Post by Tom Sorensen on Feb 24, 2024 3:54:30 GMT -5
Last week, it was said on various YouTube channels that a 60 Minutes Australia show would air Sunday, featuring Team Ramsey and what would be new evidence in the Jonbenet case. The half-hour part of the show concerning the Jonbenet investigation is now available on YouTube. Initial reactions were that this was a rehash of the same old lies we've heard from the Ramseys over the years and that nothing new was presented.
But let's see what they have to offer. Before walking you through the show, I'll quote the so-called 'synopsis' provided to see what they are trying to sell us.
There is a simple rule every detective learns early in their policing career: Follow the evidence. But it’s a principle that appears to have been forgotten when child beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey was found strangled in the basement of her family home. Her murder 27 years ago remains unsolved. A substantial reason is that local police investigating her death were convinced JonBenét’s parents were the perpetrators. Other suspects, along with crucial evidence, were ignored. On 60 MINUTES, Amelia Adams reveals a breakthrough in the case which JonBenét’s family hope could result in this gruesome mystery finally being solved.
"Follow the evidence." I'm buying that 100%, but this seems to have been forgotten in this case. So, a substantial reason should be that 1) Boulder PD was convinced of the parent's guilt, and 2) other suspects, and evidence, were ignored. The second claim is a flat-out lie, as the BP spent thousands of hours investigating supposed suspects the Ramsey lawyers were feeding them, to no avail. As for the first claim, I'm not aware of "crucial evidence" ignored that would not point to the Ramseys. OK, so Amelia will reveal a breakthrough? Let's see what she's got in the video1 below, followed by my comments.
@0:00 Intro...
@0:08 Just 8 seconds into the show, and we have the first lie from John Ramsey: If "they" are the Boulder PD, there was no consensus that John killed Jonbenet.
@0:17 Correct, law enforcement never opened that door. He just forgot to explain why they didn't.
@0:20 OK, so let's see what they are doing that wasn't already done.
@0:25 Oops, there is zero evidence of a stun gun being used. Are they not supposed to follow the evidence?
@0:32 Sure, the suitcase is a clue, so where does it lead you?
@0:44 The hostess...follow the evidence; I've already responded to the synopsis.
@1:20 Now, the breakthrough?
@1:40 John Ramsey, now 80, feels hope...brand new investigation?
@2:20 The same tired ongoing bashing of the Boulder PD. What he does not tell is that the scumbag DA at the time, Alex Hunter, did everything he could to disrupt the investigation to prevent the Ramseys from being prosecuted. I invite anyone to read, then lead investigator, Steve Thomas' book on the case to experience how morally corrupt Alex Hunter and his sidekicks were.
@2:50 Cold case investigators in action? Repeated false claim of the Boulder PD not looking at all the evidence. I already see where we're headed -- LOL
@3:18 Repeated from the intro....flat out lie by John.
@3:25 Rambling about help from "the outside."
@4:10 I will not discuss DNA. Unless there's a complete profile, you cannot say there's no match.
@4:20 The SA case is happening close to the Ramseys. So?
@4:45 Recap....
@5:00 We don't know if they "awoke," certainly not Patsy. Based on their repeated lies, they knew she wasn't missing.
@5:04 "They" didn't find the ransom note; Patsy claimed she did, but there is no supporting evidence for her claim.
@5:25 The home was searched. Jonbenet was not found.
@5:30 The second hunt around. False claim that no one bothered to open the door. At least Fleet White claimed to have opened the door and saw nothing. Note the intellectually dishonest spin to indicate the Boulder PD didn't bother to open the door. Rich French, the first responding officer, didn't open the door because it was latched from the outside and thus couldn't have been used as an exit for the supposed abductor.
@5:40 Interesting, SA stated as fact.
@5:45 JR, quickly pulled the tape off her mouth and messed with the tight knot. Fact: Her hands were not tightly bound.
@6:00 Apart from not being a "garotte," the cord was not entirely embedded in her neck. Why does he not first look for vital signs.
@6:10 What's wrong with "I can't comprehend..."?
@6:15 Putting down the Boulder PD, but our hostess forgot to mention that the DA, Alex Hunter, was all about plea bargaining instead of bringing murderers to trial.
@6:25 No surprise, I'll say with 100% confidence that they got away with covering up murder.
@6:35 JR, certainly, but that's not what happened.
@6:55 OK, interesting....
@7:15 Chit-chat....
@7:45 Instantly...ROFL. There was no sign of forced entry, that's why LE initially went along with the abduction scenario.
@7:50 There was no such evidence, that's a flat out lie. Who is this dude anyway?
@8:05 The intruder theory was constantly being pushed by Lou Smit (brought back from retirement by Alex Hunter), despite what the evidence indicated.
@8:10 2.500 leads not considered? Let's see the evidence, thanks.
@8:30 OK, crime scene photos, this could be interesting....
@8:45 The basement door—we've covered that.
@8:50 This is not a true crime scene photo; the suitcase was moved.
@9:00 Cute remark, pointing out the "clue."
@9:20 Left the house? Ask yourself what would happen if you stepped up on a freestanding suitcase. The supposed intruder could simply have left through the patio door in the back hallway.
@9:25 So now we're inside the suitcase. Fibers match Jonbenet's clothes. Has this been verified, and by whom?
@9:40 Now the interpretation: Murder(er) was disorganized, but how is this inferred from the suitcase?
@10:00 Decade old false claim, complete bollocks. The nail clippings alone were not done correctly.
@10:15 More DNA nonsense. (!) Foreign DNA does not mean intruder, you twat.
@10:55 WTF is this clown rambling about? Specifically, the fingernail DNA doesn't prove anything.
@11:05 Yes, we know the family "had something to do with it" based on raw logic.
@11:15 What experts?
@11:20 The coroner....
@12:00 The marks are described as "abrasions" by the coroner who actually performed the autopsy. This was another of Lou Smit's delusions; this dude is now trying to sell again. Stun guns don't leave abrasions. End of story.
@14:00 Why use pigs when the stun gun wouldn't cause permanent damage to a human. BTW, stun guns do not silence people, quite the opposite, so using a stun gun on Jonbenet makes absolute no sense in an abduction scenario.
@15:30 "Pain compliance type of tool". Again, how would inflicting pain on a 6-year-old silence her?
@16:00 If it doesn't work for a parent, how would it work for a stranger abductor? The dude doesn't even realize he has sunk his own argument. ROFL
@16:25 Um, so where does this rambling lead us?
@16:45 Right, then imagine her reaction, and what does that tell you? Apparently nothing.
@17:00 John Andrew....
@17:18 "The stun gun would not identify the killer..." Clever boy!
@17:22 "But it would help in your defense..." WTF did that come from?
@17:24 "We know a stun gun was used..." False, you don't know any such thing.
@17:28 "When she went to bed that night..." There is no evidence she ever went to bed that night, quite the contrary.
@17:30 "those marks were not there..." You were in Atlanta that night and thus couldn't have a clue what marks were there or not.
@17:33 "those burn marks...", they were not burn marks according to the autopsy report, you fail again.
@17:40 Hostess and John Andrew ramble on about stun guns...
@17:43 Dr. Michael D. used to be part of the review team.
@18:05 Fresh eyes...one of the last chances.
@18:40 Case ignored by the Boulder PD, allegedly. (I'm not familiar with it and shall not comment on it.)
@19:20 More on this case, including details.
@20:20 Could this be the same person?
@20:35 Location: only 5 minutes from the Ramsey home.
@20:50 False, there is no evidence of an intruder in the Ramsey case. If there's evidence they were not compared, then show it.
@21:20 Named May's case. Just what the Ramsey's needed to divert attention away from themselves.
@21:35 John Ramsey is entitled to believe anything he wants.
@21:40 NOTE edit, which, in fairness, makes his line of thought sound like he's nuts.
@21:45 Apparently, the burglar alarm was later set in the Amy case.
@21:50 The same thing supposedly happened in the Ramsey home (less alarm), but there is zero evidence of an intruder entering or leaving.
@22:00 Both are exceptional crimes, considering we're in the nineties. Verified?
@22:05 Define "totally similar." Where were the stungun marks in the Amy case?!
@22:10 All evidence says 'inside job' in the Ramsey case, not so in the Amy case, for obvious reasons.
@22:15 Both girls had performed in the same pageants. Again, show us the evidence of who refused to investigate the two cases as linked.
@22:45 Name the detectives, and we'll go from there.
@22:50 Bed sheets are gone; not good!
@23:10 The Ramseys were "cleared" as suspects by DA tosspot Mary Lacy. Complete hogwash and this nonsense has been thoroughly picked apart2.
@23:30 There is indisputeable evidence of a cover-up by the Ramseys, that's why.
@23:40 The narrative pushed by the Ramseys makes no sense, based on the available evidence. Time to wake up, mate!
@23:50 False, it's based on the obviously fake narrative the Ramseys keep pushing to this day. It's all in the available police reports and transcripts.
@23:55 No wonder, they're not wasting time on a trash show like this.
@24:10 More Boulder PD bashing, by our twat in red for not mentioning the damage done to the investigation responded by the DA office lead by Alex Hunter.
@24:20 Playing the grievance card, is so predictable.
@25:45 Jonbenet is in heaven, sure. No, she's DEAD. Dead people don't need safety, you despicable liar.
@23:05 Jonbenet would have been 33 today, so sad indeed.
@23:15 Correction: The constant lying has taken its toll. Yes, John Andrew will soon carry the torch and keep pushing the Ramsey intruder lie and DNA nonsense.
@25:35 Correction: Not all the players, Patsy is dead. Sorry, opinions are not facts.
@26:00 Bye, Amelia. What a load of crap you put together. No new evidence of any sort was presented, as suspected.
But let's see what they have to offer. Before walking you through the show, I'll quote the so-called 'synopsis' provided to see what they are trying to sell us.
There is a simple rule every detective learns early in their policing career: Follow the evidence. But it’s a principle that appears to have been forgotten when child beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey was found strangled in the basement of her family home. Her murder 27 years ago remains unsolved. A substantial reason is that local police investigating her death were convinced JonBenét’s parents were the perpetrators. Other suspects, along with crucial evidence, were ignored. On 60 MINUTES, Amelia Adams reveals a breakthrough in the case which JonBenét’s family hope could result in this gruesome mystery finally being solved.
"Follow the evidence." I'm buying that 100%, but this seems to have been forgotten in this case. So, a substantial reason should be that 1) Boulder PD was convinced of the parent's guilt, and 2) other suspects, and evidence, were ignored. The second claim is a flat-out lie, as the BP spent thousands of hours investigating supposed suspects the Ramsey lawyers were feeding them, to no avail. As for the first claim, I'm not aware of "crucial evidence" ignored that would not point to the Ramseys. OK, so Amelia will reveal a breakthrough? Let's see what she's got in the video1 below, followed by my comments.
@0:00 Intro...
@0:08 Just 8 seconds into the show, and we have the first lie from John Ramsey: If "they" are the Boulder PD, there was no consensus that John killed Jonbenet.
@0:17 Correct, law enforcement never opened that door. He just forgot to explain why they didn't.
@0:20 OK, so let's see what they are doing that wasn't already done.
@0:25 Oops, there is zero evidence of a stun gun being used. Are they not supposed to follow the evidence?
@0:32 Sure, the suitcase is a clue, so where does it lead you?
@0:44 The hostess...follow the evidence; I've already responded to the synopsis.
@1:20 Now, the breakthrough?
@1:40 John Ramsey, now 80, feels hope...brand new investigation?
@2:20 The same tired ongoing bashing of the Boulder PD. What he does not tell is that the scumbag DA at the time, Alex Hunter, did everything he could to disrupt the investigation to prevent the Ramseys from being prosecuted. I invite anyone to read, then lead investigator, Steve Thomas' book on the case to experience how morally corrupt Alex Hunter and his sidekicks were.
@2:50 Cold case investigators in action? Repeated false claim of the Boulder PD not looking at all the evidence. I already see where we're headed -- LOL
@3:18 Repeated from the intro....flat out lie by John.
@3:25 Rambling about help from "the outside."
@4:10 I will not discuss DNA. Unless there's a complete profile, you cannot say there's no match.
@4:20 The SA case is happening close to the Ramseys. So?
@4:45 Recap....
@5:00 We don't know if they "awoke," certainly not Patsy. Based on their repeated lies, they knew she wasn't missing.
@5:04 "They" didn't find the ransom note; Patsy claimed she did, but there is no supporting evidence for her claim.
@5:25 The home was searched. Jonbenet was not found.
@5:30 The second hunt around. False claim that no one bothered to open the door. At least Fleet White claimed to have opened the door and saw nothing. Note the intellectually dishonest spin to indicate the Boulder PD didn't bother to open the door. Rich French, the first responding officer, didn't open the door because it was latched from the outside and thus couldn't have been used as an exit for the supposed abductor.
@5:40 Interesting, SA stated as fact.
@5:45 JR, quickly pulled the tape off her mouth and messed with the tight knot. Fact: Her hands were not tightly bound.
@6:00 Apart from not being a "garotte," the cord was not entirely embedded in her neck. Why does he not first look for vital signs.
@6:10 What's wrong with "I can't comprehend..."?
@6:15 Putting down the Boulder PD, but our hostess forgot to mention that the DA, Alex Hunter, was all about plea bargaining instead of bringing murderers to trial.
@6:25 No surprise, I'll say with 100% confidence that they got away with covering up murder.
@6:35 JR, certainly, but that's not what happened.
@6:55 OK, interesting....
@7:15 Chit-chat....
@7:45 Instantly...ROFL. There was no sign of forced entry, that's why LE initially went along with the abduction scenario.
@7:50 There was no such evidence, that's a flat out lie. Who is this dude anyway?
@8:05 The intruder theory was constantly being pushed by Lou Smit (brought back from retirement by Alex Hunter), despite what the evidence indicated.
@8:10 2.500 leads not considered? Let's see the evidence, thanks.
@8:30 OK, crime scene photos, this could be interesting....
@8:45 The basement door—we've covered that.
@8:50 This is not a true crime scene photo; the suitcase was moved.
@9:00 Cute remark, pointing out the "clue."
@9:20 Left the house? Ask yourself what would happen if you stepped up on a freestanding suitcase. The supposed intruder could simply have left through the patio door in the back hallway.
@9:25 So now we're inside the suitcase. Fibers match Jonbenet's clothes. Has this been verified, and by whom?
@9:40 Now the interpretation: Murder(er) was disorganized, but how is this inferred from the suitcase?
@10:00 Decade old false claim, complete bollocks. The nail clippings alone were not done correctly.
@10:15 More DNA nonsense. (!) Foreign DNA does not mean intruder, you twat.
@10:55 WTF is this clown rambling about? Specifically, the fingernail DNA doesn't prove anything.
@11:05 Yes, we know the family "had something to do with it" based on raw logic.
@11:15 What experts?
@11:20 The coroner....
@12:00 The marks are described as "abrasions" by the coroner who actually performed the autopsy. This was another of Lou Smit's delusions; this dude is now trying to sell again. Stun guns don't leave abrasions. End of story.
@14:00 Why use pigs when the stun gun wouldn't cause permanent damage to a human. BTW, stun guns do not silence people, quite the opposite, so using a stun gun on Jonbenet makes absolute no sense in an abduction scenario.
@15:30 "Pain compliance type of tool". Again, how would inflicting pain on a 6-year-old silence her?
@16:00 If it doesn't work for a parent, how would it work for a stranger abductor? The dude doesn't even realize he has sunk his own argument. ROFL
@16:25 Um, so where does this rambling lead us?
@16:45 Right, then imagine her reaction, and what does that tell you? Apparently nothing.
@17:00 John Andrew....
@17:18 "The stun gun would not identify the killer..." Clever boy!
@17:22 "But it would help in your defense..." WTF did that come from?
@17:24 "We know a stun gun was used..." False, you don't know any such thing.
@17:28 "When she went to bed that night..." There is no evidence she ever went to bed that night, quite the contrary.
@17:30 "those marks were not there..." You were in Atlanta that night and thus couldn't have a clue what marks were there or not.
@17:33 "those burn marks...", they were not burn marks according to the autopsy report, you fail again.
@17:40 Hostess and John Andrew ramble on about stun guns...
@17:43 Dr. Michael D. used to be part of the review team.
@18:05 Fresh eyes...one of the last chances.
@18:40 Case ignored by the Boulder PD, allegedly. (I'm not familiar with it and shall not comment on it.)
@19:20 More on this case, including details.
@20:20 Could this be the same person?
@20:35 Location: only 5 minutes from the Ramsey home.
@20:50 False, there is no evidence of an intruder in the Ramsey case. If there's evidence they were not compared, then show it.
@21:20 Named May's case. Just what the Ramsey's needed to divert attention away from themselves.
@21:35 John Ramsey is entitled to believe anything he wants.
@21:40 NOTE edit, which, in fairness, makes his line of thought sound like he's nuts.
@21:45 Apparently, the burglar alarm was later set in the Amy case.
@21:50 The same thing supposedly happened in the Ramsey home (less alarm), but there is zero evidence of an intruder entering or leaving.
@22:00 Both are exceptional crimes, considering we're in the nineties. Verified?
@22:05 Define "totally similar." Where were the stungun marks in the Amy case?!
@22:10 All evidence says 'inside job' in the Ramsey case, not so in the Amy case, for obvious reasons.
@22:15 Both girls had performed in the same pageants. Again, show us the evidence of who refused to investigate the two cases as linked.
@22:45 Name the detectives, and we'll go from there.
@22:50 Bed sheets are gone; not good!
@23:10 The Ramseys were "cleared" as suspects by DA tosspot Mary Lacy. Complete hogwash and this nonsense has been thoroughly picked apart2.
@23:30 There is indisputeable evidence of a cover-up by the Ramseys, that's why.
@23:40 The narrative pushed by the Ramseys makes no sense, based on the available evidence. Time to wake up, mate!
@23:50 False, it's based on the obviously fake narrative the Ramseys keep pushing to this day. It's all in the available police reports and transcripts.
@23:55 No wonder, they're not wasting time on a trash show like this.
@24:10 More Boulder PD bashing, by our twat in red for not mentioning the damage done to the investigation responded by the DA office lead by Alex Hunter.
@24:20 Playing the grievance card, is so predictable.
@25:45 Jonbenet is in heaven, sure. No, she's DEAD. Dead people don't need safety, you despicable liar.
@23:05 Jonbenet would have been 33 today, so sad indeed.
@23:15 Correction: The constant lying has taken its toll. Yes, John Andrew will soon carry the torch and keep pushing the Ramsey intruder lie and DNA nonsense.
@25:35 Correction: Not all the players, Patsy is dead. Sorry, opinions are not facts.
@26:00 Bye, Amelia. What a load of crap you put together. No new evidence of any sort was presented, as suspected.
_______________
1 Note the transcription option in the video description!