LHP

[Scorpion]

Originally Posted by FairM

Great, if it ends up 3-0 drinks will be on you then

You got a deal.

[FairM]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

You got a deal.

Come on Spain !!!!!

[FairM]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

You got a deal.

Oh, no drinks then :-( and no money either

[Scorpion]

Originally Posted by FairM

Oh, no drinks then :-( and no money either

Fraid not, still happy though.

[FairM]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

Fraid not, still happy though.

Ah but not as happy as me I bet,, I just did a cartwheel .........impressive , I know,

[Scorpion]

A quote from Nedra Paugh (Patsy's mother)........"You couldn't find the basement in that house if you didn't know where it was. You know it was down, but which door would you go through to find it ? There's a lot of doors that look like a basement door in that house"

John Andrew Ramsey also shared this view.

And also according to Nedra, Patsy would never return to that house and in fact told John to "Torch it".

Interesting.............

[FairM]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

A quote from Nedra Paugh (Patsy's mother)........"You couldn't find the basement in that house if you didn't know where it was. You know it was down, but which door would you go through to find it ? There's a lot of doors that look like a basement door in that house"

John Andrew Ramsey also shared this view.

And also according to Nedra, Patsy would never return to that house and in fact told John to "Torch it".

Interesting.............

ok so the intruder is probably /more than likely to be someone familiar with the lay out of the house, I have always been of the view that the killer knew the family and had been to the house before.

of course it also supports RDI ...

yea I get where Patsy was coming from, I mean the unspeakable happened to your child in that house, I don't blame her having those feelings.

[Scorpion]

Originally Posted by FairM

ok so the intruder is probably /more than likely to be someone familiar with the lay out of the house, I have always been of the view that the killer knew the family and had been to the house before.

of course it also supports RDI ...

yea I get where Patsy was coming from, I mean the unspeakable happened to your child in that house, I don't blame her having those feelings.

Without doubt the murderer knew the layout of the house. Though I was reading Patsy telling John to torch the house as hiding what evidence was left after her sister basically removed everything that could be collected.

[Inspector Rex]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

Without doubt the murderer knew the layout of the house. Though I was reading Patsy telling John to torch the house as hiding what evidence was left after her sister basically removed everything that could be collected.

The investigators had already had ample time to look for evidence in the house.

The fact that the Ramseys chose never to return is more indicative of their innocence than their guilt.

Just remind me again, what in your opinion, did PP remove that would have incriminated Patsy or John and why would she have done this to protect them if they were the murderers of her niece??

[FairM]

Originally Posted by Inspector Rex

The investigators had already had ample time to look for evidence in the house.

The fact that the Ramseys chose never to return is more indicative of their innocence than their guilt.

Just remind me again, what in your opinion, did PP remove that would have incriminated Patsy or John and why would she have done this to protect them if they were the murderers of her niece??

Plus she went in after "everything had been collected" , the police had finished , she was allowed in after, she got what she thought the Ramseys may have been in need of........the suggestion that she was deliberately grabbing incriminating evidence doesn't stack up ,

[Inspector Rex]

Originally Posted by FairM

Plus she went in after "everything had been collected" , the police had finished , she was allowed in after, she got what she thought the Ramseys may have been in need of........the suggestion that she was deliberately grabbing incriminating evidence doesn't stack up ,

Sadly, it's the only way those who believe the Ramseys guilty can account for the TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE to incriminate them.
If they didn't say someone (PP) took it, they might need to admit that another person(s) killed JonBenet.

[FairM]

Originally Posted by Inspector Rex

Sadly, it's the only way those who believe the Ramseys guilty can account for the TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE to incriminate them.
If they didn't say someone (PP) took it, they might need to admit that another person(s) killed JonBenet.

I know Rex, for example I have lost count of the times people have , without one scrap of evidence ,accused John of asking for his golf clubs because he had hidden evidence in them!

I mean when you think about it John really does have balls of steel to plant incriminating evidence in his own golf bag then have the cheek to ask the police to carry out that evidence to him

yet this "fact" is continually perpetuated across the net

[Inspector Rex]

Originally Posted by FairM

I know Rex, for example I have lost count of the times people have , without one scrap of evidence ,accused John of asking for his golf clubs because he had hidden evidence in them!

I mean when you think about it John really does have balls of steel to plant incriminating evidence in his own golf bag then have the cheek to ask the police to carry out that evidence to him

yet this "fact" is continually perpetuated across the net

Oh, they have evidence of him asking for his golf clubs. Let's see, ST was told by someone (he couldn't exactly remember who) that someone else, (who these unknown people didn't name) overheard him. Now that's as good as they need to make it true

Had he wished to remove incriminating evidence that he had planted (and that the investigators did not find) then he could have gone back into the house and picked up himself, thus eliminating the risk of involving another person who may or may not stay stumm. But instead, he chose never to return. And when Patsy said she didn't care if it was burned, they see that as suspicious as well. BPD pulled the house apart looking for evidence to incriminate the Ramseys and found NONE.

[Scorpion]

Originally Posted by FairM

Plus she went in after "everything had been collected" , the police had finished , she was allowed in after, she got what she thought the Ramseys may have been in need of........the suggestion that she was deliberately grabbing incriminating evidence doesn't stack up ,

If the police were finished then why was it still an active crime scene ?

The police drove PP over to the house dressed as a police officer to avoid the media, the reason for the visit was to collect some funeral clothing. The police car ended up packed with boxes which included, among other things, a cell phone, bank records, credit cards, and passports.

This took place on the second day of the search, so by no means were the police finished.

I think we can all agree that what was in those unchecked boxes will never be established, but it was a damn sight more than funeral clothes.

[Scorpion]

Originally Posted by Inspector Rex

The investigators had already had ample time to look for evidence in the house.

The fact that the Ramseys chose never to return is more indicative of their innocence than their guilt.

Just remind me again, what in your opinion, did PP remove that would have incriminated Patsy or John and why would she have done this to protect them if they were the murderers of her niece??

I can't remind you AGAIN when I never reminded you in the first place.
And if I knew what PP removed that day then surely that would make me the world's greatest long distance detective ?