Bill McReynolds

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1960 Jul 21, 2013
It's doubtful Geraldo would have any Santa in his home - he's Jewish.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1961 Jul 21, 2013
aussiesheila wrote:
<quoted text>SNIP...over and over it will say her hair was tied in the knot itself. I don't believe it was. I think it just became twisted around the knot because garotte was twisted and it caught some of her hair around the centre of the handle where the knot was
It appears that way to me, as well.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#1962 Jul 21, 2013
And as Logan rides off into the sunset you appear. Gee .......

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1964 Jul 21, 2013
...& you are STILL here, Brothermoon.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1966 Jul 22, 2013
Yes, BM is still here (as are you obviously) but he isn't quoting 18-month old aussie posts just to have 'someplace to post' without really saying anything like you are upthread, LOL. Maybe we should all go bump some old posts up to the top, it was a trip reading through this whole thread. Makes me HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY some of the really outlandish posters are gone now - at least maybe the discussions could be a tad more down to earth (so to speak).
Mama2JML wrote:
...& you are STILL here, Brothermoon.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#1970 Jul 22, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
quoting 18-month old aussie posts <quoted text>
That is one of the things that gives "It" away. And when It gets outed It vents It's visceral wrath as the multi-hat spammer. It's transposition to Moon Jack/MMichigan is the most puzzling.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1971 Jul 23, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Yes, BM is still here (as are you obviously) but he isn't quoting 18-month old aussie posts just to have 'someplace to post' without really saying anything like you are upthread, LOL. Maybe we should all go bump some old posts up to the top, it was a trip reading through this whole thread. Makes me HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY some of the really outlandish posters are gone now - at least maybe the discussions could be a tad more down to earth (so to speak).
<quoted text>
Yes, I think this forum would benefit if you (and "all") would bump older, ON-TOPIC posts. I'm pleased to be your role model, and, as always, you're welcome! ;o)

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1972 Jul 23, 2013
Don't worry about being my role model, I'm positive you are not qualified so most likely, it won't happen. And, you didn't bump anything for discussion - dissention perhaps, but certainly not discussion. But carry on, and I will certainly follow your lead. ;)
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I think this forum would benefit if you (and "all") would bump older, ON-TOPIC posts. I'm pleased to be your role model, and, as always, you're welcome! ;o)
FreeCanadianGuy

Calgary, Canada

#1973 Aug 14, 2013
I was just watching a documentary where a writing and linguistics analyst said he believes that the ransom note was dictated by a man, and penned by a woman. This fits right in with my Bill and Janet theory; I've always thought they were complicit in this.
A couple of coincidences are nothing several are a little harder to explain. When you stack up all the circumstantial evidence, however, it is hard to believe they were NEVER investigated as SERIOUS suspects in this case. The circumstantial evidence does not prove anything, but my god, it must raise serious suspicions.
I have the same feeling about Michael Helgoth. Though the circumstantial evidence doesn't prove anything, he should have been fully investigated, even posthumously. The photo of his suicide scene has many red flags in it, just in that photo, not to mention other incriminating evidence.
Helgoth and an accomplice? He didn't shoot himself, that's for sure. A quick look at the suicide photo is proof of that, try and put your hand where the gun would have been; and suicide with a pillow as a silencer??? Surely a unique event in the history of suicide.
Not proof, but he should have been investigated fully.
Yet another casualty of the tunnel vision, on the part of law enforcement in this case.
Mark Karr also said something I found fascinating. He said she was strangled when she was vertical. There is evidence she has her hands tied over her head, maybe suspended from a pipe? In the furnace room? Her hands were rigid above her head when she was found, and the rope was indicative of something used to suspend her, rather than restrain her, it's just too long for a restraint. One side of the hand rope was loose, like it had been pried off, instead of untied. Many knots are easily loosened when forced backwards, but will tighten as a person pulls on it. After she was strangled, the knot was pulled away from the wrist, to get her down? There is no indication the killer had a knife, none, so this may have been the only way to loosen that.
Just some thoughts, ones that investigators have never mentioned publicly.
FreeCanadianGuy

Calgary, Canada

#1974 Aug 14, 2013
Sorry for double posting, I got a message telling me I entered the numbers wrong! Oops!

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1975 Aug 15, 2013
Interesting your mind would wander to Bill and Janet as the male and female as opposed to John and Patsy who were actually IN the house that night.

The McSantas handwriting was checked and found not to match. Their DNA was checked and found not to match. No one could place them at the house, so when those facts were established, why did you waste any more time thinking it was them?
FreeCanadianGuy wrote:
I was just watching a documentary where a writing and linguistics analyst said he believes that the ransom note was dictated by a man, and penned by a woman. This fits right in with my Bill and Janet theory; I've always thought they were complicit in this.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1976 Aug 15, 2013
FreeCanadianGuy wrote:


The circumstantial evidence does not prove anything, but my god, it must raise serious suspicions.
The serious suspicions are on the Ramsey family. They were in crisis living on the edge before Jonbenet died. They were so dysfunctional the kids needed professional intervention, therapy for being emotionally disbaled. Get it, they were mentally ill. That is the root of most criminal behavior such as the rage that killed Jonbenet and the ensuing staged cover-up. It is never normal behavior for one human to kill another. It is insane and always will be.

Only the Ramsey family remains as viable suspects that have not cooperated and been fully investigated. Burke refused to be interviewed when politely asked. Law Enforcement would welcome their input, help, and honesty about what went so terribly wrong in their home. The Ramseys have never been forthright. From the ridiculous concept the parents had to be interviewed together (to make sure the lies matched) to the non-official pretend polygraphs, they are hiding a hideous embarrassing truth.

IMO the older half brother likely sexually abused these younger half siblings for most of their lives and that was the reason evidence shows not just Jonbenet but BURKE too, neither child was toilet trained. It could have been John or Patsy, just JAR would have been more seually curious and active at his age AND he was never questioned in this regard.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1977 Aug 15, 2013
moonjack wrote:
<quoted text>
The serious suspicions are on the Ramsey family. They were in crisis living on the edge before Jonbenet died. They were so dysfunctional the kids needed professional intervention, therapy for being emotionally disbaled. Get it, they were mentally ill. That is the root of most criminal behavior such as the rage that killed Jonbenet and the ensuing staged cover-up. It is never normal behavior for one human to kill another. It is insane and always will be.
Only the Ramsey family remains as viable suspects that have not cooperated and been fully investigated. Burke refused to be interviewed when politely asked. Law Enforcement would welcome their input, help, and honesty about what went so terribly wrong in their home. The Ramseys have never been forthright. From the ridiculous concept the parents had to be interviewed together (to make sure the lies matched) to the non-official pretend polygraphs, they are hiding a hideous embarrassing truth.
IMO the older half brother likely sexually abused these younger half siblings for most of their lives and that was the reason evidence shows not just Jonbenet but BURKE too, neither child was toilet trained. It could have been John or Patsy, just JAR would have been more seually curious and active at his age AND he was never questioned in this regard.
The opinions expressed above are not based upon facts.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1978 Aug 15, 2013
It's factual evidence you refuse to accept. It's real information that remains one of the reasons Law Enforcement believes the Ramseys are suspect and were involved in what happened.

Housekeeper #1 said Burke smeared his feces.

Housekeeper #2 said Jonbenet left grapefruit size turds in her bed.

In interviews Patsy was asked about feces photographed in underwear on the bathroom floor.

Nedra had special wording - dirtying herself, for Jonbenet’s 'problem'.

Smith claims all the underwear of Jonbenet’s was stained from feces.

Kolar relates information about a candy box smeared with feces and a pair of Burke’s pj bottoms with a fresh load of shite.

The dirty underwear is from transcripts - Patsy is asked to look at a picture described as inside out pants with dirty underwear still in them on Jonbenet's bathroom floor. I think from from the National Enquirer Police Files Book - a suggested read if you want to understand the real Ramseys and all their BS.

TH: "It's a bathroom."

PR: "This one looks like someone went to the potty and didn't flush."

TH: "Okay, is that out of the ordinary?"

PR: "Not terribly. No."

TH: "Did you take JonBenet to the bathroom prior to putting her to bed?"

PR: "No."

TH: "Would she have gotten up during the night and gone to the bathroom?"

PR: "Possibly."

TH: "If she did, would she have flushed?"

PR: "Not necessarily."

......and later..........

PR: "This is JonBenet's floor, her pants."

TH: "Do you recall those particular pants, when she would have worn those last?"

PR: "Not for sure. Probably recently because they are dropped in the middle of the floor, but I don't remember exactly."

TH: "They are kind of inside out."

PR: "Right."

TH: "Here is a close up of it. It appears they are stained."

PR: "Right."

TH: "Is that something JonBenet had a problem with?"

PR: "Well she, you know, she was at the age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job."

TH: "Did she have accidents , if you will, in the course of the day or the night, as opposed to just bed wetting?"

PR: "Not usually, no, huh-uh. That would probably be more from just not wiping real well."

TH: "Okay. Do you know how long those would have been in that position on the floor in there?"

PR: "It depends when she wore them last."

TH: "Again, do you recall?"

PR: "I don't remember."

TH: On Christmas day were you in that bathroom at all?"

PR: "Very likely, but I can't say for sure."

TH: "Had you been in there that day, would you have done something with them?"

PR: "Well, I got, you know -- that night I got -- I know I got the long johns for her out of that bathroom."

TH: "Right, out of one of the drawers in there."

PR: "Yeah."

TH: "Do you recall seeing those on the floor that night when you got the -- "

PR: "No."

TH: "underwear?"

PR: "They could have been there. I don't know."

Nedra was quoted as saying Jonbenet was only 'somewhat molested'- guess that's because JAR limited his activity and never penetrated.

Get over yourself mama, Patsy and John were chitass parents. The family sunk long before Jonbenet was killed.
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

#1979 Aug 15, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>The opinions expressed above are not based upon facts.
I agree, Mama2.

Had other persons been subjected to the intense scrutiny given the Ramseys, the case would be closed by now. There are just far too many "persons of interest" who were bypassed and overlooked so the main concentration could be upon the parents.

And this was done purely on the basis of statistics. IMO, one cannot use statistical data to solve a homicide. In fact, statistics can be deceiving since they can be manipulated to prove almost any point.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1981 Aug 16, 2013
Had other persons FAILED the scrutiny as badly as the Ramseys, they would have become suspects too! But the fact is they didn’t!

They cooperated
They gave DNA
They gave handwriting
They gave interviews
THEY WERE ELIMINATED!

Please source the BPD based their interest on the Ramseys “purely on the basis of statistics.”

If you cannot, your OPINION needs to extend to that statement as well as “one cannot use statistical data to solve a homicide.”

I do agree statistics “can” be manipulated. After all, manipulated stats seem to be the backbone of the IDI viewpoint, IMO…LOL!

If you have proof that ANY statistics were manipulated in the Ramsey case, please post it. If not, it is just more chatter.

Just because the BPD/FBI/CBI didn’t keep investigating previously cleared individuals for 17 years, doesn’t mean that they didn’t look into the people carefully enough or adequately enough clear them. The IDI seem to forget that these people cooperated with the investigation and were cleared. What a novel idea! Perhaps the Ramseys should have tried that approach – if they were innocent – it certainly couldn’t have hurt the investigation. Point in case: Ole Smitty didn’t find that illusive ninja band of intruders either, and according to some – he was the BEST that ever touched this case!
Spice Pond wrote:
<quoted text>
Had other persons been subjected to the intense scrutiny given the Ramseys, the case would be closed by now. There are just far too many "persons of interest" who were bypassed and overlooked so the main concentration could be upon the parents.
And this was done purely on the basis of statistics. IMO, one cannot use statistical data to solve a homicide. In fact, statistics can be deceiving since they can be manipulated to prove almost any point.
Heloise

UK

#1982 Aug 16, 2013
Santa Bill was a human bigfoot. Does anyone really think he could have got in via Smit's window and executed the crime without leaving any evidence? With a weak heart?

Homosexuals are also statistically extremely unlikely to commit offences against children.
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

#1983 Aug 17, 2013
Case in point: Here you have a suspicious crime scene (ruled by BPD as a suicide) with Helgoth killed by a gunshot (with the path of the bullet and placement of the gun on the wrong side of the body, inasmuch as Helgoth was left handed and these pattterns point to a right-handed shooting) plus the stun gun, Hi-Tec boots, and SBTC baseball cap. And you also have a Disney video "The Santa Claus" which includes a scene about Father Christmas waking a little blond haired girl out of her sleep on Christmas Eve night and the video has embedded in it an article on the Berrelez case.

This Helgoth thing occurred on VALENTINES DAY 1997, ONLY ONE DAY after the finger wagging speech by Hunter. Santa said on TV that he was going to update his "Christmas Story" which COINCIDENTLY has a publishing date of VALENTINES DAY 1995 and add JonBenet's name to it and give it to the Ramseys.

(The above was taken from a post on another forum)

And this is a good example of how the BPD was inept in their investigation of another crime, inasmuch as it is completely insane to write this crime off as a suicide given the circumstances. And then for them to ignore the other clues that indicate a possible connection to the JBR crime, is more than inept. IMO, it demonstrates a complete lack of the ability to ascertain from the available obvious clues whether or not a crime is a suicide or a murder.

This, my friend, is an excellent example of how the BPD did not render the same "intense scrutiny" to other "people of interest" as they did the Ramseys. Had they done so, IMO they would never have arrived at the conclusion that Helgoth committed suicide.
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

#1984 Aug 18, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
...
Please source the BPD based their interest on the Ramseys “purely on the basis of statistics.”
If you cannot, your OPINION needs to extend to that statement as well as “one cannot use statistical data to solve a homicide.”
The one constant throughout the investigation was the mention of statistics or odds: For example:

"...Detective Steve Thomas quoted FBI STATISTICS DEMONSTRATING THAT thousands of kids are killed by their mothers. It happens all the time.'

Per Schiller: "John Ramsey's behavior after his daughter's body was found, together with NATIONAL CHILD HOMICIDE STATISTICS WHICH SHOWED THAT A LARGE PERCENTAGE of child murders are committed by fathers, MADE THE RAMSEY FAMILY AUTOMATIC SUSPECTS." and this:

"McCrary refused to even speak to Team Ramsey" (allegedly after he was contacted by them to work on their behalf. Adding,

"because on a ratio of 12 to 1, child murders are committed by parents or a family member."

I did imply that since statistics necessarily show a high and a low for comparison's sake, obviously SOME ITEMS fall into the lower category and therefore should not or cannot be dismissed when trying to solve a homicide, simply because the odds don't favor them. And this WAS my OPINION, which I thought it had been agreed previously on this forum that it is unnecessary to state with each comment, especially when a comment is obviously an opinion.
DrSeussMd wrote:
I do agree statistics “can” be manipulated. After all, manipulated stats seem to be the backbone of the IDI viewpoint, IMO…LOL!
If you have proof that ANY statistics were manipulated in the Ramsey case, please post it. If not, it is just more chatter.
I do not nor did not even IMPLY they were manipulated. I simply stated via an aside that statistics CAN BE manipulated (to prove anything wanted to be thus proven by anyone trying to prove something). Call it chatter if you care to; I really don't care. IOW, it doesn't matter to me, so suit yourself.

It was YOU who should show PROOF of your claim that "manipulated stats seem to be the backbone of the IDI viewpoint". I personally have never seen any statistics used in this way, so please give me an example showing your source.
DrSeussMd wrote:
Just because the BPD/FBI/CBI didn’t keep investigating previously cleared individuals for 17 years, doesn’t mean that they didn’t look into the people carefully enough or adequately enough clear them.
Who knows but that they might have been clearing the pathway so they could devote their time exclusively to the Ramseys. Or, perhaps if they had investigated some of the other suspects more intensely (and there is ample evidence that they did NOT investigate several persons of interest or suspects even remotely adequately) then there is IN MY OPINION a very good chance they wouldn't be investigating the case at all now since it would now be closed, "Exceptionally Clear".

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#1985 Aug 18, 2013
If anyone thinks about this properly, the Ramseys had their own investigators, they had Smit, they had Tracey, and others on the RST If there was even an iota of suspicion about any one of the names that are and have been thrown out over the years, that would have pursued and advertised.

That is also assuming that the authorities did not investigate anyone "enough". It's become cliché and stale that anyone wasn't investigated "enough" and just plain silly at this point after so many years. The Ramseys had the means and the manpower to investigate anyone they wanted.

Once the police have information that someone could not have committed the crime, there is no longer a need to continue to investigate them. Internet posters who continue to second guess the investigation, of which they have NO REAL KNOWLEDGE of the details of any investigation, it shows either ignorance or denial.

At some point, or not, people will have to accept the fact that the people that the Ramseys and their team have pointed fingers at are not the murderers or their own investigators and Smit would have never let it alone, plain and simple

As it stands, the only logical conclusion is that a Ramsey is responsible for this crime IMO no matter which Ramsey it ends up being.

The Ramseys know what happened that night and no amount of investigating "elsewhere" will change that



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 6 hr ICU2 196
Another book? 6 hr ICU2 6
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 13 hr JTF 7,528
Memorial Day Wed Rangette 6
Linda Hoffmann Pugh spoke out Wed Fr_Brown 19
Home Invasion (Aug '09) May 23 candy 21
Question about the red turtleneck (Jul '10) May 22 candy 127
More from around the web