Questions for ST via CSIEngland

[Shill in the blanks]

CommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>

Nothing any of the Ramseys' friends could say would have supported the idea that the Ramseys could murder their own children (or anyone else). The Ramseys weren't afraid that one of their friends was going to reveal "secrets". There were no secrets.

Imagine that. No prior behavior of any type that would suggest the Ramseys would commit such a crime, and yet you claim there are patterns to it that show their guilt, hmmmmm!

[CSIEngland]

Rashomon wrote:

[quote][Rashomon (to Shill)]: "You obviously have not read my post thoroughly enough: ST could not know about the fiber evidence against John because at the time he wrote his book, the fiber tests had no yet been completed.
As for "crazy", I doubt ST would call the documented record "crazy" and it is precisely that record we are talking about: the official interviews with the Ramseys. ST himself conducted interviews with them in 1997. The interviews I'm talking about are from the year 2000. They can be read on the net, as well as in the National Enquirer book, but you know all that of course.
CSI could ask ST if he has read the year 2000 interviews, if yes, what he thinks of the incriminating fiber evidence John Ramsey was confronted with there.[end quote]
<quoted text>
TIA for your help, CSI.

Yes, I will ask, rashomon.

[Shill in the blanks]

thewhitewitchone wrote:

<quoted text>

Shills theory is so "out there" ... He keeps claiming JB got up and ate it on her own, even after it's been explained to him over and over again that her own parents said that is something she would not do.
He also thinks she put a huge pair of underwear on herself and picked out the appropriate day of the week, even though she couldn't read and never gave a hoot what day of the week she wore before.

Well it's that or Patsy was to dumb to lie about what JB could and could not do, or an intruder fed it to JB, none of which make sense.

We don't know what JB did that night except eat pineapple, and Patsy would have said that it was something JB would or could have done if she was trying to deceive and cover her ass, plain and simple. But she didn't.

And other then opinions, there is no proof that JonBenet could not eat pineapple by herself.

[Godshilla]

Legal_Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>
The trouble is, they should also have found JBR's DNA, Patsy's DNA, and on and on.

That's not the trouble, we expect they may find Ramsey DNA. And DNA is not pixie dust being flung all over people.

The trouble for you RDI is they didn't find Jane Doe or John Doe or any Does DNA except the one that matched the DNA mixed in blood in JonBenet's underwear.
Pretty cut and dry after that.

It's just you RDI unwilling to say you are wrong, that continue to try and discredit the DNA results for their own egotistical reasons, instead of facing facts.

[CommonSense]

Legal_Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course they were going to find "something"! Everything in everyone's home has DNA on it. The trouble is, they should also have found JBR's DNA, Patsy's DNA, and on and on.
The best part is Lacy admitting that the previous DNA from the underwear could not be identified at "the killer's", AND HENCE, this DNA can't be identified as the killer's either!

Lacy was relying on the law of probability as it relates to circumstantial evidence.

[CommonSense]

CSIEngland wrote:

<quoted text>
All DNA is invisible. Sometimes you can see what contains DNA, like saliva or blood, but all DNA, itself, is invisible.
And, while I'm no fan of Mary Lacy's and think she did this case an extreme disservice, YOU don't KNOW that SHE told BODE to test the waistband or whether BODE made that decision. Yes, Mary Lacy DID decide to have the long johns tested, I grant you that, but if she was planting DNA, she could have just as easily planted it on the garrote. That would have looked better for her "exoneration."
While I don't like Lacy, I think she's innocent in this.

Okay, DNA is invisible, so without blood, saliva, etc. no one knows it's there. Lacy could not have said "Check 4 inches from the end of the garrote." It would have looked too suspicious. First, the garrote was dismantled and the cord was unstrung.

Again, Lacy could have done it many different ways. She chose this one. Believe me, she's not innocent. She is suppressing evidence and obstructing justice. Well, she was. Now Stan Garnett is.

[CommonSense]

Shillicious wrote:

<quoted text>I'm LMAO. Oh you're so brilliant with numbers, and apparently it ends there.
Of course Every other sentence out of Lacy's mouth since 2002 has been "The DNA belongs to the killer."
That's because they found more DNA that matched the DNA in the underwear.
The case was cold.
The fact that they tested for DNA is absolute proof that they thought there might be new DNA found. Why else would they do it except if they are in cahoots like you're crazy claim?

Unknown trace DNA in one location was not enough to convince everyone that the DNA was the killer's. Lacy needed more, She manufactured the evidence, planted it, sent the longjohns to the lab and said "Look right here."

[CommonSense]

Shill in the blanks wrote:

<quoted text>Imagine that. No prior behavior of any type that would suggest the Ramseys would commit such a crime, and yet you claim there are patterns to it that show their guilt, hmmmmm!

There was no evidence that they would kill their daughter intentionally. Anyone can have an accident. And there's plenty of evidence the Ramseys were involved. Patsy wrote the note.

[Paris Shillton]

CommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>
There was no evidence that they would kill their daughter intentionally. Anyone can have an accident.

Yes, anyone can have an accident.

It's how they react to the accident. And even after interviewing people who most likely became hostile to the Ramseys after they found out the Ramseys suggested they might have done it, nothing and no one has shown any evidence that the Ramseys would strangle, rape, and club their daughter to death after an accident.

There are only gossiping Bonbon sucking couch potatoes and crack pots that have never met the Ramseys, that preach their armchair psychiatric analysis that the Ramseys are fiendish ghouls behind closed doors to allow themselves to believe they could create a cover up so horrific.

And now you want us to believe the DA is a corrupt and the new DA voted in is corrupt too.

Seriously, people are laughing at you CS.

[CommonSense]

Paris Shillton wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, anyone can have an accident.
It's how they react to the accident. And even after interviewing people who most likely became hostile to the Ramseys after they found out the Ramseys suggested they might have done it, nothing and no one has shown any evidence that the Ramseys would strangle, rape, and club their daughter to death after an accident.
There are only gossiping Bonbon sucking couch potatoes and crack pots that have never met the Ramseys, that preach their armchair psychiatric analysis that the Ramseys are fiendish ghouls behind closed doors to allow themselves to believe they could create a cover up so horrific.
And now you want us to believe the DA is a corrupt and the new DA voted in is corrupt too.
Seriously, people are laughing at you CS.

Again, twisting (putting a spin) on the the subject in order to reject it. You're talented.

You wrote: "....no one has shown any evidence that the Ramseys would strangle, rape, and club their daughter to death after an accident."

JonBenet was accidentally strangled BEFORE the accident. There was no rape. The vaginal injury occurred after JonBenet was dead. There was no clubbing. The skull fracture occurred during the accident and caused JonBenet's death.

It never happened before. The evidence in this case shows the Ramseys were capable of staging a crime scene.

Judith Phillips, a long time friend of the Ramseys, was quoted as saying, "I can't see Patsy killing JonBenet. But I can see her planning a cover-up. She was a planner. She was an organizer."

Patsy was facing prison. She was desperate. She was panicked. She did what she had to do, and her husband helped her. His friend and fraternity brother was the husband of the Lt-Governor. Did you know that?

[thewhitewitchone]

Paris Shillton wrote:

<quoted text>That's disgusting you skanky whitebitch.

The truth sometimes hurts, doesn't it?

[CSIEngland]

Shill in the blanks wrote:

<quoted text>Well it's that or Patsy was to dumb to lie about what JB could and could not do, or an intruder fed it to JB, none of which make sense.
We don't know what JB did that night except eat pineapple, and Patsy would have said that it was something JB would or could have done if she was trying to deceive and cover her ass, plain and simple. But she didn't.
And other then opinions, there is no proof that JonBenet could not eat pineapple by herself.

Patsy would have been dumb to lie about JB and the refrigerator. The Fernies knew she couldn't open it. The Whites knew she couldn't open it. DS knew she couldn't open it. Grandpa knew she couldn't open it. Aunt Pam and Lucinda knew she couldn't open it. Patsy couldn't very well say JB could do something she couldn't do. If she lied, LE would have found it out. JB also couldn't reach the cupboard where the bowls were kept. However, her brother could do those things.

[thewhitewitchone]

CommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, twisting (putting a spin) on the the subject in order to reject it. You're talented.
You wrote: "....no one has shown any evidence that the Ramseys would strangle, rape, and club their daughter to death after an accident."
JonBenet was accidentally strangled BEFORE the accident. There was no rape. The vaginal injury occurred after JonBenet was dead. There was no clubbing. The skull fracture occurred during the accident and caused JonBenet's death.
It never happened before. The evidence in this case shows the Ramseys were capable of staging a crime scene.
Judith Phillips, a long time friend of the Ramseys, was quoted as saying, "I can't see Patsy killing JonBenet. But I can see her planning a cover-up. She was a planner. She was an organizer."
Patsy was facing prison. She was desperate. She was panicked. She did what she had to do, and her husband helped her. His friend and fraternity brother was the husband of the Lt-Governor. Did you know that?

I'm just curious as to why YOU think "Patsy" would have felt the need to jab JB with the paintbrush at all during the staging.
In your scenario, a sexual assualt was unnecessary. Wouldn't making it just look like a murder be enough?
I cannot imagine any parent jabbing their daughter in the vagina for staging purposes, unless there was another motive for doing so.
Many experts are of the opinion that JB had been sexually assualted prior to her death and I am of that same opinion. The jab with the paintbrush was intended to "cover up" the prior injuries to her vagina.

[Legal_Eagle]

thewhitewitchone wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm just curious as to why YOU think "Patsy" would have felt the need to jab JB with the paintbrush at all during the staging.
In your scenario, a sexual assualt was unnecessary. Wouldn't making it just look like a murder be enough?
I cannot imagine any parent jabbing their daughter in the vagina for staging purposes, unless there was another motive for doing so.
Many experts are of the opinion that JB had been sexually assualted prior to her death and I am of that same opinion. The jab with the paintbrush was intended to "cover up" the prior injuries to her vagina.

It is like preaching to the choir, isn't it? And we both still make the attempt to speak rationally to CS, and we both know that logic won't work on a disturbed mind.

[koldkase]

Legal_Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course they were going to find "something"! Everything in everyone's home has DNA on it. The trouble is, they should also have found JBR's DNA, Patsy's DNA, and on and on.
The best part is Lacy admitting that the previous DNA from the underwear could not be identified at "the killer's", AND HENCE, this DNA can't be identified as the killer's either!

Not to mention, the Bode scientist who did the test illustrated on a pair of jeans on TV how she scraped the waistband, then processed what she got from that...and TOLD THE REPORTER SHE DISCARDED SOME DNA.

At the time I watched that, I thought, WHAT?! WHAT DNA WAS DISCARDED? WHO'S "THE DECIDER" that it's IRRELEVANT?!

[CSIEngland]

koldkase wrote:

<quoted text>
Not to mention, the Bode scientist who did the test illustrated on a pair of jeans on TV how she scraped the waistband, then processed what she got from that...and TOLD THE REPORTER SHE DISCARDED SOME DNA.
At the time I watched that, I thought, WHAT?! WHAT DNA WAS DISCARDED? WHO'S "THE DECIDER" that it's IRRELEVANT?!

That's an excellent point. NO DNA should have been discarded, not even JonBenet's.

[AlwaysMisunderst ood]

thewhitewitchone wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm just curious as to why YOU think "Patsy" would have felt the need to jab JB with the paintbrush at all during the staging.
In your scenario, a sexual assualt was unnecessary. Wouldn't making it just look like a murder be enough?
I cannot imagine any parent jabbing their daughter in the vagina for staging purposes, unless there was another motive for doing so.
Many experts are of the opinion that JB had been sexually assualted prior to her death and I am of that same opinion. The jab with the paintbrush was intended to "cover up" the prior injuries to her vagina.

Patsy was possibly facing prison for negligent homicide/ manslaughter/murder (associated with felony child abuse), or at least she might have thought she was. However, she was also facingthe fact that her friends, family, society in general would view her as a killer, someone who had killed her own daughter.

She was desperate. Apparently she felt she would get away with a cover up, and she had nothing to lose, really.

The goal, then, would be to create such a bizarre, horrific crime scene that no one who knew them would possibly believe the Ramseys had been involved. They did everything they could think of to make it look like some sick, perverted psycho had done this.

The more sick things that they could make look like happened to JonBenet, the better. According to people who knew her, Patsy was an "over-the-top" planner.

[CommonSense]

thewhitewitchone wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm just curious as to why YOU think "Patsy" would have felt the need to jab JB with the paintbrush at all during the staging.
In your scenario, a sexual assualt was unnecessary. Wouldn't making it just look like a murder be enough?
I cannot imagine any parent jabbing their daughter in the vagina for staging purposes, unless there was another motive for doing so.
Many experts are of the opinion that JB had been sexually assualted prior to her death and I am of that same opinion. The jab with the paintbrush was intended to "cover up" the prior injuries to her vagina.

JonBenet had a chronic condition: vaginitis

This is simply inflamation of the vagina, not necessarily from sexual contact.

Frome web page:

http://www.kidsgrowth.com/resources/articlede...

"Vaginitis from Soap or Poor Personal hygiene"


"Most vaginal itching or discomfort is due to a soap irritation of the vulva. The usual irritants are bubble bath, shampoo, or soap left on the genital area after a bath. Occasionally, it is due to poor hygiene. Before puberty, the lining of the vulva is very thin and sensitive. If the vagina becomes infected, there will be a vaginal discharge. This problem almost always occurs before puberty"

Many things can cause this.

The thing that convinces me that JonBenet was never molested is that neither of John's other two daughters ever suggested that John had done anything to them. Also JonBenet never told anyone that somebody was doing something to her.

Is it even remotely possible? To be reasonable, I'd have to say yes. It's remotely possible. However, there is no evidence that this is the case and I am not one to assume the worst without evidence.

[Legal_Eagle]

CommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>
JonBenet had a chronic condition: vaginitis
This is simply inflamation of the vagina, not necessarily from sexual contact.
Frome web page:
http://www.kidsgrowth.com/resources/articlede...
"Vaginitis from Soap or Poor Personal hygiene"
"Most vaginal itching or discomfort is due to a soap irritation of the vulva. The usual irritants are bubble bath, shampoo, or soap left on the genital area after a bath. Occasionally, it is due to poor hygiene. Before puberty, the lining of the vulva is very thin and sensitive. If the vagina becomes infected, there will be a vaginal discharge. This problem almost always occurs before puberty"
Many things can cause this.
The thing that convinces me that JonBenet was never molested is that neither of John's other two daughters ever suggested that John had done anything to them. Also JonBenet never told anyone that somebody was doing something to her.
Is it even remotely possible? To be reasonable, I'd have to say yes. It's remotely possible. However, there is no evidence that this is the case and I am not one to assume the worst without evidence.

Well, well, well, now you are an expert on women's genitalia, I guess that is no surprise. I can certainly see the first doctor's visit yielding perhaps the bubble bath was an irritant, but after that, NO, not the next 20+ times she was taken in.

If you believe JBR wasn't molested because she never told anyone - you know NOTHING of incest and child molestation. Please don't jump into discussions that are way over your head.

[candy]

Quote: JonBenet had a chronic condition: vaginitis

This is simply inflamation of the vagina, not necessarily from sexual contact.

Frome web page:

http://www.kidsgrowth.com/resources/articlede ...

"Vaginitis from Soap or Poor Personal hygiene"

Of course you're right CommonSense. The child had chronic allergies. That kind of bubble bath crap inflames allergic skin. I can't use anything like that, nor could I as a kid. All kinds of soaps, including detergents, including body washes irritate. Kids with allergies use either Dove for sensitive skin, Vanicream, Detergents free of all dyes, fragrance, etc. I don't think Patsy had a clue about allergies. That dog also would cause problems for the child.