Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#110 Feb 14, 2013
Heloise wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Bakatari. The last few weeks have confirmed something I had always suspected: that some people will argue that black is white until the cows come home. They will never let facts stand in the way of an opinion.
Hi Heloise,
You are correct, that some people go around with "blinders", but I think we have a couple who simply want to instigate argument regardless of how stupid they appear.

The Ramsey family got away with the murder, there will be no justice, and some of the truth is coming out, a bit at a time.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the information about the Grand Jury indictment came out in 1999 when Hunter made his deceptive statement?
CC
CC

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#111 Feb 14, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>The Ramseys were indicted by the Grand Jury. Allow me to write this for you one more time because I know that it is not easy for you to accept. The Ramseys were indicted by the Grand Jury.
Correct, the GJ
V O T E D to I N D I C T the
R A M S E Y S. "Allow me to write this for you one more time because I know that it is not easy for you to accept." Hunter did not sign the indictment, and charges were not filed. Understood?

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#112 Feb 14, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Correct, the GJ
V O T E D to I N D I C T the
R A M S E Y S. "Allow me to write this for you one more time because I know that it is not easy for you to accept." Hunter did not sign the indictment, and charges were not filed. Understood?
Same thing.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/27/Ram...

The Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramsey parents.
THAT means the Ramsey parents were indicted by the Grand Jury.

You are grasping at straws again. You have been bamboozled, and you still don't know it.
CC
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#113 Feb 14, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
A couple of things on that.
Steve Thomas also, was NOT among the first at the crime scene, but came quite a bit later. As I have pointed out, if someone told me he saw no footprints in the sand on the beach, I would know there was sand on the beach. The officers first at the scene observed no footprints in the snow. There was snow on the ground.
Also, the FACT that Hunter made the deceptive statement should be proof enough that he was trying to hide the fact that the Grand Jury did indeed indict the Ramsey parents. THAT alone should tell you that you have been a victim of the Ramsey propaganda.
CC
<quoted text>
Good grief!

Reichenbach did not say in his report that there were no footprints in the snow. He said there were no FRESH footprints in the snow. He didn’t say that there was snow everywhere; he said that there was snow on SOME of the grass and yard.

From Reichenbach, Thomas and others (see my posts above) we learned that there was NO snow on the walkways and that you could NOT TELL if anyone had walked on them.

This isn’t rocket science. I am beginning to think that you are the one who is, in your words, acting stupid for entertainment.

From the Thomas book, p. 19:[Reichenbach] went outside. A light dusting of snow and frost lay atop an earlier crusty snow in SPOTTY PATCHES on the grass. he saw no FRESH shoe impressions……but walking on the driveway and sidewalks LEFT NO VISIBLE prints.

From Kolar, p.27: Reichenbach noted that NO snow had adhered to the rear patio and walkways.
I don’t know how clearer this can get. Multiple sources – NONE OF THEM SMIT – have stated that there was NO SNOW on the walkways and that you COULD NOT TELL if anyone had walked on them.

So, what is it Bakatari? Are you not able to read or understand that there was no snow on the walkways and that you could not tell if anyone had walked on them, or are you just acting stupid to entertain us?


AK

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#114 Feb 14, 2013
Good Grief is right!
The no footprints in the snow was observed by the police FIRST at the scene, which was NOT Thomas OR Reichenbach. It was an OBSERVATION by the police, who were TRAINED to look for that kind of thing. They saw no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home. Now, you are trying to say there was no snow on the walkways???? GOOD GRIEF! French and Veich saw what they saw, and reported it.
CC
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief!
Reichenbach did not say in his report that there were no footprints in the snow. He said there were no FRESH footprints in the snow. He didn’t say that there was snow everywhere; he said that there was snow on SOME of the grass and yard.
From Reichenbach, Thomas and others (see my posts above) we learned that there was NO snow on the walkways and that you could NOT TELL if anyone had walked on them.
This isn’t rocket science. I am beginning to think that you are the one who is, in your words, acting stupid for entertainment.
From the Thomas book, p. 19:[Reichenbach] went outside. A light dusting of snow and frost lay atop an earlier crusty snow in SPOTTY PATCHES on the grass. he saw no FRESH shoe impressions……but walking on the driveway and sidewalks LEFT NO VISIBLE prints.
From Kolar, p.27: Reichenbach noted that NO snow had adhered to the rear patio and walkways.
I don’t know how clearer this can get. Multiple sources – NONE OF THEM SMIT – have stated that there was NO SNOW on the walkways and that you COULD NOT TELL if anyone had walked on them.
So, what is it Bakatari? Are you not able to read or understand that there was no snow on the walkways and that you could not tell if anyone had walked on them, or are you just acting stupid to entertain us?

AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#115 Feb 14, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
Good Grief is right!
The no footprints in the snow was observed by the police FIRST at the scene, which was NOT Thomas OR Reichenbach. It was an OBSERVATION by the police, who were TRAINED to look for that kind of thing. They saw no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home. Now, you are trying to say there was no snow on the walkways???? GOOD GRIEF! French and Veich saw what they saw, and reported it.
CC
<quoted text>
Show me where it is said that French and Veitch saw no snow on the ground and where they reported it.
Show me where it is said that French and Veitch (or anyone!) said they saw “no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home.”

I’ve already given you Reichenbach, Thomas, Kolar, Hayden and Glick – quoted the search warrant affidavit, the Thomas depo, various media releases, PMPT and the Thomas and Kolar book. These are the sources for “no snow on the walkways” and “you could not tell whether anyone had walked on them or not.”

Now, I understand why you aren’t able to reasonably dispute any of this, and that’s fine. It is what it is. But, now you’re making claims that are unfounded. Perhaps, I am wrong.

So, what’ve you got? Show me. Show everyone.


AK

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#116 Feb 14, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Correct, the GJ
V O T E D to I N D I C T the
R A M S E Y S. "Allow me to write this for you one more time because I know that it is not easy for you to accept." Hunter did not sign the indictment, and charges were not filed. Understood?
Mama and Bakatari, Why are you two arguing over semantics, just to argue? Whether or not Hunter chose to follow through will never change the fact that the GJ voted to indict. That won't change, it can't be undone, it happened, please move forward.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

#117 Feb 15, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
Good Grief is right!
The no footprints in the snow was observed by the police FIRST at the scene, which was NOT Thomas OR Reichenbach. It was an OBSERVATION by the police, who were TRAINED to look for that kind of thing. They saw no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home. Now, you are trying to say there was no snow on the walkways???? GOOD GRIEF! French and Veich saw what they saw, and reported it.
CC
<quoted text>
TRAINED? Rick French hadn't enough sense to know you don't arrive at a kidnapping scene in a patrol car in full view of the whole neighbourhood, so what are the chances he had the sense to check for footprints in the snow? It's highly doubtful it even crossed his mind. Same applies to Karl Veitch. The walkways were clear of snow. The "no footprints in the snow" is a long out-dated myth, Charlie. Accept it and move on.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#118 Feb 15, 2013
Patrol responds in the manner dispatch tells them to, so why don't you blame dispatch and try to take something other than a knife to a gunfight?

You are so quick to point fingers at everyone else in the investigation, why don't you point it at you beloved Patsy who had the obligation to tell the police what was in the RN? She doesn't tell them and then she (or John I can't remember which) and you complain about the way they approached the house.

That is like whinging that someone didn't come and visit you like they said they would when you forgot to tell them you moved! THAT DOG WON'T HUNT.
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> TRAINED? Rick French hadn't enough sense to know you don't arrive at a kidnapping scene in a patrol car in full view of the whole neighbourhood, so what are the chances he had the sense to check for footprints in the snow? It's highly doubtful it even crossed his mind. Same applies to Karl Veitch. The walkways were clear of snow. The "no footprints in the snow" is a long out-dated myth, Charlie. Accept it and move on.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#119 Feb 15, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Patrol responds in the manner dispatch tells them to, so why don't you blame dispatch and try to take something other than a knife to a gunfight?
You are so quick to point fingers at everyone else in the investigation, why don't you point it at you beloved Patsy who had the obligation to tell the police what was in the RN? She doesn't tell them and then she (or John I can't remember which) and you complain about the way they approached the house.
That is like whinging that someone didn't come and visit you like they said they would when you forgot to tell them you moved! THAT DOG WON'T HUNT.
<quoted text>
This was very well planned IMO. Had Patsy told dispatch the warnings in the note, YES, dispatch would have responded differently but the Ramseys didn't want any cloak and dagger response.

Had they done that, their friends would not have been allowed in the house, and the Ramseys would have been in the house alone with whoever and however the covertness would have played out. That said, had Patsy told the truth about the note right away, chances are the FBI would have been the MAIN investigators involved and things would have played out much differently in the Ramsey house that morning.

Don't fool yourself; the Ramseys knew exactly what to do, based on the advice they had already received from whomever they called prior to calling 911 that morning.

This was all planned and it went according to the plan. The Ramseys followed their instructions IMO

Since: May 11

AOL

#121 Feb 15, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
This was very well planned IMO. Had Patsy told dispatch the warnings in the note, YES, dispatch would have responded differently but the Ramseys didn't want any cloak and dagger response.
Had they done that, their friends would not have been allowed in the house, and the Ramseys would have been in the house alone with whoever and however the covertness would have played out. That said, had Patsy told the truth about the note right away, chances are the FBI would have been the MAIN investigators involved and things would have played out much differently in the Ramsey house that morning.
Don't fool yourself; the Ramseys knew exactly what to do, based on the advice they had already received from whomever they called prior to calling 911 that morning.
This was all planned and it went according to the plan. The Ramseys followed their instructions IMO
The Ramseys knew through JR's training that creating chaos is one way to evade questions, hence the impromptu 'party'. Calling in friends was a tactical move, not a need for support.
When JR was overheard calling the pilot and told the cop he had "something I can't miss" in GA, did he make any other call back to cancel that so called meeting? I can only recall cancelling the flight again, but nothing about calling these people who suddenly called a meeting JR just couldn't miss. If JR had been a middle class suspect, the cops would have arrested him on the spot! Clearly he lied about a meeting since they were headed in the opposite direction and nobody called the house to tell JR about a meeting that morning..why'd they give him a pass at his attempt to flee?

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#122 Feb 15, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
The Ramseys knew through JR's training that creating chaos is one way to evade questions, hence the impromptu 'party'. Calling in friends was a tactical move, not a need for support.
When JR was overheard calling the pilot and told the cop he had "something I can't miss" in GA, did he make any other call back to cancel that so called meeting? I can only recall cancelling the flight again, but nothing about calling these people who suddenly called a meeting JR just couldn't miss. If JR had been a middle class suspect, the cops would have arrested him on the spot! Clearly he lied about a meeting since they were headed in the opposite direction and nobody called the house to tell JR about a meeting that morning..why'd they give him a pass at his attempt to flee?
I didn't think of that, but it would be a very good reason to ignore the warnings from the RN that they wrote. The RN stated that their daughter would be killed if they talked to ANYONE, or ANY THING, like a dog, yet they called the police which is understandable, but the Whites, the Fernies, and the pastor was absurd. The reason could have been intentional to create chaos.
CC

Since: May 11

AOL

#123 Feb 15, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't think of that, but it would be a very good reason to ignore the warnings from the RN that they wrote. The RN stated that their daughter would be killed if they talked to ANYONE, or ANY THING, like a dog, yet they called the police which is understandable, but the Whites, the Fernies, and the pastor was absurd. The reason could have been intentional to create chaos.
CC
Of course..why else would a CEO stand there without reading the note while his wife went down the speed dial? He's heard in the background of the 911 after Patsy thought she hung up, so why wasn't he using that time to read the note before letting her possibly cause her child's 'beheading'? He wasn't getting dressed, he was right there!
I don't speak for anyone but myself and I can honestly say my husband would say "are you outta your mind?!!!" if I called anyone but police. And for the record, it'd be my husband making the call, not me.
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#125 Feb 15, 2013
Still waiting for Bakatari to show us where it is said that French and Veitch saw no snow on the ground and where they reported it.

Still waiting for Bakatari to show us where it is said that French and Veitch (or anyone!) said they saw “no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home.”


AK

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#126 Feb 15, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Still waiting for Bakatari to show us where it is said that French and Veitch saw no snow on the ground and where they reported it.
Still waiting for Bakatari to show us where it is said that French and Veitch (or anyone!) said they saw “no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home.”

AK
Hi AK,
http://crimeshots.com/JBMorning.html
IF you look up "The Murder" in this article, it tells you that officers French and Veich were the first at the scene, AND in the next paragraph, that the police "QUICKLY REALIZED that there was no footprints in the snow." Now, you might try to use your semantics on this, but French and Veich were the first police at the scene, and noticed no footprints in the snow.
CC

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#127 Feb 15, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. That should be a given assumption, being that they lived in the same house. I think ALL of the Ramsey DNA was discounted.
CC
I agree with you on that! Unfortunately, that's the defense a lawyer would use too.

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#128 Feb 15, 2013
I believe that Patsy did it. If I am correct, then this case is done, because you cannot convict a deceased person.

If I am wrong, then it was one of the other family members, but a murder conviction would be impossible because Patsy will always be an alternative suspect.
CC
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#129 Feb 15, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
http://crimeshots.com/JBMorning.html
IF you look up "The Murder" in this article, it tells you that officers French and Veich were the first at the scene, AND in the next paragraph, that the police "QUICKLY REALIZED that there was no footprints in the snow." Now, you might try to use your semantics on this, but French and Veich were the first police at the scene, and noticed no footprints in the snow.
CC
Let me quote from the article you linked to: One of the early Boulder police officers at the scene noted that when he walked on the driveway and sidewalks, his steps left no visible footprints.
This is exactly what I have been saying. It is what the quotes I have provided from Reichenbach, Thomas, Kolar, Hayden, Glick, etc have said –you could not tell whether anyone had walked on them or not.

So, your own source backs up my claim, and does nothing to support yours. So, we are still waiting for you to show us where it is said that French and Veitch saw no snow on the ground and where they reported it. Still waiting for you to show us where it is said that French and Veitch (or anyone!) said they saw “no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home.” All we have is no FRESH footprints in the snow on the grass in the yard.

Incidentally, the search warrant affidavit has Reichenbach’s arrival at six a.m. while Thomas and Kolar have his arrival at approx. 6:10. I don’t see mention of Veitch’s arrival in either book, but I may have just missed it. Kolar has French arriving at 5:56. So, Reichenbach was one of the first officer’s on scene.

From Kolar and Thomas we learn that Reichenbach first went inside the house, talked to the officer(s) present, talked to the Ramseys, looked around the house (basement, etc.) and then he went outside and inspected the exterior of the house and the surrounding area.

Reichenbach was “one of the early Boulder police officers at the scene,” and he is the one who made the “no FRESH footprints” in the snow observation. This is in the search warrant affidavit.

Once again, from the article you linked to: One of the early Boulder police officers at the scene noted that when he walked on the driveway and sidewalks, his steps left no visible footprints.

Try again. Look in the search warrant affidavit, look in Kolar or Thomas.


AK

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#130 Feb 15, 2013
Hi AK,
The source does NOT back your claim. It states that there were no footprints in the snow. THAT was an observation by the police, first at the scene close to 6AM on that day.
CC
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#131 Feb 15, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
Hi AK,
The source does NOT back your claim. It states that there were no footprints in the snow. THAT was an observation by the police, first at the scene close to 6AM on that day.
CC
I’m using multiple sources. Which one are you talking about it? I don’t recall that any of them saying “no footprints in the snow.“ They say no FRESH footprints. NONE of them support your claim, not even your own linked to article (it supports mine!) that French and Veitch (or anyone!) said they saw “no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home.”

From the Thomas book, p. 19; QUOTE:[Reichenbach] went outside. A light dusting of snow and frost lay atop an earlier crusty snow in SPOTTY PATCHES on the grass. he saw no FRESH shoe impressions……but walking on the driveway and sidewalks LEFT NO VISIBLE prints.

From Kolar, p.27; QUOTE: Reichenbach noted that NO snow had adhered to the rear patio and walkways.
Your source; QUOTE: One of the early Boulder police officers at the scene noted that when he walked on the DRIVEWAY and SIDEWALKS, his steps left NO VISIBLE FOOTPRINTS.

From PMPT, p. 225: QUOTE: Reichenbach told the detectives that there was light, crusty snow and frost on the Ramsey’s lawn and he had seen no fresh footprints in the snow. THE BRICK WALKWAYS WERE CLEAR OF SNOW.

From the Thomas deposition:“there was a fresh frost and maybe a light dusting of snow on some of the lawn areas, but on the SIDEWALKS and WALKWAYS around the house, as he put in his report, as I may have put in one of my reports, as we presented to the VIP conference, that YOU COULD NOT TELL WHETHER SOMEBODY MAY HAVE WALKED ON THOSE WALKWAYS in question.”

My sources back up my claim. If you cannot see this, then there must be something wrong with your ability to read and/or comprehend the simplest of things regardless of how clearly they are stated. it si no surprise that you are incapable of backing up your own claim that French and Veitch (or anyone!) said they saw “no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home.”


AK

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 7 hr ICU2 195
Home Invasion (Aug '09) Sat candy 21
Question about the red turtleneck (Jul '10) Fri candy 127
Patsy to Priscilla "Call the FBI" Fri candy 4
Did Hunter Know? May 22 candy 7
Ransom Note was random May 22 Just Wondering 26
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) May 20 JTF 7,525
More from around the web