post
    Hold on,I've always heard there was semun found.You're telling me CNN is wrong??
    I thought the same thing... but I guess we are both wrong.

    If it wasn't semen, what was it?

  29. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Wednesday View Post
    I thought the same thing... but I guess we are both wrong.

    If it wasn't semen, what was it?
    It was blood found on her legs. She was wiped down. She was assaulted with what Thomas believes was the other end of the paint brush and blood trickled down on to the underwear. There is no foreign DNA from that evening whatsoever. The DNA found that is unsourced was older and degraded, meaning it was in the underwear already. Dr. Henry Lee bought the same packaged underwear and found unsourced DNA in those also concluding him to believe the DNA was from a handler, most likely, when it was packaged in the factory.

    There was no semen found on JonBenet whatsoever. And it will not be the first time CNN got something wrong. I watched a reporter on Fox make a complete idiot out of herself as she spoke with Dr. Cyrill Wecht, saying the fact that there is unsourced DNA in the underwear proves the parents are innocent. Wecht proceeded to set her straight. When the whole Karr thing started up, there were reporters on Fox saying Patsy Ramsey cooperated completely with the police and was railroaded. She obviously also did not know what she was talking about and neither did anyone on the Panel because she was not called on it to explain why she said that. The fact is they did not cooperate completely, and when they did some four months later, they had the questions in hand that would be asked. Yes, they gave hair samples and DNA samples on the third day, which was compulsory in the investigation. As far as answering questions, they answered questions for a few hours the day JonBenet was found. They left the home shortly after that, but not before John tried to make plans to leave and was stopped. That evening, John said they were in no condition to answer questions and the next day the same thing and on the third day, they gave samples. That was it. Period.

  30. #228
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessie10 View Post
    I am stating the facts as Jack did. If you cannot handle the truth, then I guess we can all just post that the Ramseys are innocent and lets hear it for DOI.

    Well the Ramseys are not innocent and there is no semen and it was not the boogieman. It is more than likely Patsy or could have been John, but it is one of them.

    JonBenet deserves better than made up lies for everyone to read. Her head was split in two. She suffered quite enough. Don't take it all so personally. Give it back if you have any thing that can refute what I am saying. But you don't do you?

    I don't know where you are getting your information, but if you read up on the recent developments of the case you would see that in fact there WAS a pubic hair found on JB's blanket as well as unidentified DNA found in her underwear and under her nails.

    Here's an exerpt from an article from the Washington Post:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...214802_000.htm

    "Other evidence of an intruder: Investigators have been unable to identify DNA material found in JonBenet's underwear, a pubic hair found on the blanket or a palm print pulled from the wine cellar door, published reports have stated. "

    Additionally, CBS news did a 1 hour special on the JB case a couple of years ago. Here's an exerpt from the interview they had with the actual people INVOLVED with the case:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in661569.shtml

    ""I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

    He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."

    The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name."



    Don't accuse people of being ignorant when you yourself don't research all the facts.

  31. #229
    What always puzzled me about this and that lead me to think the family was involved was the fact that JB never left the house. If it was a kidnapping, wouldn't she have been taken from the house? This, along with the kidnap letter analysis, leads me to believe that the family is either responsible for her death or they know who did it and for some reason is covering it up.

  32. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by melmoney View Post
    I don't know where you are getting your information, but if you read up on the recent developments of the case you would see that in fact there WAS a pubic hair found on JB's blanket as well as unidentified DNA found in her underwear and under her nails.

    Here's an exerpt from an article from the Washington Post:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...214802_000.htm

    "Other evidence of an intruder: Investigators have been unable to identify DNA material found in JonBenet's underwear, a pubic hair found on the blanket or a palm print pulled from the wine cellar door, published reports have stated. "

    Additionally, CBS news did a 1 hour special on the JB case a couple of years ago. Here's an exerpt from the interview they had with the actual people INVOLVED with the case:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in661569.shtml

    ""I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

    He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."

    The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name."



    Don't accuse people of being ignorant when you yourself don't research all the facts.
    Quoting 48 Hours are you? If anyone doesn't do their homework it is 48 hours. That would be an Erin Moriarity special. She is an idiot and that is putting it nicely. Re check your facts. You are wrong.

    The hair was an ancilliary hair. It was NOT a pubic hair. More than likely an arm hair or underarm hair. Not a pubic hair. Do some more research.

    I am not going to do it for you. It never ceases to amaze that you "you people" constantly rely on this ridiculous 48 Hours special that when dissected and it has been time and again, will be shown to be WRONG.

  33. #231
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessie10 View Post
    Quoting 48 Hours are you? If anyone doesn't do their homework it is 48 hours. That would be an Erin Moriarity special. She is an idiot and that is putting it nicely. Re check your facts. You are wrong.

    The hair was an ancilliary hair. It was NOT a pubic hair. More than likely an arm hair or underarm hair. Not a pubic hair. Do some more research.

    I am not going to do it for you. It never ceases to amaze that you "you people" constantly rely on this ridiculous 48 Hours special that when dissected and it has been time and again, will be shown to be WRONG.
    I guess you know better than the Forensic scientists that are working on this case. I'd love to know your credentials.

    Do some research? I did. Where's yours? Why won't you give me a credible source for your information? I don't think one exists.

  34. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by melmoney View Post
    I guess you know better than the Forensic scientists that are working on this case. I'd love to know your credentials.

    Do some research? I did. Where's yours? Why won't you give me a credible source for your information? I don't think one exists.
    Melmoney,

    When you rely on something like 48 Hours to prove your point, it is obvious that you have not done any research on this case and I am not going to do it for you. If you want to find out about the case, you have to actually delve into it and not just accept the first google that comes up, especially not one that is represented by Erin Moriarity. She is joke and everyone knows that. She has been proven wrong time and again on many of these boards. If you don't have the time to do the research, then look up some of the Boards that have all of this information on them, such as Forums For Justice, as an example. It is thorough, it has pictures and it proves it every time that there is no intruder involved. None whatsoever.

    I am not going to do the research for you. Do it yourself.

  35. #233
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    568
    So after countless articles, interviews, and assertations since 1999 that show foreign DNA obtained from JB's body doesn't match anybody in the Ramsey family, you expect us to believe that you, Jessie10, that haphazardly came across the Find-A-Death Forum is right while everybody else is coincidentially wrong?

    You expect me to believe you, Jessie10, and disreguard what Judge Carnes, Lou Schmidt, and Mary Lacey (to name a few) say? I don't think so. I'm not certainly not buying anything you say when you can't even back up any of your claims with evidence.

    How do you explain away all of these people's supposed "lies"?

  36. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by melmoney View Post
    So after countless articles, interviews, and assertations since 1999 that show foreign DNA obtained from JB's body doesn't match anybody in the Ramsey family, you expect us to believe that you, Jessie10, that haphazardly came across the Find-A-Death Forum is right while everybody else is coincidentially wrong?

    You expect me to believe you, Jessie10, and disreguard what Judge Carnes, Lou Schmidt, and Mary Lacey (to name a few) say? I don't think so. I'm not certainly not buying anything you say when you can't even back up any of your claims with evidence.

    How do you explain away all of these people's supposed "lies"?
    Lets start with Judge Carnes, a civil trial Judge who had no right whatsoever to make an opinion on the guilt or innocence of anyone in a murder trial. Who made this decision without having all of the discovery, certainly not the discovery from the Boulder Police Department. I have a feeling you did not know that. This is a Judge who was there "solely" to rule on a civil matter and she imposed herself in the murder where she had absolutely NO RIGHT TO DO and did so without the facts of the case.

    Lou Smit, a detective who actually held the hands of John and Patsy Ramsey in his van and prayed with them (while he was hired to find the murderer and he did this with the two people who were suspects). A little out of line, No? This is the same Lou Smit who interviewed John Ramsey and finished his sentences for him. This is the same Lou Smit whose wife was dying from cancer (interesting that he should have an affinity for Patsy); this is the same Lou Smit who aligned himself with Mike Tracey, the sleazoid documentary maker of JonBenet, four in all, the same Tracey who actually accused a Mr. Gicax (sp) of the murder and ruined his life all the while knowing the police never were interested in him. I have a feeling you did not know that. This is the same man that Lou Smit acknowledges in the documentary.

    Lacy, this is the moron who arrested John Karr because of the knowledge he had. Lacy did not take the time to find out just what was out there and that Karr actually found everything on the internet just as you could do if you cared to find out the truth.

    You IDIs inevitably bring up Judge Carnes for lack of anything better. And it gets shot down as fast as a lion can flick its tail.

    Mrs. Ramsey killed her daughter and John aided and abetted in the cleaning up. Burke also knows something because he heard the noises and creaking during the night and he was up that morning as John all of a sudden remembered and gave an interview to that fact AFTER it became clear that Berke said he was up.

    If anyone is at a loss for knowledge here, it certainly is not I.

  37. #235
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    568
    Shoot down all these people you want, but it still doesn't change the FACT that there IS DNA evidence that links someone outside of the Ramsey family to the crime. Again, you can't give me any valid reason why all these sources are outright lying about having DNA evidence. What would be the benefit for them to lie? It is common knowledge that DNA has been extracted from JB's fingernails and underwear and is now in the FBI database . This is what ruled out John Mark Karr.

    If, as you say, the foreign DNA was from a handler from the factory, then how did the DNA get under her nails? The underwear that JB was wearing that night was older. Per the autopsy report her underwear had old urine stains in the crotch area. So more than likely, any and all DNA from a handler would have been erased by then.

  38. #236
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessie10 View Post
    Lets start with Judge Carnes, a civil trial Judge who had no right whatsoever to make an opinion on the guilt or innocence of anyone in a murder trial. Who made this decision without having all of the discovery, certainly not the discovery from the Boulder Police Department. I have a feeling you did not know that. This is a Judge who was there "solely" to rule on a civil matter and she imposed herself in the murder where she had absolutely NO RIGHT TO DO and did so without the facts of the case.

    Lou Smit, a detective who actually held the hands of John and Patsy Ramsey in his van and prayed with them (while he was hired to find the murderer and he did this with the two people who were suspects). A little out of line, No? This is the same Lou Smit who interviewed John Ramsey and finished his sentences for him. This is the same Lou Smit whose wife was dying from cancer (interesting that he should have an affinity for Patsy); this is the same Lou Smit who aligned himself with Mike Tracey, the sleazoid documentary maker of JonBenet, four in all, the same Tracey who actually accused a Mr. Gicax (sp) of the murder and ruined his life all the while knowing the police never were interested in him. I have a feeling you did not know that. This is the same man that Lou Smit acknowledges in the documentary.

    Lacy, this is the moron who arrested John Karr because of the knowledge he had. Lacy did not take the time to find out just what was out there and that Karr actually found everything on the internet just as you could do if you cared to find out the truth.

    You IDIs inevitably bring up Judge Carnes for lack of anything better. And it gets shot down as fast as a lion can flick its tail.

    Mrs. Ramsey killed her daughter and John aided and abetted in the cleaning up. Burke also knows something because he heard the noises and creaking during the night and he was up that morning as John all of a sudden remembered and gave an interview to that fact AFTER it became clear that Berke said he was up.

    If anyone is at a loss for knowledge here, it certainly is not I.


    You are right I just checked and several articles saidno semen found.I'm thinking it was the family.

  39. #237
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,183
    NO WIRE HANGERS!!!



    EVER!!



    -Morbid1
    Last edited by Morbid1; 07-01-2008 at 08:15 AM.

  40. #238
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,259
    I always miss all the fun!

  41. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinklovedoll View Post
    You are right I just checked and several articles saidno semen found.I'm thinking it was the family.
    Good thinking Pink!

  42. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by melmoney View Post
    Shoot down all these people you want, but it still doesn't change the FACT that there IS DNA evidence that links someone outside of the Ramsey family to the crime. Again, you can't give me any valid reason why all these sources are outright lying about having DNA evidence. What would be the benefit for them to lie? It is common knowledge that DNA has been extracted from JB's fingernails and underwear and is now in the FBI database . This is what ruled out John Mark Karr.

    If, as you say, the foreign DNA was from a handler from the factory, then how did the DNA get under her nails? The underwear that JB was wearing that night was older. Per the autopsy report her underwear had old urine stains in the crotch area. So more than likely, any and all DNA from a handler would have been erased by then.
    The autopsy does not say "old" urine stains. It says "urine stained". JonBenet obviously lost control at some point. First of all the underwear were way too big for her. Patsy says she bought them along with others from Bloomingdales. Someone grabbed the size 14s and put them on her, possibly without thinking. The urine is from that night. She was sexually assaulted (so Patsy wanted you to think) and blood trickled down to the underwear. Why do you assume that the handler or packager touched the crotch only. There is unsourced DNA in the underwear-it does not say where in the underwear.

    There were also hairs from John's sweater found on JonBenet's crotch. The same sweater from Israel that he purchased. So the case gets sleazier and sleazier. Someone in the family was doing something to this child. She has healed scarring that occurred a few days prior to the murder. It is in the autopsy report. The reason I know this?

    Becuase I read the autopsy report ad nauseum and translated into English whatever was there that needed to be and the autopsy report says clearly that she had prior vaginal injuries at the 7:00 position. Someone assasulted her with an object, Thomas thinks the end of the garrotte, which by the way had fibers from Patsy's jacket in it. Someone wanted the police to think that she was sexually assaulted or they wanted to cover up a prior sexual assault.

    I never said anyone was lying except for Smit and Tracey. They belong together. Lacy is just lazy. Plain and simple. Karr is obviiously lying.

    Yes I know, I know Patsy is going to say or did say that she was wrapping presents down in the cellar and that is how the fibers got on the garrotte. Actually what she said was they got their when she hugged her after John brought her up from the cellar.

    But the tape over her mouth was left on the blanket in the cellar. and the tape had 4 fibers from Patsy's jacket. By the way there is no table down there to wrap packages and the place looks like a war hit it. Do you really think Patsy was down there wrapping presents. I don't. John described the wine cellar as a nasty place. He knew she was there. They both knew it - that is why they allowed their son to leave that morning when the police wanted to question him. they said so he was safe. How could he be any safer in a room full of people and the police there. But they let him leave because they knew there was no killer out there. And they did not want him questioned.

    Did you know that when Smit did his little documentary and demonstrated coming in and out and of the cellar and stepping on the suitcase and using it as leverage that HE MOVED THE SUITCASE. What the phuck is that? But don't take my word for it. Look at the pictures yourself on FFJ.
    Last edited by Jessie10; 07-01-2008 at 08:58 AM.

  43. #241
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tulsa, OK.
    Posts
    4,725
    Quote Originally Posted by JefeStone View Post
    Jessie, since you aren't here for friends, I guess you wont take this the wrong way. Quit coming off as a smart ass. Do you tell people in real life they are ignorant when you first meet them? I would rather be ignorant than arrogant. Ignorant people can learn the facts, arrogance is a character flaw that just make's one ugly.
    Thanks Jefe, I was embarassed just reading some of the posts.

  44. #242
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessie10 View Post
    The autopsy does not say "old" urine stains. It says "urine stained". JonBenet obviously lost control at some point. First of all the underwear were way too big for her. Patsy says she bought them along with others from Bloomingdales. Someone grabbed the size 14s and put them on her, possibly without thinking. The urine is from that night. She was sexually assaulted (so Patsy wanted you to think) and blood trickled down to the underwear. Why do you assume that the handler or packager touched the crotch only. There is unsourced DNA in the underwear-it does not say where in the underwear.

    There were also hairs from John's sweater found on JonBenet's crotch. The same sweater from Israel that he purchased. So the case gets sleazier and sleazier. Someone in the family was doing something to this child. She has healed scarring that occurred a few days prior to the murder. It is in the autopsy report. The reason I know this?

    Becuase I read the autopsy report ad nauseum and translated into English whatever was there that needed to be and the autopsy report says clearly that she had prior vaginal injuries at the 7:00 position. Someone assasulted her with an object, Thomas thinks the end of the garrotte, which by the way had fibers from Patsy's jacket in it. Someone wanted the police to think that she was sexually assaulted or they wanted to cover up a prior sexual assault.

    I never said anyone was lying except for Smit and Tracey. They belong together. Lacy is just lazy. Plain and simple. Karr is obviiously lying.
    How do you know the urine stain was from that night in particular? Most people wash their underwear before they use them for the first time hence the fact that a handler's DNA would be gone. Besides, JB was wearing two pairs of underwear. One pair was her size and the other pair was a big size. We don't know why JB was wearing big underwear that night, but it may have been a common thing.

    The autopsy makes no conclusion about prior sexual activity or assault. It only describes the trauma to her vaginal area.

    JonBenet's pediatrician testified that there was never any evidence that she had been sexually abused or molested in the past.

  45. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by darlingdawn View Post
    What always puzzled me about this and that lead me to think the family was involved was the fact that JB never left the house. If it was a kidnapping, wouldn't she have been taken from the house? This, along with the kidnap letter analysis, leads me to believe that the family is either responsible for her death or they know who did it and for some reason is covering it up.

    Yep. And when you have a chance you can check out the similarities of the ransom note and Patsy's handwriting. Patsy was ambi-dexterous and probably wrote the note iwth her left hand.

  46. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by melmoney View Post
    How do you know the urine stain was from that night in particular? Most people wash their underwear before they use them for the first time hence the fact that a handler's DNA would be gone. Besides, JB was wearing two pairs of underwear. One pair was her size and the other pair was a big size. We don't know why JB was wearing big underwear that night, but it may have been a common thing.

    The autopsy makes no conclusion about prior sexual activity or assault. It only describes the trauma to her vaginal area.

    JonBenet's pediatrician testified that there was never any evidence that she had been sexually abused or molested in the past.
    It certainly does; it describes healed trauma. You have to take the time to read it and decipher it. It absolutely says it.

    JB was wearing longjohns and a large pair of underwear. Where are you getting that she had on a small pair also? Where?

    JonBenet's physician never gave her an internal so how would he know? Use some common sense with this case. You take everything at face value that is handed you.

  47. #245
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessie10 View Post
    It certainly does; it describes healed trauma. You have to take the time to read it and decipher it. It absolutely says it.

    JB was wearing longjohns and a large pair of underwear. Where are you getting that she had on a small pair also? Where?

    JonBenet's physician never gave her an internal so how would he know? Use some common sense with this case. You take everything at face value that is handed you.
    Actually, he would not have to do an internal to know if she had trauma to her vagina or not.
    Last edited by lab_rat; 07-01-2008 at 09:31 AM. Reason: Forgot a not, which really changes the meaning of my statement!

  48. #246
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    317
    I do find it hard to believe Patsy wrapped presents in the cellar,it was a huge house,and them getting the boy out of the house,does make you think John and Patsy knew they were gonna find the body,and they didnt want him there to see it.

  49. #247
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessie10 View Post
    It certainly does; it describes healed trauma. You have to take the time to read it and decipher it. It absolutely says it.

    JB was wearing longjohns and a large pair of underwear. Where are you getting that she had on a small pair also? Where?

    JonBenet's physician never gave her an internal so how would he know? Use some common sense with this case. You take everything at face value that is handed you.

    From the autopsy report:

    Under the "External Exam" section:

    "Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension"

    Now, here's what the ME said about the vaginal trauma:

    "All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The small piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen."

    "The upper portions of the vaginal vault contain no abnormalities"


    I don't see anywhere that concludes she was sexually abused. It was only describing her internal injuries.

    Also, pediatricians certainly do check for signs of sexual abuse. Part of a yearly examination for a young child is a genital exam where the doctor will look at both the exterior and interior portions of the child's vagina.

  50. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine74137 View Post
    Thanks Jefe, I was embarassed just reading some of the posts.
    Well turn your head Sunshine and then the embarrassement will leave.

  51. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by melmoney View Post
    From the autopsy report:

    Under the "External Exam" section:

    "Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension"

    Now, here's what the ME said about the vaginal trauma:

    "All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The small piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen."

    "The upper portions of the vaginal vault contain no abnormalities"


    I don't see anywhere that concludes she was sexually abused. It was only describing her internal injuries.

    Also, pediatricians certainly do check for signs of sexual abuse. Part of a yearly examination for a young child is a genital exam where the doctor will look at both the exterior and interior portions of the child's vagina.
    "Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. the smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contain epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material."

    Chronic inflammation means it happened at least 72 hours before. The writer of this autopsy report is not apt to tell you that because he assumes a doctor will be reading it. But don't take my word, do some research. This child was molested prior to the evening. Definitely. OR as Thomas believes Patsy was inflicting corporal punishment in the form of deuching. The maid heard daily screaming coming from JonBenet and Patsy from the bathroom. That of course is hearsay but it goes along and one cannot ignore the chronic inflammation.

  52. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by melmoney View Post
    From the autopsy report:

    Under the "External Exam" section:

    "Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension"

    Now, here's what the ME said about the vaginal trauma:

    "All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The small piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen."

    "The upper portions of the vaginal vault contain no abnormalities"


    I don't see anywhere that concludes she was sexually abused. It was only describing her internal injuries.

    Also, pediatricians certainly do check for signs of sexual abuse. Part of a yearly examination for a young child is a genital exam where the doctor will look at both the exterior and interior portions of the child's vagina.
    So where are the two sets of underwear. There are long johns and large underwear. There are not two sets of underwear.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •