Bill McReynolds
Steve Eller

United States

#1616 Apr 7, 2013
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
In case you acquired some of the Ramsey traits and it either escaped your attention or you forgot, they actually did one better than arrest Patsy, the INDICTED her!
Steve Eller

United States

#1617 Apr 7, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Stellar post, and I agree.
Thank You.
Type it

Burbank, CA

#1620 Apr 7, 2013
Tom tom wrote:
<quoted text>
NEWS FLASH
The RDIs of the grand jury voted.
The Boulder Police supported the same.
If those are so correct like you, than why is this a open case.?
Yes a open case.
Do You get the point!!!
:-)
This is a poor post. You make the "RDIs" look bad.
Type it better nest time.
TI
Deb

Phoenix, AZ

#1621 Apr 7, 2013
Its not about the IDIs of y RDIs. We are all here posting together. Yes this is a open case, so the GJ and other make no in pack on the case as it is today. We, as RDIs knows this. We are not that dumb. we know that if the GJ was on track, the family would have been charge. So WE as RDIs have nothing to stand on. But we try to make up something to sound good. There are some good IDIs posters here, Bit I am a RDI.

Deb

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#1623 Apr 7, 2013
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Really, who was it?
Why were they indicted then?
Steve Eller

United States

#1624 Apr 7, 2013
Dear SPAMMERS:

You are fooling no one and accomplishing nothing besides demonstrating the level of your desperation. A panel of 12 disinterested individuals examined the evidence carefully over a period of thirteen months, they had access to far more information than we do and came to the conclusion that the Ramsey's were responsible.
Must scuk to be you and try to maintain a facade of objectivity, but there is no spinning that the panel tasked with investigating this case INDICTED the RAMSEYS.
Steve Eller

United States

#1628 Apr 7, 2013
True Bill wrote:
Correction: a Grand Jury can indict, the DA can chose to prosecute.
WOW! Thanks for that clarification otherwise we would not have known that what you originally posted was wrong as usual.
The Truth Hurts

United States

#1629 Apr 7, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
This article should help you understand:
"Where’s that Phone?: Geolocating IP Addresses on 3G Networks"
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people...
Sorry. Not buying it. Go sell it somewhere else.
The Truth Hurts

United States

#1630 Apr 7, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I think I'll read it again too. ;o)
Keep quoting the spammer/troll. That does much for your credibility.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1631 Apr 7, 2013
Steve, you seem to be confusing an indictment with a guilty verdict. Below is an explanation that should clarify the differences.

Please note: GJs are not typically presented with ALL of the evidence. The DA chooses which facts will be disclosed. There is no rebuttal, no cross examination, and no defense.

"indictment n.- a charge of a felony (serious crime) voted by a grand jury based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence presented by the public prosecutor (District Attorney). To bring an indictment the grand jury will not find guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it, and that he/she should be tried. District Attorneys often only introduce key facts sufficient to show the probability, both to save time and to avoid revealing all the evidence."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Its the Law

Santa Clara, CA

#1632 Apr 7, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
Steve, you seem to be confusing an indictment with a guilty verdict. Below is an explanation that should clarify the differences.
Please note: GJs are not typically presented with ALL of the evidence. The DA chooses which facts will be disclosed. There is no rebuttal, no cross examination, and no defense.
"indictment n.- a charge of a felony (serious crime) voted by a grand jury based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence presented by the public prosecutor (District Attorney). To bring an indictment the grand jury will not find guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it, and that he/she should be tried. District Attorneys often only introduce key facts sufficient to show the probability, both to save time and to avoid revealing all the evidence."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Good post as all ways.
Its the Law

Santa Clara, CA

#1633 Apr 7, 2013
NEWS FLASH

The GJ look at information that was known at that time. At that time.

Now, Touch DNA was found on many item that proves with out any mistakes, that a white male last touch jonBenet that night.

If the GJ had this importance information, TOUCH DNA, then it would only have taken one day to complete the GJ not a year, and they did not know what to do.

NEWS FLASH RDIs

Now what are you going to post?

:-)

Its the LAW

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1634 Apr 7, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
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.
Obviously we have difficulty communicating effectively with one another. My message was apparently quite unclear, so it's difficult to continue a conversation with you as your interpretation of my post is not nearly the message I had hoped to deliver.

...& yes, you have been posting about the case much longer than I have. That should be to your advantage. I've only been researching the case since late December of 2011. You may know all that is necessary, IYO. That's probably a comfortable feeling. I, on the other hand, DO realize that I do not have all of the facts, thus, I cannot propose any specific theory. I simply know what I know, and feel there are many avenues yet to explore.

So, I'll keep researching. I hope you feel free to ignore my posts. Our interaction is counter-productive as you clearly have nothing to glean from my research and nothing legitimate, regarding the case, to share with me as evidenced by your posts.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1635 Apr 7, 2013
Its the Law wrote:
<quoted text>Good post as all ways.
Thanks, a little affirmation here and there is nice, especially HERE @ Topix.
Steve Eller

United States

#1636 Apr 7, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
Steve, you seem to be confusing an indictment with a guilty verdict. Below is an explanation that should clarify the differences.
Please note: GJs are not typically presented with ALL of the evidence. The DA chooses which facts will be disclosed. There is no rebuttal, no cross examination, and no defense.
"indictment n.- a charge of a felony (serious crime) voted by a grand jury based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence presented by the public prosecutor (District Attorney). To bring an indictment the grand jury will not find guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it, and that he/she should be tried. District Attorneys often only introduce key facts sufficient to show the probability, both to save time and to avoid revealing all the evidence."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
No actually a guilty verdict is what would have been delivered if Alex Hunter prosecuted. The INDICTMENT that this Grand Jury delivered is REMARKABLE because Alex Hunter deviated enormously from the traditional practice of presenting only incriminating evidence to the Grand Jury. Lou Smit and John Douglas both presented their views on this case to the Grand Jurors and they were not swayed at all. For years we heard from the Ramsey apologists about how the Grand Jury didn't indict because there was not enough evidence. But the Grand Jury INDICTED (no matter how many explanations you proffer it does not and will not change this FACT) the Ramseys. What stronger rebuttal could the Ramsey's present besides Lou Smit? This was a well respected and well known detective who had the chance to give a power point presentation to the Grand Jury. Must be hard for some, because we have direct evidence that this Grand Jury existed and voted and there is no way that reality and history can be altered via the traditional Ramsey apologist tactics.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1637 Apr 7, 2013
Its the Law wrote:
NEWS FLASH

The GJ look at information that was known at that time. At that time.

Now, Touch DNA was found on many item that proves with out any mistakes, that a white male last touch jonBenet that night.

If the GJ had this importance information, TOUCH DNA, then it would only have taken one day to complete the GJ not a year, and they did not know what to do.

NEWS FLASH RDIs

Now what are you going to post?

:-)

Its the LAW
Great post.
I imagine the RDIs will just follow the same ole' game plan. ;o)
Steve Eller

United States

#1638 Apr 7, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Great post.
I imagine the RDIs will just follow the same ole' game plan. ;o)
Just want to remind you that the Ramseys were indicted by the Grand Jury...I know sometimes it may be tempting to ignore that fact that is not in dispute.
red robben

Burbank, CA

#1639 Apr 7, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Just want to remind you that the Ramseys were indicted by the Grand Jury...I know sometimes it may be tempting to ignore that fact that is not in dispute.
I found this post above.
Will this help?

NEWS FLASH

The GJ look at information that was known at that time. At that time.

Now, Touch DNA was found on many item that proves with out any mistakes, that a white male last touch jonBenet that night.

If the GJ had this importance information, TOUCH DNA, then it would only have taken one day to complete the GJ not a year, and they did not know what to do.

NEWS FLASH RDIs

Now what are you going to post?

:-)

Its the LAW

Check the information timing..........DNA
Steve Eller

United States

#1640 Apr 7, 2013
Its the Law wrote:
NEWS FLASH
The GJ look at information that was known at that time. At that time.
Now, Touch DNA was found on many item that proves with out any mistakes, that a white male last touch jonBenet that night.
If the GJ had this importance information, TOUCH DNA, then it would only have taken one day to complete the GJ not a year, and they did not know what to do.
NEWS FLASH RDIs
Now what are you going to post?
:-)
Its the LAW
Actually six different specimens of artifact DNA were found. The race of the DNA is not known, those are just rumors and innuendo spread by Ramsey lawyers and PR professionals. Of course not being informed and educated about this case you are susceptible to misinformation UNLIKE the Grand Jury who reviews the actual evidence and not lies spread to save the Ramseys from prison. Morever, we now know that no stun gun was used and there was no forced entry into the Home, so you may be on to something about how much more swiftly the Grand Jury would have acted in delivering an indictment against the Ramseys.
Steve Eller

United States

#1641 Apr 7, 2013
red robben wrote:
<quoted text>
I found this post above.
Will this help?
NEWS FLASH
The GJ look at information that was known at that time. At that time.
Now, Touch DNA was found on many item that proves with out any mistakes, that a white male last touch jonBenet that night.
If the GJ had this importance information, TOUCH DNA, then it would only have taken one day to complete the GJ not a year, and they did not know what to do.
NEWS FLASH RDIs
Now what are you going to post?
:-)
Its the LAW
Check the information timing..........DNA
Consult with language arts book about writing English and grammar usage. It may help you express yourself. Touch DNA was found on many item that 'prove' what mistakes? There is no evidence DNA or otherwise identifying the race or gender of the last person who touched JonBenet when she was still alive. But since writing in english is obviously quite a challenge for you, reading and understanding english may be even more difficult.

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
patsy ramsey - femme fatal. (Jan '16) 1 hr Peet 29
Why would the Ramsey's do so many stupid things... 1 hr TheOneWhoSolvedTh... 456
Best Movie Monologues For JBR Case 1 hr Peet 19
Electric Deer fence at whites and JB abrasions 1 hr Peet 31
News JonBenet Ramsey grand jury dismissed after prob... 1 hr Peet 8
Blood choke or air choke 1 hr Peet 2
Did Patsy Lie 1 hr Peet 31
The unthinkable becomes thinkable 2 hr Peet 462
More from around the web