So typical of the BORG to make up something like that. There is NO such fact in evidence. The fact is that Patsy says she changed into bedclothes and went to bed - John got in bed after her and HE certainly didn't say she was still in her street clothes.

But let's look at this a bit closer. The BORG think she never went to bed and had the same clothes on during the entire night - and they think that she was wearing those clothes while she killed her daughter.

Does that make sense? JonBenét was murdered in a dirty basement, she wet herself and then the body was moved. The killer might have been excited, worked up a sweat - - but no one noticed Patsy's clothes (or person) looked like she had been through a night of Hell.

Oh, the BORG has such imagination.

jameson response - Bull - - where is that quote?

Cewofty wrote, "I don't even follow this case closely and even I know that the DA said some of the evidence that pointed to an intruder had already been identified by the police as coming from family members."

jameson - No... I don't think so. Again - share the quote, please. If you are talking about the BORG lie that the boot belonged to Burke, I suggest you make a few calls - - the boot print remains unsourced.

Evidence of the family being in their own home is plentiful. Evidence of involvement in the murder is .... how to say this.... Zero, Zilch, Nada, NONE!

I wrote that Michael Kane tried to railroad the parents and failed.

Cewofty wrote, "Does that matter? If you truly want to know the murderer of that poor little girl, let the evidence lead the case."

jameson comment - Does it matter that Kane ignored some evidence and fought to supress other evidence because it was not pointing to the Ramseys? You bet it does. What he did was shameful. And anyone who supports what he did is not interested in justice, just vengence, right or wrongly directed.

I would be most interested to know the private thoughts of the District Attorneys regarding Michael Kane's handling of the Grand Jury. It is one thing to view the BPD as inexperienced and rather cock-eyed in their presentation of the evidence in this case (to the FBI group and to the group in Boulder) and to read of such outrage over intruder evidence getting into their files and contaminating them, but Michael Kane and his attempts at supression of evidence for the GJ to hear is quite another thing altogether. I cannot help but think there are many legal minds in Boulder with many questions in their minds. BORG posters would have the public believe that everyone connected to this case in Boulder was of a similar mind (based on the evidence) that Patsy, or John, or Burke did it. NOT TRUE AT ALL. Far from it. There were many who (just like us) could NOT see a case against any Ramsey unfolding the way Steve Thomas would have had us believe.

Kane's previous 'notoriety' came from getting a third-degree murder charge against a Pennsylvania mother in the death of her child where it had previously been determined accidental (a fire that the mother's husband suspected had been set intentionally). She got six years. I'm sure that was a Kodak moment for Kane, worth repeating the glory and basking in the light of another mother sent off to prison for being found responsible for the 'accidental' death of her child. Thankfully, there were free thinking logical minds at work to oppose his shameful attempts.

That's how I see it.

I saw Hunter dancing around waiting for the outcome that HAD to be - - no indictment. Hunter had to make public statements but he was very lawyerly about what he said.

I think Hunter would have preferred being in charge - I think if he had been there would have been a better investigation.

But that's history now. Kane failed to solve this and Hunter did no better.

We have to hope now that Mary Keenan will push it to the end.

How about, does it matter that Kane doesn't even know what the evidence is?

He knew about the rucksack found in the basement--but evidently not about the brown paper sack containing the rope found in JAR's room...(From the Abrams show)

Made me wonder just how much he knew about the case at all.

Rainsong

Ofcourse!!
That is what alot of policing is these days.

This is just a bit of today's BORG discussion:

Twitch asked if the red jumpsuit was "... the same garment that is referred to as the turtleneck? That was soaking in the sink?"

Turtleneck soaking in the sink? WHAT turtleneck soaking in the sink? Nothing like that in the Ramsey case.

Watching You, who claims to be a "Superior Bee Admin", is either confused or playing games with BORG heads to keep them in the fold. She posted, "That's what I can't figure out, Twitch. They called it a turtleneck, Patsy called it a red jumpsuit. Either way, what reason would there be for Patsy to wash it out at that particular time and then leave it there balled up - still wet?"

Ah, the BORG - they are totally lost when it comes to discussing case facts but would convict and execute the parents based on what they don't know because it would feel good to be able to say "I told you so."

FACT - there was a red turtleneck in JonBenét's bathroom. It was clean and dry when found - - tossed to the side when JonBenét preferred to wear the white shirt.

FACT - there was a red jumpsuit found in the laundry area. Patsy had looked at it and spread it out in the open because she had seen a spot on it and wanted to remember to take it to the cleaners at a later date.

Two articles.

Neither wet or soaking in any sink.

QUESTION - What BORG theory is at work here? Is this a new one? Are we to think someone changed JBR into the red shirt or turtleneck and then killed her and gotten stains on the red material and then changed the child back into the top she wore to the Whites and possibly the wet long johns and then put the body in the windowless room and then soaked the stain out of the red material and then....

Good grief - - how tortured is THAT theory?

red sweater? News to me - - the red sweater was Patsy's, not JonBenét's. She wore it that night with a light jacket over it.

I have already explained that the red turtleneck is NOT the same as the red jumpsuit...

but the BORG just spins on and on and on.

The BORG forums are not credible - it is important there be a forum that demands the facts and exposes the truth and that is why we are here.

That thread has been up for HOURS and no one has straightened it out - - typical because the BORG really don't care about the facts, if it feels good, if it is BORG, it is allowed.

PR: Okay. Um, we got up at about 5:30 , I think. I think John got up first and I got up right behind him and he went to his bathroom and shower. I went to my bathroom. I did not shower that morning and I just put my clothes on and, uh, did my hair and makeup and, uh, and then I started down the stairs. John was still in the bathroom and went, uh, I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area (the Ramseys had a small washer-dryer setup on the second floor near JonBenét's room, and a larger laundry area in the basement). And I remember the ironing board was up, I think, and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenét's 'cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and, uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area and, uh, um, then I started down the spiral staircase there. I came, I had come back down, I'd come down the back bedroom stairs ..
TT: Okay.
PR: ... from my bathroom. Um, I started down the spiral stairs and when I got nearly to the bottom I saw these three pieces of paper, like notebook-size paper, on, on the run of the stairs and, uh, I went on down and turned around and started reading, reading it ...

I find it an interesting phenomenon that the Ramseys are accused of not cooperating, not providing a 'transcriptable' series of statements in their earliest days of shock, but when they did come in for a video-taped interview/interrogation, the results were a continuum of disbelief regarding their statements.

Following the April '97 and June '98 taped interviews (and statements), their book full of statements, their appearances and statements on talk shows or in print, the Atlanta 2000 taped interview, depositions in the Miller and Wolf cases, etc. etc. - the consensus is ----->>>>>>>>> DISREGARD WHATEVER THEY SAID (unless, of course, it bolsters an argument supporting "hinky" or "guilty-sounding" statements) for, of course, they are LYING.

The Ramseys don't make video-taped statements in January '97 and they are damn well damned. They DO make video-taped statements before LE and on TV, and written in their book, etc. and they are damn well damned.

So, what do they want? Do they want the statements just so they can call them MURDERERS AND LIARS or would they have preferred they were silent so that they can call them MURDERERS and uncooperative?

As the years pass, and the Ramseys have exhausted their personal funds on a private investigation, and are still out there demanding attention to this case and demanding a determined effort to find their daughter's killer, they are sill being touted as the only ones who could be responsible (and, of course, liars)!! Does that make SENSE to anybody?

Tricia offers a $5,000 reward for information leading to ... She admits that the $5,000 is really not going to do much to entice anyone to come forward and probably won't have to be paid out ... Its purpose then is ... ???? After all, no one notable came forward when there was a $million reward and no one notable came forward when there was a substantial reward offered by the Ramseys ... so, Tricia's $5,000 reward will serve what purpose?? Sounds "hinky" to me - LOL!

"The fact is, Patsy herself said she "rinsed" out a red jumpsuit."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LOLOLOL

The truth is Patsy said THIS:

PR: Okay. Um, we got up at about 5:30 , I think. I think John got up first and I got up right behind him and he went to his bathroom and shower. I went to my bathroom. I did not shower that morning and I just put my clothes on and, uh, did my hair and makeup and, uh, and then I started down the stairs. John was still in the bathroom and went, uh, I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area (the Ramseys had a small washer-dryer setup on the second floor near JonBenét's room, and a larger laundry area in the basement). And I remember the ironing board was up, I think, and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenét's 'cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and, uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area and, uh, um, then I started down the spiral staircase there. I came, I had come back down, I'd come down the back bedroom stairs ..
TT: Okay.
PR: ... from my bathroom. Um, I started down the spiral stairs and when I got nearly to the bottom I saw these three pieces of paper, like notebook-size paper, on, on the run of the stairs and, uh, I went on down and turned around and started reading, reading it ..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will ignore the BORG flaming that is going on over there - just will ppoint out that once again they are lying about the FACTS.

I would love to see a copy of Officer French's report - it has never been made public.

In addition, I would like to say here that when I was in Boulder I met with a police officer who told me about police officers altering reports over time - - they would submit "revised reports". I would like to know what the original reports said, what changes were made. That would be an interesting thread - or ten.

She is right so far...

Then she went on and wrote, "... she said she thought they had the wrong man and that Damon was a better suspect for Danielle's death."

The prosecution didn't prove that Westerfield was ever in the Van Dam house, they didn't prove he was with a child that weekend or that he was ever at the Dehesa site where Danielle's body was found. There was no evidence of his DNA on Danielle's body... and I see a lot of reasonable doubt there.

I don't know who killed Danielle - I couldn't have convicted Westerfield on the evidence presented in court.

And I will still say that the father's story of dogs and doors makes no sense to me.

I don't know who killed Danielle. I do know that I would never defend anyone who would hurt a child.

I don't think Jameson is alone in considering there was room for doubt in the conviction of Mr. Westerfield. But, since Jameson (and others who might have doubted the strength of the case) were NOT on the jury, Mr. Westerfield WAS convicted. Expressing doubt as to the strength of the case is an option open to anyone. In these forums, the position of the poster is to encourage others to become interested in their particular position, idea, or solution; to use others as a sounding board in the development of their ideas, concerns, or theories.

Using that expression of doubt or concern against someone in the discussion of another case (Ramsey), leaves a lot of room for any thoughtful person to wonder about motive. It certainly leaves ME wondering about MOTIVE and (right or wrong) I see it as an attempt at discrediting and as a way to distract/detract from any truths Jameson may bring to the table in this case. What other purpose does it serve?

The ironic thing is that I have been vindicated in Ramsey time and time again.

I disagree with the jury in the Westerfield verdict. He may be guilty, I honestly do not know, but I didn't see anyone prove that in court.

I honestly think there may be a killer loose out there and I hope he never hurts another child because the Westerfield trial let him get away with murder.

When Carlie was abducted and found murdered, I reacted in horror and tears just like everyone else. But the BORG felt it necessary to start a thread anticipating me to go to the defense of Joseph Smith.

Based on what?

Based on the fact that I supported the Ramseys when they were accused? What? The Ramseys are no longer the prime suspects - I was right!

Based on the fact that the evidence left me in doubt about who killed Danielle? I won't apologize for that. I think there is more evidence out there and it still needs to be investigated because something there isn't right. If Westerfield did kill Danielle, why is there NO evidence of him in her house, her room, where the body was found, on the body?

I have repeatedly said that I believe pedophiles should be taken out of our society - the safety of our children should come first. I have also stated that I support the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt as to who a murderer is - and I still hold that position.

But the BORG tries to discredit me and discount the good that exists on this forum - why? Because they hate seeing their lies and viciousness exposed here.

With no hesitation I will say I was asked to look at it because the image looked like the housekeeper's daughter. I thought it looked enough like that child that I brought it to the attention of the authorities.

THEY thought it was close enough to bring in experts - there was a six week investigation and I was assured that it would end in the child being taken aside and interviewed - - but that never happened.

I am unsatisfied with that investigation - I don't know if the child in the photo was Ariana or not - but I know she looked like Ariana and it was a situation that should have been reported - so I reported it.

Now the BORG is saying the man in the photo with the child was Ron Jeremy. I don't know who it was, to be honest. There were some striking similarities to the housekeeper's father, but I will not pretend to be an expert in photo analysis and I simply can't say for sure.

Ariana is 19 now. An adult. A mother.

If she was not a victim, there is certainly no reason for her not to say that. Through her attorney, her mother's attorney, she could issue a statement. Or not.

If she WAS a victim, I would hope that she would say something for the sake of her own child. Get away fro those people who would victimize a child.

No accusations here - just explaining a few facts. There was a photo of a child being assaulted. It was not put on the Internet - I didn't bring it to the forum... I brought it to LE - that was the right thing to do.

The BORG says it was Ron Jeremy in the photos - - but if it was, why hasn't HE been charged and asked about the endangered child?

The fact is, no one knows who was in the photo sequence.

Rainsong

The one who posted about that investigation and opened the discussion on the Internet was Frank Coffman. He knew about it from Linda Hoffmann-Pugh. I was shocked when he did that but we all make decisions and he made that one.

At that point, several photos were posted - not the porn but some sections of those photos were posted - faces.

The similarities between the girl - they called her Cindy - and Ariana, and the unidentified man and LHP's husband, were disputed by the BORG. But the undisputable fact is that the similarities struck the authorities so that they did a 6 week investigation.

I heard from the BORG that the photo was of Ron Jeremy - - and they posted a photo of Jeremy that I had to admit also had some similarities. But I have seen absolutely NO evidence that the photo was of him.

At this point I feel like the new investigation must have covered the Pughs as far as their involvement in the murder of JonBenét. I have no reason to think they are on the list of best suspects so I am unwilling to push any discussion there.

As far as Ariana and her situation - I have no regrets for what I did. I had reason to think she was in a bad situation and it was a legal and moral responsibility to go to the authorities with that information. That is all I could do. Ariana is no longer a kid. She is two years older than I was when I was married. That is old enough to come forward and speak up, get free and prosecute anyone who may have victimized her in the past. If she was a victim, she should speak out - the system will help her. If she wasn't, she is free to make a statement so this discussion will end here on this forum. She is also entitled to remain silent.

As for Mervin Pugh and his situation - if the man in the photo is not him, then he is just cursed with some similar physical characteristics and that is not MY fault. I can defend him this far - the investigation didn't end up with him being charged with anything.

As for Ron Jeremy - - maybe some of the BORG would like to approach him and ask him if he is the man in the photo. (I know he is a porn star, is he also a pedophile? The child in the photo looked to be about 9 to me.) If Ron wants to identify the photo as being his, I will post an apology to Mervin Pugh.

Unless that happens, all I can say is that it is BORG spin that the image was from a Ron Jeremy porn flick. (If it was, why wouldn't it have listed him in the "credits"?

We have all heard the actual tape - there is no such conversation on the tape.

No "enhanced" tape includes that conversation.

Connie is - simply put - wrong.

Since there was no evidence of any prior molestation, none at all.... and since there is no evidence linking Patsy to the murder, none at all... the theory falls apart quickly.

But ever-BORG Ivory Tower asks a good question - "Why would JR spend one more second with either of them?"

Later in the same post, it becomes clear why IT posted as hir did.

She went on - "...why did Lucinda get an atty, AND her mortgage paid off by JR? Why'd his older children need council when they weren't even in town? They were in the same state as GPP!"

IT is accusing John. Evidence be damned, the BORG will go after a Ramsey every time.

So, since we cannot exist under the same roof, the posts are dragged back and forth, which I think is okay --- if it is done accurately. It usually prompts case discussion. A few only wish to discredit and cause a personal affront or attack. So be it. Their transparency is most apparent. Their interest in case discussion is secondary to the illusion of being 'king of the hill' and by attacking on a personal level, they can bolster that illusion.

There are "gutter" posters, but there are also those who believe what they believe and then there are those who are simply trying to be part of something and working in an affiliation with others, always stating neutrality, in the hope that they will fit in everywhere and be everyone's "friend". I don't think it's working for them, but, whatever. More offensive than that is the poster who jumps from forum to forum either discrediting others or adding their two-bits to glad-hand, back-slap, high-five, bolster those whose energies are primarily directed at discrediting (on a personal level) other posters.

As I read around the forums (which takes a positive state of mind), I see that the majority of the threads have very little to do with case discussion. Post after post has more to do with vitriolic personal attacks (one forum has an ongoing game going with a software program where you can post a photo of someone and coordinate a sound bit that puts words into their photographed "mouths". Of course, none of the words are flattering to the person in the photo.) Interesting that the thread falls under "Ramsey" case discussion, huh.

My only wish is that there be SINCERITY. I don't see it. I don't see misinformation cleared up. Information that is ANCIENT and has been discredited is still being posted unchecked. I don't think there is any real desire on the part of MANY Ramsey case discussers to get to the truth. It seems - to me anyway - that being an accepted part of the crowd is more important than eliminating myths and inaccuracies. Sit on whichever side of the fence you wish, but at least be HONEST. JMO, FWIW.

The pertinent parts of the autopsy follows:

Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 X 1 cm hymeneal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. .... No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified.

Genitalia: The upper portions of the vaginal vault contain no abnormalities. The prepubescent uterus measures 3 X 1 X 0.8 cm and is unremarkable. The cervical os contains no abnormalities. Both fallopian tubes and ovaries are prepubescent and unremarkable by gross examination.

And the purpose of this post was??? Discrediting you as a source of reliable thought and presentation of the truth in this (or any) case? Bringing into question the credentials of a presenter of fact? Since Westerfield was found guilty, is this post somehow supposed to create doubt as to your credibility on any level?
I don't think Jameson is alone in considering there was room for doubt in the conviction of Mr. Westerfield. But, since Jameson (and others who might have doubted the strength of the case) were NOT on the jury, Mr. Westerfield WAS convicted. Expressing doubt as to the strength of the case is an option open to anyone. In these forums, the position of the poster is to encourage others to become interested in their particular position, idea, or solution; to use others as a sounding board in the development of their ideas, concerns, or theories.
Using that expression of doubt or concern against someone in the discussion of another case (Ramsey), leaves a lot of room for any thoughtful person to wonder about motive. It certainly leaves ME wondering about MOTIVE and (right or wrong) I see it as an attempt at discrediting and as a way to distract/detract from any truths Jameson may bring to the table in this case. What other purpose does it serve?

My Next Post:

If Carol is going to report the NEWS, she should REPORT the news. To say, in December 2002, that "there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder" is eliminating a large part of the facts surrounding her news report. Since she knew full well by December 2002 that there WAS evidence of an intruder (ie Smit's Power Point Presentation) that included indications of a disturbance at a potential entry point along with a trail of leaves and debris straight into the room where the body was found, she IS in trouble with her "reporting". In December 2002, the case had been taken away from the BPD. Carol had to know that and by wrapping it up with saying NO evidence to link an intruder, knowing full well there was, she has exposed her biased reporting and her intentions to only report half the "news" is clear.
I think the Ramseys' successful suits against news agencies has motivated people like Carol to continue to stand at the pulpit and say "no way". I suspect her reasons for excluding that part of her "news" story was to continue to inflame the public with defamatory lop-sided "reporting" in order to support her disagreement with the Ramseys' success in the courts.

This post by Misty: (I think I can carry this over here since it is largely from my post in reference)

Margoo writes in defense of Jameson’s libeling statements regarding the Van Dams: “I don't think Jameson is alone in considering there was room for doubt in the conviction of Mr. Westerfield. But, since Jameson (and others who might have doubted the strength of the case) were NOT on the jury, Mr. Westerfield WAS convicted. Expressing doubt as to the strength of the case is an option open to anyone. In these forums, the position of the poster is to encourage others to become interested in their particular position, idea, or solution; to use others as a sounding board in the development of their ideas, concerns, or theories.

Gee, Margoo, wasn’t that what McKinley was doing? Stating her opinion based on doubt due to the evidence? Margooooo writes: “Expressing doubt as to the strength of the case is an option.” It’s an option? If it is an option, why is McKinley/Fox being sued? It’s ONLY an option – doubting and expressing that doubt – when it’s NOT related to the Ramsey’s party line that an INTRUDER KILLED JonBenet.
Good grief! It amazes me that there are so many over at Jameson’s place that can’t see that. Talk about cult thinking! Geez!

Misty "high-fives" Jayelles at FFJ for this post of hers, seeking a high-five in exchange, and refers to my post as hypocritical. What a good buddy she is (speaking of cults).

MISTY, let me spell it out for YOU. Carol McKinley REPORTS NEWS on a National Network. She does not have an "editorial" show. She does not get to espouse OPINION. If she is going to REPORT NEWS, she must stick to the FACTS and she must check her FACTS. Get it?

(BTW Thank you, Rose, for pointing out to Misty that she crosses the line. I appreciate your appropriate response.)

The BORG hear what they want to hear.

What? When?? That is total bullshit.

She included the URL: http://www.americangirlstore.com/pls/ag/AG_pageitem?catid=367938&groupid=359021

To begin with, I have no idea why kok thinks that doll was in the Ramsey house, why she thinks Pam took it out of the house or why she thinks those fibers would have been found on the body. Just what does she think the killer was doing with the doll?

Talk about leading investigators on wild goose chases!

C'mon kok - this is really weak.

They also believe Aunt Pam removed the doll from the home on her trip for funeral clothes and baby mementos and that a replacement doll was shipped to Access shortly after the murder.

Duh. If Pam removed the doll, why the need for a replacement? If said doll existed and had duct tape on her back, where's the rest of the tape? And where is the proof said doll ever existed except in the minds of those of the PDI theory?

Rainsong

Since the duct tape has been sourced to a run date of November 1996 and probably only hit the retail shelves a very short time before the murder, I doubt this piece of tape was on something else in the house or that it was on the back of a doll that never existed in the Ramsey home - where DID this American doll thing come from? JB got a My Twinn Doll - and it too was shipped before this duct tape manufacturing run was done.

Once it is actually put together - the adhesive joined to the fabric - it still has to be packaged and shipped to a distribution warehouse where it is divided up and sent out agaon.... I don't see how it could have gone through the manufacturing plant and a distribution plant and a doll factory and a store to the Ramsey house...

and I still don't know what the BORG thinks the killer was doing with a doll? He was looking for tape and started stripping dolls rather than looking in drawers where the family might keep tape?

The piece of tape was rather long - ugly black tape. I can't imagine an expensive doll being held together with black duct tape. I think the BORG is simply going over the top with this one.

The dolls don't come with the tape already afixed. Supposedly a parent would apply the tape to the back to hold the string in place. Thus, who would know better where a nice piece of tape could be found during the commission of the murder of their child?

Oh, and to even think of this supposed piece of tape after having strangled your child, bashed her head in and composing the mother of all ransom notes--yeah-right.

Rainsong

Gee, Jayelles, what is so difficult to understand about the difference between uttering a statement as opinion and uttering a statement as fact? Go back to the damn drawing board. Geez!

Jameson, would you happen to know how many weeks?

Margoo wrote: Jolly good middle school fun! Girls will be girls!

They're not funny, they're pathetic!

By all indications, my posts are not water off your back (if you are calling yourself a duck).

Good luck with that book. I am sure it will be your finest achievement. A true reflection of your "talents".

Oh, and BTW, Jayelles, how do you define your post at FFJ? Angry? Full of emotion? Rage? Seething, cold hard disdain? Just curious as to whether your insight is as accurate when it comes to reflecting on "self" as it seems to be when evaluating others.

Evidently these people have no clue. The red turtleneck sweater was found in the bathroom. The red jumpsuit (which is not the same thing as a bodyshirt which is what they are implying) was in the laundry area.

Bodysuit--shirt and pants made in one piece with snaps in crotch

Turtleneck sweater--exactly what it says

Jumpsuit--an all in one piece with legs and the crotch snaps together for children. Adult jumpsuits are stepped into...

Gawd. And they have the Balzacs to say our elevators don't go to the top.

For all the forumites--I'd much rather be a swamp creature than bacteria in a cesspool.

Rainsong--who would have made no comment at all had my name not been dragged into the discussion at the Cesspool.

Duh?!?

Obviously the poster has no knowledge of how an electric current works.

Rainsong

NOW the problem is that Patsy didn't even mention "rinsing" that red jumpsuit in DOI. Ummm. Hello? Is there any reason to mention something that didn't happen; something that is a figment of an overactive (jump-to-conclusions) imagination? No red jumpsuit was rinsed out. No red turtleneck was rinsed out. No red jumpsuit was wet. No red turtleneck was wet or urine stained. If you don't want to believe it here, believe it in ST's deposition.

ABOUT THE RED TURTLENECK

Q. Did anybody tell you that they found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?
A. No, this is what I am surmising in the hypothesis.
Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into evidence?
A. I certainly believe it was.
Q. Did it have any type of urine stain on it?
A. Not that I'm aware of. I never have looked at it personally.
Q. Where did you get the statement that it got wet; did you just manufacture that out of whole cloth?
A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a reasonable explanation for the final resting place of this red turtleneck of which she may have indeed worn home.
Q. But you had no evidence to support that statement about the turtleneck being wet, true?
A. No, I don't know that it was urine stained.
Q. Or wet?
A. Or wet.

Stands to reason, if she wet the bed, her pants would be wet, yet Patsy allowed the long-johns to remain but removed the 'wet' turtleneck!

Rainsong

Still wondering, though, if a statement uttered as fact and one uttered as opinion is understood as being very different.

Here it is, but not in the world of BORG. There, if a statement reflects negative on the Ramseys and is repeated three times, it forever becomes fact.

I just want to see the killer caught - all hope lies with Tom Bennett and Lou Smit at this point.

The BORG just tries to confuse things - but now there are enough facts out there so if anyone takes a SERIOUS look at the case, the BORG is easily identified as what it is - just a bunch of vicious wanna-be lynch mob leaders.