General Discussion /Post Karr

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Patsy's jacket fibers were "consistent with" which according to Dr. Lee does not equate to "same as." Patsy's house, Patsy's paint tray .........why can't you understand that Patsy's fibers could be all over the house?

BTW, were any fibers from Helgoth's Kenady's and Oliva's possesions ever tested?

"Consistent with" is as close a match as you get in fiber analysis.

That jacket wasn't a jacket that Patsy wore every "all over the house", it was part of a seasonal Christmas outfit. She claims she was not downstairs on Christmas day, and did not handle her paint tray while wearing it.

Why would those fibers be tied into the knot then? At some point common sense should override the denial the Ramseys have insisted on all these years. There is no innocuous reason for those fibers consistent with the same jacket Patsy wore Christmas night and was still wearing the morning of the 26th to be on that tape or tied into that knot.

I don't know if they tested those men for fibers consistent with those found in the crime. How do you suppose they were able to leave absolutely no forensic evidence of being in the house other than those fibers? How did the fibers from John's black shirt get on JonBenet's genitals?

And you didn't answer the original question: What forensic evidence is there that anyone other than a Ramsey was in the house that night?

[Jayelles]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Patsy said she did NOT eat pineapple before the party.

The Whites did NOT serve pineapple at the party.

It's not gossip, it's one of the mysteries of the case.

It's no more gossip than the flashlight or the footprints or any other evidence they managed to collect.

As Lou SMit says - "It's the bugaboo".

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You really think John should have told YOU what he whispered to Patsy or everything that happens in their bedroom or even if they even made love that night? Ye gads, talk about voyeurism.

Gee, you have a dirty mind to twist my words around like that & intimate that I asked an inappropriate question.

My point was John said he didn't know if Patsy was already asleep when he went upstairs after finishing up with Burke. Just that she was in bed.

He was asked because they wanted to know if Patsy took off her CLOTHES that night. The next time John saw her, she was wearing the same exact clothes, remember.

But not a word between those two. She's already in bed... awake or asleep, he has no idea. He reads & goes to sleep.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Gee, you have a dirty mind to twist my words around like that & intimate that I asked an inappropriate question.

My point was John said he didn't know if Patsy was already asleep when he went upstairs after finishing up with Burke. Just that she was in bed.

He was asked because they wanted to know if Patsy took off her CLOTHES that night. The next time John saw her, she was wearing the same exact clothes, remember.

But not a word between those two. She's already in bed... awake or asleep, he has no idea. He reads & goes to sleep.

LOL I have a dirty mind?? :rolleyes: You assume they didn't have a "warm relationship" because not everything he "whispered" to his wife in their bedroom was "reported..what makes you think it should be and WHY would it matter to you? :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


*snipped*

"How did the fibers from John's black shirt get on JonBenet's genitals?" :eek:

MR. WOOD: I think the position

18 is, to save some time, if you want to

19 question Mr. Ramsey about test results, that

20 it is absolutely fair that we be allowed to

21 see the result ourselves before we answer

22 questions so that we are not dealing with

23 speculation and hypotheticals that are not

24 supported by the facts as you might represent

25 them.

0055

1 We couldn't get yesterday what I

2 discerned to be a consistent response from

3 any of you all about the test results that

4 you discussed on the red fiber. That just

5 tells me that, to try to go into this area

6 without being privy to the actual result, is

7 not something I am comfortable with in terms

8 of fundamental fairness. If you are willing

9 to disclose to us what you claim the result

10 to be, it makes absolutely no sense to me

11 that you would not share the actual result

12 with us. I do not see how that can in any

13 justified way impede your investigation or

14 prevent you from going forward with your

15 investigation.

19 If you are going to make

20 statements that contain some form of innuendo

21 that an article of clothing might possibly be

22 connected to some portion of the crime scene

23 or this man's daughter's body, I think you

24 have an obligation, not only to him but to

25 whoever reads that report and this

0057

1 transcript, to be candid and give full

2 disclosure, show the people what the results

3 are, show the people what you also had in

4 terms of fiber evidence.

5 We are told there are hundreds of

6 fibers, for example, on the duct tape. And

7 I think you have a fundamental right,

8 fundamental fairness requires that you

9 disclose that information and not single out

10 some hypothetical innuendo that unfairly casts

11 perhaps in someone's mind that reads this

12 some finger of blame at John or Patsy

13 Ramsey.
21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is

22 our belief based on forensic evidence that

23 there are hairs that are associated, that the

24 source is the collared black shirt that you

25 sent us that are found in your daughter's

0058

1 underpants, and I wondered if you --

2 A. Bull****. I don't believe that.

3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to

4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --

5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to

6 disgrace --

7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I

8 think you are. That's disgusting.

9 MR. WOOD: I think you --

10 MR. LEVIN: I am not.

11 MR. WOOD: Yes, you are.

12 MR. LEVIN: And the follow-up

13 question would be --

14 MR. WOOD: Posing the question in

15 light of what I said to you yesterday is

16 nothing more than an attempt to make a

17 record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a

18 disgusting fashion points what you might

19 consider to be some finger of blame at this

20 man regarding his daughter, and you ought to

21 be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce.

22 You knew we weren't going to

23 answer the question. Why don't you just

24 give us the report, and we'll put it out

25 there for someone to look at and tell us

0059

1 what it says and see how fair and accurate

2 you have been.

3 I know why you said what you said

4 yesterday about Patsy and the fibers and John

5 and the fibers. And you know why you did

6 it, Bruce. Because you want this somehow to
7 get out and then people will read that and

8 be prejudiced even further against this

9 family.



2 MR. LEVIN: Now, Mr. Wood, if I

3 can just respond very briefly, and I want

4 Mr. Ramsey to listen to this because it's

5 important, the suggestion is that I am

6 suggesting that the only explanation for that

7 question is sinister. I am a part of a

8 team conducting an investigation into your

9 daughter's death, and an innocent explanation

10 that would help us further that investigation

11 is very welcome. I am not looking for a

12 sinister answer or innocent answer.

13 MR. WOOD: If you are looking for

14 that, then give us the test result and let

15 us know what it says.

16 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, the fact

17 of --

18 MR. WOOD: No, Bruce. If you

19 wanted the answer so badly, you would give

20 us the test result instead of representing

21 what the test result is. I, for the life

22 of me, do not understand the logic.

23 You say we can tell you what the

24 test result is, but we can't show you the

25 test result. So trust us, Mr. Ramsey, and

0063

1 answer this hypothetical question.

2 If that information means that

3 much to this investigation, Bruce, you would

4 not hesitate to give us that report, period.

5 So let's move to something else.

6 MR. LEVIN: Let's move on to

7 another topic.

8 THE WITNESS: If the question is

9 how did fibers of your shirt get into your

10 daughter's underwear, I say that is not

11 possible. I don't believe it. That is

12 ridiculous.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm

As far as I know to this day NO one in the public has seen the reports on fiber evidence, where it was found or what fibers were tested from other sources. "investigators" did just what they wanted to do and Wood saw through................... an attempt to make a

17 record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a

18 disgusting fashion points what you might

19 consider to be some finger of blame at this

20 man regarding his daughter, And you know why you did

6 it, Bruce. Because you want this somehow to
7 get out and then people will read that and

8 be prejudiced even further against this

9 family.

[bullmoose]

I too have read the book 'Perfect Town Perfect Murder' along with each one written by each cop; and of course the one by the Ramseys themslves; I may be wrong, but best theory as to why Patsy supposedly popped her cork and garrotted JonBenet that night was that she had yet again wet her bed, and it was simply too much for Patsy to let her daughter live after making a wet mess of her bed. At least that is the theory of the BPD that I gathered from my reading. As a motive or reason for murder it simply strikes me as one of the dumber ideas to come from the BPD. Not that they didn't have boatloads more, but they really stuck with that one. As hohum pointed out, there was absolutely no history of anything with the Ramseys that would validate that line of reasoning. Boulders' woefully untrained Keystoners simply became totally convinced of the Ramseys statistically likely guilt and seemingly looked nowhere else. I remember Patsy in Atlanta in that first CNN interview tearfully saying that the citizens of Boulder should watch their children very closely because there was a child murderer, a pscho roaming free in Boulder. And this was when they were first in Atlanta to bury their daughter. My impression of Patsy was that she was nearly incoherant at times with her grief in that interview. I for one found her convincing; I did and still think she was heavily medicated for the shock and grief she was exibiting. But what happened,? I think the very next day the mayor of Boulder came out in the national news and the Boulder paper that the parents of children in Boulder had nothing I mean nothing to fear from an uncaught madman in that town. There was no childkiller in Boulder, according to the mayor; remember the Ramseys were in Atlanta burying their child; the obvious inference was that the known killers were in Atlanta. Where did the mayor get the assurances that the killers werent in Boulder? From the Keystone Kop chief of police. If that isn't crass tunnelvision, I don't know is. So John and Patsy, very early on knew that they were in effect the only suspects. And so they lawyered up and asserted their rights not to submit to what was in effect a witch hunt. Then came all the leaks and lies from the cops saying the Ramseys were not cooperative with them. They just asserted their legal rights ; I would have done the same thing. The cops obviously wanted a free hand to try to bully confessions in marathon sessions. So they didn't let them try. Like I say, I' still convinced of their innocence.bullmoose

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by SilSal
but we don't KNOW what Patsy was thinking or how much stress she was going through...

They didn't talk to the cops for ages...

They got preferential treatment with the DA...it was a coverup..

The books that are out are only opinions of the writers...

Too much BS from the Ramsey's to believe they are innocent.

Ages? Quite an exageration!

Preferential treatment by calling a grand jury? :rolleyes:

I agree the books are ONLY opinions.

IMO there was too much BS from cops and media to believe they were guilty. If they had evidence they would have prosecuted instead of "leaking" BS. The GJ heard the evidence and did not indict. The judge in the civil case said there was more evidence pointing towards an intruder than there was pointing to the Ramsey's.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
So basically, Breezy, it was just another "investigative" technique used to try to discredit/place blame on the Ramseys.......

Thanks.......

Yep, more BS from cops and NEVER shown to the Ramsey's or the public yet there are posters swearing the fibers from John and Patsy were on JonBeent where they should not have been. A deliberate destruction of this family based on BS trying to get them to confess and even after all these years and Patsy dying with no "deathbed confession" they continue to sperad the BS. You know darn well if there was any evidence they would have been prosecuted a long time ago.


"The Commission found that the problem was far more widespread than assumed. Typically, greed or corruption was not the motivation behind officers giving perjured testimony. They would routinely lie under oath to conceal illegal acts of fellow officers. They saw such "testilying" as a "legitimate" law enforcement tool for putting persons they believed guilty behind bars. Worse, members of the law enforcement community informed the Commission that prosecutors routinely tolerated the conduct! "

http://www.nacdl.org/PUBLIC/ABUSE/CR000007.htm

These cops didn't even testilie under oath, they just leaked and asked questions making the gullible public believe the Ramseys were guilty based on the cops LIES. Obviously many people would rather believe lies and let killers free than to face the fact they are gullible and not all cops are honest...............but of course if the gullible ones are ever "under the umbrella" their tune will quickly change.

[LI_Mom]

You bring up a good point, Breezy.

Team Ramsey refused to allow their client to cooperate with the investigators & to answer questions unless they were given access to the results of the testing first.

In other words, Team Ramsey probably knew the only way they were legally entitled to this type of info is after the Ramseys were OFFICIALLY declared suspects.

And they also gambled that the police would not show all their cards just in order to get answers to their questions.

And you wonder why the police could not exclude the Ramseys? Because their lawyers insisted that they be afforded the rights of crimminal DEFENDANTS from the beginning.

[LI_Mom]

Oh and John's 'shock' over their question is really besides the point. As the father, he very well might have had a perfectly innocent reason for having his shirt fibers show up on his daughter. Especially if he had put her on the toilet that night before bed. Instead of answering the question, they object to the question.

This is like when he was asked about taking a polygraph & his response was that he was "insulted."

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
You bring up a good point, Breezy.

Team Ramsey refused to allow their client to cooperate with the investigators & to answer questions unless they were given access to the results of the testing first.

In other words, Team Ramsey probably knew the only way they were legally entitled to this type of info is after the Ramseys were OFFICIALLY declared suspects.

And they also gambled that the police would not show all their cards just in order to get answers to their questions.

And you wonder why the police could not exclude the Ramseys? Because their lawyers insisted that they be afforded the rights of crimminal DEFENDANTS from the beginning.

"Team Ramsey" was smart and it kept them out of jail unlike those who did "co-operate" and were tricked by lying crooked cops who think they know everything BEFORE even investiagting anything EXCEPT under their "umbrella".


No I don't wonder why the police could not exclude the Ramseys, I know why. They made up theri minds from the get go the Ramseys were guilty and nothing was going to change their minds. They "cleared" all other leads with the same DNA that didn't clear the Ramseys'. They didn't question people for months or even years after the murder that could have had answers to what happened to JonBenet. They DID question everyone who ever knew the Ramseys from grade school on TRYING to dig up dirt. When they couldn't they "leaked" LIES trying to "smoke them out". They were treated like official suspects from the beginning and it was their constitutional right to have a lawyer and cops didn't like it. Too bad you don't think the Constitution means anything but I can bet if you ever find yourself under that umbrella you will learn real fast it does mean something VERY important and you will want the rights guaranteed by it that you THINK proves the Ramseys guilty in this case. :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Yep, more BS from cops and NEVER shown to the Ramsey's or the public yet there are posters swearing the fibers from John and Patsy were on JonBeent where they should not have been. A deliberate destruction of this family based on BS trying to get them to confess and even after all these years and Patsy dying with no "deathbed confession" they continue to sperad the BS. You know darn well if there was any evidence they would have been prosecuted a long time ago.



I don't know that anyone ever expected a deathbed confession from Patsy.

It doesn't make much sense that she'd confess knowing that John & Burke would be left to deal with the bombshell.

Not to mention, the lawsuits that the family would probably face as a result. I would think the people & corporations that the Ramseys sued in civil court would rush to recover all the money they handed over to the Ramseys.

I think it would have likely bankrupted John.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
Oh and John's 'shock' over their question is really besides the point. As the father, he very well might have had a perfectly innocent reason for having his shirt fibers show up on his daughter. Especially if he had put her on the toilet that night before bed. Instead of answering the question, they object to the question.

This is like when he was asked about taking a polygraph & his response was that he was "insulted."

I can't believe an adult can be that naive to "pretend" you don't know exactly what the cops were getting at. If in fact you really are, you better start studying your rights if ever questioned by cops.

IF there were fibers from his shirt there would be NO harm in showing the report, but it was just so much easier for them to LIE and try to trick the Ramsyes and it just didn't work because IMO they ARE innocent.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


"Team Ramsey" was smart and it kept them out of jail unlike those who did "co-operate" and were tricked by lying crooked cops who think they know everything BEFORE even investiagting anything EXCEPT under their "umbrella".


No I don't wonder why the police could not exclude the Ramseys, I know why. They made up theri minds from the get go the Ramseys were guilty and nothing was going to change their minds. They "cleared" all other leads with the same DNA that didn't clear the Ramseys'. They didn't question people for months or even years after the murder that could have had answers to what happened to JonBenet. They DID question everyone who ever knew the Ramseys from grade school on TRYING to dig up dirt. When they couldn't they "leaked" LIES trying to "smoke them out". They were treated like official suspects from the beginning and it was their constitutional right to have a lawyer and cops didn't like it. Too bad you don't think the Constitution means anything but I can bet if you ever find yourself under that umbrella you will learn real fast it does mean something VERY important and you will want the rights guaranteed by it that you THINK proves the Ramseys guilty in this case. :shrug:

Listen, I have NEVER said the Ramseys were not legally entitled to mount an all out defense.

I have NEVER said their number one priority shouldn't be to avoid being held responsible.

I DID say, that I think they concentrated the majority of their resources to protecting themselves at the expense of solving the crime.

I think their 'team' did an excellent job of protecting their clients BUT I think they made tactical mistakes that made it more difficult for their clients to be excluded. And in doing so, the lawyers made it impossible for many professionals (working on the case AND consulting on the case) to ever really believe in the Ramseys innocence.

Asking to be afforded the legal rights of crimminal defendants was a double-edged sword. It left them in limbo.... never named suspects nut never excluded either.

And poor Jonbenet never had justice. The REAL victim.

[SilSal]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Ages? Quite an exageration!

Preferential treatment by calling a grand jury? :rolleyes:

I agree the books are ONLY opinions.

IMO there was too much BS from cops and media to believe they were guilty. If they had evidence they would have prosecuted instead of "leaking" BS. The GJ heard the evidence and did not indict. The judge in the civil case said there was more evidence pointing towards an intruder than there was pointing to the Ramsey's.

The Ramseys were never taken to the police station for questioning. If they had separated them right away we might know exactly what happened.

the GJ didn't indict because of Hunter (it was he calling the shots)...the "judge" you are referring to is Carnes and is going along with the other crooked DA (lacey)...who was friends of the Ramseys..

What did the cops screw up?

[nuisanceposter]

MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4653


Let's finish that quote breezy provided...I think the last comment ties into LI_Mom's notice that Ramsey becomes indignant rather than answer the question.

12 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, if you
13 would like to, I would challenge youto find
14 any article anywhere that I have been quoted
15 as giving an opinion or any statement to the
16 press concerning this case.
17 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be
18 quoted. You don't have to be quoted.
19 MR. LEVIN: Or any piece of
20 evidence that I have released.
21 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be
22 quoted. You do not have to be quoted.

Here's the important part:

23 MR. LEVIN: This is a murder
24 investigation, and I am trying to get an
25 explanation, which can be an innocent
0060
1 explanation.

http://www.acandyrose.com/atl2000-interviews-john-ramsey.txt


Ramsey can't even give an innocent explanantion. Instead of answer the question, he resorts to distraction through outrage. Just like when he was offended about being asked to take a polygraph - HELLO, JOHN! Isn't finding your daughter's killer so that she has justice and other little girls aren't murdered this way MORE IMPORTANT than your pride???


Finding the fibers were not made up by cops, and with Meyer mentioning it himself, I see no reason to think it was. They fibers were noted by a coroner and a law enforcement official.

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/09/29-5.html

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I didn't expect a deathbed confession because - IMO - she didn't have anything to confess.

Well Breezy is the one who pointed out that Patsy didn't make a deathbed confession, as if that was indicative of something.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4653


Let's finish that quote breezy provided...I think the last comment ties into LI_Mom's notice that Ramsey becomes indignant rather than answer the question.

12 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, if you
13 would like to, I would challenge youto find
14 any article anywhere that I have been quoted
15 as giving an opinion or any statement to the
16 press concerning this case.
17 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be
18 quoted. You don't have to be quoted.
19 MR. LEVIN: Or any piece of
20 evidence that I have released.
21 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be
22 quoted. You do not have to be quoted.

Here's the important part:

23 MR. LEVIN: This is a murder
24 investigation, and I am trying to get an
25 explanation, which can be an innocent
0060
1 explanation.

http://www.acandyrose.com/atl2000-interviews-john-ramsey.txt


Ramsey can't even give an innocent explanantion. Instead of answer the question, he resorts to distraction through outrage. Just like when he was offended about being asked to take a polygraph - HELLO, JOHN! Isn't finding your daughter's killer so that she has justice and other little girls aren't murdered this way MORE IMPORTANT than your pride???


Finding the fibers were not made up by cops, and with Meyer mentioning it himself, I see no reason to think it was. They fibers were noted by a coroner and a law enforcement official.

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/09/29-5.html

IMO them matching or even consistant with Patsy's or John's clothes is pure BS. If they can TELL the Ramseys about them they can SHOW the actual report.

Ye gads, haven't you heard of cops getting confession from suspects by telling them their fingerprints matched, blood matched, they failed a lie detector etc to get a confession out of them? It did NOT work with the Ramseys.

Some modern methods include:

Feigned sympathy and friendship.
Appeals to God and religion.
Blaming the victim or an accomplice.
Placing the suspect in a soundproof, starkly furnished room.
Approaching the suspect too closely for comfort.
Overstating or understating the seriousness of the offense and the
magnitude of the charges.
Presenting exaggerated claims about the evidence.
Falsely claiming that another person has already confessed and implicated
the suspect.
Other forms of trickery and deception.
Wearing a person down by a very long interview session.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/false_co.htm

The use of false evidence (including statements such as, "Your fingerprints are on the gun") in interrogation is implicated in almost every false-confession case, but American courts have upheld the practice. This is not to say that police intentionally ensnare the innocent. Kassin notes that detectives are trained to believe they can make accurate judgments about a suspect's truthfulness, though "there's a level of overconfidence in the initial judgment, and they begin the interrogation with a presumption of guilt." Gudjonsson agrees: "Police officers need to know that they can elicit a false confession even if they don't intend to."


http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030430-000002.html

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Ramsey can't even give an innocent explanantion. Instead of answer the question, he resorts to distraction through outrage. Just like when he was offended about being asked to take a polygraph - HELLO, JOHN! Isn't finding your daughter's killer so that she has justice and other little girls aren't murdered this way MORE IMPORTANT than your pride???


The best defense is an offense. And it's even more effective when your opponent is weak.


---

Perfect Murder, Perfect Town
Page 55-56

Several hours before the Ramseys left for Atlanta that sunday, detective linda Arndt sent a fax to Bryan Morgan, the Ramseys' newly hired criminal attorney. It was two pages long:

I realize the Ramsey family will be out of the state for an unknown amount of time after this afternoon. If it is possible, would you meet with John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey, and Burke Ramsey and see if the (the police) could get answers to any of these questions. I appreciate your assistance. I am available through dispatch at the above pager number.

Det. Linda Arndt

Question: Jonbenét's immediate family

John, Patsy, and Burke Ramsey

What time did each of you go to your bedroom?
What time did each of you go to sleep?
Was your bedroom door open or closed?
Was there any TV or radio on when you went to bed?
What had JonBenét eaten before she went to bed?
Where, specifically, was the ransom note found?
What did Patsy do after she found the ransom note?
Who was the first person Patsy contacted after the note was found?
How did John find out that JonBenét was missing?
What interior house lights were on when the family went to bed?
What exterior lights were on when the family went to bed?
Who checked the doors and windows of the house to see if they were secure?
What was JonBenét wearing when she went to bed on Christmas night?
What time was the family planning on leaving the home on the morning of December 26th, 1996?
What time did each of you wake up on the morning of December 26th, 1996?
Did any of you get up during the night?

-----


What a GIFT to the Ramsey defense team.

What I never understood is why the Boulder Police didn't fire Arndt on the spot. I suppose they still needed her since she was at the house that morning but boy she was a walking, talking disaster for the investigation.


And even after this gift from Arndt, Team Ramsey STILL took 4 months to arrange for the Ramseys to be formally questioned? Why? (They knew they COULD.)

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


IMO them matching or even consistant with Patsy's or John's clothes is pure BS. If they can TELL the Ramseys about them they can SHOW the actual report.


Don't they have to formally declare them SUSPECTS in order to do that?


That's why the Ramsey defense team was so brilliant. They figured why allow the Ramseys to help the investigators if they could force the investigators to turn over their records.


And that's exactly what Fleet White ended up doing later on in this case but somehow the Ramsey defenders find THAT suspicious & objectionable.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


The best defense is an offense. And it's even more effective when your opponent is weak.


---

Perfect Murder, Perfect Town
Page 55-56

Several hours before the Ramseys left for Atlanta that sunday, detective linda Arndt sent a fax to Bryan Morgan, the Ramseys' newly hired criminal attorney. It was two pages long:

I realize the Ramsey family will be out of the state for an unknown amount of time after this afternoon. If it is possible, would you meet with John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey, and Burke Ramsey and see if the (the police) could get answers to any of these questions. I appreciate your assistance. I am available through dispatch at the above pager number.

Det. Linda Arndt

Question: Jonbenét's immediate family

John, Patsy, and Burke Ramsey

What time did each of you go to your bedroom?
What time did each of you go to sleep?
Was your bedroom door open or closed?
Was there any TV or radio on when you went to bed?
What had JonBenét eaten before she went to bed?
Where, specifically, was the ransom note found?
What did Patsy do after she found the ransom note?
Who was the first person Patsy contacted after the note was found?
How did John find out that JonBenét was missing?
What interior house lights were on when the family went to bed?
What exterior lights were on when the family went to bed?
Who checked the doors and windows of the house to see if they were secure?
What was JonBenét wearing when she went to bed on Christmas night?
What time was the family planning on leaving the home on the morning of December 26th, 1996?
What time did each of you wake up on the morning of December 26th, 1996?
Did any of you get up during the night?

-----


What a GIFT to the Ramsey defense team.

What I never understood is why the Boulder Police didn't fire Arndt on the spot. I suppose they still needed her since she was at the house that morning but boy she was a walking, talking disaster for the investigation.


And even after this gift from Arndt, Team Ramsey STILL took 4 months to arrange for the Ramseys to be formally questioned? Why? (They knew they COULD.)

Books, books, books.................NOT proven, opinion only :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Don't they have to formally declare them SUSPECTS in order to do that?


That's why the Ramsey defense team was so brilliant. They figured why allow the Ramseys to help the investigators if they could force the investigators to turn over their records.


And that's exactly what Fleet White ended up doing later on in this case but somehow the Ramsey defenders find THAT suspicious & objectionable.

:rolleyes: NO!!!! they do not have to declare anyone a suspect to lie to them. They can lie to anyone anytime they choose to TRY get them to incriminate themselves. Once they have been arrested and read their rights and if they STILL badger and don't let them get a lawyer then they are in jeopardy of having it thrown out at trial. The "investigators" were not trying to get the Ramsey's "help" for crying out loud and if you read the "interview" with understanding you would see that.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Books, books, books.................NOT proven, opinion only :rolleyes:

You wouldn't know about PMPT because you haven't read it. Schiller cites his sources in the back, breezy.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by SilSal


The Ramseys were never taken to the police station for questioning. If they had separated them right away we might know exactly what happened.

the GJ didn't indict because of Hunter (it was he calling the shots)...the "judge" you are referring to is Carnes and is going along with the other crooked DA (lacey)...who was friends of the Ramseys..

What did the cops screw up?

ONLY if you think the Ramsey's are guilty would you know exactly what happened. :rolleyes: I do not think they are.

Yeah everyone who looks at the evidence and dares to have any belief in truth and justice is "crooked", "biased" or "calling the shots" . :lol:

The cops screwed up EVERYTHING by NOT investigating anything or anyone except the Ramseys.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


:rolleyes: NO!!!! they do not have to declare anyone a suspect to lie to them. They can lie to anyone anytime they choose to TRY get them to incriminate themselves. Once they have been arrested and read their rights and if they STILL badger and don't let them get a lawyer then they are in jeopardy of having it thrown out at trial. The "investigators" were not trying to get the Ramsey's "help" for crying out loud and if you read the "interview" with understanding you would see that.

Do you have any PROOF that the investigators were LYING?

The only thing I read is that they were asked a question & the Ramseys refused to answer it UNTIL they were allowed to see the evidence the state had already gathered. A right that is reserved for FORMALLY NAMED SUSPECTS in order to protect their rights in a trial.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


:rolleyes: NO!!!! they do not have to declare anyone a suspect to lie to them. They can lie to anyone anytime they choose to TRY get them to incriminate themselves. Once they have been arrested and read their rights and if they STILL badger and don't let them get a lawyer then they are in jeopardy of having it thrown out at trial. The "investigators" were not trying to get the Ramsey's "help" for crying out loud and if you read the "interview" with understanding you would see that.

Of course, breezy, you must be right. Everything anyone said in the process of investigating the JonBenet murder that questioned Ramsey innocence was fabrication meant to trap them into incriminating themselves.

It was a huge conspiracy going as high as the FBI designed to bring down the Ramseys and frame them for murdering their daughter because people were jealous of such a perfect loving wealthy and affluent Christian family.

This conspiracy was spearheaded by a bumbling, inexperienced yet handsome rogue cop who had a crush on Patsy and was obsessed with JonBenet, determined to spread vicious gossip and lies to all media in an effort to promote his book, and sponsored by the tabloid industry who stood to, pardon the pun, make a killing.

It's all so clear now.

[/sarcasm]

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Books, books, books.................NOT proven, opinion only :rolleyes:

This from the person who quotes Shapiro?
:biggrin:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


You are aware how the police initially decided to deal with the Ramsey's after the murder aren't you? They say they won't release JBs body for burial unless the Ramsey's give an interview. The police are the ones who started the bad relations not the Ramsey's. Of course then the police realize they have made a very grave error and release the body. What a thing to do and you wonder why the Ramsey's were upset.

Yes, I'm aware of those allegations.

If true, that was an appalling mistake by the police & was truly cruel.


On the other hand, the Ramseys WERE prepared to fly to Atlanta moments after JB's body was found (I know they didn't BUT the fact that they could even consider leaving her body behind in the Boulder morgue probably seemed odd to investigators)


But yes, I can understand the Ramseys being hurt by the police.... but I CANNOT understand why they allowed their relationship with the police & the media to become SO toxic.

Let's face it, the media doesn't care if the parents are guilty or innocent... they have a story either way. The same with the police. The Ramseys are just another job... they'll move onto the next case soon enough.

The only ones who suffer because of a confrontational relationship are the Ramseys themselves.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


This from the person who quotes Shapiro?
:biggrin:

Did I ever say he was right about everything? I did tell you or one of your buddies to e mil him and tell him how wrong he is.

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is an investigative reporter in New York City who spent three years working solely on the JonBenet Ramsey case in Boulder. He's widely credited for gaining more routine access to former DA Alex Hunter, the Ramseys, and various "potential suspects" than any other reporter on the case. Reach Shapiro at: JBsAVENGER@aol.com.

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Probably because people who were Gs speculated that she might. What Patsy said to Lin Wood right before her death was that time was running out to find the killer as she knew her death was approaching, and she hoped the killer would be found before she died.

What are "Gs?"


I'm sure OJ will same much the same when he's close to death. 'Time is running out to find the real killer.'

A statement like that is not proof of anything.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


You wouldn't know about PMPT because you haven't read it. Schiller cites his sources in the back, breezy.

"Lawrence Schiller, author of a book about the Ramsey case, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," said that it is unlikely the Ramseys were responsible for the death of their daughter. There was no family history of abuse and he said the way she was killed was so gruesome that it was "like a 300-pound linebacker crushing you up against a solid brick wall."

"The second thing you've got to remember: All this evidence out there? Well, the real evidence was this blood stain with foreign DNA that they found on JonBenet's panties," Schiller said. "They found her DNA on that and they found foreign DNA of someone who the police have never tracked down. They took 400, or 300 to 400, samples in the entire case. So if there's a perpetrator out there who did this, and there has to be, the police have not met him yet.""Schiller thinks the Ramseys were treated unfairly by the police, who he said put out leaks meant to condemn the Ramseys in the public's eyes.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2116198&page=1.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Yes, I'm aware of those allegations.

If true, that was an appalling mistake by the police & was truly cruel.


On the other hand, the Ramseys WERE prepared to fly to Atlanta moments after JB's body was found (I know they didn't BUT the fact that they could even consider leaving her body behind in the Boulder morgue probably seemed odd to investigators)


But yes, I can understand the Ramseys being hurt by the police.... but I CANNOT understand why they allowed their relationship with the police & the media to become SO toxic.

Let's face it, the media doesn't care if the parents are guilty or innocent... they have a story either way. The same with the police. The Ramseys are just another job... they'll move onto the next case soon enough.

The only ones who suffer because of a confrontational relationship are the Ramseys themselves.

What i find even more "odd" was "investigators" want to hold the body as a threat.

Allowed their relationship to become toxic??? :rolleyes: Would you feel kindly to someone who was threatening you with your dead daughers body and puttting out LIES to the public?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


*snipped"

Yes, I'm aware of those allegations.

If true, that was an appalling mistake by the police & was truly cruel.



If true???

"County coroner John Meyer on Friday shed some light on one of the accusations leveled by the Ramseys -- that Boulder police held their daughter's body hostage in an attempt to get an interview.
Meyer said detectives asked Dec. 28 about the possibility of not releasing JonBenet's body for burial until they could interview the Ramseys.
Meyer, who had completed his autopsy and forensic testing, declined the police request.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234
"Lawrence Schiller, author of a book about the Ramsey case, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," said that it is unlikely the Ramseys were responsible for the death of their daughter. There was no family history of abuse and he said the way she was killed was so gruesome that it was "like a 300-pound linebacker crushing you up against a solid brick wall."

"The second thing you've got to remember: All this evidence out there? Well, the real evidence was this blood stain with foreign DNA that they found on JonBenet's panties," Schiller said. "They found her DNA on that and they found foreign DNA of someone who the police have never tracked down. They took 400, or 300 to 400, samples in the entire case. So if there's a perpetrator out there who did this, and there has to be, the police have not met him yet.""Schiller thinks the Ramseys were treated unfairly by the police, who he said put out leaks meant to condemn the Ramseys in the public's eyes.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2116198&page=1.

I'm aware that Schiller holds an IDI point of view. That doesn't mean his book isn't full of factual information. You implied his book was opinion and nothing proven. A lot of the information in his book is documented fact. He did a lot of research and acknowledges his sources in the back of his book. That doesn't every bit of info is fact, though.

I recommend reading it to anyone interesed in the case.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234



If true???

"County coroner John Meyer on Friday shed some light on one of the accusations leveled by the Ramseys -- that Boulder police held their daughter's body hostage in an attempt to get an interview.
Meyer said detectives asked Dec. 28 about the possibility of not releasing JonBenet's body for burial until they could interview the Ramseys.
Meyer, who had completed his autopsy and forensic testing, declined the police request.

That was bad form on BPD's part, but now I wonder if it wouldn't have been a good idea to have Meyer take a second look at those odd abrasions on JonBenet and determine once and for all that they were or weren't caused by a stun gun.

I understand wanting to bury your child immediately. What I don't understand is wanting to leave for Atlanta within twenty minutes of finding her dead, and I don't understand why it took them almost a year to put up a headstone for her. In the end, they got it done in a rush job to beat the one year anniversary and avoid media censure. They talk about it in DOI, pb, pg 247-248.

"The uproar concerning and hence made it painfully clear that many people were scrutinizing everything we did and said with suspicion."

Damn straight, and with good reason.

"In that vein, we realized that we nedded to accelerate the permanent monument for JonBenet's grave before December 26, 1997, lest the media sensationalize the absence of a marker."

A year Jonbenet laid in an unmarked grave, only to have her parents snap to to and finally give her the memorial she deserves not out of love and honor for her, but to perserve their precious image yet again.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234



If true???

"County coroner John Meyer on Friday shed some light on one of the accusations leveled by the Ramseys -- that Boulder police held their daughter's body hostage in an attempt to get an interview.
Meyer said detectives asked Dec. 28 about the possibility of not releasing JonBenet's body for burial until they could interview the Ramseys.
Meyer, who had completed his autopsy and forensic testing, declined the police request.

Yes, IF true.

Unless you have official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


That was bad form on BPD's part, but now I wonder if it wouldn't have been a good idea to have Meyer take a second look at those odd abrasions on JonBenet and determine once and for all that they were or weren't caused by a stun gun.



The Ramseys were willing to render the stun gun theory invalid rather than exhume her body & PROVE a stun gun was used.

Once again, they hurt the case. Considering the small amount of evidence that might point away from the Ramseys, this was a big gamble. IF a suspect ever was found & brought to trial, their defense attoprney would argue that even though the defendant owned a stun gun it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt that a stun gun really was used on JB.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Yes, IF true.

Unless you have official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened.

That's fair, breezy. It's no more than you demand from others. I'm sure if you'll insist on it when others make statements you'll be more than happy to do so when you make them.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Gs are guiltys. NGs are not guiltys.

Did I say that it was proof of anything? I was responding to a comment made and posting what Patsy had said to Lin Wood who had become a close personal friend in addition to being their lawyer. In fact he was a pallbearer.

So as a close personal friend, wouldn't he want to take the opportunity to point out to the public that Patsy never confessed?


MAKING MONEY OFF RAMSEY CASE
0200

1 "MR. WOOD: Hey, I made more money
2 handling the Ramsey case than you've made in
3 your whole damn career practicing law, Darnay.
4 MR. HOFFMAN: -- instead of settling
5 for chump change, which you've done in all these
6 other cases, you're actually getting paid a
7 decent --
8 MR. WOOD: I've made more money in
9 the Ramsey case than you've made in your entire
10 career as a lawyer, you want to bet on that?"

Quotes from Gideon Epstein Deposition
(Wolf vs Ramsey) May 17, 2002

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


The Ramsey's did not "allow" the relationship with the police to become toxic. The BPD made it so. Why are you blaming the Ramsey's for the way the BPD treated them, going so far as to hold their own dead daughter's body hostage.

The media doesn't care if the Ramsey's are guilty or innocent? LOL what a joke that is. They fed off of the Ramsey's purported guilt, the "umbrella of suspicion" for years. It made them tons of money. And I totally disagree that the Ramsey's are the only ones who suffered, though they suffered plenty with just the death of their daughter. The BPD came off looking like a bunch of bumbling idiots. And having never solved the murder one way or the other continue to look incompetent.

The media will make ratings whichever way the public sentiment ran.

If the family is guilty - it's one angle.

If the family is innocent - it's the opposite angle.


And yes, plenty of people came off as bungling idiots in this case BUT they walk away from the case & put it behind them. They don't have to worry that the case was never solved. It's not their number one priority in life to see closure in this case.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LI_Mom

<snip>

It's not their number one priority in life to see closure in this case.

Neither has it been for the Ramseys.

[nuisanceposter]

Dead tipline, defunct foundation.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Yes, IF true.

Unless you have official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened.

Ah I see, only "books" and official court transcritps are proof in your opinioin and as long as no one was prosecuted I guess that only leaves books.... :lol: :lol:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


The Ramseys were willing to render the stun gun theory invalid rather than exhume her body & PROVE a stun gun was used.

Once again, they hurt the case. Considering the small amount of evidence that might point away from the Ramseys, this was a big gamble. IF a suspect ever was found & brought to trial, their defense attoprney would argue that even though the defendant owned a stun gun it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt that a stun gun really was used on JB.

AND the cops could have had her body exhumed even if the Ramseys didn't agree IF they wanted to prove no stun gun was used. :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


When the police, media, and the public got through Patsy, John, & Burke were victims too. JMO

Not even on the same level as the little girl who lost her life in this entire ordeal.

Any suffering the adult Rs went through was miniscule compared to the tragic and violent death of the youngest and most vulnerable member of their family.

That said, Burke Ramsey has my pity and condolences. I believe he was truly an innocent player in this whole "game" of intrigue, and I can't imagine how his life has been altered by events over which he had no control.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


That's fair, breezy. It's no more than you demand from others. I'm sure if you'll insist on it when others make statements you'll be more than happy to do so when you make them.


You people don't even provide a link, just your silly books and your own sick thoughts. :rolleyes:

I can insist all day and I get NOTHING to prove anything, just a lot of babble from books.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


AND the cops could have had her body exhumed even if the Ramseys didn't agree IF they wanted to prove no stun gun was used. :rolleyes:

It's a testament to the BPD's decency that they respected JonBenet's final rest and left her undisturbed.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I guess a reasonable adult would assume this is "your opinion."

JMO

Nah Rosy, she just KNOWS it cuz this book or that books said so. |:rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Exactly.......and if the Ramseys had done this people would have sworn they "paid" for favorable results. JMO

OR they didn't care enough about JonBenet as to have her body disturbed for their own selfish selves. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


It's a testament to the BPD's decency that they respected JonBenet's final rest and left her undisturbed.

:lol: Decency? The bumbling, lying keystone cops in this case don't even know the meaning of decency IMO.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


But, you don't know what they may have had someone doing, do you?

She knows all, see all because the books don't forget. Those books have all the answers EVEN though Thomas and his lying theory was DISPROVEN in COURT but that court transcript is not good enough, only the lying fairy tail book has "proof". :lol:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I guess a reasonable adult would assume this is "your opinion."

JMO

Or anyone with a lick of common sense. It's pretty obvious that's my own opinion.

Is that all you have to add to the conversation, rhetorical off-topic comments? Whatever would we do without you, rosyred? Your input is so invaluable.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


How do you know that?

Books, books, books, :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


*snipped* Whatever would we do without you, rosyred? Your input is so invaluable.

Glad you realized her input was so invaluable. About time you got something right.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Not even on the same level as the little girl who lost her life in this entire ordeal.

Any suffering the adult Rs went through was miniscule compared to the tragic and violent death of the youngest and most vulnerable member of their family.

That said, Burke Ramsey has my pity and condolences. I believe he was truly an innocent player in this whole "game" of intrigue, and I can't imagine how his life has been altered by events over which he had no control.

And Thomas, the BPD keystone cops and posters such as yourself don't seem to mind her killer isn't brought to justice and worse yet is allowed freedom to kill another little girl. It's more thrilling for all of you to condemn her parents than to investigate anyone else.:cuss:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


When the police, media, and the public got through Patsy, John, & Burke were victims too. JMO

I agree.

But IMO, the Ramseys brought a lot of the grief on themselves by their own actions.

Yes, the police upset them BUT they weren't brave enough to get past the bad start & take the steps necessary to let the investigators quickly exclude them as suspects.

Instead of figuring out a way to swing the media to their side, they antagonized the media. NOT a smart way to get the media to think of you as victims, imo.

Patsy herself talked about how John's partners threw snowballs at the media from the office window.

Patsy herself told how John pretended to shoot the parparazzi while in Michigan.

Patsy herself talked about how much fun she & Susan Stine had making the media chase them in the car. (Seems to me, they had better luck than Princess Di did when her car tried to outrace the media. Princess Di left two children motherless, Patsy was luckier that day.)


They just didn't seem to be doing well at getting the public to think they were being unfairly persecuted.

[nuisanceposter]

Back to the case, please, ladies...

No comment about the dead tipline of defunct foundation?

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4653

From John and Patsy Ramsey's book, Death of Innocence, hard cover version,
p 374 published in 2000:

"If you think you have any information that could help, please call, write,
or e-mail us...

We have had a web site and tip line that can be reached at 303-904-****.
Confidential information can be mailed to P. O. Box 724505, Atlanta, GA
31139. Our e-mail address is JonBenetinfo@aol.com."

The "tip line" John Ramsey set up to help find the "killer" of JonBenet
Ramsey was printed incorrectly in the hardcover of their book. The real
owner of the phone number printed in Death of Innocence reported the Ramsey
"tip line" was disconnected over three years ago. The email address is not
in operation. The email address JonBenetinfo@aol.com bounces back as
"unknown."

In the updated paperback version of Death of Innocence, which was released
in 2001, the paragraph was changed to the following:

If you think you have any information that could help, please call, write,
or e-mail us. Or if you know anyone who can make a device like the garrote
or the hand ligature (which had a loop on both ends) pictured on the
Jameson Web site * please speak up. Contact us by e-mail at
JonBenetTipLine@aol.com, call your local police or call the Boulder Police. Cont..

The email address, JonBenetTipline@aol.com bounces back as "unknown." There
is no updated or corrected tip line phone number, leaving the owner of the
incorrect number printed in the hardback version to field calls on a
regular basis explaining there is no "Tip Line" for JonBenet Ramsey. The
Boulder Police no longer have control of the case. It is now in Boulder D.A
Mary Keenan's hands.

The Ramsey website, www.ramseyfamily.com has been non-existent for several
years. A check of ownership at Network Solutions shows the owner of this
domain as Haddon, Morgan, and Forman, the Ramseys' former criminal
attorneys. The domain ownership expired April 19, 2004. To date, no one
has renewed the domain.

As of the date of this press release, the back cover of the paperback
version of Death of Innocence states: AUTHORS' PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THIS BOOK WILL GO TO THE JONBENET RAMSEY CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION."

A phone call placed to the I.R.S. confirmed that the JonBenet Ramsey
Foundation was closed in 2000. The same year the paperback version of Death of Innocence came out.


http://www.supportramseytruth.com/jbr-foundation-truths.htm#jbr-foundation

Included sources of monies pledged and possible donated contributions from friends and family, corporations and the general public. John and Patsy Ramsey pledged $15,000 PER YEAR for 1997, 1998 and 1999. There are no contributions of this scale from any source in any one of the three tax years listed.

<snip>

Early documentation shows that the Ramsey family web site at www.ramseyfamily.com displayed press releases as well as ads and flyers the Ramseys sent out in search for their daughter's killer in the spring and fall of 1997. Later the web site was used to advertise the $100,000 reward. In December 26, 2001, Ramsey attorney, Lin Wood is quoted in the media as saying that the Ramsey family no longer has the reward money. By November 25, 2002, the Ramsey family, via their attorney Lin Wood stated they will no longer communicate with one Susan Bennett whose web site URL is listed in the Ramseys books and was on their Ramsey family web site as the main source for the garotte illustrations. By 2003 the Ramsey family web site no longer existed and the domain at www.ramseyfamily.com expired April 19, 2004.


http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenet-foundations.htm

Patsy Ramsey said in August 2000 during the Atlanta interviews that she had never even seen the JonBenet Ramsey Children's Foundation books or financial records. The Foundation was opened on March 31, 1997 and Patsy Ramsey is listed as the President of the Foundation. The "Bylaws of the JonBenet Ramsey Children's Foundation state, "the Board of Directors shall annually prepare a report, verified by the President and Treasurer or by a majority of the Directors, to be prescribed at the annual meeting of the Board of Directors, showing in appropiate detail the following: (a) the assets and liabilities, including the donated funds, of the Corporation as of the end of the fiscal year." The Board of Directors consisted of John and Patsy Ramsey.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


AND the cops could have had her body exhumed even if the Ramseys didn't agree IF they wanted to prove no stun gun was used. :rolleyes:

Au contraire. Remember, the police did not believe a stun gun was used. They had no reason to push to have her body exhumed.

It was the DEFENSE that should have wanted to prove their theory once & for all & to help shift the focus onto someone that owned a stun gun.

It would have been powerful evidence for the defense because it's just not logical that a PARENT would need a stun gun on their own child. Most people DID believe her death was an accident and then a coverup.... nothing that would point to the parents using a stungun.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


And Thomas, the BPD keystone cops and posters such as yourself don't seem to mind her killer isn't brought to justice and worse yet is allowed freedom to kill another little girl. It's more thrilling for all of you to condemn her parents than to investigate anyone else.:cuss:

I'm sure the police are still waiting for the next communication from the "small foreign faction" to narrow down the list of possible suspects into Jonbenet's killer.

Meanwhile, like Elvis, they seem to have left the building. They haven't struck.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


And Thomas, the BPD keystone cops and posters such as yourself don't seem to mind her killer isn't brought to justice and worse yet is allowed freedom to kill another little girl. It's more thrilling for all of you to condemn her parents than to investigate anyone else.:cuss:

BPD was stalwarted by the DA's office. The DA has a lot to answer for when it comes to whether that investigation was run by the books or not. People have suggested that Hunter be brought up on charges of malfeasance and obstruction of justice.

Doesn't seem like the Rs are too bothered that some killer was never found and other girls could possibly meet the same fate as JonBenet.

Dead tipline, defunct foundation...yeah, they really care.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Back to the case, please, ladies...

No comment about the dead tipline of defunct foundation?

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4653

From John and Patsy Ramsey's book, Death of Innocence, hard cover version,
p 374 published in 2000:

"If you think you have any information that could help, please call, write,
or e-mail us...

We have had a web site and tip line that can be reached at 303-904-****.
Confidential information can be mailed to P. O. Box 724505, Atlanta, GA
31139. Our e-mail address is JonBenetinfo@aol.com."

The "tip line" John Ramsey set up to help find the "killer" of JonBenet
Ramsey was printed incorrectly in the hardcover of their book. The real
owner of the phone number printed in Death of Innocence reported the Ramsey
"tip line" was disconnected over three years ago. The email address is not
in operation. The email address JonBenetinfo@aol.com bounces back as
"unknown."

In the updated paperback version of Death of Innocence, which was released
in 2001, the paragraph was changed to the following:

If you think you have any information that could help, please call, write,
or e-mail us. Or if you know anyone who can make a device like the garrote
or the hand ligature (which had a loop on both ends) pictured on the
Jameson Web site * please speak up. Contact us by e-mail at
JonBenetTipLine@aol.com, call your local police or call the Boulder Police. Cont..

The email address, JonBenetTipline@aol.com bounces back as "unknown." There
is no updated or corrected tip line phone number, leaving the owner of the
incorrect number printed in the hardback version to field calls on a
regular basis explaining there is no "Tip Line" for JonBenet Ramsey. The
Boulder Police no longer have control of the case. It is now in Boulder D.A
Mary Keenan's hands.

The Ramsey website, www.ramseyfamily.com has been non-existent for several
years. A check of ownership at Network Solutions shows the owner of this
domain as Haddon, Morgan, and Forman, the Ramseys' former criminal
attorneys. The domain ownership expired April 19, 2004. To date, no one
has renewed the domain.

As of the date of this press release, the back cover of the paperback
version of Death of Innocence states: AUTHORS' PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THIS BOOK WILL GO TO THE JONBENET RAMSEY CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION."

A phone call placed to the I.R.S. confirmed that the JonBenet Ramsey
Foundation was closed in 2000. The same year the paperback version of Death of Innocence came out.


http://www.supportramseytruth.com/jbr-foundation-truths.htm#jbr-foundation

Included sources of monies pledged and possible donated contributions from friends and family, corporations and the general public. John and Patsy Ramsey pledged $15,000 PER YEAR for 1997, 1998 and 1999. There are no contributions of this scale from any source in any one of the three tax years listed.

<snip>

Early documentation shows that the Ramsey family web site at www.ramseyfamily.com displayed press releases as well as ads and flyers the Ramseys sent out in search for their daughter's killer in the spring and fall of 1997. Later the web site was used to advertise the $100,000 reward. In December 26, 2001, Ramsey attorney, Lin Wood is quoted in the media as saying that the Ramsey family no longer has the reward money. By November 25, 2002, the Ramsey family, via their attorney Lin Wood stated they will no longer communicate with one Susan Bennett whose web site URL is listed in the Ramseys books and was on their Ramsey family web site as the main source for the garotte illustrations. By 2003 the Ramsey family web site no longer existed and the domain at www.ramseyfamily.com expired April 19, 2004.


http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenet-foundations.htm

Patsy Ramsey said in August 2000 during the Atlanta interviews that she had never even seen the JonBenet Ramsey Children's Foundation books or financial records. The Foundation was opened on March 31, 1997 and Patsy Ramsey is listed as the President of the Foundation. The "Bylaws of the JonBenet Ramsey Children's Foundation state, "the Board of Directors shall annually prepare a report, verified by the President and Treasurer or by a majority of the Directors, to be prescribed at the annual meeting of the Board of Directors, showing in appropiate detail the following: (a) the assets and liabilities, including the donated funds, of the Corporation as of the end of the fiscal year." The Board of Directors consisted of John and Patsy Ramsey.

WHAT does THIS have to do with the case of who killed JB?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Antagonize the media - oh, please........ The media just like the police made up their mind within days that the Ramseys "weren't acting right" and decided just like the police that they were JonBenet's killer/s.

Some of the things you mentioned were months after JonBenet's death. I suspect the Ramseys used a lot of techniques to maintain their sanity.

JMO


You catch more flies with honey.

They had nothing to gain & a lot to lose by not figuring out how to sway the media & public to their side.


I'm sure you're right that their actions WERE in order to preserve their sanity but they gave as good as they got. Tit for tat. They have no right to complain if they played the game.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I'm sure the police are still waiting for the next communication from the "small foreign faction" to narrow down the list of possible suspects into Jonbenet's killer.

Meanwhile, like Elvis, they seem to have left the building. They haven't struck.

Well we do know that Thomas has left the building, he walked off into the sunset stomping his feet because he didn't get his way after he chickened out and could not do what he said he could do. :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


IMO - they were getting no leads and they ran out of money. Don't you agree?

They couldn't earmark some of the money they won in the many lawsuits to fund the foundation?

And what about the website? It's only about $20 a year for a domain.

And even their email address bounced back as not found. Email is free.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


That's absurd....... JMO

It's obscene, i have interview transcripts about the foundation but there is no use posting it as I don't have.................

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Unless you have official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened.

Of course she doesn't have official court transcritpos either but she can go on and on with her BS as if she knows all from a book.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I don't know. How much money did they ever actually collect in lawsuits?

There are NO " official court transcripts that this happened", so according to her.............then we have no proof that it really happened. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Yes, IF true.

Unless you have official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


WHAT does THIS have to do with the case of who killed JB?

This was for rosyred, who was asking about how I know what the Rs were doing to find the killer.

They're pretending to look by setting up a foundation they abandoned and offering a dead tipline that won't get any leads at all.

So they're doing nothing but giving an impression of doing something.

As for getting no leads - yeah, pretty hard to get them when you have nowhere for anyone to go with them.

As for running out of money - maybe, but I'd have more respect for them if they spent even a fraction of their fortune searching for the killer instead of keeping their sorry butts out of jail.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Well we do know that Thomas has left the building, he walked off into the sunset stomping his feet because he didn't get his way after he chickened out and could not do what he said he could do. :rolleyes:


So many people walked away from the case in disgust.

But as I said... the only ones who 'need' closure in this particular case would be family members.

All over this country, there are cold cases that have never been solved. That sometimes comes with the territory of law enforcement &/or prosecutors. They learn to move on and enjoy life.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


This was for rosyred, who was asking about how I know what the Rs were doing to find the killer.

They're pretending to look by setting up a foundation they abandoned and offering a dead tipline that won't get any leads at all.

So they're doing nothing but giving an impression of doing something.

As for getting no leads - yeah, pretty hard to get them when you have nowhere for anyone to go with them.

As for running out of money - maybe, but I'd have more respect for them if they spent even a fraction of their fortune searching for the killer instead of keeping their sorry butts out of jail.


Unless you have official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened. by LI_Mom

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234

i have interview transcripts about the foundation

Please go ahead and post them, breezy. I'm rather interested in seeing something countering the info on the foundation and its abandoned status that I have found.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


"Most people DID believe her death was an accident" - link please - I'd like to see the statistics on this "most."

To avoid searching for such useless info, I'll change my statement to the more general "so many people believe they are guilty or at least that they did not admit everything they knew about that night."

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


As did the Ramseys - much to some peoples' dismay.. JMO

Yep, and they were ready to "move on" just a week after their daughter was murdered.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Please go ahead and post them, breezy. I'm rather interested in seeing something countering the info on the foundation and its abandoned status that I have found.

Sorry, it's not "official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened" so I can't post it.

Hint, if you want to read about it look to one of the interviews.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Yep, and they were ready to "move on" just a week after their daughter was murdered.

Where is the official court transcripts that this happened,?............... then we have no proof that it really happened.:shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


You don't know how much they spent or what they spent it for.

If you do, show the rest of us.

My point was what they didn't spend on the foundation, website, tipline, etc for their daughter like they said they were going to.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I don't know. How much money did they ever actually collect in lawsuits?

Hopefully they made more than the $20 it costs to pay for a domain.

As their own lawyer pointed out, he made out very well having the Ramseys as clients.


MAKING MONEY OFF RAMSEY CASE
0200
1 "MR. WOOD: Hey, I made more money
2 handling the Ramsey case than you've made in
3 your whole damn career practicing law, Darnay.
4 MR. HOFFMAN: -- instead of settling
5 for chump change, which you've done in all these
6 other cases, you're actually getting paid a
7 decent --
8 MR. WOOD: I've made more money in
9 the Ramsey case than you've made in your entire
10 career as a lawyer, you want to bet on that?"

Quotes from Gideon Epstein Deposition
(Wolf vs Ramsey) May 17, 2002

--

And remember, John had to have money to seek election in Michigan. Didn't he contribute $2000 to the Republican party the year he ran? (Yes)

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Notice he didn't say who paid him. JMO
But there is no "official court transcripts that this happened that we know of" so we don't know who paid him.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Sorry, it's not "official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened" so I can't post it.

Hint, if you want to read about it look to one of the interviews.

And which interview would that be? May I have the link to the interview, please, that I may go educate myself as to the truth behind the foundation?

Or don't you have a link for that?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


*snipped*
--

And remember, John had to have money to seek election in Michigan. Didn't he contribute $2000 to the Republican party the year he ran? (Yes)

Unless you have official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


And which interview would that be? May I have the link to the interview, please, that I may go educate myself as to the truth behind the foundation?

Or don't you have a link for that?

But it's not an "official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened. :shrug:

I will look for the link and PM it to you if i can find it as LI_Mom only wants "official court transcripts that this happened"

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


And which interview would that be? May I have the link to the interview, please, that I may go educate myself as to the truth behind the foundation?

Or don't you have a link for that?

I PMed it to you. Am waiting for you to dismiss what was said. :tongue:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


But it's not an "official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened. :shrug:

I will look for the link and PM it to you if i can find it as LI_Mom only wants "official court transcripts that this happened"

Gee Breezy, all I did was mention the lack of "official records".... the same way you continually used that as a response in order to defend the Ramseys & look at how upset it made you.

Is your belief in the Ramseys innocence SO fragile that you can't possibly make a good argument if held to the same standards you insist the other side employ?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I PMed it to you. Am waiting for you to dismiss what was said. :tongue:

Secret "official" info. :biggrin:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Secret "official" info. :biggrin:

No, she can share it with you if she wishes but i won't post anything to you that is not an "official court transcripts that this happened". :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Totally not true. Read some of those old tabloid headlines and see what sells stories. Did Burke kill his sister, was John abusing his daughter.....it was disgusting the scum that the tabloids wrote to create headlines and sell papers. Show me one of the tabloids that didn't use lurid headlines to implicate the Ramseys and sell that garbage.

Many people before the Ramseys have been hounded by the tabloids. Richer & more famous than the Ramseys.

The general public knows that the tabloids deal in sleaze & educated people are more inclined to look at the tv & news media to get their cues.

I just don't think the Ramsey p.r. people did a good job of appealing to the general public through the media.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Gee Breezy, all I did was mention the lack of "official records".... the same way you continually used that as a response in order to defend the Ramseys & look at how upset it made you.

Is your belief in the Ramseys innocence SO fragile that you can't possibly make a good argument if held to the same standards you insist the other side employ?

I'm not upset, but you want "official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened. " and because there are FEW official court transcripts there isn't much I can post to you. For others that are not so childish and want to discuss the case with the information we do have that is not only official court transcripts that this happened,......................or "books" I will continue to post and you can put me on ignore as you insist on ignoring anything that goes against your made up mind.:seeya:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


When did the Ramsey's render the stun guy theory invalid? They could have exhumed JBs body and experts from both sides of the fence would still be aruging about it. Lou Smit said he was absolutely convinced that the marks were from a stun gun. How do you get two sets of marks the same distance apart on different parts of the body? It was a stun gun.

Exactly, they would still be arguing Dr. so and so said and ignore the oppsite Dr. so and so or write him off as "bought" or biased". Same ole, same ole:shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Many people before the Ramseys have been hounded by the tabloids. Richer & more famous than the Ramseys.

The general public knows that the tabloids deal in sleaze & educated people are more inclined to look at the tv & news media to get their cues.

I just don't think the Ramsey p.r. people did a good job of appealing to the general public through the media.

Is that in an official court transcripts that this happened?, then we have no proof that it really happened. :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


When did the Ramsey's render the stun guy theory invalid? They could have exhumed JBs body and experts from both sides of the fence would still be aruging about it. Lou Smit said he was absolutely convinced that the marks were from a stun gun. How do you get two sets of marks the same distance apart on different parts of the body? It was a stun gun.

It doesn't matter if Lou Smit was convinced... that's not going to hold up in a court of law once a decent defense lawyer attacks the theory.

Even Lou Smit admits that looking at pictures is NOT the most accurate way. He opened the door for reasonable doubt himself.

http://www.acandyrose.com/10042002-48hrs.htm

48 Hours Investigates - Searching for a Killer
October 4, 2002 8pm DST CBS



Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Unfortunately with only photographs to go by no expert, not Dr. Spitz and not Dr. Dobersen can be one hundred percent sure."

(Program showing Moriarty talking with Smit and Dobersen)

Erin Moriarty: "Wouldn't that have been or the best way to know or coming the closest to knowing is if you could have exhumed the body and line up a stun gun and see if it matches those injuries?"

Lou Smit: "Sure, I believe that would have been the most accurate way to do it."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Lou Smit admits that in the months following JonBenet's death investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed but decided against it."

John Ramsey: "We had buried our child, she was in peace, that was just a horrid thought"

Erin Moriarty: "But John that might have been the one way to know for sure, that could have resolved the whole issue because if a stun gun was used it was not the parents."

John Ramsey: "Certainly and we've got people who told us who know what they are doing that with 95% medical certainty that a stun gun was used. No question."

Erin Moriarty: "But you would have known with a hundred percent with certainty if you had exhumed the body, as tough as that would have been."

John Ramsey: "That's my child you're talking, not a body, it's different."

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I'm not upset, but you want "official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened. " and because there are FEW official court transcripts there isn't much I can post to you. For others that are not so childish and want to discuss the case with the information we do have that is not only official court transcripts that this happened,......................or "books" I will continue to post and you can put me on ignore as you insist on ignoring anything that goes against your made up mind.:seeya:

So then you'll admit that when YOU tried to use that same tactic, it was the same as making it impossible to discuss this case? :confused:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


So then you'll admit that when YOU tried to use that same tactic, it was the same as making it impossible to discuss this case? :confused:

I never said only official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


It was a stun gun and it would hold up better in court than the marks not being from a stun gun. Many experts are brought in to testify in trials, some for the defense, some for the prosecution. With differing views. But there was strong enough evidence those marks were from a stun gun to win that point in a court of law.

The keystone cops were depending on the opinion of Dr. Spitz who said they were from a button such as on jeans or a pebble or rock. I never know pebbles, rocks or buttons were always placed exactly the same distance apart but that is what the guiltys are hanging their hats on. :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

And it would have been left up to a jury to decide which side was guessing right.

Stun gun - Yes

Stun gun - No

It's a crap shoot & all I'm saying is that IF they exhumed the body they would have had a stronger argument. Something that's good if you're seeking justice for your daughter's murder.

[Jayelles]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Au contraire. Remember, the police did not believe a stun gun was used. They had no reason to push to have her body exhumed.

It was the DEFENSE that should have wanted to prove their theory once & for all & to help shift the focus onto someone that owned a stun gun.

It would have been powerful evidence for the defense because it's just not logical that a PARENT would need a stun gun on their own child. Most people DID believe her death was an accident and then a coverup.... nothing that would point to the parents using a stungun.

Good point. The police already had experts who said that they did not believe a stungun was used - but that was based upon viewing the photos. The RST expert - Doberson (who initially FAILED to identify genuine stungun marks on Gerald Bogg's body) is on record as saying "You can't really tell from a photo".

Had the body been exhumed and further tests proved a stungun WAS used, it would have been a victory to TeamRamsey and a major embarassment for the Boulder Police.

The Ramseys objected to exhumation on moral/religious grounds but it could have been a move which would have removed suspicion from them and (IMO more importantly) - from other family members.

It's probably too late for exhumation now and what we have left is the opinion of the experts which FTR weights more heavily in favour of a stungun NOT having caused the marks.

It is only the Ramsey experts and supporters who believe a stungun was used.

[Jayelles]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


BPD was stalwarted by the DA's office. The DA has a lot to answer for when it comes to whether that investigation was run by the books or not. People have suggested that Hunter be brought up on charges of malfeasance and obstruction of justice.

Doesn't seem like the Rs are too bothered that some killer was never found and other girls could possibly meet the same fate as JonBenet.

Dead tipline, defunct foundation...yeah, they really care.

Something that always struck me was the fact that Steve Thomas spent Christmas away from his family and working on the case - such was his determination to find justice for JonBenet.

The evidence is so muddy in this case that IMO, no-one should be excluded as a suspect unless he/she has a cast iron alibi. The killer has every motive to lie and therefore the words of EVERY suspect should be regarded with a degree of scepticism.

The fact is that experts believe that the DNA may NOT be the killer's - that is why the Ramseys have not been cleared as suspects.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Reasons Steve Thomas suspected the Ramseys......from PM/PT
(paraphrasing)

-Date on JonBenet's headstone - December 25th

Explained by Ramseys and makes sense to me.
-Behavior of parents nothing in keeping with a kidnap, but more like a death
-Phone call John made to fly to Atlanta after finding JonBenet
-Patsy was fully dressed when police first arrived

-Patsy's statements about when she discovered that her daughter was not in her room - inconsistent
-John's statements about putting JonBenet to bed - inconsistent
-Enhanced 911 call contradicted Ramseys' statements that morning and in later interviews

-Ransom note written on Ramseys' paper
-Pad found near note/Pad found in kitchen near pen/flashlight?
-Ransom note written with Ramsey's pen
-Pen found in cup in kitchen near flashlight/pad?
-Patsy was not eliminated from writing the note
(So where was the note pad actually found?)

-Staging elements (blanket) obtained from locations known by parents
-Confusing layout of house made it difficult for strange to commit crime & coverup without fear of discovery
-Paintbrush used in garrote was Patsy's

-Prior vaginal trauma unlike caused by person outside the immediate family

(No mention of spiders or DNA)

Anyone want to discuss?

What a bunch of crap, innuendo AND lies that does not prove muder. The other suspects didn't even come into his scope because he had his mind made up on this garbage??? He is a sick, sick man that tried to destroy a family based on his own ego. Now that he has a daughter of his own MAYBE he will wisen up.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Reasons Steve Thomas suspected the Ramseys......from PM/PT
(paraphrasing)

-Date on JonBenet's headstone - December 25th
-Behavior of parents nothing in keeping with a kidnap, but more like a death
-Phone call John made to fly to Atlanta after finding JonBenet
-Patsy was fully dressed when police first arrived

-Patsy's statements about when she discovered that her daughter was not in her room - inconsistent
-John's statements about putting JonBenet to bed - inconsistent
-Enhanced 911 call contradicted Ramseys' statements that morning and in later interviews

-Ransom note written on Ramseys' paper
-Pad found near note/Pad found in kitchen near pen/flashlight?
-Ransom note written with Ramsey's pen
-Pen found in cup in kitchen near flashlight/pad?
-Patsy was not eliminated from writing the note
(So where was the note pad actually found?)

-Staging elements (blanket) obtained from locations known by parents
-Confusing layout of house made it difficult for strange to commit crime & coverup without fear of discovery
-Paintbrush used in garrote was Patsy's

-Prior vaginal trauma unlike caused by person outside the immediate family

(No mention of spiders or DNA)

Anyone want to discuss?

"During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF P 196; PSMF P 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF P 203; PSMF P 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF P 204; PSMF P 204.) The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note. (SMF P 254.)" (Carnes 2003:26). "Defendants' experts base their conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey is not the author of the Ransom Note on the "numerous significant dissimilarities" between the individual characteristics of Mrs. Ramsey's handprinting and of that used in the Ransom Note. (SMF P 247.) For example, defendants asserts Mrs. Ramsey's written letter "u" consistently differs from the way the same letter is written throughout the Ransom Note. (SMF P 248.)" (Carnes 2003:27). The expertise and high ethical standards of these experts was summarized by Darnay Hoffman, an attorney for Chris Wolf, who sought to prove that Patsy Ramsey was the note writer, in a fax to Tom Miller, a handwriting expert he had hired (see below): "I spoke with handwriting expert Paul A. Osborn...He refuses to touch the Ramsey case with a ten foot pole. His reasons: he knows the handwriting experts who gave their reports to the defense team and to C.B.I.--four in all. According to Osborn these experts are supposedly top of their field (he won't give me their names) with impeccable ethical credentials. Their verdict: the similarities between Patsy and the ransom note writers handwriting is at the very lowest end of the spectrum, i.e., there is little or no basis for match."

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Today - 12:00 p.m. - Eastern - Lifetime - Perfect Murder/Perfect Town (that's 5 minutes from now). 12 - 4 p.m. "See" you later.

I don't have cable. You will have to tell me all about it.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum
PMPT

Steve Thomas says right in the beginning he "can't stand the Ramsey's." His own father says he doesn't "disbelieve" the Ramsey's, they have just lost a child, you can't judge them, to his son.

Also no one in the BPD wanted to hold the body hostage but Eller. It was illegal to do so.

Yikes, he actually said he can't stand the Ramseys'???:cuss: He is truely a jerk.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
They just played the enhanced 911 call. I'm assuming it was not the actual call, but if it was I couldn't "hear" the words I've heard John or Patsy supposedly said to Burke - "go back to bed."

Steve Thomas & Eller - real winners........... JMO

No one with an ounce of brains could hear anything at the end of the tape....but Thomas's BS is still echoed by the want Ramsyes to be guilty crowd. The tape is on the net if you want to hear it again I will send you the link.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


Funny how Steve Thomas' wife thinks she knows how and when Patsy would wear clothes. What is that about?

Eller and his comment about someone messing with the clock shows he is going over the edge and his desperation about the case. If only they had gotten rid of Eller right at the beginning......

His wife must be as dippy as he is. :shrug:

Yeah Eller AND Thomas. It was obvious they were both a bit whacky IMO.

Thanks for the updates girls!

[bullmoose]

When the whole horror of the day that JonBenet was found murdered started to unfold, the cops on the scene were utterly overwhelmed by the unfolding events. Because of the holidays a good part of the BPD was on vacation days; and it must be remembered that it was and is a small police force, so the cops on the scene as events unfolded just coped as best they could. As for the obvious fact that the crime scene was compromised to the point of no return before a competant investigator ever took a look around the place, to me its fairly simple: There were not enough cops present to control the situation, the house or crime scene and it got away from them. The head of the BPD gets my vote as the biggest obstacle to justice in this case because he refused the offered help from people with the experience to properly investigate the case that his own people were totally, utterly outclassed on. Like a nonswimmer that falls in the deep end of the pool, the BPD was in over their head, out of their depth,etc. Like a panicky nonswimmer, they would bob to the surface[with the scandal rags] and bellow for help regularly, just not help from competent people[FBI, Denver PD, etc.]; oh no, they wanted the lynch mob of public but misinformed opinion to rescue them from having to collect all the evidence. Once Eller decided it had to be the Ramseys, was there really an investigation or was it just a self-justification exercise? It is said that you could indite a ham sandwich with the low level of proof that grand juries need to indite, yet after hearing all the evidence that was presented, they didn't indite anyone. As for the understandable question, why weren't the Ramseys taken to the police station, separated and questioned about the days events: to me it seems that not only was the whole situation out of the hands of the cops present, but also that maybe the cops present didn't look at the Ramseys as possible suspects until later. Yes I too have read how the female cop says Patsy was acting suspicious, but I read it in her book, when she was trying to justify her actions on that day. When did the thunderbolt of suspicion really hit the BPD? When Eller said to the rest of the Keystone Kops of Kolorado" Don't worry, we'll just blame the parents". As Carlos Mencia would say "dee dee dee". The cops like to use terms like 'Persons of interest', 'under the umbrella of suspicion', etc. It still means suspect; do you know why they use these terms? Because the term suspect came back to bite them in the rear in the Richard Jewel case, he was the hounded suspect that all the papers and the cops knew was guilty of the Atlanta Olympic bombing in 1996; he was hounded just like Ramseys, although as it turned out he wasn't guilty, in fact his quick action at the Olympics probably saved a couple dozen lives. Like I've said I don't think the Ramseys had anything to do with JonBenets' murder. I would like to see John and Patsy get the same vindication as did Richard Jewel, and the actual perp get caught, but that doesn't seem likely. bullmoose:shrug:

[rashomon]

I just read on another forum by one of the best-informed posters that a few years ago, Geraldo had a mock trial of the Rs. They showed a (real!) video of JB performing a few days before Christmas dressed as an elf. At one point, she takes a musical instrument and runs it between her legs several times, effectively masturbating in public.
Shocking, isn't it? Children normally don't do this if they haven't been vaginally penetrated before.
Couple this with the forensic conclusions of Dr. McCann who stated that JB was the victim of chronic sexual abuse: if any of you still doubt that this was indeed the case, you must be blind.
And in case Breezy says she doesn't believe what posters on other forums say: this was on TV, and in that real video JB was performing for senior citizens. Check it out yourself.
What else does it take to open you Ramsey supporters' eyes?

[nuisanceposter]

"From my investigation of the Ramsey murder, Steve Thomas was the lead detective on the case from the beginning and may know what happened better than anyone."

-- Lawrence Schiller, New York Times best-selling author and Executive Producer of Perfect Murder, Perfect Town


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312253265/002-3480196-1216869?v=glance&n=283155

[rashomon]

A very well-informed poster on another forum wrote that a few years ago, Geraldo had a mock trial of the Ramseys. They showed a (real) video of JB performing a few days before Christmas dressed as an elf. At one point, she takes a musical instrument and runs it between her legs several times, effectively masturbating in public. It was shocking, to say the least.
Shocking, to say the least. For children normally don't do this unless they have been vaginally penetrated before.
Couple this behavior with Dr. McCann's conclusion that JB suffered from chronic sexual abuse - how can ony of you Ramsey supporters still doubt that this was indeed the case?

[rashomon]

A very well-informed poster on another forum wrote that a few years ago, Geraldo had a mock trial of the Rs. They showed a (real) video of JB performing a few days before Christmas dressed as an elf. At one point, she takes a musical instrument and runs it between her legs several times, effectively masturbating in public.
Shocking, to say the least. For children normally don't do this unless they have been vaginally penetrated before.
Couple this behavior with Dr. McCann's conclusion that JB suffered from chronic sexual abuse - how can ony of you Ramsey supporters still doubt that this was indeed the case?
And in case people like Breezy say they don't believe what people on other forums have written: this was on tv, and the video was real video where JB was performing for senior citizens.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon
I just read on another forum by one of the best-informed posters that a few years ago, Geraldo had a mock trial of the Rs. They showed a (real!) video of JB performing a few days before Christmas dressed as an elf. At one point, she takes a musical instrument and runs it between her legs several times, effectively masturbating in public.
Shocking, isn't it? Children normally don't do this if they haven't been vaginally penetrated before.
Couple this with the forensic conclusions of Dr. McCann who stated that JB was the victim of chronic sexual abuse: if any of you still doubt that this was indeed the case, you must be blind.
And in case Breezy says she doesn't believe what posters on other forums say: this was on TV, and in that real video JB was performing for senior citizens. Check it out yourself.
What else does it take to open you Ramsey supporters' eyes?

:rolleyes: A "best informed poster" said there was such a video so you accept it as fact????? I saw that show and I do NOT remember any such video. IMO IF there was such a video it too would have been shown over and over on TV and it has NOT been.

IMO what is shocking is the sick minds that can dream this stuff up about a little girl AND the sick minds that believe it. :cuss:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


You posted basically the same thing on another thread. You think saying it over and over will make it so. I don't think so.
JMO

They are getting desperate. Of course there is no proof there was any chronic sexual abuse. I think it is so sad that they just keep making things up about a dead little girl and her dead mother whom have both suffered so much in life but they can't even let them rest in peace in death without their dirty minds working over time. :mad:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon
A very well-informed poster on another forum wrote that a few years ago, Geraldo had a mock trial of the Ramseys. They showed a (real) video of JB performing a few days before Christmas dressed as an elf. At one point, she takes a musical instrument and runs it between her legs several times, effectively masturbating in public. It was shocking, to say the least.
Shocking, to say the least. For children normally don't do this unless they have been vaginally penetrated before.
Couple this behavior with Dr. McCann's conclusion that JB suffered from chronic sexual abuse - how can ony of you Ramsey supporters still doubt that this was indeed the case?

A "best informed poster" said there was such a video so you accept it as fact????? I saw that show and I do NOT remember any such video. IMO IF there was such a video it too would have been shown over and over on TV and it has NOT been.

IMO what is shocking is the sick minds that can dream this stuff up about a little girl AND the sick minds that believe it.

There is no proof that she |"suffered from cronic sexual abuse".:rolleyes:

I doubt it because I have read the autopsy report and other doctors reports including her own pediatricians report. IMO only VERY sick minds would continue to dwell on this when there is NO proof.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


A well-informed poster and Geraldo - now that's a team.

ROFL....... JMO Ya think they found that "video" in the vault? :lol: :lol:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


They are getting desperate. Of course there is no proof there was any chronic sexual abuse. I think it is so sad that they just keep making things up about a dead little girl and her dead mother whom have both suffered so much in life but they can't even let them rest in peace in death without their dirty minds working over time. :mad:

They DID find evidence of prior abuse.

The hymen itself is represented
by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and
10:00 positions.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html


Arndt said the girl appeared to have been repeatedly sexually assaulted before the night of her death.

"What was seen was not a first-time injury," Arndt said.

"Not all of her injuries appeared to be recent."

http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_19990916/ai_n9959412


Although Dr. Beuf did not note any personality changes during the office visits between JonBenet and himself, he cannot state conclusively there was no internal damage because he never gave JonBenet an internal exam. JonBenet was seen five or six times in a three year period where an external vaginal exam was necessary; on three occasions JonBenet presented with pain on urination. Dr. Beuf explains the cause of these symptoms:

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: "For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have four-year-old kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age." [7]

Despite the conclusions drawn by Dr. Beuf, Dr. Ann S. Botash, Director of Child Abuse Referral and Evaluation Program and Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics, State University of New York Upstate Medical University suggests, "In the US: Vaginitis is common in adult women and uncommon in prepubertal girls." [8]

<snip>

However, when you add the number of times in a three-year-period (5 or 6 times for vaginal redness and 3 times for painful urination), what are the chances these injuries are a result of bubble bath and/or poor hygiene? In other words, it is statistically significant that out of 30 visits, nine of them (that's almost one third of the number of visits to a pediatrician) were due to illnesses that might have resulted from sexual abuse.

http://misty.angelcities.com/article1.html

[nuisanceposter]

There were also indications of chronic sexual abuse. The Ramseys heatedly dispute the possibility of this, as does the family doctor. However, there was not only chronic inflammation of the vaginal tract, but a 1-cm by 1-cm opening in her hymen. There were traces of blood in the vaginal area and in the crotch of her panties. Thomas reports in his book that a panel of pediatric experts from around the country concluded that the trauma to her hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were "evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse."

One expert widely quoted is Dr. Cyril Wecht, coroner for Allegheny County, Pa.: "There's absolutely no question she was abused," Wecht said. "There's blood, and contusions (in the vagina,) and the hymen has been torn."

http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm


Boulder District Judge Carol Glowinsky opened portions of the girl's autopsy report to the public Friday, although several media organizations argued the entire document should be in the public record. Glowinsky sealed parts of the report for 90 days or until authorities arrest a suspect.

The released sections of the document did not include a time of death or details of the significant forensic evidence. But the report indicated the girl suffered severe head injuries and abrasions on the left of her lower back and leg. Sections of her va gina revealed chronic inflammation and epithelial erosion, or tissue damage, the report said.

"To me, those (vaginal wounds) are evidence of sexual abuse," said forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, the coroner in Allegheny County, Pa. Wecht, a doctor and lawyer, has given expert testimony in high-profile cases such as the murder of Robert Kennedy and the slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. "Chronic inflammation means it's more than a few days old, and the erosion suggests something older, some type of instrumentality that was rubbed against the vaginal wall and caused it to erode."

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/02/16-1.html

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rashomon
A very well-informed poster on another forum wrote that a few years ago, Geraldo had a mock trial of the Rs. They showed a (real) video of JB performing a few days before Christmas dressed as an elf. At one point, she takes a musical instrument and runs it between her legs several times, effectively masturbating in public.
Shocking, to say the least. For children normally don't do this unless they have been vaginally penetrated before.
Couple this behavior with Dr. McCann's conclusion that JB suffered from chronic sexual abuse - how can ony of you Ramsey supporters still doubt that this was indeed the case?
And in case people like Breezy say they don't believe what people on other forums have written: this was on tv, and the video was real video where JB was performing for senior citizens.

I wonder if that video can be found online somewhere?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Geraldo? The stuff of tabloid TV. Nuf said.

No, that's not enough said unless you just want to dismiss anything not pro-Ramsey for any little reason you can - which is what you Ramsey supporters here want to do, obviously. Way to be completely closed-minded, hohum.

It may have been Tabloid Geraldo's show, but the video of JonBenet using sexualized dance moves was real. Many people have noted that they see age-inapporpriate behavior from JonBenet in videos of her performances - and despite your lurid insinuations, not all of these people are dirty-minded and sick.

The way Patsy tarted up that sweet little girl is, imo, dirty and sick.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


No, that's not enough said unless you just want to dismiss anything not pro-Ramsey for any little reason you can - which is what you Ramsey supporters here want to do, obviously. Way to be completely closed-minded, hohum.

It may have been Tabloid Geraldo's show, but the video of JonBenet using sexualized dance moves was real. Many people have noted that they see age-inapporpriate behavior from JonBenet in videos of her performances - and despite your lurid insinuations, not all of these people are dirty-minded and sick.

The way Patsy tarted up that sweet little girl is, imo, dirty and sick.

Ok, you think there is such a video, produce it. IMO it was produced only in sick dirty minds of "well-informed poster on another forum" hoping the gullible ones would believie it.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I respect your right to feel however you wish, but Patsy and JonBenet were not the only mother/daughter to participate in pageants.

Just because you don't like pageants does not make them dirty and sick. I don't like the pageants either, but other people's participation doesn't bother me. Bascially, it's none of my business and I certainly can't equate participating in pageants to murder - by any stretch of the imagination.

JMO

Exactly, all it is is something else to "hate" and "blame" the Ramseys. IMO if anyone thinks a 6 year old is "sexy" and "dressed up as a tart" has a screw loose.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


What is shocking and sickening is that you are now trying to defame the memory of an innocent little girl, Jonbenet Ramsey, by saying she masturbated in public. Is there nothing you won't post? This is disgraceful and a very slanderous comment.


:patriot: I agree, it is beyond disgraceful to say such a thing but then they will stop at NOTHING IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

I'm not talking about other mothers and daughters in pageants, rosyred. My opinion is that what Patsy Ramsey taught her daughter to perform as expected behavior during these pageants is sick and wrong. And once again - I don't see Patsy entering JonBenet in pageants as evidence of her being able to murder her daughter. It indicates a certain psychological aspect of Patsy's personality.

Thomas didn't believe JonBenet was being abused for sexual gratification. A couple of experts don't. There is a theory that the genital abuse was in the form of punishment.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Exactly, all it is is something else to "hate" and "blame" the Ramseys. IMO if anyone thinks a 6 year old is "sexy" and "dressed up as a tart" has a screw loose.

Why would people want to go that far to "hate" and "blame" the Ramseys? Breezy, the fact is, the majority of the American public was shocked and dismayed to see what was going on in the child beauty pageant scene. All of those people have a screw loose?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


"Indications" in the case appear to be in the eye of the beholder.

Dr. Cyril Wecht is just another arm chair participate. His opinion - IMO - is just that.

JMO

"Indications" are not proof.

"Other stories claimed that the "vaginal abrasion" mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states: -

"From what is noted in the autopsy report, there is no evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the vagina, the labia and there is no other indication of any healed scars in any of those areas. There is no other indication from the autopsy report at all that there is any other previous injuries that have healed in that particular area."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/allegations_4.html

DIANE SAWYER
(VO) We asked him to specifically review all notes that might
pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be
warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.
September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated
with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps
related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some
indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25
percent of children that age wet the bed. March 1995 -- abdominal
pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem. August 1996 --
another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said
everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this
number of complaints?
(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very
well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable
by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better.
But if you have four - year - old kids, you know how hard that is.
The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally
consistent with little girls her age.
DIANE SAWYER
If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have
seen it?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a
speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.
DIANE SAWYER
Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual
abuse?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service
people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are
very acutely aware of.DIANE SAWYER
(on camera) And some other notes. Dr Beuf says he last saw JonBenet
Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus
infection. A couple of other things. Dr Beuf says he has turned in
people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career,
and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality
changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that
with JonBenet Ramsey.
And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's
records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was
nothing unusual there for a girl her age.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Jonbenet had a coach. Patsy was not her coach. Again, sick is in the eye of the beholder.

Go re-read that part in PMPT where JonBenet's instructor Kit Andre talks about Patsy's involvement in coaching JonBenet.

She said she couldn't keep Patsy out of the sessions - Patsy insisted on coming in and being a part of the coaching, even going so far as to show Andre how she wanted JonBenet to perform. Andre finally decided to let Patsy do it the way Patsy wanted to do it. Patsy even brought her mother Nedra Paugh to a session, and Nedra sat there and went on about Patsy and being in pageants the entire time.

Patsy had the ultimate say, and as a veteran of pageants, Patsy taught her daughter how to perform.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Why would people want to go that far to "hate" and "blame" the Ramseys? Breezy, the fact is, the majority of the American public was shocked and dismayed to see what was going on in the child beauty pageant scene. All of those people have a screw loose?

GREAT question. WHY indeed?

Just as now, some people are "shocked and dismayed" about breastfeeding in public but they think nothing of seeing butts and breasts at beaches or pools or even on tv. All that is covered is the crack and the nipples and that is no problem to them but feeding a baby in public.............GOD FORBID. That type of thinking is from people who also have a screw loose IMO.

I will never understand WHY "some" people think they have to tell others how to lives their lives. I'm sure there are things they do that others disagree with and are "shocked and dismayed" at as well.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


"Indications" are not proof.

"Other stories claimed that the "vaginal abrasion" mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states: -

"From what is noted in the autopsy report, there is no evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the vagina, the labia and there is no other indication of any healed scars in any of those areas. There is no other indication from the autopsy report at all that there is any other previous injuries that have healed in that particular area."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/allegations_4.html

DIANE SAWYER
(VO) We asked him to specifically review all notes that might
pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be
warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.
September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated
with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps
related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some
indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25
percent of children that age wet the bed. March 1995 -- abdominal
pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem. August 1996 --
another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said
everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this
number of complaints?
(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very
well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable
by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better.
But if you have four - year - old kids, you know how hard that is.
The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally
consistent with little girls her age.
DIANE SAWYER
If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have
seen it?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a
speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.
DIANE SAWYER
Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual
abuse?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service
people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are
very acutely aware of.DIANE SAWYER
(on camera) And some other notes. Dr Beuf says he last saw JonBenet
Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus
infection. A couple of other things. Dr Beuf says he has turned in
people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career,
and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality
changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that
with JonBenet Ramsey.
And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's
records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was
nothing unusual there for a girl her age.



Although Dr. Beuf did not note any personality changes during the office visits between JonBenet and himself, he cannot state conclusively there was no internal damage because he never gave JonBenet an internal exam. JonBenet was seen five or six times in a three year period where an external vaginal exam was necessary; on three occasions JonBenet presented with pain on urination.

http://misty.angelcities.com/article1.html

[breezy1234]

I'm going to go get my granddaughters now and will be gone for a while. Hang in there hohum and rosy with the facts and don't let the gossip get to you.

As I said I saw the mock trial that Geraldo put on and I do not remember any such tape.

As I understand it, now Geraldo thinks the Ramseys are innocent. That's Geraldo for you. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter




Although Dr. Beuf did not note any personality changes during the office visits between JonBenet and himself, he cannot state conclusively there was no internal damage because he never gave JonBenet an internal exam. JonBenet was seen five or six times in a three year period where an external vaginal exam was necessary; on three occasions JonBenet presented with pain on urination.

http://misty.angelcities.com/article1.html

AND??? He explained it on the interview I posted. :rolleyes:

DIANE SAWYER
(VO) We asked him to specifically review all notes that might
pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be
warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.
September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated
with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps
related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some
indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25
percent of children that age wet the bed. March 1995 -- abdominal
pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem. August 1996 --
another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said
everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this
number of complaints?
(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very
well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable
by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better.


"And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's
records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was
nothing unusual there for a girl her age. "

[nuisanceposter]

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5858

Post #8. More than I can copy and paste, addressing the prior abuse issue with expert comments.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


A "best informed poster" said there was such a video so you accept it as fact????? I saw that show and I do NOT remember any such video. IMO IF there was such a video it too would have been shown over and over on TV and it has NOT been.

IMO what is shocking is the sick minds that can dream this stuff up about a little girl AND the sick minds that believe it.

There is no proof that she |"suffered from cronic sexual abuse".:rolleyes:

I doubt it because I have read the autopsy report and other doctors reports including her own pediatricians report. IMO only VERY sick minds would continue to dwell on this when there is NO proof.
I have no reason not to believe that poster. Why would he write such a thing if it can be checked out?
In terms of Dr. Meyer: he was no pediatric expert in child abuse, but Dr. McCann is a world-renowned expert. He was positive that the slides he was shown of JB's vaginal tissue pointed to chronic sexual abuse, and almost all the other pediatric experts of the medical panel consulted on the case agreed with him.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Patsy did not choreograph the routines that JonBenet performed.

Kit Andre says, (PMPT, pg 76), "Someone else taught her those pseudo-adult movements, the provocative walk, the poses, all of it."

Proof it wasn't Patsy?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


"expert comments?"

Yes, comments from medical and sexual abuse experts such as Dr James McCann, Dr Andrew Sirotnack, Dr. Virginia Rau, Dr. Jim Monteleone, and Dr. Richard Krugman.

Why is that difficult for you to understand? Just read it.

[Sunshine@SC]

I don't, for a second, believe that JonBenet suffered from chronic sexual abuse. However, I think most, if not all, children masturbate at some point. Not for sexual gratification but for pleasure.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


My question was "When did the Ramsey's render the stun guy theory invalid?" Not whether you thought Lou Smit was correct or not.

I answered your question more than once & your only response was something along the lines that it didn't matter if Smit himself admitted that he knew exhuming the body was the best way to prove the fact. And that it wouldn't matter at all that John Ramsey admitted that the MEDICAL EXPERT said they are only 95% sure.

How many times do you want me to repeat it? Any decent defense lawyer is going to jump all over those 2 admissions from the people who are trying to prove their theory. They're going to want to know WHY they didn't exhume her body & PROVE a stun gun was used, like they theorized. A jury might logically ask themselves if they were afraid that exhuming her body would prove a stun gun was NOT used so they kept that door closed.

If it were me, I wouldn't want to leave any room for doubt.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


No, that's not enough said unless you just want to dismiss anything not pro-Ramsey for any little reason you can - which is what you Ramsey supporters here want to do, obviously. Way to be completely closed-minded, hohum.

It may have been Tabloid Geraldo's show, but the video of JonBenet using sexualized dance moves was real. Many people have noted that they see age-inapporpriate behavior from JonBenet in videos of her performances - and despite your lurid insinuations, not all of these people are dirty-minded and sick.

The way Patsy tarted up that sweet little girl is, imo, dirty and sick.

I went looking to see if I can find the video.

There are numerous videos remembering JB on the web & I don't have the patience or desire to watch them all.

The shots where she was dressed like a typical 6 year old child (some were home pics & some were professional, it seemed) were adorable. She looked so happy & beautiful.

The shots where she was dressed in ultra-extravegant costumes & strutting around all made up were painful to watch. Looking at a 6 year old dressed up like an adult are not the least bit enjoyable. And it's no wonder John put his foot down & wouldn't agree to letting her compete in Las Vegas. That was a very healthy judgement call on his part. I wonder how much he knew about the pageants she had been in? Did he see some of those costumes & did he see her acting like an 18 year old... or did Patsy hide most of that from him?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Please go ahead and post them, breezy. I'm rather interested in seeing something countering the info on the foundation and its abandoned status that I have found.

Something interesting about the transcripts.

Why is John denying that the foundation was getting public funds?

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm

17 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Mr. Ramsey, at the
18 present time, how much money is in the
19 JonBenet Ramsey Foundation?

20 A. I believe that is public record,
21 but I think there is about $7,000 in there.

22 Q. What is the highest balance that
23 you know of that it has been?

24 A. I don't know.

25 Q. Have you done any fundraisers to
0048 fund it?

2 A. No. It wasn't our intention to
3 raise public money. I set up a foundation
4 for my other daughter, which still exists, by
5 the way. We were desperate to honor our
6 daughter in some way, and that was our
7 attempt to do it, and why we have been
8 criticized for that, I don't know.

9 Q. You put out a press release that
10 gave an address for contributions to be made
11 to the foundation.

12 A. I don't remember ever asking for
13 contributions.

---

***The questioning continues but this is worth noting, John once again complains that he is "offended."***


8 THE WITNESS: I am offended, and
9 I have been offended. I have been offended
10 that you investigated that foundation during
11 the grand jury. I have a mind to disband
12 it and treat it just as a private -- we
13 want to honor our daughter, and we have
14 received nothing but grief from you folks,
15 from the media over that attempt, and I am
16 baffled by that.



(From acandyrose site)

Application for Recognition of Exemption
October 10, 1997

The JonBenet Ramsey Children's Foundation
Under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code



This clearly shows their foundation was set up to receive funds from THE GENERAL PUBLIC:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jbr-foundation-form1023-pg2.gif

[LI_Mom]

Then I guess that discussion is finished.

You believe it wouldn't matter & I believe it would matter.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Did you find it?

If not posting for purely shock effect and slanderous intentions, the poster who made the disgusting post about Jonbenet masturbating in a video would post the link.

I mentioned in a subsequent post that I couldn't find it & didn't want to have to watch every JB video online.

I hesitate to comment on what it looks like she was doing in the video unless/until I can see it for myself and that's the ONLY reason I would have for posting a link, so people could judge for themselves after viewing the clip.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Why is it so difficult for you to believe that Jonbenet's own doctor, for one, would have far more knowledge of Jonbenet than any "experts" brought in to try and convict the Ramsey's. Doesn't appear that they "expert" opinions did the trick. All it did was cast doubt on these "experts."

Sometimes, all it takes to sway a jury is to cast doubt.

Most jury members would realize that a pediatrician would not normally be conducting internal exams on 6 year olds and they WOULD understand that an autopsy exam would reveal more physical information than a routine office viisit.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Well I'm sure the poster who made the outrageous statement about the video and masturbation will have a link. It speaks for itself about making such comments and not having proof. What the intention was by that poster.

If I remember, the original post said she/her remembered seeing the video on TV... not on the internet.

The intention was clear. Were JB's performances typical of 6 year old children or were they sexualized & could they have encouraged others to view her in a sexual manner?

If you want to advance the pedophile as intruder theory, the pageant angle is a very reasonable avenue to go down. She was in the public eye in extravegant & very mature clothing & not portrayed as an innocent child.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


It is not up to jury members to guess what the doctor did or didn't do in an exam. To "realize" what the pediatrician would not "normally"do is not their responsibility. It has to be proven. Proof, the stuff that trials are made of. Proof, what there wasn't any of to convict the Ramsey's.

You're absolutely right.

The jurists won't have to guess. The defense will come out & ask the pediatrician if he normally does internal exams on 6 year old girls and whether he did one on JB.

The defense will ask specific questions so there is no doubt what he did & did not do.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


They don't do internal exams as a matter of routine, but if there had been abuse at her age there would have been external signs. JMO......

I'm no expert on sexual abuse but I don't think there always has to be external evidence.

And if there was external trauma in a child, it doesn't mean that she/he would have been given a full examination at the same time the evidence was there.

For instance, if JB was taken to the doctor because of her chronic sinus problems (after all, this WAS the reason JB had been seen so often), he probably wouldn't have been looking at her vagina.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Of course, which would have led to other exams and most likely questioning of JB herself. Doctors are not trained to ignore such symptoms.

It's also more than likely that a child would be afraid to admit to being abused, phsyically OR sexually.

And Patsy herself probably would have been terribly insulted & offended by such a disgusting question and told the doctor, "Pal, you don't want to go there."

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Sometimes, all it takes to sway a jury is to cast doubt.

Most jury members would realize that a pediatrician would not normally be conducting internal exams on 6 year olds and they WOULD understand that an autopsy exam would reveal more physical information than a routine office viisit.

Exactly, and the professional opinion of doctors who are experts in sexual abuse may carry more weight in court when analyzing an autopsy than the pediatrician who never did an internal exam at all.

It doesn't get much more internal than an autopsy.

[LI_Mom]

NuisancePoster,

Isn't it also possible that some of the scarring they found in the autopsy was from when JB had chickenpox?

I don't remember hearing how severe her bout w/ chickenpox was.


What I'm getting at, is that it is possible the ONLY time JB was vaginally penetrated was with Patsy's paintbrush on the night she was killed.

[LI_Mom]

Here are 2 links about child pageants:

http://postgazette.com/tv/20010513owen.asp

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/06.08/beauty.html

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


BTW, do you have medical documentation to back this up or is this just your opinion?



Is masturbation common?

Yes. It is a common childhood habit. Most children—both boys and girls—play with their genitals (private parts) fairly regularly by the age of 5-6 years. By age 15, almost 100% of boys and 25% of girls have masturbated to the point of orgasm. Estimates of the rate of adult masturbation are about 95-99% of men and 40-60% of women.

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/masturb.htm

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
There was no proof of chronic abuse. I don't understand the obsession with or the need to discuss.

And SOME investigators & doctors said there WAS chronic abuse.

If you discuss the JB case, you can't ignore this very important facet of the case.

Someone penetrated her with a paintbrush; either a family member of an intruder, whichever theory you ascribe to.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


How is this relative to the murder of JonBenet?

Because the discussion is about whether her vaginal scarring was old, new or maybe self inflicted.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I'm no expert on sexual abuse but I don't think there always has to be external evidence.

And if there was external trauma in a child, it doesn't mean that she/he would have been given a full examination at the same time the evidence was there.

For instance, if JB was taken to the doctor because of her chronic sinus problems (after all, this WAS the reason JB had been seen so often), he probably wouldn't have been looking at her vagina.

You dont' read links, do you? :rolleyes:

September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated
with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps
related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some
indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25
percent of children that age wet the bed. March 1995 -- abdominal
pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem. August 1996 --
another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said
everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this
number of complaints?
(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very
well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable
by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better.
But if you have four - year - old kids, you know how hard that is.
The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally
consistent with little girls her age.

DIANE SAWYER
If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have
seen it?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a
speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.
DIANE SAWYER
Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual
abuse?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service
people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are
very acutely aware of.
DIANE SAWYER
(on camera) And some other notes. Dr Beuf says he last saw JonBenet
Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus
infection. A couple of other things. Dr Beuf says he has turned in
people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career,
and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality
changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that
with JonBenet Ramsey.
And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's
records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was
nothing unusual there for a girl her age.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=523&forum=DCForumID101

Reducing bacterial contamination and irritation of the genital area
Many recurrent urinary tract infections, particularly those in little girls, can be prevented by some simple steps designed to decrease the chance that bacteria can get into the bladder. Since the tube that connects the bladder to the outside (or the urethra) is very short and close to the rectum in little girls, poor hygiene will lead to contamination of the genital area with large numbers of bacteria that can travel up the urethra into the bladder. Also, irritation of the urethra may cause it to have a wider opening, and thus let more bacteria in. The following measures help decrease bacterial contamination of the genital area:


Front to back wiping in girls. Gentle cleansing of the genitalia, particularly after a bowel movement, is important in keeping the number of bacteria down. Whether you clean your child's genital area, or she is old enough to wipe herself, be sure that the cleansing motion is front to back, since cleaning from the other direction will increase the risk of contaminating the urethral area with the large number of bacteria found in all stool.


No bubble baths. Although we usually think of soapy bubbles as good cleaning agents, it turns out that not only is bubble bath an irritant to the skin, soapy solutions are perfect places for bacteria to thrive. A common cause of bladder infections in girls is high bacterial contamination from bubble baths, so these should be avoided in girls with UTIs. If your daughter doesn't have a problem with urinary tract infections, short bubble baths (about 15 minutes), followed by rinsing in clear water, are OK. If possible, she also should urinate immediately after a bubble bath.

http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5355,00.html

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Please identify investigators and doctors who said there WAS chronic abuse........and may I ask did they examine her or are the just some more arm chair experts?

Penetrated with a paintbrush does not equate to chronic abuse.

And, yes, I can ignore this facet of the case, because there is no proof.

I gave a link to that already today, just scroll back and try to pay attention. The doctors listed in the link I gave are sexual abuse experts who reviewed the autopsy and slides of JonBenet's tissues taken at the time of autopsy.

These doctors are more trained and experienced than Dr Beuf when it comes to ascertaining sexual abuse.

They have more info than Dr Beuf had when JonBenet was alive because they have autopsy info including internal tissues and exam notes. We all know Dr Beuf never did an internal examination on JonBenet.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


And SOME investigators & doctors said there WAS chronic abuse.

If you discuss the JB case, you can't ignore this very important facet of the case.

Someone penetrated her with a paintbrush; either a family member of an intruder, whichever theory you ascribe to.

Do you really think a parent that is abusing their child in ANY way would take her to the doctor as often as the Ramsey's took JonBenet? :rolleyes:

Of course she was penetrated with the paintbrush handle the night she died but that has nothing to do with "chronic" or that the Ramseys' are guilty.

[nuisanceposter]

Nothing's going to cut it with you, rosy. You refuse to believe anything in JonBenet's life could possibly have been amiss, and you refuse to even entertain the thought that the Rs may know more than they let on, no matter what evidence to the contrary may be offered to you.

You asked LI_Mom to supply you with information I have already supplied for the board. Why ask her to link in something that has already been linked?

A six year old child wetting and soiling herself after a period of not wetting and soiling herself is something to check out.

[nuisanceposter]

I'm talking of the time just prior to her death. Patsy's cancer was in remission then and she very much present in JonBenet's life.

Housekeeper LHP said JonBenet wet the bed and herself daily when she first started working for them, then it cleared up for six months, and then returned about a month prior to Christmas.

Patsy was in good health and very active in the lives of both of her children at that time.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I'm talking of the time just prior to her death. Patsy's cancer was in remission then and she very much present in JonBenet's life.

Housekeeper LHP said JonBenet wet the bed and herself daily when she first started working for them, then it cleared up for six months, and then returned about a month prior to Christmas.

Patsy was in good health and very active in the lives of both of her children at that time.

The same housekeeper who said the Ramseys were great parents and would enver harm one of their children........................until she smelled money from the tabloids and then she "remembered" all this BS. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


Funny no one can find a link to that masturbation video.

Because there is no such thing. I saw that "mock trial" show and I sure don't remember any such video and if it was as described I'm sure I would have noticed. Also if there was a video like that the media would have been playing it day and night as they did the other videos. No one remembers that kind of video excpet this unnamed "best-informed poster".

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


First of all I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say scarring - I didn't know that had been proven. If you could determine that what would it prove with regard to the case?

Of course, it hasn't be proven. NOTHING in this case has been proven yet.

If there ever was a trial, it would be up to the experts to testify & the jury to choose which side to believe.

And what would it prove in regard to this case?

Well, then they'd have to figure out WHO was responsible for the vaginal trauma. It might help to explain motive.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You dont' read links, do you? :rolleyes:

September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated
with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps
related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some
indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25
percent of children that age wet the bed. March 1995 -- abdominal
pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem. August 1996 --
another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said
everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this
number of complaints?
(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very
well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable
by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better.
But if you have four - year - old kids, you know how hard that is.
The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally
consistent with little girls her age.

DIANE SAWYER
If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have
seen it?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a
speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.
DIANE SAWYER
Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual
abuse?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service
people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are
very acutely aware of.
DIANE SAWYER
(on camera) And some other notes. Dr Beuf says he last saw JonBenet
Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus
infection. A couple of other things. Dr Beuf says he has turned in
people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career,
and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality
changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that
with JonBenet Ramsey.
And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's
records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was
nothing unusual there for a girl her age.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=523&forum=DCForumID101

Reducing bacterial contamination and irritation of the genital area
Many recurrent urinary tract infections, particularly those in little girls, can be prevented by some simple steps designed to decrease the chance that bacteria can get into the bladder. Since the tube that connects the bladder to the outside (or the urethra) is very short and close to the rectum in little girls, poor hygiene will lead to contamination of the genital area with large numbers of bacteria that can travel up the urethra into the bladder. Also, irritation of the urethra may cause it to have a wider opening, and thus let more bacteria in. The following measures help decrease bacterial contamination of the genital area:


Front to back wiping in girls. Gentle cleansing of the genitalia, particularly after a bowel movement, is important in keeping the number of bacteria down. Whether you clean your child's genital area, or she is old enough to wipe herself, be sure that the cleansing motion is front to back, since cleaning from the other direction will increase the risk of contaminating the urethral area with the large number of bacteria found in all stool.


No bubble baths. Although we usually think of soapy bubbles as good cleaning agents, it turns out that not only is bubble bath an irritant to the skin, soapy solutions are perfect places for bacteria to thrive. A common cause of bladder infections in girls is high bacterial contamination from bubble baths, so these should be avoided in girls with UTIs. If your daughter doesn't have a problem with urinary tract infections, short bubble baths (about 15 minutes), followed by rinsing in clear water, are OK. If possible, she also should urinate immediately after a bubble bath.

http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5355,00.html



Thanks for providing the link that backs up my point. It's just as I was saying....

Her own doctor says:

DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.


So he WOULDN'T know whether there was any scarring INSIDE her vagina before the night she was killed.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


The same housekeeper who said the Ramseys were great parents and would enver harm one of their children........................until she smelled money from the tabloids and then she "remembered" all this BS. :rolleyes:

What did the housekeeper say that was so damaging to the Ramseys?

The worst I remember is that Patsy was messy & the kids were spoiled.

Why such animosity towards everyone & anyone who describes the Ramseys as anything less than perfect?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom




Thanks for providing the link that backs up my point. It's just as I was saying....

Her own doctor says:

DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.


So he WOULDN'T know whether there was any scarring INSIDE her vagina before the night she was killed.

Oh please the fact he didn't do a speculum exam is BECAUSE he did NOT suspect and there were NO indications of abuse. MY God RARELY do they do a speculum exam on a 6 year old. :rolleyes:

All I can say to your "point" is that is VERY sick thinking about a 6 year old with NOTHING to back it up IMO.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


What did the housekeeper say that was so damaging to the Ramseys?

The worst I remember is that Patsy was messy & the kids were spoiled.

Why such animosity towards everyone & anyone who describes the Ramseys as anything less than perfect?

The wetting and messing herself is a lie. Few kids wipe properly and in most peoples mind that is not messing in their pants. REad the tabloid and you will see what she said. BTW, obviously the GJ did not put any stock in what she said because she did testify. She can thank her lucky stars there was no defense attorney there to cross examine her. Her lies would have burried her.

When people change their "story" so drastically when money enters the picture that says it all IMO.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Oh please the fact he didn't do a speculum exam is BECAUSE he did NOT suspect and there were NO indications of abuse. MY God RARELY do they do a speculum exam on a 6 year old. :rolleyes:

All I can say to your "point" is that is VERY sick thinking about a 6 year old with NOTHING to back it up IMO.


Thanks again for backing up my point. A 6 year old's pediatrician would RARELY have a reason to know whether a child has vaginal scarring.

So then we know that we can't depend on him for saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that JB was not sexually abused.

If experts believe there was PRIOR VAGINAL SCARRING then it must be left up to the experts to testify.

Unfortunately, sexual abuse was part of JB's murder and you can call me sick all you want but it's impossible to discuss this case without discussing a few things that make you blush or upset.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



Thanks again for backing up my point. A 6 year old's pediatrician would RARELY have a reason to know whether a child has vaginal scarring.

So then we know that we can't depend on him for saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that JB was not sexually abused.

If experts believe there was PRIOR VAGINAL SCARRING then it must be left up to the experts to testify.

Unfortunately, sexual abuse was part of JB's murder and you can call me sick all you want but it's impossible to discuss this case without discussing a few things that make you blush or upset.

NOTHING is "beyond a "shadow of a doubt". It is beyond a "REASONABLE doubt". Experts ALSO said there was NO vaginal scarring and i DID post the link.

It does not make me blush or get me upset. It is just VERY strange IMO for someone to be so concerned about a 6 year olds vagina........................BEFORE the night she was killed.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



Thanks again for backing up my point. A 6 year old's pediatrician would RARELY have a reason to know whether a child has vaginal scarring.

So then we know that we can't depend on him for saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that JB was not sexually abused.

If experts believe there was PRIOR VAGINAL SCARRING then it must be left up to the experts to testify.

Unfortunately, sexual abuse was part of JB's murder and you can call me sick all you want but it's impossible to discuss this case without discussing a few things that make you blush or upset.

Other stories claimed that the "vaginal abrasion" mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states: -

"From what is noted in the autopsy report, there is no evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the vagina, the labia and there is no other indication of any healed scars in any of those areas. There is no other indication from the autopsy report at all that there is any other previous injuries that have healed in that particular area."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/allegations_4.html

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


They didn't back up your point. They refuted it.

Only in Bizarro World.

My point: 6 year olds do not normally have internal exams. Her doctor would NOT know if there was internal scarring.

Breezy's post quoted JB's own doctor saying: 6 year olds do not normally have internal exams.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


It's amazing how some people will sell their very souls for money.

I don't think speaking about your experiences inside the Ramsey home equals selling your soul.

Unless of course, the Ramseys forced her to sign a secrecy oath before taking the position. Then maybe the Ramseys would be right to be outraged that she told what she knew or saw.

Why on earth would Linda feel that she has to protect the reputation of people who accused her & her husband of murdering a child? So she called them slobs. Big deal.

[nuisanceposter]

It's not a lie that JonBenet had problems with wetting herself. Fleet White talked about sending JonBenet home in borrowed underwear with her wet ones in a plastic baggie. Even Nedra Paugh referred to JonBenet soiling herself - she called it "dirtying".

Anyone familiar with this case knows that there were toiletting issues with JonBenet and that she sometimes wet herself, not just wet the bed.


LI_Mom, here's what former housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh said about the Rs.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=3952


And here's what former housekeeper Linda Wilcox said about the Rs.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/07211998lindawilcoxon-pb.htm

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Other stories claimed that the "vaginal abrasion" mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states: -

"From what is noted in the autopsy report, there is no evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the vagina, the labia and there is no other indication of any healed scars in any of those areas. There is no other indication from the autopsy report at all that there is any other previous injuries that have healed in that particular area."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/allegations_4.html

And as I said in an earlier post, this will be another battle of the experts that the jury will have to decide.

The abuse.
The stun gun.

It just goes to show that if you look hard enough you can always find an expert who will testify to what you want the jury to hear.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


And as I said in an earlier post, this will be another battle of the experts that the jury will have to decide.

The abuse.
The stun gun.

It just goes to show that if you look hard enough you can always find an expert who will testify to what you want the jury to hear.

If you look hard enough you can always find a blogger or a "best-informed poster" that can make up all sorts of stories and those who will believe them because they WANT to.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
It's not a lie that JonBenet had problems with wetting herself. Fleet White talked about sending JonBenet home in borrowed underwear with her wet ones in a plastic baggie. Even Nedra Paugh referred to JonBenet soiling herself - she called it "dirtying".

Anyone familiar with this case knows that there were toiletting issues with JonBenet and that she sometimes wet herself, not just wet the bed.


LI_Mom, here's what former housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh said about the Rs.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=3952



Yikes! That's some book. John should have called Monica Lewisnsky, I think. lol



I don't know why anyone would feel a need to deny that JB had potty problems.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


If you look hard enough you can always find a blogger or a "best-informed poster" that can make up all sorts of stories and those who will believe them because they WANT to.

That's true, too.

Sometimes there's facts.

Sometimes there's lies.

Sometimes there's people offering support.

Sometimes there's satire or downright nastiness.

But that doesn't mean that just because you come to a different conclusion that everyone else is automatically wrong.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Fleet White - what a friend he turned out to be. The only thing I can figure is he wanted to be John or at least to control John. Wonder why? JMO

The only thing I can figure is he realized the Rs knew more than they were letting on. And John Ramsey was an equally good a friend, wasn't he? The Rs threw just about everyone they knew under the bus. Too bad the evidence kept indicating them instead of anyone else.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


What a couple of losers......... JMO

John and Patsy? Absolutely. Both of them make me feel nauseous.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


John and Patsy? Absolutely. Both of them make me feel nauseous.



If they make you nauseous why do you post so much about them? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Getting nauseous without any proof - that's a waste of time. IMO

Probably the green eyed monster...............jealousy.

Strange anyone would be jealous of somone who lost children way too soon, had to put up with an umbrella and silly accusations and evil nasty gossip for almsot 10 years and sufffered and lost a battle to cancer too soon as well.

I guess it was the money, faith and goodness of the Ramseys that makes her jealous.

[nuisanceposter]

Well, breezy, I'm sure that due to the maturity level I've seen you exhibit here that that's all you're capable of understanding. I pity you.

John and Patsy Ramsey make me nauseous because I believe Patsy killed her daughter by accident and John helped her cover it up. I believe they valued themselves more than their murdered child.

There was enough evidence to convince many well-renowned experts including FBI of Ramsey guilt, and that's good enough for me. Common sense and revision of the evidence tells me someone in the Ramsey family is the most likely perp. If it weren't for the botched crime scene, corrupt officials, and the Ramsey money fueling an aggressive defense team I think things might have turned out less favorably for the Rs.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


If there was so much evidence ("enough") to convince all those "experts" of guilt, why were the Ramsey's never charged with the death of their daughter?

No motive, no evidence, no proof.

Botched crime scene, corrupt officials, aggressive defense attorneys fueled by Ramsey money.

Accidental death does not require a motive.

The evidence supports Ramsey involvement as there is forensic evidence linking them to the crime - but none linking an intruder to it.

No proof in existance would be good enough for those who refuse to see it.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Well, obviously there wasn't enough "evidence" to even indict much less convict them. ROFL.........


By the same token, they could never be EXCLUDED either.

Maybe if the police didn't screw up so badly those first hours & days and screw up the crime scene, fail to get separate interviews & let Patsy's sister go through the house removing potential evidence.

maybe if the police had been able to question them separately after JB's broken body was found, they would have been able to solve the case.

maybe if the Ramseys didn't wait over a year to turn over the clothes they were wearing.


Just maybe the Ramseys would have been quickly excluded and the police would have been satisfied that the parents were not trying to hide something.

But I agree, about the ROFL part.... the Ramseys succeeded in avoiding indictments &/or convictions. They sure did have the last laugh.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Well there is a revelation already posted upteen times. And "experts" is a relative term. I attended a trial where the defense called in a slew of so called "experts" including Henry Lee and thanks to all of them the defendant is now LWOPP.


Explain how "expert" is a relative term.

As far as I know, the jury hears the qualifications of each expert who is sworn in.

It's up to the jury to decide WHICH expert has the more reasonable or logical theory pertaining to the specific case. And sometimes, the jury is so confused they completely ignore the testimony from BOTH sides.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Why on earth would Linda feel she has to change her story at the drop of a dollar? And who is talking about the slobs comment. Anyone who looked at the photos of the house could see it was messy. LOL, maybe Linda wasn't such a good housekeeper.

I haven't followed much about Linda.

How exactly did she "change" her story? Are you saying that things she said 'on the record' &/or to investigators were changed?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Botched crime scene, corrupt officials, aggressive defense attorneys fueled by Ramsey money.

Accidental death does not require a motive.

The evidence supports Ramsey involvement as there is forensic evidence linking them to the crime - but none linking an intruder to it.

No proof in existance would be good enough for those who refuse to see it.

And there were just too many instances where the Ramseys denying having any knowledge of 'suspicious' things found at the scene.

Pineapple
Flashlight
Hi-Tek boots
Santa Bear
Baseball bat

The Ramseys seemed to be working very hard to find items that would 'prove' a mysterious intruder was at their home.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


And there were just too many instances where the Ramseys denying having any knowledge of 'suspicious' things found at the scene.

Pineapple..... (Maybe the intruder worked for Dole? lol)
Flashlight...... belonged to Ramseys
Hi-Tek boots... Burke owned a pair
Santa Bear..... JB won the bear at a pageant
Baseball bat.... belonged to Burke

The Ramseys seemed to be working very hard to find items that would 'prove' a mysterious intruder was at their home.

I should have said:

The Ramseys seemed to be working very hard to create the illusion that a mysterious intruder was at their home.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


What reason would the Ramsey's have to lie about any one of those items on this list that were found in their very own house or on their property. It's silly. And does not go to evidence, murder, or proof.

To create the ILLUSION that a mysterious intruder was in their home.

Yes, it WAS a mistake to deny knowing about seemingly innocent items because it leads investigators to think if a person lies about SMALL THINGS, they'll also lie about BIG THINGS.

Not to mention all the time investigators then wasted following up on false 'clues.'

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


What an odd bird he turned out to be. Seems to have some anger management, I'm above the law kind of issues.


Fleet took his cue from the Ramseys.

The R lawyers wouldn't allow THEM to answer questions unless THEY had copies of previous statements they made AND were allowed to see all the evidence the police had gathered.

Why would Fleet agree to leave himself vulnerable when he saw that the Ramseys priority was in protecting themselves NOT to solve the crime?

Fleet's priority at that point was protecting himself NOT worrying about justice for JB.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


That is your perception.

One shared by many, including some very qualified experts such as FBI's CASKU unit.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


All those people working on this case and not one of them or any number of them together could find enough evidence to convict the Ramsey's. Who had the last laugh? Not the parents of a dead child but the person who may still be alive and if reading these boards is certainly getting a hardy har har from some of the posters convicting the Ramsey's.

Kinda hard to get a conviction when the DA goes against protocol to shield the suspects.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


One is not going to create the illusion of a mysterious intruder with those items. It makes no sense. You talk about the Ramsey's as if they have the mentality of a Linda or the hot headed erratic behavior of a Fleet White. And there you go again with the lies about small and big things. Do you have a link for that?


Yes, I agree, the Ramseys did NOT manage to create the illusion, they only managed to slow down the investigation.

Do I have a link? No, all these items are discussed at different times. If you want to claim I'm lying, then provide a link that shows that the items in question were never linked to the Ramseys & i'll refute you from there.

I stand by my statement.


Oh if I was going to use adjectives to describe the Ramseys, I would NOT compare them to "the mentality of Linda" or "the hot headed erratic behavior of a Fleet White".... I'd be more likely to call them self-centered, arrogant & very, very stupid. I might even call them sadly shallow, considering how important outward appearances were to them. But that's just my personal opinion.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Fleet was a grown man, he didn't need to take his "cue" from anyone but Fleet White. In fact it was no business of Fleet's about how the Ramsey's chose to deal with the media onslaught.

And why would Fleet consider himself vulnerable. Did he have something to hide?

It's a very interesting point that Fleet said it was in his and his family's best interest not to answer any questions. How odd is that unless he or his family has something to hide.

It's not a typical thing for law abiding citizens to be arrested for contempt of court, like Fleet White was.

And why would the Ramseys consider themselves vulnerable. Did they have something to hide?

Their lawyers certainly acted as if they did.


I think Fleet did the right thing.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Since you are forever making judgment calls on this thread, this latest post comes as no surprise. It's interesting that you feel informed enough to do this since I am assuming you have never met the Ramsey's personally and only know about them from what you read.

How many times did you meet Linda?

How many times did you meet Fleet White?


You certainly have NO QUALMS about saying inflammatory & nasty things about anyone & everyone connected to the case who did not believe the Ramseys are innocent.

Why should the people who believe the Ramseys are hiding something be held to a different standard?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Not if there is "enough evidence." And no one thought that there was.

No one? No one at all? Got a link for that, or is that just your opinion?

Oh, I know what you meant...there's not enough evidence to prove anyone other than a Ramsey did it. Because there's not, or there would have been a conviction by now...or they would have at least narrowed it to a suspect other than some anonynous boogeyman who defies the laws of physics.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


No one? No one at all? Got a link for that, or is that just your opinion?



Well didn't Judge Carnes, in the civil case, throw up her hands & say, according to the evidence she was given, it seems more likely that a mystery intruder did the deed & there was no solid proof the Ramseys were guilty?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Well didn't Judge Carnes, in the civil case, throw up her hands & say, according to the evidence she was given, it seems more likely that a mystery intruder did the deed & there was no solid proof the Ramseys were guilty?

Key words - "according to the evidence she was given".

She did not see all of the evidence. She had to go by what she had in front of her, which was not the entire case. She didn't see some 40,000 pages of police documents.

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm

Judge Julie Carnes presided over a CIVIL lawsuit, in CIVIL court, a lawsuit filed by Chris Wolf against the Ramseys for defamation of character, after they named him as a murder suspect in their book, "Death of Innocence."

The Ramseys’ civil attorney Lin Wood presented a one-sided view of the evidence to Judge Carnes. Her decision was based on that one-sided view. However, there were over 40,000 pages of police documents and evidence collected in the criminal investigation by the BPD that Judge Carnes never saw.

[nuisanceposter]

In reference to the video of JonBenet seen on the Geraldo mock trial episode of November 1997 (offered by a well-informed poster on another board, much thanks), here is part of the transcript where they discuss it:


Raoul Felder: Do any highlights from the tapes you studied stand out in your mind?

Densen-Gerber: On Dec. 23rd, JonBenet is dressed as a little elf doing a show for senior citizens. She picks up a saxophone and, for the next minute-and-a-half, she masturbates with it.

Judge Katz: What is the significance of that?

Densen-Gerber: That's a sexually stimulated child. At six years old, you're not going to put a saxophone between your legs and rub it back and forth.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


That sums it up very nicely.

I wish that were the case. Just because the authorities failed to act and let the Rs have every concession they could does not mean there's no evidence against them or that they're innocent.

[nuisanceposter]

Sad but true both ways. I doubt we'll ever see either an intruder or a Ramsey found guilty for the murder of JonBenet.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Where is the link to the video? It's interesting the poster who put up the comment and then runs off without a link. More tabloid trash. There will forever be those posters who do this for the sheer purpose of spreading gossip and innuendo. Sick and slanderous.

I don't know if a link to that actual video exists anymore, and the person who gave the info about the transcript didn't know where it would be, either.

Felder and Densen-Gerber are discussing it so they have seen it, therefore, it exists and depicts what the original poster said it depicts - a six year old girl rubbing a musical instrument between her legs, simulating masturbation. That's all the info I have at present.

Your obsession with seeing this video is a bit disturbing. And you have to nerve to call others sick. I personally have no desire to see sweet pretty little JonBenet do something so questionable at all. Double you tee eff.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
In reference to the video of JonBenet seen on the Geraldo mock trial episode of November 1997 (offered by a well-informed poster on another board, much thanks), here is part of the transcript where they discuss it:


Raoul Felder: Do any highlights from the tapes you studied stand out in your mind?

Densen-Gerber: On Dec. 23rd, JonBenet is dressed as a little elf doing a show for senior citizens. She picks up a saxophone and, for the next minute-and-a-half, she masturbates with it.

Judge Katz: What is the significance of that?

Densen-Gerber: That's a sexually stimulated child. At six years old, you're not going to put a saxophone between your legs and rub it back and forth.

Humm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Senior citizens huh?



This case does not begin on the night that JonBenét was killed, but rather three days before. At 6:48 p.m. on December 23, 1996, a 911 call was placed from the Ramsey home to the Boulder Police Department. The call was terminated before an emergency dispatcher could speak to the caller. Six minutes later the police called the Ramsey home, but got a voice-mail message, so a police officer was dispatched to the house. The officer was told that the call was a mistake and he did not file a report. At the time of the call the Ramseys were having their annual Christmas party, complete with a Santa Claus who passed out presents to neighborhood children. With so many children in the house, anyone could have accidentally dialed 911.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1462379

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I don't know if a link to that actual video exists anymore, and the person who gave the info about the transcript didn't know where it would be, either.

Felder and Densen-Gerber are discussing it so they have seen it, therefore, it exists and depicts what the original poster said it depicts - a six year old girl rubbing a musical instrument between her legs, simulating masturbation. That's all the info I have at present.

Your obsession with seeing this video is a bit disturbing. And you have to nerve to call others sick. I personally have no desire to see sweet pretty little JonBenet do something so questionable at all. Double you tee eff.

Do an internet search. There is NOTHING about JonBeent dressed as an elf on Dec 23rd ANYWHERE excpet in that posters sick mind. :cuss:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Well let's make it simple for you about the "enough evidence" to convict the Ramsey's of murder. They weren't convicted. So where is this "enough evidence" to convict? You are the one who made the statement now back it up. There was no way the BPD wanted to end up with egg on their face if there was enough evidence to convict. There was no way the DA wanted to end up with egg on his face if there was enough evidence to convict. But they didn't. So where is the "enough evidence." Where is it? The BPD are looking for it.

Calm down and take a deep breath. Wow, such passion. Is your name Ramsey, by any chance?

I like to refer back to the meeting involving CASKU, Thomas, and Smit where Thomas presented his case, CASKU agreed with him, and Smit sat there and said nothing. Where's all the evidence pointing, if globally-recognized experts like CASKU agree with Thomas and Smit won't even say one word to present his intruder theory? It says a lot to me that Smit didn't even bother to outline his theory of an intruder so experts could aye or nay it - it sounds like he's the one who didn't want egg on his face.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


And just why would "the authorities let the Rs have every concession?" What would be the point of this? How do you think this served the "authorities" interests who by the way did not benefit in the least by not solving this case. This is such bunk as to make a new tabloid headline.

Being wealthy and having connections paid off admirably for the Ramseys. They were able to hire counsel that knew the DA personally.

Proof that no authorities benefitted from the Ramsey case?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


Why don't they just title the video JB masturbates for senior citizens and then stick it on the cover of the Globe. At which point they will have to tone the actual article down to JB dances as an elf for an audience of senior citizens. Have you seen the link to that video yet? Filth is in the eye of the beholder and the people who perpetuate it.

There is NO link to see. It's in the sick posters mind and IMO anyone who posts it on this or any other forum as coming from an informed poster who saw it is just as sick.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Being wealthy and having connections paid off admirably for the Ramseys. They were able to hire counsel that knew the DA personally.

Proof that no authorities benefitted from the Ramsey case?

Proof that their money and/or connections "paid off admirably" for the ramseys???? There just was not the evidence to indict let alone convict. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


Rather it be Ramsey than nuisance.

You can bring up CASKU til the cows come home but I don't see how they helped bring the case to trial. Did the case go to trial? What happened to the "enough evidence" that the brilliant Steve Thomas (now hammering nails) presented? The person covered in egg is Steve Thomas. He looked like a whipped puppy sitting directly across from Patsy Ramsey on Larry King.

Not to mention when he had the chance to prove his big talk he "settled". :rolleyes: If he had the proof he had the chance to prove it and didn't. He is a joke to any real detective.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Rather it be Ramsey than nuisance.

You can bring up CASKU til the cows come home but I don't see how they helped bring the case to trial. Did the case go to trial? What happened to the "enough evidence" that the brilliant Steve Thomas (now hammering nails) presented? The person covered in egg is Steve Thomas. He looked like a whipped puppy sitting directly across from Patsy Ramsey on Larry King.

I disagree. I thought he had the Rs looking like sputtering liars who used any means possible including outrage as a reason not to avoid questions.

And breezy, just because you can't find a link doesn't mean the video doesn't exist.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I disagree. I thought he had the Rs looking like sputtering liars who used any means possible including outrage as a reason not to avoid questions.

And breezy, just because you can't find a link doesn't mean the video doesn't exist.

I WATCHED the stupid show and there was NO video like that!!! Keep up the disgusting gossip and it shows much more about you than the Ramseys'. My God, have you no sense of decency? This is a dead little 6 year old girl you are spreading this rumor about. :flamemad:

Are you saying that JonBenet made this so called video on the same day her parents had a Chrismas party for CHILDREN at their home??:rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I WATCHED the stupid show and there was NO video like that!!! Keep up the disgusting gossip and it shows much more about you than the Ramseys'. My God, have you no sense of decency? This is a dead little 6 year old girl you are spreading this rumor about. :flamemad:

I saw the show too, breezy, and it aired in November of 1997. Is your memory that crisp that you remember exactly which videos of JonBenet were shown on that episode? Which other ones were featured?

This isn't gossip when I can show you part a transcript where the people on the program are discussing the video in question, but I'm the least bit surprised that your only recourse is to accuse me of being untruthful or of spreading gossip. It's your constant refrain, as if you are a child who refuses to believe that which you do not like to hear.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Why don't they just title the video JB masturbates for senior citizens and then stick it on the cover of the Globe. At which point they will have to tone the actual article down to JB dances as an elf for an audience of senior citizens. Have you seen the link to that video yet? Filth is in the eye of the beholder and the people who perpetuate it.

You and Breezy sure sound like you won't be able to sleep unless you see the video.


As I said yesterday, I looked at some JB videos & didn't have the patience or desire to watch every video on the internet.

I think, since the video link is not posted, let's concentrate on what we CAN exam.


From what I did see, the videos of JB dressed like a little girl were adorable. She looked happy & carefree. The video footage of her dressed like a grown woman or a Las Vegas showgirl & with too much makeup were painful to see.

Some of her costumes were truly disgusting for a 6 year old baby.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Then that is your perception. Two guilty murderers are not going to voluntarily go on a national TV show and put themselves in the hot seat possibly making some misstep that would help to reveal their crime. How stupid would that be?

If the video of JB masturbating for senior citizens exists then there would be a link. Where is the link? And why are you defending a poster who makes such outrageous comments about a video they can't even link.

They counted on people not believing they would do such a thing to their own child, and to a certain extent, it worked. Very ballsy, but John and Patsy don't seem to be too modest to begin with.

Not every video is going to be found on the internet. Sometimes you can't just click a link and get direct access.

I didn't think I was defending anyone. I heard of the video, asked about it, and told you what I learned. I know of rashomon from other boards and have a good opinion of her and her information. It would help you a bit to get out to the other JBR boards and talk to other people. You get a different view from everyone, and it helps you make a more well-rounded opinion.

In rashomon's defense, though - I believe her source is a person from a board where the regulars are known well enough by each other to have their word count for something, and they don't require links to every little thing. She has no reason to not believe it.

[nuisanceposter]

On an appearance on Larry King Live with Steve Thomas, John Ramsey (April 28th 2001) said he was going to sue Thomas for calling his wife a murderer.

The lawsuit was filed and later settled in the Ramseys’ favor.

However, as with other statements the Ramseys or their attorneys have made publicly, there is really more to the story.

In a letter released to the public, former Detective Steve Thomas said the following:

- He was not the one who sought the settlement.
- He did not admit to any wrongdoing.
- He did not personally pay one single penny to the Ramseys.
- The book can continue to be published as is with no corrections.
- He can continue to speak on the case if he so wishes.

<snip>


Questions and Answers regarding the Steve Thomas case:

What has changed since the Larry King Live show on April 28th 2001?

Q: Can Steve Thomas still speak about the case?
A: Yes, Steve can still speak about the case.

Q: Can the book that claims, in the "author’s opinion," that Patsy Ramsey is a murderer still be sold in bookstores?
A: Yes, the book can still be sold.

Q: Did Steve Thomas have to admit any wrongdoing?
A: Steve Thomas has never admitted to any wrongdoing.

Q: Did Steve Thomas have to pay any money to the Ramseys?
A: Steve Thomas did not pay any money to the Ramseys.

The only thing that has changed is that the Ramseys and their attorney Lin Wood lined their pockets with money, but not money from Steve Thomas. The Ramseys did not need to settle but they did.

In fact, the Ramseys claimed it was not about the money, and, during a face-to-face confrontation with Steve Thomas on Larry King Live, John Ramsey vehemently declared that Steve would be spending “a lot of quality time with….Team Ramsey,” apparently referring to time spent in court defending himself against this lawsuit.

“KING: Are you suing Steve?

J. RAMSEY: Yes, you can count on that, Steve. You'll spend a lot of quality time with what you'd call "Team Ramsey."

THOMAS: We'll see you, John..”

Not only did Steve not spend any time with “Team Ramsey,” the Ramseys settled out of court and the person with whom they were so angry paid no money to them and has never admitted wrongdoing, either before or after the lawsuit. It would appear that the Ramseys received money from the publisher but not the vindication they claimed they were after.


http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I saw the show too, breezy, and it aired in November of 1997. Is your memory that crisp that you remember exactly which videos of JonBenet were shown on that episode? Which other ones were featured?

This isn't gossip when I can show you part a transcript where the people on the program are discussing the video in question, but I'm the least bit surprised that your only recourse is to accuse me of being untruthful or of spreading gossip. It's your constant refrain, as if you are a child who refuses to believe that which you do not like to hear.

If I saw a video as described I would have remembered it. EVERY one of JonBenet's video's have been played over and over for the public on TV and NEVER was thre one like that. Even one of the "bibles" of the guity crowd that has videos on her site does NOT have that made up in a sick mind "video".

http://www.acandyrose.com/maketoastarchive.htm


You ARE spreading gossip and you have NOTHING to back it up!! I call that disgusting. IMO it is YOU who is like a child that has made up it's mind already and truth will not stop you from believeing what your sick mind WANTS to believe about a CHILD and her mother, both now dead. :cuss: Below contempt IMO.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
On an appearance on Larry King Live with Steve Thomas, John Ramsey (April 28th 2001) said he was going to sue Thomas for calling his wife a murderer.

The lawsuit was filed and later settled in the Ramseys’ favor.

However, as with other statements the Ramseys or their attorneys have made publicly, there is really more to the story.

In a letter released to the public, former Detective Steve Thomas said the following:

- He was not the one who sought the settlement.
- He did not admit to any wrongdoing.
- He did not personally pay one single penny to the Ramseys.
- The book can continue to be published as is with no corrections.
- He can continue to speak on the case if he so wishes.

<snip>


Questions and Answers regarding the Steve Thomas case:

What has changed since the Larry King Live show on April 28th 2001?

Q: Can Steve Thomas still speak about the case?
A: Yes, Steve can still speak about the case.

Q: Can the book that claims, in the "author’s opinion," that Patsy Ramsey is a murderer still be sold in bookstores?
A: Yes, the book can still be sold.

Q: Did Steve Thomas have to admit any wrongdoing?
A: Steve Thomas has never admitted to any wrongdoing.

Q: Did Steve Thomas have to pay any money to the Ramseys?
A: Steve Thomas did not pay any money to the Ramseys.

The only thing that has changed is that the Ramseys and their attorney Lin Wood lined their pockets with money, but not money from Steve Thomas. The Ramseys did not need to settle but they did.

In fact, the Ramseys claimed it was not about the money, and, during a face-to-face confrontation with Steve Thomas on Larry King Live, John Ramsey vehemently declared that Steve would be spending “a lot of quality time with….Team Ramsey,” apparently referring to time spent in court defending himself against this lawsuit.

“KING: Are you suing Steve?

J. RAMSEY: Yes, you can count on that, Steve. You'll spend a lot of quality time with what you'd call "Team Ramsey."

THOMAS: We'll see you, John..”

Not only did Steve not spend any time with “Team Ramsey,” the Ramseys settled out of court and the person with whom they were so angry paid no money to them and has never admitted wrongdoing, either before or after the lawsuit. It would appear that the Ramseys received money from the publisher but not the vindication they claimed they were after.


http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm


BOULDER — The former police detective who wrote a book accusing John and Patsy Ramsey of killing their daughter has agreed to pay them an undisclosed amount of money to settle a libel lawsuit.

Ex-detective Steve Thomas, his co-author, Don Davis, and publisher St. Martin’s Press are participating in the settlement, Ramsey attorney L. Lin Wood said. He would not say how the three will divide the payment.

“The settlement agreement is a repudiation of Steve Thomas’ theory,” Wood said Wednesday. “I think it clearly is a vindication of the Ramseys .”

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail02.asp?ID=23

[LI_Mom]

J. RAMSEY: Yes, you can count on that, Steve. You'll spend a lot of quality time with what you'd call "Team Ramsey."


Bwwaaahhhh.

They're all so tough & ready to fight as long as they don't have to talk about that night JB was murdered in their home.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


If I saw a video as described I would have remembered it. EVERY one of JonBenet's video's have been played over and over for the public on TV and NEVER was thre one like that. Even one of the "bibles" of the guity crowd that has videos on her site does NOT have that made up in a sick mind "video".

http://www.acandyrose.com/maketoastarchive.htm


You ARE spreading gossip and you have NOTHING to back it up!! I call that disgusting. IMO it is YOU who is like a child that has made up it's mind already and truth will not stop you from believeing what your sick mind WANTS to believe about a CHILD and her mother, both now dead. :cuss: Below contempt IMO.

So you're claiming that video doesn't exist because you don't remember seeing it. Wow, how self-centered can you get? Perhaps it was on when you went to the bathroom, or perhaps as a 64 year old great grandmother, your memory isn't what it used to be.

Thank god that video is so hard to find.

Did you personally go through every photo at maketoast and note the dates on all of them? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the creator of that site didn't have a still of that performance to include?

I have that part of the transcript to back me up, featuring Katz, Felder, and Densen-Gerber discussing the video in question. If you want to say I'm spreading gossip, why don't you find some proof that the video doesn't exist and that those people never said that on television? That would settle that right there.

You have no proof that I'm spreading gossip other than your own opinion. You need to stop accusing me unless you can prove I'm doing what you're accusing me of.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


So you're claiming that video doesn't exist because you don't remember seeing it. Wow, how self-centered can you get? Perhaps it was on when you went to the bathroom, or perhaps as a 64 year old great grandmother, your memory isn't what it used to be.

Thank god that video is so hard to find.

Did you personally go through every photo at maketoast and note the dates on all of them? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the creator of that site didn't have a still of that performance to include?

I have that part of the transcript to back me up, featuring Katz, Felder, and Densen-Gerber discussing the video in question. If you want to say I'm spreading gossip, why don't you find some proof that the video doesn't exist and that those people never said that on television? That would settle that right there.

You have no proof that I'm spreading gossip other than your own opinion. You need to stop accusing me unless you can prove I'm doing what you're accusing me of.

Can you READ? Try again.

If I saw a video as described I would have remembered it. EVERY one of JonBenet's video's have been played over and over for the public on TV and NEVER was thre one like that. Even one of the "bibles" of the guity crowd that has videos on her site does NOT have that made up in a sick mind "video".

http://www.acandyrose.com/maketoastarchive.htm

You have NO poof of such a video and are still promoting this BS and IMO that is below contempt.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234



“The settlement agreement is a repudiation of Steve Thomas’ theory,” Wood said Wednesday. “I think it clearly is a vindication of the Ramseys .”


Lin Wood can "think" that as long as he likes.

That doesn't make it so. Not in real life.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Can you READ? Try again.

If I saw a video as described I would have remembered it. EVERY one of JonBenet's video's have been played over and over for the public on TV and NEVER was thre one like that. Even one of the "bibles" of the guity crowd that has videos on her site does NOT have that made up in a sick mind "video".

http://www.acandyrose.com/maketoastarchive.htm

You have NO poof of such a video and are still promoting this BS and IMO that is below contempt.


Transcript.

Put up or shut up, breezy. Prove me wrong or be accused of spreading gossip yourself. You have NO PROOF this video doesn't exist, and with a transcript featuring people talking about it, I'd say it does.

For the record, I do not recall this video. The only thing I have to go by is this bit of transcript from the show. It's enough for me.

Prove me wrong, or everyone will know your claims that it doesn't exist are nothing more than GOSSIP you desperately wish was true.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Lin Wood can "think" that as long as he likes.

That doesn't make it so. Not in real life.

Check this out. From the article breezy linked:

"Wood said that the libel claim was a gamble for the Ramseys , who would have had to prove their innocence to win the case."


I think I know now why the Ramseys decided to settle. LOL!

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


So you're claiming that video doesn't exist because you don't remember seeing it. Wow, how self-centered can you get? Perhaps it was on when you went to the bathroom, or perhaps as a 64 year old great grandmother, your memory isn't what it used to be.

Thank god that video is so hard to find.

Did you personally go through every photo at maketoast and note the dates on all of them? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the creator of that site didn't have a still of that performance to include?

I have that part of the transcript to back me up, featuring Katz, Felder, and Densen-Gerber discussing the video in question. If you want to say I'm spreading gossip, why don't you find some proof that the video doesn't exist and that those people never said that on television? That would settle that right there.

You have no proof that I'm spreading gossip other than your own opinion. You need to stop accusing me unless you can prove I'm doing what you're accusing me of.

Well said, NuisancePoster.


When you & Breezy are done arguing over the existance of that video, maybe we can all talk about the innapropriate videos of JB that we can link to.

Some of those pageant costumes were real doozies & the way she was taught to walk on stage was NOT what you would call typical behavior for a little girl. Blech.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Check this out. From the article breezy linked:

"Wood said that the libel claim was a gamble for the Ramseys , who would have had to prove their innocence to win the case."


I think I know now why the Ramseys decided to settle. LOL!

LOL!!

Lin Wood loved his cash cow but I'm still a little shocked that he would have taken such a gamble with their reputations & even potentially their freedom.

Now, I'm kind of disappointed that Thomas agreed to settle. It would have been MUCH more interesting to see him pin their backs to the wall & make them squirm. Rats.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Why don't you ask the BPD why the Rs good friend, a lawyer, came to them right after the murder and offered to handle things for them for a few days. The BPD, by their actions, alerted wise people to take action. BTW, glad you are on Fleet's side. That will be one less burden for the Rs.

What "things" did the Ramsey lawyer offer to do FOR the police?


I'm on Fleet's side? Uh huh. Just like you and Breezy are invaluable to the Ramseys. They couldn't go on another day without knowing you're defending them so diligently. :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Lin Wood made a very good call. Any case is a gamble. And we know why Steve Thomas agreed to settle. BTW has Steve written any more books?

So now you would settle for seeing Steve Thomas make the Rs "squirm" rather than getting a conviction? Good luck on both counts. Cause it's not happened so far.


Have the Ramseys written another book?

If so, I hope it was more believable than their first one.


Where did I say, I didn't want to see a conviction in the murder case? The case in question was one of the endless ccivil suits that the Ramsey murder generated.

At least the lawyers benefitted from JB's death.

[nuisanceposter]

I can't believe you'd admit to such a biased and immature attitude on a public forum. Wait a minute...yes, I can. That pretty much sums up anything you have to say, rosyred - coming from a mind crippled by disdain. Very nice.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


LI_Mom can "think" that as long as she likes.

That doesn't make it so. Not in real life.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


All the posting you do and you didn't have the patience to watch every video. LOL.

I, for one, am going to concentrate on getting to the truth of the video that was posted about showing JB masturbating for senior citizens. I suspect you don't want it found.

What is painful to see are the lies that people post and won't stand behind. And the people who defend them.


We're talking about something that aired almost a decade ago & not EVERY article or picture or tape about the JB case is still available on the internet after all this time.

I'm sure you're well aware of that fact, though.

If you really must see the JB masturbation video, maybe you can contact Geraldo & ask him if he can get you a copy. Nobody else here has a pressing need to see the thing.

Of course, this insistance on seeing something which cannot be found is much safer than actually discussing the videos that ARE available.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter



Transcript.

Put up or shut up, breezy. Prove me wrong or be accused of spreading gossip yourself. You have NO PROOF this video doesn't exist, and with a transcript featuring people talking about it, I'd say it does.

For the record, I do not recall this video. The only thing I have to go by is this bit of transcript from the show. It's enough for me.

Prove me wrong, or everyone will know your claims that it doesn't exist are nothing more than GOSSIP you desperately wish was true.

Sorry, I can't "put up" a video that doesn't exit. YOU said it does exit, so YOU produce it. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Check this out. From the article breezy linked:

"Wood said that the libel claim was a gamble for the Ramseys , who would have had to prove their innocence to win the case."


I think I know now why the Ramseys decided to settle. LOL!

LOL, they didn't have to prove anything because Stevie boy chickened out. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


LOL!!

Lin Wood loved his cash cow but I'm still a little shocked that he would have taken such a gamble with their reputations & even potentially their freedom.

Now, I'm kind of disappointed that Thomas agreed to settle. It would have been MUCH more interesting to see him pin their backs to the wall & make them squirm. Rats.

Oh no, you mean they put a gun to his head and forced him to settle? :lol: The Ramseys' proved their point, he could not and did not prove his fairy tale. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


Steve Thomas should have hired Lin Wood to represent him.

I don't think he would work for liars like thomas no matter how much money was involved.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Gamble with their reputations. Not Lin Wood. Their reputations were already shot by Steve Thomas, Eller, and the media.

I wasn't aware Lin Wood was hired as a defense attorney. I thought he only represented them in civil cases.

JMO

I must say, the civil lawsuits did NOTHING to rehabilitate their reputations.

But I guess it really was too late to worry about ever excluding them as prime suspects..... they waited TOO long to cooperate or 'remember' the truth.... so what was left besides civil lawsuits?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



We're talking about something that aired almost a decade ago & not EVERY article or picture or tape about the JB case is still available on the internet after all this time.

I'm sure you're well aware of that fact, though.

If you really must see the JB masturbation video, maybe you can contact Geraldo & ask him if he can get you a copy. Nobody else here has a pressing need to see the thing.

Of course, this insistance on seeing something which cannot be found is much safer than actually discussing the videos that ARE available.

Of course you don't want to see it because you just accept a liars word for it as you have done with all the so called "evidence" against the Ramseys in this case.:shrug:

Duh, it can't be found because there is NO such thing.

We've all seen the videos that were played over and over on TV. If you think ANYTHING in a video of a 6 year old is sexy, you need help IMO.

[breezy1234]

oh man before the spelling police call me on it, I meant exiSt, not exit.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


The Ramsey's friend, who just happened to be a lawyer, offered to help the Rs NOT the BPD. Now don't you start a rumor that the Ramsey's made friends with a lawyer because they had premeditated the death of JB and would need the lawyer's help.



Sorry if I couldn't figure out your original post:

"Why don't you ask the BPD why the Rs good friend, a lawyer, came to them right after the murder and offered to handle things for them for a few days. The BPD, by their actions, alerted wise people to take action."

Although, I still don't understand what point you are trying to make. The Ramseys had a lawyer right away, that's never been disputed.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Of course you don't want to see it because you just accept a liars word for it as you have done with all the so called "evidence" against the Ramseys in this case.:shrug:

Duh, it can't be found because there is NO such thing.

We've all seen the videos that were played over and over on TV. If you think ANYTHING in a video of a 6 year old is sexy, you need help IMO.

YOU used the word "sexy."

I said INAPPROPRIATE.

And I think if YOU can't see the difference between a little girl looking like a child and a little girl decked out like a grown woman... I think YOU need help. Blech.

Thankfully John refused to allow JB to go to Las Vegas because it was INAPPROPRIATE for a little girl, in his opinion.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Sorry, I can't "put up" a video that doesn't exit. YOU said it does exit, so YOU produce it. :rolleyes:

I've given you the proof I have - that bit of the transcript where they discussed the video. You want to disprove that the video they were discussing exists, please feel free to do so.

Please PUT UP the PROOF that this video was never shown on that episode of Geraldo, or stop accusing me of spreading gossip. I would LOVE for you to prove me wrong.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Of course you don't want to see it because you just accept a liars word for it as you have done with all the so called "evidence" against the Ramseys in this case.:shrug:

Duh, it can't be found because there is NO such thing.

We've all seen the videos that were played over and over on TV. If you think ANYTHING in a video of a 6 year old is sexy, you need help IMO.

How dare you call anyone a liar with NO PROOF that that person is lying other than your own OPINION.

Prove it's a lie. We've seen the transcript where they discuss the video, now either prove they never said that or prove the video doesn't exist.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I'll bet you spend more time worrying about their "reputations" than they do! JMO

Oh, I don't worry about their reputations.

The only reason I have for bringing that up is because it's gremane to the discussion.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


You're just like the rest of us - you can't spell either. LOL

LOL!!

Ooops. I spell better than I type. (I switched the letters by accident.)

Anyway, I don't think anyone at this board is going to start sniping about spelling or typos. At least, I hope not.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


LOL, they didn't have to prove anything because Stevie boy chickened out. :rolleyes:

The Ramseys initiated the settlement, not Thomas. Sounds like the Rs are the ones who chickened out, considering they sought the settlement and settled on Thomas's terms. I guess they knew they wouldn't be able to prove their innocence.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


YOU used the word "sexy."

I said INAPPROPRIATE.

And I think if YOU can't see the difference between a little girl looking like a child and a little girl decked out like a grown woman... I think YOU need help. Blech.

Thankfully John refused to allow JB to go to Las Vegas because it was INAPPROPRIATE for a little girl, in his opinion.

You need an antacid? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by LI_Mom


LI_Mom can "think" that as long as she likes.

That doesn't make it so. Not in real life.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


The Ramseys initiated the settlement, not Thomas. Sounds like the Rs are the ones who chickened out, considering they sought the settlement and settled on Thomas's terms. I guess they knew they wouldn't be able to prove their innocence.

Proof? Court transcript of that? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I've given you the proof I have - that bit of the transcript where they discussed the video. You want to disprove that the video they were discussing exists, please feel free to do so.

Please PUT UP the PROOF that this video was never shown on that episode of Geraldo, or stop accusing me of spreading gossip. I would LOVE for you to prove me wrong.

We are "discussing" it as well. Does that make it a fact? NO! :no:

YOU brought it up, it is up to YOU to show the proof it is not gossip.:rolleyes: AS I said I can't produce something that never was.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


How?

Why else would they file slander lawsuits if they weren't concerned about their reputations?

(I mean besides the money they would hope to make)

And even before the spate of suits, we know they were very concerned about how the public would perceive them or they wouldn't have bothered hiring p.r. people.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


LOL!!

Ooops. I spell better than I type. (I switched the letters by accident.)

Anyway, I don't think anyone at this board is going to start sniping about spelling or typos. At least, I hope not.

The "banned" one Solace did. :shrug: Of course he/she was always acting childish. :shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Proof? Court transcript of that? :rolleyes:

I'm not doing the court transcript thing with you, breezy. The fact that Thomas's book is still on shelves and he's still speaking proves he wasn't stopped by the lawsuit the Ramseys sought to settle with him.

Here's where I got my info:

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm

Here is a link to the letter Thomas wrote talking about the outcome of the lawsuit.

http://www.forstevethomas.com/08062002letter.htm


A Letter From Steve Thomas

The frivolous lawsuit filed by the Ramseys has concluded.

I am sorry for the delay in making a public statement until now, but the Ramsey announcement of a resolution in March was premature.

I am bound by the terms of the settlement not to discuss its conclusive points but I can tell you this: it was a thoughtful, deliberate decision. For the record, I was not the one who sought out a settlement in this case.

My absolute requirement for any resolution was the mandate that I would admit no wrongdoing whatsoever, nor would I personally pay a single dollar in settlement. And that is exactly what was achieved with this resolution. In fact, the book can continue to be published, advertised, quoted, and marketed. I will continue to speak on the case whenever I wish. I continue to stand resolutely by my book and the opinions I expressed in it. My beliefs have not changed.

The reality was this: I was well within my Constitutional rights to have stated my opinion regarding the events surrounding this murder. But this was a civil case. It was about money. Justice and "doing the right thing" do not always prevail in these cases, as we all know.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I guess they knew they wouldn't be able to prove their innocence.

If only the "small foreign faction" would have been thoughtful enough to write another note to the police & tell them the Ramseys were innocent. :D

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Yes, they "chickened out" for an $80M settlement..

And STILL the tipline, website, and JonBenet Ramsey foundation were abandoned.

Promises apparently meant nothing to John and Patsy Ramsey.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


If only the "small foreign faction" would have been thoughtful enough to write another note to the police & tell them the Ramseys were innocent. :D

Absolutely! ;)

After all, they're such "gentlemen."

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


And STILL the tipline, website, and JonBenet Ramsey foundation were abandoned.

Promises apparently meant nothing to John and Patsy Ramsey.

LKL Live May 12, 2004: John Ramsey: "The foundation we set up for JonBenet in her honor, we did the same for our daughter, Beth, when she died in 1992. It's a compassion that just, I think, flowed out of us. We weren't sure what we were going to do with it, but we wanted to do something to honor her name."


Here's the site now:

http://www.ramseyfamily.com/

Honor?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Absolutely! ;)

After all, they're such "gentlemen."

Maybe they were going to BUT they 'grew a brain' and changed their mind? :D

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm not doing the court transcript thing with you, breezy. The fact that Thomas's book is still on shelves and he's still speaking proves he wasn't stopped by the lawsuit the Ramseys sought to settle with him.

Here's where I got my info:

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm

Here is a link to the letter Thomas wrote talking about the outcome of the lawsuit.

http://www.forstevethomas.com/08062002letter.htm


A Letter From Steve Thomas

The frivolous lawsuit filed by the Ramseys has concluded.

I am sorry for the delay in making a public statement until now, but the Ramsey announcement of a resolution in March was premature.

I am bound by the terms of the settlement not to discuss its conclusive points but I can tell you this: it was a thoughtful, deliberate decision. For the record, I was not the one who sought out a settlement in this case.

My absolute requirement for any resolution was the mandate that I would admit no wrongdoing whatsoever, nor would I personally pay a single dollar in settlement. And that is exactly what was achieved with this resolution. In fact, the book can continue to be published, advertised, quoted, and marketed. I will continue to speak on the case whenever I wish. I continue to stand resolutely by my book and the opinions I expressed in it. My beliefs have not changed.

The reality was this: I was well within my Constitutional rights to have stated my opinion regarding the events surrounding this murder. But this was a civil case. It was about money. Justice and "doing the right thing" do not always prevail in these cases, as we all know.


:lol: Thomas the liar you offer as proof??? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


And STILL the tipline, website, and JonBenet Ramsey foundation were abandoned.

Promises apparently meant nothing to John and Patsy Ramsey.

I KNOW you saw the link I supplied about this but it seems you just like to rehash the same garbage over and over. :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Expired domain. Someone else took over the name. Somebody else hoping to profit off of the name association I suppose.

JMO

You didn't even look or you wouldn't have made such an uninformed statement.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm not doing the court transcript thing with you, breezy. The fact that Thomas's book is still on shelves and he's still speaking proves he wasn't stopped by the lawsuit the Ramseys sought to settle with him.

Here's where I got my info:

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm

Here is a link to the letter Thomas wrote talking about the outcome of the lawsuit.

http://www.forstevethomas.com/08062002letter.htm


A Letter From Steve Thomas

The frivolous lawsuit filed by the Ramseys has concluded.

I am sorry for the delay in making a public statement until now, but the Ramsey announcement of a resolution in March was premature.

I am bound by the terms of the settlement not to discuss its conclusive points but I can tell you this: it was a thoughtful, deliberate decision. For the record, I was not the one who sought out a settlement in this case.

My absolute requirement for any resolution was the mandate that I would admit no wrongdoing whatsoever, nor would I personally pay a single dollar in settlement. And that is exactly what was achieved with this resolution. In fact, the book can continue to be published, advertised, quoted, and marketed. I will continue to speak on the case whenever I wish. I continue to stand resolutely by my book and the opinions I expressed in it. My beliefs have not changed.

The reality was this: I was well within my Constitutional rights to have stated my opinion regarding the events surrounding this murder. But this was a civil case. It was about money. Justice and "doing the right thing" do not always prevail in these cases, as we all know.

"In a statement last year, though, Thomas hinted he plans to put Patsy Ramsey on trial. The former cop promised to "expose in a court of law what happened in the Ramsey home on Christmas night 1996."

Truth is the best defense in libel cases. For Thomas, that would be proving Party Ramsey guilty.

"There's no doubt that part of the Thomas defense will be an effort to prove Patsy Ramsey's guilt — and he may, in fact, accomplish that," said Scott Robinson, a Denver lawyer who has watched the Ramsey case closely.


http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/17alegl.html