posted September 08, 2016 09:56 PM            

It felt awful to see and I guess I stopped, due to that.

I kind of feel sick talking about it.

Joan River's day of death chart showed foul play, too.

*Sigh*

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted September 13, 2016 01:45 PM            

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4t2swn_jonbenet-an-american-murder-mystery-a-killer-on-the-loose_school

posted September 13, 2016 08:53 PM            

Dr. Phil showed a better understanding in the Today show interview. It's possible he's being made to jump through some hoops himself if he wants to keep his show on the air. In any case, as much as I want to hear more from Burke, I don't want to hear it from the Dr. Phil show and think Burke chose poorly to come out there. (I forget why, but I've seen that show before and had a negative impression of it then as well.)

And seeing the Dateline shows me that the Dr Phil show was even more manipulative and dodgy than I realized last night as there was plenty Dr. Phil (or his handlers) were ignoring to create a certain effect which, IMO, is to appeal to the baser nature of humanity than any kind of genuine investigative journalism to get at any truth of the matter. (And it was depressing how many YT comments showed how easily they could be manipulated, and how they missed such obvious things like how nervous the adult Burke was with his continually shaking his hands--he was more nervous as an adult with Dr Phil than as a kid with detectives, interesting enough--among other things I could mention, and hope most of those people who commented on how evil and relaxed Burke was never serve on a jury as they come off as really gullible to me in the worst way easily fooled by such manipulation that was blatant to me, and going after someone innocent just to make someone pay is helping out the actual guilty party.)

Dateline, OTOH, appeared a very good report (ethical and thorough investigative reporting, at least within its time limits) to me.

I haven't seen the DM one yet, but will, probably tonight (*).

posted September 14, 2016 12:02 PM            

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4t728s_jonbenet-e02-pool-of-suspects_school

posted September 14, 2016 04:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by starr33:
ID JonBenét E02 Pool of Suspects

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4t728s_jonbenet-e02-pool-of-suspects_school

---

Good one.

Glad they said more of the background of Lou Smit as I was wondering who he was (and trying to figure out if he was more trustworthy than the local police or not).

I understand the reasons against why many are very skeptical of why "Santa Bill" McReynolds couldn't have done it, but dang, hearing the details of his past in this one actually made me break out into goosebumps, and it can make sense out of what doesn't make sense (really, the main case against him is believing he wouldn't be sturdy enough, but that's not necessarily so--especially if he's a trusted "Santa" who fed her pineapple first showing a completely innocent trust of "Santa Bill" and having a stun gun in case he lost control of the sitch). That would also explain why a notepad was used from the Ramsey house (as he could get it), and his wife could've also helped (wives and SOs of serial rapists and killers are distressingly common, and there was his wife's play that she had written, his wife being a writer). Still, eerie coincidences and speculation don't have a place in a court of law for good reason, but learning more details about him and his role (and his wife as well) was the first time I actually shuddered at the creepiness of it. More here and I found this on the play Hey, Rube

Still, creepy coincidences aside and all that, Gary Oliva certainly had the red flags, and a pageant child like JR would surely interest him...plus, he'd have access to the knowledge he'd need to throw enough monkey wrenches to divert attention away from him long enough for him to get far away with the child (but would have to abandon the plan when he realized he couldn't get her out in a suitcase as planned). 'Course, given his involvement in child porn, he could have a neighbor or two as a "client" to further aid him. A Christmas party would be a perfect time for him to slip in as well (he wouldn't even have to leave after, just, say, hide in the attic). And I shuddered again as he's seen in the photo at the candlelight vigil for the child. And that's before he admits to have made a shrine to the child and putting pix of the child's beauty pageant photos on monopoly money.

Granted, police eliminate them as suspects, and I'm generally inclined to believe them when they do so (since cops are motivated for their own career if nothing else to gain convictions, they're not going to let someone go unless they feel it's a waste of their time to press charges--especially for say a convicted pedophile who can't afford a proper lawyer), but given the extreme police incompetence on the actual crime scene, I find myself unusually skeptical when they say they "eliminated other suspects." (Especially as that one guy that Lou Smit was intrigued by was essentially kicked out by the cops before he could share his suspicions about Helgoth, which contradicts what cops said in the other links about how they tracked down every lead with every diligence, when that doesn't sound to be the case at all. Granted, I'm sure the cops did have a lot of cranks and attention seekers to deal with as high profile cases all too often have multiple people confessing to the crime to get their 15 minutes of fame.)

There was so much drama between the cops and DA with each having a different side that it would no doubt frustrate a foreign detective in trying to get to the truth (and that's just in between why the PD and DA don't get along). It actually sounds to me like it's more than incompetence, but also intentionally sabotaging each other in petty games (whether to get them back or to pursue their own conclusions and shut down "dead ends" as if they were dead ends when they were not).

Some of the things said make me wonder if the DTs ever heard of "motivated reasoning" (in this case, where predetermined conclusions cause a person to mistake the most trivial details for proof positive while ignoring blatant evidence that would contradict the predetermined conclusion as "insignificant" and it's all subconscious). I'd like to think that DTs get some training to overcome this, but apparently not (or it doesn't work).

Taking all the links into account, everyone is so secretive, whether they're cops or suspects. The cops deny, deny, deny, and also shut down, just like the Ramseys and many neighbors. In such an environment of watching one's own back, it's not a surprise to me that quite a few problem people could thrive.

posted September 14, 2016 04:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by starr33:
How did you create the links to these site? I used to remember how to do it. Lol.

---

If you quote my reply with the links you'll see the coding for it.

Tip: if the link starts off with "https" then take off the "s" (so it's only "http") and it will link.

Here, I quoted one part of the link BUT I took off the end brackets so that hopefully it will show the coding (you just add the end brackets to make it work):

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I found this on the play [URL=http://www.nytimes.com/1978/06/01/archives/stage-hey-rube-tells-of-ritual-killing-loathsome-trio.html?_r=0
Hey, Rube[/URL

---

With the end brackets put back in:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I found this on the play Hey, Rube

---

posted September 14, 2016 08:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by starr33:
Thanks Pixie! Here's Ep 2 with Dr. Phil for those who haven't seen it.

---

posted September 15, 2016 01:20 PM            

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4tc51w_jonbenet-e03-he-calls-himself-daxis_school

posted September 16, 2016 06:43 PM            

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O94O-sGHdbM

posted September 16, 2016 09:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by starr33:
Dr Phil: The Burke Ramsey Interviews ~Your Questions Answered September 15th 2016

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O94O-sGHdbM

---

I almost didn't watch it because I didn't want to see more of the same, but this was completely different in tone, and found it good.

This makes me wonder, have enough people expressed displeasure without how the show treated the brother so they're now changing gears? Or is someone else, someone outside of Dr. Phil's control, editing the interviews? It was pretty ridiculous with like the brother being cut off in the middle of speaking (it was a very good cut and the only reason I caught it was because I really wanted to know the answer to the second question, the answer to which was cut out), to like Dr. Phil asking a question that did not cast suspicion on him at all in my eyes, but the camera angle suddenly jumps to the brother's face with a sinister note (similar to this but to a lesser degree, if I were able to hear it again I'd compare it to the sound made in Law & Order as something major is discovered to see if that was the effect the editing crew was going for).

That first interview reminded me of parodies of the media trying to rile up a kangaroo court of public opinion just so people will tune in. And on top of that, so much pointless (but dramatic moments completely manufactured by the editing crew) scenes were repeated over and over, so they didn't have the excuse of "we didn't have time" for why certain parts were cut to support a manipulative narrative. In any case, there was quality AND quantity, and whoever edited that first interview screwed up both, and should be fired IMO (though cynically speaking it probably did get people to talking and promoting the show to bring in more viewers, and scoring ratings is the name of the game, not truth or ethics).