Sparrow on cooperation
koldkase

Lawrenceville, GA

#61 Jun 1, 2009
Nelly wrote:
<quoted text>
well, if shill showed a picture of something I wouldn't doubt the picture because I think he's a scumbag, so same applies here. I saw the picture and there wasn't a deer fence, but maybe you're right, it could be low to the ground.
Whether the White's had a fence or not, I found it curious that nobody else mentioned it if he got shocked. Kids have a tendency to talk about those things, even if he wasn't really hurt. No mention from his parents, the White's kids, or anyone..so, what was Burke talking about? And, why didn't cops press him further on that? Are elec. deer fences typical?
Well, if you saw a photo, what kind of photo was it? Close up? Good quality? And could you date it?

It is an interesting question, I agree. Just give us something specific, if you can.

I'm not sure no one was asked about this who was at the home that night. We haven't heard about it, it's true, but this doesn't mean no one talked about it, right?

Or maybe you know more about that, as well? We're all ears.
cyber

Jacksonville, FL

#62 Jun 1, 2009
We have two kinds of deer fence that I know of here in GA. One is a very tall (10') non electric fence, sometimes with barbed wire at the top. Deer can jump very high and will easily jump over a 4 foot tall barbed wire fence such as is used for cattle. We also have electrified deer fence. It can be any wooden or wooden and wire fence upon which is run electric wire with a current in it. It will unpleasantly shock you but doesn't leave any marks and isn't strong enough to knock you down. The average height of these is 4 to 4 1/2'. This is probably what is used in Colorado as well.
Nelly

AOL

#63 Jun 1, 2009
koldkase wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if you saw a photo, what kind of photo was it? Close up? Good quality? And could you date it?
It is an interesting question, I agree. Just give us something specific, if you can.
I'm not sure no one was asked about this who was at the home that night. We haven't heard about it, it's true, but this doesn't mean no one talked about it, right?
Or maybe you know more about that, as well? We're all ears.
Do I detect hostility? Are you angry that I used to talk to Holly and Morgan? I'm sorry, but after JW folded, they invited me to their forum when nobody else would, and that's where I viewed the picture of White's property. It was so long ago, and I've changed computers since, I can't possibly say where the picture was from, but it wasn't grainy. I just recall this very discussion and it appeared the White's had no such fence. That's all I know, sorry to disappoint.
You're right, of course I don't know what all was discussed, I just know ST mentioned Burke's remark and that's where he left it and nowhere else in all the Ramseyana is there a note of Burke's claim. If they're going to say a stun gun was used, it seems to me Burke's shock was at least coincidental that both he and his sister suffered some sort of 'shock' that evening.
koldkase

Lawrenceville, GA

#64 Jun 1, 2009
Nelly wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I detect hostility? Are you angry that I used to talk to Holly and Morgan? I'm sorry, but after JW folded, they invited me to their forum when nobody else would, and that's where I viewed the picture of White's property. It was so long ago, and I've changed computers since, I can't possibly say where the picture was from, but it wasn't grainy. I just recall this very discussion and it appeared the White's had no such fence. That's all I know, sorry to disappoint.
You're right, of course I don't know what all was discussed, I just know ST mentioned Burke's remark and that's where he left it and nowhere else in all the Ramseyana is there a note of Burke's claim. If they're going to say a stun gun was used, it seems to me Burke's shock was at least coincidental that both he and his sister suffered some sort of 'shock' that evening.
Lord, Nelly, you know me better than that after all these years, I hope! I'm not holding any grudges over things long gone. I do not care who was on what forum way back when. Heck, I even try to be nice to old swampsters, but that never works out...for some reason. haha

I really was sincerely asking, because I don't know anything the photo. I didn't know it came from a forum you joined. I certainly question anything Morgan or mame bring to the table with their history, but for purposes of valid information, I question what anyone brings to the table in this or any case.

I simply thought if you had more info, that would be helpful to ponder your idea, because I really do find that an interesting question. You probably know I have not excluded Burke as possibly involved in this death. I seriously wonder about him and what happened that night, and before that night.

It's a singular question you've raised. I can hardly believe that every week, STILL, people come up with ideas and questions I have never thought of nor seen seen others mention. I cannot imagine that LE has never solved this crime with all they know and that we don't.

But Nelly, one thing you can take to the bank: I don't play games and I'm about as subtle as a shot of whiskey. If I'm upset, everyone knows it. It's my handicap.
Nelly

AOL

#65 Jun 1, 2009
koldkase wrote:
<quoted text>
Lord, Nelly, you know me better than that after all these years, I hope! I'm not holding any grudges over things long gone. I do not care who was on what forum way back when. Heck, I even try to be nice to old swampsters, but that never works out...for some reason. haha
I really was sincerely asking, because I don't know anything the photo. I didn't know it came from a forum you joined. I certainly question anything Morgan or mame bring to the table with their history, but for purposes of valid information, I question what anyone brings to the table in this or any case.
I simply thought if you had more info, that would be helpful to ponder your idea, because I really do find that an interesting question. You probably know I have not excluded Burke as possibly involved in this death. I seriously wonder about him and what happened that night, and before that night.
It's a singular question you've raised. I can hardly believe that every week, STILL, people come up with ideas and questions I have never thought of nor seen seen others mention. I cannot imagine that LE has never solved this crime with all they know and that we don't.
But Nelly, one thing you can take to the bank: I don't play games and I'm about as subtle as a shot of whiskey. If I'm upset, everyone knows it. It's my handicap.
FOTFL! That's the best analogy I've heard all week..."subtle as a shot of whiskey"...very good!
OK, I misunderstood, I guess I'm used to everyone going off at the mention of Morgan and her campaign to take FW down. The times were different then, it was before Holly agreed on FWDI and I was treated with a bit more respect for my ideas about the case. Everyone found it strange that Burke said that and nothing was made of it (in public) and you must admit the idea of two kids getting 'zapped' in one night is odd, to say the least.
That's all I can add on the subject..if ST hadn't mentioned it, we'd never know. ST said a lot of things in his book that pointed more at JR than Patsy, but he ignored those things and focused on her, which drove me up a wall. He had his own biases going on, IMO, and seemed to take a 'sorry for' approach to JR when in reality, JR was NOT the wuss he'd have us believe.
Peace:D
koldkase

Lawrenceville, GA

#66 Jun 2, 2009
Well, I have always taken Thomas's theory with the idea in mind he was looking to what he thought the DA could prove in court. Since his main focus was on the ransom note, he felt Patsy could be nailed, beyond a reasonable doubt, before John could. That's because Patsy and John always could have resorted to the "he/she did it" last resort defense. It could have hung a jury for John, but Patsy wrote the note and that's not hard to prove to anybody who has an objective POV, IMO.

Remember when Thomas looked right at John, in the LKL interview, and said, "You don't know, John, because you weren't there...were you?" BAM! He backed John into a corner and John hated Steve far more than any "intruder" we ever saw John discuss. Oh, that one interview told so much about the Ramseys and their TRUE AGENDA than all the other media appearances we ever saw. And as Steve watched John twist and squirm and waited for John's answer, I felt Steve was the one who could have got the truth, had he not had his hands tied by Alex Hunter.

I have no doubt Steve was sticking to the evidence he had and what he felt could be proven. John was very clever, but John did slip up plenty. Luckily, we have the LE transcripts to know exactly how much the Ramseys lied to cover up for the murderer of JonBenet.

And that leads to their guilty knowledge every time.

All LE needs to know is who was molesting JonBenet, and then the rest will follow, IMO.

But it is yet another strange coincidence in this case, which is full of them, Nelly: two children from the same family, both with claims of being "shocked" that night. Since we don't know if EITHER was shocked, as per usual, we only have more questions and again no answers. If they were both shocked, very odd indeed.
learnin

Spring Hill, KS

#67 Jun 2, 2009
koldkase wrote:
Well, I have always taken Thomas's theory with the idea in mind he was looking to what he thought the DA could prove in court. Since his main focus was on the ransom note, he felt Patsy could be nailed, beyond a reasonable doubt, before John could. That's because Patsy and John always could have resorted to the "he/she did it" last resort defense. It could have hung a jury for John, but Patsy wrote the note and that's not hard to prove to anybody who has an objective POV, IMO.
Remember when Thomas looked right at John, in the LKL interview, and said, "You don't know, John, because you weren't there...were you?" BAM! He backed John into a corner and John hated Steve far more than any "intruder" we ever saw John discuss. Oh, that one interview told so much about the Ramseys and their TRUE AGENDA than all the other media appearances we ever saw. And as Steve watched John twist and squirm and waited for John's answer, I felt Steve was the one who could have got the truth, had he not had his hands tied by Alex Hunter.
I have no doubt Steve was sticking to the evidence he had and what he felt could be proven. John was very clever, but John did slip up plenty. Luckily, we have the LE transcripts to know exactly how much the Ramseys lied to cover up for the murderer of JonBenet.
And that leads to their guilty knowledge every time.
All LE needs to know is who was molesting JonBenet, and then the rest will follow, IMO.
But it is yet another strange coincidence in this case, which is full of them, Nelly: two children from the same family, both with claims of being "shocked" that night. Since we don't know if EITHER was shocked, as per usual, we only have more questions and again no answers. If they were both shocked, very odd indeed.
Are there youtube videos of this LKL exchange available for viewing?
Anti-K

Fort Saint John, Canada

#68 Jun 2, 2009
koldkase wrote:
.. but Patsy wrote the note and that's not hard to prove to anybody who has an objective POV, IMO.
Any INTELLECTUALLY HONEST person with an objective mind would have to concede their opinion to that of those few qualified “experts” who had access to and used the necessary and genuine documents and exemplars. NONE of them were able to identify or even INCLUDE Mrs Ramsey as possible author of the ransom note. They could not exclude, but they could not include and as a matter of fact they put Mrs Ramsey into the same category as most other people whose handwriting was considered.

An INTELLECTUALLY HONEST person with an objective mind would have to admit that while some experts, without privy to the necessary documents and exemplars did identify Mrs Ramsey as the author, there are also those who identified Mr Ramsey and Karr and, reportedly McReynolds. But, an INTELLECTUALLY HONEST person with an objective mind doesn’t just pick the expert that matches their belief.

An INTELLECTUALLY HONEST person with an objective mind realizes and admits their own limitations in fields in which they are not qualified to speak and in areas in which they do not possess the necessary ‘source’ or ‘materials’ to form a valid or comparable opinion. You’re just an arrogant *ss who thinks she can do what those qualified and informed persons could not.

AK
koldkase

Lawrenceville, GA

#69 Jun 3, 2009
learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
Are there youtube videos of this LKL exchange available for viewing?
I have no idea. Youtube wasn't even around then, was it? Did someone put it up from their own videotape at the time? Don't know. Maybe someone else does.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#71 Jun 2, 2013
Wow, the Scams are on a censorous rampage. Look at their actions and ask what are they afraid of in MY posts. I'm REPOSTING everything I said the other day on the crucial topic off COOPERATING IN A HOMICIDE CASE WITH LAW ENFORCMENT.

Another day, another RESOLVED OR SOLVED cold case in BOULDER COUNTY. The latest feather in law enforcement's cap is the resolved 1982 Susan Becker homicide. As we have seen many times in these cold cases, the perp was ALWAYS KNOWN AND it just was a question of getting enough EVIDENCE on them. That is the case in the Becker homicide.

Who doesn't cooperate in a homicide investigation? Well, we know the Scams LAUGHABLY wrote a chapter titled "Chronicle of Cooperation" in DOI, and they can't even pretend they have cooperated since 2009. The PERP in the Becker case also refused to cooperate in the investigation, which is why this is such an IMPORTANT TOPIC:

"At the time, Sheriff’s detectives were unable to identify a suspect in Ms. Becker’s death. Mr. John Agrue figured as a person of interest in the investigation, however, DECLINED TO COOPERATE to cooperate with investigators."

http://www.bouldercounty.org/apps/newsroom/te...

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#72 Jun 3, 2013
Candy, thanks for reposting the information, but please understand your thread was “most likely” taken down because the spammer made a DOZEN individual spamming posts on it which were reported – not because of anything you posted, and certainly nothing having to do with the Ramseys and censorship, LOL!
candy wrote:
Wow, the Scams are on a censorous rampage. Look at their actions and ask what are they afraid of in MY posts. I'm REPOSTING everything I said the other day on the crucial topic off COOPERATING IN A HOMICIDE CASE WITH LAW ENFORCMENT.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#73 Jun 3, 2013
You are right Seuss. It has nothing to do with the Ramseys and ALL to do with the IDIs who spam the threads they don't like so they get taken down

Sorry Candy, it's a shame that your posts were removed but the IDIs will probably continue to spam the threads they don't like in the hopes of having them taken down.
Heloise

Manchester, UK

#74 Jun 3, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
You are right Seuss. It has nothing to do with the Ramseys and ALL to do with the IDIs who spam the threads they don't like so they get taken down
Sorry Candy, it's a shame that your posts were removed but the IDIs will probably continue to spam the threads they don't like in the hopes of having them taken down.
It's such a shame, because the threads that get taken down often contain some superb debate and important case information. Happy Monday, BTW.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#75 Jun 3, 2013
I hate it when they take down good threads with good information on them, but as long as the IDI want to mess up the board for why ever they do it, it is going to continue to happen. Happy Monday right back at you!
Heloise wrote:
<quoted text>
It's such a shame, because the threads that get taken down often contain some superb debate and important case information. Happy Monday, BTW.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#76 Jun 3, 2013
There ought to be a way to enlighten the mods as to what they are up to, so they can watch for patterns like this.

When people take the time to formulate a good, on-topic response, it is always a shame when that is lost.
Capricorn wrote:
You are right Seuss. It has nothing to do with the Ramseys and ALL to do with the IDIs who spam the threads they don't like so they get taken down
Sorry Candy, it's a shame that your posts were removed but the IDIs will probably continue to spam the threads they don't like in the hopes of having them taken down.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#77 Jun 3, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Candy, thanks for reposting the information, but please understand your thread was “most likely” taken down because the spammer made a DOZEN individual spamming posts on it which were reported – not because of anything you posted, and certainly nothing having to do with the Ramseys and censorship, LOL!
<quoted text>
I thought this was the thread she posted the information about the cold case that was finally solved? Am I mistaken? If so, what thread was removed?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#85 Jun 3, 2013
Heloise wrote:
<quoted text>
It's such a shame, because the threads that get taken down often contain some superb debate and important case information. Happy Monday, BTW.
Hi Heloise,

Happy Monday right back to you

It is a shame, but it is what it is. Sadly, with school out now, I expect to see lots more spamming ;), but as bad as it is that threads get removed, it is better than leaving the worthless posts up for obvious reasons.

However, ya just gotta love the "inquiries" about the removed thread LOL (wink, wink)

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#88 Jun 3, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Heloise,

Happy Monday right back to you

It is a shame, but it is what it is. Sadly, with school out now, I expect to see lots more spamming ;), but as bad as it is that threads get removed, it is better than leaving the worthless posts up for obvious reasons.

However, ya just gotta love the "inquiries" about the removed thread LOL (wink, wink)
^^^"...it is better than leaving the worthless posts up for obvious reasons." ;o) ;o)(<-- wink, wink)

Why don't you attempt, JUST TRYYY, to stay on topic? This thread is about "cooperation". SOOO, why don't you cooperate & meet your own mediocre expectations.(LOL. wink, wink)

Based on the information that has come to light over the course of 1.5+ decades, I believe the Ramseys cooperated, as best they could given the circumstances, with BOTH LE and the DA's office.(<---That's my ATTEMPT to engage you in the discussion @ hand.)

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#89 Jun 4, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
Why don't you attempt, JUST TRYYY, to stay on topic?
Take your own advice.
Mama2JML wrote:
Based on the information that has come to light over the course of 1.5+ decades, I believe the Ramseys cooperated, as best they could given the circumstances, with BOTH LE and the DA's office.(<---That's my ATTEMPT to engage you in the discussion @ hand.)
No they didn't.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#90 Jun 4, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>^^^"...it is better than leaving the worthless posts up for obvious reasons." ;o) ;o)(<-- wink, wink)
Why don't you attempt, JUST TRYYY, to stay on topic? This thread is about "cooperation". SOOO, why don't you cooperate & meet your own mediocre expectations.(LOL. wink, wink)
Based on the information that has come to light over the course of 1.5+ decades, I believe the Ramseys cooperated, as best they could given the circumstances, with BOTH LE and the DA's office.(<---That's my ATTEMPT to engage you in the discussion @ hand.)
You have already met all my expectations for mediocre

You missed the point completely to my post so a bit of advice:

Don't concern yourself with my posts, on or off topic and concern yourself/ves with your own.

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
Identity Problems 1 hr stoned luck aka ... 101
Think family...helter skelter type of family 1 hr stoned luck aka ... 18
Today Show: JonBenet Ramsey case lies 4 hr stoned luck aka ... 235
Questions RE Burke's involvement.... (Dec '11) 5 hr moonjack 333
Gates hired the hit (Dec '15) 6 hr stoned luck aka ... 36
The Alleged Accidental Head Blow Cover Up. (Apr '09) 7 hr Just Wondering 454
Radaronline FOIA - JonBenet Ramsey case 7 hr moonjack 16
More from around the web