Bill McReynolds

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#1560 Apr 4, 2013
Actually, those who know the case inside and out have narrowed the number of intruders down to 0/zero. You must have missed that :)

It just shows that you can read and read the forums, think you know all there is and then you come back and say I believed in six intruders.

Hope that clarifies it for you. It's never too late to learn and I'm glad to have been of help

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1561 Apr 4, 2013
No moreso than McReynolds sister or FW's daddy, LOL! Have you run out of legitimate areas of the case to discuss?
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, probably pure coincidence regarding each of the above.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1562 Apr 4, 2013
It has certanly been narrowed to only those who can be proven to have been in the house, so I guess that is 3 - all named Ramsey!
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>I thought you'd narrowed the number of intruders down to 6?

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1565 Apr 4, 2013
OneWhoCares wrote:
<quoted text>
No doubt that you and your brother might require a free website. I appreciate the advice but I've always believed that you get what you pay for. I also believe that what goes around comes around.
I If one is trying to attract clients or an audience, a paid site might be the majority's choice. The choice to use a free site to host our forum was "frugal", and we'd rather not attract individuals at random.

My brother has designed two websites for our father's business. The paid site did/does not allow for much creative/design expression. Although, the website is a "top hit" when one searches for a particular type of business in a general location, the look and feel is bland. He created the free site to show my parents what he'd like to do with a paid site. A paid site, no doubt, attracts clients, but clicking the link is just the first step to promoting one's business...

As for your comment, "I also believe that what goes around comes around.", I would like to think so, as well... We all have choices, though. We are not dictated by others. So, "The Golden Rule", IMO, is a more pro-active & encouraging expectation for which I strive.(Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) I try, but certainly fail at times, to live up to this.
Steve Eller

United States

#1566 Apr 4, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
It has certanly been narrowed to only those who can be proven to have been in the house, so I guess that is 3 - all named Ramsey!<quoted text>
That sums it up nicely.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1567 Apr 4, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
<quoted text>It has certanly been narrowed to only those who can be proven to have been in the house, so I guess that is 3 - all named Ramsey!
. To maintain some scientific integrity, consider that your conviction is not a certainty, and we know of "Those who" HAVE "been proven to have been in the house", not necessarily "those who CAN be proven." ...& I'm not so sure LE is nearly as confident as you seem to be.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#1569 Apr 5, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>. To maintain some scientific integrity, consider that your conviction is not a certainty, and we know of "Those who" HAVE "been proven to have been in the house", not necessarily "those who CAN be proven." ...& I'm not so sure LE is nearly as confident as you seem to be.
It lacks science? The FACT is that there are only three people KNOWN to be in the house that night and there is absolutely no proof that a fourth, fifth, or dozen others were there. NONE; not even any evidence to show any point of entry, exit or having been there.

I know, it's not nearly as scientific as random birth and death dates that match JBR's

Now THAT is scientific!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1572 Apr 5, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
too bad she couldn't shove allllllll those sleeping kids of her's in that little photo op,..next time they should stand in front of a bunk bed and say 'cheese'.
ROFLMA

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1573 Apr 5, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
It lacks science? The FACT is that there are only three people KNOWN to be in the house that night and there is absolutely no proof that a fourth, fifth, or dozen others were there. NONE; not even any evidence to show any point of entry, exit or having been there.
I know, it's not nearly as scientific as random birth and death dates that match JBR's
Now THAT is scientific!
I noted coincidental dates. BMcR made more than a few bizarre statements about his "angel", JonBenet.(JMO)...a child he'd met maybe "5 times", yet, he felt closer to her than his own grandchildren? Strange. Considering the date and age of his sister's death, the coincidence(s) are quite eery (JMO), but I have not established a hypothesis based on any coincidence(s).

You and Seuss have posted statements (yours above) as if they are factual and indisputable, but that's simply not the case. Theories are intended to be tested and challenged. It might benefit us all if more posters were willing to open their minds and challenge their long established opinions.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1574 Apr 5, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Hey if you have the “scientific” evidence that someone else “CAN” be proven to have been in the home, you shouldn’t sit on that information, LOL. That might certainly be the feather on the back of LE to sway this case, don’t you think?
You KNOW no one else has EVER been “proven” to have been in that house in all of 16+ years, except for the fictional accounts of the ninja intruders, JMK, etc.
Congrats on your avatar – Magic Johnson would be as proud of you as he is of his son, I know I am!
Again, I have to ask if you have run out of legitimate things to discuss?
<quoted text>
You lost me... What "legitimate things" are you here to discuss?

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1575 Apr 5, 2013
OneWhoCares wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMA
You forgot the "O". "Rolling On the Floor Laughing My @$$ Off". ROFLMAO.
Roy

San Jose, CA

#1578 Apr 5, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
too bad she couldn't shvoe allllllll those sleping kids of her's in that litle photo op,..next time they shuold stand in front of a bunk bed and say 'cheese'.
Did not know this.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1583 Apr 6, 2013
In the following excerpt BMcR explains (somewhat) why he chose to grow a beard.
**********
From the LKL interview, w/Wolf Blitzer sitting in,(04.1997):

"W. MCREYNOLDS: Well, I will tell you that -- I won't tell you about what happened to me as a child because that's not relevant. But I was in a play at the University -- excuse me, at our church, which is the Unity of Boulder -- and I was in "Les Miserables." And I was just a tavern-owner, sort of, and I decided that I would, you know, grow a beard for my characterization. And it turned out that the play was held over at our church, and then I -- everybody started calling me Santa Claus.

They do it all the time. They do it in summer as well. My belief is that Christmas is every day. I have a lot of little stories to tell, which I won't bore you with tonight. But that's the reason that I'm Santa Claus."

**********

What "happened to [BMcR] as a child"? If his experience(s) is/are irrelevant, then why did he mention this at all?

Was the Unity Church of Boulder simply the venue for the play, "Les Miserables", but produced by some division of the University?

I am also curious about all of the "little stories" he has to tell.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1585 Apr 6, 2013
Childhood experiences are the very damaging if they are bad. Mothers and daughters are usually close but I know of a woman who did not even attend her mother's funeral. Nor did she shed any tears or show any emotion. That tells me that there was something emotionally wrong with that woman and it was not the mother's fault.
Do A Dear

Atlanta, GA

#1588 Apr 6, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Wasn't it determnied to me more 'gaffers' tape? Use to be to call something duct tape, meant only one or to kinds, but now the possibiltiies of colors and variations of duct tape are almost endless. I have never known any duct packing tape, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.
Gaffer's tape is also used on stages to mark the point where someone is to stand (for positoin), so with all of the pageant rehearsing going on it doesn't seem unrealsitic that PR might have had some around, and if so, it wouldn't have seemed out of place to have some.
<quoted text>
Good post.

DAD

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1590 Apr 6, 2013
Reading comprehension problems Deb? I said I was proud of her. Here, read it again!
DrSeussMd wrote:
Congrats on your avatar – Magic Johnson would be as proud of you as he is of his son, I know I am!

<quoted text>
deb wrote:
now you are gay bashing....

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1591 Apr 6, 2013
Exactly what I posted about. The people who CAN be proven to have been in the house that night. How can you get lost about that?
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>You lost me... What "legitimate things" are you here to discuss?

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1592 Apr 6, 2013
deb wrote:
<quoted text>What do you have legitimate to discuss regarding the case? So far all you have posted is to mock others and now you are gay bashing....as if your parents are proud of you - lol. Good luck to you! Like someone said here "what goes around comes around."
:oO

Thank you, Deb, for clarifying that post....made no sense to me!

Shame, shame, Seuss. FWIW, the lady with me in my profile pic is my mom.*SIGH*

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1593 Apr 6, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly what I posted about. The people who CAN be proven to have been in the house that night. How can you get lost about that?
That's not EXACTLY what had me scratching my head, but your "who CAN" comment above reflects your strong convictions (BIAS) regarding this case.

You make statements that ARE disputable, as if your opinion=FACT, thus, indisputable.("The people who CAN be proven to have been in the house that night.")

There is evidence that has not been sourced to the Ramseys. There exists MUCH more than "a reasonable doubt". There is evidence exculpatory to the Ramseys. Whether you choose to consider any, some, or none of this evidence to be legitimate is your choice, negligent as it may be.

Hmm, like the evidentiary DNA? The FBI & CBI do not dismiss this evidence. So, if (WHEN) a DNA profile is found to be consistent with that of the JBR CODIS profiles, then that man will have some explaining to do....don't ya think? Hypothetically, he may be asked "Where were you on 12.25/26.96?". The answer may nullify your "who CAN" statement. Get it?
The Truth Hurts

Wixom, MI

#1594 Apr 6, 2013
Hey Mama...I'm just wondering how you can be in IL. and Kansas at the same time. That's one hell of a ping. ;)

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
Was Doug Stines invited to go to Charlevoix? 14 min Blue Sage 80
Do you think that... 43 min Blue Sage 239
New movie on the JonBenet Ramsey case 5 hr Blue Sage 81
Cyril Wecht's Opinion (Mar '09) 17 hr irresponsible ro... 28
Calling a TRUCE with Blue Sage 17 hr okay1234 4
"You will WITHDRAW $118,000.00 dollars from you... (Jul '06) 17 hr okay1234 40
This one is for you BLUE MUCK - what was Patsys... 17 hr okay1234 1
More from around the web