glowlights
-
Posts
1.2k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by glowlights
-
-
On 9/15/2016 at 11:07 AM, TattleTeeny said:
Could someone wiser than I tell me if there is not some kind of punishment for the JMK's of the world for making uncoerced false confessions and causing all sorts of ruckus and mayhem in the process?
How about making a false statement to police and obstruction of justice? For starters. I'm mad he wasn't charged with anything but the DA's office was so embarrassed by the whole debacle they probably wanted it to just go away. Why was that DA so cozy with the Ramseys? Another bible thumper like Smit?
I'm glad they mentioned the issue with the lab that came out with the touch DNA results (reducing the markers to only 4 instead of the forensic standard of 13). But it got buried with Karr's bullshit when it should have been highlighted imo.
-
6
-
-
On 9/10/2016 at 7:10 PM, WicketyWack said:
Yes, the thing about the pineapple is that it would have created a timeline: according to police, the parents said JonBenet didn't eat pineapple after they came back from the party --> pineapple was found in her small intestine --> i.e.the parents are lying.
Here's a screen grab from the #NeverBeforeSeenDocuments that show the pineapple doesn't create as accurate a timeline as all that:
But the thing is, the crab meat that was served at the party earlier in the evening was found lower in her intestines, meaning the pineapple had been ingested later that night. And now I will have to go find the source for that! Argh.
On 9/13/2016 at 8:49 AM, ghoulina said:I don't know that I'd call the Ramseys "rational parents". Patsty was dying a 6-year-old's hair. John Ramey was scheduling a flight to ATL just a half hour after finding his daughter dead. And I firmly believe that SOMEONE in that house was sexually abusing JB prior to the murder. Autopsy findings had her hymen barely being present. I think the lead doctor on the case concluded "prior sexual abuse with a recent injury". I just don't see them as this normal, loving, down to earth family.
The more I read about them, the weirder and less rational they come across. True, we all would look a bit weird if put under scrutiny (er, maybe I should speak for myself on that?) but there is just so much in this story. Patsy and John were play-acting some nouveau riche fantasy of private planes, fancy homes, over-the-top Christmas decor, etc. A high emphasis on appearances. Meanwhile Patsy is dolling her daughter up like a saloon madame and putting her in trashy pageants, the home is in disrepair, both children have behavioral problems (chronic bed wetting with JonBenet, Burke has "issues"), etc. The children's safety is of little concern. JonBenet has been doing public appearances where she is attracting attention but the parents can't be bothered to use the alarm system. John breaks in through the basement window and then just leaves it that way for anyone else to enter instead of calling a handyman like any SANE parent/homeowner. Patsy is using plastic bags for luggage. Talk about the Beverly Hillbillies!
5 hours ago, ghoulina said:There's still so much about the Ramseys that bug, though. I saw a clip of that "Keep your babies close to you" interview and I never noticed before, but John is clearly mouthing those words to Patsy. So it was obviously rehearsed. Their behavior was just odd. I get want to protect yourself when LE is clearly targeting you, but they seemed to not want to help in the case at all. The neighbor lady that was on one of the documentaries stated that friends were also told not to talk to the cops, and SHE was personally shunned because she did.
Yes! I noticed the same thing and had to rewind the DVR to watch it twice. She stumbles on the line and John feeds it to her. She appeared to be highly sedated so it's natural she would slur or have trouble getting her words out, but there's John prompting her with the exact line. Was John a control freak? Patsy said she was packing for the trip with plastic bags because John didn't like their hard-sided luggage. Um, excuse me but if John didn't like their luggage why didn't he get his ass to a fuckin' Samsonite store and buy something else, or deal with the "wrong" luggage like a big boy. Instead his wife is reduced to using plastic bags. That sort of pings for me.
1 hour ago, Jellybeans said:Did you know that many grieving parents cry without tears? I even laughed inappropriately during my daughter's wake. Thank God it wasn't televised. I am still traumatized, and when I hear people talking about how someone is acting about their own child's death I am .... well, shocked.This is not directed to you- it is something I have seen come up often about Patsy's behavior and interview demeanor.
I am so sorry for your loss. :(
-
4
-
-
On 9/13/2016 at 1:15 PM, Stampiron said:
I'm not sure what John was wearing, but he'd already gotten out of the shower when Patsy yelled for him. Patsy was wearing the same outfit that she was wore to the White's the night before. That's considered very suspicious by most people. Patsy has stated that she reapplied her makeup when she got up that morning.
But it's your second point that I want to emphasize because I asked the exact same question over in the Dateline thread. I've been browsing JBR forums for a couple of years and this point doesn't get nearly enough (if any) attention.
Ask almost anyone who's been the victim of a simple burglary and they'll tell you that they felt paranoid and uncomfortable in their own home afterwards. A kidnapping of your child must be that times infinity. And they just left their other child sleeping alone in his bed. As you said, I'd think anyone in that situation would want to wake the other child up to see if they saw, heard or knew anything, but they'd also want to keep that other child as close as possible until the police arrived. Sure, different people react to things in different ways, but the Ramsey's behavior here seems inexplicable.
They hustled Burke out of the house at 7am and when a police officer stopped them they insisted he'd been asleep all night and didn't know anything. How did they know that? And according to Fleet White, who drove him over to his house, Burke didn't ask him any questions about what was going on.
Thanks! Upon further reading, it seems John showered and dressed first while Patsy skipped the shower and simply reapplied her makeup and put on the same clothes. She claimed she did that a lot - tossed yesterday's clothes on the tub and put them back on in the morning. Hey, it's a free country I guess. They were taking their private plane to Michigan where they planned a second Christmas with John's family. So my next question is: were they going straight to the party when they got off the plane or were they first going to their vacation home? I could believe she would go "dirty" on the plane if she planned to shower and change at the vacation home, but I don't believe this proud, looks-obsessed beauty queen would go dirty all the way to Michigan and then to a Christmas party. Especially where she would be photographed - friends have said she prided herself on never wearing the same thing twice.
I'm with you on the Burke thing. I can't for the life of me imagine leaving a child alone in bed without even checking to see if he's injured or scared. Never mind that the intruder could still be in the house. They didn't seem too worried about Burke, did they. :(
It's astounding that not only did they not ask him if he'd heard or seen anything, but also did not let the police try to get info from him. Their daughter is missing, why not try to get ANY info possible, no matter how small.
-
3
-
-
On 9/8/2016 at 9:19 PM, breezy424 said:
Bethenny's mother side of the story of talking to Bryn. This is before the reunion when Beth brings it up again:
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/bethenny-frankel-mom-bernadette-birk-tells-all/
Why on earth is she blabbing to Radar Online about her granddaughter? Gawd. These people.
I hope the Hoppy family is a good influence in Bryn's life because the Frankel side is a shitshow.
-
10
-
-
18 minutes ago, AZChristian said:
Patsy was wearing the same outfit she had worn the day before. One of her close friends was on last night's Dateline show, and said that Patsy was a real fashion plate and would never wear the same outfit two days in a row. She was out visiting friends the day and evening before (Christmas Day), and they were going to fly to Michigan on the 26th. I don't know if I'd wear the same clothes for two such different activities. But - as with almost everything in this case - it's all conjecture.
Thanks! BUT here's the thing, I thought she claimed to have gotten out of bed before everyone else to do some last minute laundry before they left for vacation, and that's when she found the note - when she walked from her bedroom to the laundry. She got dressed up in the previous day's clothes to do laundry?
Was John in his pajamas or also clothed?
Why did I let myself get sucked in to this story. *sigh*
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, jenrising said:
I do think they lied about Burke. But then it begs the question why. To cover for him? To keep him from talking to the cops? To try and protect him? Who knows.
Nothing about this case makes any sense.
Including the ransom note. Even if it was a planned abduction that went awry, that note makes no sense. For starters, a kidnapper would have asked for WAY more money imo. The Ramsays had a boat, a plane, two homes, billion dollar software company, etc. Why ask for 118k?
-
4
-
-
On 9/2/2016 at 1:02 PM, hoosier80 said:
Watching what I assume is a rerun today. I've never seen it before, but the location is in Arizona or at least it's in the southwest somewhere. The brides are all waiting for the groom to get out of the limo, and there's cacti all over the place with sand (looks almost like they dropped the brides at the side of a road in the middle of nowhere). Anyhow, I think every bride had an outdoor ceremony, and some had everything outside. At the first wedding, themed as an old Hollywood wedding, everyone was complaining about how hot it was. I can't think that was a shocker, given where they were. Not sure why they'd all want outdoor ceremonies given that it could be hotter than hell there (a lot of the time). One had an outdoor reception, under the stars, which looked pretty, except there were bugs all over the place. They had a bonfire and a log rolled off the pile as one of the brides was trying to toast her marshmallow. Of course, she said she had to take points off for that. I hate that, like something happens the bride couldn't control and 'oh, I have to take off points for that'. She couldn't have taken off too many points, because I think that couple won?? (I'm half watching as I work from home today).
Totally agree about the happy hour and the 'not enough food' comment. I've seen it go the other way where there was a lot of food, and then some brides complained that there was too much food.
You can tell that some make snide comments or pick at everything because they want to win.
This bugs me, too! So far I have seen points deducted because a fly fell in someone's wine, a log rolled out of the bonfire, the weather wasn't perfect, there was a power outage, someone couldn't walk in their inappropriate shoes... none of those things are in the bride's control! And then there's the points deducted because contestants can't handle anyone from a different culture, such as when a couple dared to honor their parents' heritage and had parts of their ceremony in a language besides English, and (my personal favorite) the wedding wasn't in a church and all weddings should be in churches.
But I watch for the occasional moments of High Tackiness, like the bride who wrote and performed her own crappy processional song, and the cheap paper "red carpet" at a Hollywood Glamour theme reception. There was also a bride who walked up the aisle while apparently three sheets to the wind. Good times.
-
1
-
-
Well this thread is called What We Already Know, and I know close to diddly-squat, but here are two questions for anyone who is more well-read on this case:
- What were John and Patsy wearing when the PD showed up? And was Patsy made up or bare faced?
- According to John and Patsy, Burke slept through everything. According to Burke, he was awakened by Patsy coming in his room saying "Where's my baby?" and he elected to just keep quiet. Does anyone else think it's odd that Patsy and John had just found a ransom note saying their daughter was kidnapped, but they did not (apparently) check with Burke to make sure he was alive and okay, and then ask him if he had seen or heard anything? And then they left him alone in his bed even though for all they knew the kidnapper could still be in the house? There seemed to be very little care or concern for Burke's safety on the part of John and Patsy, and very little attempt to get info about the alleged kidnapping from the one person who had been sleeping on the same floor, and therefore possibly within ear shot (or eye shot).
Things that make me go hmmmmm.....
-
7
-
-
On 9/6/2016 at 1:35 PM, walnutqueen said:
Plus, they are allowed to lie to you for any reason, and you can be prosecuted for lying to them. I've seen enough police "interviews" to see how quickly things can turn south for an innocent person. No thanks. I have a purse ulu, car console hatchet and recliner machete for personal protection; why wouldn't I protect myself from the intentional abrogation of my civil rights by an "officer of the law" hellbent on closing a case with the least amount of effort possible?
Lordy, I've missed you. :)
On 9/6/2016 at 1:36 PM, tobeannounced said:Speaking of FBI profiling upthread, does anyone know if the FBI did a profile on who the killer might be? Many times they are uncannily close.
Both John Douglas and Robert Ressler did their own profiles, but not in an official capacity. Were the FBI even asked to do one by the Boulder PD? Typically they have to be asked. I also wonder if the Vidocq Society has tackled this, but again it would have to be at the invitation of both the PD and the family. And neither of those parties seem particularly interested in going under a microscope. :/
So this show pissed me off from the start with the awful, cheesy music and Rachel Handshaw's terrible narration, but when the BIG REVEAL of "startling new evidence" turned out to be from the unqualified Dutch quack who has been barred from testifying in an ongoing sexual assault trial?!?!?!?! ARGH.
"A Denver prosecutor got Eikelenboom to admit that he had no direct DNA extraction or analysis experience, that he operates a lab that has not been accredited, that he personally failed his basic proficiency texts in 2011 and 2012, and admitted that he was a 'self-trained' in running DNA profiles," the DA's office said.
-
6
-
-
18 hours ago, JasonCC said:
http://ktep.org/post/heres-who-will-be-speaking-donald-trumps-republican-convention
The Trump campaign must really be scraping when they give a soap actress who hasn't done anything in at least 18 years a speaking slot at the convention?!? What the hell!?
ETA: I mean, even though she is a Y&R villain legend she has little-to-no name recognition anywhere else and isn't known for any other role whatsoever. Even an Eric Braeden or Susan Lucci would raise skeptical eyebrows to be given speaking slots at a National Convention for one of the two major parties---this is fishing into complete obscurity. Perhaps she is a local delegate for the party who got lucky this year.
Personally, I am in love with the idea that Nurse Sheila Carter has moved on to politics! She'll fit right in with the Washington crowd! (Does Paul still have that cage in his basement or does he need to build a new one?)
-
6
-
-
On 7/12/2016 at 4:47 PM, auntjess said:
I agree the FBI could spend its resources on more pressing matters, but what an intriguing case. On that note, any recommendations for good true crime eps or docs about Cooper? Not History Channel conspiracy crap, but something that's balanced and well thought out.
-
Okay so this bleeds over from my Unsolved Mysteries reruns fetish, but I would like to see Keith (or anyone from Dateline) take a fresh look at the Crystal Spencer case:
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-02-24/news/mn-2042_1_spencer-case
Plenty of creepy stuff for Keith to work with, starting with the fact that the medical examiner's report seems to reference the wrong corpse, working our way to the fact that the FBI had a file on Crystal and her fingerprints were on record with two different LE agencies (why?), moving along to the mysterious job offer in Japan, and maybe ending with the cop's cryptic statement that "bad things happen to bad girls" while maintaining there was nothing to investigate because she died of natural causes (even though her body was so badly decomposed that the cause of death was undetermined). I mean, maybe a healthy young woman did fall dead from the flu with her pants off after making ungodly cries/screams that rattled the neighbors, but...
Keith could wax poetic about small town girls with big Hollywood dreams. You know he loves that stuff.
-
2
-
-
On 7/11/2016 at 10:47 AM, psychoticstate said:
@glowlights, I also think the victims' families deserve to be present. I understand why Debra Tate wants to be there, even if Van Houten didn't participate in her sister's murder. Giving Van Houten parole sets precedent. If she's paroled, the clock is ticking on paroling Patricia Krenwinkle.
Watson and Beausoleil are both up for parole in October. Debra Tate is petitioning the governor of CA to deny parole for them as well as Van Houten, if anyone's interested:
-
3
-
-
Anyone interested in Houten's situation might like this piece by John Waters, which is excerpted from his book Role Models:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-waters/leslie-van-houten-a-frien_b_246953.html
I disagree with him, btw, and think the victims' families such as Debra Tate (Sharon Tate's sister) should be listened to.
p.s. WalnutQueen you always have the best stories! But mainly I'm just glad the creeps left your barn and you're here with us today.
-
3
-
-
^^ Holy shit, he looks like Bob from Twin Peaks:
-
2
-
-
On 5/22/2016 at 5:36 PM, Kitty Redstone said:
The David Riemens disappearance was a strange one. I think he was probably killed by a friend who knew he was planning a trip and would have cash on him, and who lured him away from the parking lot with a plea for help or an offer for lunch or something. It didn't sound like he would have gotten in a car with a stranger or someone he barely knew, like the old man with the building project. And if the contractors on that job were so evasive or shady (or however they were described), would he have kept going back to the site to get more bricks all by himself? He lived a simple life but seemed too sophisticated for that. IDK.
I sure don't believe he left his family, dog and friends to go live as a damn hobo, though. That was so ridiculous I can't believe Disappeared even gave it the five minutes that they did.
I watched the David Riemens ep last week. I find it hard to believe it would be that hard to locate the alleged building site (where he said he was getting bricks) within such a short drive of town, or that no one (old man, contractors, etc.) has come forward, and no one knows who that old man was.
Not sure about the situation in Tennessee but in some urban areas it's actually a "thing" to steal vintage bricks or cobble stones and reuse them in renos. Maybe David made the whole story up about where he was really getting those rare bricks from. One thing I found odd was that similar bricks were often used for railway stations, and he had done a series of paintings about railroads.
-
3
-
-
Pretty sure this is a UO, so:
I've decided I want Devonne to stay. The way he toddled out of the GCAC and then barged into Hillary's room screeching, "What are you doing? Why are you in the hospital?" was one of the funniest things I've seen in a loooong time. So if we could please have an entire sl of Devonne following Hillary everywhere around GC and screaming "what are you doing?" in his warbly little voice, I will be solidly Team Devonne.
And if they could have Lily's head explode all over the GCAC linens from the thought of Hillary getting Chancellor money, I'll take back all the bad things I've ever said about her. Maybe she can come back to haunt Sharon so we get to enjoy the explosion over and over...
-
5
-
-
On 6/29/2016 at 1:44 PM, Jextella said:
You mean Landon's ROAM?
Yes, Landon's arts and travel and arts and stuff site. Haven't been to it in a while but it used to say "work for us!" or words to that effect. And someone on PTV said they'd inquired...
I admit I signed up for their newsletter and have received nothing since the confirmation email. Way to stoke interest, Landon!
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, bichonblitz said:
How do we know that Andy required her to be present at the reunion when she didn't want to be? I'm just curious, several posters have said this and I'm wondering how they know? Isn't it in their contract that they are to be at the reunion? If she didn't want to be subjected to having to explain herself then maybe she should choose not to be on the show at all next season. Doubt that's gonna happen. She'll be there front and center stealing the spotlight with her craziness all over again.
You're right, I'm going by other people's statements and fair enough it might not be true. But... I'm also going by Andy's reputation and past antics. :/
Pretty sure it's in their contracts to be present, but there should be an allowance for illness, which includes mental illness or substance problems, imo. Maybe the decent thing to do would be to kill Kathryn's contract for her.
-
2
-
-
On 6/27/2016 at 11:42 AM, NewDigs said:
^^^ And what judge in their right (fair, non-partial) mind would grant a change of venue to a location closer to the outrage???
Boggles the mind.
Was it easier to seat a jury there?
I remember being flabbergasted by the choice of venue for that murder case in Terlingua (there was a mini-series on National Geographic about it, sorry can't recall the name). There were other larger cities to choose from that would not only be more impartial but also easier to seat juries, and instead for some stupid bureaucratic reasons they went with practically a ghost town where it was known that they couldn't seat juries. The verdict was a joke. Anyway, just wondered if court logistics came into play with this case, too.
-
1
-
-
Okay, I can't find it now, but I could swear someone here said they'd applied for a job at Roam. Update? Pleeeeeeaaaase?
-
Did anyone ask Thomas what he meant by referring to Kensie as a derivative? He needs to be challenged on that, although I suspect if we were to look inside his head all we'd see is a little graveyard for dead brain cells.
It sounds like Craig wants to be a lawyer the way I wanted to be an astronaut when I was a little kid. It's okay, Craig, there'll always be a job making coffee for JD.
I believe Kathryn is at the intersection of mental illness and substance abuse, and imo it was really gross that Andy required her to be present when she didn't want to be and was by all accounts acting "off". He's become nothing more than a sleazy sideshow profiteer. Although... did Cooper style Kathryn for the reunion? I need an explanation for that necklace.
-
7
-
-
I've tried
threefour times to reply with quotes and the site keeps freezing and booting me out, and now I'm grumpy.I've seen no evidence of any of these characters being "recreated". It's a prequel. By definition it needs to jibe with the original, and I think they've done a great job so far. It's an expansion on the original themes, not a do-over.
There will eventually be a nail in the coffin for James McGill, Esquire that causes Jimmy to give up and embrace his old alter ego of Saul Goodman, but my money is on Kim. The relationship with Chuck is duty-bound and has always been a shit show (and Chuck is easily neutralized thanks to his psych problems - for that matter, there is security tape evidence of Chuck acting like a loon and scaring customers), but imo Kim has Jimmy's heart.
Seriously, if you were changing your name to avoid being associated with past troubles, would you really continue to practice in the same city, at the same court house, and splash yourself all over local tv, while openly telling new clients your real name? That's why I believe it's more like a dba and he's comfortable playing that old alter ego - it certainly fits with the style of law he practices!
Out of idle curiosity: are lawyers allowed to use a dba or do they have to do a full legal name change?
This is all disjointed but fuck it, I'm hitting "submit" before the site freezes again...
-
4
-
-
On 6/24/2016 at 11:21 PM, Quilt Fairy said:
And yet, at some point there has to be a pivotal event that turns Jimmy McGill into Saul Goodman, and I think this could be it.
I'm not sure what counts as spoilers here, since there is some cross-over from BB, but I could swear that either in an ep of BB or in a Bob Odenkirk interview it was said that Jimmy changed his name to Saul because
Spoilerthe "home boys" his slimy strip mall practice catered to preferred to have a Jewish lawyer.
That wouldn't really fit with Jimmy changing his name to get around charges of misconduct pertaining to falsifying those documents at the copy store.
SpoilerAlso, "Saul Goodman" is practicing in plain sight in Albuquerque, with loud t.v. ads to boot. He's also representing clients in the same jail and at the same court house where he used to be a public defender. Everyone involved could see it's Jimmy McGill.
Personally, I think the name change is tied to what Jimmy told Mike at the end of Season 1, when he said he wasn't being held back any longer (I forget the exact line), as well as the first ep of Season 1 when Nacho told Jimmy he's "in the game". We're seeing Jimmy's long slide into "fuck it" territory, as well as being "in the game". The way Saul Goodman operated throughout BB is the logical conclusion of what Jimmy said to Mike at the end of Season 1.
-
2
-
The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey - General Discussion
in The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey
Thanks for the info re: the Christmas plans! If I had a private plane I'm pretty sure I would fly in my pajamas and flip-flops, so I'm no one to judge a gal who picked up the same clothes while getting ready to leave. It sounds out of character for her given that they were meeting with John's kids and no doubt there would be photos (being "caught") but whatever. Like you said, these little details only seem so odd when trying to put the whole picture together. What a sad, crazy story.