Biz

New Port Richey, FL

#42 Apr 28, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, but I fault them for DENYING it instead of saying "gee I don't know and can't be sure; we have so much stuff" Big difference
What did they deny owning that was proven to belong to them? They said the backpack wasn't theirs, the baseball bat wasn't theirs. There was no duct tape or rope found to match anything in their home. They never denied owning the tablet the RN was written on. They never denied owning the paintbrush. So where are you going with this.....or is just items you ASSUME they they lied about?
Biz

New Port Richey, FL

#43 Apr 28, 2011
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Biz, they had no reason to lie about the flashlight or the tea glass, or the bowl or the spoon, and yet they did. They categorically denied everything they were asked about that day, period.
The flashlight is still believed to have been brought in by the killer. They tested the batteries after all. They admitted having one like it but said the one found in the kitchen was not theirs. Lied about the tea glass, spoon? Like how? Obviously they owned it. Obviously someone got it out of the fridge and they don't know who. Happens at my house all the time.
If you were interviewed shortly after finding your daughter garrotted, I wonder how you would fair under questioning. You have no idea because it is an extreme condition none of us can comprehend.
I remember being under extreme stress and not remembering anything about it until years later. And my situation was NOTHING compared to what the Ramseys endured
Biz

New Port Richey, FL

#44 Apr 28, 2011
thewhitewitchone wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know they didn't have a reason to lie about it? Just because you don't know the reason doesn't mean there wasn't one.
There was no reason for an intruder to bring a rucksack with JUST a rope in it either. Nor was there a reason for him to leave it there.
There was no reason to lie about it because it is irrelevant to anything else involved in the case. If it did belong to them it was not pertinent. So why say it didn't.
And how do you know that the rope was the only thing inside of it. Perhaps it had a flashlight, cord, duct tape, etc. Many killers bring in a kit.
Maybe the rope was to wrap up the parents if things got out of hand? Or maybe it was to repell down from the 2nd story in a hurry. Obviously investigators believe it was left by the perpetrator. I gave you evidence of that but choose to live in your fantasy world. I really don't care.
Biz

New Port Richey, FL

#45 Apr 28, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
That's another sentence that gets tossed around quite frequently "they had no reason to..." It's easy when you start sleuthing with three prime suspects already discounted.
Now THAT is great sleuthing. Pick out the suspects that you have a warm and fuzzy feeling towards and then INVESTIGATE the rest of the world. Just like Smit! We know how successful he was AND the Ramsey investigators
You shouldn't knock my sleuthing when you do nothing to find out any information. You are just a robot. REPEAT, REPEAT REPEAT.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#46 Apr 28, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
You shouldn't knock my sleuthing when you do nothing to find out any information. You are just a robot. REPEAT, REPEAT REPEAT.
I think repeating what is known is way more credible than fabricating evidence that doesn't exist.

Your sleuthing skills are nil, just based on your "knowing" about what is going on here at the forum. One can only assume it extends to the case as well, as evidenced by your "speculation" being passed off as reality and factual

You are dishonest and are spreading misinformation in your efforts to make the Ramseys the saints that you think they are

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#47 Apr 28, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
You shouldn't knock my sleuthing when you do nothing to find out any information. You are just a robot. REPEAT, REPEAT REPEAT.
You also have no idea what I do or don't do.

More arrogance

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48 Apr 28, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
You also have no idea what I do or don't do.
More arrogance
I know that you don't do any sleuthing of your own. You do nothing to contribute the case IMO

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#49 Apr 28, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I think repeating what is known is way more credible than fabricating evidence that doesn't exist.
Your sleuthing skills are nil, just based on your "knowing" about what is going on here at the forum. One can only assume it extends to the case as well, as evidenced by your "speculation" being passed off as reality and factual
You are dishonest and are spreading misinformation in your efforts to make the Ramseys the saints that you think they are
I don't fabricate, I don't lie, I have no reason to make the Ramseys out to be saints. They did that on their own.(Well no one is a saint but they appear to be very good people, very good parents from everyone I have interviewed who knows them)
If I make a mistake I own up to it and take responsibility. I am highly confident in my source on this matter regarding Gigax. I stand by my statement.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#50 Apr 28, 2011
BTW Watchingjbrcase is me Biz. It pulls up this hat when I am at work. I am not trying to disguise my identity.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#51 Apr 28, 2011
By your logic I know you don't either.
watchingjbrcase wrote:
<quoted text>I know that you don't do any sleuthing of your own. You do nothing to contribute the case IMO

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#52 Apr 28, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
The flashlight is still believed to have been brought in by the killer. They tested the batteries after all. They admitted having one like it but said the one found in the kitchen was not theirs.
There's some more of that FALSE information again. At the risk of sending you off into another tizzy, would you mind sourcing these statements?
WHO (besides you and other IDI) believes the killer brought in the flashlight?
To my knowledge, the Ramseys NEVER said that the flashlight wasn't theirs. They said they had one like it but theirs wasn't "dirty".(The "dirt" was powder from dusting for prints.) I also recall reading that the Ramseys flashlight that looked like the one in question was not in the drawer where it was kept. Yes, I will try to source that for you and I will not have a cow over doing it. ;)

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#53 Apr 28, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no reason to lie about it because it is irrelevant to anything else involved in the case. If it did belong to them it was not pertinent. So why say it didn't.
And how do you know that the rope was the only thing inside of it. Perhaps it had a flashlight, cord, duct tape, etc. Many killers bring in a kit.
Maybe the rope was to wrap up the parents if things got out of hand? Or maybe it was to repell down from the 2nd story in a hurry. Obviously investigators believe it was left by the perpetrator. I gave you evidence of that but choose to live in your fantasy world. I really don't care.
Like I said, how do you know it wasn't "pertinent" to the Ramseys or the crime? Your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.
You have no idea what the "investigators" believe about the rope; and by that I mean the REAL investigators, not the Ramsey fan club ones.
The only thing that you gave me evidence of is that you're the one who lives in a fantasy world. "Rappel" down the second story? LOL "Holy escape artist, Batman!" Wouldn't it have been "pertinent" to have it actually tied to something in case that "hasty escape" came about?
Every time you mention a Killers kit" I just laugh. Yes. They carry their tools in rucksacks. The more sophisticated killers carry theirs in attache cases. And they ALWAYS leave them at the crime scene, along with bogus ransom notes and the body of their intended victim.
Who lives in a fantasy world? You do. ;)

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#54 Apr 28, 2011
LOU SMIT: John Andrew's bedroom, did you ever recall any rope or cord being in his room?
JOHN RAMSEY: Gee, it's possible, John Andrew loved the outdoors, he was there, I stayed in that room. I know he had seems like he had his backpack there for a while. So it wouldn't be -- I don't remember seeing any, but it wouldn't be Ė
Ö
LOU SMIT: But he could have had things there in his backpack?
JOHN RAMSEY: It wouldn't have been out of the question.
also

PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I mean, Burke had some ropes that he would play with through something out on the playground, you know, in that, in that picture yesterday the rope around the, the fort, you know, or something.
TOM HANEY: Right.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#55 Apr 28, 2011
As far as Carnes and her uneducated opinion goes...the brown paper bag the rope was put in was an evidence bag:

(0535-16) LOU SMIT: But he could have had things there in his backpack? JOHN RAMSEY: It wouldn't have been out of the question. LOU SMIT: Just for the camera, the photographs we are looking at is photo 113, 114, 115 and 116.-(0535-24) BRYAN MORGAN: May I ask just one question. Can you tell us if this is the form in which it was originally found? LOU SMIT: No, that's the bag it was put in for evidence. BRYAN MORGAN: So the paper bag is just in evidence. LOU SMIT: Evidence bag. And again that was just found in the room, and it was found in a bag in her room, that's all I can tell you at this time.

It doesn't even sound like the ruck sack was even taken into evidence since only the rope continues to be questioned as to who owned it.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#56 Apr 28, 2011
Trip DeMuth: "This was found inside the house"

Patsy Ramsey: "Inside the house?"

Trip DeMuth: "In John Andrew's room?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Oh. Maybe it was a, some rope he used for camping or something, I don't know."

Trip DeMuth: "Did he have rope in his room that he would use for camping?"

Patsy Ramsey: "...I don't know. I just don't remember seeing this specifically, and I don't remember ever seeing a rope like that."

Trip DeMuth: "Do you know John Andrew had a rope in that room?"

Patsy Ramsey: "No"

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#57 Apr 28, 2011
ABRAMS: And I have to tell you, Lou Smit made his case to me, and I have to tell you, you know, the guy makes a persuasive case. Michael Kane, let me just give you the final 30 seconds in this segment and then weíre going to come back.

KANE: "Well I donít know where this information about the sack and fibers from the sack that were found-I mean, I can tell you, thatís news to me. Number two, it wasnít just a guest bedroom, it was John Andrewís bedroom."

KANE: "It had a lot of his stuff in there, and he was a backpacker, and the fact that there was a sack-it was a rucksack is what it was, with a rope in it. I donít know if thatís necessarily inconsistent with that."

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#58 Apr 28, 2011
Does anyone know WHERE in JARS room the rucksack was found?
Biz

New Port Richey, FL

#59 Apr 28, 2011
thewhitewitchone wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, how do you know it wasn't "pertinent" to the Ramseys or the crime? Your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.
You have no idea what the "investigators" believe about the rope; and by that I mean the REAL investigators, not the Ramsey fan club ones.
The only thing that you gave me evidence of is that you're the one who lives in a fantasy world. "Rappel" down the second story? LOL "Holy escape artist, Batman!" Wouldn't it have been "pertinent" to have it actually tied to something in case that "hasty escape" came about?
Every time you mention a Killers kit" I just laugh. Yes. They carry their tools in rucksacks. The more sophisticated killers carry theirs in attache cases. And they ALWAYS leave them at the crime scene, along with bogus ransom notes and the body of their intended victim.
Who lives in a fantasy world? You do. ;)
Ok, go ahead and make fun but you obviously haven't read about REAL killers who do fantasy stuff just like that. They do think they are batman and James Bond. It's not me that thinks like that.
BTW Smit and Gray ARE "READ INVESTIGATORS". Far more qualified than the Boulder PD investigators. Smit was a veteran and highly respected detective who solved many murders.(ST by the way solved NONE.) Gray was a former judge, and highly respected for his ethics and integrity. IMO the Ramsey investigators at Boulder PD act like a bunch of keystone cops.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#60 Apr 28, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, go ahead and make fun but you obviously haven't read about REAL killers who do fantasy stuff just like that. They do think they are batman and James Bond. It's not me that thinks like that.
BTW Smit and Gray ARE "READ INVESTIGATORS". Far more qualified than the Boulder PD investigators. Smit was a veteran and highly respected detective who solved many murders.(ST by the way solved NONE.) Gray was a former judge, and highly respected for his ethics and integrity. IMO the Ramsey investigators at Boulder PD act like a bunch of keystone cops.
I've been a true crime buff for many years so yeah, I've read about REAL killers.
Smit's glory days were over by the time he got on the Ramsey case. He should have stayed retired. Some of the things he came up with were laughable.(The dust ruffle comes to mind.)
I guess neither Smit nor Gray are "all that" since neither one has even come close to solving the murder. Do you suppose it's because they weren't/aren't looking where they should be looking? ;)
Biz

New Port Richey, FL

#61 Apr 28, 2011
thewhitewitchone wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been a true crime buff for many years so yeah, I've read about REAL killers.
Smit's glory days were over by the time he got on the Ramsey case. He should have stayed retired. Some of the things he came up with were laughable.(The dust ruffle comes to mind.)
I guess neither Smit nor Gray are "all that" since neither one has even come close to solving the murder. Do you suppose it's because they weren't/aren't looking where they should be looking? ;)
Smit may have been part of the "Apple Dumpling Gang" but he had ethics, character, and experience. My personal thoughts are that the crime could be solved via the internet and that may be a disadvantage to older detectives on both sides. The case could really use some young techies. I think it will technology that catches up with the killer.
I didn't find the dust ruffle observation "funny" at all. I think it showed that there could have been a perp who hid under the bed.
I do think it is funny that Boulder PD didn't think anyone could climb throught that window and here is Smit, a very tall man, who climbs through it with no problem. Stun guns in 1996 were mostly only used by LE at the time so medical examiners were not used to seeing these types of marks on bodies. Smit showed that it could be a stun gun.

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
"Note-Free Case Discussion" 17 min Capricorn 94
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) 4 hr JBI 1,617
Note-odd detail? 9 hr Note 2,400
Upcoming National Enquirer story - JonBenet Ram... (Oct '10) 10 hr berrytea333 35
koldkase patsy wrote the note 21 hr Legal__Eagle 18
Haapy Thanksgiving Wed Capricorn 15
ICU2 's Child Trafficking Tue Legal__Eagle 6
More from around the web