Comments
1 - 20 of 41 Comments Last updated Feb 4, 2013
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 26, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

This is what Team Scamsey has been pulling since day one to Jameson's latest desperate "Scott Gibbons" thread, without one shred of evidence against any of these INNOCENT people.

This is an important article from 2006 about one of the first people under the bus, Jeff Merrick. Many people believe the ransom note was specifically wrote to frame Merrick for the crime. The article shows John Ramsey's viciousness in naming Merrick repeatedly to the police, without any merit whatsoever:

Named in Ramseys' book

Some suspects were publicly named by the Ramsey family or legal experts they hired. One was Jeff Merrick, who was described as a suspect in a book by John and Patsy Ramsey.

"I was flabbergasted I had been named. I was fingered for a horrendous crime," said Merrick, a former employee of John Ramsey's at Access Graphics. "It had a tremendous impact on my life."

Merrick said John Ramsey three times asked authorities to investigate him, apparently on a theory that Merrick was a disgruntled former employee seeking revenge.

But Merrick said that he was laid off by Access Graphics, which has since changed its name, only because he was a whistle-blower and he received a settlement from Ramsey's company. By the time of JonBenét's murder, he had a higher-paying job at another company, he said.

"There was no reason at all that I would be motivated to kill his daughter," Merrick said. "I was a very, very unlikely suspect. Maybe (John Ramsey) wanted to take revenge."

Lin Wood, John Ramsey's attorney, did not return phone calls.

Merrick said he found it odd that the Ramseys would so freely throw his name around as a suspect, knowing how devastating the accusations against them had been.

"My wife was subjected to a lot of this stuff," he said. "The media was tough on us. The police delved into my past as deeply as anyone."

He said his wife's boss saw Merrick's name in an article and asked her: "Do you think there's a 1 percent chance he did it?"

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4893483

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 26, 2009
 
I think Jeff's like has gone on far better than John Ramseys. At least that part is good.

If the Ramseys were protecting Burke, and I'm not saying they were, I could almost admire them for that EXCEPT for all the innocent people they threw under the bus. That I could never forgive them for, though it's not in my province to forgive them for anything. One's already had to answer to her Maker, the other will have to some day, as we all will.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 26, 2009
 
Jeff's LIFE. Sorry.
Capricorn

Ronkonkoma, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 26, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

CSIEngland wrote:
I think Jeff's like has gone on far better than John Ramseys. At least that part is good.
If the Ramseys were protecting Burke, and I'm not saying they were, I could almost admire them for that EXCEPT for all the innocent people they threw under the bus. That I could never forgive them for, though it's not in my province to forgive them for anything. One's already had to answer to her Maker, the other will have to some day, as we all will.
The Ramseys, in my opinion, after reading all of their anecdotals are in fact, vengeful people.

It is evidenced by Patsy's "prank" with the poor tabloid reporter's wife, which, by the way, she thought was just the funniest thing

It is evidenced by throwing Merrick, Santa, and of course the Whites under the bus.

If you weren't shouting from the rooftops that the Ramseys were innocent, you were the enemy, plain and simple. Merrick was already the enemy and a perfect target for John, having had to pay him in a settlement. No anti Ramsey person shall go unpunished!

I too, could admire them if they were protecting Burke, had not so many innocents paid such a heavy price for that

With the Ramseys, you were either FOR them, or your life was over (not literally of course)

Oh no, I mentioned the Whites! Oh well, consider it a gift Candy. It'll give you a reason to live and post another day
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 26, 2009
 
Like a lot of other people, Jeff Merrick was interviewed again right after the Karr debacle was proved to be a fraud. He was on the Peter Boyles show the day after the DA's office announced Karr's DNA did not match:

http://www.acandyrose.com/20060830BoylesGuest...
Wilson Van Houten

Canton, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 14, 2009
 
Capricorn, can you tell me more about Patsy's prank?

vist my site:
http://www.jtkm.org/jbrbfa/index.html
deb

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 14, 2009
 

Judged:

1

So the Ramseys were not to answer the question of who might have been upset with them?

There was very good reason to investigate Merrick thoroughly, and even with that so-called thorough investigation of Merrick and the others, we still cannot rule-out that one of them could have hired someone to murder JB.
Wilson Van Houten

Canton, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 14, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Deb,
I agree that we cannot treat the Ramseys fingering of possible suspects as inculpatory. The police asked for this and the Ramseys tried to provide any and every possibility. They are not the detectives and that is exactly what they were obligated to do. What is unfortunate is that it leaked to the public and harmed those who were accused, IMO
deb

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 14, 2009
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Wilson Van Houten wrote:
Deb,
I agree that we cannot treat the Ramseys fingering of possible suspects as inculpatory. The police asked for this and the Ramseys tried to provide any and every possibility. They are not the detectives and that is exactly what they were obligated to do. What is unfortunate is that it leaked to the public and harmed those who were accused, IMO
It is unfortunate, but that is what happens when you threaten your boss by stating you are going to "bring him down" as Merrick did.

It is unfortunate, but when you change your stories like LHP did, and take Patsy's paper pads and pens for use in your home, like LHP did, you put yourself on the list.

It is unfortunate, but when you appear to be obsessed with a 6-yr old that you have only seen a few times of the years, have pictures of her on you mantle, save a place to carve her name on your harp along with other dead children's names, you pretty much set yourself up to be investigated.

It is unfortunate, but when you tell your friend that the cord looks like the cord you use to make kites, and you want to take pictures of naked girls, run naked down the street claiming you didn't kill her, ah, I think you put yourself on the list.

It is unfortunate, but when you touch multiple pieces of evidence in a crime scene such as the blanket, the tape, the window, the suitcase, search the basement as soon as you arrive in the house, but not look elsewhere and not report a broken window and did not see a body in the cellar, you set yourself up to be investigated.

When you have tape that matches the tape found in the house and other little girls accuse you of fondling them, you need to be investigated.

Everyone who has been investigated should have been and still need to be considered. I am not excluding the Ramseys, but
the evidence of DNA indicates someone else was in that house.
Wilson Van Houten

Canton, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 14, 2009
 
I understand your position.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 14, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

deb wrote:
the evidence of DNA indicates someone else was in that house.
No it doesn't you IDIot. The DNA coiuld have been deposited anytime before or after that night.
fr brown

Walnut Creek, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 15, 2009
 
candy wrote:
Like a lot of other people, Jeff Merrick was interviewed again right after the Karr debacle was proved to be a fraud. He was on the Peter Boyles show the day after the DA's office announced Karr's DNA did not match:
http://www.acandyrose.com/20060830BoylesGuest...
The transcription is kind of a mess, but the part about the tape over JonBenet's mouth is interesting. It's a quote from an autdiotape of Lacy saying there was mucous from the nose under the tape, but not over it. I know that there was bloody mucous on JonBenet's upper sleeve. If the mucous flow was caused by the head blow then I'd say the tape was put on JonBenet's mouth after that happened.

Since: Sep 09

Chester Springs PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 15, 2009
 
BrotherMoon wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't you IDIot. The DNA coiuld have been deposited anytime before or after that night.
I'm with Brother Moon on that one.

The greatest issue facing investigators in many DNA type cases, is contamination in the lab, in transit, in the testing procedure, etc...The more sensitive the DNA test (such as touch DNA) higher and higher the risk rises, of accidental contamination of an item.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 15, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
The Ramseys, in my opinion, after reading all of their anecdotals are in fact, vengeful people.
It is evidenced by Patsy's "prank" with the poor tabloid reporter's wife, which, by the way, she thought was just the funniest thing
It is evidenced by throwing Merrick, Santa, and of course the Whites under the bus.
If you weren't shouting from the rooftops that the Ramseys were innocent, you were the enemy, plain and simple. Merrick was already the enemy and a perfect target for John, having had to pay him in a settlement. No anti Ramsey person shall go unpunished!
I too, could admire them if they were protecting Burke, had not so many innocents paid such a heavy price for that
With the Ramseys, you were either FOR them, or your life was over (not literally of course)
Oh no, I mentioned the Whites! Oh well, consider it a gift Candy. It'll give you a reason to live and post another day
The Ramseys were mean, they were vengeful, I agree, Capricorn, and they ruined lives by throwing people under the bus, but I still don't think that makes them crazy, just very, very nasty.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 15, 2009
 
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
It is unfortunate, but that is what happens when you threaten your boss by stating you are going to "bring him down" as Merrick did.
It is unfortunate, but when you change your stories like LHP did, and take Patsy's paper pads and pens for use in your home, like LHP did, you put yourself on the list.
It is unfortunate, but when you appear to be obsessed with a 6-yr old that you have only seen a few times of the years, have pictures of her on you mantle, save a place to carve her name on your harp along with other dead children's names, you pretty much set yourself up to be investigated.
It is unfortunate, but when you tell your friend that the cord looks like the cord you use to make kites, and you want to take pictures of naked girls, run naked down the street claiming you didn't kill her, ah, I think you put yourself on the list.
It is unfortunate, but when you touch multiple pieces of evidence in a crime scene such as the blanket, the tape, the window, the suitcase, search the basement as soon as you arrive in the house, but not look elsewhere and not report a broken window and did not see a body in the cellar, you set yourself up to be investigated.
When you have tape that matches the tape found in the house and other little girls accuse you of fondling them, you need to be investigated.
Everyone who has been investigated should have been and still need to be considered. I am not excluding the Ramseys, but
the evidence of DNA indicates someone else was in that house.
The DNA is really just evidence that someone other than a Ramsey touched those long johns. The DNA in the panties was degraded, but JB's DNA, which was extracted from the blood, was not. So it only makes sense that the foreign DNA was deposited prior to JB's DNA.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be tested. I think they should be.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 12, 2010
 
Team Scamsey posters are trying to smear Jeff Merrick again. Here's what he had to say about John Ramsey personally throwing him under the bus.
Lynette

Boksburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 13, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

2

deb wrote:
<quoted text>
It is unfortunate, but that is what happens when you threaten your boss by stating you are going to "bring him down" as Merrick did.
It is unfortunate, but when you change your stories like LHP did, and take Patsy's paper pads and pens for use in your home, like LHP did, you put yourself on the list.
It is unfortunate, but when you appear to be obsessed with a 6-yr old that you have only seen a few times of the years, have pictures of her on you mantle, save a place to carve her name on your harp along with other dead children's names, you pretty much set yourself up to be investigated.
It is unfortunate, but when you tell your friend that the cord looks like the cord you use to make kites, and you want to take pictures of naked girls, run naked down the street claiming you didn't kill her, ah, I think you put yourself on the list.
It is unfortunate, but when you touch multiple pieces of evidence in a crime scene such as the blanket, the tape, the window, the suitcase, search the basement as soon as you arrive in the house, but not look elsewhere and not report a broken window and did not see a body in the cellar, you set yourself up to be investigated.
When you have tape that matches the tape found in the house and other little girls accuse you of fondling them, you need to be investigated.
Everyone who has been investigated should have been and still need to be considered. I am not excluding the Ramseys, but
the evidence of DNA indicates someone else was in that house.
This post of yours may be old, deb, but it's excellent.

You illustrated perfectly how each and every one of those people drew attention to themselves by their own actions. They weren't thrown under the bus. They were suspects for a very good reason and anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is just being biased, IMO.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 14, 2010
 
While John Ramsey was lawyered up and refusing to cooperate with police, he was throwing Jeff Merrick under the bus. Here's a great quote regarding Merrick's cooperation with police versus Ramseys, AND IT'S SO TELLING IN THE LIGHT OF BURKE'S REFUSAL TO BE INTERVIEWED:

ST hardback, p. 70

"For months to come, we crawled all over Merrick, who finally walked into the police department on Saturday morning to answer still more questions, against the advice of his attorney but wanting to settle things, once and for all.

"I'm here on a murder case, without a lawyer, talking to two detectives having been pointed out by John Ramsey as a suspect, Merrick said to me "NOW, WHERE IS JOHN RAMSEY?"

He was eventually cleared. I was curious about the depths of John Ramsey's friendships."
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jan 8, 2011
 
An example of the one of the many INNOCENT VICTIMS of the Ramseys, DIRECTLY named by the Ramsey and those associated with them to the police as suspects. John Mark Karr's recent press release talked about those DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH JOHN RAMSEY who are CONTINUING to obstruct justice in this case, CONTINUALLY dragging in FALSE SUSPECTS including Karr, as legitmate suspects in this case WITHOUT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM.
deb

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jan 8, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lynette wrote:
<quoted text>This post of yours may be old, deb, but it's excellent.
You illustrated perfectly how each and every one of those people drew attention to themselves by their own actions. They weren't thrown under the bus. They were suspects for a very good reason and anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is just being biased, IMO.
Thank you, Lynette! I agree! LOL

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
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.

•••