My Search for JonBenet's killer - A 15 year retrospective

DEB wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right about the prank calls & Stine - that certainly was wrong, but I do not think they threw anyone under the bus. Their daughter was dead and they were asked about suspicious activity and anyone owning a stun gun. This is a far cry from accusing anyone. Just as many of us have discussed strange activities of many in this case, it does not equate with accusing a specific person of murder when none of us know what really happened.

I disagree. Their "hints" were strong enough to suggest one person or the other. No, they never came out and said that so and so might have done this, but they were pretty clear in how they worded things that they were in fact, throwing others under the bus. You say just as many of us have discussed strange activities of many and it doesn't equate to accusations, you would be wrong. To say that your neighbor and FRIEND came from California to equate her with the stun gun in addition to "mentioning" Priscilla's jacket when talking about the fibers translates into "please look at her" by any thinking person

There are plenty of accusations on the board and henri comes to mind with outright saying that FW did it. Why do you always seem to forget/overlook that? You are quick to criticize those who accuse the Ramseys but nobody else.

BrotherMoon wrote:

<quoted text>
That is a stretch. Detachment means less involvement not more. There is no evidence of any kind of sexual deviation before or after in John's case. If anything he was a womanizer and not a pedophile.

He wouldn't be the first man to cheat on his wife and molest his daughter/s.
I'm reading "if anything he was a womanizer", and wondering why you say that unless you believe Kimberly Ballard? She is the only one after his marriage to Patsy that says you're right about that.

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
IOW, you're re-defining the meaning of "conspiracy".

No I am not redefining anything, I am telling you what I was thinking when I wrote what I did. If you think that wimpy definition you put up can only be interpreted YOUR way, think again!

realTopaz wrote:

<quoted text>
why is it you think JBR was violated by either Patsy, Burke or JAR? Why not JR? Wecht said she'd been previously molested, like within 72 hours...was JAR there then? Arndt said what was done to JBR was "horrific", so her parents had to know she was in some sort of pain or discomfort within those 72 hours. It was also said (can't remember by whom) that the molestation that night followed the same pattern as earlier molestation..so, someone that night knew about that and either copied the molester or was the molester, right? JR was there 72 hours before and all the way through til death.

I don't know that he didn't. I just think that, if JR was the abuser, Patsy might have nailed him. But, anything is possible.

realTopaz wrote:

<quoted text>
He wouldn't be the first man to cheat on his wife and molest his daughter/s.
I'm reading "if anything he was a womanizer", and wondering why you say that unless you believe Kimberly Ballard? She is the only one after his marriage to Patsy that says you're right about that.

Try reading books about the case.

BrotherMoon wrote:

<quoted text>
Try reading books about the case.

I have read books on this case and probably more than you. None of them concluded that Sandy Stranger did it, but of course they're non fiction so why would they, eh? lol

I generally don't see Shapiro as the mark of integrity and objectivity in this case since his own interests always been foremost in any of his utterances and I'm struggling to think of anyone whose good opinion he kept.

That said, being a tosser doesn't mean he can't stumble into being right and he may have matured. Either way, this article is very good and I'm pleased to see it.

Regarding John not being a paedophile because he was a womaniser carries some weight as does Santa Bill's being gay (the incidence of paedophilia among homosexuals is radically lower than for straights).

That said, I think we need to distinguish between a paedophile and a situational molester and again between a hypersexual person who will have sex with anyone or anything of the opposite sex (Fred West is an extreme example of the latter).

Heloise wrote:

Regarding John not being a paedophile because he was a womaniser carries some weight as does Santa Bill's being gay (the incidence of paedophilia among homosexuals is radically lower than for straights).
That said, I think we need to distinguish between a paedophile and a situational molester and again between a hypersexual person who will have sex with anyone or anything of the opposite sex (Fred West is an extreme example of the latter).

Hi Heloise,

Just wanted to be sure it was really you as someone was using your hat for awhile

Happy New Year.

I agree and never thought John was the molester either.

Heloise wrote:

I generally don't see Shapiro as the mark of integrity and objectivity in this case since his own interests always been foremost in any of his utterances and I'm struggling to think of anyone whose good opinion he kept.
That said, being a tosser doesn't mean he can't stumble into being right and he may have matured. Either way, this article is very good and I'm pleased to see it.

In view of the complete lack of moral fibre Jeffrey Scott Shapiro displayed in his early days freelancing for the Globe, it's hard for me to place credence in anything he says. Admittedly he was only 23 when he first joined the Globe, but youth and immaturity can only partly excuse his behaviour back then. His lies, deception and disregard for others in order to achieve his own ends are character traits which will be with him for life, IMO. That's what he's made of, it's who he is.

In the article, he states that he spent years trying to prove the Ramseys innocence, but makes no mention of how intent he was at one time on proving that Patsy killed JB, nor the low levels he stooped to to attain this "proof" because he saw that as his ticket to fame and fortune.

All these years later, one still cannot set stock by anything he says as his statements are full of inconsistencies and contradictions. In June 2010 he wrote:

"We may not know conclusively who killed JonBenet Ramsey, but we do know that her family members still feel the pain of their loss. The news media has a right and responsibility to continue covering the investigation when there's valid news, and if the justice system ever determines who her killer is, that person should be identified and brought to justice if they're still alive or within law enforcement's reach. Other than that, however, JonBenet's family deserves peace and privacy. It's time to leave JonBenet and her family alone".

Beautifully stated and so true, but then in December 2011 he does a complete turnabout and in the article posted by Candy, does exactly the opposite to what he'd stated just the year before by NOT leaving the family alone, not showing them the compassion he claims to feel, nor giving them the peace and privacy they DO deserve after all these years.

Will this guy ever make up his mind?

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
A very interesting article. I will have to take a lot of it with a grain of salt, knowing the role Shapiro played in the case, I think he can be placing more positive importance on his involvement than he actually merits.
He did however restate something I had remembered that took place but couldn't source, and that was this:
"One summer day in 1997 I sat beside the Ramseys in church only a few months after JonBenet’s passing. At one point, the reverend, Rol Hoverstock put his hand on John’s shoulder and compassionately whispered to him,“You’re a good man, John. I know you didn’t do this.”
"Minutes later, when he walked by Patsy sitting alone in an empty pew, the two made eye contact, but instead of greeting her as he did John, he angrily looked away and drifted right past her.
That stunned me."
I said then and I'll repeat it now: This incident, if true, made me disrespect Hoverstock as a minister. He might as well have held a sign over his head with an arrow pointing to Patsy.
And I believe that had Patsy been sitting alone in an empty pew, we would have heard about it from sources other than Jeff Shapiro.
It's hard for me to believe a minister would be so blatant in his actions toward a parishioner. With this in mind, I have to look at Shapiro's entire article with questions -- questions of whether he has an agenda and had one from the beginning.

Ole South, I don't believe that incident between Father Rol and Patsy ever happened. Jeffrey Shapiro is not a truthful person, IMO, and cannot be trusted to relay information accurately. It was either a complete fabrication on Shapiro's part or exaggerated out of all proportion. As you say, if it's true, Father Rol may as well have had a sign over his head with an arrow pointing at Patsy. I don't for a minute believe Father Rol would have treated Patsy that way if he believed she was guilty. He may have counselled her, tried to persuade her that the right thing to do was to to confess to the police and ask God for forgiveness. I believe he would have treated her with understanding and compassion, not condemnation, especially in public. IMO this was just another one of the many lies that flowed so easily from Shapiro's lips, or in this case, his keyboard.

learnin wrote:

Good article by Shapiro. One of the most important things I take away from this article is that Shapiro confirms that Schiller reported his(Shapiro's) comments correctly. I started a thread a long time back on Shapiro's comments which were listed in PMPT. When I copied Shapiro's comments, in PMPT, and suggested that they were very revealing as to Patsy being involved, other posters replied that Schiller's book contained many errors and liberties so that it could not be trusted. Well, Shapiro indicates that Schiller's book was correct at least according to what Shapiro witnessed.

I read the article twice and nowhere did I see Shapiro directly confirm that Schiller reported Shapiro's comments correctly. As a matter of fact, he (Schiller) apparently didn't and Shapiro sued Schiller for a libelous statement made in the book.
Ramsey book creators sued
Former reporter says book libels him
By Camera staff
October 15, 2002
"A former newspaper tabloid writer has filed a lawsuit against a publisher and an author he says libeled and defamed him in the book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," a publication about the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation.
Jeffrey Shapiro, 29, of Florida, who wrote about the high-profile homicide for the Globe, filed his case on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, N.M., because the state has a three-year statute of limitations on libel and defamation cases.
The book, written by Lawrence Schiller and published by Harper Collins Publishers Inc. in February 1999 in hardcover and in November 1999 in paperback, was distributed throughout the country.
According to the complaint, Shapiro says one sentence in the book contains a libelous statement that could have been corrected before paperback editions were printed.
"It's one sentence with pretty substantial ramifications," Shapiro's Los Angeles attorney, Neville L. Johnson, said Monday.
That sentence implicates Shapiro in an alleged extortion of former Boulder police Det. Steve Thomas when, in reality, Shapiro warned authorities of the crime, records showed.
In August 1998, the Globe editors told Shapiro of plans to blackmail Thomas into providing details of the investigation, according to the complaint. Shapiro then told Thomas and police Chief Mark Beckner about the tabloid's plan to extort Thomas, the document showed.
Two months later, Shapiro reported the plot to the FBI, the complaint said. Shapiro was fired in February 1999.
The lawsuit alleges that during a conversation with Schiller before the book was published, Schiller read a passage to Shapiro that said, "... Shapiro had a conversation with the FBI about the possibility someone had engaged in extortion with Thomas."
The published passage said "Several months later, the FBI talked to Shapiro about the possibility that he had engaged in extortion with Thomas."
In a subsequent conversation with Schiller, which Shapiro recorded, the author said he would change the sentence before the paperbacks were published. It was not changed, Shapiro's attorneys said.
"He's the man who went to the FBI to say my supervisors want to do something bad," Johnson said. "We've got Schiller admitting that he was incorrect."
Schiller said Monday night he had not seen the lawsuit, and declined to comment.
The suit is one of several that have sprung from the 1996 slaying of the Boulder girl. JonBenet's beaten and garroted body was found the basement of her parent's Boulder home on Dec. 26 of that year. The murder has gone unsolved."

Happens more frequently than not these days.

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Heloise,
Just wanted to be sure it was really you as someone was using your hat for awhile

DrSeussMd wrote:

Happens more frequently than not these days.
<quoted text>

It is feeling more and more isolated. It assumes other's hats in lieu of making actual contact. Notice how it sometimes uses words like 'us' and 'our' as if it belongs to a group of posters, a community, as many do who inhabit certain forums? It inserts itself in lieu of acceptance, very sociopathic.

Yes, I know SOW, you envy my intelligence and education. I feel like taking a shower at the thought that you are in love with me, which you are. My understanding of the role of the color white really sent your mind spinning didn't it? Why? Do you dream in white? More and more I sense the void in you, what a horrible Hell to be that empty. No where to hide but into the ugly body that you despise and into the identities of people that you covet.

if Burke is innocent, as I strongly suspect that he is, then the injustice he has suffered by being accused, as well as the loss of his sister, is rivaled only by her death. the public should not be so arrogant that we accuse and convict with confidence while the authorities can't.

Starry wrote:

if Burke is innocent, as I strongly suspect that he is, then the injustice he has suffered by being accused, as well as the loss of his sister, is rivaled only by her death. the public should not be so arrogant that we accuse and convict with confidence while the authorities can't.

And if he's not innocent?

Shouldn't you also be feeling sorry for all the other people who the public accuse and convict with confidence while the authorities can't?