Bill McReynolds
vickey

Bangkok, Thailand

#1596 Apr 6, 2013
cat man do wrote:
<quoted text>
CMD
Some time I don't understand the RDIs postes
vickey

Bangkok, Thailand

#1597 Apr 6, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>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?
This one I understand..........

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1598 Apr 6, 2013
There is no bias, when I am making a statement as proven by the evidence and facts in this case. The 4 Ramseys were the only people proven by evidence to have been in the house that night.

If you can prove someone else was there, then do it now. Otherwise quit trying to twist my words and take things out of context. You are as bad as Biz when you do that.

Who else was proven to be in the house that night Mama?????
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>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?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1599 Apr 6, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
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. ;)
It is called a proxy. She just forgets a lot and she also gives herself away with her words. You just have to laugh. I call her cheap entertainment.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1600 Apr 6, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
There is no bias, when I am making a statement as proven by the evidence and facts in this case. The 4 Ramseys were the only people proven by evidence to have been in the house that night.
If you can prove someone else was there, then do it now. Otherwise quit trying to twist my words and take things out of context. You are as bad as Biz when you do that.
Who else was proven to be in the house that night Mama?????
<quoted text>
I did not twist your words. I quoted you directly. You cannot prove no one else was in the house that night, just as I cannot prove someone else was. Based on the evidence, to which WE are privy, neither can be proven....not by me and not by you. There is evidence that is exculpatory to the Ramseys, and this extends WELL beyond "a reasonable doubt".

I appreciate the comparison to Biz, BTW. She's not bad, she's "bad ass"! ;o)

Since: May 11

AOL

#1601 Apr 6, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>I did not twist your words. I quoted you directly. You cannot prove no one else was in the house that night, just as I cannot prove someone else was. Based on the evidence, to which WE are privy, neither can be proven....not by me and not by you. There is evidence that is exculpatory to the Ramseys, and this extends WELL beyond "a reasonable doubt".
I appreciate the comparison to Biz, BTW. She's not bad, she's "bad ass"! ;o)
Leave it at ass and it's all good;)
Deb

Atlanta, GA

#1602 Apr 6, 2013
OneWhoCares wrote:
<quoted text>
It is caled a proxy glue. She just forgots a lot and she also gives herself today with her good words. You just have to not laugh. I call her good facts entertainment.
I read this three times , and I must read this again.......

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1603 Apr 6, 2013
vickey wrote:
<quoted text>This one I understand..........
:o)

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1604 Apr 6, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
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. ;)
This article should help you understand:
"Where’s that Phone?: Geolocating IP Addresses on 3G Networks"

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people...

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1605 Apr 6, 2013
Deb wrote:
<quoted text>I read this three times , and I must read this again.......
Yes, I think I'll read it again too. ;o)
Steve Eller

United States

#1606 Apr 6, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
There is no bias, when I am making a statement as proven by the evidence and facts in this case. The 4 Ramseys were the only people proven by evidence to have been in the house that night.
If you can prove someone else was there, then do it now. Otherwise quit trying to twist my words and take things out of context. You are as bad as Biz when you do that.
Who else was proven to be in the house that night Mama?????
<quoted text>
I admire your patience in indulging their dull complaining. We understand your posts, but hopefully you understand that there is not much left for them to be 'confused' about regarding the actual evidence of the case. The burden of proof falls on the person claiming the extraordinary, namely that someone who would NEVER be in that House at that day and time was and that they committed this heinous crime while exiting without leaving any evidence that could remotely identify him/her/them.
true crimes

Burbank, CA

#1607 Apr 6, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I admire your pateince in indulging their dull complaining. We understand your posts, but hopefuly you understnad that there is not much left for them to be 'confsued' about regarding the actual evidence of the case. The burden of proof falls on the person claiming the extraordniary, namely that someone who would NEVER be in that House at that day and time was and that they committed this heinuos crime while exitning without leaving any evidence that could remotelly identify him/her/them.
This is a hard case for the Boulder Police.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1608 Apr 7, 2013
Deb wrote:
<quoted text>
I read this three times , and I must read this again.......
If you read it three times and still got the words wrong, that explains alot.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#1609 Apr 7, 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.
I think you are playing a word semantics game here. Don't you really think that if someone else could have been proven to be in the house it would have been done already in the past 17 years?

It looks like Seuss is trying to keep it simple. The Ramsey family was in the home and no one else was. It is like - start at square 1.

The exculpatory to which you are referring hasn't been proven as an intruder or artifact DNA, therefore it isn't significant until it is proven one way or another. So now, as Seuss clearly points out - you are back to square 1.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#1610 Apr 7, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
Leave it at ass and it's all good;)
You beat me to it, ;)

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#1611 Apr 7, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I admire your patience in indulging their dull complaining. We understand your posts, but hopefully you understand that there is not much left for them to be 'confused' about regarding the actual evidence of the case. The burden of proof falls on the person claiming the extraordinary, namely that someone who would NEVER be in that House at that day and time was and that they committed this heinous crime while exiting without leaving any evidence that could remotely identify him/her/them.
Stellar post, and I agree.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#1612 Apr 7, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
There is no bias, when I am making a statement as proven by the evidence and facts in this case. The 4 Ramseys were the only people proven by evidence to have been in the house that night.
If you can prove someone else was there, then do it now. Otherwise quit trying to twist my words and take things out of context. You are as bad as Biz when you do that.
Who else was proven to be in the house that night Mama?????
<quoted text>
She is just screwing with you attempting to have you prove a negative, when in fact, to make her point she needs to prove otherwise. They must be bored at her place or it is homecoming weekend here at Topix or something, so they are all making an appearance here. Guess we can expect more of the crew on Monday as well. Hopefully not ALL of the though, it has been pleasant without some of the 'old' rantings.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1613 Apr 7, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are playing a word semantics game here. Don't you really think that if someone else could have been proven to be in the house it would have been done already in the past 17 years?
It looks like Seuss is trying to keep it simple. The Ramsey family was in the home and no one else was. It is like - start at square 1.
The exculpatory to which you are referring hasn't been proven as an intruder or artifact DNA, therefore it isn't significant until it is proven one way or another. So now, as Seuss clearly points out - you are back to square 1.
Above you declare,"The Ramsey family was in the home and no one else was.", like Seuss, you state this as if it is an indisputable fact. It's not. It can and has been disputed. If it were indisputable, then "Don't you really think that if someone else could *NOT* have been in the house", then there would be no reasonable doubt, RDI, case closed?

Unfortunately, there are many "cold cases" that have gone unsolved for 15+ years, in CO alone. Some former "cold cases" have been closed, and justice obtained, 15, 20, 25+ years after the crime(s). It is STILL possible that the JBR case will be solved and justice will finally prevail. I would be ecstatic to see this happen, PERIOD. If a Ramsey, or every damn one of them, is responsible in some way for JonBenet's death and charges are filed, a guilty verdict is reached, and "they" are sent to prison, SO BE IT!

Going round and round with the same old arguments gets us no where. Neglecting to research and dig deeper into other possibilities and refusing to analyze all of the proven, fact-based evidence (to which we have access) from new angles is negligent.

It is difficult for me to accept most RDI theories as I see no true, solid foundation for the conclusions reached. Confirmed facts and scientifically-validated & reliable evidence does not equate to broad speculation, sparked by opinions that are based on purported "facts" that have been proven, time and time again, to be myths.
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#1614 Apr 7, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are playing a word semantics game here. Don't you really think that if someone else could have been proven to be in the house it would have been done already in the past 17 years?
It looks like Seuss is trying to keep it simple. The Ramsey family was in the home and no one else was. It is like - start at square 1.
The exculpatory to which you are referring hasn't been proven as an intruder or artifact DNA, therefore it isn't significant until it is proven one way or another. So now, as Seuss clearly points out - you are back to square 1.
They did prove someone else was in the house 17 years ago and that is why the Ramseys were not accused of murdering their daughter.

If there was not evidence of someone else in the house, they would have arrested Patsy.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#1615 Apr 7, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
It can and has been disputed.
Sure it has been disputed, by the Ramsey apologists. Then who else has been “proven” to have been in the house by the police? Name them please, and we can put this to rest. Until then, you just have an opinion or theory.
Mama2JML wrote:
Going round and round with the same old arguments gets us no where. Neglecting to research and dig deeper into other possibilities and refusing to analyze all of the proven, fact-based evidence (to which we have access) from new angles is negligent.
I agree, so until you have proof by the evidence (to which we have access), you have no argument, so why are you bringing it up over and over? How many years do you have interested and researching this case to my 17? 3? Hmmm.
Mama2JML wrote:
Confirmed facts and scientifically-validated & reliable evidence does not equate to broad speculation, sparked by opinions that are based on purported "facts" that have been proven, time and time again, to be myths.
I agree again, but that is all you have presented in an effort to blindly support the Ramseys, myths, innuendo, opinion, what-ifs, and maybes. That doesn’t equal fact.

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 (Dec '14) 10 min icu2 431
Gates hired the hit (Dec '15) 1 hr sickofpervs 29
Think family...helter skelter type of family 1 hr sickofpervs 9
Identity Problems 6 hr berrytea333 98
OJ Simpson and JonBenet Ramsey cases 10 hr stoned luck aka ... 14
Today Show: JonBenet Ramsey case lies 11 hr stoned luck aka ... 213
Sig 17 hr stoned luck aka ... 13
More from around the web