Actual Proof?
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#153 Oct 18, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>^^^
Taylur, I quoted MJ's post, above, as an example of defamation. My point? The statement is false. Taking into account MJ's many posts, malicious intent wouldn't be difficult to prove in a court of law.
False Statement + Malicious Intent + Defamation=Libel
Really? Really? Coming from you that is priceless! You must think you are some kind of lawyer.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#154 Oct 18, 2013
OneWhoCares wrote:
<quoted text>Really? Really? Coming from you that is priceless! You must think you are some kind of lawyer.
You are FLIPPIN' NUTS! You DO NOT know me. I DO NOT know you. I have NEVER MET YOU. You are OBSESSED....& it's unhealthy, weird, creepy, unattractive, etc. Seriously, get yourself together.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#155 Oct 19, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
You are FLIPPIN' NUTS! You DO NOT know me. I DO NOT know you. I have NEVER MET YOU. You are OBSESSED....& it's unhealthy, weird, creepy, unattractive, etc. Seriously, get yourself together.
Maybe you shouldn't put that kind of information out there then, just sayin'.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#156 Oct 19, 2013
I'm not the least bit uncomfortable with my ability to weed out lies the Ramseys have presented or simply obfuscated and expose the truth. I'm protected by free speech to call it as I see it.

Jonbenet is dead. She lived an absurd life of an abused child. The Ramsey family was more dysfunctional than most. The behavior of both these children was monumentally off the wall and insane. Childen aged 6 and 9 should be defecating in the toilet and not their clothing. A child soiling one's self is a red flag that they were both longstanding victims of sexual molestation.

To understnd what happened that Christmas night you have to back pedal and understand how extremely unstable and chaotic the lives of the children were. And you have to include JAR in the mix.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#157 Oct 19, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
You are FLIPPIN' NUTS! You DO NOT know me. I DO NOT know you. I have NEVER MET YOU. You are OBSESSED....& it's unhealthy, weird, creepy, unattractive, etc. Seriously, get yourself together.
I know MORE than I need to know about you and were I to publish some of those emails you sent to me awhile back, the general public would see who is NUTS!

Now play nice and discuss the case, fatso.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#158 Oct 19, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>^^^
Taylur, I quoted MJ's post, above, as an example of defamation. My point? The statement is false. Taking into account MJ's many posts, malicious intent wouldn't be difficult to prove in a court of law.
False Statement + Malicious Intent + Defamation=Libel
truth = justice

I stand by my statement. Jonbenet's autopsy showed her the victim of incestual sexual abuse. I didn't quote the autopsy just interpreted the contents. If you need to believe the children were molested repeatedly for years by the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy you have that right. What happened in that family was vulgar and not limited to the night Jonbenet died.

Ask yourslef why Burke has never pointed out who sexually molested him and you'll start to understand the disgusting situation of this abnormal family.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#159 Oct 19, 2013
OneWhoCares wrote:
<quoted text>I know MORE than I need to know about you and were I to publish some of those emails you sent to me awhile back, the general public would see who is NUTS!

Now play nice and discuss the case, fatso.
I just emailed you.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#160 Oct 19, 2013
OWC~

Do you remember sending me a message including the following statements? You KNOW I am not GAR.

"As God is my witness, Candy did not tell me your full name. I have not shared your full name with anybody and only that one picture with my friend
of twenty years. She never even told me your first name.
...
Yes, I do believe you NOW and I believed you when we first started corresponding.
...
I wish you only they best and I would never want any harm to come to you.
...
I'm truly sorry for any stress I may have caused you."
Taylur

Pleasant Hill, MO

#161 Oct 19, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
1. "Chronic is a better term. It had been going on for quite a while."
How long, Taylur?
2. "Some doctors argued that the damages received came from horse back riding, while other doctors argued that the damage was far too 'uncontrolled' to have just been done by horse back riding or biking."
Who?
3. "In the end, doctors settled that JB WAS sexually abused."
Which doctors?
Some doctors believe JonBenet was abused prior to the 26th. However, there are experts/doctors that did not arrive at the same conclusion.
Objectivity is difficult to maintain. It requires a level of fairness. Fairness requires less bias & more neutrality; consideration of expert analyses that may differ from one's own opinion.
Have you researched opinions of experts whose conclusions do not support your beliefs? If you have, what caused you to disregard these experts' opinions?
I'm arriving late to reply, but I think our fellow posters have supplied you with the numerous questions you asked. I disregard experts who think JB's vaginal trauma was done innocently for a few physical reasons that another poster already covered, the fact that she went to the bathroom in bed, and the fact that the parents of the girl were caught in lies, including denying the knowledge of JB's bed incidents. If you'd like proof of that lie you may revert back to one of the first few pages of this post and read it yourself :)
Taylur

Pleasant Hill, MO

#162 Oct 19, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>^^^
Taylur, I quoted MJ's post, above, as an example of defamation. My point? The statement is false. Taking into account MJ's many posts, malicious intent wouldn't be difficult to prove in a court of law.
False Statement + Malicious Intent + Defamation=Libel
I'm not wasting my time explaining this concept to you anymore, because it's apparent that no matter how many times we explain the concept of libel to you, you will not understand. Your neat equation is correct in the above post though. Very informative.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#163 Oct 19, 2013
Taylur wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not wasting my time explaining this concept to you anymore, because it's apparent that no matter how many times we explain the concept of libel to you, you will not understand. Your neat equation is correct in the above post though. Very informative.
I don't need an explanation.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#164 Oct 20, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need an explanation.
That is correct, you don't need an explanation. What you need is to be able to understand the explanation given to you.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Deb

Minneapolis, MN

#165 Oct 21, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
There is not one thing in this post of yours that is factual and correct.
It does NOT “HAVE” to be from the killer.
A partial profile cannot match a full profile.
She did “NOT” scratch her attacker unless her attacker had no skin (LOL) for she has no skin under her nails.
There is nothing “iron clad” about this DNA or they would have sourced it by now and they haven’t!
<quoted text>
Ridiculous statement that " it would have been sourced by now!!!.". I guess u have no idea how much dna from victims has not been sourced yet and how much dna from criminals have not been processed yet due to backlogs.

They have not and cannot prove the ramseys killed jonbenet. I hope no one would convict someone for being in the same house.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#166 Oct 21, 2013
The Grand Jury believed the Ramseys were responsible for that noose around her neck - BOTH of them. The specks of foregin DNA were all that, just specks, all incomplete, all degraded and by that virture alone datable to well before Christmas 1996.

If you want to understand the sad life and bizarre death of Jonbenet you have to look at the mental health symptoms both Burke and Jonbenet suffered with ritulalistic behaviors so severe they needed therapy.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#167 Nov 29, 2013
Taylur wrote:
The DNA could have come from anyone and anywhere. It does NOT prove that an "unknown person" killed JonBenet. The Ramseys could still very well be involved & I believe they are. The "evidence" supporting the intruder theory is a bunch of waste based on heresy evidence. I want actual solid proof and from what I have seen, there seems to be much more stacked against the family than an intruder. The broken window theory is a load. There were undisturbed spider webs found on the window and grate in front of the broken basement window. Experts concluded that out of the many handwriting samples, Patsy was the closest of any suspects recorded. The practice ransom note was found thrown away in a waste basket. Inform me why any intruder would feel comfortable enough in an intruders home to write not only one, but two ransom notes? Three pages long at that. Throughout the entire investigation the parents remained emotionless and impersonal to the death of their own six year old daughter. Patsy played Jeckle and Hyde through-out her interviews while John Ramsey's first thought was to get a lawyer after miraculously finding his daughter dead in the "train room" within the maze of their basement. White said it was the first door Ramsey checked. Even through Detective Ardnt, in the home with the family during the discovery, directed him & Fleet White to check the home from TOP to bottom. It's ridiculous for anyone to assume they as innocent. I could go on and on with the evidence against them. They are wealthy manipulators with friends in high places. The above stated FACTS come out of Steve Thomas's published book. Feel free to take a look at it.


The "experts" hired by Darnay Hoffman concluded Patsy wrote the note, but then, that is exactly what Hoffman was paying them to find. The "experts" hired by John found that John didn't write it (wow, what a surprising conclusion) but also found it was very unlikely Patsy wrote it. The "experts" working for the police, who were the only ones even reasonably close to being "objective" didn't think Patsy wrote it, except for Ubowski who's "gut" told him Patsy did, but who also admitted the evidence just didn't indicate what his "gut" told him.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

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
John Ramsey was Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 2 min KCinNYC 10
HANDY 🔌 Electric Tools 'Someone' Could ... 4 min Bear 74
The fridge 9 min Bear 15
1996 Ramsey case crime scene video-Radar online 14 min Bear 168
GSLDPD99178617 - the DNA that matters! 18 min Bear 354
News JonBenet case analysis suggests Ramsey family s... 24 min Bear 71
Why was JonBenet's skull disconnected to her bo... (Jan '16) 32 min Bear 11
Why would the Ramsey's do so many stupid things... 1 hr Bear 445
Patsy's Answers About the Pineapple (Oct '09) 4 hr kauna 63
More from around the web