General Discussion /Post Karr [Archive] - Page 4

GrrlPwer

07-01-2006, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Postergeist
I posted this link on another board but it does have some details that people might've forgotten

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,1803742,00.html

here's some snippets from it...

"The garrotte was an unusual method of strangulation, though one which was common in the Philippines, where John Ramsey had once been stationed at a naval base."

"There was a footprint near the body left by a Hi-Tec boot. There was a latent handprint on the doorframe that didn't match any of the Ramseys'. If you looked closely, there were marks on the child's back and neck that were consistent with the use of a stun gun."

some more info...

"Other suspects cropped up: there was Gary Oliva, a convicted sex offender who had been seen hanging around the alleyway at the back of the house. He had spent time in prison for raping a seven-year-old girl in Oregon, and talked about making bacon out of a little girl's skin. In March 1997, a tip came in about Oliva: he had called a friend on 26 December and sobbed hysterically, saying he had done something terrible to a little girl. A year later, he attended JonBenet's memorial service. Four years later, two weeks before Christmas, he was arrested on the Colorado University campus for trespassing. The policeman who made the arrest searched his backpack and found a stun gun, a photo of JonBenet and an ode to her.

Chris Wolf, a freelance journalist, became a suspect when his girlfriend called the police and said he had stormed out of the house on Christmas night and come back the following morning, with muddy clothes. He became furious when he saw news reports of JonBenet's death on TV. The ransom note was signed 'S.B.T.C'; Wolf had a sweatshirt bearing those initials - they stood for Santa Barbara Tennis Club. He had written an article about John Ramsey's company, Access Graphics, and may have had access to information about his bonus. He was a friend of Bill McReynolds. The theory that there was more than one intruder has been seriously considered.

But the suspect who looked most likely was dead within two months of the murder. Michael Helgoth seemed to have shot himself the day after District Attorney Alex Hunter announced they were closing in on the killer. But this, too, began to look like murder. Helgoth was right-handed, but the trajectory of the fatal bullet went from left to right.

In Helgoth's apartment were found a pair of Hi-Tec boots, a stun gun, a baseball cap with the letters 'SBTC' on it, and a videotape of a news story about the unsolved kidnap and murder of a six-year-old girl. If there were two assailants, could the other have silenced this one?" well it must NOT have been Michael Helgoth. Because hmmmm they have DNA and i'm sure they tested his.............What else ya got lol?

liketospeculate

07-01-2006, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by GrrlPwer
well it must NOT have been Michael Helgoth. Because hmmmm they have DNA and i'm sure they tested his.............What else ya got lol?

The person who posted that info posted it for info only - never claimed he was guilty -

However, even if it wasn't him, it is interesting that he had all that stuff in his apartment that matches up with other factual stuff from the case - maybe he knew who did it and they killed him to silence him - or left stuff in his apartment to frame him - not knowing dna was left at the scene since that info didn't come out until much later after Helgoth's death

chatwuann

07-01-2006, 02:15 AM

Nothing magical about it and no need for psychics. Patsy died with a clear conscience and is with JonBenet now in heaven. JonBenet told her mother who had killed her. End of story.

Postergeist

07-01-2006, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by GrrlPwer
well it must NOT have been Michael Helgoth. Because hmmmm they have DNA and i'm sure they tested his.............What else ya got lol?

I really have no idea if any DNA was taken from him or the other suspects. Many times LE never do take the clothes a person was wearing that last saw a victim alive, or test for GSR, etc.

The only thing I can assume is that much of the info that is out there about the case was gathered by PI's, reporters, etc. that would not have the authority to gather evidence, but may have been allowed to enter the home of suspects, interviewed neighbors, etc.

I doubt there will ever be a case where all evidence pertinent to the crime is gathered and analyzed.

I only posted snippets from that link. The link is 2 pages long and is quite interesting for those that want to take the time to read it.

GrrlPwer

07-01-2006, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by liketospeculate

The person who posted that info posted it for info only - never claimed he was guilty -

However, even if it wasn't him, it is interesting that he had all that stuff in his apartment that matches up with other factual stuff from the case - maybe he knew who did it and they killed him to silence him - or left stuff in his apartment to frame him - not knowing dna was left at the scene since that info didn't come out until much later after Helgoth's death oh i know it was info only. Yep he could have known to much. Either way i would hope the LE tested his DNA to see if he was involved.

I'm still wondering how many people knew John was getting 118,000 dollar bonus. :shrug:

GrrlPwer

07-01-2006, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Postergeist

I really have no idea if any DNA was taken from him or the other suspects. Many times LE never do take the clothes a person was wearing that last saw a victim alive, or test for GSR, etc.

The only thing I can assume is that much of the info that is out there about the case was gathered by PI's, reporters, etc. that would not have the authority to gather evidence, but may have been allowed to enter the home of suspects, interviewed neighbors, etc.

I doubt there will ever be a case where all evidence pertinent to the crime is gathered and analyzed.

I only posted snippets from that link. The link is 2 pages long and is quite interesting for those that want to take the time to read it. indeed very interesting. I read the whole thing. Thank you for the link. I hope the LE took some of his DNA and tested it.

GrrlPwer

07-01-2006, 03:01 AM

I just went and read about Michael Helgoth and it said.............Michael Helgoth knew the Ramseys from a property dispute but his DNA was not a match.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Acquaintance%20Intruder%20Theories

iminca

07-01-2006, 03:44 AM

From what I've read there may have been more than one person envolved. I believe the ransom notes indicates this also.

Helgoth may have been killed to silence him?

Postergeist

07-01-2006, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by GrrlPwer
indeed very interesting. I read the whole thing. Thank you for the link. I hope the LE took some of his DNA and tested it.

You're welcome, I've been over posting an update on one of our many missing people in AL, at least the guy's dog made it back okay.

And speaking of dogs, I always thought if LE would've tested the blood on poor Kato the Akita in Brentwood that night, that it might've been highly possible that the killer's blood was on the coat or in the mouth of the dog.

As I think the dog bit the killer, thus the glove left there and that
"cut" on the finger that was said to be from breaking a drinking glass was actually from a dog tooth! imo

And wow, your link you posted is chockful of all kinds of stuff, that would take quite awhile to pour thru all that!

I have no idea if police depts have public email or not, and I know they have their share of nutjobs calling in tips, but it would be great if we could shoot off a msg. saying "don't forget to check the rearview mirror for prints" or something.

Just like I wanted to mention that the blow poke that was found by the defense months later covered in cobwebs...they made it sound like it had to take FOREVER for a web to form! OMG!

Come to my house, those things happen over night! And I've seen spiders weave a web, then dismantle it and start all over again. That was in the MP case, and the jury at least saw thru that web, lol.

Postergeist

07-01-2006, 04:42 AM

one by the female officer on the scene

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4807014,00.html

one by a professor

http://www.thecampuspress.com/news/2006/04/jonbenet.php

Prima~Facie

07-01-2006, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Former Juror
To put the focus of the investigation onto someone John works with rather than on he and Patsy.

John's Christmas bonus that year was $118,000 and some change. The ransom note demanded $118,000. Coincidence? Hardly. IMO, they chose that amount to put the focus of the investigation onto someone close to John, probably at work. Not to mention that a 'real' ransom note would have asked for a lot more money, given John Ramsey's income and net worth.

Yep that sealed it for me. TO me it say's that someone in that family killed JonBenet. I'm still not clear which one. But to many things point at them.MOO!

Prima~Facie

07-01-2006, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by iminca
From what I've read there may have been more than one person envolved. I believe the ransom notes indicates this also.

Helgoth may have been killed to silence him?

I think this case will never be solved. It will go down in history just like The Black Daliha (sp)?Always be a mystery. Along with who was Jack the Ripper.MOO!!

ELENDA100

07-01-2006, 07:51 AM

Could the ransom note and the amount of 118 thousand dollars been written to frame the Ramseys by someone they knew. Maybe they were only going to kidnap JB and she resisted and it ended up as a murder. The odd amount of money is what put the focus on Patsy.

I wonder if they checked bank employees that would have known about the money.

This case will continue to be a mystery for a long time. I think more may come out now........

Alliekat

07-01-2006, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Adalena935
One day they'll solve this crime and they'll ID who that partial DNA in JonBenet's panties belongs to.

Most likely the DNA on the panties is from wherever they were handled last from the manufacturer or distributor. You've seen the "inspected by # on articles of clothing that are packaged.

Former Juror

07-01-2006, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

She wrote that both the Ramseys and Wolf agreed the ransom note was not an “ideal specimen” for handwriting analysis because a broad fiber-tip pen was used.

“This type of pen distorts and masks fine detail to an extent not achievable by other types of pens, as for example a ball-point ben,” Carnes wrote.

However, Carnes wrote that the handwriting in the ransom note was consistent throughout the entire writing, contrary to someone trying to hide their handwriting style.

“One of the most common means to disguise one’s handwriting is to attempt to make the script erratic throughout the text,” Carnes wrote.

Investigators consulted with six handwriting experts, four hired by police and two hired by the Ramseys. All six excluded John Ramsey as the author of the note, and none identified Patsy Ramsey as the writer.

“Rather, the experts’ consensus was that she ‘probably did not’ write the ransom note,” Carnes wrote.

On a scale of one to five, with five eliminating someone from suspicion as the author of the ransom note, the experts placed Patsy Ramsey at 4.5 to 4.0, Carnes wrote.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=26

Was the judge and 6 handwriting experts "on the Ramsey's side" too?

"Forensic analysis cleared everyone except for Patsy Ramsey, whose writing style bore some resemblance to the ransom note."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonbenet_Ramsey

John admitted the same on the LKL show in 2000. It was replayed last night.

Former Juror

07-01-2006, 09:24 AM

We can argue until we are blue in the face. I won't change my opinion, and you won't change yours.

Why did John acknowledge that Patsy had NOT been cleared as the writer of the ransom note? His confirmation tells me a lot more than either of our links.

IMO

Former Juror

07-01-2006, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

You think he should have claimed she WAS cleared? Wouldn't that have made him a liar on national TV? JMO

Of course not.

We can post links all day long, but the bottomline is that she was NOT cleared, despite posts that want us to believe otherwise.

liketospeculate

07-01-2006, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Former Juror

Of course not.

We can post links all day long, but the bottomline is that she was NOT cleared, despite posts that want us to believe otherwise.

She was not cleared, but she couldn't be proven to have written the note either - so why do some insist on making the poor woman guilty until proven innocent - I think it is sad that ever since wacko Susan Smith drowned her two beautiful boys, every parent is guilty until proven innocent - too sad that a parent would have to suffer when they should be receiving sympathy!

liketospeculate

07-01-2006, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Prima~Facie

I think this case will never be solved. It will go down in history just like The Black Daliha (sp)?Always be a mystery. Along with who was Jack the Ripper.MOO!!

In my opinion the only hope for solving this case is that some day the true killer's dna ends up in the data base - maybe he will be arrested for something else some day and his dna put into the data base - let's just hope it is not for killing another child!

liketospeculate

07-01-2006, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Former Juror
We can argue until we are blue in the face. I won't change my opinion, and you won't change yours.

Why did John acknowledge that Patsy had NOT been cleared as the writer of the ransom note? His confirmation tells me a lot more than either of our links.

IMO

John acknowledged this because they are honest people with nothing to hide - he only acknowledged that she had not been excluded - he didn't acknowledge that she wrote the note - his confirmation tells me a lot also - that they are honest people who have been wrongfully accused and have been dragged through this media circus of a case with people assuming they were guilty from day one - a sad commentary on our justice system - jmo of course!

liketospeculate

07-01-2006, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Former Juror

"Forensic analysis cleared everyone except for Patsy Ramsey, whose writing style bore some resemblance to the ransom note."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonbenet_Ramsey

John admitted the same on the LKL show in 2000. It was replayed last night.

wikipedia - now that's a reliable source!

socaldiva

07-01-2006, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by liketospeculate
[B]*snip*

John acknowledged this because they are honest people with nothing to hide -

I agree & what a hellish nightmare. To have your daughter murdered & have everyone pointing their fingers at you, even though there was no evidence to even secure an arrest, let alone bring about a trial.

sarasun

07-01-2006, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I think some people were turned off by Patsy because she refused to be beaten down. I admire her - she stood up for herself and what she knew to be the truth, i.e., no one in her family had anything to do with JonBenet's death. JMO

Very well said, and I agree that no one in the family had anything to do with her death.

May they both rest in eternal peace, together again.

FormerJuror you might want to check your "facts" as John supported his wife completely and totally.

socaldiva

07-01-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I think some people were turned off by Patsy because she refused to be beaten down. I admire her - she stood up for herself and what she knew to be the truth, i.e., no one in her family had anything to do with JonBenet's death. JMO

I think a lot of people disliked her for the beauty pagent stuff, which I can understand. I didn't like it either, but I don't think the Ramseys killed her.

liketospeculate

07-01-2006, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by sarasun

Very well said, and I agree that no one in the family had anything to do with her death.

May they both rest in eternal peace, together again.

FormerJuror you might want to check your "facts" as John supported his wife completely and totally.

FormerJuror is correct that John Ramsey acknowledged that Patsy could not be excluded as having been the author of the ransom note - the problem is that FormerJuror then takes that acknowledgment and twists it into John Ramsey not supporting his wife - just because she cannot be conclusively cleared does not indicate in any way that she was the author of the letter - people tend to twist the facts to fit their theory -

SPYCEE3

07-01-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by liketospeculate

FormerJuror is correct that John Ramsey acknowledged that Patsy could not be excluded as having been the author of the ransom note - the problem is that FormerJuror then takes that acknowledgment and twists it into John Ramsey not supporting his wife - just because she cannot be conclusively cleared does not indicate in any way that she was the author of the letter - people tend to twist the facts to fit their theory -

And that's the truth! In fact there are a couple of posters here who are way out there with their personal theories. Way out there!

What amazes me is these people post with blinders on and will never see anything but their own theories...even if a video tape materialized with the actual crime on it.

Then there are those that chime in and support those theories while listening to all the rumors and innuendos.

nachonaco

07-01-2006, 02:00 PM

This is what I've thought for a LONG time, and it might sound a little cliched/unrealistic.....

I honestly think that JBR got tired of living her mother's dream (wasn't Patsy a former beauty queen or somesuch?), and thus performed badly throughout the last few pageants before her death. Patsy, in a fit of rage, killed her daughter the night of JBR telling her.

Another thought is, maybe Patsy was worried about JonBenet inheriting that type of cancer as well and killed her, but made sure it was covered up?

I really, honestly think Patsy devalues human life, at least JBR's...in one interview, she called JBR 'that child'....Not. NORMAL.

IMHO....

Also, it's not solely because of Susan Smith, it's because it KEEPS HAPPENING.

liketospeculate

07-01-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by nachonaco
This is what I've thought for a LONG time, and it might sound a little cliched/unrealistic.....

I honestly think that JBR got tired of living her mother's dream (wasn't Patsy a former beauty queen or somesuch?), and thus performed badly throughout the last few pageants before her death. Patsy, in a fit of rage, killed her daughter the night of JBR telling her.

Another thought is, maybe Patsy was worried about JonBenet inheriting that type of cancer as well and killed her, but made sure it was covered up?

I really, honestly think Patsy devalues human life, at least JBR's...in one interview, she called JBR 'that child'....Not. NORMAL.

IMHO....

Also, it's not solely because of Susan Smith, it's because it KEEPS HAPPENING.

I agree with one thing you said - your theory is not realistic! There is absolutely nothing in this case that would suggest that JB did not like performing in the beauty pagents - also nothing to suggest that Patsy would kill her daughter because she worried about her some time getting cancer (that is out there!) and nothing to suggest Patsy devalued human life - to the contrary - she fought like heck when she found out about her cancer - you have taken her "that child" out of context - it made perfect sense in the context in which she said it - did not in any way indicate she didn't love her daughter -

Also, I mentioned Susan Smith because she was basically the one who since her case has made it impossible for LE to look at other parents with an open mind - seems they are guilty until they prove themselves innocent - and if they do cooperate with authorities, every word they say is dissected by LE and the public and twisted into something sinister - I think it is an appalling state that our legal system and society are in!

socaldiva

07-01-2006, 02:09 PM

GrrlPwer

07-01-2006, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by liketospeculate

She was not cleared, but she couldn't be proven to have written the note either - so why do some insist on making the poor woman guilty until proven innocent - I think it is sad that ever since wacko Susan Smith drowned her two beautiful boys, every parent is guilty until proven innocent - too sad that a parent would have to suffer when they should be receiving sympathy! Same thing happening with the Natalee Holloway case. So many want to blame Joran for killing Natalee without any proof or anything. Shouldn't he be innocent till proven guilty?? :shrug:

nachonaco

07-01-2006, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I realize you put IMHO, but everything you've put here is speculation & imagination on your part. Patsy "devalues human life"? Unlike what you've posted relative to a DEAD WOMAN of a murdered little girl, a woman that was never even charged?!

As for the it 'KEEPS HAPPENING', yes it does in VERY small percentages. Each is tragic, but the numbers are small. IMHO.

If she was such a caring mother, then please, elaborate on:

1) Why she allowed John to book his flight. Wouldn't a sensible, grieving mother try to talk him out of it? Business or no, putting that in front of your daughter's death is just....unimaginable.
2) Why refer to JBR as 'that child'? (this is what i meant by 'devalues human life', and you would think a person with cancer would be a little more compassionate, ESPECIALLY SINCE HER DAUGHTER WAS MURDERED) (sorry for the caps, that's how I get my points across)
3) Why does the ransom note so closely match Patsy's handwriting? I suppose the murderer forced her to write it? (sarcasm here)
4) It does happen quite often, and is by no means a small percentage.

liketospeculate

07-01-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by GrrlPwer
Same thing happening with the Natalee Holloway case. So many want to blame Joran for killing Natalee without any proof or anything. Shouldn't he be innocent till proven guilty?? :shrug:

This thread probably not even the place to discuss JVDS - but that is like comparing apples and oranges - the Ramsay family tried to cooperate - they did not tell lie after lie after lie - but you are correct - innocent until proven guilty - I agree with you on that point!

socaldiva

07-01-2006, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by nachonaco

If she was such a caring mother, then please, elaborate on:

1) Why she allowed John to book his flight. Wouldn't a sensible, grieving mother try to talk him out of it? Business or no, putting that in front of your daughter's death is just....unimaginable.
2) Why refer to JBR as 'that child'? (this is what i meant by 'devalues human life', and you would think a person with cancer would be a little more compassionate, ESPECIALLY SINCE HER DAUGHTER WAS MURDERED) (sorry for the caps, that's how I get my points across)
3) Why does the ransom note so closely match Patsy's handwriting? I suppose the murderer forced her to write it? (sarcasm here)
4) It does happen quite often, and is by no means a small percentage.

1) I don't even know what flight you are referring to here.
2) I think you are reading something into this that isn't there
3) Who knows? It wasn't concluded that it was her writing, only that they couldn't exclude her.
4) Of course it's a small number.

liketospeculate

07-01-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by nachonaco

If she was such a caring mother, then please, elaborate on:

1) Why she allowed John to book his flight. Wouldn't a sensible, grieving mother try to talk him out of it? Business or no, putting that in front of your daughter's death is just....unimaginable.
2) Why refer to JBR as 'that child'? (this is what i meant by 'devalues human life', and you would think a person with cancer would be a little more compassionate, ESPECIALLY SINCE HER DAUGHTER WAS MURDERED) (sorry for the caps, that's how I get my points across)
3) Why does the ransom note so closely match Patsy's handwriting? I suppose the murderer forced her to write it? (sarcasm here)
4) It does happen quite often, and is by no means a small percentage.

You probably should go back and check your facts -

1. The call was to cancel a flight - not book it!
2. You have taken her "that child" out of context - if you had heard the interview where she said it, it was not insensitive in the past - it would be like me saying "that child was the most important person in my life" - how is that devaluing human life?
3. Patsy Ramsay could not be excluded as the writer of the note - that doesn't mean that she was concluded to have written the note - if she had been, don't you think this case would have gone to trial?

Peeping George

07-01-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Adalena935
.snip

Know who would have access to the lay-out of the family's house floor plan, and info on the father's jobs, etc? a cop.
.snip

Anyone and everyone has access to the layouts of most homes, all you have to do is go to your city's planning department and the floorplans and layouts are there. They are public records.

Many people could have info on John's compensation on his job. His manager would know, possibly a compensation committte, the human resources department would know, and possibly any staff asssistants may know. If John's company is a publicly traded company this information could also be found in their financial disclosures.

sarasun

07-01-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by liketospeculate

FormerJuror is correct that John Ramsey acknowledged that Patsy could not be excluded as having been the author of the ransom note - the problem is that FormerJuror then takes that acknowledgment and twists it into John Ramsey not supporting his wife - just because she cannot be conclusively cleared does not indicate in any way that she was the author of the letter - people tend to twist the facts to fit their theory -

Agreed. It was FormerJuror's not including that John Ramsey fully supported his (now deceased) wife.

I believe that LE never says they have "cleared" anyone, or at least that is what we learned in the Scott Peterson case.

I had not heard about the other 118k involved in this case. Thank you to the better informed posters on this thread.

Rest in Peace, Pasty and little JonBenet.

liketospeculate

07-01-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Peeping George

Anyone and everyone has access to the layouts of most homes, all you have to do is go to your city's planning department and the floorplans and layouts are there. They are public records.

Many people could have info on John's compensation on his job. His manager would know, possibly a compensation committte, the human resources department would know, and possibly any staff asssistants may know. If John's company is a publicly traded company this information could also be found in their financial disclosures.

You are so right - I pointed that out earlier in this thread - and his company was a publicly traded company - many people don't realize how easy it is to get info you may think is private - a lot can be found by going to the courthouse and filling out a few forms - I can get anyone's birth certificate, marriage records, property ownership records, etc. and with the internet the way it is today, crooks can access much of this stuff without even leaving the comfort of their homes!

liketospeculate

07-01-2006, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
In the book PM/PT it states that shortly after John found JonBenet and before they had cleared everyone from the house, a detective overhead John talking to his pilot making arrangements to fly somewhere before nightfall. Mr. Ramsey told the detective the he, his wife, and son were flying to Atlanta. The detective told JR he couldn't leave and without protest John agreed.

What I heard in an interview was that John did call his pilot, but it was to cancel the family's planned Christmas trip to Atlanta - I really don't believe much of what is written in the "for profit" books - the profits from the Ramsay written book went to charity

socaldiva

07-01-2006, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by liketospeculate
[B]*snip*

What I heard in an interview was that John did call his pilot, but it was to cancel the family's planned Christmas trip to Atlanta

That is what I recall as well. They were already scheduled to fly out that morning before JB went missing.

socaldiva

07-01-2006, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I plan to get the Ramsey book next, but PM/PT is over 600 pages, so it may be a while. :)

I'm doing the reverse. I have the Ramsey's book & plan to read the one you are reading next. :tongue:

Angelina

07-01-2006, 07:06 PM

Does anyone know exactly what kind of job that John had? Sorry for asking but, I havent heard anyone talk about it. Did it have dealings overseas?? The beheading remarks in the ransom note struck me as a very odd threat. Do we know if the company that Ramsey worked for was operating a legitimate business, and not doing business with questionable people?? What kind of services and/or products did his company offer? Just some thoughts, and thanks in advance for any info.

SPYCEE3

07-01-2006, 07:23 PM

Here's an article regarding John Ramsey's employment...

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/4049cram.html

Angelina

07-01-2006, 07:37 PM

Thanks for the info. I am trying to find more info on this company. I ran up on this, even though, it doesnt have anything to do with the company, but thought some might find it interesting.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer1_fam.html

Angelina

07-01-2006, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Nanotech

http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=11703871

"John Ramsey was the president and chief executive officer of Access Graphics, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. In the fall of 1997 Access Graphics was sold by Lockheed Martin to GE Capital in a complicated transaction reported in the news media to be valued at $2.8 billion. The value attributed to Access Graphics was likely in excess of $200 million. Prior to the sale, John Ramsey left Access Graphics under adverse circumstances after attempting to purchase Access Graphics from Lockheed Martin. "

"He founded Access Graphics, a billion-dollar software company later acquired by Lockheed Martin"

Thank you, I am going to do some more research in this area.

GrrlPwer

07-01-2006, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Babby~A

He said he was told to look around to see if anything was out of the ordinary.

I would have removed the tape too, on gut reaction instinct rather than reason, given the circumstances. I have four kids and if that would have happen to me there is no way i would have removed the tape. and i'm sure John could tell she was dead. He should have left her that to make sure they could get more evidence.......JMOO

GrrlPwer

07-01-2006, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by csiwannabe
The Ramseys' obviously had quite a lot of money so why would the ransom note stipulate ONLY $118,000? Why only go for the amount of John's bonus when they could have gone for so much more? Seems a little fishy to me.
I don't really know what to think about this whole case, aside from it being so incredibly tragic. I thought I read in another post that they didn't find Jon Bonet's body until 1pm, that seems flat weird to me. Does any one know if that is fact? If that were my child I would have ripped the house apart upon first discovering that she was missing. You can find out tons about the case here. http://www.acandyrose.com

VICTORIA.1

07-01-2006, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by nachonaco

If she was such a caring mother, then please, elaborate on:

1) Why she allowed John to book his flight. Wouldn't a sensible, grieving mother try to talk him out of it? Business or no, putting that in front of your daughter's death is just....unimaginable.
2) Why refer to JBR as 'that child'? (this is what i meant by 'devalues human life', and you would think a person with cancer would be a little more compassionate, ESPECIALLY SINCE HER DAUGHTER WAS MURDERED) (sorry for the caps, that's how I get my points across)
3) Why does the ransom note so closely match Patsy's handwriting? I suppose the murderer forced her to write it? (sarcasm here)
4) It does happen quite often, and is by no means a small percentage.

I happen to agree with you.. To many questions.. first of all how many of our handwriting could be called inconclusive? Fat chance..
so many of us would be out of the realm.. she was not..

I still beleive in her guilt..I beleive the " child" got up in the middle of the night being Christmas and pissed off her mother.. she may have not meant to kill her.. but after it happened.. she thought about her position.. That is just my opinion..

She prolly went to her death beleiving her innocence. as she was not able to really beleive what she had done..IMOO..

GrrlPwer

07-01-2006, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by VICTORIA.1

I happen to agree with you.. To many questions.. first of all how many of our handwriting could be called inconclusive? Fat chance..
so many of us would be out of the realm.. she was not..

I still beleive in her guilt..I beleive the " child" got up in the middle of the night being Christmas and pissed off her mother.. she may have not meant to kill her.. but after it happened.. she thought about her position.. That is just my opinion..

She prolly went to her death beleiving her innocence. as she was not able to really beleive what she had done..IMOO.. It is totally possible someone in the family just snapped. I still feel like she was killed by someone in the family

VICTORIA.1

07-01-2006, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by GrrlPwer
It is totally possible someone in the family just snapped. I still feel like she was killed by someone in the family

Me too.. The son has always bothered me. it is very possible, Patsy discovered what happened and decided to cover it up..
I still think she acted alone.. but...

In any event I beleive she was key.. Just the randsome note..
On Larry king she said she had no idea where the number came from.. Then we find out it was the same number as john's bonus..

GMAB..

GrrlPwer

07-01-2006, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by VICTORIA.1

Me too.. The son has always bothered me. it is very possible, Patsy discovered what happened and decided to cover it up..
I still think she acted alone.. but...

In any event I beleive she was key.. Just the randsome note..
On Larry king she said she had no idea where the number came from.. Then we find out it was the same number as john's bonus..

GMAB.. ohhhhh yeah she knew exactly where that number come from. that link i posted earlier has a copy of the ransom note and patsys writing and it looks a LOT alike to me

VICTORIA.1

07-01-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by GrrlPwer
ohhhhh yeah she knew exactly where that number come from. that link i posted earlier has a copy of the ransom note and patsys writing and it looks a LOT alike to me

That's what I'm saying.. what are the odds..?? She wrote that note and god knows what else she did..And to say she never heard of that 118,000.. I think, it was was a lie..

I beleive she got annoyed at her daughter.. Prolly getting up and bugging her for Santa Clause and she flipped out.. Who know's if she was drunk or on drugs.. I still beleive it was her..

The randsome is very telling.. I can assure you, if my handwriting was tested it would come out as NOT a match.. her's was not.

Angelina

07-01-2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Nanotech

That's got a lot of good info on those involved in the case.

This site has a lot of good info, also.

http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

It contains the opinion of the Boulder detective Thomas who
writes why he thought Patsy Ramsey killed Jon Benet.

Thanks for the link, I am having trouble researching all of this right now, after the Jessica thread and this one, I dont think I have the stomach to look at this anymore tonight. I will look at it tom. and post about it. I have to take a break from these two cases. Thanks again and I will post about it tom.

tiny paw-prints

07-01-2006, 09:48 PM

Winter’s Night to Summer’s Light

http://huffcrimeblog.com/?p=652

:patriot: Thanks, Steve.

:rose: For JonBenet & Patsy Ramsey

Alliekat

07-01-2006, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I didn't realize there was matching DNA under her nails until I read your link.

This is news to me. I never heard this either ...:shrug:

Adalena935

07-01-2006, 11:56 PM

iminca

07-02-2006, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by tiny paw-prints
Winter’s Night to Summer’s Light

http://huffcrimeblog.com/?p=652

:patriot: Thanks, Steve.

:rose: For JonBenet & Patsy Ramsey

Steve Huff states that he has thought that Duncan may have had something to do with this. He has other suspects too. I wrote a couple of days ago on the other thread, that Joseph Duncan is one of my suspects.

Also James Selby fits.

Thanks tiny paw-prints, hopefully Steve will continue to help find the real killer for JonBenet.

quote from the article:

I have asked the question: where was Jet Duncan in 1996, around Christmas time?

liketospeculate

07-02-2006, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by iminca

Steve Huff states that he has thought that Duncan may have had something to do with this. He has other suspects too. I wrote a couple of days ago on the other thread, that Joseph Duncan is one of my suspects.

Also James Selby fits.

Thanks tiny paw-prints, hopefully Steve will continue to help find the real killer for JonBenet.

quote from the article:

Duncan's dna would be in the system - the dna under JBR's nails and in her panties matches no one yet in the computer systems

theal2

07-02-2006, 01:47 AM

We'll never know, but 2 things bother me, yet.

Patsy was wearing the same clothes in the a.m. she was wearing when they came home the night before. What? Woke up and put on exact same outfit.

And, haven't heard it here, but at the time, I remember a report about a book she was reading or the Bible and the " $ number" in the ransom note was the number of the page open in her book or the passage number.

Seemed odd then and still does. Plus it was reported JBR was a bedwetter.

Just unanswered issues for me.

fight4right

07-02-2006, 01:56 AM

Has anyone ever surmised that the mark on the bottom of Jon Benet's cheek/face (the small circular bruise), came from a stone on a ring the perp was wearing on their hand as she was strangled???

socaldiva

07-02-2006, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by theal2
[B]*snip*

Patsy was wearing the same clothes in the a.m. she was wearing when they came home the night before. What? Woke up and put on exact same outfit.

Seemed odd then and still does. Plus it was reported JBR was a bedwetter.

Patsy said in her book that she got up early to prepare for the flight & went to wake the children. She said she was in her underwear when she discovered the note. I'm assuming she just grabbed the nearest thing while awaiting the police.

I don't get the bedwetter reference. Lots of kids wet the bed & their parents don't abuse or kill them for it.

LexieRae

07-02-2006, 02:11 AM

I have never believed the Ramseys were involved, but I have always thought the housekeeper knew something. During an early interview she stated that every room had a Christmas tree and she needed help to get them out. They were stored in the basement and she had her daughter and her daughter's b/f come over one day and help her bring the trees up out of the basement and put them in all of the rooms. It also came out that on many occasions that the Ramseys had loaned her money. I think she would possilbly know how much John's bonus was; overhearing a conversation or seeing a ckeck stub. I don't believe she did the crime, but maybe she talked too much to her own family; gave them information that maybe the daughter's b/f later used. The housekeeper would know the Ramseys would not be home that night...I just think she may have given out info to someone, then after this happened was afraid to even admit to herself that she was in some way at fault. I don't know if the LE ever checked out the b/f or friends or the housekeepers kids.
Anyway, Patsy is now with her little girl again.:rose:

iminca

07-02-2006, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by liketospeculate

Duncan's dna would be in the system - the dna under JBR's nails and in her panties matches no one yet in the computer systems

Duncan also has been dna connected to murdering years ago, a Riverside, California boy, but only after being urged by someone outside the case to check the dna found on the boy against his and it was a match. This revelation is just in the last couple of years.

Do you think his dna had to be in the system already, if it was, why didn't it connect to the little boy before the urging?.

He had been in prison for years for raping a young child. Are prisoners required to give dna I wonder? I mean are they automatically in the system? Guess not.

I'm afraid I don't have much faith in the system. I hope you are right though.

LexieRae

07-02-2006, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by iminca

Duncan also has been dna connected to murdering years ago, a Riverside, California boy, but only after being urged by someone outside the case to check the dna found on the boy against his and it was a match. This revelation is just in the last couple of years.

Do you think his dna had to be in the system already, if it was, why didn't it connect to the little boy before the urging?.

He had been in prison for years for raping a young child. Are prisoners required to give dna I wonder? I mean are they automatically in the system? Guess not.

I'm afraid I don't have much faith in the system. I hope you are right though.

No, they are just trying to get this passed in states. The requirement to give DNA if you are imprisoned. I used to think it was automatic, but it is not. It should be, but they say it is unconstitutional. :rolleyes: I am not sure if any states have got it passed or not.

iminca

07-02-2006, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by LexieRae

No, they are just trying to get this passed in states. The requirement to give DNA if you are imprisoned. I used to think it was automatic, but it is not. It should be, but they say it is unconstitutional. :rolleyes: I am not sure if any states have got it passed or not.

I agree. I've always thought things were automatic too.

That would be the first folks to put in CODIS. geeeese

But I still don't trust that they have even tried to match Duncan's dna and the dna found under her fingernails and panties.

Much less James Selby, and he even confessed to a reporter in Arizona that he had killed JonBenet.

Thanks LexieRae.

LexieRae

07-02-2006, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by iminca

I agree. I've always thought things were automatic too.

That would be the first folks to put in CODIS. geeeese

But I still don't trust that they have even tried to match Duncan's dna and the dna found under her fingernails and panties.

Much less James Selby, and he even confessed to a reporter in Arizona that he had killed JonBenet.

Thanks LexieRae.

I totally believe in the Constitution, however, I believe if you go to prison they should take your DNA and put it in the computer. It may shake things up. Some people that are in prison may be found innocent and many cold cases could be solved & families could get closure. I feel that sometimes by the time you go to prison, that is just the 1st time you got caught...not the 1st time you committed a crime. They take your fingerprints, why not DNA? Many people are against it. They say it will lead to taking DNA when arrested for misdemeanors & so forth & so on. I am against that. I do believe that would be against my civil rights if I am arrested for a suspended driver's license & they took my DNA, but if I am arrested for something and go to prison for 2-5, then I lose my rights.
jmo

tiny paw-prints

07-02-2006, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by iminca

I agree. I've always thought things were automatic too.

(snipped)

I agree, CODIS should be automatic!

They take the arrestee's fingerprints.

Breathalizer's are administered.

Employer's are able to take Urine & Blood samples for drug testing before hiring.

DMV takes our photo & fingerprint, visual testing too.

Some banks require a thumb print for cashing checks.

nature's star

07-02-2006, 10:09 AM

My problem with her has always been she seem so composed- I never saw the emotion. Any other mother wouldn't be coherent or able to stand. The Ramseys seemed so calm.

mystery101

07-02-2006, 12:06 PM

This is such as strange story. I simply don't know what to think.
On one hand, what intruder would spend time to write a long detailed ransom note, then leave the body in the house?
Doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, why would these parents kill their child? I simply don't see anything that would cause either one of them to do it to that beatiful girl.
A true mystery. And unfortunately it does not look like it will be ever solved.
JMO.

fdusa

07-02-2006, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by paralegallin

I think Burke did it and he was found out and rather than losing both children in one form or another, they came up with this rather stupid idea of a fake kidnapping.

Amazing that someone besides me has wondered this. That was the first thing I wondered if the son killed the daughter and the parents were trying to cover up to protect the minor son.

They, the Ramseys, denied he was up when they made the call to the police but you could hear him talking on the play back of the 911 call.

I don't think we will ever know what really happened.

I was on Christmas vacation in Charleston, S C when I heard about this case. Being on vacation I did not follow closley until after returning home so I am sure I missed many details.

mystery101

07-02-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by fdusa

Amazing that someone besides me has wondered this. That was the first thing I wondered if the son killed the daughter and the parents were trying to cover up to protect the minor son.

They, the Ramseys, denied he was up when they made the call to the police but you could hear him talking on the play back of the 911 call.

I don't think we will ever know what really happened.

I was on Christmas vacation in Charleston, S C when I heard about this case. Being on vacation I did not follow closley until after returning home so I am sure I missed many details.
I don't believe that for a second. Apparently they never tried to isolate Burke, which they would have done if he was involved in anything.
JMO.

cathys

07-02-2006, 01:32 PM

Stun Gun marks WERE found on the child. Who would have a stun gun? Someone in law enforcement? Is that why the case was botched to cover up someone "important" in the community. I think so....100%

GrrlPwer

07-02-2006, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by cathys
Stun Gun marks WERE found on the child. Who would have a stun gun? Someone in law enforcement? Is that why the case was botched to cover up someone "important" in the community. I think so....100% ummmmmmmmmm what case and what child are you talking about? :shrug:

GrrlPwer

07-02-2006, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by liketospeculate

This thread probably not even the place to discuss JVDS - but that is like comparing apples and oranges - the Ramsay family tried to cooperate - they did not tell lie after lie after lie - but you are correct - innocent until proven guilty - I agree with you on that point! You are so correct,...apples and oranges. In the JonBenet case we have a body and know she was killed. But in the Holloway case there is zippo. Heck she could be a runaway living a nice life. and Yes they did lie. Patsy said she had NO idea where that 118,000 number came from. then an hour later she confessed it was the EXACT amout John was getting for a bonus that year. And lets not forget that her hand writting sure did look like that ransom letter. Yep apples and oranges lol

GrrlPwer

07-02-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Another thing - JonBenet's skull was fractured from the base to the front between her eyes. Experts said it would take a strong man to do that. Burke was nine years old - not a grown man. But Patsy would have been strong enough right?

Rainbow

07-02-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by SPYCEE3

Oh oh...I see! You obviously believe the Ramseys were the despicable culprits that killed their young daughter. Fair enough! I totally disagree with you...I don't believe they had anything to do with it. :seeya:

I agree with you.:seeya:

UndertheRadar

07-02-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by GrrlPwer
ummmmmmmmmm what case and what child are you talking about? :shrug:

This was probably 'sposed to go on the JonBenet thread is my guess . . . the only "stun gun/child" case that leaps to mind.

JMO. Apologies if I'm wrong.

SPYCEE3

07-02-2006, 04:43 PM

I think that the killer was someone at one of the Ramseys Christmas parties. The night of the killing...the Ramseys had gone out with the children to another party.

I believe the killer was inside the house when they returned from that party. The house is huge. He was hiding in the very room where JonBenet was found dead. As he waited for everyone to go to bed...he stayed in that basement room and wrote the ransom note.

After everyone was in bed...he crept up the stairs...stunned JonBenet with the stungun so that she wouldn't wake up and discover him. Then he carried her down to the basement room and did heinous, horrendous things to that innocent little girl.

He left the note on the stairs before he took JonBenet out of her bed. I don't think he meant to kill her in the basement room...but he did...so there was no reason to carry her body out of the house.

He got away with murder! I too think this case will never be solved. Very sad!

All of this is MOO!

mystery101

07-02-2006, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Well, according to the "expert" I heard speaking, "no."
The expert said neither a child nor a woman could inflict the force required to do the damage that was done. In his words "it would take a man to do that kind of the damage." No link ......sorry.
Just on principle itself, I am going to disagree with that "expert". How can someone make a broad statement like that?
There are some women that are stronger than many men. So, to say a woman couldn't possibly have inflicted that injury is nonsense.
JMO.

bigmikenash

07-02-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Will05
I disagree. Patsy is the murderer of JonBenet & you can almost look at this as a death sentence for her. She's good for this murder. you are a complete absolutly horrific moron who should never be allowed to post ever agian...go crawl back in the hole where you came from

GrrlPwer

07-02-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Well, according to the "expert" I heard speaking, "no."
The expert said neither a child nor a woman could inflict the force required to do the damage that was done. In his words "it would take a man to do that kind of the damage." No link ......sorry. hmmmmmmmm so it would take a BIG GUY? come on a BIG guy couldnt have fit through that little window. Heck i've seen some women swing a baseball bat harder then a man. It's possible if you ask ME and i'm NO expert . JMOO

DixieChick

07-02-2006, 07:55 PM

The Ramsey's did not kill their daughter. They both passed 3 lie detector tests with flying colors. The Boulder, Co. police botched the investigation from the start, and zeroed in on the parents. Very very sad, to lose a child and be a suspect too... this was a real tragedy. Shame on the LE, that ruined their lives in such a horrible way.
:rose: :rose: for Patsy and Jon Benet

DixieChick

07-02-2006, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by nature's star
My problem with her has always been she seem so composed- I never saw the emotion. Any other mother wouldn't be coherent or able to stand. The Ramseys seemed so calm.

Elizabeth Smarts parents were composed too. :confused:

liketospeculate

07-02-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by GrrlPwer
You are so correct,...apples and oranges. In the JonBenet case we have a body and know she was killed. But in the Holloway case there is zippo. Heck she could be a runaway living a nice life. and Yes they did lie. Patsy said she had NO idea where that 118,000 number came from. then an hour later she confessed it was the EXACT amout John was getting for a bonus that year. And lets not forget that her hand writting sure did look like that ransom letter. Yep apples and oranges lol

When Patsy said she didn't know where the 118,000 number came from don't you think it could have been because of the stress of the moment - she wasn't thinking clearly at the time, and then an hour later she remembered - to use words like "confessed" it is like you automatically believe she purposefully hid the info - what would be the purpose of that - too easy to prove - maybe she simply remembered - and also, her handwriting could not be "excluded" - that doesn't mean it has ever been concluded that she wrote the note - there are millions of other people in the world whose handwriting hasn't been excluded either!

liketospeculate

07-03-2006, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Will05
If Patsy had not murdered her then she wouldn't have went through all of that. She would have been sitting in a jail cell with all the privacy she had wanted.

huh? This post makes absolutely no sense!:shrug:

liketospeculate

07-03-2006, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Will05
I meant if she had been caught..... thanks for pointing it out ssakcaj.

If she was guilty, she could have been "caught" at any time, because she never tried to run away! All she tried to do was live life being accused of murdering her precious child, all the while knowing some vicious murderer is still on the loose who could do the same thing to another poor child!

Lianasmom

07-03-2006, 11:31 PM

I don’t know what to think about this case. It has bugged the daylights out of me over the years. However, the bottom line is the blood found in her underwear, the dna of which doesn’t match anybody in the Ramsey family. There’s really no getting around it - no matter what you think of the Ramseys, it simply appears they didn’t kill their child unless you can explain away this dna fact. Regardless, some of my theories that an intruder murdered Jonbenet are:

*If JB’s death was an accident from the crushing of the skull, why would the parents further destroy their daughter’s body with the garrote and sexual assault? I can just hear the conversation, “well, honey, let’s make this thing look real, I’ll tie a garrote around her neck and you sexually assault her and then they’ll really believe us!” Absurd! If they even remotely loved this child, the head wound would have been enough. Have you seen the autopsy pics posted on the net, the garrot wound is horrible. No loving, sane parent could do that. And for there to be no history of child abuse or abuse afterwards only proves they didn’t do it. A person can’t be one way like that in one situation and completely normal every other time. No, this was the action of a vicious, evil, sexual pervert maniac. No pornography files were found on the Ramsey computers or otherwise, which imo, is not consistent with a vicious, evil, sexual pervert maniac.

*As for the ransom note, why would Patsy write out such a long note, taking the chance of her handwriting being matched to the note? Make no sense. All she would have had to write was “We have your daughter. Tell police or anyone and she’s dead. Will contact you with further instructions.” Why all the “talk to the dog and she’s dead” stuff. If the Ramseys were behind her death, they would not be sitting around writing long letters, but instead leave behind as few clues as possible, nor would they have probably had the time. Regardless of whether the death was intentional or unintentional, this would have been an extremely stressful time for the Ramseys, and I highly doubt Patsy would have been in the right mindset to carefully craft the letter to try to not look like her handwriting. And the fact that handwriting analysts have been unable to conclusively determine that she wrote the note speaks volumes. I mean, they had 2 ½ pages to work with and still can’t definitely claim she wrote the note? Unlikely she did then. Think about it, if the police came out and said she was eliminated as the writer, the Ramseys are off the hook. They couldn’t afford to say that. Afterall, the Boulder PD had humilitated itself for the botched job in front of the world. The note is their last piece of proof they’re not completely incompetent. Having said this, the note in and of itself is very strange. It starts out appearing to be that of an Islamist extremist or something, then the language turns to that of an absolute American. The sentence about a couple of people not liking John doesn’t sound like a male to me -- perhaps a female was also involved?

*Apparently, police interviewed every employee associated with John Ramsey, as well as their spouses. But what about other family members or friends of the employees. I can certainly see a secretary or bookkeeper telling family or friends, including some low life sexual predator that John Ramsey had just received $118,000 in a bonus and that he had a beauty queen daughter and someone getting bright ideas. Did Ramsey also happen to tell any employees about his broken window? I think it’s entirely possible that the wrong person got hold of too much information, may have broke into the house on numerous occasions, familiarized himself with the house, listened in on family conversations, knew when the Ramsey’s were out, maybe even rummaged through John’s personal bank statements which would further explain how the perp knew about the $118k bonus. There are any number of ways. Was the bonus published in any business journals? Personal info is published all the time in such publications. This may explain why the perp didn’t ask for, say, $1 million, if they didn’t know John had millions. He may have even taken the note pad and pen and wrote the note while he was hanging around the house. These psychos like Bundy, BTK, or the man who took Elizabeth Smart right in front of her little sister, have unbelievable gall, and actually get thrills from taking such risks.

*I’ve wondered why the perp didn’t carry out his supposed plans to abduct Jonbenet and use her for ramson. Is it possible he used the stun gun to carry her defenseless body down to the basement where his perverted intentions got the best of him. He molests her, then as many serial killers/rapists do who hate prostitutes or women in general, he blamed JB, became enraged, bashed her head in, with adrenaline pumping, rummaged through the kitchen for something to use as a garrote, found Patsy’s craft basket, broke the paint brush (a man is capable of doing this before a woman such as Patsy), and made the garrote around JB’s neck. Then as happens with nutcases such as this, he begins to feel remorse, covers JB with the blanket and gets the heck out of dodge as the adrenaline begins to subside. Perhaps he abandoned the kidnapping idea, now afraid and thinking more clearly that someone might see him, the child’s dead, he’s done the ultimate, just get out before he gets caught.

*Neighbors claimed they heard a scream that night and apparently tests were done to determine that such a scream, if from the basement, would have been heard outside the house and not upstairs in the house. Very interesting and telling.

*The call to 911 in which Patsy supposedly didn’t hang up the phone right away and their son is heard in the background -- he asks “what did you find?” He obviously overheard his parents talking about finding the ransom note. Also Patsy saying “help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus,” sounds like someone in a deep state of panic, having just found the ransom note, doesn’t sound like someone who has been up all night carefully planning how to explain away their daughter’s death, writing ransom note, etc. I.e., no incriminating info there.

These are some initial thoughts. Sorry so long.

weepy willa

07-03-2006, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by nachonaco
This is what I've thought for a LONG time, and it might sound a little cliched/unrealistic.....

I honestly think that JBR got tired of living her mother's dream (wasn't Patsy a former beauty queen or somesuch?), and thus performed badly throughout the last few pageants before her death. Patsy, in a fit of rage, killed her daughter the night of JBR telling her.

Another thought is, maybe Patsy was worried about JonBenet inheriting that type of cancer as well and killed her, but made sure it was covered up?

I really, honestly think Patsy devalues human life, at least JBR's...in one interview, she called JBR 'that child'....Not. NORMAL.

IMHO....

Also, it's not solely because of Susan Smith, it's because it KEEPS HAPPENING.

I think I read years ago that Patsy had given JBR, a life-size doll just like JBR, the source said that JBR ,thought the gift was gross.I guess PR,was grooming JBR,for a lifetime of beauty contests. I remember the news conference the D.A. at the time of JBR's,killing Alex Winters,said. He made a statement that any compassion he might have felt towards the killer,had faded. His tone was very angry. I always felt he meant the killer was a male. A reporter asked him "Does this person(killer) have access to a lot of funds,"The D.A. replied ," Thats a loaded question".( John Ramsey's company was called Access. I thought I read that the neighbor Fleet White thought that JR'S reaction of surprise at finding JBR's body was fake.What if Patsy got mad at JBR's bedwetting and she did'nt want JB to wet the in-laws bed ,and spoil her image of JBR's as the PERFECT CHILD?

rashomon

07-04-2006, 11:16 AM

Lianasmom: you asked why would Patsy write such a long and rambling ransom note.
Then you must also ask yourself why the 'small foreign faction' would write such a long and rambling ransom note?
They were professional kidnappers, weren't they?
They must have been avid movie watchers, for a lot of the ransom note is copied from movie scripts ('Ruthless People', 'Speed', 'Dirty Harry').
What does all that show: that it was a faked ransom note. The perp had no idea how real ransom notes look like, which is why she resorted to what she remembered from movie scripts.

A ransom kidnapping btw does not fit into the sexual predator scenario either. Another contradiction, which again points to a panicked parent who in her frenzy wildly threw together elements which should point to an outside connection and away from the parents.

A parent snapped and lost it, hit JB on the head, realized she had injured her very severely (probbly deadly) and then tried to cover it up. The sexual assault scene was done for pure staging purposes.
Duct tape was placed on the dead child's mouth, the garrote did not function as such and the ligatures did not even bind properly.

There was no foreign faction, there was no kidnapping, and there was no sexual predator.

JonBenet was found dead in her own home, the house was locked and her parents were at home. 'Look at the parents' was the FBI's advice.

But these parents were given kid glove treatment right from the start, which is why they escaped justice. And now that the perp (imo it was Patsy) is dead, the case will never see the inside of a courtroom.

rashomon

07-04-2006, 11:23 AM

rashomon

07-04-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Will05
With all due respect I disagree with both of you. I don't believe JonBenet was strangled for the bedwetting. I believe she was hit or struck with a blunt object over the bedwetting in a state of rage. Then it was covered up with everything else after that. How do you know a mother would not kill over bedwetting? Kids are killed & beaten over smaller things than that. Jeffrey MacDonald killed over bedwetting. You have no idea what a sociopath or psychopath would do under stressfull circumstances. No idea at all. I don't believe for one minute that a stranger was in that home that night & wrote a ransom note with the pen & notepad from that house. Didn't happen.
I couldn't agree more, Will. My thoughts exactly.

cami

07-04-2006, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles
I always thought your posts seemed "familiar". Now the penny has dropped!

Koldkase - good post above (as always). I'd like to add that contrary to what someone posted above, it is precisely due to the lack of conclusive evidence of an intruder that the parents have not been cleared. The Boulder DA made a statement last year to say that they had not been excluded from investigation.

There was a second Grand Jury thing but it wasn't to decide whether to indict someone for the murder. I cannot recall the precise details but I think a second GJ were asked to consider some other aspect of the investigation - was it perhaps to decide whether a Special Prosecutor should be appointed? I just can't remember but I'm sure it was something *like* that.

Why weren't the Ramseys called to testify before the GJ? Anyone know? Surely they were witnesses if nothing else.

cami

07-04-2006, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by PRIVATE M
I have theory... that just won't seem to go away.

I believe that the mother and the father new about their daughters murder.

I believe that they had her involved with child pronography and that it had been going on for awhile. I believe they were using the child as a sex slave for money and lots of it.

I believe that the sexual predator came over for sexual interacts with the child and it got out of hand. During sexual activities the person choked the child to death but not intentionally. After they discovered the child was dead; they then started the cover up of the ransom theory.

I believe the sexual predator was going to expose or blackmail the parents or parent if they told the truth about how the child really died. So the parents feared of loosing their reputation and life, if they were exposed of doing such a despicable hideous crime against their own child.

That's when they decided to cover up the crime by saying someone was there to kidnap the child for money.

That's why the mother's hand writing is consistence with the ransom letter found.

Thats why the father was able to go directly down the stairs to where the child was found.

That's why the child was found with a sweat shirt/shirt on and pajama bottoms. They may have put the bottoms on her.

She could have been dressed after she was killed. She may have never had changed closed from the party to begin with.

How did the child look at the party as far as makeup wise. Did she have make up on when she was found. How was her face... That would explain alot of theories... and cancell out.

I would like to hear someone's feed back...

Possible but not really probable. JonBenet was not a victim of a sex crime IMO. No rape, no sodomy, no sperm, no semen, etc.

I also think that someone would have exposed pornography by now had the Ramseys been involved in it.

cami

07-04-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by chatwuann
Nothing magical about it and no need for psychics. Patsy died with a clear conscience and is with JonBenet now in heaven. JonBenet told her mother who had killed her. End of story.

Really! And how would you know that? With all due respect, have you spoken to Patsy since she crossed over and cleaned this info from her? You don't know any more than the rest of us. You can base your opinion on "mother's wouldn't do this" but time and time again history has shown us that mothers can and they do.

cami

07-04-2006, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I don't know the answer to your question - maybe because they were under an umbrella of suspicion?

FWIW - here is a link about the GJ.......

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0922jury1.shtml

Well that's what I mean. They were suspects, they should have been subpoenaed to answer the GJ's questions. What was the purpose of the GJ otherwise. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

:seeya:

weepy willa

07-04-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

It is obvious JonBenet loved doing pageants. If she had not enjoyed them, it would be clear to the judges. Judges can tell when a child enjoys competing and when she does not. Only children who appear to be having fun up on stage receive high scores. If a child does not like being a part of the pageant, she receives a low score. JonBenet always got high scores.

JonBenet's life DID NOT revolve around pageants. The media has portrayed her as a constant contestant in the pageant world, however, this could not be more untrue. A "real pageant kid" participates in one to four pageants a month, and that usually makes up to fifty pageants a year. JonBenet participated in less than ten pageants in one year, far from fifty! True pageant moms put their daughters in kiddie pageants just a few months after they are born, JonBenet did not start competing until she was five years old. Patsy Ramsey waited until JonBenet was old enough to make her own decision on whether or not she wanted to compete in pageants.

http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/pagentkids/

Get over the wet bed theory, the bed was NOT wet and what in laws are you talking about???

The in-laws are Patsy's parents who were going to the house in Michigan too. Who said that JBR, loved doing pageants? Patsy had a bridge made for her missing teeth,bleached JBR's, hair. I think JBR,loved dressing up and acting grown. I remember what actress Morgan Fairchild said years ago on LKL,when they were showing JBR,story coming up on the next show." There is something very sexual about" THAT CHILD"!The gravemarker of JBR had her death as Dec. 26,1996,leading someone to ask how do they know when she died,the marker was changed to read Dec.25,1996.:shrug:

liketospeculate

07-04-2006, 10:18 PM

It continues to amaze me how some posters have to invent "facts" and change the story around, continue to spout off rumor and innuendo, in order to make their theories plausible - give this family a break - quit making them out to be child molesters and murderers, when it is quite obvious from the real facts that someone outside the family murdered this poor child. May Patsy Ramsey and Jon Benet rest in peace and may the rest of the family finally have some peace!

Lianasmom

07-04-2006, 11:25 PM

Thanks, Breezy!

Rashomon, I don’t know if the killer(s) were professional kidnappers or not. They could have been as inexperienced as anybody, but because the Boulder PD botched the investigation from the get go, they easily got away. Who says the perp wasn’t a movie buff. Most criminals can have otherwise very ordinary lives.

But forget all that, we could debate it all day. I want to know how the Ramseys managed to collect an outsider’s blood that night to plant on Jonbenet’s underwear.

To believe that the Ramseys accidently killed their daughter, one has to believe that after she was struck on the head with a severe blow, they gruesomely sexually assaulted her, tied a garrote around her neck (determined to be a professional knot) which in and of itself would have killed her, used a stun gun on her, sat down and wrote out a 2 ½ page ransom note with no experience of understanding how to deceive handwriting experts that we are aware of, collected blood dna and planted it on Jonbenet’s underwear and unknown dna under her fingernails, broke a window to make it appear someone broke into the house, and obtained fibers not traceable to the house to plant on the body, to name a few things. I’d believe the Ramseys premeditatedly murdered Jonbenet before I would believe it was accidental, then covered up by staging. No way. For the record, I also don’t believe the Ramseys intentionally murdered Jonbenet. Neither do their accusers, which is why they insist it was accidental.

weepy willa

07-04-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

The house in Michagan belonged to the Ramseys, not any in laws. EVERYONE involved in the pagents said JonBenet loved doing them. What dentist told you Patsy had a bridge made for JonBenets missing teeth? Gossip, gossip, gossip. :shrug: Pray you never come under an "umblrella" and others judge you as harshy as you judge the Ramseys. i

I know the house belonged to the Ramsey's,the in-laws were coming up . I read the M.E. said that JBR had bleached hair and a bridge for her teeth ,JBR lost a couple of teeth before a contest,and she must always appear to be the perfect child. The umbrella the Ramsey's were under is one of those cocktail ones ,a bartender puts in your drink.

boscorelli

07-05-2006, 06:56 AM

I found all the posts about Patsey Ramsey very interesting.I have always concluded that both she and her husband John murdered Jon Benet.
The Boulder police force made so many mistakes;the worst of course was not sealing off the crime scene;permitting people to compromise valuable forensic evidence.

The 'bed wetting theory,does have a lot of credibility to it;prehaps Jon Benet no longer wanted to by a 'fashion model' but only a little 6 year girl.
More than likely Patsey Ramsey,fits the profile of the 'stage mom';who was re-living her own fame as a beauty queen,through her daughter????
Their son, Burke now 20? more than likely saw something and feared his parents. Now that Patsey is dead,he may very well keep silent untill his father dies.
If Burke does know something,and I believe he does;he is wrong in withholding valuable information about his sister's murder.
There are many cold case murders,that go unsolved for years and then people start talking and murders are solved.

Boscorelli

rashomon

07-05-2006, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by liketospeculate
It continues to amaze me how some posters have to invent "facts" and change the story around, continue to spout off rumor and innuendo, in order to make their theories plausible - give this family a break - quit making them out to be child molesters and murderers, when it is quite obvious from the real facts that someone outside the family murdered this poor child. May Patsy Ramsey and Jon Benet rest in peace and may the rest of the family finally have some peace!
Pageants where children are dressed up like precocious Lolitas and are taught to perform seductively are a from of child abuse imo.
I'm not sure if JB was sexually molested by one of her parents though. Nor do I see them as murderers who planned the death of their child. This was a rage killing and the parents tried to cover it up.

rashomon

07-05-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

"I am one of those so-called "pageant kids" and I have been for several years now. I don't think the positive side of kiddie pageants have been publicized nearly enough, and neither has the truth about JonBenet and her role as a contestant.

It is obvious JonBenet loved doing pageants. If she had not enjoyed them, it would be clear to the judges. Judges can tell when a child enjoys competing and when she does not. Only children who appear to be having fun up on stage receive high scores. If a child does not like being a part of the pageant, she receives a low score. JonBenet always got high scores. "

True pageant moms put their daughters in kiddie pageants just a few months after they are born, JonBenet did not start competing until she was five years old. Patsy Ramsey waited until JonBenet was old enough to make her own decision on whether or not she wanted to compete in pageants.

http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/pagentkids/
Patsy and Nedra decided to enter JB into these pageants. I doubt JB would have had much say in the matter.
The woman who taught JB to sing and dance said she had the impression that JB did it to please her mother. And that Patsy through JB vicariously tried to relive her own pageant past.
Sure little girls may like pageants: the litle crowns, the nice dresses. They don't realize that pageants exploit little girls' innocent desire to dress up and play princesses for quite another purpose: satisfy their parents' ambition and possibly also the voyeuristic desire of pedophiles.
Pam Griffin recommended to Patsy a photographer who could make a six-year-old look twenty. Why would a parent want to do that with her child, I ask myself.

JB loved watching Shirley Temple movies, but remember how bittterly Shirley Temple complained later about how she had been used and exploited for these films, and how she had been robbed of her childhood? A producer even tried to sexually abuse her.

There is a big difference between dressing up as Cinderella nd dressing up as e.g. Marilyn Monroe, like JB had to.

rashomon

07-05-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Investigators consulted with six handwriting experts, four hired by police and two hired by the Ramseys. All six excluded John Ramsey as the author of the note, and none identified Patsy Ramsey as the writer.
http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=26
"Six unlocked windows and an unlocked kitchen door were found in the slain 6-year-old's Boulder home."
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0929intru.html

Patsy Ramsey was one of the few people who never could be eliminated as the possible author. Well-known Vassar linguist Don Foster did an exhaustive analysis of Patsy's handwriting style and the note and identified her as he writer of the ransom note.

Re the allegedly open windows: then why did John Ramsey lie about it, who said everything was locked?
And then why didn't super investigator Lou Smit ever mention this? Instead he tried to squeeze himself throuth that basement window to 'prove' an intruder could have done this.

rashomon

07-05-2006, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Lianasmom

To believe that the Ramseys accidently killed their daughter, one has to believe that after she was struck on the head with a severe blow, they gruesomely sexually assaulted her, tied a garrote around her neck (determined to be a professional knot) which in and of itself would have killed her, used a stun gun on her, sat down and wrote out a 2 ½ page ransom note with no experience of understanding how to deceive handwriting experts that we are aware of, collected blood dna and planted it on Jonbenet’s underwear and unknown dna under her fingernails, broke a window to make it appear someone broke into the house, and obtained fibers not traceable to the house to plant on the body, to name a few things. I’d believe the Ramseys premeditatedly murdered Jonbenet before I would believe it was accidental, then covered up by staging. No way. For the record, I also don’t believe the Ramseys intentionally murdered Jonbenet. Neither do their accusers, which is why they insist it was accidental.
The unidentified DNA on JB was minuscule and part of it also degraded. In fact I'm surprised that no more unidentified DNA was found on her body because JB not only wet herself constantly, but also had soiling incidents, after which she would call whoever happened to be around to wipe her (btw a very unusual behavior in a six-year-old child!).
I don't think the Ramseys gruesomely assaulted her, but they probably believed she was already dead after the head blow and then tied the ligatures around her body and staged the vaginal injury to make it look like a sexual pervert had done the crime.

Patsy Ramsey was one of the few people who could not be eliminated as the author of the ransom note. Renowned Vassar linguist Don Foster in his analysis identified her as the writer of the note.

Re the fibers: it's the traceable, not the untraceable fibers which lead to the truth: fibers from the clothing Patsy had worn on Christmas were found in the paint tray and on the sticky side of the duct tape which covered JB's mouth.
The knot around her neck was not a professional knot but a simple double knot anyone could tie. The multiple loops around the stick btw would not have served in any way to tighten the knot, for the knot was already fixed. The Ramseys then wrapped the remaining end of the rope around the stick to make it look as cruel and bizarre as possible. Everything was staged to point away from the parents. And when people say "no parent would garrote their child", well, that's exactly what the stager (who was a parent) wanted people to believe.

rashomon

07-05-2006, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

You can doubt all you wish to but the people who were there and knew them KNOW you are wrong.

"JonBenet entered beauty pageants and won several titles - not only due to her stunning good looks but also because of her beautiful personality and great talents. Her titles held include - Little Miss Charlevoix (Mich.), Colorado State All-Star Kids Cover Girl, America's Royal Miss, National Tiny Miss Beauty, Little Miss Merry Christmas, Little Miss Colorado. Her mother Patsy [who was crowned Miss West Virginia in 1973] entered her in pageants but without doubt it was JonBenets decision - she sang, danced and wore glamorous customes and makeup with joy. When you tell or force a child to do an activity they don't want to they have no enthusiasim - but JonBenet was full of enthusiasim - she loved entertaining and making people smile. Fame did not go to her head though. "
http://www.geocities.com/jonbenet_1990/jbbio.html
It's not about what Jon Benet won because you can program children pretty much into doing anything if you set your mind to it.
The woman whom Patsy had hired to train JB thought she was actually quite a plain-looking child; she could dance well but not sing very well. But hair-dye and styling did their work of course. I'm a kindergarten teacher and to me JB (without her make-up on) looked like a cute and pretty little kid, nothing more, exactly like the many other cute and pretty little kids I see among my kindergartners every day. There was nothing extraordinary about JonBenet's looks, except maybe her beautiful eyes.
And I would have wished for that cute little girl to have had a normal childhood, without being sent to bed with rollers in her hair because of a pageant the next day.

One evening when JB felt chilly in a restaurant and wanted to put her jacket on, Patsy did not allow her to do so: "You are still on show"she told her daughter.

liketospeculate

07-05-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Pageants where children are dressed up like precocious Lolitas and are taught to perform seductively are a from of child abuse imo.
I'm not sure if JB was sexually molested by one of her parents though. Nor do I see them as murderers who planned the death of their child. This was a rage killing and the parents tried to cover it up.

You fail to answer the question of how the Ramsey's were able to fake the mail dna found in two spots of blood on JB's underwear, also how did they fake the footprints in the dust that matched no shoes in their home - and if it were a rage killing that they tried to cover up, I don't see two loving parents who would desecrate their child's body in such a horrible way - there would be other less horrifying ways to stage a crime scene - again, people are taking the facts of this case and twisting them to match their theory that the parents were involved - when most of the police community in the boulder area who have studied the evidence without the preconceived notion that the Ramseys were involved, agree that the likely scenario is that an intruder killed JB

liketospeculate

07-05-2006, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Patsy Ramsey was one of the few people who never could be eliminated as the possible author. Well-known Vassar linguist Don Foster did an exhaustive analysis of Patsy's handwriting style and the note and identified her as he writer of the ransom note.

Re the allegedly open windows: then why did John Ramsey lie about it, who said everything was locked?
And then why didn't super investigator Lou Smit ever mention this? Instead he tried to squeeze himself throuth that basement window to 'prove' an intruder could have done this.

No one has ever been able to prove that Patsy Ramsey was the author of the ransom note - You have no proof JR ever "lied" about anything - maybe things were discovered through investigation that he wasn't aware of - just your word choice shows that you believe the Ramseys are guilty and you are not willing to even look at the possibilty that rumors and innuendo have clouded your view - look at the evidence with an open mind and no preconceived notions of their guilty - take out all theories put forth by authors trying to make a quick buck - and you might just come to the same conclusion the Boulder DA's office has come to - that an outside intruder killed this poor child

liketospeculate

07-05-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

It's not about what Jon Benet won because you can program children pretty much into doing anything if you set your mind to it.
The woman whom Patsy had hired to train JB thought she was actually quite a plain-looking child; she could dance well but not sing very well. But hair-dye and styling did their work of course. I'm a kindergarten teacher and to me JB (without her make-up on) looked like a cute and pretty little kid, nothing more, exactly like the many other cute and pretty little kids I see among my kindergartners every day. There was nothing extraordinary about JonBenet's looks, except maybe her beautiful eyes.
And I would have wished for that cute little girl to have had a normal childhood, without being sent to bed with rollers in her hair because of a pageant the next day.

One evening when JB felt chilly in a restaurant and wanted to put her jacket on, Patsy did not allow her to do so: "You are still on show"she told her daughter.

Where do you get this stuff? Start posting some links to your so-called facts

rashomon

07-05-2006, 03:46 PM

Breezy:

You forgot to mention that Foster (who back then was just another internet observer when it came to the Ramsey case) wrote this letter to Patsy before he was brought aboard to look at the case file, after which he changed his opinion.
Foster is a linguist, no forensic scientist, that's true.
But he has a sterling reputation in his field, and certainly did not base his analysis merely on some exclamation marks. That's ridiculous. His report is over 100 pages long.
BTW, are you aware that the Greg McCrary you (rightly) praised so much refused to do a profiling for the Ramseys because he thought they are guilty as hell?
Gregg McCrary by the way also said that Lou Smit should have been charged with obstruction of justice.

rashomon

07-05-2006, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by liketospeculate

Where do you get this stuff? Start posting some links to your so-called facts
I wasn't aware that you obviously haven't 'Perfect Murder Perfect Town' . Kit Andre was JB's dance instructor. You can read her comments about JB and Patsy in PMPT pb, p. 96-99.

chatwuann

07-05-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by cami

Really! And how would you know that? With all due respect, have you spoken to Patsy since she crossed over and cleaned this info from her? You don't know any more than the rest of us. You can base your opinion on "mother's wouldn't do this" but time and time again history has shown us that mothers can and they do.

Lol. Of course not. Patsy has said that when she died that she (Patsy ) would go up to JonBenet and say can we talk? I dont have the link for it but I have heard it mentioned.

You with all due respect don't know the whole truth either. Nobody does. Except for the real killer. I have read about the case and the evidence and it doesn't add up to Patsy's guilt for me.

I know Mothers can and do harm or kill their child or children, I watch the news and have heard about mothers as well, who hasn't, but I don't think it is fair to say just because some mothers have done this very thing that when a child or childern ends up dead or harmed that the mother harmed or killed that child or children without some good hard solid proof.

Patsy wasn't a perfect mother but she loved JonBenet and Burke and did her best to take care of them, it is true that she spoiled them and let them have anything they wanted but a lot of mothers have done the same thing. That still doesn't mean patsy harmed and killed JonBenet when she was alive.

JMO (just for you cami)

rashomon

07-05-2006, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Wrong!

Investigators consulted with six handwriting experts, four hired by police and two hired by the Ramseys. All six excluded John Ramsey as the author of the note, and none identified Patsy Ramsey as the writer.

“Rather, the experts’ consensus was that she ‘probably did not’ write the ransom note,” Carnes wrote.

Judge Carnes swallowed the Ramsey spin just like so many others involved in the case (Trip DeMuth & Co)

How about this:
"handwriting showed indications the writer was Patsy Ramsey."-Chet Ubowski. He said that the only thing that kept him from saying with 100% certainty was the blots of ink on the paper, and that the exemplars don't suggest the full range of her handwriting.

"I found 51 points of comparison and similarity...in my professional opinion, Patsy Ramsey is the ransom note writer."-David Liebman, pres. of National Association of Document Examiners.

"Among the most telling areas of comparison are the shape, size, slant, continuity, arrangement and baseline of the ransom note and Patsy Ramsey's exemplars."-Tom Miller (who was prosecuted for saying so)

"No significant differences...100% certain."-Gideon Epstein, former head of document analysis at INS.

Larry Ziegler, former instructor to the FBI on document analysis, says she wrote it.

liketospeculate

07-05-2006, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Liketospeculate: Your "I don't see a loving mother & father murdering their daughter" argument is so lame. Give me a break. "Loving" mothers & fathers hurt and/or murder their kids every day over small meaningless things. You're always spouting your mouth off about people pointing out facts & here you are talking about this garbage. You have no idea what a mother/father would do under stressful circumstances. No idea at all. Read the link below once & for all. I mean it.

http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

Will05 - first I don't understand your personal attack on me - what I said was that I didn't see a loving mother & father desecrating their child's body if they were staging a cover-up - I realize that mothers and fathers hurt and murder their kids every day - I never said they didn't - I just said in this case there is absolutely no proof that John or Patsy Ramsey had anything to do with the murder of JB - you are right, I have no idea what a mother/father would do under stressful circumstances - neither do you - but at least I am not taking rumor and innuendo and turning it into facts like other posters do - All I am saying is that it is wrong to state things as fact that aren't - and it is wrong to state that John or Patsy are guilty of murdering their child when there is no evidence to substantiate that accusation -

liketospeculate

07-05-2006, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

I wasn't aware that you obviously haven't 'Perfect Murder Perfect Town' . Kit Andre was JB's dance instructor. You can read her comments about JB and Patsy in PMPT pb, p. 96-99.

You are right, I didn't read the book because I don't like to help support these authors who capitalize on the pain of others to make a quick buck - anyone can say anything in a book - doesn't make it true - While these books may be good reading, I tend to ignore the people who come out of the woodwork with their stories and base my opinions on the actual evidence in the case -

Thanks for telling me where your info came from though - it is appreciated!

rashomon

07-06-2006, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234
How about this? Colorado Bureau of Investigation handwriting expert Chet Ubowski in early 1997 determined that neither John Ramsey nor JonBenét's then-10-year-old brother, Burke, wrote the note.
For it was Ubowski's opinion that Patsy wrote the note.
And as far as I know, not even the people who believe the Ramseys are guilty think that Burke wrote the note. No nine-year-old child could have thought out a note like that.

rashomon

07-06-2006, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by chatwuann

I know Mothers can and do harm or kill their child or children, I watch the news and have heard about mothers as well, who hasn't, but I don't think it is fair to say just because some mothers have done this very thing that when a child or childern ends up dead or harmed that the mother harmed or killed that child or children without some good hard solid proof.

Patsy wasn't a perfect mother but she loved JonBenet and Burke and did her best to take care of them, it is true that she spoiled them and let them have anything they wanted but a lot of mothers have done the same thing. That still doesn't mean patsy harmed and killed JonBenet when she was alive.

JMO (just for you cami)
Even mothers who love their children can get very, very angry at them at times. I have yet to see the mother (including myself) who has never been so stressed-out that she flew off the handle over something her child did.
Very seldom do these episodes end as tragic as in Patsy's case, but sadly enough, it can happen. And just think about how often parents who take their child to the hospital because they have injured her in a rage try to cover it up too by saying the child fell off the stairs or against the bathttub.
But I think in JB's case, Patsy realized that the blow she had delivered to JB's head (another possibility is that she yanked the child against a hard surface) was so severe that JB would die from it or at least remain heavily brain-damaged. Which is why she did not take her to the hospital, for she feared they would find out the truth, and Patsy did not want to live with that truth, which would being exposed in public as the mother who killed her daughter.
Which is why a cover-up was staged.
And there is a lot of proof that Patsy did it. The circumstantial evidence just screams that this, as John Ramsey himself said, "was an inside job."

Lianasmom

07-06-2006, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

The unidentified DNA on JB was minuscule....

What difference does that make? It was dna that didn't belong to the other family members and it was blood. From my understanding, dna doesn't lie.

Lianasmom

07-06-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Will05
Liana & Breezy: Please read the link below & quit ignoring the facts of the case please. Thank you for your cooperation.

http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

I've read the article at least once and skimmed through it a couple of times. Is there something in the article that trumps actual dna and other hard facts? The article appears to be mostly speculation and theory. You can't make someone guilty or convict them based on what one "imagines" happened. As a matter of fact, some things in the article seem to give more credence to the Ramseys' innocence than it does their guilt, such as tests showing screams in the basement would be heard by neighbors rather than people upstairs in the residence (how could JB be screaming in the basement if she had been knocked unconscious from the head bashing upstairs in the bathroom -- that is the theory, correct, and that Patsy thought she was dead?), and Burke asking his parents what they had found while the phone was unknowingly not hung up after a 911 call (but even whether this happened is in great dispute). Now if he had said something incriminating like "why did you put Jonbenet in the basement?" you might have a point.

The FACTS of the case are that blood was found in JB's underwear not belonging to the other family members, the Ramseys passed polygraph tests by reputable polygraph examiners, and a grand jury refused to indict them when normally grand juries will indict a ham sandwich, as they say. There's a reason they weren't indicted, the evidence isn't there to indict them. Theories and speculation aren't evidence.

liketospeculate

07-06-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Will05
Liketospeculate: Personally attack you? Where did I 'attack' you? Don't be so touchy. You're wrong about the facts. I presented a link with all the facts that apparently you didn't read. That's clear. My facts aren't based on rumor unlike your so-called 'facts'.

If you truly believe there is actual factual evidence that proves PR guilty - why do you think she was not arrested? I think she was never arrested because there is no actual factual evidence that can prove she is guilty - and because in this country people are presumed innocent until proven guilty - in my opinion people need to quit saying PR is guilty as though it were fact - it is one thing to say that she is guilty in your opinion, but to state it as fact is just wrong - also, how do you explain the dna evidence?

liketospeculate

07-06-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Lianasmom

I've read the article at least once and skimmed through it a couple of times. Is there something in the article that trumps actual dna and other hard facts? The article appears to be mostly speculation and theory. You can't make someone guilty or convict them based on what one "imagines" happened. As a matter of fact, some things in the article seem to give more credence to the Ramseys' innocence than it does their guilt, such as tests showing screams in the basement would be heard by neighbors rather than people upstairs in the residence (how could JB be screaming in the basement if she had been knocked unconscious from the head bashing upstairs in the bathroom -- that is the theory, correct, and that Patsy thought she was dead?), and Burke asking his parents what they had found while the phone was unknowingly not hung up after a 911 call (but even whether this happened is in great dispute). Now if he had said something incriminating like "why did you put Jonbenet in the basement?" you might have a point.

The FACTS of the case are that blood was found in JB's underwear not belonging to the other family members, the Ramseys passed polygraph tests by reputable polygraph examiners, and a grand jury refused to indict them when normally grand juries will indict a ham sandwich, as they say. There's a reason they weren't indicted, the evidence isn't there to indict them. Theories and speculation aren't evidence.

ITA

rashomon

07-06-2006, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Lianasmom

What difference does that make? It was dna that didn't belong to the other family members and it was blood. From my understanding, dna doesn't lie.
No 'foreign blood' was found on JB. There were traces of DNA (not bloody) found in her underwear which were so minuscule that Dr. Lee said they could have come from the sneeze of a factory worker handling the garment.

rashomon

07-06-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

THANKS for proving my point.............YOU DON'T READ THE LINKS! IF you had bothered you would have seen the rest! :rolleyes:

I did read the link but you obviously did not read my prior post.
Chet Ubowski said that there are indicators that Patsy wrote the note.

You make it sound as if all experts unanimously agreed that Patsy did not write the note, which is a total distortion of facts:

This is from a poster on another forum who has an immense knowledge about the case (in case you want the link I'll ask him about it):

"handwriting showed indications the writer was Patsy Ramsey."-Chet Ubowski. He said that the only thing that kept him from saying with 100% certainty was the blots of ink on the paper, and that the exemplars don't suggest the full range of her handwriting.

"I found 51 points of comparison and similarity...in my professional opinion, Patsy Ramsey is the ransom note writer."-David Liebman, pres. of National Association of Document Examiners.

"Among the most telling areas of comparison are the shape, size, slant, continuity, arrangement and baseline of the ransom note and Patsy Ramsey's exemplars."-Tom Miller (who was prosecuted for saying so)

"No significant differences...100% certain."-Gideon Epstein, former head of document analysis at INS.

Larry Ziegler, former instructor to the FBI on document analysis, says she wrote it."

Nancy#1Fan

07-06-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I prepared a lengthy response on what I got from the program, but when I hit submit the thread had been closed for the week-end.

I agree with what you said - with regard to the brush handle they did say that both end were broken - so that would have made three parts.

The pineapple puzzles me, but if I recall Patsy was asked about the pineapple some time after this happened (someone found the bowl of pineapple in a picture). She said she couldn't remember. Knowing the emotional state she was in I believe her.

JMO
Both Ramsey's stated repeatedly that no one in the house fed her pineapple, no pineapple was served at the party. Both stated JonBenet was sound asleep and carried to bed. Patsy stated the table was cleared off & no glass or bowl was on it.

f0rTyLeGz

07-06-2006, 06:11 PM

Lianasmom

07-06-2006, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by liketospeculate

ITA

Some of the people on here seem to have a personal vendetta against the Ramseys, they are taking it all very personal. I don't get how their personal opinions constitute fact over something as solid as dna evidence.

Lianasmom

07-06-2006, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Both of you go right on using absolutely no common sense. Your argument is "Loving Mommy couldn't hurt her little daughter". You go right on thinking that. Thank God neither one of you are detectives. God help us if you were.

Patsy is good for this murder & that's the bottom line. Yes guys, she KILLED her. No doubt in my mind. She's a MURDERER.

I think their argument and mine is that there is no evidence to support guilt on the part of the Ramseys. How do you know Patsy was a murderer? Were you there?

Look, I don't know the Ramseys from Adam so I couldn't care less if John Ramsey tomorrow shouted from the rooftops that he's guilty as sin. I'd say fine, go to jail. So I have no personal feelings one way or the other. But if I were on a jury had the Ramseys been indicted, which they haven't been due to no real evidence, I'd have to acquit. Basing your judgment on emotion is a dangerous thing.

Lianasmom

07-06-2006, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Did that factory worker also "sneeze" on JonBenets fingernails? :rolleyes:

Good point.

Lianasmom

07-06-2006, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

No 'foreign blood' was found on JB. There were traces of DNA (not bloody) found in her underwear which were so minuscule that Dr. Lee said they could have come from the sneeze of a factory worker handling the garment.

I've heard excuses, but that takes the cake. Breezy's already made the point about the blood on the underwear, but the Ramseys would have to be very lucky that JB's underwear just happened to contain blood put there inadvertently by a factory worker.:rolleyes: Come on.

rashomon

07-07-2006, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Lianasmom

I've heard excuses, but that takes the cake. Breezy's already made the point about the blood on the underwear, but the Ramseys would have to be very lucky that JB's underwear just happened to contain blood put there inadvertently by a factory worker.:rolleyes: Come on.
You obviously misread my prior post.
I read that the DNA on JB's underwear was old and degraded, and that the DNA was not from blood.
Where does it say that the DNA was from foreign blood? Could you post a link to a forensic document?

rashomon

07-07-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I have a 1st edition of PM/PT in my hands. No quotes from Kit Andre on pages 96-99.
Maybe you have the hardcover edition? I have the 1999 paperback, where Kit Andre is mentioned on pages 96-99, which also include her comments about JonBenet and Patsy. Very interesting read.

liketospeculate

07-07-2006, 12:59 PM

It is fairly obvious that Will05's only purpose for coming on here is to bait everyone into arguing with him/her - I say that because he/she will not even begin to consider any of the real evidence - the actual facts - I think that Will05 is actually Steve Thomas or related to Steve Thomas - because all Will05 does is restate theories and innuendo first perpetrated by Thomas - and then dismisses anything put forth by any poster stating the true facts of the case - Thomas's book was published to make a quick buck and capitalize off the grief of the Ramsey family - it does nothing to accurately set forth the facts of the case - it is the Jerry Springer of books about this case - PM/PT is not much better

Lianasmom

07-07-2006, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Liana: Oh so if I wasn't there then I don't know. Juries convict people every day without any of the jurors seeing the crime. So everyone, if you didn't see the crime then you can't convict. That's what Liana says. Too funny.:D

Will: you state unequivocally that Patsy is guilty, however, your opinion seems highly based on emotion rather than evidence. If you were on a jury, the judge would instruct you not to base your decision of guilt or acquittal on emotion, but strictly evidence. Why do you think a GJ decided against indictment?

Lianasmom

07-07-2006, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

You obviously misread my prior post.
I read that the DNA on JB's underwear was old and degraded, and that the DNA was not from blood.
Where does it say that the DNA was from foreign blood? Could you post a link to a forensic document?

A quick search provided me with several links indicating it was blood, for example:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/27/jonbenet.dna/index.html

The documentary on Court TV the other night also indicated it was blood. Do you know of a forensic document which states it was not blood? But whether it's blood or other dna, if it's insignificant, why is the dna tested on a weekly basis against the national databank?

Lianasmom

07-07-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Liana: There you go again ignoring facts. I have posted facts on this case that you & the rest continue to ignore. Look above and actually read.

I've already addressed the issue of you posting theories, speculation and opinions. Those are not facts. Facts consists of things like DNA evidence of which Breezy has an excellent post on this and other strong evidence. Please just post a specific fact which proves Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter.

Lianasmom

07-07-2006, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

It is my understanding it was JonBenets blood mixed in with other male foreign DNA from someone else but NOT any Ramsey. I will try to find the link for you later.

Thanks, I know I've read it a number of times....

Lianasmom

07-07-2006, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Why did the Ramseys' deny this ever happened? What's the point? See below.

The Ramseys had always maintained that Burke Ramsey slept through the entire grisly episode, until John Ramsey and Fleet White awakened him, several hours after the police arrived at the Ramsey residence. That was why the police allowed Burke to be taken away from the Ramsey house – to Fleet White’s house – in mid-morning, after being "awakened." It’s been reported that Burke walked past all the police, and assembled people, without asking what was going on. As he left, he took with him one of his Christmas presents, a Nintendo game. On the way to Fleet White's house, Burke talked about his Nintendo game.

However, when Patsy Ramsey called 911 at 5:51 a.m., Dec. 26, 1996, she failed to hang the phone up immediately.

The tape of that call had been sent to a California sound laboratory for enhancement. Patsy Ramsey is said to be heard saying, "Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus." Then she fumbled with the phone, trying to hang it up.

Prior to the phone being hung up, a voice in the background, described as Burke Ramsey's, is said to be heard, followed by John Ramsey saying, "We weren’t speaking to you."

Burke Ramsey: "But what did you find?"

I don't see how this proves Patsy murdered Jonbenet. So, she was so stressed she forgot or got confused as to when Burke was up. As a matter of fact this info seems to indicate innocence rather than guilt. If Burke was asking "what did you find?" he obviously overheard his parents talking about finding the ransom note. Children are very transparent. If he was overheard saying something like "why did you do that to Jonbenet?" that would be significant.

rashomon

07-07-2006, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Yeah right. :lol: It's so much better to go to books written for MONEY that HAVE been disproven by police FACTS than to go to any other links. This may be a game to you and "Rash" but it is no game to the people involved, to the little girl killed or to a family that has been tortured by gossip and lies. That gossip probably brought on Patsy's death as well. I surley hope you and "Rash" and the rest of those who repeat gossip without checking facts feel proud of yourselves. :no:
If I were interested in playing 'games' I'd post on a game board, darlin'. :)

I'm interested in discussing true crime cases, and one of the few people involved in the JB investigation who can look at himself in the mirror with a clear conscience is Steve Thomas. You talk a lot about gossip, but claiming that Steve wrote his book for money - now that's what I'd call gossip.
Did you read his book? If you did, surely you must have felt his dedication to the truth and the truth alone.
Did you know that even Patsy Ramsey said (and although he told her point-blank that she was 'good for it') that Steve truly wanted justice for JonBenet?
This was Thomas' first murder investigation, but he was not an inexperienced cop. This is classic Ramsey spin which Ramsey advocates are only too eager to buy. Steve was a 'by the book' detective and did an awesome job despite the incredible obstacles thrown in his way by a spineless DA and also some spineless types in the BPD.
Thomas was so damn good that even the FBI wanted to recruit him.
And, as opposed to others, he was not spineless. He spoke out for JonBenet and that is why he wrote his book.
He was one of the few people who did not fail JonBenet. He cried at her grave, inconsolable that her killer had not been brought to justice.
If only there were more people around like ST, the world would be a better place.

Patsy Ramsey did not die from 'gossip' either, she died from cancer, which she had before the tragedy, and which returned. It is not unusual for cancer to return, and if Patsy did suffer psychologically which might have weakened her immune system again (I suppose you were referring to a body-mind connection here), she only had herself to blame, for of course knowing she committed this crime and not having taken responsibility for what she did took its toll.

Rocky

07-07-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

Too late to Edit: normal is subjective. Joel Steinburg was considered 'normal' until the truth was found out. JonBenet was a bed wetter...that is a red flag (in some ways)
Jeff MacDonald, considered 'normal'
David Brown, considered 'normal'

IMO normal parents do not dress a six year old up to look and have the mannerisms of a twenty year old, but that is my opinion of normal...

No one knows what goes on behind closed doors...:shrug: and I will submit this, we will IMO never know what happened to that child, and the killer whether your right or I am...will only face judgement at the highest level

I agree with you. One of the most gut wrenching aspects of this case was watching that video footage of Jon Benet on the runway with full face makeup, dyed hair, heels, and a VERY mature outfit, displaying mannerisms and expressions that had obviously been taught to her, because they were very sexual by nature.

In all my years, I've NEVER seen a six year old girl display that kind of behavior, and my heart ached for that child.

IMO, the killer will only face judgment at the highest level. Just IMO.

rashomon

07-07-2006, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

:rolleyes:
Will05 Well, we obviously disagree on this so we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. I believe Patsy murdered her.

:seeya:
Never underestimate possible subconscious feelings on your part shining through here, Breezy.
Your post obviously was meant to be ironic, but your subconscious mind may be wiser than your conscious mind.
:seeya:

marzano

07-07-2006, 08:13 PM

Yes I watched "Jon Benet Anatomy Of A Cold Case".

(It's on tonight again at 11:00 EST I think.)

It was good I thought.

However they didn't mention that there was a lot of evidence that the child had been sexually abused over an extended period of time. This apparently caused the bed wetting and other horrific problems due to the psychological trauma.

I can just imagine Patsy talking to Jon Benet some night after one of the child beauty pagents:

"You little *****. I see the way you try to make those men look at you !"

Then she would start in with the sexual attacks probably.

But one night things got out of hand and the child smashed her head on something.

That was the night Patsy made the most important decision of her miserable life.

The evidence against Patsy was overwhelming. It was only the ineptitude of the Boulder police department that allowed her to get away with murder.

This case will probably serve for all time as the perfect example of how to bungle an investigation, contaminate a crime scene, and neglect to ask for assistance from the FBI and other more qualified professionals. I suspect police departments will use this case as a training mechanism for many years.

I bet if you talk to those FBI guys off camera they know what really happened. They can't say what they really think on tv or in any public forum.

Yes there are little things that raise a slim chance that the intruder story is true.

But common sense tells us what really happened.

But alas the inescapable hand of fate has accomplished what our human laws could not.

Jeff Marzano

weepy willa

07-07-2006, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Yes and WHY didn't you post the rest??? Afaid of the TRUTH???

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/But both the FBI and Secret Service — who examined the tapes — said such a conversation could not be heard.

NBC News had the tape tested by experts at two different labs that examine 911 tapes to see if there was any conversation after the hang up.

“I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI’s findings. There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument,” says Frank Piazza of Legal Audio in New York City.

David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says.

I think the voice experts said that Burke was heard saying : "What can we do to help?" and John barked loudly" I told you to go to bed".:shrug:

liketospeculate

07-08-2006, 12:03 AM

Court TV is running a 2006 special regarding the JBR case called Jon Benet Anatomy of a Cold Case - very interesting - it will be repeated tonight at midnight my time (California) and I am sure will be repeated again -

rashomon

07-08-2006, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

:rolleyes: You can't understand a repost?? No wonder you are unable to understand the FACTS of the case. :seeya:

Breezy, your whole post read like that:
Originally posted by Will05
I told you before that I have never even met the man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will05 Well, we obviously disagree on this so we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. I believe Patsy murdered her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breezy: What do you mean by repost? That you accidentally quoted what Will said without adding your comment?

Lianasmom

07-08-2006, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

IMO Steve Thomas is a liar and tried to make a profit off a little girls death and a family's grief. If there were more people around like Thomas who can't even stand up for what he believes this world would be a worse place. If he was SO SURE of his theories WHY not face the Ramseys in court and prove it instead of "settling"?

"On October 17, 2001, the Daily Camera reported that attorneys for former Boulder detective Steve Thomas, who was involved in the Ramsey murder investigation, had moved to "block a deposition from a related case from becoming public."

The newspaper report stated, "The deposition is part of a lawsuit filed by former Boulder County journalist Chris Wolf against the Ramseys. In their book about the 1996 murder of their daughter, John and Patsy Ramsey named Wolf and a former housekeeper, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, as suspects in the case."

Ramsey attorney Lin Wood called Thomas's move to keep the deposition private "the height of hypocrisy: This is a man who has written a book accusing my clients of murder. Steve Thomas does not want the public to know the truth. When truth comes out, the people who were attacking the Ramseys want to run from the truth. Wood said that the Ramseys wanted "everything put on the table and the murder file made public."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/16.html
WHY was Thomas afraid of the WHOLE TRUTH coming out?
"Judge Praises Lou Smit, Criticizes Steve Thomas
In dismissing a defamation suit against the parents of JonBenet Ramsey, Atlanta Federal Judge Julie Carnes praised the efforts and experience of investigator Lou Smit while expressing sharp criticism for the work and experience of Boulder police detective Steve Thomas.

Carnes reserved special criticism for Thomas, the former Boulder detective upon whose theories the Wolf complaint was based. "Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support," she wrote. "Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case. In short, the plaintiff's evidence that the [Ramseys] killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder," Carnes wrote.
Thomas wrote a book claiming the Ramseys were guilty, was sued for libel and settled the case for an undisclosed sum. Lou Smit, hired as a special investigator in the case, resigned because the police investigation was so biased against the Ramseys."

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/002340.html

Breezy, your posts provide a wealth of information. You've obviously done your homework. Interesting reading. Thanks.

rashomon

07-08-2006, 10:39 AM

The Crime Library articles are often totally biased. I know this fom the MacDonald case.

The knot tied around JB's neck was not a sophisticated knot at all - every schoolchild can tie it. Read Delmar England's analysis of the garrote on the ACandyRose website.
The wrist ties did not bind properly, the garrote did not function as a garrote, and duct tape was placed on the dead child's mouth. All this just screams (poor) staging.

Lou Smit neve commented on why an alleged intruder would write the note with pen and paper from the Ramsey home.
The evidence must be looked at in its totality to get the whole picture.

poplife

07-08-2006, 03:45 PM

Using an icon as a reply is a complete waste of bandwidth. GLHM.

rashomon

07-08-2006, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Breezy: You need to tone it down a bit man. You're coming off as very obnoxious. Also, don't forget that the pen & notepad came from the Ramsey home. Yeah, Breezy has really done his homework alright :D ....he's/she's totally wrong on this case. He's going in the wrong direction & he doesn't even know it. Too bad all of his/her energy is going towards that. Will is a male's name Breezy if you didn't know that. Paranoia is rampant on this board. I can't believe some of you thought I was Steve Thomas. What an idiotic thing to believe.
That was hilarious that some people thought you were Steve Thomas, Will. This is indeed a bit paranoid. Next time one of them will probably suspect that I'm Fleet White, lol.

Those rabid Ramsey advocates did not even bother to read Thomas' book, which is pivotal to the case. I gives a first-class insight into the homicide investigation. Although I don't agree with every part of Thomas' theory, his intelligence and dedication are very impressive. No wonder the FBI wanted to recruit him.

But it has always been Steve Thomas who gets a bucket of dirt emptied over his head by pro-Ramseys, because it was he who smelled a rat right from the beginning in this case, and who did not let himself be fooled.

But pro-Ramseys often have the attitude: "Don't give me the facts - my mind is made up."

I've never been able to understand why some people will prefer to live in a bubble of illusion. For to me the truth, however hard it it may be to digest, is always preferable to illusion, in the internet world as well as outside.

Lianasmom

07-08-2006, 05:20 PM

Will, could we have intelligent debate here and refrain from the ad hominem attacks? Constantly accusing people you disagree with of having no common sense or being obnoxious and twisting words around like that I claim if one doesn't witness a crime, a person can't be convicted or that Breezy is claiming a 911 call didn't take place by Patsy is out of line. No offense, but it doesn't help the debate and is the first indication that one can't back up an argument.

Lianasmom

07-08-2006, 05:48 PM

Rashomon, I think in the beginning we all thought the Ramseys were guilty, at least I know I did for the first few years. But over time there have been more and more questions as to how it could be the Ramseys and it just didn't add up that it could be them. Apparently, the GJ agreed. Were there marks anywhere on the Ramseys to indicate Jonbenet scratched them? The dna under JB's nails were not that of the Ramseys anyway, not to mention the dna found in her underwear. The viciousness of the crime doesn't make any sense either. It seems that most parents or at least mothers who kill their children do so in the most convenient way to get rid of them -- drowning seems to be the preferred choice. Even Andrea Yates and Susan Smith, as sick and evil as they are, didn't mutulate their children while they were still alive. If the initial injury to JB were an accident, it would be much easier just to rush her to the hospital and be truthful instead of going to all the trouble the Ramseys would have had to do to stage such a scene, but to torture and overkill the child just seems absurd to believe. Then there's the issue that the Ramseys would have to stick together and support each other -- say Patsy killed JB and John going along, sticking by Patsy, helping her to cover it up... makes no sense. And why would they call the police so early that morning? With all they had to plan and do and discuss, you'd think they'd given themselves until at least 7 or 8 a.m. instead of 5:45 a.m. -- nobody would have known the difference. The questions go on and on simply indicating that the it doesn't add up or make sense that the Ramseys had something to do with JB's death. Too bad the Boulder PD didn't understand that from the beginning, they may have caught the real killer fairly quickly.

MakeSomeNoise

07-08-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
May Patsy Ramsey rest in peace. My thoughts and prayers are with her family.
I must agree with this one. It's probably best to just leave it alone at this point. I believed early in this case that Patsy Ramsey was somehow responsible, then I changed my mind midway into the case. Now? We'll more than likely never have the answers anyway. Mother and daughter can now rest in peace, together.

MakeSomeNoise

07-08-2006, 10:36 PM

Anyone know how the rest of the family is coping?

poplife

07-09-2006, 08:22 AM

They couldn't wait until 7 or 8 because the pilot was already scheduled. I wish they had waited until then to call, would have made things a little more open and shut. What I want to know is why they were getting up at 5:30 if they had to be to the plane at 7am, they weren't packed, she was lazily treating stains, making coffee, weird.

Lianasmom

07-09-2006, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Yup, they were going to flee the scene and fly to Atlanta. Interesting.

Liana: Doesn't matter if there weren't any scratches on the Ramseys'. Patsy killed her with one blunt blow to the head. Accidental or intentional. The head blow came first so JonBenet couldn't have defended herself.

Not according to the autopsy. The strangulation was listed first as the cause of death, then the blow to the head. If JB was first struck on the head, she didn't die from it, and the attacker strangled her to complete the job. Speaking of common sense, if a victim scratches his/her attacker, as evidenced by dna found under JB's fingernails, it stands to reason the attacker would have scratch marks somewhere on their body, most likely the face, neck, hands, arms....

I'm still waiting for you to post "facts" that will finally reveal to us all that Patsy Ramsey killed JB, not quotes from books based on theories, but I'm not holding my breath....

Lianasmom

07-09-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Lianasmom:

"You can't understand a repost?? No wonder you are unable to understand the FACTS of the case. "

The above was written by Breezy. Now how are we supposed to have an intelligent discussion with posts like that?

Breezy was attacked for the way she posted, attacks which had nothing to do with the Ramsey case. She responded. Will has constantly accused people he disagrees with of having no common sense among other things. Such unprovoked comments stem from frustration of not having a valid argument.

Lianasmom

07-09-2006, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Solace

No, they were originally going to their home in Michigan before they murdered JB. Then about 20 minutes after John found JB, he was going to "try" to take his family to Atlanta, where they would be safe. You can find that in any of the books written on the subject.

What are you basing your information on? It appears to be inaccurate. The Ramseys stayed in Boulder until 12/29 at which time they left for Atlanta where they were from to bury Jonbenet in a cemetary with other buried family members on 12/31, at least according to this timeline:

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

liketospeculate

07-09-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Is that a prerequisite for posting?

It is when you are posting your opinions and not factual evidence - in my opinion it might be a good idea for you to read the forum rules

Lianasmom

07-09-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Solace

The autopsy lists strangulation as a first cause of death because that is what they saw first and they were all aghast when Dr. Meyer pulled back the scalp and saw the 8 1/2 inch gash extending across JB's head. Strangulation with a blow to the head in layman's terms is what Meyer says. He is not sure what caused her death first. As far as the evidence under her fingernails, it was too old and hard to tell where it came from. I believe this is from Dr. Wecht's book. Whatever DNA was there was too "hard".

I.e., JB didn't die solely from a blow to the head as Will said, otherwise the strangulation marks on the neck would not have bruised and bled the way they did, thus being listed on the autopsy report as a reason for death. As for the dna found under the fingernails and in JB's underwear, in recent years due to advanced technology, it has been determined it did not come from anyone in the Ramsey family and continues to be checked against the national database on a weekly basis.

As for the rest of your post, it consists of your opinion only and as well as excuses and not fact. What's with the attitude of some that their opinion is fact? It's not.

liketospeculate

07-09-2006, 03:27 PM

The FACTS of this case are contained in one place - the police files - they are not contained in ANY book written about the case - those books are based on partial facts, theories and innuendo - several posters on this thread are taking these partial facts, theories and innuendo and acting as if they are the complete facts - they should remember that these books are written for one reason - to make money - at least the money from the Ramsey book is being spent for reasons other than lining the pockets of the author!

The facts were looked at by the prosecutors and the grand jurors - no charges were brought against the Ramseys - that shows beyond any doubt that there is no evidence of their guilt - otherwise, believe me, Steve Thomas and his bunch would have loved nothing more than bringing down JR and PR -

Some posters keep harping about the ransom note - I want to see a link to the PROOF that PR wrote the note - I didn't say rumor, innuendo, opinion or theory - I want to see the proof - because if it were there PR would have been arrested!

IMO of course!

Lianasmom

07-09-2006, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by liketospeculate
The FACTS of this case are contained in one place - the police files - they are not contained in ANY book written about the case - those books are based on partial facts, theories and innuendo - several posters on this thread are taking these partial facts, theories and innuendo and acting as if they are the complete facts - they should remember that these books are written for one reason - to make money - at least the money from the Ramsey book is being spent for reasons other than lining the pockets of the author!

The facts were looked at by the prosecutors and the grand jurors - no charges were brought against the Ramseys - that shows beyond any doubt that there is no evidence of their guilt - otherwise, believe me, Steve Thomas and his bunch would have loved nothing more than bringing down JR and PR -

Some posters keep harping about the ransom note - I want to see a link to the PROOF that PR wrote the note - I didn't say rumor, innuendo, opinion or theory - I want to see the proof - because if it were there PR would have been arrested!

IMO of course!

I think that pretty much sums up the FACTS!

rashomon

07-09-2006, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Lianasmom

Not according to the autopsy. The strangulation was listed first as the cause of death, then the blow to the head. If JB was first struck on the head, she didn't die from it, and the attacker strangled her to complete the job. Speaking of common sense, if a victim scratches his/her attacker, as evidenced by dna found under JB's fingernails, it stands to reason the attacker would have scratch marks somewhere on their body, most likely the face, neck, hands, arms....

I'm still waiting for you to post "facts" that will finally reveal to us all that Patsy Ramsey killed JB, not quotes from books based on theories, but I'm not holding my breath....
The coroner wrote strangulation 'associated with' a blow to the head. The word choice 'associated with' deliberately leaves open which came first - it does not point to an exact time line.
That foreign DNA was found under JB's fingernails does not mean she scratched her attacker. Many children probably have foreign DNA under their fingernails, and the child JonBenet was not exactly a neat freak. When she had soiling accidents, she asked whoever was around to wipe her clean, and if there happened to be no help around, she never bothered to wipe herself properly. If JB had actually scratched her attacker, pieces of skin would have been found under her nails, but this was not the case.

Ramsey advocates often say "No parents would garrote their child". I too don't think that the Ramseys 'garroted' JB. JB was injured by Patsy in a rage by a blow to the head, and the ligatures, the vaginal injury and the garrote were applied later for staging purposes to deflect the attention away from the parents as the perps.
I believe that the Ramseys thought JB was already dead or as good as dead when they tied the knot around her neck. JB may finally have died from asphyxiation, but imo the Ramseys' intention had not been to strangle her.

Lianasmom

07-09-2006, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Gee Lianasmom,

You sure are touchy and not always accurate I might add. But you are very willing to point out inaccuracies in others. Please tell me where you found that the DNA from other JB's fingernails did not come from anyone in the family. I heard about the DNA in her underwear but not under her fingernails. Could you please tell me where you found that. Very interested. Just MO of course.

Thank you.

This was posted earlier by Breezy:

"The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name.

Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain661569.shtml

rashomon

07-09-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I give up. I can honestly say it is my opinion this thread has gone to he11 in a handbasket. JMO, of course.
Why give up and fly away so quickly, rosyredrobin? Why do you think this thread has gone to hell, just because your boat has been rocked a bit? Imo a forum is not meant to be a bubble where people blissfully stew in their own juice because they are all of the same opinion, but a place for discussion and debate.

Why has no Ramsey advocate (including Lou Smit) ever been able to come up with a conclusive time line which includes everything, from the bogus bogus ransom note to the fake ligatures?
Keep in mind that not even the Ramseys themselves believed that the ransom note was written by a 'small foreign faction'. Therefore they must acknowledge that the RN was a bogus note. Now who could have had an interest in writing a bogus ransom note? An intruder? Don't fool yourself.
These are exactly the questions I'd like to discuss with Ramsey supporters here.

Lianasmom

07-09-2006, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Not to be redundant but you are assuming this is the killer and also you did forget IMO because absolutely nothing has been proven. The DNA could have been on the underwear from the manufacturer and transferred by JB herself when she touched the underwear. You can leave your DNA or pick it up DNA just by brushing your hands against something. Proves nothing.

I know you really want an intruder but you have to do better than this. Right now it looks like Patsy is our girl.

No, you have to do better than this. You and the others have got to prove your emphatic claims that Patsy killed Jonbenet. That's the way it works. You haven't come close. Her accusers haven't come up with one fact to prove her guilt. Not one -- and again, theories, speculation and excuses such as the one you stated above mean nothing. The GJ agreed.

liketospeculate

07-09-2006, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Solace

I am posting a fact. Patsy lied on Larry King and to Barbara Walters. She lied about not knowing John's girlfriend; lets see what else, she was taking transquiliuzers; John says he doesn't know. They were going to Michigan, not Atlanta as posted by someone else. Berke does admit he was awake but was pretending to sleep. Patsy does lie about not talking to her doctor about bedwetting. These are all facts. But it is apparent that some of you are not familiar with the facts. So I am bringing it to your attention.

Yes it is my opinion that Patsy killed her daughter and John helped cover it. That should be obvious. But it is not my opinion that they are both liars, including Berke at some point. That is a fact. It is also my opinion that the best place to slaughter your daughter is Boulder. Seems you can get away with anything there, murder, child abuse, its okay.

Gee - I saw those tv shows and saw nothing where it can be proven that either PR or JR lied - I guess if you believe what you read in the books written by blood suckers, then you might say they lied -

Also - the forum rules also call for links - I see no links to back up your claims of lies by either of the Ramseys or by Burke - you are stooping really low to be calling a 9 year old child a liar - I suppose he was in on the cover-up also according to your theory -

JMO of course!

rashomon

07-10-2006, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Lianasmom

No, you have to do better than this. You and the others have got to prove your emphatic claims that Patsy killed Jonbenet. That's the way it works. You haven't come close. Her accusers haven't come up with one fact to prove her guilt. Not one -- and again, theories, speculation and excuses such as the one you stated above mean nothing. The GJ agreed.
The Grand Jury obviously was a total farce because the main suspects John and Patsy did not even testify. Nor was Steve Thomas allowed to testify there, and believe me if he had, he would have told that Grand Jury one thing or two about the truth.

liketospeculate

07-10-2006, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Read this link of an interview on Larry King between Steve Thomas & the Ramseys'. Thomas dominated them.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

Breezy: You are so far off the mark that it's comedy.

Funny, but this interview was before Mr. Thomas had to back down and settle his lawsuit with the Ramseys - why would he have agreed to pay them anything and settle the suit if he was able to back up his claims - because his claims were libelous - he backed down rather than try to substantiate what he could not prove in court - I don't think you who think the Ramseys are guilty should be relying on anything ST says -

liketospeculate

07-10-2006, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Breezy: Thomas totally dominated the Ramseys' in this interview. I saw the interview also. Not sure if you were watching the same interview. I think not. I know your type. You think everything is one big conspiracy. You probably think O.J & Scott Peterson are innocent. Did you have a bad experience with cops at one time in your life or something?

I know you directed this response to Breezy, but since Breezy and I, and most reasonable posters seem to agree about the Ramseys, I would like to respond to this by saying that I certainly don't think there is any conspiracy here - I think that LE reasonably focused their attention on the parents, but unfortunately by the time the evidence started pointing away from them, it was discovered that an inexperienced police force had done such an insufficient job that they made it almost impossible to settle the case - no conspiracy - just inexperience - thank God for dna, because I think that the dna under JB fingernails and the matching dna in her panties, will probably be what someday solves this case - btw I think both SP and OJ are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and that there is factual evidence which supports that belief -

IMO of course!

liketospeculate

07-10-2006, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Seriously Breezy, just answer the question. I think your hatred for Steve Thomas stems from something that happened prior in your life. Come on.

You can't keep relying on your hero Lou Smit to save the day. That's weak.

Read Breezy's previous post - she is not relying on Lou Smit, she is relying on a Federal Court judge, a prosecutor, and evidence that is largely uncontested - the problem here is you are relying on Steve Thomas - that's weak! IMO of course

liketospeculate

07-10-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Sounds to me like you had a bad experience with a cop at one time or else you would just answer 'no'. Quit relying on Lou Smit so much. Your whole 'case' revolves around the 'Smit theory'. It'a a joke. Everyone knows that the pen & notepad came from the Ramsey home. Everyone knows that the blow to the head came first. Breezy, you're just dead wrong. The Ramseys' did it. You're just plain wrong. I guess that would be the first time you have been wrong about something in your life, right?

Instead of personally attacking Breezy and other posters, why can't you respond to each of the FACTS Breezy sets forth in her post above - facts, that by the way, are not part of the "Smit theory," but facts from the police files that were used by a Federal Judge in her order - also, just for your information, both my brother and father are LE officers, so I have had no bad experience with a police officer - also, I worked for a PA for severl years - Also, no one is disputing that the pen and notepad came from the Ramsey home - but what does that prove? Nothing! It only proves that while the Ramseys were away at a Christmas party for several hours, the real killer had free reign of their home

liketospeculate

07-10-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Liketospeculate: Was I talking to you?

I'm not 'attacking' anyone. I'm just asking a question. She's the one that loves to yell & be obnoxious. Not me.

Also, the handwriting experts never excluded Patsy from writing the ransom note.

Never "excluded" - they also can't conclude that she wrote it - that is like saying she has to prove her innocence rather than being proven guilty - you are asking questions, but you refuse to answer any with facts!

liketospeculate

07-10-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Foster said she wrote it. Breezy will bring up that he went back on his word but probably because for fear of being sued by 'Team Ramsey'. I presented my facts & neither of you will listen. Genius never listens.

Foster's "opinion" was that she wrote it, but many experts have reviewed that note, and unfortunately for your side, they don't all agree with Foster - You have NEVER presented facts or responded to the factual evidence outlined by Breezy - all you do is quote ST's theories and innuendos -

And btw thanks for thinking I am a genius! We agree on something -

Lianasmom

07-10-2006, 02:10 PM

Will, your personal attacks are completely out of line, telling Breezy or anyone else that their opinions are based on something that happened way back in their lifetime, their poor hubby and that they have issues. That kind of crap is my pet peeve, and there's a reason there is a button to report abuse to the moderator. I suppose the grand jury, judges in the case and the handwriting experts who can't prove Patsy wrote the letter also had bad experiences early in their lives. How silly. You have based your opinion almost exclusively on the ransom note. That's what we all based our initial opinion of this case on, until the other evidence came along. If you want to debate in a juvenile, silly way, go to the Yahoo message boards where you'll feel right at home, IMO.

Jameson245

07-10-2006, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Patsy's family attorney was on one of the tv talk show programs after Patsy passed away and commented that she had made the remark that she hoped the authorities found something soon before (her words) "she conked out." Isn't that sad? JMO

What she really said was "some things you just can't take back".

ghewitt21901

07-10-2006, 04:00 PM

I totally agree with you, Tracian, My daughter is 5 can read at a second grade level, do first grade math, never went to preschool, and is not that mature.

I am continually sickened by the DOLLY photos of that poor little girl, and what did they do stop to fix her makeup evertime they wanted a picture???

bandit's mom

07-10-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Once again................The FACT remains Patsy was never charged or convicted and according to the LAWS of this country she is therefore INNOCENT!! Is that so hard for you to understand????

I don't have a firm opinion about anyone's guilt, including Patsy's
in JonBenets death, so I don't have dog in this race, but
that is a pretty lame argument. Let's not forget that OJ
was acquitted and I'll be damned if that convinces me that
he isn't a double murderer. Ever watch Cold Case Files?
Lot's of people aren't charged for decades, no doubt others
aren't charged at all. That hardly means they're innocent.

audpaud

07-10-2006, 04:54 PM

I just don't understand courtv's crime library bias ie Summary of CONVICTED Family Killer Jeffrey MacDonald and now this bias in favor of Patsy Ramsey.

What gives?:confused:

bandit's mom

07-10-2006, 05:28 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by breezy1234
[B]

If you think the Constituion is "lame" so be it. IO think some posters here need a civics lesson.

The Constitution guarantees a fair trial and the presumption
of innocence in that trial. It also guarantees our right to
think freely and express our opinions. No one on this
site is advocating vigilante justice, and since Patsy's already
dead, it a rather moot point anyway. People are just expressing
an opinion on her guilt. Maybe you should try checking out
the entire Constitution because last I heard, its still
guarantees the freedom to voice an opinion.

marzano

07-10-2006, 07:31 PM

JonBenet (Mass Market Paperback)
by Steve Thomas, Donald A. Davis

12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

This Case Must Be Re-Opened !, May 28, 2000

Reviewer: Jeff Marzano (Poughkeepsie, NY USA) - See all my reviews

I could not put this book down. This must certainly be a unique situation. Has anyone ever written a book that exposes corruption while at the same time provides information that could solve a murder investigation?

The re-occurring theme is about a guy who is surrounded by corruption and hypocrasy but is powerless to do anything about it. There's an underlying rage that's constantly boiling just below the surface of this entire book.

Finally the pot boils over. The Boulder, Colorodo criminal justice system is exposed <amazon.com took out some of what I said here it was too explosive> ... That's just the tip of the iceburg.

The author went through a lot of hardship during this process including health problems. I assume this book will be a best seller for a long time so at least he will be well compensated.

As far as the murder itself this thing keeps getting weirder all the time. This child suffered tremendously. Even with all of the corruption the author and his few trusted assistants did eventually piece together what happened.

This is assuming you believe his theory. I do and apparently most law enforcment officials outside of Boulder do also.

The solving of this mystery was basically a miracle given the circumstances. This book is invaluable because it provides insights which are not available from reading about this case in newspapers or seeing it on tv. This is a guy who knew what really happened and he's not afraid to name names.

Jeff Marzano

MooMoo

07-11-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Tracian

Too late to Edit: normal is subjective. Joel Steinburg was considered 'normal' until the truth was found out. JonBenet was a bed wetter...that is a red flag (in some ways)
Jeff MacDonald, considered 'normal'
David Brown, considered 'normal'

IMO normal parents do not dress a six year old up to look and have the mannerisms of a twenty year old, but that is my opinion of normal...

No one knows what goes on behind closed doors...:shrug: and I will submit this, we will IMO never know what happened to that child, and the killer whether your right or I am...will only face judgement at the highest level

These pagents are very popular in Texas, and I guess other states, too.
My daughter twirled and was in competition, along with the twirling you had to also dress and model. At the time I never thought of it as being like something wrong. It is just part of the pagent. I guess you have to be involved to understand. It teaches girls to have confidence, learn to walk, and also they meet other girls that are Good, and have values. I did it too, when I was young, and loved it. Sure beats being in a gang, or sitting in a chair playing video games all day. Everyone that I know still today that I met in these competitions have grown into lovely, caring, godly women. This isn't something trashy like some people want others to believe.

MooMoo

07-11-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

To me, there are so many possibilities. I think Santa & his wife fall into that category. They were according to what I read in PM/PT overly cooperative. I think it could of been either/or. Also, I don't discount any of the other suspects that haven't been totally cleared...... except Patsy. I do not believe the family had anything to do with the death of JonBenet. JMO, of course.

I don't think Patsy had anything to do with her death also. I'm with you on Santa and his wife, and have been since the beginning.

MooMoo

07-11-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Rocky

I agree with you. One of the most gut wrenching aspects of this case was watching that video footage of Jon Benet on the runway with full face makeup, dyed hair, heels, and a VERY mature outfit, displaying mannerisms and expressions that had obviously been taught to her, because they were very sexual by nature.

In all my years, I've NEVER seen a six year old girl display that kind of behavior, and my heart ached for that child.

IMO, the killer will only face judgment at the highest level. Just IMO.

These compititions are NOT trashy as you are trying to make them. You would have to be involved to understand.
It teaches the girls values, confidence, and they meet outstanding friends. These pagents aren't sexy and sexual by nature in any way.

Lianasmom

07-11-2006, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Gossip huh?

:rolleyes:

I knew you couldn't answer these questions. I knew it.

I didn't know they were found not guilty?:D

Even worse for you: they were not indicted, which means there wasn't enough evidence of guilt for a jury to even ponder.

Lianasmom

07-11-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Was Patsy Ramsey fully dressed including face make-up when she met the police after the 911 call? ....

Right off the bat, there are several of the questions you posed that are inaccurate or at least very questionable such as Burke being heard in the background during the 911 call and most which are pointless to the case. As for all the questions, can you provide a credible link that any of these are true or prove that Patsy is guilty of murdering JB? And remember, I asked for a credible link, not someone's book based on opinion.

rashomon

07-11-2006, 01:20 PM

"Finally, after years of grieving over the loss of their child and then suffering demonization of themselves in the media, the Ramseys are finding the vindication that they sought from day one."
"Years of grieving?" Good one, lol. On New Year's Day 1997, a few days after the murder, the Ramseys said on CNN that they were not angry at the killer and wanted to go on with their lives.
And as soon as JB's body had been brought up from the wine cellar, the Ramseys left the scene. Grieving parents normally resist leaving the body.
Or take that picture of Patsy kneeling at JB's grave in a posture so theatrical and staged that it is beyond description. I looked at Patsy's face with a magnifying glass, and her expression shows far more aggression that grief. She looks like a snarling dog showing its teeth. Body language does not lie: I'm convinced that part of Patsy indeed blamed JB for having ruined her life by driving Patsy to snap and lose it.

Lianasmom

07-11-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Will05
But they were NEVER found not guilty as you say.

It's not the GJ's fault that Alex Hunter was as weak as water.

Then why did he submit it to a grand jury? Has he never tried a case? And he brought in a whole host of prosecutors and experts with excellent track records to work with him on it. According to you, as you stated in one earlier post, it is absolutely clear that Patsy killed Jonbenet. Of all cases this should have been the most winnable, don't you think? If it's so clear and obvious, why would a GJ not even indict? Do you know how easy it is to get a GJ indictment? They heard evidence and examined the case for a year.

rashomon

07-11-2006, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Once again................The FACT remains Patsy was never charged or convicted and according to the LAWS of this country she is therefore INNOCENT!! Is that so hard for you to understand????
You got that wrong. The 'presumption of innocence' applies only in the courtroom at trial, because it is the prosecution's job to prove to a jury that the client is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

According to your definition, your 'intruder' must be innocent too because he has never been convicted. So you think the intruder is innocent? :)

Or let's say John Doe committed the perfect murder. Nobody has the slightest idea that he is a killer. Is John Doe innocent just because his crime has never seen the inside of a courtroom? Of course not.

Even if Tom committed a murder and Tim was an eye-witness, still Tom enters the trial "innocent until proven guilty". So this is a courtroom construction because the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
If the prosecution can't meet their burden of proof, the defendant is found 'not guilty'. But does being found 'not guilty' in the courtroom guilty mean that the defendant is innocent? Thinking of e.g. OJ Simpson answers this question.

Patsy Ramsey was never arrested because she was given kid glove treatment from the start. Had she been arrested and exposed to tough questioning, she would have confessed imo.

Lianasmom

07-11-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Liana: Are you even reading my links?

What do your links have to do with credible factual evidence? I asked you to prove your posts full of questions and what they had to do with proving Patsy murdered JB. If you can't provide that, it means you'r posts are invaluable and pointless. If a GJ failed to indict on factual evidence, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously with hearsay, false evidence and futile points?

Stick to the facts, Will, stop attacking people, calling them names and getting the thread off track. If you can't discuss things in an adult-like manner and back up your posts, then you should be removed from the board, imo.

Lianasmom

07-11-2006, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Court records are gossip in your opinion but a novel isn't? :rolleyes:

Exactly. :rolleyes:

Lianasmom

07-11-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Will05
Funny how all of you can dish it out but can't take it. Breezy attacks all the time.

Liana: If you won't look at the FACTS then I'm sorry. I can't help you.

That's about the type of response I expected from you. The FACTS are court records, dna and autopsy reports, not opinions found on an unidentified website or a book written by someone who settled a lawsuit against him for slander. If YOU can't look at the facts, WE can't help YOU.

Sara Sidle

07-11-2006, 04:09 PM

I don't think we will ever know what happened. Based on the news coverage that I saw, the police focused on the parents from the very beginning, without trying to gather evidence that there may have been someone else that committed the crime. So I can't say whether the Ramsey's are guilty are not since outside suspects where never investigated.

Levi90

07-11-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by speedygonzales6
What a horrible thing to say. You would be a Nancy fan. Patsy Ramsey was innocent. Shame on you.
Just because someone thinks that Patsy is guilty they are shameful for saying that?

I have seen cases with less evidence go to trial. This case should have went to trial. There was alot of evidence against Patsy Ramsey IMO.

debbmos

07-11-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Levi90

Just because someone thinks that Patsy is guilty they are shameful for saying that?

I have seen cases with less evidence go to trial. This case should have went to trial. There was alot of evidence against Patsy Ramsey IMO.

What evidence:shrug:

Levi90

07-11-2006, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by hohum

I wonder why the attorney used the expression "conked out." He was on Larry King and he did say that. I wonder what did Patsy mean by some things you just can't take back. Jameson, did you attend the funeral? I know you had/have a website devoted to JonBenet and I just finished reading the Ramsey's book where you were mentioned. I have come to believe that the Ramsey's were innocent but that ransom note is a real puzzler as is the strange configuration of their Boulder house.
Patsy's handwriting was never ruled out. They know that the paper and the pen came from inside the house. The pen belonged to Patsy. I think that Patsy wrote the ransom note. I don't care if she passed a polygraph. Polygraphs are as reliable as astrology unlike handwriting experts and comparing handwriting. That is a real science IMO.

Levi90

07-11-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by debbmos

What evidence:shrug:
This was an inside job IMO. Have you seen the layout of the house? It is just like a maze. I don't think someone that lurked around pagents, who didn't know them, came inside the house, went to her bedroom, woke her up, she went with them to the kitchen and they ate and drank some tea. Whoever did this was doing it without being loud or making any noises because they don't report hearing anything. To think that someone broke into the house is like thinking that Jon Benet had a little tea party with them before she was killed. If you think someone broke in, they stayed in the house along time. The ransom note was written inside the house. It was 2 and half pages long! Written with paper that came from inside the house. Written with a pen that came from inside the house, and belonged to none other than Patsy. So the person who did it knew where to look for paper, where to look for a pen. There was a broken paint brush that was a possible murder weapon. The other part of the broken paint brush was in the art supply box that belonged to Patsy. Almost all the evidence points to her. This should have went to trial.

Levi90

07-11-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I wanted to ask that too. The only things I've heard are that her handwriting wasn't excluded (even though it was 90% excluded), and it was her paint brush - heavenly day, it was her house- where else would you find her paintbrushes!!! JMO, of course.
Don't you think it is odd that someone that doesn't live inside the house is going to spend so much time in the home? The ransom note was 2 and half pages long. It was written inside the house. If someone came into the house planning to kill her don't you think they would have already written the ransom note? Why would someone want to write a ransome note if they were going to kill their prey? The ransom note was written by Patsy to try and make it look like someone came into the home to murder JonBenet.

bandit's mom

07-11-2006, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Levi90

This was an inside job IMO. Have you seen the layout of the house? It is just like a maze. I don't think someone that lurked around pagents, who didn't know them, came inside the house, went to her bedroom, woke her up, she went with them to the kitchen and they ate and drank some tea. Whoever did this was doing it without being loud or making any noises because they don't report hearing anything. To think that someone broke into the house is like thinking that Jon Benet had a little tea party with them before she was killed. If you think someone broke in, they stayed in the house along time. The ransom note was written inside the house. It was 2 and half pages long! Written with paper that came from inside the house. Written with a pen that came from inside the house, and belonged to none other than Patsy. So the person who did it knew where to look for paper, where to look for a pen. There was a broken paint brush that was a possible murder weapon. The other part of the broken paint brush was in the art supply box that belonged to Patsy. Almost all the evidence points to her. This should have went to trial.

The ransom note has always been a problem for me as well.
I just don't believe an intruder comes into the house and
writes a ransom note while there. OTOH, the Pineapple and
tea are a problem for me from the other viewpoint. If John
or Patsy were the killers, why would they insist that JonBenet
had not had any pineapple? Why not just say, yeah, she
was wanting a snack when we got home so we gave her
a little pineapple? Why add a mystery to the situation?
Clearly whoever she ate the pineapple with, she must have
known. I can't believe she just strolled downstairs, or was
carried and then calmly sat there and ate with a stranger. Why
not cry or scream? I don't know, the whole thing is a mystery
to me. 10 years later and I'm still not convinced of either John
or Patsy's guilt OR innocence. I just don't know what to think!

Levi90

07-11-2006, 06:22 PM

bandit's mom

07-11-2006, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I don't have a problem with the amount of time it would have taken to write the note. The Ramsey's had been out to eat and then to a Christmas party so they were gone a long time. As big as the house was I'm sure someone could find a place to hide without detection when they came home......... especially if it was someone who might be somewhat familiar with the normal activities. JMO, of course.

I don't doubt someone would have time to write the note, I
just don't think they would. I cannot see a kidnapper going
to the house unprepared. The ransom note has always
seemed the most bizarre thing to me and the main thing that
would point to the Ramsey's involvment. Not, of course, because
I believe they were kidnapping her, but because it seemed
like a poor attempt at a cover up. Of exactly what, I don't claim
to know. Accident? Rage killing? Don't know. But, as I said, there are other factors, like why not just make up a story about the pineapple to fit the facts, if in they were involved, why insist
that JonBenet didn't have any after returning home?
The Christmas night factor is important too, In my mind. If it
wasn't family than it would almost have to be a single person.
How do you explain to your spouse that you're going out on
Christmas night? As for just a random predator, it seems unbelievably stupid that you would just go out trolling on
that night. It's a time when people are likely to have guests,
assuming they are home. No one is on a regular schedule as
they would be during a work week. How does a random predator
know that the Ramseys aren't throwing a Christmas Party
for 500 that night? Or bringing people home with them from
wherever they are? Very odd.

bandit's mom

07-11-2006, 07:57 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tracian
[B]

I understand what your saying, and when this story first broke, I followed it very closely...I just honestly don't believe that this was not an 'inside' job.

Short of a confession, I most likely never will. Everyone has been ruled out...no one is that perfect, Santa McReynolds is not that clever--especially if he did not bring in the necessary equiptment to molest, murder, and then set up a fake ransom.

And again, are we to believe this guy just took off, on
Christmas Day, and told his family what? Then moseyed over
to the Ramsey's, somehow got in, and sat around waiting
and, in the meantime, decided to write a ransom note? Or was
the whole intent to kidnap from the beginning? If so, why the
murder? Sure the child could be killed accidentally in the process
of kidnapping (think Lindbergh baby theory), but the why the garotte? The more I go over the information the more I lean
to a Ramsey being involved. I just can't make it work any other
way, although I'm not totally convinced of that either. It's really
an odd one, IMO.

Levi90

07-11-2006, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
The bit about the pineapple is puzzling, but if I read correctly the pineapple was "spotted" in a picture some time after the murder. When Patsy was asked about it she didn't remember anything about it and I probably wouldn't have either. Someone other than the Ramseys could have feed it to her.

The predator could have been a single person. Have you read any of Postergeist's links? I think this person either knew the Ramseys or knew someone who did.

They had their Christmas party a couple of nights before - that's when Santa promised JonBenet her after Christmas surprise (if I'm not mistaken.) JMO......
But there were finger prints on the tea jug that matched Patsy and her son. She said she doesn't know how the tea got there. Why lie about that?

chatwuann

07-12-2006, 09:29 AM

One reason I find this case so fascinating is because the proof people talk about can be seen two ways. There was deception in the crime scene on the part of the killer (I'm not talking about the Ramseys being involved) and so the crime scene can't be taken at face value. It is a puzzle within a puzzle and we don't have all the pieces.

As to John Ramsey saying it was an inside job. I take that as John saying that it was someone who was familiar with the house but was not a family member.

JMO

trucrmbuf/armchair detective

bandit's mom

07-12-2006, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

It was a tea glass with only Burke's fingerprints. Both his & Patsy's were on the pineapple dish. She wasn't asked about the pineapple and tea glass until some time had passed. Do you remember what was on your table six months ago? I don't.

First of all, I'm not sure where the 6 months came in. This
was discussed in the 1st. interview the Ramsey's gave. I know
they didn't cooperate right away, but was it a full 6 months
before the 1st. Interview? I somehow don't think so. Second,
I saw the interview, it was part of some TV show, and Patsy
wasn't saying she didn't remember, she was insisting that not
only had she not served the pineapple, but that she couldn't
remember EVER putting a teabag in a glass like that. She was
very sure and she did have a very severe way of speaking.
Third, while I don't remember what was on my table 6 months
ago (assuming it was that long), my daughter wasn't murdered.
I have to think that any parent would go over and over all
the events leading up to that major event, whether or not
they were involved in the crime. I don't think it's at all
far fetched to expect Patsy to have remembered whether or
not she fed the Pineapple to her daughter.

All that said, Patsy's adamance about not feeding the pineapple
has always been one thing that made me doubt her guilt.
If you're guilty, you simply say, "yeah, I gave her some when
we got home". Mystery solved and no one would still
be discussing the pineapple 10 years later!

awareness

07-12-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

The Grand Jury obviously was a total farce because the main suspects John and Patsy did not even testify. Nor was Steve Thomas allowed to testify there, and believe me if he had, he would have told that Grand Jury one thing or two about the truth.

Just IMO as I was not there:

I agree with rashomom's opinion on the GJ. How could they not permit one of the top few detectives who'd worked on the case from the very beginning NOT testify at the GJ? Who could have put a damp towel on that? One possibility is the DA. Since this case there has been a ton of articles/opinions written as to the acrimonious relationship between the BPD and the DA which was there before, during and after JBR's murder. I also can't beleive if the Ramsey's feel/felt they were SO INNOCENT why they didn't testify themselves. Its a possibility they felt too much pressure by "false allegations" (of their guilt) so they opted not to testify in order to preserve their civil rights.

http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenetdocs.htm
This contains an electronic copy of Steve Thomas' resignation letter. In it Steve lists his primary reason for leaving: The primary reason I chose to leave is my belief that the district attorney's office continues to mishandle the Ramsey case.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/fleetletter.html
Copy of one of Fleet White's letters. Contains information about how the nature of Colorado GJ investigations changed after JBR's death. Here's a bit:
There is a relatively simple but compelling answer to the question raised by the Rocky Mountain News editorial. Since very early in the case, there has been at least a tacit understanding among the district attorney, police leadership, those persons advising these agencies, and Ramsey defense attorneys that the case would be presented to a grand jury but not until the statutory Boulder grand jury was convened in April, 1998. This delay was deemed necessary by some or aft of these parties in order to take advantage of a new statute (16-5-205.5, C.R.S.) concerning grand jury reporting procedures which was the result of legislation promoted by the Colorado District Attorney's Council and passed by the legislature in early March 1997. By law, however, this change in procedure would only apply to reports issued by grand juries convened after October 1, 1997. In order to take advantage of the new statute, a Boulder grand jury would have to wait until April, 1998, the next convening of the statutory Boulder grand jury subsequent to October 1, 1997. In order to accomplish this, it was necessary for these people to stall and cynically rely on the public's relative ignorance of the statute and the purpose and general nature of grand juries. The district attorney and police leadership worked hard to create the fiction that the police investigation was not "complete" and therefore not ready to be transferred to the district attorney. As long as the district attorney didn't have the case it would be difficult to fault him for not prosecuting or presenting the case to a grand jury. It was this fiction that was used by the district attorney to deflect mounting criticism including that contained in our letter in January, 1998. It also served as the basis for a Boulder court to throw out a suit brought against the district attorney by New York attorney Darnay Hoffman who had accused the district attorney of "constructively abandoning the case". The district attorney's publicly expressed indecision in late 1997 regarding a grand jury investigation gave way to his progressively greater "leaning" toward such a decision as the date for convening the Boulder grand jury drew near.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill 97-1009 was drafted by the Colorado District Attorneys Council in late 1996 and was introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives on January 8, 1997, two weeks after JonBenet was killed. HB 97-1009 was sponsored by Representative Bill Kaufman, a Republican, and Senator Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat.

In 7/97 the Boulder PD accepted the free help of a few attorneys. Interestingly, they have/had connections to the defense team of JR (maybe PR too?). The connections are proven from documentation provided by the Attorney's to the city via disclosures. They are as followed, copied from Fleet White's letter (link above). The White's submitted a public information request and received it. Here's a snip of it:

For the purpose of assisting them in the Ramsey investigation, the Boulder Police Department in July 1997 accepted the pro bono legal services of Daniel S. Hoffman with the firm of McKenna & Cuneo, Robert N. Miller with the firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green, and MacRae, and Richard N. Baer with the firm of Sherman & Howard. All are prominent Denver attorneys. Responding to our public information request, the Boulder city attorney's office supplied us with copies of the final agreement between the city and these attorneys dated July 30, 1997 and an earlier draft of that agreement dated July 28, 1997. In the draft, these attorneys jointly made the following disclosures to the city:
"As we indicated to you, our respective firms have or had certain relationships that we feel obligated to disclose to you. Specifically:
Sherman & Howard L.L. C. ("S. & H.") represents Lockheed Martin in various matters. Lockheed Martin currently owns Access Graphics, the company that employs the father of the deceased. In addition, in 1994, S. & H. represented Access Graphics in a lawsuit brought by a terminated employee ...
Mr. Hoffman is outside counsel for Lockheed Martin in a number of litigations, one of which is currently pending. It is reasonable to assume that during our representation of you, Mr. Hoffman may be retained by Lockheed Martin. Additionally, Mr. Haddon represents Mr. Hoffman personally, in a case against Mr. Hoffman, his former law firm, and a number of Mr. Hoffman's former partners at the firm.
Robert Miller is currently co-counsel with Mr. Haddon on a litigation in which they obtained a significant verdict for their client and which will proceed on appeal. 11
John Ramsey was the president and chief executive officer of Access Graphics, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. In the fall of 1997 Access Graphics was sold by Lockheed Martin to GE Capital in a complicated transaction reported in the news media to be valued at $2.8 billion. The value attributed to Access Graphics was likely in excess of $200 million. Prior to the sale, John Ramsey left Access Graphics under adverse circumstances after attempting to purchase Access Graphics from Lockheed Martin. Mr. Hoffman was identified in the April 18, 1997 issue of Colorado Journal to be the "lead attorney" for Lockheed Martin in an age discrimination case which days before had resulted in a $7.6 million settlement. The "Mr. Haddon" referred to in the disclosures is Harold Haddon, the criminal defense attorney currently representing John Ramsey. The final agreement that was executed by the city and these three attorneys did not contain these disclosures. According to Mr. Baer, they were deleted at the request of the city attorney. The city attorney has recently indicated to us that he has no knowledge of the role these attorneys have played in the investigation.

awareness

07-12-2006, 03:57 PM

IMO the Ramsey's were very high powered in Boulder - they had connections & those connections had connections. IMO they acted so strangley about simple things.... for ONE how about them not being further interviewed about JBR's death for over four months afterwards? (after the inital interviews with detectives on 12/26). http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/05/01-1.html If they were so innocent, and hey - I totally understand someone wanting to not be railroaded or have their civil rights taken away... but four months? After you and your husband were the 2 of 4 people who were in the house that night (along with an alleged unknown number of other possible intruders, your now dead daughter & Burke). As a parent myself I would want to do anything/everything possible. Open my life/mouth up to whatever the cops wanted - anything to get my child back safely as soon as possible. To wait FOUR MONTHS... that's precious time that their information/testimony could have furthered the investigation to help catch whomever did this. It also amazes me that JR/PR's attorneys negotiated to have copies of police material provided to them. I don't know of another case where potential suspects are provided police information.

Does any of this PROVE the Ramsey's did it? No, it doesn't. But it does prove the GJ was more or less a farce (being that they didn't see or hear crucial testimony), there were connections between the Ramsey's attorneys & what went on behind the scenes with the DA <> BPD and there was suspicion because the GJ was convened after the new law was passed.

It doesn't make them guilty that they were uncooperative - but it doesn't help their case for their self proclaimed innocence.

The Ramsey's weren't removed under the "umbrella of suspicion" after the GJ didn't indict them. The BPD continued to list them as some of the foremost suspects.

I would like to see/hear more information about the DNA on JBR's panties & fingernails - solid facts. was it blood? other tissue on her panties? how much was there, a microscopic amount that seems unlikely to been left on the fabric at that time (ie sneeze from factory worker)? Re the Fingernails - was it really "hard" dna where it was deemed older by the professionals? You'd better believe the BPD is doing DNA cross checks weekly against the national database... this case went personal for so many involved - there has got to be many still there, working, who want justice for JonBenet.

I've seen the handwriting analysis with my own two eyes and I believe (as several professionals do) that Patsy Ramsey wrote that letter. It has a feminine touch. I feel it was written to draw attention away from Patsy and onto anyone else. What male professional kidnapper would leave a feminine written letter of two and a half pages from a pen and tablet from the Ramsey's home? Sure you could say "female accomplice" but get real. Granted there are professionals who do not agree Patsy wrote it. Can someone point me to a quote/statement from any professional who 100% ruled Patricia Ramsey out? From what i can tell they may not have said "she wrote it" but they can't rule her out either. IF there is a professional who did, I wouldn't be surprised if he/she were on the Ramsey "side of things" (ie paid by them for their opinion). IMO there are too many charachteristics of PR's handwriting that match - and being "under duress" and IMO staging the letter to draw attention away from PR - could attribute to the handwriting seeming different in some ways.

What I'm not so sure of is JR's involvement. It is possible the wife put the wool over his eyes, did it all herself, covered it up & of course it was HER who found the ransom note (placed on that small, spiral staircase). Oh I find that another interesting fact - Patsy said she stepped OVER the letter down the stairs. Have you seen a photo of the spiral staircase? VERY STEEP STEPS! To skip one step going down would almost be tripping oneself. Anyway this can explain John's loyalty to his wife... he'd never want to believe or suspect his wife & mother of 2 of his children was a murderess. Patsy could have been such a sick person as to self-deny the murder for years and went to her death thinking she was innocent (but was not). Patsy could have urged John to get the defense attorneys right away. She had the motive, opportunity to commit the crime.

Let's assume the DNA evidence is right. There are tiny drops of freshly left (or close to "fresh") blood on her panties that doesn't match the DNA of JR, PR or BR (or anyone else). Same goes for the fingernails, its "fresh" evidence. how does that explain that fiber from Patsy Ramsey's christmas party clothing were on the INSIDE of the duct tape that JR took off JBR's mouth down in the basement? I assume JR left the piece of duct tape down in the basement after he removed it. Oh and it was thought the tape was put on post-mortem, there was a perfect impression of JBR's lips - not from someone who was struggling. So whatever you may think about other persons being in the house or not... how do you explain those fibers?

IMO PR tried to do a great job on the cover up... after calling police, she throws on her xmas clothes from the night before... and after throwing herself ON TOP OF JBR's dead body... well contamination galore. I'd bet hard cold cash there would have been fiber evidence convicting PR if she hadn't done that. Why? because fibers from PR's clothes were found on the inside of the duct tape.

All of this is JMO... but for you "pro ramsey" people who are so convinced the GJ did a "good job" well maybe they did based on what they wer given... hell it wasn't their fault they weren't presented all the evidence or hear crucial testimony.

marzano

07-12-2006, 08:15 PM

Are you speaking of the same Steve Thomas who agreed to pay the Ramseys an undisclosed amount of money?

I wouldn't doubt that Thomas got sued by those hypocrites the Ramseys.

What does that prove ?

It proves he was willing to stand up for the truth regardless of the consequences in this ******* up country.

He's a hero.

Those hypocrites hid behind an army of lawyers so what ? She still had her daughter's blood on her hands when she ran to the lawyer's office.

As far as the question of sexual abuse we know there was someone around the child who strangled her with basically an instrument of torture.

Why doubt the sexual abuse theory ?

There was something very weird going on there with the child beauty pagents, etc.. It was all so superficial.

If I recall correctly Patsy had tried to be a beauty queen also. Perhaps it was her own jealousy that drove her crazy I don't know.

Jeff Marzano

Lianasmom

07-12-2006, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Solace

Gee really a Judge said that. Well then it has to be true. And didn't a rep from the Boulder DA's office go the funeral, Lin Wood said that means that Patsy is innocent.

What have I been thinking. You know Rosy must be blushing all over with all these gems you are posting. You are just a fountain of knowledge. You should call up the Ramsey attorney and offer your services because at the rate you are going I am sure you will catch the real killer, because the Ramseys have been trying for years and they can't get it right. I know you can help. Call them immediately. Don't waste another second Breezy - don't you realize there is a killer out there and you can catch him. Hurry!!!

Sounds like somebody is frustrated because they can't win an argument, perhaps because they're more interested in winning than knowing the truth.

Levi90

07-12-2006, 11:51 PM

breezy1234

07-13-2006, 07:43 AM

"According to Carnes, Wolf was identified as a possible suspect by Detective Lou Smit, who said there were too many “unanswered questions” about him.

In August 1997, Wolf’s then-girlfriend, Jacqueline Dilson, told Patsy Ramsey’s sister, Pam Paugh, that she believed Wolf was involved in JonBenet’s murder.

According to the Ramseys’ book, Dilson had reported to the police that Wolf had disappeared on Christmas Day and returned at 5:30 a.m. the next day. Dilson said he took a shower and went to sleep.

The next day, Dilson claims, Wolf watched the television report of JonBenet’s death and became angry, claiming that he believed JonBenet had been sexually abused by her father.

Dilson told Paugh and police that Wolf hated big business and once had a sweatshirt with the initials SBTC on it, which stood for the Santa Barbara Tennis Club. SBTC was the signature at the end of the ransom note.

Police never publicly named Wolf or other people named in the Ramseys’ book as suspects."

"For example, forensic document examiner Lloyd Cunningham cannot eliminate plaintiff as the author of the ransom note,” Carnes wrote. “Plaintiff’s ex-girlfriend has also testified that she was ‘struck by how the handwriting in the note resembled (Wolf’s) own handwriting,’ and believes that he is the note’s author.”

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=26

rashomon

07-13-2006, 01:52 PM

Breezy: forget about Judge Carnes. Her ruling was based only on the 'facts' presented by the Ramseys and their lawyer Lin Wood, and Wolf and his lawyer Darnay Hoffman. But Hoffmann got many facts wrong too because he didn't understand them or presented them ineptly. For example, he conceded that the garrote was a sophisticated instrument, which is nonsense.

I'd suggest you read Delmar England's analysis of the garrote on the CandyRose site and then come back and discuss it here.
I suppose you can tie a shoelace? The knot around JB's neck is no more sophisticated that that. And even my little kindergartners can wrap a rope around a stick. Sophisticated, lol. Is it really that easy to fool people by throwing in allegations expecting that no one will question them? The same goes for the stun gun baloney. Classic BullSMIT too.

Meanwhile, I have a little goody straight from the perp's mouth for you which is among my absolute favorites:
At the Marriott Hotel press conference, Patsy said: (PMPT pb, p. 388):

"We feel that there are at least two people on the face of this earth that know who did this: That is the killer and someone that that person may have confided in."

Notice something, Breezy? Patsy hereby revealed that there was no foreign faction at work here. Quite a smooth transition by Patsy from the foreign faction group in the ransom note to the lone intruder scenario, isn't it? Too bad that no reporter asked her: "So you think the ransom note was not written by a foreign faction, but a bogus note?"

BTW, I actually believe what Patsy said here. I think that indeed there was one killer (herself) and another person she confided in (John). Without realizing it, she gave us a glimpse of the truth here.

A poster on another forum who saw that interview wrote that when Patsy said that, John looked as if he was gonna wet himself. John instantly realized what a revealing blunder Patsy had made there. :tongue:

margiej

07-14-2006, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234
"Through the prism of a defamation suit, a federal judge in Atlanta has examined the 1996 murder case of 6-year-old Colorado beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey and determined there is "virtually no evidence" to support theories that her parents killed her.

U.S. District Judge Julie E. Carnes, a former federal prosecutor, ruled that there is "abundant evidence" to support assertions by JonBenét's parents, John B. and Patricia P. "Patsy" Ramsey, "that an intruder entered their home at some point during the night of Dec. 25, 1996, and killed their daughter." The Ramseys buried their daughter in Marietta, Ga., and now live in the Atlanta area.
"

http://www.truthinjustice.org/ramsey.htm

:lol:

rashomon

07-14-2006, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

How about Keenan? Did she only hear " 'facts' presented by the Ramseys and their lawyer Lin Wood, and Wolf and his lawyer Darnay Hoffman. :rolleyes:

Yeah I notice you place such "importance" on nothing IMO. Patsy never said there was a "foreign faction". :no:

Well if a poster on another forum said something, it MUST be fact huh? IMO you've got too much information from "posters" and gossips and not enough from the facts but enjoy.

Yes, it was pretty much the same with Keenan. She too swallowed the intruder theory hook, line and sinker without exploring other avenues.

Patsy never said that the ransom note was faked, therefore she must have believed in the foreign faction, right?

Btw Breezy, do you believe in the foreign faction? Do you think they all squeezed themselves through the basement window?

Re the poster on another forum: I mentioned his post because I myself could not see the Ramseys on TV (I'm from Germany). But maybe you have seen that interview too (it was the Marriott Hotel press conference) - so feel free to share your own impressions here. When Patsy talked about the killer confiding in at least one person, John looked as if he was gonna wet himself, this poster wrote. Hardly surprising imo because Patsy had given herself away here.

rashomon

07-15-2006, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

You are basing your opinion on something you admit you never saw. :rolleyes: A"poster" said on another forum? OMG, get real. A judge, a grand jury, the DA, a seasoned detective, friends and relatives, the other Ramsey children and others are wrong and this poster is right???
[url]
It's you who has to 'get real' by stopping to take what I wrote out of context. This poster's comment was about Patsy's and John's performance on TV, and in case you saw it too, you can add your own impressions. Did you watch it?

The FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit (CASKU) experts btw agreed with SteveThomas' theory that there was no intruder. These are highly experienced experts. And it might interest you that during the whole session with the CASKU people, Lou Smit did not open his mouth once to present his own intruder fantasy. If Smit was such a great detective, why did he cowardly keep his mouth shut in front of these people who are the cream of the crop when it comes to profiling and investigating cases like that?

Bunny2

07-15-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234
...I do know in this country a person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Actually, the presumption of innocence applies only in the courtroom.

SilSal

07-15-2006, 02:50 PM

and the Boulder DA went to the funeral on a personal note...not business....

Do you think someone was in someone's pocket?

Since when does a DA attend the funeral of a murder suspect when the case is still ongoing??

Hunter, Shiller, Arnt....and many more sold their souls.

SilSal

07-15-2006, 03:00 PM

The truth is out there..

seek and you shall find....

Bunny2

07-15-2006, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234
Actually, no indictment, no proof, no charges, no trial, no finding of guilt= innocence. :rolleyes: Actually, that's not true. A person can steal something, have no indictment, no proof, no charges, no trial and no finding of guilt but that wouldn't make the person innocent, would it? :rolleyes:
READ my post you answered.Obviously, I did read it since I quoted it. Your sentence said that someone is presumed innocent until a finding of guilt is made in a court of law, which many might read as meaning the person is to be presumed innocent even before entering the courtroom. I was merely pointing out that the presumption of innocence is not mandated before the person enters the courtroom, but only in the courtroom itself.

chatwuann

07-16-2006, 03:10 AM

It may not hurt but it doesn't help either since they have been taken out of context.

JMO

guppy

07-16-2006, 01:53 PM

He who shall sow,
So shall he who.

rashomon

07-17-2006, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

BTW, did you know that John Douglas the FOUNDER of the FBI's Serial Killer Profiling Unit believes the Ramseys are innocent? If the present (CASKU) experts can prove anything, let them take it to court and let their theories be brought in front of a judge or jury. We KNOW Steve Thomas chickened out when he had the chance. :shrug:
BTW, did you know what happened later? From Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, paperb. ed. p. 311-312:

"John Douglas, the former FBI profiler who had been hired by the Ramseys, held a pres conference before giving a scheduled lecture. In answer to reporters' questions, he said he had been hired to determine whether John Ramsey was capable of killing JonBenet, at a time when, according to Douglas, Ramsey's attorneys weren't sure if their client was innocent. Douglas said he had never been asked to focus his attention on Patsy and therefore hadn't profiled her. And the Ramseys' attorneys, Douglas said, hadn't asked him if Patsy fit any of his criteria for the murderer. Journalists following the case assumed that Douglas doubted Patsy's innocence and wanted to protect his reputation now that handwriting analysis had not excluded Patsy - and in fact suggested that she might have written the ransom note."

rashomon

07-17-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

In this case the GJ did NOT indict, a ferderal judge threw out a civil case because the charges couldn't be proven, even Thomas who many here think has all the answers couldn't prove his "theories" and when he had his chance in court, he "settled". Yet armchair detectives going on what "books" written for money said, police leaks that were false put out by Steve Thomas and the meda reported and the way the Ramsys's "acted" and they go to forums such as this and say Patsy is guilty.
Ever head the term 'miscarriage of justice', Breezy? You quote people like DA Keenan and Judge Carnes as if every word that comes out of their mouth is gospel.

Are you always so gullible?

Keenean and Carnes largely relied on what Team Ramsey plus Lou Smit had fed them, and swallowed it.
Forget that Grand Jury too, Breezy. It obviously was a farce. What is the worth of a Grand Jury where the main suspects, Patsy and John, didn't even testify? A Grand Jury where Steve Thomas, the detective with the most inside knowledge of the case, wasn't allowed to testify either?
Believe me, Breezy, Thomas would not have chickened out at that Grand Jury hearing, quite the contrary. He woud have called a spade a spade, and a killer a killer.
That Thomas later settled with the Ramseys in court does not mean he chickened out either. Nor does it mean he lied about anything. The Ramsey attack dog lawyers tried to turn Thomas's words around, a typical tactic. But unlike the Ramseys, Thomas is not an affluent man who could afford to hire Lin-Wood laywer types like the Ramseys and carry though a long-term fight. He had probably reached a stage where he just wanted to get these disgusting Ramseys off his back, just like Joe McGinniss wanted to get rid of Jeffrey MacDonald.

But Steve's loyalty has always been to JonBenet, for whom he still wants justice. Even Patsy Ramsey acknowledged Thomas' committment and sincerity.
They can say it all they wish but that does NOT make Patsy guilty nor does it give proof of her guilt. IMO it just makes them looks like brainwased and manipulated zombies that love to wallow in others peoples misery and try to make them more miserable.
Angry, Breezy?
As far as I'm informed, this is a discussion board and not a ranting board. Manybe running a few blocks would cool you down a little? Or a cold shower?
The Ramsey case by the way is a classic example what tragedies can be caused by anger and rage. Anger and rage made Patsy snap and lose it in a brief moment and irrreparable damage was done.
Anger and rage prevents people from thinking clearly, Breezy. It's those 'fight hormones' circulating in the body. Always keep that in mind.

No Breezy, nothing we write 'makes' Patsy guilty. For Patsy is guilty. That's the only cold shower I can offer you here, but I doubt it will calm your anger. :)

chatwuann

07-17-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Also just because someone just accuses you of somthing OR "puts you under an umbrella of suspicion" does not make you guilty, would it?:rolleyes:

"Many" would be right IMO because they ARE innocent before they enter a courtroom UNTIL they are found guilty IN the courtroom.:rolleyes:

In this case the GJ did NOT indict, a ferderal judge threw out a civil case because the charges couldn't be proven, even Thomas who many here think has all the answers couldn't prove his "theories" and when he had his chance in court, he "settled". Yet armchair detectives going on what "books" written for money said, police leaks that were false put out by Steve Thomas and the meda reported and the way the Ramsys's "acted" and they go to forums such as this and say Patsy is guilty. They can say it all they wish but that does NOT make Patsy guilty nor does it give proof of her guilt. IMO it just makes them looks like brainwased and manipulated zombies that love to wallow in others peoples misery and try to make them more miserable.

Couldn't said it better myself. I would hate to be in the Ramseys shoes the last 10 years. :)

JMO

chatwuann

07-17-2006, 03:51 PM

I don't think we should forget about presumption of innocence. It just doesn't apply to a trial. If we throw out presumption of innocence then it is open season on every innocent person in America and the world.

JMO

rashomon

07-17-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by chatwuann

Couldn't said it better myself. I would hate to be in the Ramseys shoes the last 10 years. :)

Me too. It must indeed have been awful for Patsy (who knew she killed her daughter) telling all those lies in public just because she did not want to take resposibility for her crime. The same goes for John who helped her in the cover-up. :tongue:

rashomon

07-17-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Interesting that everything I am reading - that is NOT just someone's opinion - makes me believe in John's & Patsy's innocence even more. JMO, of course.
Have you read the FBI's CASKU (Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit) experts' assessment of the crime scene and the ransom note? If not, you should.

Bunny2

07-17-2006, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by chatwuann
I don't think we should forget about presumption of innocence. It just doesn't apply to a trial... JMOSorry, chatwuann, but the presumption of innocence does only apply in the courtroom. For example, Joe and John rob a bank; are they innocent while driving their getaway car, or while eating lunch together the next week, or at any time pre-trial? Nope. You witness someone stealing office supplies from your place of employment. Are you to presume that person to be innocent of that theft? Hardly. Bob bludgeons Jane with a hammer; is Bob innocent of the assault between the time of the crime and the time he is brought into the courtroom to stand trial? No, of course not. Presumption of innocence means that in the courtroom the accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until the prosecution has produced enough evidence to constitute probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime.

rashomon

07-18-2006, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Got a link? TIA
The FBI CASKU experts' analysis is described in Steve Thomas' book, on pages 214-217, and also in PMPT (I don't have the exact page number ready at the moment).
The CASKU experts had been presented with 800 pieces od evidence the police had collected, they analyzed the crime scene and the ransom note. And came to the conclusion that everything pointed away from an intruder.
The CASKU people are top experts when it comes to profiling and assessing cases like that, and what they say as a whole team of top-notch guys has far more weight than the work of one single profiler like Douglas, (who btw later backpedaled quite a bit).

Solace is right: without having read the two basic books about the case (Steve Thomas' Inside the Ramsey Investigation and Schiller's Perfect Murder, Perfect Town), one can't get into any serious discussion of the JBR case. This doesn't mean that one has to agree with everything what is written in these books -but one has to know what is written in them.
People who say they don't want to read these books make me suspicious - I get the feeling that they don't really want to find out the truth, or even fear the truth.

rashomon

07-18-2006, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

You do know what an s at the end of a word means, don't you? OR are yous aying he lied in his own book and the book you quoted is right?:rolleyes:
No Breezy, I don't know what it means, so enlighten me! I'm no native speaker but keen on expanding my knowledge of English every day. Maybe you mean to say 'ass' or some other little compliment by adding an 's'?

re Douglas: Douglas obviously forgot what he had written in his own books when saying he believed the Ramseys innocent. He later packpedaled, and this was the passage in PMPT I quoted.
And believe me, if the author of PMPT had lied about what Douglas later said (that he was never asked to profile Patsy), Douglas would have sued him.

rashomon

07-18-2006, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

And you quote Steve Thomas as if he is God. Are you always so gullible?
Nonsense, Breezy. For example, I don't believe Thomas' theory that JB was actually garroted; I think that the garrote was a bogus contraption for staging purposes. The perp simly tied a knot around JBs neck and wrapped the remaining cord around a stick, but this has nothing to do with garroting.

JFYI: I'm not a gullible person. Never was. Not even when I was a kid.
BTW, speaking of 'kid': I somehow have the impression you might be a very young person because you are extremely emotional in all your ranting posts and in your excessive use of roll-eye smileys. Maybe you haven't had that much life experience yet which would enable you to look behind the surface of things and not take everything at face value?

chatwuann

07-18-2006, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Sorry, chatwuann, but the presumption of innocence does only apply in the courtroom. For example, Joe and John rob a bank; are they innocent while driving their getaway car, or while eating lunch together the next week, or at any time pre-trial? Nope. You witness someone stealing office supplies from your place of employment. Are you to presume that person to be innocent of that theft? Hardly. Bob bludgeons Jane with a hammer; is Bob innocent of the assault between the time of the crime and the time he is brought into the courtroom to stand trial? No, of course not. Presumption of innocence means that in the courtroom the accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until the prosecution has produced enough evidence to constitute probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime.

So what you are basicly saying is that people can say the Ramseys are guilty all they want just because they haven't been tried?I guess I can go on saying the Ramseys are innocent as well since they haven't been tried. Works for me.

chatwuann

07-18-2006, 10:15 AM

I would like to add that I guess presumption of innocence is not what I should be using and use instead jumping to conclusions. yes I think that works better. So I think people shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the Ramseys are guillty
just because it looks that way and someone says it in a book.

JMO

chatwuann

07-18-2006, 10:24 AM

If an intruder wanted JonBenet found with a garotte tied around her neck which sort of resembles a dog collar then he could have tied it on just as easily as John or Patsy could have imo. he also could have written the note for the same reason. I personally think this was not about an enraged Patsy but a person who was very very angry at John and wanted to get revenge by killing JonBenet and possibly seeing them as suspects as well.

JMO

rashomon

07-18-2006, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

:rolleyes: IMO you ARE very gullible and if you think 64 is "young" great, thanks for the compliment. My grandchildren and great grandchild will be surprised at that. :lol:
Wow, 64 years - I can't believe it. Your posts sound like those of an adolescent to me, lol!

Bunny2

07-18-2006, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234
No indictment, no arrest, no trial=innocentAgain, that isn't correct, Breezy. As I've already pointed out to you, people can certainly be guilty of crimes regardless of whether or not any trial (or indictment or arrest) ever took place. Your insistence that the Ramseys must be innocent because no trial took place means that you must also think that all the people in the world who are not in jail or prison or undergoing legal proceedings related to trial at this moment are innocent of any and all crimes; in essence, that there are no criminals anywhere in the world right now except those already incarcerated or undergoing trial. You don't honestly believe that, do you? I would hope not.

rashomon

07-18-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Read the autopsy report, that garotte was not just for show.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet3.html [
Breezy: I know the autopsy report. And if you have read it too, surely you noticed that Dr. Meyer spoke of a 'double knot' around JB's neck. And that's exactly the point: for a double knot excludes garroting. Meyer merely described what he saw, and made no comment on the effectivity of that 'instrument'.
So the perp tied a knot around JB's neck and then wrapped the remaining cord around a broken paintbrush, that was all.

BTW, the many loops around the stick would have prevented garroting too.
The 'garrote' was part of a staged scene, just like the wrist ligatures.
Read Delmar England's very convincing analysis of the bogus garrote to see what I mean:

http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis2.htm

And can you think of a reason, Breezy, why an intruder would put duct tape on a dead child's mouth?. Can't wait to hear your theory on that!

Bunny2

07-18-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234
:rolleyes: IMO you ARE very gullible...I've known Rash via the message boards for several years now. She researches exhaustively and questions everything, and is healthily skeptical, taking little or nothing at face value. FWIW, in my opinion she is one of the least gullible people I've ever seen.

rashomon

07-18-2006, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

JonBenø…s body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrote that the order described as "sophisticated bondage devices" by someone "with an expertise in bondage." No evidence suggests the Ramseys knew how to tie such knots.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002341.html

Ok, the judge and the pictures are wrong and you and the blog are right. :rolleyes: Why didn't one of you tell this judge she was wrong???
LOL, breezy: priceless that link you posted, which mentioned Mary Keenan (who as we know got her biased info mostly from the Ramsey team), and someone "with an expertise in bondage", but did not name who that "someone" was, lol.

But what you obviously did not read was the link I gave you: Delmar England's analysis of the bogus garrote contraption. Nothing was 'sophisticated' in that knot around JB's neck, breezy. Any kindergartner able to tie a shoelace could have tied it.
Sure the rope was knotted tightly around JB's neck. But that was exactly my point, which once again you have missed: a fixed knot does not need any loops wrapped around a stick to effectuate strangling, therefore the wraps around the stick are redundant. Can't you see this?

In case it interests you: Delmar England did contact DA Mary Keenan and told her how biased and wrong she was. Another must-read for everyone wanting to seriously discuss the case. ('Delmar England's challenge to Mary Keenan' - I suppose it is on the ACandyRose site).