Anti-A

Tempe, AZ

#384 Mar 18, 2013
post #375, 376 & 377 were all posted within one minute of each other. so unless you can type 110 words a minute capricorn then you must be anti-k.
How about we just call you Miss Lin da for short. That is your name correct.
The Truth Hurts

Livonia, MI

#385 Mar 18, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Stage whatever you want, but a ransom note only makes sense if you get rid of the body because that’s the only thing that a ransom note explains – no body in the house. No entry/exit was staged and the doors were locked, so this makes the ransom note even more bizarre and unreasonable.
A ransom note doesn’t point to an intruder when there is no entry/exit point and no kidnapping.

AK
Please don't make anyone explain AGAIN why the Ramseys needed to write that note.

Please don't make anyone explain AGAIN why the body wasn't removed.

And there you go again with the "all the doors were locked" BS. Have we not established that JR later recanted that they were all locked? The alleged open window was staged. It doesn't matter what JR initially told the cops. Why did he change his story later?

Seriously, having discussion with you is on par with slamming my head repeatedly into a brick wall. Same results. ;)
The Truth Hurts

Livonia, MI

#386 Mar 18, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence that shows that the Ramseys tried to create a basement window entry point. All they had to say was that doors were unlocked, instead they said they were locked.
Bodies without ransom notes are routine. Bodies in the house with ransom notes are not. This is the whole problem and one of the primary reasons RDI use to argue against an intruder – an intruder would not leave a note and a body. If you all are going to argue that an intruder would not leave a note and a body it becomes nonsensical to turn around an argue that a Ramsey would leave a note and a body in an attempt to make it look like an intruder was responsible.

AK
So I guess nobody did it according to your "logic."
kat

Riverhead, NY

#387 Mar 18, 2013
lol hey ak--you know what they should have done to show an intruder did it...they should have left the front door open and then acted completely shocked that it was open when the first officer arrived. patsy could emphatically throw herself into the door, weeping and wailing...your quote 'all they had to do was say the doors were unlocked'...that would be all they had to do for what purpose--to ensure they wouldn't be suspects. you're genius..if they just left a door ajar, or just STATED that the doors were open and your right--there would never have been an inquiry into whether j or p did it. case closed. they said the doors were open--there must have been an intruder. case closed lol

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#388 Mar 18, 2013
Anti-A wrote:
post #375, 376 & 377 were all posted within one minute of each other. so unless you can type 110 words a minute capricorn then you must be anti-k.
How about we just call you Miss Lin da for short. That is your name correct.
I believe Anti K said she composes all her posts in Word and copies and pastes them to the board.

Have you never seen 2 posters post at the same time? Are you new to the forums?
Anti-A

Tempe, AZ

#389 Mar 18, 2013
So who do you think killed the little girl Legal_Eagle?

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#390 Mar 18, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure Patsy kept her eyes open for everything, whether through splayed fingers or not. When Fleet White called for an ambulance, Patsy didn't even get up. When someone calls for an ambulance, first thoughts are that someone is alive and needs medical attention. I guess she knew that an ambulance is not really what they needed.
She made no attempt to get up or call for an ambulance. After Arndt declared her dead, then Patsy knew enough to get up and throw herself all over JBR, assuring that evidence would be tainted.
Yep, you'd think the mother would come running when she heard "call an ambulance," especially since, as you said, she knew enough to get up and throw herself on the body.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#391 Mar 18, 2013
Anti-A wrote:
post #375, 376 & 377 were all posted within one minute of each other. so unless you can type 110 words a minute capricorn then you must be anti-k.
How about we just call you Miss Lin da for short. That is your name correct.
I write in Word and then copy/paste to topix. I often compose several posts at once and then post as a single block.

I don’t think Capricorn posts as anyone other than Capricorn. We disagree almost completely on everything, but I consider him/her to be a poster of some integrity.

You can call me anything you want, even Miss Lin da,‘though I don’t understand the reference.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#392 Mar 18, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't make anyone explain AGAIN why the Ramseys needed to write that note.
Please don't make anyone explain AGAIN why the body wasn't removed.
And there you go again with the "all the doors were locked" BS. Have we not established that JR later recanted that they were all locked? The alleged open window was staged. It doesn't matter what JR initially told the cops. Why did he change his story later?
Seriously, having discussion with you is on par with slamming my head repeatedly into a brick wall. Same results. ;)
No one has to explain AGAIN why the body was not removed. I agreed awhile back to simply accept this as fact. They wouldn’t or couldn’t remove the body. Agreed.

The fact (fact because we all agree) that they would or could not remove the body makes the ransom note nonsensical and NO ONE HAS EXPLAINED THAT, YET!

What do you believe; Ramsey’s original claim that all the doors were locked or his retraction?


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#393 Mar 18, 2013
kat wrote:
lol hey ak--you know what they should have done to show an intruder did it...they should have left the front door open and then acted completely shocked that it was open when the first officer arrived. patsy could emphatically throw herself into the door, weeping and wailing...your quote 'all they had to do was say the doors were unlocked'...that would be all they had to do for what purpose--to ensure they wouldn't be suspects. you're genius..if they just left a door ajar, or just STATED that the doors were open and your right--there would never have been an inquiry into whether j or p did it. case closed. they said the doors were open--there must have been an intruder. case closed lol
They could have simply said that the doors were not locked. It doesn’t prove anything, but it gives an intruder a way in and out without breaking in. Pretty simple, eh?

Here’s another idea, not as simple as the last, but still pretty simple. They open the garage door a couple feet, just enough that someone could have slid beneath it and into the garage. They did say that the door from the house to the garage was usually left unlocked. they wouldn’t even have to point this out to the police, they could simple leave it for them to discover on their own.

Bottom line, if you want people to believe that someone came into your house then you have to provide a means for their entry.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#394 Mar 18, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe Anti K said she composes all her posts in Word and copies and pastes them to the board.
Have you never seen 2 posters post at the same time? Are you new to the forums?
Anti-K is a he.


AK

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

#395 Mar 19, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn’t matter how you explain it, nonsense will always be nonsense. The problem isn’t with me, it’s with the (RDI) nonsense. If the body was removed from the house, then (assuming RDI) the ransom would make sense. Since, the body was not removed, the note becomes nonsense.
The truth is that there isn’t a single RDI who doesn’t see the ransom note as evidence against the Ramseys. So, the idea that the ransom note “worked” for them is also nonsense.

AK
The truth is that you would be factually incorrect in your last sentence.

The Ramseys, nor anyone else, is in prison for this crime. The ransom note and everything else they did to commit and subsequently cover up this crime did in fact, WORK for them

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

#396 Mar 19, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
never mind Cap, it's like talking to Jodi Arias..round and round and round until you wish she would kill you, too! lol
LOL RT, too funny

I'm done with that aspect of the conversation. There is a reason my tagline is what it is.

I can explain it, but I can't understand it for anyone. Those who choose not to see the logic in what has been explained have done so willingly and never had any intentions of taking the answers and seriously considering them.

There are none so blind..........

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

#397 Mar 19, 2013
Seuss is amused you speak of yourself in the third person.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Anti-K is a he.

AK

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

#398 Mar 19, 2013
They did say that. The problem is they took both sides of the fence at different times to cover all their bases. They tried to provide a means for entry, it just didn’t work out as a point-of-entry for them, and they totally forgot a point-of-exit.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
They could have simply said that the doors were not locked. It doesn’t prove anything, but it gives an intruder a way in and out without breaking in. Pretty simple, eh?
Here’s another idea, not as simple as the last, but still pretty simple. They open the garage door a couple feet, just enough that someone could have slid beneath it and into the garage. They did say that the door from the house to the garage was usually left unlocked. they wouldn’t even have to point this out to the police, they could simple leave it for them to discover on their own.
Bottom line, if you want people to believe that someone came into your house then you have to provide a means for their entry.

AK

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

#399 Mar 19, 2013
When the odds reach in the IDI's favor (majority thinking as you do) you can still rudely call it nonsense, but not before. The majority isn't comprised of IDI. Just a handful of people who spin and twist whatever the subject is to squeexe into their own agenda.

Do you believe the Ramseys thought they would be taken away from the house and questioned by the police, or that the police would set up camp there in their home?
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn’t matter how you explain it, nonsense will always be nonsense. The problem isn’t with me, it’s with the (RDI) nonsense. If the body was removed from the house, then (assuming RDI) the ransom would make sense. Since, the body was not removed, the note becomes nonsense.

AK

Since: May 11

AOL

#400 Mar 19, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL RT, too funny
I'm done with that aspect of the conversation. There is a reason my tagline is what it is.
I can explain it, but I can't understand it for anyone. Those who choose not to see the logic in what has been explained have done so willingly and never had any intentions of taking the answers and seriously considering them.
There are none so blind..........
I love your tagline..perfect! I'm tired of this tedious person who couldn't care less what the truth is, or what anyone else thinks it might be. If it incriminates a Ramsey, then it's "nonsense"..so let this IDIot think whatever and let's move on already! Really tired of giving jerks this much attention.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#401 Mar 19, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth is that you would be factually incorrect in your last sentence.
The Ramseys, nor anyone else, is in prison for this crime. The ransom note and everything else they did to commit and subsequently cover up this crime did in fact, WORK for them
You could claim that it worked if the Ramseys were guilty and if the note was the reason that they were never charged. I don’t think either case is true, I think that if the Ramseys had been charged or if a trial had ever occurred than the note would be an integral piece of any prosecution.

I also suspect that the note played a central role in the grand jury’s decision to indict.

Since virtually all RI are convinced that one Ramsey or the other wrote the note, it becomes strange that they would argue that the note “worked” for them.
..

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#402 Mar 19, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Seuss is amused you speak of yourself in the third person.
<quoted text>
AK is amused that Seuss is amused.:)


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#403 Mar 19, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
They did say that. The problem is they took both sides of the fence at different times to cover all their bases. They tried to provide a means for entry, it just didn’t work out as a point-of-entry for them, and they totally forgot a point-of-exit.
<quoted text>
Sorry, but there’s no evidence to show that a Ramsey or anyone tried to stage any break-in anywhere.


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
How were they supposed to get the money on Chri... 3 hr Legal__Eagle 2
Burke Ramsey REFUSED to be interviewed by inves... (Sep '10) 3 hr Biz 654
Note-odd detail? 11 hr Note 579
Suspect # 1- Rod Westmoreland did it or he was ... (Mar '10) 20 hr Undrtheradar 124
Why do so many RDI's think Burke did it (Sep '10) 21 hr Rangette 692
Chief James Kolar on the JonBenet Ramsey case, ... (Aug '13) 22 hr Rangette 282
"Mr Ramsey Listen Carefully!" New book released... 22 hr Rangette 18
•••

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••