What was Alex Hunter REALLY afraid of?

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 108 of108
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Capricorn wrote:
For the umpteenth time:
The FBI was more than willing to either assist or take over. Once the body was found, the FBI cannot do anything at all unless INVITED
The authorities in Boulder declined! The Ramseys never requested them either and still haven't to this day
WHY was their offer declined in such a serious case? Why haven't they been asked to assist since?
If you have to really ponder that, you need a new hobby
Also for the umpteenth time: I question the INaction of the FBI BEFORE the discovery of the body, not AFTER. During the "kidnap phase", they should not merely have hung around in the background and been "willing" to assist or take over, they SHOULD have taken over, it was their duty and responsibility in terms of the Lindbergh Law to take over. The daughter of the president of one of Lockheed Martin's subsidiaries had been kidnapped and there was a ransom note from an anti-American foreign faction threatening to behead her. If that wasn't enough to trigger the FBI's jurisdiction, then what is?

IIRC, John (during the "kidnap" phase) DID repeatedly ask whether the FBI had been informed, but he undoubtedly lost his trust and confidence in the FBI when it became apparent that they were siding with the BPD in treating himself and Patsy as suspects. So in answer to your question as to why he's never requested the FBI's assistance, the answer is because he clearly doesn't TRUST them.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

DrSeussMd wrote:
Who hates the Ramseys? No one I know of.
If you expect me to believe that, you'll expect me to believe anything.
DrSeussMd wrote:
Who hates the senseless murder of a child? Most everyone I know!
Who hates coverups by guilty people? Anyone who wants to see justice served.
I agree. The question is WHO are the guilty people? You RDI may believe it's the Ramseys, but we IDI don't see it that way and what makes your opinion more worthy than ours?
DrSeussMd wrote:
You have been told many times that most of us started on the side of Ramsey innocence, until we followed the evidence and until the case unfolded as it has.
And Lou Smit started out believing the Ramseys were guilty and so did I and probably many others and we have followed the same evidence as you and reached a different conclusion, so your argument proves nothing.
DrSeussMd wrote:
How can you blindly (WITHOUT KNOWING THE RAMSEYS) suck up to them and everything they say and do?
Listen to me nicely. There is a big difference between STICKING up for people whom you believe have been very unjustly treated and SUCKING up to them. Sucking up implies trying to get into someone's good graces and since I don't believe the Ramseys read these forums, they most likely don't even know I exist, so "sucking up" to them would be a waste of my time. I have no ulterior motive in defending the Ramseys. I just can't stand the unfair and ugly things you RDI say about them.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Marleysghost wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care enough about John Ramsey to hate him. He is, in my opinion, smarmy and weaselly. He has also taken advantage of a tragic situation and made money off his daughter and wife's death with books and lawsuits. I've seen no actions indicating he put that much effort into finding his daughter's killer.
FWIW, I don't think he killed JonBenet. He is a whiner and complainer. I could go on but the short version is he isn't someone I'd want to be around because of what I've seen from his actions.
Don't you think you're allowing your dislike/disdain (whatever) for John to overshadow your objectivity? Wouldn't you too want to sue people who'd published terrible and untrue things about your family? Would you not also want to write a book to put your side of the story across to a public who'd been influenced into believing the worst things about you? What would any normal person do in such a situation? Sit back like a dumb ox and allow the lies to continue or speak up in your own defence and make an example of a few to serve as a warning to others to watch what they say about you in future? It's to do with principle, not money.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

9

DrSeussMd wrote:
“Sergeant Whitson summoned detectives Fred Patterson and Linda Arndt, then called other relevant personnel from the sheriff’s department and the FBI…
…At 7:33 a K-9 unit with a tracking dog was put on standby…”
ITRMI, HB, pg 21
<quoted text>
So why wasn't the tracker dog put to USE instead of on standby? Of what use was that?

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

10

7

7

DrSeussMd wrote:
Of course you are beating a dead horse because you keep ignoring the fact they didn’t have the slightest idea if it had anything to do with the crime. You can’t just go up to ANY GJ that is convened and ask them to investigate something that isn’t RELEVANT just because they want to expose corruption in Boulder. You admit yourself that “…trying to expose something very ugly going on in Boulder which COULD have relevance to JonBenet's murder.” You need something to tie it in to the case before the GJ before you can present to them.“Could have’s” just don’t cut it. There was NO corroborating evidence the Ramsey’s had anything to do with pedophilia. Apparently the police felt the same as the GJ. If you bring this up again you will just be baiting!
Yes you may remind me she was assaulted in a sexual place on her body – but not that she was sexually assaulted in the manner in which it is defined as having purely sexual connotations. Her assault had nothing to do with sex. Garroting isn’t mutually exclusive to sex crimes. Now that I have been reminded, please remind yourself.
I'm not beating a dead horse so much as beating my head against a wall. I'll try again, but of course if you see it as BAITING, you're not obligated to respond.

If they'd asked the grand jury to let them testify because they knew of a horse theft syndicate operating in Boulder and were trying to tie that in with JonBenet's murder, I'd see your point. But they wanted the grand jury to investigate the PROBABILITY (they had NAMES) of a paedophile ring in a town where a child had been sexually assaulted and murdered in her own home. Her family was not dysfunctional and had no history of violence or abuse. Her genitals had been violated and a garrote had been applied to her neck. There was evidence a stun gun had been used on her and someone had hit her so viciously on the head that it split her skull apart. No parent in history has ever used a garrote on a child before. Yet you truly cannot see that this could have been the work of a sexual predator who was part of a bigger paedophile ring and therefore the grand jury had a right to hear what Ravitz and McFarland had to say? Is every grand jury witness required to provide PROOF of their testimony before they're allowed to appear before the grand jury? This was an investigating grand jury and that's all Ravitz and McFarland wanted. They had evidence which they wanted the grand jury to investigate and they were prevented from so much as even asking the grand jury foreman for PERMISSION to testify.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

4

Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember how the Ramseys refused a polygraph administered by the FBI?
They refused an FBI administered polygraph because they had no confidence that the test would be impartial. The danger to anyone who fails an FBI polygraph is that they are then subjected to an interrogation. As it turned out later, they were quite correct in not trusting the FBI. Every attempt by the Ramseys to reach a compromise with the FBI for an independent test which would be fair to all parties concerned, was rejected.

IMO the FBI's intention all along was to administer a test designed to make the Ramseys fail, so that they could interrogate them and hopefully get them to "confess".

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramseypolygraph.h...

Since: May 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

9

7

7

Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> They refused an FBI administered polygraph because they had no confidence that the test would be impartial. The danger to anyone who fails an FBI polygraph is that they are then subjected to an interrogation. As it turned out later, they were quite correct in not trusting the FBI. Every attempt by the Ramseys to reach a compromise with the FBI for an independent test which would be fair to all parties concerned, was rejected.
IMO the FBI's intention all along was to administer a test designed to make the Ramseys fail, so that they could interrogate them and hopefully get them to "confess".
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramseypolygraph.h...
WHY would they fail an FBI polygraph? Why would they worry about THEM when there's a killer OUT THERE?
LOL the FBI doesn't give a healthy damn who killed whom, and the Ramseys weren't special or even known to the FBI. Get a grip Lynette, and face the fact that the Ramseys had COMPLETE FAITH in the FBI and that is why they COULDN'T take their polygraph. They needed to shop around until they found the one polygrapher that let them take FIVE DAYS to answer THREE QUESTIONS! Do you suppose the FBI would give them all that time to answer their questions?
Nobodyudno

Radcliff, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Mar 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> They refused an FBI administered polygraph because they had no confidence that the test would be impartial. The danger to anyone who fails an FBI polygraph is that they are then subjected to an interrogation. As it turned out later, they were quite correct in not trusting the FBI. Every attempt by the Ramseys to reach a compromise with the FBI for an independent test which would be fair to all parties concerned, was rejected.
IMO the FBI's intention all along was to administer a test designed to make the Ramseys fail, so that they could interrogate them and hopefully get them to "confess".
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramseypolygraph.h...
If they were innocent, why should the Ramseys care to be questioned? Most parents of missing or murdered children welcome the chance to talk to the authorities, particularly the FBI. There is no need for an innocent party to need a compromise.

Your comments are ridiculous.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 108 of108
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

7 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Reexamining Michael Helgoth 9 hr Steve Eller 5
Lawsuit seeks release of grand jury docs in Jon... 15 hr candy 1
Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey e... Sat candy 177
Patsy's little helpers Sat Mama2JML 15
Hair Sat biz 18
S.B.T.C: Weird coincidence? (Mar '10) Fri Biz 49
Smit try to climb back through the basement win... Jul 10 Capricorn 12
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••