Dear Colin
#1
First, let me say I am glad you have a Ramsey forum going, sorry I can't participate there but having been falsely accused of misdeeds on FB, I am banned.  So I will respond to a shared message here and hope you will see it.   Not sure if I will see any response made in FB, but you can email me if you want to respond to ME.

You wrote a long post saying you wouldn't have done this or that if YOU had been either John or Patsy that day.  Not knowing you, I won't question  what YOU would do.  And for the purpose of this thread, that doesn't matter.

You wrote, near the end of your post, "An every day working class family would have been fucked good & proper."

That statement touched me.  Unfortunately, you may be right, but not for the reasons you put forth.

The Ramseys were fortunate to have had a good friend in Mike Bynum who understood how dangerous it could be for innocent parents to allow themselves into the back room of an agency who clearly wanted to solve this quickly and were willing to bet the odds.  After all, a child so young has few enemies - - dead in her home, odds are it was a domestic incident.

The Ramseys were fortunate to have had a good friend, Mike Bynum, who understood how dangerous it could be for innocent and naïve (trusting totally in the BPD) people to volunteer to go to police headquarters for biased and aggressive interrogations by an agency HE  (Bynum) could see was already biased BORG.

I agree, without the benefit of a good friend like Mike, the Ramseys may well have been, as you put it, "fucked good and proper".

My question to you would be along these lines.

Does BORG really think the Ramseys did this horrible thing to their child (can they really ignore the evidence of an intruder and the DNA?)     or is the BORG just another chance for some middle class individuals to take a jab at someone who had more money and a nicer home and a private plane and a reprieve from cancer?

In getting to know some BORG, it seemed to me to be clear it was that - - - a chance to hurt someone who seemed to have a better life than the normal Joe and Joan.  

You wrote, "Money, influence, political corruption kept Ramsey's out of jail."

No, it wasn't their money - - the evidence just wasn't there - - and there IS clear and convincing evidence of an intruder.  The money helped, but if the evidence was there, the money would not have kept them out of jail.

Influence?  Again, no.  If influence could do all you think, it would have done a lot more than what we have today.  The cops would have said there was evidence of an intruder and let the case languish until cold.  But you think they used their influence to be constantly accused by different cops?  Nope - influence (which they clearly did not have) didn't help them.

Political corruption - - - there was no arrest because the physical evidence - including a man's DNA mixed with JOnBenet's blood in her panties and that unsourced hand print, the unsourced boot print, the unsourced handwriting......  there were no grounds for an arrest.  As for political corruption - - did everyone involved forget to tell the Governor and Mayor that the politically correct stand was Ramsey = innocence?  

Now, I will tell you there are other suspects, people whose families are old families in Boulder, people holding public positions (intentionally being obscure here) who look like good suspects to some PIs - - and THEY may have been protected by money, influence and political corruption.

Have you ever looked into any suspects not named Ramsey who might fit your description of the guilty parties here?
Reply
#2
(07-14-2017, 04:57 PM)jameson245 Wrote: First, let me say I am glad you have a Ramsey forum going, sorry I can't participate there but having been falsely accused of misdeeds on FB, I am banned.  So I will respond to a shared message here and hope you will see it.   Not sure if I will see any response made in FB, but you can email me if you want to respond to ME.

You wrote a long post saying you wouldn't have done this or that if YOU had been either John or Patsy that day.  Not knowing you, I won't question  what YOU would do.  And for the purpose of this thread, that doesn't matter.

You wrote, near the end of your post, "An every day working class family would have been fucked good & proper."

That statement touched me.  Unfortunately, you may be right, but not for the reasons you put forth.

The Ramseys were fortunate to have had a good friend in Mike Bynum who understood how dangerous it could be for innocent parents to allow themselves into the back room of an agency who clearly wanted to solve this quickly and were willing to bet the odds.  After all, a child so young has few enemies - - dead in her home, odds are it was a domestic incident.

The Ramseys were fortunate to have had a good friend, Mike Bynum, who understood how dangerous it could be for innocent and naïve (trusting totally in the BPD) people to volunteer to go to police headquarters for biased and aggressive interrogations by an agency HE  (Bynum) could see was already biased BORG.

I agree, without the benefit of a good friend like Mike, the Ramseys may well have been, as you put it, "fucked good and proper".

My question to you would be along these lines.

Does BORG really think the Ramseys did this horrible thing to their child (can they really ignore the evidence of an intruder and the DNA?)     or is the BORG just another chance for some middle class individuals to take a jab at someone who had more money and a nicer home and a private plane and a reprieve from cancer?

In getting to know some BORG, it seemed to me to be clear it was that - - - a chance to hurt someone who seemed to have a better life than the normal Joe and Joan.  

You wrote, "Money, influence, political corruption kept Ramsey's out of jail."

No, it wasn't their money - - the evidence just wasn't there - - and there IS clear and convincing evidence of an intruder.  The money helped, but if the evidence was there, the money would not have kept them out of jail.

Influence?  Again, no.  If influence could do all you think, it would have done a lot more than what we have today.  The cops would have said there was evidence of an intruder and let the case languish until cold.  But you think they used their influence to be constantly accused by different cops?  Nope - influence (which they clearly did not have) didn't help them.

Political corruption - - - there was no arrest because the physical evidence - including a man's DNA mixed with JOnBenet's blood in her panties and that unsourced hand print, the unsourced boot print, the unsourced handwriting......  there were no grounds for an arrest.  As for political corruption - - did everyone involved forget to tell the Governor and Mayor that the politically correct stand was Ramsey = innocence?  

Now, I will tell you there are other suspects, people whose families are old families in Boulder, people holding public positions (intentionally being obscure here) who look like good suspects to some PIs - - and THEY may have been protected by money, influence and political corruption.

Have you ever looked into any suspects not named Ramsey who might fit your description of the guilty parties here?

This is but a mere joke for wee Colin. He friended people by acting idi then when he couldn't run the henhouse, he flipped to rdi and sought out a new group that won't challenge his feeble theory.
Reply
#3
In my opinion, the biggest obstacle for the investigation moving forward in the Ramsey case is the class warfare that has been waged against the Ramseys since their initial press conference.  Unfortunately, this class warfare has and is being carried out by employees of BPD, FBI, the news media, and so on --- people who should muzzle their resentments and biases and just try to do their jobs, rather than to allow these resentments and biases to render them even more incompetent than usual.

As far as Mike Bynum providing advice: Bynum was a former prosecutor, and he could easily see exactly where the initial questioning was headed.  Only a complete idiot would have ignored his advice.
Reply
#4
Louisa Ghee asked Colin Connolly - " what was it that nailed it for you to change from IDI to RDI ?"


He responded - I guess Statement Analysis. I was always suspicious of stuff the Ramsey's said. They often sounded odd. When I came across Peter Hyatt's Analysis it was the clincher for me."

So I went to see what was so convincing - - and I honestly don't get what caught Colin as being such strong evidence of guilt.

For example, John was asked why they were speaking out when they were interviewed on 1/1/1997 -

CABELL: Why did you decide you wanted to talk now?

JOHN B. RAMSEY, JONBENET'S FATHER: Well we have been pretty isolated -- totally isolated -- for the last five days, but we've sensed from our friends that this tragedy has touched not just ourselves and our friends but many people. And we know that there's many people that are praying for us, that are grieving with us. And we want to thank them, to let them know that we are healing, and that we know in our hearts that JonBenet is safe and with God and that the grieving that we all have to do is for ourselves and for our loss, but we want to thank those people that care about us.

AND PETER HYATT RESPONDED : He calls the murder a "tragedy" which is not only softer or minimizing language, it is also often something used when something happens that is unintended. A "tragic accident" took place, and so forth.  This is not expected language. 

MY RESPONSE: John is a very soft-spoken person, not prone to emotional outbursts. He was medicated at the time of the interview, devastated and grieving. He had been touched by the many calls and messages - an emotional outpouring of support from friends and strangers. So what language did Peter really expect? I just went back to guess what John might have said that would NOT have been criticized by any BORG - - and, being a lady I couldn't post it.

Colin - - really? This kind of silliness is the kind of evidence you would want admitted in court if YOU were the defendant? REALLY?
Reply
#5
John said, "for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened."

Peter opined - "Note that John Ramsey wishes to learn "why" it happened, and not "who did it.""

I say - John had lived with this crime for a week. I am sure he had many questions, one being who and another one - - maybe equally on his mind, was WHY? Why JonBenet, could it be (as some were guessing) that it was someone angry with him who did this? Or was it for money John would happily have given as ransom?
John was medicated, devastated, distraught, scared - as anyone would be. Does his revealing that he wanted to know WHY really make you feel he was involved or point to Patsy's involvement?

If he thought Patsy was involved - or if he knew exactly who did this (no matter who it was) would that change the answer to the question?

Just trying to figure you out, Colin. I don't think you are stupid, so why put this analysis up as the key piece in your decision to turn BORG?
Reply
#6
CABELL: There has been some question as to why you hired a defense attorney.

RAMSEY, J: I know. Well, we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note to be surrounded by friends, our minister, our family doctor, a personal friend of mine who is also an attorney, and we relied on their guidance almost from that moment on and my friend suggested that it would be foolish not to have knowledgeable counsel to help both us and with the investigation.

PETER: No reference to Jonbenet. 

JAMESON: What should John have said? "Why did we get a defense attorney? Because JonBenet was blond?" Seriously, no matter what John said, Peter the BORG was going to criticize it.
Reply
#7
RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.

RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on.

PETER: He is not "angry" at the murder of his daughter.   No mention of Jonbenet. 

JAMESON: I admit, John stunned me when he said that but having gotten to know John, I can tell you he was just telling you what he believed - God would take care of the vengeance part of the equation, as a Christian he had to forgive and move on. There were other times when he failed to "give it to God" and was very angry, wanted to tear the guy apart. But he always went back to his faith and found comfort there, giving it to God because it was too much for him.

I have posted before that I don't share the faith that John and Patsy had, but I have witnessed their reactions to some different situations and - - - their faith is amazing. Very real and honest. If people get tested on Earth, they were, and they passed.
Reply
#8
RAMSEY, P: We can't -- we can't --

RAMSEY, J: This -- we cannot go on until we know why. There's no answer as to why our daughter died.

PETER: He finished her sentence.  One might, in context, wonder if this was scripted and rehearsed, with Patsy losing her line.

JAMESON: only if one is BORG
 Seriously, we are talking about a married couple, a close couple. If finishing each other's sentences is evidence of guilt or staging - - - that's simply insane to make such conclusions.

CABELL: Are you fully convinced that your daughter was kidnapped by some outsiders outside your family or circle of friends?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. I -- we don't -- you know, it's just so hard to know, but we are -- our family is a loving family. It's a gentle family. We have lost one child. We know how precious their lives are .

PETER: He answers with "Yes" which is then followed by "I", "we", "you know" and then settles on the plural only.  The avoidance of the pronoun "I" by the father of a murdered child is unexpected.
 
JAMESON: I didn't find any part of that answer to be odd or "unexpected". Peter, and now you, Colin, are really working hard to make these statements evidence of some guilt. I can't believe this changed you from IDI to BORG.
Reply
#9
Not going to finish this effort - if there is something in there that really changed your mind because it is REALLY stunning, let me know. Until then, I will just say I am very disappointed in your integrity if THIS GARBAGE would have you accuse parents of killing their child when there is clear and convincing evidence of an intruder.
Reply
#10
(07-15-2017, 08:45 PM)jameson245 Wrote: Not going to finish this effort - if there is something in there that really changed your mind because it is REALLY stunning, let me know.  Until then, I will just say I am very disappointed in your integrity if THIS GARBAGE would have you accuse parents  of killing their child when there is clear and convincing evidence of an intruder.

It's never been about jonbenet to Colin. It's about him wanting to run a site like he's the grand Poobah. Sad.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)