Shoes

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

Comments (Page 7)

Showing posts 121 - 140 of159
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 12

Overland Park, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
Oct 20, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

4

I find it quite discouraging that Chief of Police, Mark Beckner, was so "out of the loop" with regard to the suspect, Chris Wolf. The excerpt below is from Chief Beckner's deposition in the CW libel suit, 2001:

"Q. Okay. You have indicated to me earlier that Chris Wolf does not have a confirmed alibi, right?

A. Correct.

Q. In the case where you do not have a confirmed alibi and specifically with Chris Wolf, as I understand it, his claim was that he was with Jackie Dilson. Her claim was that he was not, that he came in the early morning hours of the 26th and the clothes were dirty, he took a shower. Why did you not ask Chris Wolf to submit to a polygraph test on the issue of his alibi?

MR. MILLER: Object to the basis of the question. I don't think it's been established he didn't.

Q.(BY MR. WOOD) Well, I apologize. Chris Wolf has testified that he was never asked to take a polygraph test. Let me see if the Chief agrees with that. Was he asked or was he not asked?

A. I don't know.

Q. Well, would you have expected him to be asked in proper investigative techniques and procedures, particularly where we've got an alibi situation as I have just described it?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Why not?

A. Many people that we have investigated, you wouldn't necessarily ask them to take polygraphs.

Q. But if you've got someone who has given you -- that can't confirm an alibi and it's just a matter of you either having to accept that person's statement as true or not, isn't that an ideal situation for you to ask for a polygraph?

A. Well, you're taking it out of the context of the whole of what we knew about the evidence of the case and the evidence that we have from Chris Wolf.

Q. What if he takes a polygraph on the issue of his alibi and he shows deception. That may change the whole picture of Chris Wolf, couldn't it, Chief?

A. Possibly.

Q. So why wouldn't you find that out?

A. Well, you don't have any other evidence linking him to the crime.

Q. You've got knowledge that he had an association with Bill McReynolds?

A. No other evidence linking him to the crime, though.

Q. But you've got evidence that linked Chris Wolf to the Ramseys. You've got an article that he wrote and referenced Access Graphics prior in time in the Boulder -- that local business newspaper, right?

A. Um-hum, yes.

Q. You've got writings that indicate some admitted dislike for Lockheed and suppliers of arms to Third World people. Chris Wolf, you found that out, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you know that you had a man that would go and submit for money to go to parties where all of the people there would be men and that he would strip naked and allow them to fondle him and he would then allow them to perform oral sex on him; did you ever learn that about Chris Wolf?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever learn that Chris Wolf would go to parties and allow women and men to touch him and then have intercourse in front of other people with women while the others watched; did you ever learn that about Chris Wolf?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Did you ever make any inquiries and ascertain the use by Chris Wolf of illegal drugs?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did you ever follow up to find out about Chris Wolf's subsequent employment history after he -- the death of JonBent and whether he had any jobs that might have put him into contact with young females, age four, five, six or seven?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did you ever learn that Chris Wolf would take pictures of himself masturbating and display them to other people?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever learn that Chris Wolf would allow himself to be photographed nude and to have his picture used in publications to sell erotic devices?

A. No.

Q. Don't you think that that is information that you would want to know?

A. Certainly."

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
Oct 20, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Mama2JML wrote:

Assuming Simons' DNA profile was isolated, then it obviously was not a match, but neither was there a match with any Ramsey, nor did any Ramsey's HW match that of the RN.
Why is it you always discount the experts who said PR's handwriting WAS a match? I understand there were experts on both sides - which is the correct way to look at it, but you can't acknowledge the RDI experts even existed? Why is that?(Please don't cite opinions about bogus credentials).

Since: Jan 12

Vienna, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134
Oct 20, 2012
 

Judged:

5

4

4

Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>Why is it you always discount the experts who said PR's handwriting WAS a match? I understand there were experts on both sides - which is the correct way to look at it, but you can't acknowledge the RDI experts even existed? Why is that?(Please don't cite opinions about bogus credentials).
This is my sentiment, precisely: "I understand there were experts on both sides - which is the correct way to look at it...". It's nice to see such a fair-minded, reasonable approach.

Now, insert the basic principles of the scientific theory and you'll understand that many HW "consultants" exist, but few are validated "experts".

..."bogus credentials"?

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
Oct 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>This is my sentiment, precisely: "I understand there were experts on both sides - which is the correct way to look at it...". It's nice to see such a fair-minded, reasonable approach.
Now, insert the basic principles of the scientific theory and you'll understand that many HW "consultants" exist, but few are validated "experts".
..."bogus credentials"?
I said "bogus credentials" because in the past on these threads I have seen posters try to discredit the "experts" who said PR wrote the note, and leave only the "experts" up for discussion who said PR didn't write the note. I was wondering if this was what you were doing when you didn't mention there were valid experts on both sides of the discussion.
Henri McPhee

Loughborough, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#136
Oct 21, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

I agree with Mama2JML with regard to the handwriting experts and the ransom note.

Six of the top handwriting experts in America were hired to examine the ransom note and all six examined the original note and the original Patsy exemplars. The consensus of opinion in their reports was that there was no evidence to indicate that Patsy wrote the ransom note.

This is an important point becuse the only way anybody is going to prove that any Ramsey did it in court is if they can prove that a Ramsey wrote the ransom note.

I agree that there were co-called experts who sincerely believe that Patsy wrote the note. None of those so-called experts examined the original note, or the original Patsy exemplars. That might not have been their fault but may have been due to practical difficulties.

This is also an important point because under the legal rules of evidence in a murder trial there are rules about expert opinions and about scientific methodology. That was explained by Judge Carnes in her 2003 ruling in the Chris Wolf case.

The expert opinion in a trial must be by a real expert, and not by a purported expert, and the scientific methodology must be scientifically good.

Epstein was the only real expert, and not a purported expert, who sincerely believed that Patsy wrote the note, and Epstein never examined the originals. The copies could have been altered, and they probably were altered.

Judge Carnes implied in her ruling that Epatein's testimony would have been thrown out by a competent judge in a murder trial because Epstein never examined the originals.
Steve Eller

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#138
Oct 21, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Steve, I appreciate your correspondence and respect your opinion, but I view the crime(s) and the separate investigations conducted by the BPD, the DA, and PIs quite differently than you do...
Assuming Simons' DNA profile was isolated, then it obviously was not a match, but neither was there a match with any Ramsey, nor did any Ramsey's HW match that of the RN.
My inquiries are:

What forensic evidence links the Rs to the crime? Perhaps, more importantly, what forensic evidence exists that does NOT link them to the crime?
Do you consider the two CODIS profiles connected to the Ramsey case to be significant from an evidentiary standpoint? I certainly do...
With regard to the thoroughness of LE's investigation into possible suspects, I feel that the BPD fell short in their duties. On the other hand, I believe the DA's investigation was far more thorough. Although, the lack of cooperation exhibited by the BPD provided an obstacle far too great for the DA's investigation into the case.
The Police were quite thorough in their investigation following thousands of bogus leads and questioning approximately two hundred 'suspects'. This was either magnanimous towards the Ramseys or disrespectful to the taxpayers money depending on your perspective. The Police correctly determined that there was no forced entry into the House. What the proponents of IDI theories must concede is that MOST crime scenes are full of unidentified DNA profiles, marks, prints etc. Defense attorneys routinely attempt to exponentially magnify the significance of these things, when they have nothing to do with the case.
The difference here is that the Ramsey defense attorneys never had to do this in a trial because the Office of the District Attorney did a very thorough job of making sure the Ramseys would never be brought to justice.
The role of the Boulder Police Department was to investigate, while the DA was supposed to prosecute. Blocking the Police from getting telephone and credit card records is a true obstacle. Allow me to possibly be the first one to admit that blocking the Police from getting medical records is not a sign of obstruction--it is evidence of CORRUPTION.
As a matter of procedure the Parents are always investigated in these crimes. The sooner they are cleared, the sooner the Police are able to use the information provided by the Parents in pursuing the perpetrator(s).
Another obstacle faced by the Police was the fact that highly paid and effective Private Investigators hired by the high powered Ramsey Legal Defense team were hard at work on making sure the Ramseys would not be prosecuted--I am paraphrasing a statement made John Ramsey.
The Police worked earnestly to complete an endlessly expanding sisyphean to do last demanded by Prosecutors.
We can discuss forensics in general, DNA as specifically as you want, we can even discuss the ransom note, in the end we basically know that the three people who were in the home on the night of JonBenet's brutal despicable murder were also the same three people who lived in the Home. No one else was there and the people who were there had hired the best defense attorneys money could buy, had fled to Atlanta soon after the murder --although not quite as soon as they originally wanted which was the day that their daughters body was discovered.
BPD made some mistakes no question about that but most of them accrued to the Ramseys favor.
FOLKS this case is just not as complicated as we may want to believe.

Since: Jan 12

Vienna, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#140
Oct 22, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>The Police were quite thorough in their investigation following thousands of bogus leads and questioning approximately two hundred 'suspects'. This was either magnanimous towards the Ramseys or disrespectful to the taxpayers money depending on your perspective. The Police correctly determined that there was no forced entry into the House. What the proponents of IDI theories must concede is that MOST crime scenes are full of unidentified DNA profiles, marks, prints etc. Defense attorneys routinely attempt to exponentially magnify the significance of these things, when they have nothing to do with the case.
The difference here is that the Ramsey defense attorneys never had to do this in a trial because the Office of the District Attorney did a very thorough job of making sure the Ramseys would never be brought to justice.
The role of the Boulder Police Department was to investigate, while the DA was supposed to prosecute. Blocking the Police from getting telephone and credit card records is a true obstacle. Allow me to possibly be the first one to admit that blocking the Police from getting medical records is not a sign of obstruction--it is evidence of CORRUPTION.
As a matter of procedure the Parents are always investigated in these crimes. The sooner they are cleared, the sooner the Police are able to use the information provided by the Parents in pursuing the perpetrator(s).
Another obstacle faced by the Police was the fact that highly paid and effective Private Investigators hired by the high powered Ramsey Legal Defense team were hard at work on making sure the Ramseys would not be prosecuted--I am paraphrasing a statement made John Ramsey.
The Police worked earnestly to complete an endlessly expanding sisyphean to do last demanded by Prosecutors.
We can discuss forensics in general, DNA as specifically as you want, we can even discuss the ransom note, in the end we basically know that the three people who were in the home on the night of JonBenet's brutal despicable murder were also the same three people who lived in the Home. No one else was there and the people who were there had hired the best defense attorneys money could buy, had fled to Atlanta soon after the murder --although not quite as soon as they originally wanted which was the day that their daughters body was discovered.
BPD made some mistakes no question about that but most of them accrued to the Ramseys favor.
FOLKS this case is just not as complicated as we may want to believe.
I cannot even begin to reply to this post as you have touted so much biased and/or untrue information.

I'm shocked. It's as if you are stuck in time, circa 1997-2000. "Keep doing what you're doing, and you'll keep getting what you're getting." Injustice.
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#141
Oct 22, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot even begin to reply to this post as you have touted so much biased and/or untrue information.
I'm shocked. It's as if you are stuck in time, circa 1997-2000. "Keep doing what you're doing, and you'll keep getting what you're getting." Injustice.
You can not even begin to reply to my post because the jig is up. It is not 1997-2000 because the truth is coming out slowly but surely. Injustice can not begin to describe what happened to a wonderful six year old girl who had her whole life ahead of her. She was tortured in countless ways physically and emotionally even before the night of her death. Time is not on the Ramseys side, more and more evidence will come out, your once indefatigable tactic of evading, diverting, and distorting this case has become quite tired. Fact checking is now easier and faster than ever. We know the evidence and we know that there was no intruder rendering your twisted flights of fantasy useless. That is why you are so disheartened.
learnin

Garnett, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142
Oct 22, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Steve Eller wrote:
As I said before I have not made up my mind about Lou Smit's character but it would be beyond despicable for him to have intentionally misdirected the investigation whatever the reasons.
I don't think Lou, intentionally, misdirected evidence. I think he came to the case with bias; a bias caused by the overwhelming media coverage which led most to believe the family was somehow involved. In order to become famous, Lou needed an intruder. Other detectives had already made a case against the family; Lou needed an intruder. Thus, Lou interpreted evidence according to this bias and ignored Ramsey behavior.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot even begin to reply to this post as you have touted so much biased and/or untrue information.
I'm shocked. It's as if you are stuck in time, circa 1997-2000. "Keep doing what you're doing, and you'll keep getting what you're getting." Injustice.
Exactly Mama. Well said!
Steve Eller

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly Mama. Well said!
And I will tell you the same thing. The jig is up. Fact checking is easier and faster than ever. You are now requiried to spin these webs of fantasy even faster than the spiders respun the webs on the window before they are debunked. Injustice does not begin to describe what was done to JonBenet by this Family.
Steve Eller

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think Lou, intentionally, misdirected evidence. I think he came to the case with bias; a bias caused by the overwhelming media coverage which led most to believe the family was somehow involved. In order to become famous, Lou needed an intruder. Other detectives had already made a case against the family; Lou needed an intruder. Thus, Lou interpreted evidence according to this bias and ignored Ramsey behavior.
I have thought of that possibility, it would nonetheless be a despicable act to interpret the evidence based on a platform that is supposed to make you famous.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
And I will tell you the same thing. The jig is up. Fact checking is easier and faster than ever. You are now requiried to spin these webs of fantasy even faster than the spiders respun the webs on the window before they are debunked. Injustice does not begin to describe what was done to JonBenet by this Family.
No, injustice doesn't even begin to describe what what done to JonBenet AND this family. You know something, Steve Eller? Good will ALWAYS ultimately prevail over evil. Believe that. You can chant "the jig is up" all you like, but you cannot change the facts. This diabolical killer may be feeling triumphant right now and patting himself on the back, not only because he got away with murder, but because he made sure an innocent family was blamed for his actions. Many others have been hurt too. He'd better enjoy his "victory" while it lasts, because the net is closing in on him and the truth WILL come to light. It won't be much longer now.

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
The Police were quite thorough in their investigation following thousands of bogus leads and questioning approximately two hundred 'suspects'. This was either magnanimous towards the Ramseys or disrespectful to the taxpayers money depending on your perspective. The Police correctly determined that there was no forced entry into the House. What the proponents of IDI theories must concede is that MOST crime scenes are full of unidentified DNA profiles, marks, prints etc. Defense attorneys routinely attempt to exponentially magnify the significance of these things, when they have nothing to do with the case.
The difference here is that the Ramsey defense attorneys never had to do this in a trial because the Office of the District Attorney did a very thorough job of making sure the Ramseys would never be brought to justice.
The role of the Boulder Police Department was to investigate, while the DA was supposed to prosecute. Blocking the Police from getting telephone and credit card records is a true obstacle. Allow me to possibly be the first one to admit that blocking the Police from getting medical records is not a sign of obstruction--it is evidence of CORRUPTION.
As a matter of procedure the Parents are always investigated in these crimes. The sooner they are cleared, the sooner the Police are able to use the information provided by the Parents in pursuing the perpetrator(s).
Another obstacle faced by the Police was the fact that highly paid and effective Private Investigators hired by the high powered Ramsey Legal Defense team were hard at work on making sure the Ramseys would not be prosecuted--I am paraphrasing a statement made John Ramsey.
The Police worked earnestly to complete an endlessly expanding sisyphean to do last demanded by Prosecutors.
We can discuss forensics in general, DNA as specifically as you want, we can even discuss the ransom note, in the end we basically know that the three people who were in the home on the night of JonBenet's brutal despicable murder were also the same three people who lived in the Home. No one else was there and the people who were there had hired the best defense attorneys money could buy, had fled to Atlanta soon after the murder --although not quite as soon as they originally wanted which was the day that their daughters body was discovered.
BPD made some mistakes no question about that but most of them accrued to the Ramseys favor.
FOLKS this case is just not as complicated as we may want to believe.
You have brought up some excellent points in this post, more especially the obstruction vs corruption angle, if you apply it to the investigation as a whole. Personally, I believe it is some of both. The corruption part started with Hunter - and the fix was in.
Steve Eller

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> No, injustice doesn't even begin to describe what done to JonBenet AND this family. You know something, Steve Eller? Good will ALWAYS ultimately prevail over evil. Believe that. You can chant "the jig is up" all you like, but you cannot change the facts. This diabolical killer may be feeling triumphant right now and patting himself on the back, not only because he got away with murder, but because he made sure an innocent family was blamed for his actions. Many others have been hurt too. He'd better enjoy his "victory" while it lasts, because the net is closing in on him and the truth WILL come to light. It won't be much longer now.
If you are so sure that the perpetrator will be caught please let me know when John Ramsey will be confessing at his local police station so I can tune in. Please spare us your self righteous sanctimonious lecturing about the poor Ramseys, they and their sycophants were well protected behind their legions of lawyers and PR professionals.
Countless innocent victims and their families were marauded by the Ramsey Slime Machine and they did not have the resources and connections to protect themselves. More evidence is coming out gradually but steadily that completely refutes the spurious claims of the Ramsey defenders.
Cry me a river Lynette, no one is falling for it.

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no point of entry into the House. The only possible point of entry was the basement window but only a 'contortionist midget ninja' could have fit through that space leaving the cobwebs undisturbed. This is a very basic short explanation I understand, but I wanted to respond.
I would like to respond to this aspect of your explanation of there being no intruder. How can you confidently swear that "only a contortionist midget ninja" could have fit through that space leaving the cobwebs undisturbed?

If you studied the windows in question, you would see that the cobwebs existed ONLY in the lower corner of the window. To me, that is indicative of the webs being wiped clear as the perp entered, leaving only the REMAINS of the whole web in the corner -- the corner where it would not have been wiped away as the intruder slid through the window.

And as for the "contortionist", did you not see the photos of Lou Smit entering the window with apparent ease? He didn't appear to me to be having a difficult time, forcing himself into various "contortionist" positions.

Also, if you should look carefully at the photo of the window well showing the three windows, it's fairly obvious that the center window sill had been wiped in order to clear debris from it and in doing so, it's also clear that the debris had been pushed off toward the window on the right. In comparing the sills of the three windows, ONLY the window in the center showed such marks!! And coincidentally(?) that is the window that had been left partially open after the intruder exited it.

So it's my opinion that you did not take the time to thoroughly examine the evidence showing that according to your observation, rather than the cobwebs proving there was NO ENTRY made through that window, that conversely, the evidence proves just the opposite! And that is that the center window was obviously the window used by an intruder for entering and exiting the basement!

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> No, injustice doesn't even begin to describe what what done to JonBenet AND this family. You know something, Steve Eller? Good will ALWAYS ultimately prevail over evil. Believe that. You can chant "the jig is up" all you like, but you cannot change the facts. This diabolical killer may be feeling triumphant right now and patting himself on the back, not only because he got away with murder, but because he made sure an innocent family was blamed for his actions. Many others have been hurt too. He'd better enjoy his "victory" while it lasts, because the net is closing in on him and the truth WILL come to light. It won't be much longer now.
Excellent post, Lynette.

I wish some of the RDIs had even half the compassion and empathy as you.

Someone once said: "Compassion is the ultimate and most meaningful embodiment of emotional maturity."

Perhaps this explains why RDIs are incapable of understanding that a heretofore, decent, loving family could NEVER have inflicted the horrible torture on a child so loved as was their little JonBenet. It's beyond comprehension that these parents could have been the people who did this to their child.
Steve Eller

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like to respond to this aspect of your explanation of there being no intruder. How can you confidently swear that "only a contortionist midget ninja" could have fit through that space leaving the cobwebs undisturbed?
If you studied the windows in question, you would see that the cobwebs existed ONLY in the lower corner of the window. To me, that is indicative of the webs being wiped clear as the perp entered, leaving only the REMAINS of the whole web in the corner -- the corner where it would not have been wiped away as the intruder slid through the window.
And as for the "contortionist", did you not see the photos of Lou Smit entering the window with apparent ease? He didn't appear to me to be having a difficult time, forcing himself into various "contortionist" positions.
Also, if you should look carefully at the photo of the window well showing the three windows, it's fairly obvious that the center window sill had been wiped in order to clear debris from it and in doing so, it's also clear that the debris had been pushed off toward the window on the right. In comparing the sills of the three windows, ONLY the window in the center showed such marks!! And coincidentally(?) that is the window that had been left partially open after the intruder exited it.
So it's my opinion that you did not take the time to thoroughly examine the evidence showing that according to your observation, rather than the cobwebs proving there was NO ENTRY made through that window, that conversely, the evidence proves just the opposite! And that is that the center window was obviously the window used by an intruder for entering and exiting the basement!
Hi Ole South,

Very well though out post. However, when you look at the video posted on the daily beast you see very large intact cobwebs. Lou Smit's entry through the window actually was my inspiration for 'contortionist midget ninjas', if you look carefully at Smit's entry, he pivots away from his right at an angle to appear as if he would have avoided the cobwebs on the right yet still makes contact with most of the area where the cobwebs were located. Those cobwebs would have remained intact only if an extremely small built person crashed through the window canon ball style and even that would be a stretch no pun intended.

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I have to disagree.

Smit got in the window, but not with "apparent ease".
He also did not exit the window (which I would have paid money to see anyone do), and is always more difficult than entering.

I think even JR gave up on trying to sell the window as an entry/exit point before he "found" the body.
Ole South wrote:

And as for the "contortionist", did you not see the photos of Lou Smit entering the window with apparent ease?

And coincidentally(?) that is the window that had been left partially open after the intruder exited it.

And that is that the center window was obviously the window used by an intruder for entering and exiting the basement!

Since: May 11

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DrSeussMd wrote:
I have to disagree.
Smit got in the window, but not with "apparent ease".
He also did not exit the window (which I would have paid money to see anyone do), and is always more difficult than entering.
I think even JR gave up on trying to sell the window as an entry/exit point before he "found" the body.
<quoted text>
FOTFL at this discussion about the window. JR couldn't recall which way he went in the window, said "he thought" feet first. I think ANYONE that crawled through that window would remember in detail how they went in. You're right Doc, JR saw how stupid the window staging was when he went down there while Arndt et al sat upstairs, and he made sure to tell FW the broken window meant nothing.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 121 - 140 of159
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

6 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey e... 4 hr real Topaz 162
Patsy's little helpers 5 hr Fr_Brown 6
Smit try to climb back through the basement win... 21 hr Capricorn 12
Hair Wed Two 11
S.B.T.C: Weird coincidence? (Mar '10) Tue Bike club 48
Parents suspected of murder Jul 8 Just Wondering 31
John Mark Karr speaks about his Orchiectomy Sur... Jul 8 Biz 6
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••