Patsy and John Killed Their Daughter?

[bullmoose]

nuisanceposter, cops lie all the time when it suits them. I have personal experience in the matter; true not these cops, but cops nontheless. That the cops story of what John told them contradicts what he said later doen't surprise me, they were certain the Ramseys were guilty from the start . The three cops didn't have to misunderstand him, just as easily they could have lied to create an apparently changing story. Cops do lie, really. bullmoose

[nuisanceposter]

Did you read that first link, bullmoose? Patsy said the exact same thing that Thomas said - that she scored a 4.5 out of 5. That's not excluded.

And the Ramseys have been caught in far more lies than Steve Thomas ever has.

Let me remind you, in the lawsuit with Thomas that the Ramseys sought to settle (even though they didn't need to), he did NOT have to admit to any wrongdoing, can still speak about the Ramsey case whenever he chooses, does not have to pay a penny to the Rs, and is still able to sell his book withput any corrections whatsoever.

How is that fibers from the clothing both John and Patsy were wearing that evening were found on JonBenet's body and in the crime scene? How is it that the fibers from JR's shirt ended up in JonBenet's genital area (and that was after she was wiped by her killer)? He had no explanation for that whatsoever. How is it that fibers from Patsy's jacket were found on the tape, in the paint tray, and tied into the knot - considering she claimed she had never been near her paint tray nor in the basement in that jacket?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
breezy, the Ramseys LIE.

John Ramsey oroginally told Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach that he read to JonBenet. Four moths later, he changed that to he read to himself. In order for that to be true, three independent law officers had to have misunderstood him - separately. Use your common sense - he's contradicting himself and changing his story later. This issue with her being awake isn't the only thing he's contradicted himself about either.

When did these "officers" testify and were cross examined?? Use YOUR common sense. It is nothing more than gossip until or unless they testify UNDER OATH.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Did you read that first link, bullmoose? Patsy said the exact same thing that Thomas said - that she scored a 4.5 out of 5. That's not excluded.

And the Ramseys have been caught in far more lies than Steve Thomas ever has.

Let me remind you, in the lawsuit with Thomas that the Ramseys sought to settle (even though they didn't need to), he did NOT have to admit to any wrongdoing, can still speak about the Ramsey case whenever he chooses, does not have to pay a penny to the Rs, and is still able to sell his book withput any corrections whatsoever.

How is that fibers from the clothing both John and Patsy were wearing that evening were found on JonBenet's body and in the crime scene? How is it that the fibers from JR's shirt ended up in JonBenet's genital area (and that was after she was wiped by her killer)? He had no explanation for that whatsoever. How is it that fibers from Patsy's jacket were found on the tape, in the paint tray, and tied into the knot - considering she claimed she had never been near her paint tray nor in the basement in that jacket?

Of couse ANYONE can talk about the case (freedom of speech) but he can't accuse Patsy anymore and danced all over the place on his interviews after John Karr was "cleared". You believe Thomas that he "didn't have to pay a penny"? LOL

There is no proof of fibers of John's shirt on JB's genital area. NO expert has said that fibers from his shirt were on her. Questions from cops are not evidence. :rolleyes: How is it that gossip and unproven rumors are considered proof?

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Did you read that first link, bullmoose? Patsy said the exact same thing that Thomas said - that she scored a 4.5 out of 5. That's not excluded.

And the Ramseys have been caught in far more lies than Steve Thomas ever has.

Let me remind you, in the lawsuit with Thomas that the Ramseys sought to settle (even though they didn't need to), he did NOT have to admit to any wrongdoing, can still speak about the Ramsey case whenever he chooses, does not have to pay a penny to the Rs, and is still able to sell his book withput any corrections whatsoever.

[...]

Of course he didn't pay a penny. His publisher's insurance paid. That's why they had insurance. Where did you get the idea the Ramseys "sought" a settlement. They agreed to one as happens in most lawsuits. His book was no longer being printed. Do you think the judge was going to order all copies recalled? If you listen to him speak you won't hear him saying Patsy is "good for it" anymore. He claims to have lost his house in the suit. Or was that made up pathos as part of his panhandling for money from posters.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


How is that fibers from the clothing both John and Patsy were wearing that evening were found on JonBenet's body and in the crime scene? How is it that the fibers from JR's shirt ended up in JonBenet's genital area (and that was after she was wiped by her killer)? He had no explanation for that whatsoever. How is it that fibers from Patsy's jacket were found on the tape, in the paint tray, and tied into the knot - considering she claimed she had never been near her paint tray nor in the basement in that jacket? [/B]


For me an even bigger question is "if a pedaphile targeted and killed JonBenet, then why didn't he leave copious amounts of DNA?" The DNA on the panties and under the fingernails is old and was there before the night she died. So how does a pedaphile commit a murder like this, apparently staying in the home for hours beforehand, and NOT leave DNA?

That makes no sense. There is very little DNA evidence to go on, and yet, if this was a sex crime, one would expect to find a lot of it.

[rosebud]

The comparison of the handwriting in the ransom note to Patsy's that I was referring to earlier was an actual side-by-side comparison of photos of each and comparing the individual letters in each. I cannot find it. Too bad.

It was not a discussion of the two, it was actual photos of each and a discussion of comparison of the many similarities.

Patsy wrote the ransom note. I am convinced of it anyway.

[bullmoose]

nuisanceposter, I didn't see anywhere said that the experts were working for the Ramseys. I must have missed that. As for the Ramseys being caught in far more lies than Steve Thomas, I missed that one, too. As for the fibers supposedly found in Jonbenet's genital area matching John, is that from the quetioning of John, when his lawyer wanted them to show him the report stating that such fibers were found in her genital area before he would let John answer? Because it was a bluff to try to trip him up, when Lin Wood challenged them to produce evidence that they really had found the fibers, they could not. Remember, cops lie, both during interrogations and when they write books and as far as I have been able to see everywhere else. JMO bullmoose

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosebud



For me an even bigger question is "if a pedaphile targeted and killed JonBenet, then why didn't he leave copious amounts of DNA?" The DNA on the panties and under the fingernails is old and was there before the night she died. So how does a pedaphile commit a murder like this, apparently staying in the home for hours beforehand, and NOT leave DNA?

That makes no sense. There is very little DNA evidence to go on, and yet, if this was a sex crime, one would expect to find a lot of it.

No Ramsey DNA either.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by breezy1234


No Ramsey DNA either.

Since most of us who think Patsy killed JBR think it started as an accident, that is not surprising.

On the other hand those who insist it was an intruder who targeted JBR for sex have some heavy explaining to do, at least to convince me of it.

If you DON'T think the intruder did it for sex, but instead did it for the money, then why didn't he take the body and try and get the ransom?

[irishlady]

Originally posted by rosebud
The comparison of the handwriting in the ransom note to Patsy's that I was referring to earlier was an actual side-by-side comparison of photos of each and comparing the individual letters in each. I cannot find it. Too bad.

It was not a discussion of the two, it was actual photos of each and a discussion of comparison of the many similarities.

Patsy wrote the ransom note. I am convinced of it anyway. rosebud i've seen the comparison you're talking about and it's very damning to p...i was quite frankly amazed that they(bpd)did'nt pursue it...as far as i can see the ramseys were able to say/do anything they wanted even as far as getting pam to get things from the house when it should have been a closed crime scene...kid gloves?imo the best mopney could buy

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosebud


Since most of us who think Patsy killed JBR think it started as an accident, that is not surprising.

On the other hand those who insist it was an intruder who targeted JBR for sex have some heavy explaining to do, at least to convince me of it.

If you DON'T think the intruder did it for sex, but instead did it for the money, then why didn't he take the body and try and get the ransom?

You really think a killer and what he does, how he does it and why he does it makes sense to the rest of us? :rolleyes:

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You really think a killer and what he does, how he does it and why he does it makes sense to the rest of us? :rolleyes:

Why the rolling eyes? The FBI has spent DECADES studying & analyzing crimes & criminals. Why do you think they do that?

We do not have to agree with or embrace the motives of criminals in order to acknowledge & understand them. That would be like claiming that in order for a cardiologist to be an expert on heart conditions - s/he would have to experience a heart attack.

How would experts like Dr. Fred Berlin be able to testify about what was going on in Jeffrey Dahmer's mind when he was engaging in sexual perversions so bizarre the majority of us had never heard of such things? By making sense of what those activities meant - not to US - but to DAHMER. He certainly was not embracing Dahmer's reasons - but he definitely was able to "make sense" of what those reasons were TO DAHMER.

MOO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You really think a killer and what he does, how he does it and why he does it makes sense to the rest of us? :rolleyes:


Well, a scared to death mother who is panic stricken because she has just killed her daughter and is trying to cover it up and trying to think up a desperate plan before morning to make sure she is not going to prison for it for the rest of her life is a good candidate to do a lot of illogical things. She is in my book. ;)

[irishlady]

Originally posted by rosebud



Well, a scared to death mother who is panic stricken because she has just killed her daughter and is trying to cover it up and trying to think up a desperate plan before morning to make sure she is not going to prison for it for the rest of her life is a good candidate to do a lot of illogical things. She is in my book. ;) i'm agreeing with you once again rosebud...i've tried to put myself in the mind of a mother who accidentally kills her child and panics...i've sat and closed my eyes and tried to be honest with myself and asked myself in HER position what would i do ...i picture the scene...a bedwetting accident,i'm very tired with the festivities and the fact i've to be up in a couple hours..the last thing i need is jb waking me to tell me she's had an accident AGAIN!!i drag myself out of bed and half asleep still(did i take any sleeping pills?)i pull her to the bathroom...sit down til i clean you up jb..i'm angry and i push her..she slips...omg is she ok...i'm wide awake now...omg i've killed my baby!!..what will i do then...i go to the person i trust the most,my husband...and so follows the cover up...all mjmo

[bullmoose]

To irish lady: But then, after she slips, I assume you mean and hit her head, then the distraught mother strangles her child with a garrotte; then goes upstairs to write the strangest note I ever heard of? This may be believable to you, I'm not critisizing you for your conclusions, but I have to say I cannot see that scenario having happened. I do not actually know what took place, or by whom; in my mind every theory, including my own has major flaws.Will we ever know for sure? bullmoose:shrug:

[irishlady]

Originally posted by bullmoose
To irish lady: But then, after she slips, I assume you mean and hit her head, then the distraught mother strangles her child with a garrotte; then goes upstairs to write the strangest note I ever heard of? This may be believable to you, I'm not critisizing you for your conclusions, but I have to say I cannot see that scenario having happened. I do not actually know what took place, or by whom; in my mind every theory, including my own has major flaws.Will we ever know for sure? bullmoose:shrug: and this is the part i have always had trouble with ...but i've read on many links that the strangulation was done from behind and that the cord that tied jb was very loose indicating that whoever did it was trying to be gentle if you like...the one thing that i can't tie into my theory is the buisness of the paintbrush being used as a sex object...that always smacked to me as something a very young person would do?...will we ever know:shrug:

[rosebud]

Originally posted by irishlady
and this is the part i have always had trouble with ...but i've read on many links that the strangulation was done from behind and that the cord that tied jb was very loose indicating that whoever did it was trying to be gentle if you like...the one thing that i can't tie into my theory is the buisness of the paintbrush being used as a sex object...that always smacked to me as something a very young person would do?...will we ever know:shrug:

irishlady, Who knows why Patsy or John did that to make it look like a pedaphile did it? Maybe they had seen a movie or read some article some time shortly before that gave them the idea.

Consider that the "pedaphile touch" has many here and elsewhere convinced that it was a sexual crime doesn't it? So I guess the "amateurish staging" wasn't so "amateurish" after all, was it?

It kind of sounds like to me Patsy, John, or both of them actually came up with some pretty good ideas on the spur of the moment to make sure they did not go to prison.

JMO

[bullmoose]

Unless somebody confesses that can prove their involvment in the murder I believe that this case will remain unsolved. Like Jack the Ripper.:shrug: bullmoose

[rosebud]

Originally posted by bullmoose
To irish lady: But then, after she slips, I assume you mean and hit her head, then the distraught mother strangles her child with a garrotte; then goes upstairs to write the strangest note I ever heard of? This may be believable to you, I'm not critisizing you for your conclusions, but I have to say I cannot see that scenario having happened. I do not actually know what took place, or by whom; in my mind every theory, including my own has major flaws.Will we ever know for sure? bullmoose:shrug:


bullmoose, the only thing I can come up with here is that what even I suspect probably was an accident WAS NOT an accident. If Patsy attacked JBR in a fit of angry rage in the middle of the night and deliberately hit her with the flashlight or something else, then she did have something to cover up. She then had something to fear if the little girl recovered.

Either that or she just thought JB was dead and tried to make it look like a child predator did it. Maybe she had read articles on child predators using garottes on small girls. I am just guessing what she might have been thinking.

At any rate what seems unbelievable to you is a reality: someone wrote the note and someone killed JBR.

[irishlady]

anything i've ever read or heard about murders always maintains that the culprit gets caught...is this the "perfect murder"?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by irishlady
anything i've ever read or heard about murders always maintains that the culprit gets caught...is this the "perfect murder"?

No, it's far from a perfect murder, but it is the result of badly bungled police work.

JMO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by bullmoose
Unless somebody confesses that can prove their involvment in the murder I believe that this case will remain unsolved. Like Jack the Ripper.:shrug: bullmoose


While there is a remote possibility that the killer of JonBenet may come forward in the next few years, I think you can kiss off a confession for Jack the Ripper. :hat:

[irishlady]

i don't know if i'm allowed to mention it but i can see similaritys(sp)between this and the case thats just starting up about little jason midyette and also involves the bpd...or am i wrong?

[bullmoose]

I agree with you, sunsplashed, the investigation was bungled badly from the start; had the BPD taken the offered help of the FBI and other agencies, there might have been a resolution. To irish lady, here in the USA, culprits do not always get caught after committing murder[s]. Serial killers, in particular,sometimes they only get caught when their behavior gets irrational. A surprizing number of murders are never solved. bullmoose

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by diplomat


True. Are we actually allowed to state this fact here?

LOL - I'm not sure, but the official Boulder PD release said the Whites were "not under suspicion" - nothing about them being cleared (per Alex Hunter's request.)

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I agree with you, sunsplashed, the investigation was bungled badly from the start; had the BPD taken the offered help of the FBI and other agencies, there might have been a resolution. To irish lady, here in the USA, culprits do not always get caught after committing murder[s]. Serial killers, in particular,sometimes they only get caught when their behavior gets irrational. A surprizing number of murders are never solved. bullmoose

I believe if the BP had taken the offer of help from the FBI the case could have been solved. Even the BP and the BDA's office spent more time arguing with each other than they did working on finding the killer.

JMO

[diplomat]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


LOL - I'm not sure, but the official Boulder PD release said the Whites were "not under suspicion" - nothing about them being cleared (per Alex Hunter's request.)

Officially the White's were not cleared but since that means the Ramsey's might be innocent I didn't know if we could post it.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by rosebud


irishlady, Who knows why Patsy or John did that to make it look like a pedaphile did it? Maybe they had seen a movie or read some article some time shortly before that gave them the idea.

Consider that the "pedaphile touch" has many here and elsewhere convinced that it was a sexual crime doesn't it? So I guess the "amateurish staging" wasn't so "amateurish" after all, was it?

It kind of sounds like to me Patsy, John, or both of them actually came up with some pretty good ideas on the spur of the moment to make sure they did not go to prison.

JMO I just don't believe this was "amateurish" staging...I think it was an amateur pedophile...I think he was young...was either a relative of an employee of the Ramseys, or had been employed by the Ramseys...this might have been his first attack on a little girl..I don't think John or Patsy could or would have staged a scene like this..........imho

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I just don't believe this was "amateurish" staging...I think it was an amateur pedophile...I think he was young...was either a relative of an employee of the Ramseys, or had been employed by the Ramseys...this might have been his first attack on a little girl..I don't think John or Patsy could or would have staged a scene like this..........imho

LadyFisher, I don't mean to be argumentative, and you may be right. None of knows what happened. But do you really think a young, inexperienced person could convince JB to come to the cellar with him, would know where her white blanket was if it wasn't on the bed, would sexually abuse her then pull her underwear back up, would know where to find Burke's Swiss Army knife?

I don't want it to be the Ramseys, but I can't see any sign of an intruder. That's the problem.

JMO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


LadyFisher, I don't mean to be argumentative, and you may be right. None of knows what happened. But do you really think a young, inexperienced person could convince JB to come to the cellar with him, would know where her white blanket was if it wasn't on the bed, would sexually abuse her then pull her underwear back up, would know where to find Burke's Swiss Army knife?

I don't want it to be the Ramseys, but I can't see any sign of an intruder. That's the problem.

JMO Good evening, Sun....I know that you aren't trying to be argumentative...:).....the things you have posted above is some of the reasons I believe it was someone who worked in their home..that was very familiar with John, Patsy, and the children....it could have even been someone associated with one of the baby sitters.....most folks go home after working and discuss their jobs and their employers with family and friends....it could have been a friend of an employee....I really think everyone that had worked even in the smallest capacity for the Ramseys should have been investigated...I hope they were!!! Hope you had a good day, Sun!

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, Sun....I know that you aren't trying to be argumentative...:).....the things you have posted above is some of the reasons I believe it was someone who worked in their home..that was very familiar with John, Patsy, and the children....it could have even been someone associated with one of the baby sitters.....most folks go home after working and discuss their jobs and their employers with family and friends....it could have been a friend of an employee....I really think everyone that had worked even in the smallest capacity for the Ramseys should have been investigated...I hope they were!!! Hope you had a good day, Sun! Excuse any of my grammatical errors....I meant are instead of is.....it's been a long day here :)

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, Sun....I know that you aren't trying to be argumentative...:).....the things you have posted above is some of the reasons I believe it was someone who worked in their home..that was very familiar with John, Patsy, and the children....it could have even been someone associated with one of the baby sitters.....most folks go home after working and discuss their jobs and their employers with family and friends....it could have been a friend of an employee....I really think everyone that had worked even in the smallest capacity for the Ramseys should have been investigated...I hope they were!!! Hope you had a good day, Sun!

Thank you, LadyFisher, hope you had a good day, too. :)

There were a lot of keys to the Ramsey house out there and people do talk about others.

While I still don't see any sign of an intruder, I get a very, very bad feeling about Chris Wolf every time I read about him.

JMO

[docg]

Originally posted by rosebud



REPLY: Why she wrote it? Well consider this: if there had been NO ransom note, and no obvious point of forced entry, and both parents had said they slept through the murder of their daughter, even though Patsy admitted that she normally got up at least once with JB to take her to the bathroom, then I think both parents would have been making license plates for a long time. (I have no idea if prisoners in Colorado make license plates, just thought it sounded cool. :D )

Yes, I know you feel that way. But why? What is there about the note that would throw the police off the Ramsey scent? The body was found hidden in the remotest room in the house. So there was no kidnapping. Do you think Patsy was not planning on calling the police but John forced her to, is that your idea? Or do you think Patsy somehow expected to get the body out of the house while the police were there?

As soon as the body was found it was obvious the note was phoney. So how could it have helped her? And if it was printed in HER hand that would be evidence against her, no? So again, what did she have to gain by writing it? What was her plan?

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Thank you, LadyFisher, hope you had a good day, too. :)

There were a lot of keys to the Ramsey house out there and people do talk about others.

While I still don't see any sign of an intruder, I get a very, very bad feeling about Chris Wolf every time I read about him.

JMO Sun.....could you please tell me what the book says about Chris Wolf....I've been trying to find info on him and read what I can....but I know very little....please share why exactly you are suspicious of him!

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Thank you, LadyFisher, hope you had a good day, too. :)

There were a lot of keys to the Ramsey house out there and people do talk about others.

While I still don't see any sign of an intruder, I get a very, very bad feeling about Chris Wolf every time I read about him.

JMO

Sun, one sign of an intruder is the absence of the remaining duct tape and cord. Neither had ever been used in the house. LE even took pipes apart looking for the duct tape roll and couldn't find it. If the Ramseys were guilty, they had no reason to hide these things. The paintbrushes and paper and pen were on display. THEIR belongings weren't being hidden. Where is the duct tape and cord and who did they belong to? They could have come with and left with an intruder.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by docg


Yes, I know you feel that way. But why? What is there about the note that would throw the police off the Ramsey scent? The body was found hidden in the remotest room in the house. So there was no kidnapping. Do you think Patsy was not planning on calling the police but John forced her to, is that your idea? Or do you think Patsy somehow expected to get the body out of the house while the police were there?

As soon as the body was found it was obvious the note was phoney. So how could it have helped her? And if it was printed in HER hand that would be evidence against her, no? So again, what did she have to gain by writing it? What was her plan?

docg, I have already answered that. Patsy Ramsey did not die in prison, did she? John Ramsey won't either, will he? It worked.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Sun, one sign of an intruder is the absence of the remaining duct tape and cord. Neither had ever been used in the house. LE even took pipes apart looking for the duct tape roll and couldn't find it. If the Ramseys were guilty, they had no reason to hide these things. The paintbrushes and paper and pen were on display. THEIR belongings weren't being hidden. Where is the duct tape and cord and who did they belong to? They could have come with and left with an intruder.

Not according to what nuisance poster has told me here. The duct tape probably came off of picture frames with Ramsey photos in them. The police found strips of duct tape on the back of the pictures.

[docg]

Originally posted by trt


I don't necessarily know the answer to that, but I know that there are just as many similarities to Patsy's handwriting as there were to John's in the link that you posted. JMO

I don't agree, but that's not the point. We all know how the experts have been all over the place on this note. The original group all but ruled Patsy out, though they were not able to eliminate her. Then Darnay Hoffmann came up with a group who were sure she wrote it. But that wasn't enough to convince Judge Carnes, who weighed that against the opinion of the earlier group, who were better qualified and had access to all the exemplars. Then along comes Karr and lo and behold we see other experts willing to swear HE wrote it.

By now just about everyone on the Internet has weighed in with an opinion on Patsy and the note. And the results, to say the least, are mixed.

As I see it, what rules Patsy out is the fact that she had no reason to write that note, it did nothing for her and in fact made her look more suspicious than if there hadn't been any note. The police figured out pretty quickly that there had been no kidnapping. Which totally nullifies the effect of the note as intruder evidence.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by rosebud


Not according to what nuisance poster has told me here. The duct tape probably came off of picture frames with Ramsey photos in them. The police found strips of duct tape on the back of the pictures.

According to PMPT they were never able to link either the duct tape or the cord to the Ramseys. And they were desperate to. That is why the phone call about the American Express card purchase got so much attention.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


According to PMPT they were never able to link either the duct tape or the cord to the Ramseys. And they were desperate to. That is why the phone call about the American Express card purchase got so much attention. Thank you for posting this....common sense tells us that LE would have tried to link it to Patsy.....!

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by rosebud


Not according to what nuisance poster has told me here. The duct tape probably came off of picture frames with Ramsey photos in them. The police found strips of duct tape on the back of the pictures.

Also, wasn't the cord marked off with a marker and cut? I feel the remaining cord was used on JB's wrist. The entire length of cord was used, so of course they weren't going to find the "rest" of it.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by docg


As I see it, what rules Patsy out is the fact that she had no reason to write that note, it did nothing for her and in fact made her look more suspicious than if there hadn't been any note. The police figured out pretty quickly that there had been no kidnapping. Which totally nullifies the effect of the note as intruder evidence. [/B]


Well if you don't count the fact that Patsy had just killed her daughter, I guess it would be true that she "had no reason to write that note."

"more suspicious?" The parents were going to be the prime suspects in this case regardless, note or no note. The note was to throw suspicion off of them.

On the contrary if there had been no ransom note, what alternative explanation could there be but that Patsy and/or John killed JonBenet? The kidnapping note has given them an alternative theory on this murder and they milked it for all they could, repeatedly giving out new candidates for who did it.

The phoney ransom note has caused people to believe they were not involved in the killing and covering it up to this day. It helped keep them out of prison. If one of them had actually been tried for it, their defense would have been built around the note and a "reasonable doubt" defense that it was a botched kidnapping.

JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Sun, one sign of an intruder is the absence of the remaining duct tape and cord. Neither had ever been used in the house. LE even took pipes apart looking for the duct tape roll and couldn't find it. If the Ramseys were guilty, they had no reason to hide these things. The paintbrushes and paper and pen were on display. THEIR belongings weren't being hidden. Where is the duct tape and cord and who did they belong to? They could have come with and left with an intruder.

So the "intruder" brought the cord and tape with him but had to use Patsys paintbrush to make the garrote? If you conclude that "he" brought these items in with him because he couldn't count on finding them in the house, why would he count on finding a "stick"? He could have used a pen or pencil for the same purpose, for that matter, if you think about it.
If the intent was to kidnap her, a roll of duct tape would have sufficed to both gag and bind her. There was no need for that cord.
There was no need for a ransom note either because it's obvious on kidnapping was ever going to take place.
How stupid would someone be to sexually assult a child in her own home like that and then kill her. I know it's happened but this "guy" apparently just moved very freely around that house with no fear of being seen or heard by any of the other 3 people there. But he is clever enough to leave hardly any evidence behind? Not very likely. IMO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


So the "intruder" brought the cord and tape with him but had to use Patsys paintbrush to make the garrote? If you conclude that "he" brought these items in with him because he couldn't count on finding them in the house, why would he count on finding a "stick"? He could have used a pen or pencil for the same purpose, for that matter, if you think about it.
If the intent was to kidnap her, a roll of duct tape would have sufficed to both gag and bind her. There was no need for that cord.
There was no need for a ransom note either because it's obvious on kidnapping was ever going to take place.
How stupid would someone be to sexually assult a child in her own home like that and then kill her. I know it's happened but this "guy" apparently just moved very freely around that house with no fear of being seen or heard by any of the other 3 people there. But he is clever enough to leave hardly any evidence behind? Not very likely. IMO White...I think he was a novice pedophile......he imo brought a stun gun....the rope...and the tape.........the rest he played out while in the basement.....if this scene was staged by the parents why would they hide the duct tape and rope when everything else from their home was there? :confused:

[Mimi428]

Purely speculation here - but if the day should ever come that John was arrested for this murder - with a kick-butt DA & a good bunch of evidence, new handwriting exemplars were found of John's that matched the note, & other stuff like that...

Would John's defense be based solely on he didn't do it? Or would his attorneys turn on Patsy & try to put the blame on her, now that she is no longer alive?

My hunch is that if he was arrested & his attorneys found that the case included evidence against both he & Patsy - they would shift it on to her in an effort to defend him.

JMO

[harz]

It would not surprise me since my opinion of John is so low. Maybe it good time for your speculation to put in work now, then step back a bit to watch how things get interesting. Once he shift all the blame on Patsy, then we all will know John is the killer, as DA will have much better opportunity to press charge against him and get him found gulity. IMO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
White...I think he was a novice pedophile......he imo brought a stun gun....the rope...and the tape.........the rest he played out while in the basement.....if this scene was staged by the parents why would they hide the duct tape and rope when everything else from their home was there? :confused:

LadyFisher, to my thinking it could not have been a pedophile. If it was a sex crime he would have left DNA. The killer left none.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Mimi428
Purely speculation here - but if the day should ever come that John was arrested for this murder - with a kick-butt DA & a good bunch of evidence, new handwriting exemplars were found of John's that matched the note, & other stuff like that...

Would John's defense be based solely on he didn't do it? Or would his attorneys turn on Patsy & try to put the blame on her, now that she is no longer alive?

My hunch is that if he was arrested & his attorneys found that the case included evidence against both he & Patsy - they would shift it on to her in an effort to defend him.

JMO

I don't think either Patsy or John's guilty, and he knows it. I don't believe he'd ever blame Pasty.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by rosebud


LadyFisher, to my thinking it could not have been a pedophile. If it was a sex crime he would have left DNA. The killer left none.

If you mean a pedophile would have left semen, that's not necessarily true.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rosebud
The comparison of the handwriting in the ransom note to Patsy's that I was referring to earlier was an actual side-by-side comparison of photos of each and comparing the individual letters in each. I cannot find it. Too bad.

It was not a discussion of the two, it was actual photos of each and a discussion of comparison of the many similarities.

Patsy wrote the ransom note. I am convinced of it anyway.

And exactly what credentials does that internet poster have?

[Athena]

Personally, I believe one common mistake being made in alot of the posts re: the intruder is that he/she was a pedophile and that this was a kidnapping.

The person was sick, perverted and insane and therefore any conclusions drawn about the intruder cannot be logical. That's partly why nothing makes sense because the killer was warped and I do not believe either John or Patsy were. jmjo

[nuisanceposter]

Please. That was not the work of a pedophile or a pervert. If a sadistic pedophile had done that as we are supposed to believe, he would have tore her up. There would have been a lot more damage done to her than just a paintbrush insertion.

If this was a kidnapping, why didn't the intruder (and how did he get in and out, btw?) take her with him?

Kidnapping and pedophilia are exclusive crimes, and they do NOT cross over. A kidnapper would not have stopped to molest the child he was abducting in her own house...and neither would a pedophile.

What have we learned from Jessica Lunsford, Danielle Van Dam, Samantha Runnion, Dylan and Shasta Groene? The perp grabs the kid and LEAVES, and takes them to a place where they feel safe to do whatever they want.

They don't wake the kid up, feed her a snack, wait around with her for an hour or so, and then assault and kill her in her own house.

They certainly don't stop and write three page ransom notes. Three pages, unbelievable.

And on top of that, the Ramseys themselves didn't even bother to adhere to the instructions of the RN, as if they knew it was a fake.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by Athena


And exactly what credentials does that internet poster have?


None. I have looked at a detailed comparison of the handwriting in each and it has convinced me that Patsy wrote the note. I believe that to be a certainty.

JMO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


If you mean a pedophile would have left semen, that's not necessarily true.

It is not possible for a pedaphile to end up killing a six year old girl and not to leave considerable DNA. That is my confirmed opinion. If it was a pedaphile then the garrotte was not a "stage prop" but the real deal. That means some sort of sex act took place. In any scenario of that the pedaphile would have left considerable DNA. It was NOT a pedaphile.

[docg]

That's a really good question, Mimi. But no, I don't think there is any way that casting blame on Patsy could ever help John. At best he would still be an accessory to murder, more likely an accomplice.

The best bet for his lawyers would be reasonable doubt, based on the very slight possibility that some totally unpredictable, screwy type like Karr, someone with multiple personalities, say, might have done all the very contradictory and even self-defeating things that were done.

Fortunately a good prosecutor won't have a diffictult time explaining to a jury the difference between reasonable doubt and UNreasonable doubt.

As I see it there are two keys to this case that point directly to John and could definitely lead to an indictment and conviction: 1. his totally unconvincing story about breaking into the house earlier, which should be presented as a desperate man's attempt to provide himself with an alibi by misdirecting away from the very obvious signs of staging at the basement window; 2. the document at Brugnatelli's site. If it can be established that this was in fact written by John (and I see no reason to doubt that) then his main line of defense, his elimination as writer of the note, crumbles into dust. It won't matter whether a match is established or not. The fact that this document and any others like it were withheld from the authorities is already extremely damaging to any case his lawyers might want to make.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by docg
That's a really good question, Mimi. But no, I don't think there is any way that casting blame on Patsy could ever help John. At best he would still be an accessory to murder, more likely an accomplice.



<snipped>

I am trying to recall specific cases in which charges were brought against more than one defendant & separate trials took place, but my memory is not being cooperative. There were two young boys (in Florida?) who were on trial for killing their dad with a baseball bat. There was another adult male in the picture who was also on trial for the same murder - but his trial was separate from the boys' trial. IIRC, the adult's trial came after a verdict was reached in the boys' trial. And after all the testimony that came out in the boys' trial - blaming the adult...when it came time for the adult's trial...his defense was that HE was totally innocent because the boys did it. Very convoluted.

A similar thing happened in a case I am much more familiar with - the murder of someone in my family by two young men - one of whom was 17 years old, the other 19. The 19-year-old was charged with capital murder with the death penalty as a possibility. The 17-year-old was charged with murder - but no death penalty was asked (because of his age). So....the 19 year old wrote to the 17 year old (not the brightest bulb in the lamp) - & convinced him to say that HE (17 yr old) did the actual murder - so that the 19-year-old would not be given the death penalty.

In my speculation about this case - I am thinking that IF charges were brought against John - and IF the evidence looked very solid - and IF the DA's office actually had a qualified attorney with enough guts to take on Defense Team Ramsey - it might be a better defense gamble to point the finger to Patsy. The risk of being found guilty as an accessory would still be better than the risk of being found guilty of murder.

Of course I don't think we will ever see the day that the Boulder DA's office will have the guts to actually STAND UP for this poor, dead child.

JMO

[cami]

Originally posted by rosebud
The blood on the panties and under the fingernails from an unknown male means the Ramseys are innocent. I don't know why people now are still trying to say they did it. We know now they did not do it.

I confess that years ago I was one of those who thought they were involved. I was wrong. What they went through was a public lynching, a modern witch trial, carried out in the news media.

Give it up. The Ramseys did not do it, no matter how much you once believed that they did.

Not me, I'm not giving it up. The dna is miniscule and degraded. jonBenet's dna was fresh. It is not semen, sperm or seminole fluid.

It does not exclude the Ramseys as having killed their daughter.

The dna might not even be connected to the crime.

It's only 80% complete and it can't be used in court unless there is strong supporting evidence of guilt.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Athena
Personally, I believe one common mistake being made in alot of the posts re: the intruder is that he/she was a pedophile and that this was a kidnapping.

The person was sick, perverted and insane and therefore any conclusions drawn about the intruder cannot be logical. That's partly why nothing makes sense because the killer was warped and I do not believe either John or Patsy were. jmjo




Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Please. That was not the work of a pedophile or a pervert. If a sadistic pedophile had done that as we are supposed to believe, he would have tore her up. There would have been a lot more damage done to her than just a paintbrush insertion.

If this was a kidnapping, why didn't the intruder (and how did he get in and out, btw?) take her with him?

Kidnapping and pedophilia are exclusive crimes, and they do NOT cross over. A kidnapper would not have stopped to molest the child he was abducting in her own house...and neither would a pedophile.

What have we learned from Jessica Lunsford, Danielle Van Dam, Samantha Runnion, Dylan and Shasta Groene? The perp grabs the kid and LEAVES, and takes them to a place where they feel safe to do whatever they want.

They don't wake the kid up, feed her a snack, wait around with her for an hour or so, and then assault and kill her in her own house.

They certainly don't stop and write three page ransom notes. Three pages, unbelievable.

And on top of that, the Ramseys themselves didn't even bother to adhere to the instructions of the RN, as if they knew it was a fake.

I copied my post above your response to it so I could clarify since I guess my post wasn't clear reading your response. To clarify it: I meant that I do not believe the killer was a pedophile or a kidnapper and that is where we (posters) are making our mistake -- but a sick, perverted individual thus not resulting in logical conclusions about who done it!

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
White...I think he was a novice pedophile......he imo brought a stun gun....the rope...and the tape.........the rest he played out while in the basement.....if this scene was staged by the parents why would they hide the duct tape and rope when everything else from their home was there? :confused:

Hi LF. My previous thoughts on that: Also, wasn't the cord marked off with a marker and cut? I feel the remaining cord was used on JB's wrist. The entire length of cord was used, so of course they weren't going to find the "rest" of it.
The duct tape could have come from the back of a picture frame or that doll...so would be no "roll" of duct tape to be found.
Very easily explained...IMO. Nothing to hide because it was all used.
Just a side note....who the heck doesn't have a roll of duct tape in their house??
Just out of curiousity...does anyone know if that safe in the floor where JB was found was checked by the police? I'm sure it was but had to ask.

[bullmoose]

Brugnatelli's site is no more convincing than the collected quatrains of Nostradamus. And since the grand jury declined to indict anybody for Jonbenet's murder, this thread about what would John do if?? is very much akin to arguing about how many angels can stand on the tip of a pin. Pure fantasyIMO. bullmoose

[Athena]

Originally posted by Mimi428


<snipped>


In my speculation about this case - I am thinking that IF charges were brought against John - and IF the evidence looked very solid - and IF the DA's office actually had a qualified attorney with enough guts to take on Defense Team Ramsey - it might be a better defense gamble to point the finger to Patsy. The risk of being found guilty as an accessory would still be better than the risk of being found guilty of murder.

Of course I don't think we will ever see the day that the Boulder DA's office will have the guts to actually STAND UP for this poor, dead child.

JMO

Alot of ifs here and they are further from indicting John than they were 10 years ago.

If the BPD had STOOD up for JBR early on in the investigation and were not so focused on sticking to Thomas' stupid theory blaming the Ramseys; THOROUGHLY investigating the leads and other suspects; chances are they just might have caught the killer.

It simply amazes me that they were so quick to write off Mary Krebs and Jackie Dilson as mentally unstable. The BPD's egos were far bigger than anything that happened in this case and that was the primary issue in them not doing their jobs efficiently. The BPD became a jack of all trades and master of none. JMHO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by cami


Not me, I'm not giving it up. The dna is miniscule and degraded. jonBenet's dna was fresh. It is not semen, sperm or seminole fluid.

It does not exclude the Ramseys as having killed their daughter.

The dna might not even be connected to the crime.

It's only 80% complete and it can't be used in court unless there is strong supporting evidence of guilt.


cami, I agree with you. You are quoting me when I was posting from the bizarro world and did not know the latest facts. Please forgive me for my pitiful, ignorant ways. I knew not what I said. I am now convinced that the DNA found on JBR is NOT from the killer. In fact I am convinced there was no intruder. Thanks to righteous thinking people like nuisance poster, Lilli (whereever she is), and others, I have been saved from my "Ramseys are innocent, and have been crucified enough" ways. Thank the Almighty that I saw the error of my ways and was saved in time. Praise the Lord and pass the Ammunition. Free at last, free at last, Thank God Almighty I am Free at Last! :patriot:

[rosebud]

I see some of you suspect John Ramsey did it all and is the one and apparently, only, villain. This is just my opinion of course, but I cannot see Patsy staying by his side if that was the case. She might have initially, but I just don't see it year after year. Years ago some of these message boards were routinely so filled with hate filled posts toward "that psycho b-tch, Patsy" (their words, not mine), but even back then nothing I remember was ever produced to indicate that Patsy did not love JBR. She might have accidently killed her, or may have done it in some momentary rage, but I still think Patsy loved JB very much.

I think the two were close. I am sure that Patsy loved it that JB was interested and liked going to the pageants, which obviously Patsy was really into. It must have been like a sports fanatic father finding out his son was the fastest kid in school, or could hit three pointers all day.

I don't believe that if she realized that John had killed JB that she would have defended him forever. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by victims feel
Great post TWW.... you must be the good witch:D

:D

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by rosebud
I see some of you suspect John Ramsey did it all and is the one and apparently, only, villain. This is just my opinion of course, but I cannot see Patsy staying by his side if that was the case. She might have initially, but I just don't see it year after year. Years ago some of these message boards were routinely so filled with hate filled posts toward "that psycho b-tch, Patsy" (their words, not mine), but even back then nothing I remember was ever produced to indicate that Patsy did not love JBR. She might have accidently killed her, or may have done it in some momentary rage, but I still think Patsy loved JB very much.

I think the two were close. I am sure that Patsy loved it that JB was interested and liked going to the pageants, which obviously Patsy was really into. It must have been like a sports fanatic father finding out his son was the fastest kid in school, or could hit three pointers all day.

I don't believe that if she realized that John had killed JB that she would have defended him forever. JMO

And that's why I think she was "in on it". A horrible secret can surely bond two people together. If they didn't stay together, how could they be sure the other wouldn't tell someone? IMO
I just keep thinking about the Ramseys book and how Patsy recalled what to wear to the funeral and decided on a Jackie O look. For Godsake...the last thing on earth I would be thinking about at a moment like that (I probably would be incapable of thinking period) is what I would wear at my childs funeral, especially with as much thought as she apparently gave it.
It's the things she says in that book that tell me how little she actually grieved for her daughter. Same for John.
Their "profile" of the killer was a joke.
If any of you haven't read their book, please do. I did not sense one ounce of real emotion in that book other than their anger over what this did to their image. Yes, they were ALL about appearances and in light of that, them covering up an "accident" or whatever really happened that night makes all the sense in the world. It's right there...in their own words. All you have to do is read between the lines.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Hi LF. My previous thoughts on that: Also, wasn't the cord marked off with a marker and cut? I feel the remaining cord was used on JB's wrist. The entire length of cord was used, so of course they weren't going to find the "rest" of it.
The duct tape could have come from the back of a picture frame or that doll...so would be no "roll" of duct tape to be found.
Very easily explained...IMO. Nothing to hide because it was all used.
Just a side note....who the heck doesn't have a roll of duct tape in their house??
Just out of curiousity...does anyone know if that safe in the floor where JB was found was checked by the police? I'm sure it was but had to ask. Good evening, White....I think MissO posted concerning the duct tape....but I know what you are saying...we have duct tape in our home, too.....and if LE would have found it in their basement...what does that really prove...the killer used other things he could find there.......but I think what another poster said...the absense of these things can tell us something...if the Ramseys did have some there why would they have denied it? :confused:

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Hi LF. My previous thoughts on that: Also, wasn't the cord marked off with a marker and cut? I feel the remaining cord was used on JB's wrist. The entire length of cord was used, so of course they weren't going to find the "rest" of it.
The duct tape could have come from the back of a picture frame or that doll...so would be no "roll" of duct tape to be found.
Very easily explained...IMO. Nothing to hide because it was all used.
Just a side note....who the heck doesn't have a roll of duct tape in their house??
Just out of curiousity...does anyone know if that safe in the floor where JB was found was checked by the police? I'm sure it was but had to ask.

I don't have any duct tape in my house. LOL But then, I'm missing a LOT of that kind of stuff. Stuff people get at a home improvement store. Hate those stores. :(

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I don't have any duct tape in my house. LOL But then, I'm missing a LOT of that kind of stuff. Stuff people get at a home improvement store. Hate those stores. :( LOL, shame on you for not having any duct tape.....I'm kidding ;) My DIL loves those stores....she is constantly renovating their old house...she's a better carpenter than my son...hope you are having a good night, Sun!!!

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Hi LF. My previous thoughts on that: Also, wasn't the cord marked off with a marker and cut?

The ME marked the ends of the cord after cutting it, so they could identify which end went where to reconstruct it.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
LOL, shame on you for not having any duct tape.....I'm kidding ;) My DIL loves those stores....she is constantly renovating their old house...she's a better carpenter than my son...hope you are having a good night, Sun!!!

Thanks, LadyFisher. It's okay. Went out to dinner and that was fun. Hope you're having a good evening. It's kind of cold here right now! Brrr!

I live in a big chalet style house that is very open. I suppose I should have duct tape, but I just go get those things when the need arises. Being in places like Home Depot makes me sneeze and makes my eyes water. I must be allergic to something in there. :(

I only like to go there in the spring, to get flowers. :)

[rosebud]

Originally posted by treehouse


Excellent point. Speaking of art: Are any of you artists here? Just wondering. I don't mean like professional artist or anything, but does anyone have artistic talent? I would like to hear the opinion on the hand writing from folks with the artistic eye, cause dang it, I see no similarity in Patsy's or John's writing, yet I do see some thing in Karr (or, whatever the freak's name is), yet he has been dismissed, and I guess he didn't write it. He probably didn't, but his writing is a closer match than the other two "suspects". Closer match does not mean that he wrote it.

\My opinion.


I strongly disagree with you here. I think Patsy's handwriting is a very close match to the handwriting in the ransom note. I think she wrote it. I am not sure she killed JB, but I think she wrote the ransom note.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by treehouse


Why do you think she wrote the note? I read this about paragraph indentation and stuff.........my habit, usually. Habit of many people, I suspect. Her own writing was not a match in my opinion. What do people see that I don't see? Could you explain it to me? I really would like to hear it in someone's own words and not those of a "professional" from some website.

TIA.


From the comparison I have seen, I think Patsy's handwriting was almost a dead ringer for the ransom note handwriting.

When I read that Patsy was ambidextrous, methinks it would make her the logical choice between her and John to write the ransom note, if they debated who should do it. I suspect she wrote it with the hand she normally did not write with, if there was one. She disguised it well enough to fool some handwriting experts, although not others.

After seeing the comparison I cannot believe any of the "experts" ruled her out.

[rosebud]

I was wondering if John Ramsey intends to come clean someday before he dies and now that Patsy is dead, as to what happened in that house that night. If he dies without revealing the truth, Burke is going to live with an aura of suspicion over him for his entire life.

Even though I consider it unlikely that a nine year old boy would not spill his guts to a police officer on the day his sister is found dead, I still think the "Burke did it" scenario makes this jigsaw puzzle come together rather nicely. It is the one scenario that seems to tie up the most loose ends for me. I suspect I am not the only one who thinks this.

I will say one thing: if John and Patsy are responsible for everything and Burke really did sleep all through that night, and John dies without ever leaving a proven, documented, truthful and public explanation of how JB died, he is, as they say in the hood, "one stone-cold Motha."

[rosebud]

I am curious about something else I read in one of the many good links I have found here. I would be very interested in what some of you better informed people here have to say about it.

I read somewhere that at some point before JB's death, that Patsy's father had given her a book that dealt with "sexual problems" among young people or even children. I don't remember the title but the theme of the book was that not enough "morality" was taught to children along with teaching them about sex.

That implies that she may have had some concern about some sexual aspect of her children. To me since she asked her father, it would seem that the concern might have been with Burke. What to make of this?

Anyone?

[nuisanceposter]

It was called Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong.

I think it's pretty obvious from JonBenet's pageant videos alone that there was some issue with sexual boundaries in Patsy's house.

Kit Andre, JB's dance instructor, saw videos of JonBenet's pageant performances and was surprised by the sexualized behavior, saying she hadn't taught JonBenet to act like that. I have to wonder who did.

And why did JonBenet have such serious toileting issues? Why was her hymeneal opening eroded and enlarged? It appears as though she had been molested prior to the night she died.

[harz]

Melinda Ramsey stated: "I'm John Ramsey's daughter. I grew up with him, he raised me and I saw him raise JonBenet and I don't understand why they don't believe me --- That he is the most caring father in the world. He has never, ever, ever abused us in any way. I just wish I could say something to convince them."

I found it at
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Evidence%20of%20Prior%20Sexual%20Abuse

I am not sure what excatly Melinda meant. Maybe she didn't think that John sexual touching her or JonBenet is an abuse, which incest is a normal thing to them. Who knows. IMO

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
It was called Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong.

I think it's pretty obvious from JonBenet's pageant videos alone that there was some issue with sexual boundaries in Patsy's house.

Kit Andre, JB's dance instructor, saw videos of JonBenet's pageant performances and was surprised by the sexualized behavior, saying she hadn't taught JonBenet to act like that. I have to wonder who did.

And why did JonBenet have such serious toileting issues? Why was her hymeneal opening eroded and enlarged? It appears as though she had been molested prior to the night she died.

I agree with your entire post, NP. Especially regarding the lack of sexual boundaries.

Common sense tells us that she would have endured a whole lot of "body handling" in order for her end up as painted & costumed & styled as she appeared in the pageant videos. Inspected from head to toe to make sure that 'this' was in place & 'that' was tucked in, etc. Constant exposure at such a young age to other people inspecting you & costuming you & fitting you does NOT send the message that your body is private - it sends the message that your body is subject to being exposed, prodded, molded, dressed & handled until someone ELSE (not you!) says enough.

BAD MESSAGE!

If the reports about her willingness - or demands - that other people come into the bathroom to assist her with toileting needs are accurate, it raises huge red flags, imo. That is a glaring example that she lacked the belief that her own body, particularly her genital area, is private. It's one thing to be two or 3 years old & needing help - but to be FIVE & SIX years old? Very disturbing, imnvho.

[diplomat]

Originally posted by rosebud



From the comparison I have seen, I think Patsy's handwriting was almost a dead ringer for the ransom note handwriting.

When I read that Patsy was ambidextrous, methinks it would make her the logical choice between her and John to write the ransom note, if they debated who should do it. I suspect she wrote it with the hand she normally did not write with, if there was one. She disguised it well enough to fool some handwriting experts, although not others.

After seeing the comparison I cannot believe any of the "experts" ruled her out.

Patsy's handwriting was not as similar to the ransom note as was John Karr's. You don't think Patsy was having an affair with John Karr do you? :eek:

[Eagle1]

I'm not taking sides, not defending or accusing, just have an idle curiosity about why both the Ramsey parents were taking meds, before the murder ! It's discussed in one of the much-longer threads, re which drugs they were taking but nobody asked why.

Could someone have been threatening them? Who's powerful enough to also intimidate BPD and the DA's, etc.?

Or, are there a lot of other possibilities, such as, for instance, Beth's death after JR had had an affair and broke up his first family. Possibly he'll never get over that, and sees the loss of both his daughters possibly as punishment?

Can anyone think of some more possibilities to explain the drugs? In the longer thread, about FW, some interviews are posted, and JR says he was on paxil and something that starts with Q, might sound like Klonopin if it had an L in it.

I'm not asking which drugs, couldn't care less, but WHY? It might be a clue.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


And that's why I think she was "in on it". A horrible secret can surely bond two people together. If they didn't stay together, how could they be sure the other wouldn't tell someone? IMO
I just keep thinking about the Ramseys book and how Patsy recalled what to wear to the funeral and decided on a Jackie O look. For Godsake...the last thing on earth I would be thinking about at a moment like that (I probably would be incapable of thinking period) is what I would wear at my childs funeral, especially with as much thought as she apparently gave it.
It's the things she says in that book that tell me how little she actually grieved for her daughter. Same for John.
Their "profile" of the killer was a joke.
If any of you haven't read their book, please do. I did not sense one ounce of real emotion in that book other than their anger over what this did to their image. Yes, they were ALL about appearances and in light of that, them covering up an "accident" or whatever really happened that night makes all the sense in the world. It's right there...in their own words. All you have to do is read between the lines.

Decided on a Jackie O look?

"At that moment a picture of Jacqueline Kennedy abruptly flashed through my mind. I remembered seeing her wearing a black veil, walking hand in hand with her two children to JFK's grave site. Now I could see why people wore veils at such times: the filmy material surrounds you like a cocoon, overshadowing your face and closing out the world. With the covering and protection, I could cry, be private in my grief." (DOI, pp. 35-6)

Have you been to a loved one's funeral? Did you just throw on any old thing to wear?

I can remember choosing clothes for my mother's funeral, my brother's funeral, and my sister's funeral. In each case dressing well was a sign of the respect and love I had for them.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by Eagle1
I'm not taking sides, not defending or accusing, just have an idle curiosity about why both the Ramsey parents were taking meds, before the murder ! It's discussed in one of the much-longer threads, re which drugs they were taking but nobody asked why.

I'm not asking which drugs, couldn't care less, but WHY? It might be a clue.

You are not the only one who wants to know! I read two of the transcripts in which John & Patsy refer to being on different medications, but the Q&A's were ambiguous to the point that I could not tell how long either of them had been on any medication.

In the October '98 interview, John's answer to being on Paxil & Klonopin was not precise - he says something along the lines of "about 2 years" - which could indicate that he was prescribed that medication just after the murder. He does not give any specifics. More is the pity, imo.

Patsy indicates that she was taking Paxil & Ativan at the time of her 1997 interview (I think April). Again, I cannot ascertain the date she started taking those meds.

Paxil is an SSRI antidepressant. Both Ativan & Klonopin are anti-anxiety drugs.

I certainly hope John was NOT taking Paxil on the night of the 25th - for he IS on record as stating that on that night he took Melatonin (to sleep). That is NOT a good thing to take with an SSRI because of the risk of inducing seratonin syndrome.

I do not agree with the 'expert' (can't remember who it was) who remarked that taking an SSRI & an anti-anxiety drug would not affect polygraph responses. Since we do know that anxiety can affect polygraph results - it certainly stands to reason that drugs that are clearly meant to reduce or eliminate anxiety would affect the results.

JMO

Ohh - forgot to add - if anyone knows with certainty when either of the Ramsey parents were prescribed these meds - would you please post a link? I haven't found anything definitive. TIA

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Have you been to a loved one's funeral? Did you just throw on any old thing to wear?

I can remember choosing clothes for my mother's funeral, my brother's funeral, and my sister's funeral. In each case dressing well was a sign of the respect and love I had for them.

I certainly do not wish to appear crass in this question, but I fear it will look that way - were any of your loved ones murdered?

My personal experience is that doing as you have done - showing respect & love by dressing well for a funeral - pretty much goes straight out the window when the funeral is for a loved one who was murdered. Not to say the survivors show up in rags or dirty or mismatched clothes - but that the ability to think & make decisions in a rational manner is just about zip.

MOO & "been there, done that"

[harz]

Originally posted by victims feel

I am holding out for the kick ass DA that will blow the two of them so high that DEF will and can do nothing but beg mercy on the court...the public wont give them any.

I agree, no mercy for John Ramsey, accident or not. He shouldn't have cover up too much and so long. It just a prove he doesn't have a conscience which makes him a murder or an accessory to murder. He would reminds me plenty that of Scott Peterson, IMO.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by victims feel
Unless....mmmmm what if DA presses charges against Pastey ONLY..is that allowed...then they bring John under oath as a witness..they nail him and charge him as there is no double jeopardy since only Patsey's name is on first charges only.......John get revealed on the case against Pastey!

BRILLIANT plan!:read: If you can't sentence a dead person I seriously doubt you can charge one. How will you get them to court for one thing? :-) Another - I think they need to have it together enough to understand the charges and participate in their own defense.

Who is Pastey?

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by Mimi428


I certainly do not wish to appear crass in this question, but I fear it will look that way - were any of your loved ones murdered?

My personal experience is that doing as you have done - showing respect & love by dressing well for a funeral - pretty much goes straight out the window when the funeral is for a loved one who was murdered. Not to say the survivors show up in rags or dirty or mismatched clothes - but that the ability to think & make decisions in a rational manner is just about zip.

MOO & "been there, done that"

Your experience is different than mine and also different than the murder victim's families I have seen on the news.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by harz
Melinda Ramsey stated: "I'm John Ramsey's daughter. I grew up with him, he raised me and I saw him raise JonBenet and I don't understand why they don't believe me --- That he is the most caring father in the world. He has never, ever, ever abused us in any way. I just wish I could say something to convince them."

I found it at
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Evidence%20of%20Prior%20Sexual%20Abuse

I am not sure what excatly Melinda meant. Maybe she didn't think that John sexual touching her or JonBenet is an abuse, which incest is a normal thing to them. Who knows. IMO What do you mean, Harz? You don't understand exactly what Melinda meant? She meant exactly what she said....he never abused them in any way..sexually or otherwise! :confused:

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by victims feel
Are you serious? If you lack the ability to figure out who Pastey is then I cannot help you now.

But for the record: it is not polite or intelligent only rude and sarcastic to make fun of those with dyslexia ...TIA

If you do indeed have dyslexia I apologize. I am not a stranger to dyslexia. I have seen very few errors in your posts and I wanted to know if you were one of those who think name calling (Ratsy, Fatsy, Pastey, and deLOUsional Smit to name a few I have seen over the years) is an appropriate part of a discussion.

[harz]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
What do you mean, Harz? You don't understand exactly what Melinda meant? She meant exactly what she said....he never abused them in any way..sexually or otherwise! :confused:

I am speaking of how her perspectives might be different. Melinda could have said that her dad never touched her sexually, or maybe that she doesn't see it as abuse like hitting or harming her physically, or spoke in verbal abusive for example. Maybe how she view the word abuse differently or she lied for her dad. Like how can we describe these flock who admired Warren Jeffs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs
I do not know her really, its still possible she never witnessed her dad sexual abused JonBenet or she never experienced it as JonBenet did. I am still on fence about JonBenet's prior sexual abuse by John before her death in case if you are that curious.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by Mimi428


You are not the only one who wants to know! I read two of the transcripts in which John & Patsy refer to being on different medications, but the Q&A's were ambiguous to the point that I could not tell how long either of them had been on any medication.

In the October '98 interview, John's answer to being on Paxil & Klonopin was not precise - he says something along the lines of "about 2 years" - which could indicate that he was prescribed that medication just after the murder. He does not give any specifics. More is the pity, imo.

Patsy indicates that she was taking Paxil & Ativan at the time of her 1997 interview (I think April). Again, I cannot ascertain the date she started taking those meds.

Paxil is an SSRI antidepressant. Both Ativan & Klonopin are anti-anxiety drugs.

I certainly hope John was NOT taking Paxil on the night of the 25th - for he IS on record as stating that on that night he took Melatonin (to sleep). That is NOT a good thing to take with an SSRI because of the risk of inducing seratonin syndrome.

I do not agree with the 'expert' (can't remember who it was) who remarked that taking an SSRI & an anti-anxiety drug would not affect polygraph responses. Since we do know that anxiety can affect polygraph results - it certainly stands to reason that drugs that are clearly meant to reduce or eliminate anxiety would affect the results.

JMO

Ohh - forgot to add - if anyone knows with certainty when either of the Ramsey parents were prescribed these meds - would you please post a link? I haven't found anything definitive. TIA

What happened to the pre-Labor Day thread where we went into a lot of detail on this?

As I recall from the transcripts they weren't on anti-depressants etc until after the murder.

[nuisanceposter]

I think the evidence, such as JonBenet's medical history of vaginitis and bladder infections combined with the autopsy report stating her genital region shows acute and chronic abuse is enough for me to conclude that someone was molesting JonBenet, but I'm not sure one should assume it was John.

In regards to Melinda, John didn't live in the same house with her. Her mother had custody of the three older Ramsey children and John saw them on visits. Maybe Melinda wasn't molested because her father wasn't a molester, and maybe she wasn't molested because she didn't live with him.

There's the issue of whether or not Patsy was molested. When asked in an interview about any sexual abuse issue with her father, she went from outspoken to acting shy and childlike in seconds. Some view this as perhaps indicating that Patsy had been molested by her father. Perhaps JonBenet as well, I don't know.

Then there's the idea that Patsy was abusing JonBenet, but not out of sexual gratification. Former housekeeper LHP implied in her book chapter that Patsy abused JonBenet genitally as punishment for her incontinence. Maybe there's something to that.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by victims feel
I appreciate your apology L. I do have spell check but forget to use it at times....but when I read my posts over they looked fine to me...

I have taken lots of heat over the years here on it...which is why I am sensitive to it...most were not big enough to apologize...

:)



No I am not into name calling: if I was you would have heard it first hand for a picking on me:D

But if you didnot know that I do know what you mean as some posters are facetious about cases..........but but but L : I thought you would have seen in my posts that I do not make fun of anyone other than myself....

I used to be very bad but after all the abuse from CTV posters, I am getting better....LOL

Sorry you were abused by posters. I'd heard on other boards that CTV could get pretty rough so I was somewhat hesitant to join. So far though it has all been quite pleasantly civil. Although you and I don't agree on many aspects of this case you have always been genuine in your posts which is why I was kind of disappointed when I thought you might have joined the ranks of those who have nothing more to offer than name-calling. I'm glad I was wrong... :-)

[rosebud]

Originally posted by diplomat


Patsy's handwriting was not as similar to the ransom note as was John Karr's. You don't think Patsy was having an affair with John Karr do you? :eek:

Maybe by degrees of separation, perhaps. That is your opinion. I am satisfied after seeing a rather long comparison of Patsy's handwriting and the ransom note that Patsy wrote it. I am not asking anyone to take my word for it.

At this stage, two of my opinions are setting as we speak in drying cement: one that Patsy wrote the ransom note and two, there was no intruder. Outside of that, I am open.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
What do you mean, Harz? You don't understand exactly what Melinda meant? She meant exactly what she said....he never abused them in any way..sexually or otherwise! :confused:

Of course Melinda knew what she was talking about. Even Melinda's mother came out in defense of John and Patsy and stated that they were good parents.

In addition, after JonBenet's death the Boulder PD went to Chicago and asked Beth's friends if they knew of any inappropriate relationship between Beth and her father and found nothing. Sheesh..... JMO

[Louisadelmar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I think the evidence, such as JonBenet's medical history of vaginitis and bladder infections combined with the autopsy report stating her genital region shows acute and chronic abuse is enough for me to conclude that someone was molesting JonBenet, but I'm not sure one should assume it was John.

[...]QUOTE]

How many times did Beuf say he'd seen her for vaginitis and bladder infections?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


The ME marked the ends of the cord after cutting it, so they could identify which end went where to reconstruct it.

Thanks...I just read that elsewhere too. One end of the cord around her neck was frayed, though which may indicate that it was cut. Was the cord around her wrists frayed at the ends too (or at least one end)? If so, I will stick with my theory.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, White....I think MissO posted concerning the duct tape....but I know what you are saying...we have duct tape in our home, too.....and if LE would have found it in their basement...what does that really prove...the killer used other things he could find there.......but I think what another poster said...the absense of these things can tell us something...if the Ramseys did have some there why would they have denied it? :confused:

Good evening to you, LF. Maybe they didn't have any and the piece came off of the back of the doll or a picture frame, as previously thought.
Come to think of it, the Ramseys weren't the type to do their own home improvement so I'm not very surprised that they didn't have a roll of duct tape.
I still think everything used in the killing came from their home. Why would an intruder take the roll of tape and additional cord (if any) and leave the note pad?
BTW...gotta say, using a felt tipped (Sharpie brand) pen would definately help to disguise ones handwriting. Try it.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Decided on a Jackie O look?

"At that moment a picture of Jacqueline Kennedy abruptly flashed through my mind. I remembered seeing her wearing a black veil, walking hand in hand with her two children to JFK's grave site. Now I could see why people wore veils at such times: the filmy material surrounds you like a cocoon, overshadowing your face and closing out the world. With the covering and protection, I could cry, be private in my grief." (DOI, pp. 35-6)

Have you been to a loved one's funeral? Did you just throw on any old thing to wear?

I can remember choosing clothes for my mother's funeral, my brother's funeral, and my sister's funeral. In each case dressing well was a sign of the respect and love I had for them.

Yes. I attended my fathers funeral and I can't remember what I wore. My father wasn't brutally murdered and I assume neither was your mother, brother or sister (and I am sorry for your loss).
I never once thought about hiding my grief behind a veil or even giving a crap what someone thought of what I was wearing or feeling. I was saddened that my father had passed, but I imagine my anguish if it had been my murdered child and I doubt that I would have cared about appearances. IMO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


And that's why I think she was "in on it". A horrible secret can surely bond two people together. If they didn't stay together, how could they be sure the other wouldn't tell someone? IMO
I just keep thinking about the Ramseys book and how Patsy recalled what to wear to the funeral and decided on a Jackie O look. For Godsake...the last thing on earth I would be thinking about at a moment like that (I probably would be incapable of thinking period) is what I would wear at my childs funeral, especially with as much thought as she apparently gave it.
It's the things she says in that book that tell me how little she actually grieved for her daughter. Same for John.
Their "profile" of the killer was a joke.
If any of you haven't read their book, please do. I did not sense one ounce of real emotion in that book other than their anger over what this did to their image. Yes, they were ALL about appearances and in light of that, them covering up an "accident" or whatever really happened that night makes all the sense in the world. It's right there...in their own words. All you have to do is read between the lines.

I have not read the Ramseys book. I guess I should. I notice that it is hitting the "popular" book racks again, thanks to JMK (should he get a cut of the sales? :D ). I did reread some of the readers criticism of the book on Amazon and some was withering. I had also forgot that it seemed to be a plain and direct appeal from the Ramseys, two Christians themselves, to the Christian community for support. Apparently they thought they were being persecuted by jealous poor people, the liberal media, and non-Christians.

I agree about the "horrible secret" bonding husband and wife. I wonder exactly what that secret was.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by victims feel
Are you serious? If you lack the ability to figure out who Pastey is then I cannot help you now.

But for the record: it is not polite or intelligent only rude and sarcastic to make fun of those with dyslexia ...TIA

At least you have an excuse. I am appalled at my own spelling on message boards sometimes. I can't believe my spelling has deteriorated that much over the years.

I am poking fun at myself, not trying to make light of dyslexia.

[harz]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Of course Melinda knew what she was talking about. Even Melinda's mother came out in defense of John and Patsy and stated that they were good parents.

In addition, after JonBenet's death the Boulder PD went to Chicago and asked Beth's friends if they knew of any inappropriate relationship between Beth and her father and found nothing. Sheesh..... JMO

To be honest, Melinda’s words, truth or not, doesn’t matter to me as I am feeling wary of whole Ramsey’s family and their relatives. I am feeling more hostile about John everyday until he confesses what happen that night. Sooner or later, I probably would believe John is the one who molested JonBenet regardless as why her vagina showed signs of chronic abuse as nuisanceposter described. John went out there running for political offices, probably in his own attempts to get immunity from being prosecuted if this crime got solved. I wonder what up with Andrew & Bruke too? So they just put this crime past them that JonBenet doesn’t mean anything to them? This case is getting colder as Ramsey’s families & relatives are. I think they do deserve how hostile of other people’s opinions (or maybe actions too) toward them because they are just enabling John’s freedom, injustice, and his not confessing. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

John's '97 interview

TT: That you are (inaudible). . . are you taking any other medications right now?


JR: I have been on Paxel, and Quanopin, which are both prescription anti-depressants.

TT: Okay, and the second one is?

JR: Quanopin.

TT: OK. I’m not familiar with that one.

JR: It like, kind of like Adavan, I’m not an expert but . .
TT: . . . Okay. How much Paxel where you taking?

JR: Uh, well one tablet a night, I don’t know how, but I can get the prescription from (inaudible) the size of it, whatever it is.

TT: Is it the same prescription that Patsy is on or. . .

JR: Basically, yeah, probably exactly the same thing.

TT: And the second medication, you take that once a night?

JR: Right.

TT: Right before bedtime?

JR: Yep.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
How many times did Beuf say he'd seen her for vaginitis and bladder infections?


More times than any other girl JonBenet's age I have ever heard of. More times than she should have had to deal with.

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/bynum.html


SAWYER: But what about those reports that JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr Beuf, saw JonBenet 30 times in three years?

BEUF: Before your call, I sat down with her chart and counted. It was 27 times.

SAWYER: This is the first time Dr Beuf has gone over his records publicly.

And is that unusual to see a child that many times?

BEUF: Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of them were for sinus infections and for colds.

SAWYER: And by majority you mean?

BEUF: Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep throats, sinus infections.

SAWYER: So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.

How many times did you give her a vaginal examination?

BEUF: Well, it was five or six times in that three year period.

SAWYER: We asked him to specifically review all notes that might pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.

September 1993 a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated with recent diarrhea.

April 1994 a visit about a problem perhaps related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.

October 1994 a routine physical. No problems noted, though some indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25 percent of children that age wet the bed.

March 1995 abdominal pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem.

August 1996another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this number of complaints?

Would that be unusual?

BEUF: For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have 4yo kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age.

------------------------------------

But she was 6 years old at that point, Dr Beuf, not 4. She wet herself not just at night but during the day as well, and the housekeeper said she left fecal matter in her bed. How is that normal?

Pain in urination three times. That poor little girl. Why didn't her mother take her to a pediatric uorlogist?

And is it typical for a girl under the age of 7 to have had 5 or 6 vaginal exams in a 3 year period? I think not.

[foxbila]

I am curious as to whether the Dr. merely gave an external exam or was there an internal exam involved to diagnos the vaginitis and was a "culture" taken to determine the type of vaginitis..The coroners report did say that the vagina was larger than a normal child the same age.
Also when Patsey was asked in one of her interviews with police what treatment she used for the vaginal problems..she said Desitin...oh come on now..you dont use that for vaginitis as far as I can remember....

K

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter



More times than any other girl JonBenet's age I have ever heard of. More times than she should have had to deal with.

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/bynum.html


SAWYER: But what about those reports that JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr Beuf, saw JonBenet 30 times in three years?

BEUF: Before your call, I sat down with her chart and counted. It was 27 times.

SAWYER: This is the first time Dr Beuf has gone over his records publicly.

And is that unusual to see a child that many times?

BEUF: Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of them were for sinus infections and for colds.

SAWYER: And by majority you mean?

BEUF: Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep throats, sinus infections.

SAWYER: So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.

How many times did you give her a vaginal examination?

BEUF: Well, it was five or six times in that three year period.

SAWYER: We asked him to specifically review all notes that might pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.

September 1993 a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated with recent diarrhea.

April 1994 a visit about a problem perhaps related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.

October 1994 a routine physical. No problems noted, though some indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25 percent of children that age wet the bed.

March 1995 abdominal pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem.

August 1996another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this number of complaints?

Would that be unusual?

BEUF: For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have 4yo kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age.

------------------------------------

But she was 6 years old at that point, Dr Beuf, not 4. She wet herself not just at night but during the day as well, and the housekeeper said she left fecal matter in her bed. How is that normal?

Pain in urination three times. That poor little girl. Why didn't her mother take her to a pediatric uorlogist?

And is it typical for a girl under the age of 7 to have had 5 or 6 vaginal exams in a 3 year period? I think not.

Kindergarten teachers on other forums have said occasional daytime wetting happens. Kids get excited, involved in what they are doing. Accidents occasionally happen. JonBenet did not normally have a daytime problem. Unless she was passing "grapefruit sized" feces my suspician was that was a stain, perhaps related to the Sept 1993 diarrhea. Perhaps to some other intestinal bug. My kids have done the same thing.

It sounds to me like the vaginal "exams" were part of her routine checks and I expect he did a simple check when she had the vaginitis as well. "August 1996 another routine physical with a vaginal exam. "

I would guess Patsy didn't take her to a urologist because Beuf didn't feel it was necessary.

I think it is most telling that other pediatricians found nothing unusual about her medical history.

"SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?

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

SAWYER: Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual abuse?

BEUF: No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are very acutely aware of.

SAWYER: And some other notes. Dr Beuf says he last saw JonBenet Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus infection. A couple of other things. Dr Beuf says he has turned in people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career, and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that with JonBenet Ramsey. And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was nothing unusual there for a girl her age. When we come back, we will take you to the Ramsey home.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by foxbila
I am curious as to whether the Dr. merely gave an external exam or was there an internal exam involved to diagnos the vaginitis and was a "culture" taken to determine the type of vaginitis..The coroners report did say that the vagina was larger than a normal child the same age.
Also when Patsey was asked in one of her interviews with police what treatment she used for the vaginal problems..she said Desitin...oh come on now..you dont use that for vaginitis as far as I can remember....

K

You do if it's just irritation. It gives a protective barrier to the skin. Think diaper rash rather than adult woman's type vaginitis. I once had links to websites which said they tended to use the word vaginitis as a catch-all word.

Her vaginal opening was no doubt stretched as part of the assault. I would think death would mean it would remain at it's stretched size.

When my daughter was little and had physicals the "vaginal" exam genarally consisted of her being in the "frog position" (I think that's what they called it) and the Dr just took a quick look. If she had an irritation the Dr would take a more careful look.

[harz]

Originally posted by victims feel
I think John is worse as he has went on to enjoy his life in freedom.....at least Scott is exactly where he belongs

------ NO FREEDOM...

Indeed, irony about Scott Peterson case, there's still reward offering on his site (or his parent's, pro-scott's at least) here's details,
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/Reward.html
Look at these amounts, $500,000 for safe return of Laci & Connor (they believe they are still alive?), plus $250,000 to arrest whoever responsible of Laci's disappearing, which is SP, the one and only, of course :)
But these rewards total are around $800,000. Ramseys valued JonBenet at $100,000 :cuss: John Ramsey did removed his reward from his site didn't he? Of course, he doesn't want to reward to anyone who arrest and convince him of JonBenet's murder himself. JMO

[harz]

Originally posted by Holly
My speculation is that if any of the Ramseys had been involved in this ghastly torture and murder, they would long since have emigrated to some other country which does not have an extradition treaty to the USA. Surely, Mr. Ramsey is quite well fixed financially. Doubtless, he has plenty of contacts all over the world. Because of the business he owned he has connections all over the world and could live almost anywhere in reasonable comfort.

IIRC, Mr. Burke Ramsey was cleared early on in the investigation.

People who are hoping to see Mr. John Ramsey arrested, indicted, tried, and convicted for this crime are simply chasing their tails.

Some of you need to get a new hobby.

Since you mention it, I believe you have read this before,
http://www.forbes.com/business/healthcare/feeds/ap/2006/08/19/ap2960385.html
John Ramsey doesn't need to leave the country if this case gets colder. After Boulder DA dropped the charges against Karr, John Ramsey felt the heat was getting to him, which is why "his thinking of leaving the country" was cited in that article. Sure Scott Peterson did thought & planned to before he was arrested after they found Laci & Connor.

Even if John Ramsey left the country to one of non-extradition treaty countries, to flee the bail, there would be bounty hunters going after him if the rewards are worth it. Like "Dog" Chapman for example.

What about Bruke? I believe you are the first to mention about him or his suspicions being clear on this thread unless I am missing something.

Anyone's hobbies on this forum are none of my concerns. I am interest in facts & everybody's opinions that are relevance to this case, whether if they believe Ramseys are innocent or not. Even I felt strongly that John Ramsey is gulity, but I still welcome myself reading others who believe why he is not gulity. No need to be criticism about posters' opinions here. Have a good nite :)

MOO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I think the evidence, such as JonBenet's medical history of vaginitis and bladder infections combined with the autopsy report stating her genital region shows acute and chronic abuse is enough for me to conclude that someone was molesting JonBenet, but I'm not sure one should assume it was John.

snip...

Exactly where in the autopsy report does it state JonBenet's genital region shows acute and chronic abuse? Page number please.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet1.html

[LindaA]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Athena
[B]

I actually agree with your entire post. I believe what may have led me to believe the intruder theory was the fact that I had followed this case many years ago and Steve Thomas along with his cronies had me convinced that John and Patsy absolutely killed JonBenet. It wasn't until I started finding contradictions to what Steve hypothesized that I began to think they had nothing to do with their daughter's death.

SNIP

My experience exactly! I read ST's booko whenit came out and suddenly it seemed as if a light had come on. I though, "Oh course, that's exactly what musth ave happened!" Then as I've read more and more I've become less and less sure that the RDI. Now I'm basically a fence sitter, but I lean decidedly to the IDI theory.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by rosebud



While there is a remote possibility that the killer of JonBenet may come forward in the next few years, I think you can kiss off a confession for Jack the Ripper. :hat:
Patricia Cornwell did that a couple of years ago. Very interesting reading. Maybe we should turn her loose on this case!

[LindaA]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Sun, one sign of an intruder is the absence of the remaining duct tape and cord. Neither had ever been used in the house. LE even took pipes apart looking for the duct tape roll and couldn't find it. If the Ramseys were guilty, they had no reason to hide these things. The paintbrushes and paper and pen were on display. THEIR belongings weren't being hidden. Where is the duct tape and cord and who did they belong to? They could have come with and left with an intruder.
ANd what about the cloth used to wipe down JB's body? I see little mention of that. Wouldn't the killer's DNA have been on that if he had engaged in sexual activities? It seems important that that is missing as well.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Sun, one sign of an intruder is the absence of the remaining duct tape and cord.

<snip>



Do we know if LE ever looked in the homes of other initial "suspects" and neighbors? Seems I remember reading something about them "asking" one neighbor if she had cord/tape, but she said they never looked for themselves?

What about FW's, Santa's or the Fernies' houses?

[nuisanceposter]

I'm sorry, ladies, I know you love the Ramseys and don't want to believe anything was wrong with JonBenet's medical history, but please! The amount of vaginal exams and genital issues that poor baby went through are just NOT NORMAL.

Patsy didn't take JonBenet to a pediatric urologist because Beuf said she didn't need one? Since when does a parent not get a second opinion or see a specialist just because one doctor said she's okay? If my daughter went through that many vaginal and urination issues and I had the same health insurance as the Ramseys claim they did, you can bet your sweet bippy I would have had her to see a specialist whether Beuf thought she needed one or not.

Page four of the autopsy describes the evidence of acute and chronic abuse, but Meyer doesn't lay it down in those words.

Please read post #107 of this thread. I won't copy it because I didn't write it, but what the poster who did write it says pretty much sums it all up (in better words than I could find.)

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40789&page=5&pp=25

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I'm sorry, ladies, I know you love the Ramseys and don't want to believe anything was wrong with JonBenet's medical history, but please! The amount of vaginal exams and genital issues that poor baby went through are just NOT NORMAL.

Patsy didn't take JonBenet to a pediatric urologist because Beuf said she didn't need one? Since when does a parent not get a second opinion or see a specialist just because one doctor said she's okay? If my daughter went through that many vaginal and urination issues and I had the same health insurance as the Ramseys claim they did, you can bet your sweet bippy I would have had her to see a specialist whether Beuf thought she needed one or not.

Page four of the autopsy describes the evidence of acute and chronic abuse, but Meyer doesn't lay it down in those words.

Please read post #107 of this thread. I won't copy it because I didn't write it, but what the poster who did write it says pretty much sums it all up (in better words than I could find.)

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40789&page=5&pp=25

Love the Ramsey's? :lol: I don't even know them. I love justice.

Ao, why do you hate them so much you're twisting the truth on purpose? You went from "the autopsy report stating her genital region shows acute and chronic abuse" to Page four of the autopsy describes the evidence of acute and chronic abuse, but Meyer doesn't lay it down in those words.. You knew it wasn't the truth when you said the autopsy report stated that in your earlier post.

And, there is nothing on page four of the autopsy report that describes evidence chronic abuse in any way. She was molested the day of her murder. That's not chronic.

As far as that post, the "experts" studied the autopsy report, NOT JonBenet's body. That says it all to me.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I'm sorry, ladies, I know you love the Ramseys and don't want to believe anything was wrong with JonBenet's medical history, but please! The amount of vaginal exams and genital issues that poor baby went through are just NOT NORMAL.

[...]

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

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LindaA

ANd what about the cloth used to wipe down JB's body? I see little mention of that. Wouldn't the killer's DNA have been on that if he had engaged in sexual activities? It seems important that that is missing as well.

I'm not sure about what was used to wipr JonBenet down, but fibers chemically and microscopically consistent with the shirt John wore that night were found by Meyer during the autopsy in JonBenet's underwear and on her genitals.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm not sure about what was used to wipr JonBenet down, but fibers chemically and microscopically consistent with the shirt John wore that night were found by Meyer during the autopsy in JonBenet's underwear and on her genitals.

There's no proof of that at all. Even Steve Thomas said he thought those fibers came from a washcloth.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm not sure about what was used to wipr JonBenet down, but fibers chemically and microscopically consistent with the shirt John wore that night were found by Meyer during the autopsy in JonBenet's underwear and on her genitals.

According to LE during an interrogation where they wouldn't produce (or even read from) the report.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Love the Ramsey's? :lol: I don't even know them. I love justice.

Ao, why do you hate them so much you're twisting the truth on purpose? You went from "the autopsy report stating her genital region shows acute and chronic abuse" to Page four of the autopsy describes the evidence of acute and chronic abuse, but Meyer doesn't lay it down in those words.. You knew it wasn't the truth when you said the autopsy report stated that in your earlier post.

And, there is nothing on page four of the autopsy report that describes evidence chronic abuse in any way. She was molested the day of her murder. That's not chronic.

As far as that post, the "experts" studied the autopsy report, NOT JonBenet's body. That says it all to me.

I want justice, too. I want justice for that little girl more than anything.

Are you calling me a liar? Failure to interpret Meyer's findings on your part does not make my statements untruthful. Eroded hymen and enlarged hymeneal opening did not happen only on the night JB died - those things take some time to develop.

Experts had not only Meyer's very conclusive autopsy report to go on, they had slides of tissues taken from JonBenet's body by Meyer at the time of the autopsy to go on.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


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

And who were those experts? Names, please.

Did you read that link I gave you to that post from SuperDave at WS? He not only named the well-renowned and highly accredited experts who examined the autopsy and slides and found evidence of prior abuse, he listed why they thought that.

Go ahead and match that with countering opinion - I'd love to hear it.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


According to LE during an interrogation where they wouldn't produce (or even read from) the report.

And did they have to, legally? Is that a requirement when interviewing the prime suspects in a murder investigation, the parents of the dead child who happened to be in the house when the child was murdered?

[rosebud]

Originally posted by LindaA

Patricia Cornwell did that a couple of years ago. Very interesting reading. Maybe we should turn her loose on this case!


Let me guess: John Mark Karr confessed to that one too. :beer:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


There's no proof of that at all. Even Steve Thomas said he thought those fibers came from a washcloth.

Wasn't that before more testing had been done? I think that information wasn't available when Thomas wrote his book. In fact, the grand jury was still waiting on the results of some other tests when they went to make their decision.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosebud



Let me guess: John Mark Karr confessed to that one too. :beer:

Cornwell's evidence was very thorough. She has me believing that Walter Richard Sickert was the most likely candidate to have been Jack the Ripper. I'd be interested to hear what her opinion is on the Ramsey case.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Do we know if LE ever looked in the homes of other initial "suspects" and neighbors? Seems I remember reading something about them "asking" one neighbor if she had cord/tape, but she said they never looked for themselves?

What about FW's, Santa's or the Fernies' houses? Charlotte...I still believe it was an intruder...someone that had a knowledge of the home and the family..probably had a key..the perp had pedophile tendencies...I was wondering what was discovered about the "gloves" that was suspected used in penetrating JB? If that was addressed here already...then I'm sorry..I don't have as much time as I would like to read on this case...I'm learning as I go :)...Have a wonderful Sunday..:seeya:

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I want justice, too. I want justice for that little girl more than anything.

Are you calling me a liar? Failure to interpret Meyer's findings on your part does not make my statements untruthful. Eroded hymen and enlarged hymeneal opening did not happen only on the night JB died - those things take some time to develop.

Experts had not only Meyer's very conclusive autopsy report to go on, they had slides of tissues taken from JonBenet's body by Meyer at the time of the autopsy to go on.

Are you denying you said "the autopsy report stating her genital region shows acute and chronic abuse"?

The autopsy report did NOT state that.

Eroded and enlarged hymeneal openings can be caused by things other than sexual abuse. Normal physical activity, for one.

The only other abnormality in her genital region listed in the autopsy report that would have to have occured earlier than the day of her death is the chornic vaginal mucosa. That also has more than one possible cause, and does not mean she was sexually abused prior to that day. Vaginitis, for one, which she had been treated for by her pediatrician.

Those two things are not proof she had been sexually abused prior to the day of her murder.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Wasn't that before more testing had been done? I think that information wasn't available when Thomas wrote his book. In fact, the grand jury was still waiting on the results of some other tests when they went to make their decision.

There has never been any report made public about the result of any testing showing John's shirt fibers were present on JonBenet's underwear or her genital area. Unlike the reports of everything else that was tested. Why withhold that one report, if it proved John's fibers were present? Because it doesn't exist.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by MyrDawn



<snip>

And, there is nothing on page four of the autopsy report that describes evidence chronic abuse in any way. She was molested the day of her murder. That's not chronic.

As far as that post, the "experts" studied the autopsy report, NOT JonBenet's body. That says it all to me.

True.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Are you denying you said "the autopsy report stating her genital region shows acute and chronic abuse"?

The autopsy report did NOT state that.

Eroded and enlarged hymeneal openings can be caused by things other than sexual abuse. Normal physical activity, for one.

The only other abnormality in her genital region listed in the autopsy report that would have to have occured earlier than the day of her death is the chornic vaginal mucosa. That also has more than one possible cause, and does not mean she was sexually abused prior to that day. Vaginitis, for one, which she had been treated for by her pediatrician.

Those two things are not proof she had been sexually abused prior to the day of her murder.

No, it's not absolute proof. But it is certainly consistant with prior sexual abuse. As you said, there is more than one cause, and prior sexual abuse is certainly one possible cause.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Are you denying you said "the autopsy report stating her genital region shows acute and chronic abuse"?

The autopsy report did NOT state that.

Eroded and enlarged hymeneal openings can be caused by things other than sexual abuse. Normal physical activity, for one.

The only other abnormality in her genital region listed in the autopsy report that would have to have occured earlier than the day of her death is the chornic vaginal mucosa. That also has more than one possible cause, and does not mean she was sexually abused prior to that day. Vaginitis, for one, which she had been treated for by her pediatrician.

Those two things are not proof she had been sexually abused prior to the day of her murder.

I said that I stand by it. Read some stuff that wasn't put out by the RST for a change.

Please. Eroded and enlarged hymeneal openings do not occur from every day activity. It occurs from direct contact to the hymen. How else would it be eroded and enlarged? Riding a bike causes a 6 year old girl's hymen to erode and enlarge? Playing with dolls does that? Drawing pictures? What was she doing that would have caused her hymen to become eroded and enlarged?

Did you read that link I gave you or not?

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


There has never been any report made public about the result of any testing showing John's shirt fibers were present on JonBenet's underwear or her genital area. Unlike the reports of everything else that was tested. Why withhold that one report, if it proved John's fibers were present? Because it doesn't exist.

I agree. It's very likely such a report doesn't exist. The police folded very quickly when Team R called their bluff.

IMO JDI theory still holds up very well, in light of all the elements of the crime, even w/o the shirt fiber evidence. I don't know why some JDIs feel they need to argue about this when it is simply indeterminable.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I think the evidence, such as JonBenet's medical history of vaginitis and bladder infections combined with the autopsy report stating her genital region shows acute and chronic abuse is enough for me to conclude that someone was molesting JonBenet, but I'm not sure one should assume it was John.

In regards to Melinda, John didn't live in the same house with her. Her mother had custody of the three older Ramsey children and John saw them on visits. Maybe Melinda wasn't molested because her father wasn't a molester, and maybe she wasn't molested because she didn't live with him.

There's the issue of whether or not Patsy was molested. When asked in an interview about any sexual abuse issue with her father, she went from outspoken to acting shy and childlike in seconds. Some view this as perhaps indicating that Patsy had been molested by her father. Perhaps JonBenet as well, I don't know.

Then there's the idea that Patsy was abusing JonBenet, but not out of sexual gratification. Former housekeeper LHP implied in her book chapter that Patsy abused JonBenet genitally as punishment for her incontinence. Maybe there's something to that. I just cannot believe that Patsy did something like that! I think she realized that JBs bedwetting was probably an emotional response to her mother's cancer ordeal! Didn't it begin then? Her frequent infections could have been from numerous causes..not necessarily sexual abuse! :seeya:

[nuisanceposter]

[i]Originally posted by MyrDawn

As far as that post, the "experts" studied the autopsy report, NOT JonBenet's body. That says it all to me.

Well, then...according to you, that debunks the opinion of the experts you said who found there was no signs of prior sexual abuse.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


There has never been any report made public about the result of any testing showing John's shirt fibers were present on JonBenet's underwear or her genital area. Unlike the reports of everything else that was tested. Why withhold that one report, if it proved John's fibers were present? Because it doesn't exist.

LE is under NO obligation to make their tests and results public so they can be debated on a message board. Just because you haven't seen it does not mean it does not exist.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I just cannot believe that Patsy did something like that! I think she realized that JBs bedwetting was probably an emotional response to her mother's cancer ordeal! Didn't it begin then? Her frequent infections could have been from numerous causes..not necessarily sexual abuse! :seeya:

It wasn't just bed-wetting, LF. JonBenet was known to wet herself at any time of day. Fleet White said there were times when JB was at his house playing with his daughter, and they would have to give JB a pair of DW's panties to wear and send JB's home in a plastic baggie.

Patsy's cancer was in remission at this point. Housekeeper LHP said JonBenet's incontinence was ongoing when she first started working there, then it let up for six months, then resumed again about a month before JB was killed.

Her infections could have been from a few causes, but sexual abuse is one of them - especially when you consider the evidence inside her vagina -

According to Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I said that I stand by it. Read some stuff that wasn't put out by the RST for a change.

Please. Eroded and enlarged hymeneal openings do not occur from every day activity. It occurs from direct contact to the hymen. How else would it be eroded and enlarged? Riding a bike causes a 6 year old girl's hymen to erode and enlarge? Playing with dolls does that? Drawing pictures? What was she doing that would have caused her hymen to become eroded and enlarged?

Did you read that link I gave you or not?

Yes, I read the link. Now, here's some links for you on ways hymens can become eroded and enlarged:
http://www.scarleteen.com/body/female_anatomy_4.html

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH12.HTM

http://www2.everybody.co.nz/sexfiles/faq_intercourse.html

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I just cannot believe that Patsy did something like that! I think she realized that JBs bedwetting was probably an emotional response to her mother's cancer ordeal! Didn't it begin then? Her frequent infections could have been from numerous causes..not necessarily sexual abuse! :seeya:

SHe didn't. LHP went on about what wonderful parents the Ramseys were until she discovered the tabs would pay for negative stories about the Ramseys.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


LE is under NO obligation to make their tests and results public so they can be debated on a message board. Just because you haven't seen it does not mean it does not exist.

I know they are under no obligation to make the test results public. But, I find it strange they made all the others public.

It's never been proven that John's shirt fibers were present in any available report, so saying they were present is making a statement based on thin air, IMO.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by harz


Since you mention it, I believe you have read this before,
http://www.forbes.com/business/healthcare/feeds/ap/2006/08/19/ap2960385.html
John Ramsey doesn't need to leave the country if this case gets colder. After Boulder DA dropped the charges against Karr, John Ramsey felt the heat was getting to him, which is why "his thinking of leaving the country" was cited in that article. Sure Scott Peterson did thought & planned to before he was arrested after they found Laci & Connor.

Even if John Ramsey left the country to one of non-extradition treaty countries, to flee the bail, there would be bounty hunters going after him if the rewards are worth it. Like "Dog" Chapman for example.

What about Bruke? I believe you are the first to mention about him or his suspicions being clear on this thread unless I am missing something.

Anyone's hobbies on this forum are none of my concerns. I am interest in facts & everybody's opinions that are relevance to this case, whether if they believe Ramseys are innocent or not. Even I felt strongly that John Ramsey is gulity, but I still welcome myself reading others who believe why he is not gulity. No need to be criticism about posters' opinions here. Have a good nite :)

MOO

It was Lin Wood who said the bit about John leaving the country and that was before the charges were dropped. It was in response to the invasion of Burke at college. I'd be pretty upset too if my son were being harassed by rabid reporters.

"Lin Wood, the Atlanta attorney who has represented JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, for years, said Saturday the media onslaught facing John Ramsey is worse than it's ever been.

The intense coverage has Ramsey considering a move out of the country, Wood said. Patsy Ramsey died in June.

Wood said camera crews and reporters followed Ramsey on Friday when he took his son, Burke, to Purdue University to start the college year.

"He cannot go back to his home in Michigan because it is surrounded by the media," Wood said. "Last night, I've never heard him so angry. He is upset. He is worried about his son's physical safety ... I'm not sure John Ramsey will ever speak to a member of the media after what happened to him yesterday."

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I just cannot believe that Patsy did something like that! I think she realized that JBs bedwetting was probably an emotional response to her mother's cancer ordeal! Didn't it begin then? Her frequent infections could have been from numerous causes..not necessarily sexual abuse! :seeya:

Yes, her bedwetting began during Patsy's cancer ordeal. Many children revert to bedwetting during stressful times like that. It's not at all surprising JonBenet did.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


SHe didn't. LHP went on about what wonderful parents the Ramseys were until she discovered the tabs would pay for negative stories about the Ramseys.

Just like the Ramseys thought she was a good friend and housekeeper until they decided they could throw her under the bus and accuse her of possibly being the killer. Just like they did with almost all of their friends.

The Ramseys had a lot more to gain from their accusations than LHP ever did...such as their very freedom.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


SHe didn't. LHP went on about what wonderful parents the Ramseys were until she discovered the tabs would pay for negative stories about the Ramseys.

Yep, she changed her tune might fast...all for the almighty $.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Just like the Ramseys thought she was a good friend and housekeeper until they decided they could throw her under the bus and accuse her of possibly being the killer. Just like they did with almost all of their friends.

The Ramseys had a lot more to gain from their accusations than LHP ever did...such as their very freedom.

The Ramseys were asked by the LE to name people that had access to their home. Should have they refused to answer the LE's question about that?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Yes, her bedwetting began during Patsy's cancer ordeal. Many children revert to bedwetting during stressful times like that. It's not at all surprising JonBenet did.

It would be one thing if it was just the bed-wetting, but it wasn't. She wet herself during the day and was in the habit of asking any adult to help wipe her. This is not normal and indicates something was not right.

And it continued after Patsy's cancer was in remission. I could see it if it was going on while her mother was in treatment, but once the cancer has cleared and life is back to a normal routine, continuation of bed-wetting plus soiling during any time of the day is a sign that should not be ignored or casually explained away.

She was a six year old girl in pull-ups, for the love of god. Stop trying to act like that happens all the time and is not an indication that sexual abuse may be going on - especially when doctors find evidence of prior abuse in the autopsy and slides.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Just like the Ramseys thought she was a good friend and housekeeper until they decided they could throw her under the bus and accuse her of possibly being the killer. Just like they did with almost all of their friends.

The Ramseys had a lot more to gain from their accusations than LHP ever did...such as their very freedom.

So...You have a child who has been kidnapped for money. You have an employee who is in financial straits and has a key to your house and knows your plans for the holidays. But you never mention this employee to the police?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


So...You have a child who has been kidnapped for money. You have an employee who is in financial straits and has a key to your house and knows your plans for the holidays. But you never mention this employee to the police?

Why would she need to kidnap JonBenet for money? She had asked Patsy for a check, and Patsy said she would leave one for her.

And all their other friends...former employees...the Rs sent LE after everyone they could name while hiding behind attorneys and refusing to interview with police unless ridiculous terms were met, like letting them review their previous statements first. That's just insane, and that is not the way police investigations are run.

[docg]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


There has never been any report made public about the result of any testing showing John's shirt fibers were present on JonBenet's underwear or her genital area. Unlike the reports of everything else that was tested. Why withhold that one report, if it proved John's fibers were present? Because it doesn't exist.

Aside from police reports released as part of the initial set of warrants, NO reports have been made public on any of the evidence. Most of what we know comes from leaks and most of those leaks are from the Ramsey camp. Over the last several years, ALL the leaks -- and/or fabrications -- have come from the Ramsey camp.

We don't have a report concerning the Hi-Tec boot for example, we don't have a report listing all those whose DNA doesn't match, including John and Patsy, we don't have the report of the handwriting "experts" who ruled John out -- so why would you expect a report on his fibers? The BPD and the DA's office have clamped a lid on all leaks and that sort of thing has slowed to a trickle. It's the Ramseys who've arranged for most of the leaks for some time now and John's fiber match is NOT exactly something they'd want to leak. THAT's why we haven't heard about it.

[Eagle1]

Was someone threatening the R's for quite a while before the murder happened?

I ask, again, because lots of transcripts about meds have been posted various places, and this thread is the first time I learned that one of the meds is for ANXIETY. In one or two of the posted transcripts I was surprised to find they'd both been taking prescriptions BEFORE the murder. Tried several different kinds.
Then afterwards, PR was on zoloft, she said at one point, maybe changed to something else before long.

The question is why did they both have so much anxiety? Before the murder. It's got to be a valuable clue we haven't discovered yet and really need to know.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Why would she need to kidnap JonBenet for money? She had asked Patsy for a check, and Patsy said she would leave one for her.

And all their other friends...former employees...the Rs sent LE after everyone they could name while hiding behind attorneys and refusing to interview with police unless ridiculous terms were met, like letting them review their previous statements first. That's just insane, and that is not the way police investigations are run.

You didn't answer my question. You wouldn't mention this person to the police?

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


You didn't answer my question. You wouldn't mention this person to the police?

If you're asking about the housekeeper they did mention her to police. In fact, they made sure to work that into the coversation very early in the day.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Why would she need to kidnap JonBenet for money? She had asked Patsy for a check, and Patsy said she would leave one for her.

And all their other friends...former employees...the Rs sent LE after everyone they could name while hiding behind attorneys and refusing to interview with police unless ridiculous terms were met, like letting them review their previous statements first. That's just insane, and that is not the way police investigations are run.

They wouldn't kidnapp her for money, for the reason you've just stated. A Paughs did it theory simply makes no sense.

As for ridiculous terms and the way to run an investigation - this is actually how all investigations will be run in the future - if people have learned anything from the case. We are under no obligation to talk. Therefore we can make any demand we like of the police in exchange for our agreement to be interrogated.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Eagle1
Was someone threatening the R's for quite a while before the murder happened?

I ask, again, because lots of transcripts about meds have been posted various places, and this thread is the first time I learned that one of the meds is for ANXIETY. In one or two of the posted transcripts I was surprised to find they'd both been taking prescriptions BEFORE the murder. Tried several different kinds.
Then afterwards, PR was on zoloft, she said at one point, maybe changed to something else before long.

The question is why did they both have so much anxiety? Before the murder. It's got to be a valuable clue we haven't discovered yet and really need to know.

Patsy had stage IV ovarian cancer. It's the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women. Stage IV is the most advanced stage and means there is distant metastases...the cancer has spread to other parts of the body.

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women. In fact, it's what Patsy died from this summer. Ovarian cancer in the family is enough to give anyone great anxiety!

[Athena]

Originally posted by Mimi428


I certainly do not wish to appear crass in this question, but I fear it will look that way - were any of your loved ones murdered?

My personal experience is that doing as you have done - showing respect & love by dressing well for a funeral - pretty much goes straight out the window when the funeral is for a loved one who was murdered. Not to say the survivors show up in rags or dirty or mismatched clothes - but that the ability to think & make decisions in a rational manner is just about zip.

MOO & "been there, done that"

To answer your first question - yes! Two! :rose: For one of the funerals I actually had to go out to buy an outfit because I did not feel I had anything appropriate to wear.

Everyone grieves differently; people do things differently and everyone cannot be painted with a broad brush. Unfortunately even during times of grief decisions have to be made. jmo

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


You didn't answer my question. You wouldn't mention this person to the police?

Not in the manner the Ramseys did. I would not have acted the way they did at all - calling police and never mentioning the threat to my daughter's life if the kidnapper (who was supposedly monitoring the house) knew I called them, and I absolutely would not have called some five to seven friends over. Nor would I have allowed my other child to continue sleeping without asking him if he knew anything, and I absoultely would not have allowed him to leave the house without me or at the very least, a police escort.

It's like this: one by one the parts of the puzzle look a certain way, but when you put them all together and look at the picture as a whole, it takes on a completely different appearance.

Throwing your friends under the bus, in connection with disregarding the RN as real, in addition to fibers from the parents clothes on the body, in combination with contradicting stories from the parents, adding in the evidence of sexual abuse, lack of forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey in that house that night, etc etc, all points to Ramsey involvement far more than it indicates any intruder.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Athena


To answer your first question - yes! Two! :rose: For one of the funerals I actually had to go out to buy an outfit because I did not feel I had anything appropriate to wear.

Everyone grieves differently; people do things differently and everyone cannot be painted with a broad brush. Unfortunately even during times of grief decisions have to be made. jmo

I can not fault anyone for what they choose to wear to a loved ones funeral or how much thought they put into their clothes.

My Mother passed away unexpectedly from a ruptured aortic aneurysm several years ago. My two sisters and I dressed very carefully for her funeral...making sure we were coordinated and appropriate. We had NEVER done that before or since for any function.

Several years ago we were talking about why we did that. At the time we didn't realize it, but as we tlaked about it later, we came to the conclusion that putting so much thought in to what we wore helped take our minds off our grief for a short time. A sort of self-protection our brains did.

But, it was not because one of us killed her or we felt guilty in any way!

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


It would be one thing if it was just the bed-wetting, but it wasn't. She wet herself during the day and was in the habit of asking any adult to help wipe her. This is not normal and indicates something was not right.

And it continued after Patsy's cancer was in remission. I could see it if it was going on while her mother was in treatment, but once the cancer has cleared and life is back to a normal routine, continuation of bed-wetting plus soiling during any time of the day is a sign that should not be ignored or casually explained away.

She was a six year old girl in pull-ups, for the love of god. Stop trying to act like that happens all the time and is not an indication that sexual abuse may be going on - especially when doctors find evidence of prior abuse in the autopsy and slides.

Why are you taking my opinions so personally? I never said it happens all the time, or is never a sign of abuse. I said that "evidence they found" CAN be caused by other things and is not proof of prior sexual abuse.

Patsy was not cured of cancer. It was in remission after very aggresive treatment...two surgeries and 9 months of chemotherapy. Less than 20 percent of women diagnosed with stage IV ovarian cancer survive more than five years from diagnosis. They knew Patsy wasn't "cured".

In fact she died from a recurrance. That's how cured she was. Life is never back to "normal" when someone has stage IV ovarian cancer!

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by Eagle1
Was someone threatening the R's for quite a while before the murder happened?

I ask, again, because lots of transcripts about meds have been posted various places, and this thread is the first time I learned that one of the meds is for ANXIETY. In one or two of the posted transcripts I was surprised to find they'd both been taking prescriptions BEFORE the murder. Tried several different kinds.
Then afterwards, PR was on zoloft, she said at one point, maybe changed to something else before long.

The question is why did they both have so much anxiety? Before the murder. It's got to be a valuable clue we haven't discovered yet and really need to know.

Eagle -
Where are you getting the information they were on anxiety drugs before the murder?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Why are you taking my opinions so personally? I never said it happens all the time, or is never a sign of abuse. I said that "evidence they found" CAN be caused by other things and is not proof of prior sexual abuse.

Patsy was not cured of cancer. It was in remission after very aggresive treatment...two surgeries and 9 months of chemotherapy. Less than 20 percent of women diagnosed with stage IV ovarian cancer survive more than five years from diagnosis. They knew Patsy wasn't "cured".

In fact she died from a recurrance. That's how cured she was. Life is never back to "normal" when someone has stage IV ovarian cancer!

Please don't take my answers to things you say as personal. I don't mean to be personal to anyone, and it's not my intention to be rude or unpleasant at all. I really like debate, and it's kinda slow this morning - you're one of the only people saying anything.

I didn't say her cancer was "cured," I said it was cleared. That's what she says in DOI - that tests showed the cancer had cleared from her body and she was in remission.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Not in the manner the Ramseys did. I would not have acted the way they did at all - calling police and never mentioning the threat to my daughter's life if the kidnapper (who was supposedly monitoring the house) knew I called them, and I absolutely would not have called some five to seven friends over. Nor would I have allowed my other child to continue sleeping without asking him if he knew anything, and I absoultely would not have allowed him to leave the house without me or at the very least, a police escort.

It's like this: one by one the parts of the puzzle look a certain way, but when you put them all together and look at the picture as a whole, it takes on a completely different appearance.

Throwing your friends under the bus, in connection with disregarding the RN as real, in addition to fibers from the parents clothes on the body, in combination with contradicting stories from the parents, adding in the evidence of sexual abuse, lack of forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey in that house that night, etc etc, all points to Ramsey involvement far more than it indicates any intruder.

5 to 7 friends? They called 2 couples who were their closest friends. Hoverstock was later called (most likely) by Barb Fernie.

But your view that their naming people when asked by the police was wrong seems to be predicated on your belief in their guilt. Darnay Hoffman's premise in the Wolf suit.

[nuisanceposter]

The Whites brought along some houseguests. 2 couples, plus guests, plus reverand = 5 to 7 people.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The Whites brought along some houseguests. 2 couples, plus guests, plus reverand = 5 to 7 people.

That's interesting. I hadn't read that before. A quick look shows neither ST nor DOI mentioning friends. Do you have a source?

[harz]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


It was Lin Wood who said the bit about John leaving the country and that was before the charges were dropped.

Yes John & Patsy learned about Karr from the investigators who were tracking Karr in Thailand. Patsy died in June, Karr was arrested in August. Of course, John Ramsey knew it wasn't Karr who was in present when JB died. IMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Please don't take my answers to things you say as personal. I don't mean to be personal to anyone, and it's not my intention to be rude or unpleasant at all. I really like debate, and it's kinda slow this morning - you're one of the only people saying anything.

I didn't say her cancer was "cured," I said it was cleared. That's what she says in DOI - that tests showed the cancer had cleared from her body and she was in remission.

Ya, it was pretty slow here this morning. Guess we both kind of put words in each other mouths...or fingers. ;)

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The Whites brought along some houseguests. 2 couples, plus guests, plus reverand = 5 to 7 people.

I remember the Whites bringing the houseguests, but I can't remember if the Ramsey's knew they'd be coming or not. Have you seen that anywhere? I wouldn't want some one else's houseguests there if my daughter had just been kidnapped.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Just like the Ramseys thought she was a good friend and housekeeper until they decided they could throw her under the bus and accuse her of possibly being the killer. Just like they did with almost all of their friends.

The Ramseys had a lot more to gain from their accusations than LHP ever did...such as their very freedom. Good afternoon, Nuisance :)....I don't necessarily think the Ramseys were trying or wanting to throw anyone under a bus...I think once they began to realize that the murderer was probably an intruder with a key to their home...they knew it had to be someone very close to them...a friend, employee, etc....I think the thought horrified them! :seeya:

[harz]

Originally posted by Holly
Link, please, that allowed you to formulate such an opinion.

It it weren't so pitiful, it might be laughable.

Investigators did talked with Ramseys about getting close to arrest suspected Karr before Patsy died.

http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah1312.shtml
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/17/MNGR6KK6G11.DTL
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14399340/

I did stated my opinion that John Ramsey obviously knew Karr wasn't in present when & where JB died, because I believed JR already knew what excatly happened that night.

You could google up for more news on how the informations about suspected Karr got to the Ramseys by the investigators before Patsy died, or look into crime libarary. Even people with mild retard could do it, or understood my opinion already stated about JR, which you didn't, the question is, what does that makes you? Perhaps, it would be better for you get off my back as I would no longer minding yours.

MOO

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I remember the Whites bringing the houseguests, but I can't remember if the Ramsey's knew they'd be coming or not. Have you seen that anywhere? I wouldn't want some one else's houseguests there if my daughter had just been kidnapped.

I can't find reference to friends being brought in any of the books (PMPT, DOI, ST)

[WallyCleaver]

This is just a board where people share theories of the case. I don't see any basis for labeling any comment made here as libel. It's understood that everyting said is merely theory, and not fact.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Mimi428


You are not the only one who wants to know! I read two of the transcripts in which John & Patsy refer to being on different medications, but the Q&A's were ambiguous to the point that I could not tell how long either of them had been on any medication.

In the October '98 interview, John's answer to being on Paxil & Klonopin was not precise - he says something along the lines of "about 2 years" - which could indicate that he was prescribed that medication just after the murder. He does not give any specifics. More is the pity, imo.

Patsy indicates that she was taking Paxil & Ativan at the time of her 1997 interview (I think April). Again, I cannot ascertain the date she started taking those meds.

Paxil is an SSRI antidepressant. Both Ativan & Klonopin are anti-anxiety drugs.

I certainly hope John was NOT taking Paxil on the night of the 25th - for he IS on record as stating that on that night he took Melatonin (to sleep). That is NOT a good thing to take with an SSRI because of the risk of inducing seratonin syndrome.

I do not agree with the 'expert' (can't remember who it was) who remarked that taking an SSRI & an anti-anxiety drug would not affect polygraph responses. Since we do know that anxiety can affect polygraph results - it certainly stands to reason that drugs that are clearly meant to reduce or eliminate anxiety would affect the results.

JMO

Ohh - forgot to add - if anyone knows with certainty when either of the Ramsey parents were prescribed these meds - would you please post a link? I haven't found anything definitive. TIA

Mimi, in one of his BPD interviews, John states that he WAS taking Paxil, Klonopin, AND an occasional melatonin at the time of the murder, on December 25, 1996. I think, but am not positive, that it was the interview of April 30, 1997.

I've mentioned seratonin syndrome on this board, too. I don't think many people are familiar with it.

At another interview, either John or Patsy said she was not taking any medication at the time of the murder.

I think Patsy would have stayed with John even if he had killed JB. I think she would have been too afraid to go to the police on her own.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Holly
Link, please, that allowed you to formulate such an opinion.

It it weren't so pitiful, it might be laughable.

We don't all formulate opinions through one link and one link only. Most of us have formulated our opinions through the gathering and weighing of much information.

I think the TOS here state that as long as someone is not harassing another member, he or she can post his opinion, if it is labeled as such. Harz never harasses.

If a source is cited, it should be a source the poster feels is credible.

Harz's post was labeled as his opinion and I support his right to share it. No one has to adopt it as their own and harz is not asking anyone to nor is harz stating it as undisputed truth, only his opinion.

He is entitled to his opinion just as you are entitled to yours, and you should label yours JMO or MOO, etc. as harz did and I do and almost every other poster here does.

That's my interpretation of the TOS here.

I know I've always respected harz and found his posts interesting and insightful.

JMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Mimi, in one of his BPD interviews, John states that he WAS taking Paxil, Klonopin, AND an occasional melatonin at the time of the murder, on December 25, 1996. I think, but am not positive, that it was the interview of April 30, 1997.

I've mentioned seratonin syndrome on this board, too. I don't think many people are familiar with it.

At another interview, either John or Patsy said she was not taking any medication at the time of the murder.

I think Patsy would have stayed with John even if he had killed JB. I think she would have been too afraid to go to the police on her own.

JMO

I was on a board here devoted to the case of a woman who had had a psychotic break while on Paxil, committed murder, and had no memory of it afterward. I remember reading links at the time saying that Paxil, a miracle drug for some, has been taken off the market in some countries because of its unpredictable and sometimes tragic side effects.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


I was on a board here devoted to the case of a woman who had had a psychotic break while on Paxil, committed murder, and had no memory of it afterward. I remember reading links at the time saying that Paxil, a miracle drug for some, has been taken off the market in some countries because of its unpredictable and often tragic side effects.

I took it for about a month, MissOtis, 40 mg. at bedtime, to help with an anxiety problem I was having at the time. It didn't help the anxiety that much, but it made me sleep about eighteen hours a day! (Maybe that's how it helps with anxiety, just keeps the person asleep all the time.)

Anyway, I was also taking an anti-infammatory (Voltaren) because I broke my knee skiing a few years ago and early arthritis set in (ouch!). The combination of Paxil and Voltaren caused me to have uterine bleeding (scary!).

I decided to discontinue the Paxil and the uterine bleeding stopped the next day. However, the abrupt discontinuation cause me to have VERY strange and vivid dreams (not nightmares) when I could sleep, insomnia (had to take Ambien for that!) and severe depression like I've never known before. After about three weeks, I was back to normal, though, and just managed my anxiety through yoga and meditation.

I'd never advise anyone to take Paxil unless they absolutely needed it. My older brother took it and it made him feel like a zombie! He quit taking it as well and feels much better off it.

JMO

[harz]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


We don't all formulate opinions through one link and one link only. Most of us have formulated our opinions through the gathering and weighing of much information.

I think the TOS here state that as long as someone is not harassing another member, he or she can post his opinion, if it is labeled as such. Harz never harasses.

If a source is cited, it should be a source the poster feels is credible.

Harz's post was labeled as his opinion and I support his right to share it. No one has to adopt it as their own and harz is not asking anyone to nor is harz stating it as undisputed truth, only his opinion.

He is entitled to his opinion just as you are entitled to yours, and you should label yours JMO or MOO, etc. as harz did and I do and almost every other poster here does.

That's my interpretation of the TOS here.

I know I've always respected harz and found his posts interesting and insightful.

JMO

Thank you, and I learned alot from your posts too. You are one several posters here who made me realized alot of things about this case. I do appericate about you being here and sharing your knowledge with us. :)

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Mimi, in one of his BPD interviews, John states that he WAS taking Paxil, Klonopin, AND an occasional melatonin at the time of the murder, on December 25, 1996. I think, but am not positive, that it was the interview of April 30, 1997.

I've mentioned seratonin syndrome on this board, too. I don't think many people are familiar with it.

At another interview, either John or Patsy said she was not taking any medication at the time of the murder.

I think Patsy would have stayed with John even if he had killed JB. I think she would have been too afraid to go to the police on her own.

JMO
Didn't we go over this before Labor Day?

Interviewee: John Ramsey
Date of Interview: April 30, 1997
Interviewed At: Boulder District Attorney’s Office
[...]
JR: I took a Melatonin tablet because I wanted to get to sleep fast because we had to get up early, and I slept through the night.
TT: Now is that Melatonin an over the counter or prescription drug?
JR: Over the counter.
TT: That you are (inaudible). . . are you taking any other medications now?
JR: I have been on Paxel, and Quanopin, which are both prescription anti-depressants.
TT: Okay, and the second one is?
JR: Quanopin.
TT: OK. I’m not familiar with that one.
JR: It like, kind of like Adavan, I’m not an expert but . . .
TT: . . . Okay. How much Paxel where you taking?
JR: Uh, well one tablet a night, I don’t know how, but I can get the prescription from (inaudible) the size of it, whatever it is.
TT: Is it the same prescription that Patsy is on or. . .
JR: Basically, yeah, probably exactly the same thing.
TT: And the second medication, you take that once a night?
JR: Right.
TT: Right before bedtime?
JR: Yep.
TT: And second medication, how often to you take it?
JR: Uh, recommended is two to three tablets a day, and I tend to go from zero to just three. It’s uh, kind of depends on how you feel, it’s kind of a quick reacting.
TT: Okay. (inaudible) Let’s go back to the 25th, sorry about that.
[...]

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I can not fault anyone for what they choose to wear to a loved ones funeral or how much thought they put into their clothes.

My Mother passed away unexpectedly from a ruptured aortic aneurysm several years ago. My two sisters and I dressed very carefully for her funeral...making sure we were coordinated and appropriate. We had NEVER done that before or since for any function.

Several years ago we were talking about why we did that. At the time we didn't realize it, but as we tlaked about it later, we came to the conclusion that putting so much thought in to what we wore helped take our minds off our grief for a short time. A sort of self-protection our brains did.

But, it was not because one of us killed her or we felt guilty in any way!

Oh, that's terrible the way your mother died. I'm sorry. My mother died suddenly, too. I always thought I'd be hysterical and cry and cry and cry, but I didn't shed a tear. I was surprised. Nevertheless, I loved my mother dearly and I certainly didn't kill her! I was in a different country when she died, on a different continent.

In PM/PT, I read things where people say they saw Patsy or John acting this way or that and they "knew" at that moment, because of their demeanor, that they were guilty.

I just dismiss those assumptions. They are assumptions, not facts and we all make assumptions based on many different things. I think the only thing we can take into consideration when formulating a theory are facts. I know the police often look at demeanor, but we don't have Patsy or John in front of us to do so.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Didn't we go over this before Labor Day?


Snipped for bandwidth.

I have no idea if it was gone over or not.

I know I read he was taking other things before the murder, but I don't have time to look it up now. And, not all things printed are accurate.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Mimi428
Purely speculation here - but if the day should ever come that John was arrested for this murder - with a kick-butt DA & a good bunch of evidence, new handwriting exemplars were found of John's that matched the note, & other stuff like that...

Would John's defense be based solely on he didn't do it? Or would his attorneys turn on Patsy & try to put the blame on her, now that she is no longer alive?

My hunch is that if he was arrested & his attorneys found that the case included evidence against both he & Patsy - they would shift it on to her in an effort to defend him.

JMO

Mimi, if John were ever arrested (and I think that's highly unlikely even if the police believe him guilty), I don't think the GJ would ever return an indictment.

The strongest evidence against the Ramseys is the total lack of evidence of an intruder.

So far, "experts" have not ruled out Patsy as the writer of the note. Even if John were given a high likelihood of having written the note by a barrage of experts, I don't think there would be a winable case against him.

Let's just say John wrote the note, beyond any doubt. The problem then becomes, did he just participate in the staging and the coverup or did he kill JB? Or did Patsy do that? What to charge him with? An accomplice to murder? An accessory after the fact? Murder?

IMO, the Ramseys (one or both) are guilty, but also, IMO, there will never be any evidence that is allows for a prosecution of John. I believe this was even more true when Patsy was alive.

I don't believe any charges will ever be filed in this case.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by harz


Thank you, and I learned alot from your posts too. You are one several posters here who made me realized alot of things about this case. I do appericate about you being here and sharing your knowledge with us. :)

Kein problem, harz. (Ist deutsch Ihr Muttersprache?)

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Snipped for bandwidth.

I have no idea if it was gone over or not.

I know I read he was taking other things before the murder, but I don't have time to look it up now. And, not all things printed are accurate.

JMO

Another interview (1998). No drugs prior to murder.

6 INTERVIEW WITH JOHN RAMSEY
7
8 _________________________________________________
9
10
11 TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
12
13 VOLUME 1 OF 4
14 PAGES 1 - 246

19 JUNE 23RD, 1998


23 LOU SMIT: Were you under any other medication
24 at that time at all that you can think of
25 (INAUDIBLE)?
0121
1 JOHN RAMSEY: No. The only medication I took
2 from time to time was for allergies. I don't
3 recall. I don't think I was on any allergy
4 medication.
5 LOU SMIT: How about Patsy? Like Patsy, before
6 she went to bed would she ever take any medicine?
7 Would she have any medicine?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: She had some vitamins and things
9 like that that she took. I don't think that she
10 had any medical medicine.
11 LOU SMIT: No prescription drugs?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't believe so.
13 LOU SMIT: Not even for the cancer?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't think so. I think she
15 was pretty much off all medication once they got
16 into the natural vitamins and things like that.
17 She probably took those.

[Louisadelmar]

6 INTERVIEW WITH PATSY RAMSEY
7
8 _______________________________________________
9
10
11 TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
12
13 VOLUME 1 of 4
14 PAGES 1 - 140
15
16
17
18
19 JUNE 23, 1998
[…]
6 TOM HANEY: Okay. And are you
7 taking any medication?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.
9 TOM HANEY: And what are you
10 taking?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: I take 30 milligrams
12 of Prozac a day, and Ativan, half a milligram as
13 needed.
14 TOM HANEY: When is the last time
15 you took either/or both of these?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: I took 20 milligrams
17 of Prozac this morning and I will take ten this
18 evening. And I took Ativan, half a milligram of
19 Ativan.
[…]23 So actually, Barbara Fernie picked
24 me up one day from where we were staying and I
25 started having a panic attack, hyperventilating
0134
1 and all that stuff, and she was taking me to the
2 doctor at that time, I had a bronchial
3 infection, by the time I got to the doctor's
4 office I was in a full-blown panic attack, this
5 was in January or so.
6 TOM HANEY: In '97?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum. So the
8 physician in Boulder made a call to Rebecca
9 Barnes -- Barnhill -- Barnhill, Burkhardt,
10 Barnhill, Burkhardt.
11 VOICE: You still don't have it
12 right.
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Barkhorn, Rebecca
14 Barkhorn, there are so many Burkes and Barkes in
15 my life, Barkhorn, and I saw her that day. And
16 she put me on Paxil, an antidepressant, and
17 Ativan, anxiety kind of attack, and she
18 explained to me basically what was happening.
19 That I had been through this traumatic thing, it
20 was perfectly normal, and yes, this can be
21 managed by medication. So I saw her quite
22 regularly. Like every day for many days.
23 TOM HANEY: These panic attacks
24 that you mentioned, was that the first time that
25 you had suffered through one of those or had you
0135
1 had those prior?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I had had one one
3 other time, when I was in Boulder Community
4 Hospital in the cancer clinic. And it was about
5 midway through my chemo session, my nine-month
6 session, and I guess all of sudden it just kind
7 of came crashing in as to what was really
8 happening. And I started trembling and shaking.
9 The numbness in my lips.

[nuisanceposter]

They were apparently guests of the White's who had come to visit for Christmas from California - Cliff Gaston and Bill Cox. I'm not sure if both of them went along to the Ramsey house, but I believe at least one of them did.

Whether it was 5 or 7 people is really nothing compared to the fact that the ransom note says they have JonBenet, they're watching the house, and will cut her head off if the Ramseys call anybody - police, family, friends, if they talk to a stray dog, she dies - and the Ramseys went ahead and called all these people over anyway, as if they knew that there were no kidnappers watching the house, ready to decapitate their child.

Not only that, they send their other child out to go to a friend's house, knowing these kidnappers are watching, knowing they have JonBenet, knowing her life has been threatened. They didn't request a police escort or anything, they just let him go off as if there was no threat to JonBenet or to Burke himself.

Either they knew that ransom note was fake or they don't care if JonBenet's head is cut off or if Burke gets attacked as well.

[harz]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Kein problem, harz. (Ist deutsch Ihr Muttersprache?)

How you guess that? lol, my nic rite :) Its one of 3 language I have known, my mother family are Swedish.

About John Ramsey's possible to be charged with this crime, what kind of system would do it if Boulder, Colorado court can't or don't have enough to prosecute him? What about Federal trail or Surpeme court? I am not familar with all levels of America courts. Since John has attorneys in firm and alot money to squeak his way out through legal systems. IMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by harz


How you guess that? lol, my nic rite :) Its one of 3 language I have known, my mother family are Swedish.

About John Ramsey's possible to be charged with this crime, what kind of system would do it if Boulder, Colorado court can't or don't have enough to prosecute him? What about Federal trail or Surpeme court? I am not familar with all levels of America courts. Since John has attorneys in firm and alot money to squeak his way out through legal systems. IMO

Ja, es war Ihr Name, "harz." Ich lebe in der Schweiz im Winter. Ich liebe Alpine skiing and habe ich ein chalet in den Bergen. ;) Die Schweiz (und Deutschland und Oesterrich) sind sehr schoene Laender. Mein Ehemann ist franzoesisch. Frankreich is schoen, auch, besonders Provence. Ich spreche kein swedish! :O

Well, the GJ is Boulder did not return an indictment against JR or PR. However, I think if new evidence is uncovered, JR could once again be brought before the GJ. I'm not even sure about the requirement of new evidence. I'm not intimately familiar with all the requirements of the American courts, either.

I think most of the police force and the DA believe the Ramseys were responsible, but I don't think there is enough evidence for a conviction. I think any good defense attorney could cast reasonable doubt and that's all that's needed for an acquittal. Once acquitted, JR (or anyone else) could never be tried again.

JMO

Gute Woche! :)

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
This is just a board where people share theories of the case. I don't see any basis for labeling any comment made here as libel. It's understood that everyting said is merely theory, and not fact.

I hope not EVERYTHING! I have been relying on medical reports to be factual.

But your point is exactly correct, imo. All we need to do is look at the subtitle of this particular board, in which the moderator typed out...

Discussions on the Prime Suspects, Recent revelations, and Crime Scene Evidence Plus Speculations & Theories of the Case.

And as an interesting aside, the day John Ramsey filed to run for political office, he tossed away a whole lot of protections he had as a private citizen against slander & libel. Consider the vile things which were printed against Falwell claiming he had carnal knowledge of chickens! (not to mention his mother). It was ruled as permissible under the 1st amendment (satire). Compared to THAT, I have seen nothing said against the Ramsey parents which approaches that level. But I will say that IMNVHO, Lin Wood's talents would have been put to better use if Fleet & Priscilla White were his clients.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Mimi428


I hope not EVERYTHING! I have been relying on medical reports to be factual.

JMO

Snipped for bandwidth only.

I don't think we can even rely on those totally, Mimi. Even John Meyer said he's not sure about some of the injuries. :(

And, as it's been pointed out by other posters, people lie to the police, the police lie to the DA, etc. :(

JMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Oh, that's terrible the way your mother died. I'm sorry. My mother died suddenly, too. I always thought I'd be hysterical and cry and cry and cry, but I didn't shed a tear. I was surprised. Nevertheless, I loved my mother dearly and I certainly didn't kill her! I was in a different country when she died, on a different continent.

In PM/PT, I read things where people say they saw Patsy or John acting this way or that and they "knew" at that moment, because of their demeanor, that they were guilty.

I just dismiss those assumptions. They are assumptions, not facts and we all make assumptions based on many different things. I think the only thing we can take into consideration when formulating a theory are facts. I know the police often look at demeanor, but we don't have Patsy or John in front of us to do so.

JMO

I'm sorry to hear about your Mother, Sun! Losing a loved one suddenly can send a person into a from of shock. It was several months before I could cry about my Mother after she died. It was like my brain wouldn't let me start crying for fear I'd never stop.

You're so right. Assuming someone should act a certain way is wrong. We can only know how we act during a certain situation, not how someone else would act. And, we don't even know how we'd act in a situation until we lived through it.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Holly
Of course, links are not required by opinions.

However, because I consider the posters opinion as bizarre as any I have seen, I was curious as to how she came by it.

It is quite possible that she invented on her own without outside influence. I just wanted to know how she came to the conclusions that she did.

Of course, if her gut told her I will probe no further. We all know what is found in the gut.

What the heck was so bizzare about Harz's opinion?

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by victims feel
I strongly suggest you try bran in your cereal.

:D

[rosebud]

Originally posted by victims feel
I strongly suggest you try bran in your cereal.


I could suggest something she might need more than the bran. ;)

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I'm sorry to hear about your Mother, Sun! Losing a loved one suddenly can send a person into a from of shock. It was several months before I could cry about my Mother after she died. It was like my brain wouldn't let me start crying for fear I'd never stop.

You're so right. Assuming someone should act a certain way is wrong. We can only know how we act during a certain situation, not how someone else would act. And, we don't even know how we'd act in a situation until we lived through it.

Thanks, MyrDawn.

I try to look at just the facts and keep an open mind and be willing to change my mind as I learn more facts.

In PM/PT, I dislike it when someone writes that because John or Patsy "acted" a certain way, the observer "knew" "at that moment," that John or Patsy was guilty. Oh, hogwash!

I just read a section in which a reporter states that after an interview with the Ramseys he "knew" Patsy was guilty because she closed her eyes when she spoke of JB. That "knowing" is the height of stupidity to me, whether one believes the Ramseys to be guilty or innocent.

I know the police look at demeanor as well as the facts surrounding the case, but no one should be "declared" innocent or guilty because of demeanor alone. IMO, it's a very small part of the whole puzzle.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by victims feel
:) No at all Rose.....I think that not all of us are typers either and then we do not make the 5 minute edit rule either.....L thought I was being facetious and she had right to call me on it if I was...however I would have preferred to have been asked if I was first and nothing in any of my posts show that I am like that...L apologized, I accepted..all is restored again...

Hi VF.

I sometimes make spelling errors because my monitor is going bad. Getting all fuzzy. I have to get a new one. :( Hate that, but at least they aren't expensive any more. Good news for me, since mine don't seem to last very long.

[harz]

Sorry, I know my English isn’t perfect, as some of my relatives had reminded me about it many times, because I didn’t have enough English courses or the practices. Many times, I do felt difficulty at organization the sentences or phrases in English, but I tried as best as I can and takes amount of my time, with MS Word help sometimes. Although, I don’t have problem at reading English mostly, but I did thought the word pitiful or laughable were offensive in opinions toward me unless I misterstood. I wasn’t familiar about dyslexic, I have heard the word before but never had chance to look up for more information about it until now.

About my theory on this speculation thread, maybe I didn’t explained clearly enough. The idea about this speculation on John Ramsey was already tried by Karr or maybe the investigators too. I had imaged how John Ramsey felt when he was informed about investigators, who were tracking Karr in Thailand, found a possible suspect connection to JB’s death. How did John Ramsey react to it? Did the investigators notice his behavior? He still didn’t confessed or let his consciences spilled out if he thought Karr was a witness to what happened. Like maybe Karr was a peep tom, watched what John Ramsey did inside his house that night. John Ramsey might had thought about that, then felt the heat growing out of this ice cold case made him thinking about leaving the country. Unfortunately, Karr made mistakes, he should not have had told the reporters and video cameras that he was responsible of JB’s death. Plus things he said did not make sense to John Ramsey, therefore John Ramsey must had felt revive to learn Karr was just desuional but was probably disappointed that Karr cannot be taken advantage as scapegoat. If the same speculation was to put into work but in different way, Karr should not say anything, DA get to hold of him for a month, and then John Ramsey would be feeling antsier. After a month pass, police arrest John Ramsey base on witness and then question him until his confessions spill out. It’s possible that John Ramsey is so sociopath that he won’t confess forever to no matter what. I don’t know if someone will come up like Karr to put new speculation in similar concept like this into work and would be successful next time. Maybe Karr was trying to “flush” the killer out of the hole due to his obsessions about JonBenet.

Or another speculation possible, it may work if someone staged the same scene and leave the same copy of ransom note with the use of another daughter to very important person that would get secret services, FBI, homeland security, and all types of federal & state bureaucrat to get involve into investigating the Ramsey case. They would need to connect Ramsey’s case to the new one base on evidences. But of course I would prefer the supposedly kidnapper would not harm the daughter as the daughter agree in helping in another stage by getting this case solved.

MOO

[harz]

Originally posted by victims feel
Look at poor Trenton he is only getting 5,000 reward but his daddy is out doing car washes.....my hat off to him...but what about the other donors?

It is sad how we almost put a price tag on the worth of missing people..Yes the one for Laci /Coner is outrageous and should not be allowed...we know they are not going to be safely returned.

H, I did read that he took away the reward for Jon BOnet but do not know his reasons 'why'. I can ONLY speculate;)

I agree with you. Trenton dad doesn't have much money as I can understand that. I was just comparing between Laci and JonBenet rewards base on both family's wealths. I thought Ramseys were/are more wealthy than Laci and Peterson families combined. Also I compared how desperate Laci/Peterson families were/are to Ramseys families/relatives about their case. IMO

[harz]

Originally posted by Holly
The Boulder DA is unlikely to charge John Ramsey since a court has already ruled that the preponderance of evidence points to an intruder.

Due to our systems of States rights, a Federal case will not be made against Mr. Ramsey unless it can be shown that he violated JonBenet's civil rights. A court has already ruled that the evidence now to hand does not meet the burden that anyone other than an intruder is the culprit.

The Supreme Court of any state is an appellate court and only considers cases that have already been adjudicated in lower courts. One does not file a "virgin" case with an appellate court.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the court of last resort and will not accept a case unless it can be shown that lower appeals courts have made egregious errors in their handling of a given case. The case must also be of compelling legal signicance to the whole country. The SCotUS would probably consider the Ramsey case just another run-of-the-mill murder case.

In the Ramsey case, until there is a trial, no higher court can touch it.

The possibility of the Scott Peterson making it to the SCotUS is because many legal scholars deem that many procedural errors were made and that a number of laws enacted in CA may violate Constitutionally protected rights of citizens convicted under them.

That would be disappointing if this case doesn't get to be retried or reinvestigate. Because BPD made mistakes, I believe that should not be excuse to JB’s murder. I read a post made by someone here, don’t recall who, but stated that grand jury was incomplete when they tried on Ramseys. I thought if they failed to indict Ramseys base on incomplete evidences or the holes in this case, that the state or higher system would rebuild new one after accumulate it over Boulder’s system. The mystery of this case that hasn’t been solved for a decade really interests me. As I wonder how much longer will everybody going to forget JonBenet if her killer still never be caught? I do want this case solved once and for all. IMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by harz
Sorry, I know my English isn’t perfect, as some of my relatives had reminded me about it many times, because I didn’t have enough English courses or the practices. Many times, I do felt difficulty at organization the sentences or phrases in English, but I tried as best as I can and takes amount of my time, with MS Word help sometimes. Although, I don’t have problem at reading English mostly, but I did thought the word pitiful or laughable were offensive in opinions toward me unless I misterstood. I wasn’t familiar about dyslexic, I have heard the word before but never had chance to look up for more information about it until now.

MOO

Snipped for bandwidth.

To make it short, harz, dyslexia is an information processing disorder. People who suffer from it are often seen as poor learners in school because they have trouble with reading, handwriting, information processing, and sometimes memory and mathematics. A dyslexic person might write 851 as 158, for example, or good as doog. (That is greatly simplified.)

Dyslexic people are almost always of normal to above average intelligence, however, and they are very creative and have good problem-solving skills.

Early treatment of dyslexia can help greatly.

Like I said, this is GREATLY simplified, since this isn't a board about dyslexia. ;)

Your English is better than my husband's and he does just fine in the US. :)

JMO

Thank you for sharing your theory and views about the Ramsey case with us.

Sometimes it seems the more I learn about the case, the less I know! :(

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by treehouse


I took paxil.........oh dear.....The worst was quitting......I defied doctor's orders and quit cold turkey.....oy. The withdrawal is terrible! But, I lost some of the weight I gained while on the drug. Zombie? Yeah, I was. ( a fat one)

Yoga and meditation are wonderful. Unfortunately for some, it's not enough. I'm glad to hear it works for you. Cool!

I just quit it cold turkey, too, but then, I had to because it was causing internal bleeding in me. The withdrawal was terrible for three weeks. Unable to sleep more than a few hours a night (even with Ambien), vivid dreams, extreme depression during the day. I couldn't eat while I was taking Paxil, so I lost weight then. I didn't feel like a zombie, and either did my sister, but my older brother did. He quit cold turkey with no problems but some mild insomnia.

I would not recommend the drug!

JMO

[diplomat]

Originally posted by treehouse


There is no way to know how a person reacts to tragedy. I'm the kind of person who falls apart with a failed omelette. But I did not react to my beloved father's death. After about two years, I finally broke down and cried..........and cried. But it was private. No one really knows

LOL just ask some of the posters here, they will tell you exactly how one should react in a crisis. They have done just that many times re the Ramsey's.

[singlesix]

"First the verdict, then the trial. Off with their heads!"

IMNSHO

singlesix

P.S. - Does anybody realize how many MILLIONS of doses of anti-depressants are taken EVERY single DAY in the US of A? I didn't think so. IMHO

P.P.S. - edited to add: The quote is from Alice in Wonderland. Anybody here real familiar with the place? ;)

[bullmoose]

I would be shocked if the number of people in the USA taking antidepressants is much less than15 or 20 million people on daily doses. As for Alice, wasn't she eating mushrooms, psycoactive mushrooms? bullmoose

[nutmeg22]

HI..I just got home...why did we get on the subject of antidepressants?

[rosebud]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
It was called Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong.

I think it's pretty obvious from JonBenet's pageant videos alone that there was some issue with sexual boundaries in Patsy's house.

Kit Andre, JB's dance instructor, saw videos of JonBenet's pageant performances and was surprised by the sexualized behavior, saying she hadn't taught JonBenet to act like that. I have to wonder who did.

And why did JonBenet have such serious toileting issues? Why was her hymeneal opening eroded and enlarged? It appears as though she had been molested prior to the night she died.

np, so you do think that John was sexually abusing JB for long stretches of time before her death?

[Devotion]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


If you do indeed have dyslexia I apologize. I am not a stranger to dyslexia. I have seen very few errors in your posts and I wanted to know if you were one of those who think name calling (Ratsy, Fatsy, Pastey, and deLOUsional Smit to name a few I have seen over the years) is an appropriate part of a discussion.
:shrug: IMO: It seems some people are here not to think, but to correct everyone's english and spelling. What a waste of time and space...jmo

[harz]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Snipped for bandwidth.

Sometimes it seems the more I learn about the case, the less I know! :(

Thanks for info about dyslexia btw.

I know how you feel. The more I think about this case, the more I considerate on the parallels between John Ramsey and Scott Peterson. Most people did suspect SP is guilty before the verdict, while there were handfuls of opposed opinions. But this case is more mystifying than SP’s. But I tried to look at both cases in simple way as I have strong vibes about JR. The parallels examples like, interviewed with several media, placed themselves at the murder scene, avoiding the police as not helping them with the case, staged the scene, no emotions, or spoken in the past tense about the victims. I will review some more on SP’s case to find some more similarities. JMO

Is that true, BPD or DA have not release the full lab reports, listing all evidences with each details, and each photographs to the public? Since I see some of them, why not release them all in spite of this case getting colder?

[harz]

Originally posted by rosebud


np, so you do think that John was sexually abusing JB for long stretches of time before her death?

It would be strongest murder motive, even if it was short stretches of time. IMO I am no expert about medical or physical details.

[Athena]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I know they are under no obligation to make the test results public. But, I find it strange they made all the others public.

It's never been proven that John's shirt fibers were present in any available report, so saying they were present is making a statement based on thin air, IMO.

But Myr -- the fibers changed from blue to black. The police said so during their interrogation of John. :rolleyes:

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by harz


Thanks for info about dyslexia btw.

I know how you feel. The more I think about this case, the more I considerate on the parallels between John Ramsey and Scott Peterson. Most people did suspect SP is guilty before the verdict, while there were handfuls of opposed opinions. But this case is more mystifying than SP’s. But I tried to look at both cases in simple way as I have strong vibes about JR. The parallels examples like, interviewed with several media, placed themselves at the murder scene, avoiding the police as not helping them with the case, staged the scene, no emotions, or spoken in the past tense about the victims. I will review some more on SP’s case to find some more similarities. JMO

Is that true, BPD or DA have not release the full lab reports, listing all evidences with each details, and each photographs to the public? Since I see some of them, why not release them all in spite of this case getting colder?

I don't know if everything has been released, harz. I would guess it hasn't, but IIRC, Mary Lacy said there is nothing new out there. I don't really trust Mary Lacy, though.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

According to many sources, the Ramsey GJ did not vote to indict or NOT to indict. And, it did not write a report. Therefore, the secrecy rule remains in effect:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_738315,00.html

So, if they didn't vote NOT to indict, while the Ramseys were not indicted by the GJ, they were not "cleared," either.

(But really, a GJ can't clear anyone. A trial jury does that.)

JMO

[diplomat]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I don't know if everything has been released, harz. I would guess it hasn't, but IIRC, Mary Lacy said there is nothing new out there. I don't really trust Mary Lacy, though.

JMO

OH really, why is that?

[rosebud]

Originally posted by harz


It would be strongest murder motive, even if it was short stretches of time. IMO I am no expert about medical or physical details.

It would be a powerful motive. I am working on the belief that there was no intruder and that Patsy and John collaborated on what went into the note and on the staging.

I think John knew they had to take the body outside the house, but I think Patsy would not let him do it.

Under that scenario I believe I have to assume that the evidence of molestation was evidence of real molestation. John had no reason to fake that. Since the note already committed him to a ransom by an "insider," there was no reason to fake molestation.

But that leaves a problem for me: if John killed her while molesting her, I find it very hard to believe that Patsy would have defended him. But she fully participated in the charade until her death. Why?

[diplomat]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


If you're asking about the housekeeper they did mention her to police. In fact, they made sure to work that into the coversation very early in the day.

And with good reason. She was familiar with the house and had a key. And her husband and son had access to the house and had been in every corner of it so if one is going with the theory that the house was so big and odd that one had to be familiar with it to find the basement room where JB was found dead, then here is a lead. It would have been odd not to mention the housekeeper and her husband and son. I don't know why posters are allowed to keep posting that the Ramsey's were asked who do you think killed your daughter when in actuality they were asked who has keys to your house.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by diplomat


And with good reason. She was familiar with the house and had a key. And her husband and son had access to the house and had been in every corner of it so if one is going with the theory that the house was so big and odd that one had to be familiar with it to find the basement room where JB was found dead, then here is a lead. It would have been odd not to mention the housekeeper and her husband and son. I don't know why posters are allowed to keep posting that the Ramsey's were asked who do you think killed your daughter when in actuality they were asked who has keys to your house.

After the body was found in the basement, John Ramsey told Linda Arndt that it had to be an "inside job" because no one would have known about the wine cellar in the basement. Whether this was volunteered or solicited is not clear. Chapter 1, PM/PT

Also there was a former friend and co-worker of John Ramsey's who had definitely left his firm on very bad terms with him and had according to one director of the company had said he intended to "get John Ramsey." By the strangest of coincidences this guy claimed that they owed him "close to $118,000." He later settled for about half that amount. Chapter 5, PM/PT

[rosebud]

Originally posted by diplomat


And with good reason. She was familiar with the house and had a key. And her husband and son had access to the house and had been in every corner of it so if one is going with the theory that the house was so big and odd that one had to be familiar with it to find the basement room where JB was found dead, then here is a lead. It would have been odd not to mention the housekeeper and her husband and son. I don't know why posters are allowed to keep posting that the Ramsey's were asked who do you think killed your daughter when in actuality they were asked who has keys to your house.

The Ramseys also told police that Linda Hoffman Pugh and her husband were short of money had needed an advance to pay their rent.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by diplomat


And with good reason. She was familiar with the house and had a key. And her husband and son had access to the house and had been in every corner of it so if one is going with the theory that the house was so big and odd that one had to be familiar with it to find the basement room where JB was found dead, then here is a lead. It would have been odd not to mention the housekeeper and her husband and son. I don't know why posters are allowed to keep posting that the Ramsey's were asked who do you think killed your daughter when in actuality they were asked who has keys to your house. Excellent post, diplomat....I would like to know if the housekeeper's son was checked out thoroughly by LE?

[harz]

Originally posted by rosebud

(Snipped)

But that leaves a problem for me: if John killed her while molesting her, I find it very hard to believe that Patsy would have defended him. But she fully participated in the charade until her death. Why?

I am not sure if Patsy knew about John's molesting or killed JB. Maybe Patsy slept thru the night while John had been busy staging the scene.

If Patsy was involved in cover up with John, then John might had staged JB's death to make it look like an accident to Patsy at first to kept Patsy unknown of John's molesting JB. Then they had to agree somehow to stage the scene further to make it look like someone else killed and raped JB.

Maybe John blow JB's head at first, then Patsy came in picture where strangled came in second. Then I would expect John talked Patsy into agreement about using the broke paintbrush to poke in JB's vagina to make it looked like JB was sexual assaulted by some pedophile in order to damage the evidence of John's molesting JB without Patsy's knowledge. JMO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by harz


I am not sure if Patsy knew about John's molesting or killed JB. Maybe Patsy slept thru the night while John had been busy staging the scene.

If Patsy was involved in cover up with John, then John might had staged JB's death to make it look like an accident to Patsy at first to kept Patsy unknown of John's molesting JB. Then they had to agree somehow to stage the scene further to make it look like someone else killed and raped JB.

Maybe John blow JB's head at first, then Patsy came in picture where strangled came in second. Then I would expect John talked Patsy into agreement about using the broke paintbrush to poke in JB's vagina to make it looked like JB was sexual assaulted by some pedophile in order to damage the evidence of John's molesting JB without Patsy's knowledge. JMO Good evening, Harz...I am not trying to be rude...but do you all realize just how farfetched some of these theories are...come on...no sane parents are going to use a broken paintbrush on their daughter's dead body..think about it.....I don't for a second believe that Patsy would have tried to protect John in any way if he had harmed their daughter, either accidentally or on purpose....and it is hard for me to believe that John was smart enough to do these horrible things to her body if he was molesting her...he could have killed her and made it look like an accident....none of these other things make any sense! jmho :seeya:

[harz]

Originally posted by victims feel
O/T sorta...it is this reason and others which is why I find it so pathetic when people make fun of others....We donot all have the same first language or syntaxes, some have learning disabilties, some have reading comprehension disabilties , some have crippled hands...etc.,.WHO CARES...

as Albert Eistein says...those caught up in the process of things do so because they lack the intelligence to process the content:D


do not let any posters bully you about your English H.


Indeed, I am here trying to figure out about this case, hoping to see it solve soon. Since the killer hasn't been caught that he stuck in the pipe, toilet flush doesn't work. I thought maybe plunger would help. Picture me plunging the toilet trying to get the killer out, then someone come in bathroom talking to me about my English language. lol :biggrin:

[jocefious]

ok, here's what happened. the ramseys were up late probably fighting. john pissed off patsy then went to sleep. remember,she had the same clothes on. patsy stayed awake all night.she was stressed out.going on about her schedule, she goes to get jb up.she has wet the bed again. patsy is already angry.she goes nuts. wet bed,lost all control,knocked jb in the head with flashlight.tortures jb with flashlight in genital area.too late,she comes back and thinks,omg!gets husband up.he takes care of it for her.he loves her. he can't call police on her.he takes it from there.patsy ramsey was evil.if not for john she would have been caught.:flamemad: jocefeious

[harz]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, Harz...I am not trying to be rude...but do you all realize just how farfetched some of these theories are...come on...no sane parents are going to use a broken paintbrush on their daughter's dead body..think about it.....I don't for a second believe that Patsy would have tried to protect John in any way if he had harmed their daughter, either accidentally or on purpose....and it is hard for me to believe that John was smart enough to do these horrible things to her body if he was molesting her...he could have killed her and made it look like an accident....none of these other things make any sense! jmho :seeya:

It just one of speculation or theory that may help to answer Rosebud's question.

They might didn't happen or they really did, I don't know for sure. I did thought like you believing Ramseys would never do that, and they are not that kind of people. At first, when I read this case, I thought Ramseys were gulity, then changed my mind to not gulity, then back to believing they are gulity again. I might change my mind again sooner or later, who knows. Murder indeed never make sense even if it include who involved & staging or not. Who knows you would agree with this theory sometime in future :) Thats alright for you to disagree with my theory and you are not being rude. I am also here to brainstorming with you guys. :)

MOO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by harz


It just one of speculation or theory that may help to answer Rosebud's question.

They might didn't happen or they really did, I don't know for sure. I did thought like you believing Ramseys would never do that, and they are not that kind of people. At first, when I read this case, I thought Ramseys were gulity, then changed my mind to not gulity, then back to believing they are gulity again. I might change my mind again sooner or later, who knows. Murder indeed never make sense even if it include who involved & staging or not. Who knows you would agree with this theory sometime in future :) Thats alright for you to disagree with my theory and you are not being rude. I am also here to brainstorming with you guys. :)

MOO Harz, I agree with you...murder doesn't make sense...and especially one like this......I would like to pose a ? to you and to others that believe now that the Ramseys are involved...if you were to absolve them of guilt....who would be your suspect? I am firmly thinking it was an intruder...who knew the family quite well...and one that had a key...:seeya:

[diplomat]

Originally posted by rosebud


After the body was found in the basement, John Ramsey told Linda Arndt that it had to be an "inside job" because no one would have known about the wine cellar in the basement. Whether this was volunteered or solicited is not clear. Chapter 1, PM/PT

Also there was a former friend and co-worker of John Ramsey's who had definitely left his firm on very bad terms with him and had according to one director of the company had said he intended to "get John Ramsey." By the strangest of coincidences this guy claimed that they owed him "close to $118,000." He later settled for about half that amount. Chapter 5, PM/PT

True, the former employee at Access Graphics went so far as to make the claim that he would bring John Ramsey to his knees. Was this employee cleared by way of DNA or an alibi and where does he live now, if you have that info. Thanks in advance.

[diplomat]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Excellent post, diplomat....I would like to know if the housekeeper's son was checked out thoroughly by LE?

I would like to know that also, and if there is a link to viable info re the husband and son in relation to that night and their whereabouts.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by jocefious
ok, here's what happened. the ramseys were up late probably fighting. john pissed off patsy then went to sleep. remember,she had the same clothes on. patsy stayed awake all night.she was stressed out.going on about her schedule, she goes to get jb up.she has wet the bed again. patsy is already angry.she goes nuts. wet bed,lost all control,knocked jb in the head with flashlight.tortures jb with flashlight in genital area.too late,she comes back and thinks,omg!gets husband up.he takes care of it for her.he loves her. he can't call police on her.he takes it from there.patsy ramsey was evil.if not for john she would have been caught.:flamemad: jocefeious There is no way that a woman who survived Stage IV ovarian cancer is going to get upset over a bedwetting incident! That would have been the least of Patsy's worries.....I just don't buy it, jocefeious! :confused:

[harz]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Harz, I agree with you...murder doesn't make sense...and especially one like this......I would like to pose a ? to you and to others that believe now that the Ramseys are involved...if you were to absolve them of guilt....who would be your suspect? I am firmly thinking it was an intruder...who knew the family quite well...and one that had a key...:seeya:

Well thats a tough question for me right now. Many things seemly pointing to just Ramseys. If I were to absolve them from gulit, I would need the list with all information of every individuals who had the key to Ramsey house. I don't know much about other people who are part in this case than Ramseys right now.

Someone mentioned about housekeeper, her husband, & son because of two gentlemen watching over JB in note. Could it be them? Were all 3 of them together alone using each other as alibis during that night? Why would one of them write the note like that, then 2 others had been mischief quietly around the house, staging the scene, pokin JB with paintbrush and killed her? The one who wrote the note went in panic, leaving the house with other two, forgeting the note? What did the police said about them? I don't know about them enough to make determination base on what happen that night. Do you have all info about them including pictures too?

If thats case to absolve Ramseys from gulit, then housekeeper, her husband, & son would be my first suspects for time being. I would need to know otherwise to exclude them as suspects. I also thought Fleet might be involved with John Ramsey in conspiracy of JB's murder, so thats hardly absolve Ramseys as the suspects. What about you? Who excatly do you have in mind, and why? Believe me, I am interest :)

MOO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by harz


I am not sure if Patsy knew about John's molesting or killed JB. Maybe Patsy slept thru the night while John had been busy staging the scene.

If Patsy was involved in cover up with John, then John might had staged JB's death to make it look like an accident to Patsy at first to kept Patsy unknown of John's molesting JB. Then they had to agree somehow to stage the scene further to make it look like someone else killed and raped JB.

Maybe John blow JB's head at first, then Patsy came in picture where strangled came in second. Then I would expect John talked Patsy into agreement about using the broke paintbrush to poke in JB's vagina to make it looked like JB was sexual assaulted by some pedophile in order to damage the evidence of John's molesting JB without Patsy's knowledge. JMO


Well maybe John did it and fooled Patsy until the day she died. I think Patsy wrote the ransom note and it is hard to explain away the fibers that appear to have been from her clothes on the tape and the garotte. Maybe John was covering up his previous molestation. Maybe John was assuming the body would not be found in the house, and he would get a chance to do something with it later, but that would seem unrealistic on his part.

Can we imagine John in Patsy's blouse doing all this and disguising his handwriting to make it look like hers in the ransom note? ....hmmmmm, NAH. Not me anyway.

Doesn't it seem likely that the molestation somehow led directly to the death?

[rosebud]

Originally posted by diplomat


True, the former employee at Access Graphics went so far as to make the claim that he would bring John Ramsey to his knees. Was this employee cleared by way of DNA or an alibi and where does he live now, if you have that info. Thanks in advance.

This guy told the police what he did on Christmas day, and said he was home with his wife that night by 8 PM and spent the night there until he went to work the next morning on the 26 Dec. She backed him up. He was asked to and refused to take a polygraph test. The book says he remained a suspect.

To me, reading that the guy wanted nearly 118,000 dollars when he was forced out of the company is just was another indication that when John put that amount in the ransom note that he wanted the police to suspect it was an "inside" job or that it was someone who knew John. The book says they were friends at one time, and had worked with John years before at AT&T and with him at John's company from 1993, so I assume he had been in the Ramsey house. He left the company and Ramsey's friendship in April of that year, 1996. In fact, assuming this guy did not have a key to the Ramsey home, John may have broken the basement window to put suspicion on him.

Again there is no physical evidence to me that an outside intruder committed the crime. I still think it was shrewd of John to try and cast suspicion on someone who he knew had been in his house. He might get lucky with a fingerprint or some random DNA. It was worth a shot.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Harz, I agree with you...murder doesn't make sense...and especially one like this......I would like to pose a ? to you and to others that believe now that the Ramseys are involved...if you were to absolve them of guilt....who would be your suspect? I am firmly thinking it was an intruder...who knew the family quite well...and one that had a key...:seeya:


The more I think about it there is one scenario that does fit most of the pieces. The person I suspect the most is one that apparently I could get sued for if I state as such. So like Lord Voldemort that person will remain unmentionable.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, Harz...I am not trying to be rude...but do you all realize just how farfetched some of these theories are...come on...no sane parents are going to use a broken paintbrush on their daughter's dead body..think about it.....I don't for a second believe that Patsy would have tried to protect John in any way if he had harmed their daughter, either accidentally or on purpose....and it is hard for me to believe that John was smart enough to do these horrible things to her body if he was molesting her...he could have killed her and made it look like an accident....none of these other things make any sense! jmho :seeya:


I am not trying to be rude either, but I am trying to address the facts as they are. JB was dead and there was no evidence of an intruder. She was molested that night and she was dead. Pretending that everyone in the house was such a good upstanding "Christian" person and that NO ONE was capable of doing it doesn't get it. Someone in that house was very capable of doing it, and not only that, he/she/they DID IT.

[boscorelli]

From the get-go of the tragic case Dec. 1996 to the present,I have always maintained that the Ramseys killed their daughter Jon Benet.

The only person now who shed some light on this case is;their son Burke,who is now 20???
Money talks and speaks loud and clear. Burke may be in fear of his life;or more in love with being the sole heir to a fortune after his father dies.
I personally don't think Burke had anything to do with his sister's murder;but does any knowledge.

Now that John Mark Karr,has been cleared of the murder,John Ramsey remain # ONE Suspect.How he can go on with his life,with this always 'shadowing him',is beyond me.

Boscorelli

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by rosebud



I am not trying to be rude either, but I am trying to address the facts as they are. JB was dead and there was no evidence of an intruder. She was molested that night and she was dead. Pretending that everyone in the house was such a good upstanding "Christian" person and that NO ONE was capable of doing it doesn't get it. Someone in that house was very capable of doing it, and not only that, he/she/they DID IT.

Rosebud, what other evidence makes you so positive that it was one of the Ramseys, other than there was no evidence you see of an intruder. I mean, what particular things point to any of the Ramseys in particular as the guilty party/parties?

[Eagle1]

Oh no, I knew someone would ask for a source, and there were so many transcripts excerpts posted, who could remember?

I'm sorry, it's somewhere in this forum, a rather long thread.

Naturally I thought of Patsy's cancer, but do other cancer patients still take anxiety drugs when they've survived the used-to-be-normal 5-yrs ?

I'm thinking, since there was so much bungling all around, not just in the BPD but the school teacher and nurse and adults at the party where the 911 call was attempted by someone,
that evidently it was the custom in the whole town to lie low and not stick your neck out about anything that was going on.

JonBenet evidently couldn't get any of the adults at the party, even her parents, to pay any attention, before McSanta's wife found her sitting on a stairway crying.

Early on, we heard of pagans having ceremonies in the hills and of an INTERNATIONAL ring of pedophiles getting busted in Boulder. But with that police dept., does it stand to reason that they would have gotten all of them? I don't think so.

I think the town people knew which side their bread was buttered on, about SOMETHING. And the R's either thought they would be okay because they went along with it or their meds lulled them too much, or maybe both.

In the original version of the movie Stepford Wives, which I think came out in the 1970's, the men all had to go along with the killing of their wives and replacement by look-alike robots, or they would not be allowed by the "Mens' Association" to make a living in the town. They must not have been allowed to move either, or there were chapters everywhere. Come to think of it, was JonBenet being replaced by dolls? I think there's a thread about that, and American Girl (?) dolls having a permanent string around the neck for some reason which I didn't get. Pam or the other Paugh sister was allowed to take the dolls out of the house.

[lucky13]

Too many things point to the Ramseys guilt IMO. Starting with them calling not only 911, but also other people -and NOT even mentioning the very serious threats to JB's LIFE if they did so. I would be extremely paranoid about calling anyone if my child being BEHEADED could result from those actions. She didn't even mention that all important fact to the 911 operator. ("If you send someone over, please do it very discretely- they are watching us & have threatened to kill our baby if we called anyone! So please be careful to not be seen if possible, or tell us what we should do!") WHY was she not concerned with this? And why wouldn't you search every single nook & cranny of your house to look for ANYthing that might relate to the situation? And why wouldn't you be immediately paranoid about your sleeping son on another level of the house? I could write 20 pages of reasons that point me to their overwhelming guilt. MOO.

[diplomat]

Originally posted by lucky13
Too many things point to the Ramseys guilt IMO. Starting with them calling not only 911, but also other people -and NOT even mentioning the very serious threats to JB's LIFE if they did so. I would be extremely paranoid about calling anyone if my child being BEHEADED could result from those actions. She didn't even mention that all important fact to the 911 operator. ("If you send someone over, please do it very discretely- they are watching us & have threatened to kill our baby if we called anyone! So please be careful to not be seen if possible, or tell us what we should do!") WHY was she not concerned with this? And why wouldn't you search every single nook & cranny of your house to look for ANYthing that might relate to the situation? And why wouldn't you be immediately paranoid about your sleeping son on another level of the house? I could write 20 pages of reasons that point me to their overwhelming guilt. MOO.

Just think what the people, who think the Ramsey's guilty, would be posting today if they had not called 911.

[diplomat]

Originally posted by rosebud


This guy told the police what he did on Christmas day, and said he was home with his wife that night by 8 PM and spent the night there until he went to work the next morning on the 26 Dec. She backed him up. He was asked to and refused to take a polygraph test. The book says he remained a suspect.

To me, reading that the guy wanted nearly 118,000 dollars when he was forced out of the company is just was another indication that when John put that amount in the ransom note that he wanted the police to suspect it was an "inside" job or that it was someone who knew John. The book says they were friends at one time, and had worked with John years before at AT&T and with him at John's company from 1993, so I assume he had been in the Ramsey house. He left the company and Ramsey's friendship in April of that year, 1996. In fact, assuming this guy did not have a key to the Ramsey home, John may have broken the basement window to put suspicion on him.

Again there is no physical evidence to me that an outside intruder committed the crime. I still think it was shrewd of John to try and cast suspicion on someone who he knew had been in his house. He might get lucky with a fingerprint or some random DNA. It was worth a shot.

So the irate employee from Access Graphics who wanted to bring John Ramsey to his knees has not been cleared and is still a suspect. When you say "the book says," which book is that?

[diplomat]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, Harz...I am not trying to be rude...but do you all realize just how farfetched some of these theories are...come on...no sane parents are going to use a broken paintbrush on their daughter's dead body..think about it.....I don't for a second believe that Patsy would have tried to protect John in any way if he had harmed their daughter, either accidentally or on purpose....and it is hard for me to believe that John was smart enough to do these horrible things to her body if he was molesting her...he could have killed her and made it look like an accident....none of these other things make any sense! jmho :seeya:

Sitting here shaking my head at the bizarre theories posted.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by victims feel
good thoughts Rose....

If John killed her while molesting her......I do not think PR knew that part and if she is upstairs doing her part she would not see John do anything including inserting paint brush......to mislead...

she had to particpate until death ..maybe knowing she was sick and more than likely would die .. she thought that punishment enough? Or she would not be around long enough to endure a trial?

Maybe I missed something somewhere but I have done a lot of reading on the case (possibly too much!) and nowhere have I read anything about a paintbrush being used in a sexual way. Can someone please provide me with a link to this? Thanks!

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by harz


Well thats a tough question for me right now. Many things seemly pointing to just Ramseys. If I were to absolve them from gulit, I would need the list with all information of every individuals who had the key to Ramsey house. I don't know much about other people who are part in this case than Ramseys right now.

Someone mentioned about housekeeper, her husband, & son because of two gentlemen watching over JB in note. Could it be them? Were all 3 of them together alone using each other as alibis during that night? Why would one of them write the note like that, then 2 others had been mischief quietly around the house, staging the scene, pokin JB with paintbrush and killed her? The one who wrote the note went in panic, leaving the house with other two, forgeting the note? What did the police said about them? I don't know about them enough to make determination base on what happen that night. Do you have all info about them including pictures too?

If thats case to absolve Ramseys from gulit, then housekeeper, her husband, & son would be my first suspects for time being. I would need to know otherwise to exclude them as suspects. I also thought Fleet might be involved with John Ramsey in conspiracy of JB's murder, so thats hardly absolve Ramseys as the suspects. What about you? Who excatly do you have in mind, and why? Believe me, I am interest :)

MOO I don't have one specific suspect...but, we must remember there are still a lot of suspects out there other than the Ramseys.....I find the (Prophet) guy really interesting....he had an obcession with Barbie dolls....even wrote an essay titled (the Barbie Doll, the Ultimate .... (the word here would get me banned) During his college days he was even allowed to put a mobile of naked barbies in a diner he frequented...where is he today? A former FBI profiler John Douglas (yes, he was employed by the Ramseys to profile JB's killer) Described men who love to torture barbie dolls...then there is Aquinas....the schizophrenic guy....where is he today? There are so many I wish that LE could find and check them out more thoroughly..I firmly believe it was an intruder....one with some knowledge of the home....one with a little religious background...perverted....avid movie watcher...possibly had a key or a family member had a key to the house...jmho

[harz]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I don't have one specific suspect...but, we must remember there are still a lot of suspects out there other than the Ramseys.....I find the (Prophet) guy really interesting....he had an obcession with Barbie dolls....even wrote an essay titled (the Barbie Doll, the Ultimate .... (the word here would get me banned) During his college days he was even allowed to put a mobile of naked barbies in a diner he frequented...where is he today? A former FBI profiler John Douglas (yes, he was employed by the Ramseys to profile JB's killer) Described men who love to torture barbie dolls...then there is Aquinas....the schizophrenic guy....where is he today? There are so many I wish that LE could find and check them out more thoroughly..I firmly believe it was an intruder....one with some knowledge of the home....one with a little religious background...perverted....avid movie watcher...possibly had a key or a family member had a key to the house...jmho

Interesting, I did not know about him. Is FBI looking for him? I think its worth to find him, I am sure he can be track since he was employed by John. Have he been questioned by BPD? How can BPD & FBI stall like that as being ticklish so long without doing something about it? IMO

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Maybe I missed something somewhere but I have done a lot of reading on the case (possibly too much!) and nowhere have I read anything about a paintbrush being used in a sexual way. Can someone please provide me with a link to this? Thanks!

An artifact from it was found in her vagina at the time of autopsy.

I will look for the specific reference to it & get back with you ASAP.

[Mimi428]

TWW - here is the reference in the autopsy report about the foreign material...

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. the smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contain epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

[rosebud]

Originally posted by diplomat


So the irate employee from Access Graphics who wanted to bring John Ramsey to his knees has not been cleared and is still a suspect. When you say "the book says," which book is that?

Perfect Murder/Perfect Town

[thewhitewitch1]

Thanks, Mimi!

[rosebud]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Rosebud, what other evidence makes you so positive that it was one of the Ramseys, other than there was no evidence you see of an intruder. I mean, what particular things point to any of the Ramseys in particular as the guilty party/parties?


Myr Dawn, no evidence of an intruder for me means a 100% certainly that someone in the house is responsible. I am also sure that Patsy wrote the ransom note. I realize that many disagree with that. I am not attempting to force that opinion on anyone else. I do not think that is proof that Patsy killed JB, though.

The body was in the house and was in a place that appeared to be an attempt to hide it. This when an intruder could easily have removed the body, live or not, from the house. The body was in a room with only one door and no windows and where an intruder could have trapped himself. No intruder would go in that room.

There is no CREDIBLE foreign DNA left at the crime scene or on JB's body. Since there was either real or staged sexual molestation of her that night, it is impossible for me to believe that a random pedophile in the act of sex would not leave copious amounts of his DNA. If it was a pedophile there would be plenty of his DNA left behind instead of none.

One of the three people in the house killed JB and staged the scene to divert suspicion to one of two or even several people who knew the Ramseys and had been in the house. I think that was very shrewd because the stager apparently realized that lack of foreign DNA would be a problem for him or her.

I will say also that even though the immediate reaction of the parents was overwhelming devastation and profound grief and deep mourning, some of their actions immediately afterwards would tend to indicate an evasion of and fear of speaking to the police. I am not one who thinks the parents were sociopathic monsters who did not love JB. They did love her, very much. However there is no reason why grief cannot be mixed with self-preservation also.

JMO

[nuisanceposter]

One of the biggest problems for me when it comes to thinking someone other than the Ramseys did it is their contradicting stories, and their convenient amnesia, and the way they hid behind lawyers and hindered police investigation.

Why would they lie and change stories when it's in their best interest to and not cooperate like they did if an intruder was actually responsible for this crime?

On top of that there's the fiber evidence. Fibers chemically and microsopically consistent with the clothing both John and Patsy were wearing that evening were found in the crime scene and on the body.

And then there's just NO evidence of an intruder going in or coming out, or having been inside at all. No hair, no fibers, no prints. Just the antiquated DNA that Lacy herself said may have nothing to do with this murder.

There's the ransom note that Patsy can't be excluded from - the same note that the Rs completely disregarded, even though it says the kidnappers are watching and will cut JonBenet's head off if they call anyone - so they call 5 to 7 people over and then send Burke off, not knowing where the kidnapper is or if he'll grab Burke too.

Then there's the dead tipline and website and the defunct JonBenet Ramsey Foundation.

[diplomat]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I don't have one specific suspect...but, we must remember there are still a lot of suspects out there other than the Ramseys.....I find the (Prophet) guy really interesting....he had an obcession with Barbie dolls....even wrote an essay titled (the Barbie Doll, the Ultimate .... (the word here would get me banned) During his college days he was even allowed to put a mobile of naked barbies in a diner he frequented...where is he today? A former FBI profiler John Douglas (yes, he was employed by the Ramseys to profile JB's killer) Described men who love to torture barbie dolls...then there is Aquinas....the schizophrenic guy....where is he today? There are so many I wish that LE could find and check them out more thoroughly..I firmly believe it was an intruder....one with some knowledge of the home....one with a little religious background...perverted....avid movie watcher...possibly had a key or a family member had a key to the house...jmho

It is overwhelming how many suspects there are that were not cleared. Any idea why they weren't investigated and cleared, at least to eliminate and shorten the list.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by diplomat


It is overwhelming how many suspects there are that were not cleared. Any idea why they weren't investigated and cleared, at least to eliminate and shorten the list.

According to KHOW's Peter Boyles, in five years Boulder police tracked down:

4,800 letters
5,300 phone tips
6,300 interviews and
140 possible suspects

Unfortunately the evidence kept bringing them right back to Ramseys again and again.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by diplomat


It is overwhelming how many suspects there are that were not cleared. Any idea why they weren't investigated and cleared, at least to eliminate and shorten the list.


That is not surprising. If a homocide detective ever visits your house for a murder of an acquaintance you might have had some argument with recently, and they "appear" to be satisfied and they seem to "believe" your story and your alibi.....well, just keep in mind that there is only ONE alibi that the police believe absolutely 100%.....

....and that is if you are a documented inmate at a correctional facility. That is the fact, Jack. So if your neighbor comes up murdered, just hope you are in a drunk tank somewhere if you don't want them to suspect you, at least a little. :D

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by harz


Interesting, I did not know about him. Is FBI looking for him? I think its worth to find him, I am sure he can be track since he was employed by John. Have he been questioned by BPD? How can BPD & FBI stall like that as being ticklish so long without doing something about it? IMO Harz, I didn't mean the prophet was an employee of Johns.....the former FBI profiler was hired by John.....I don't think BPD did ever get to ? this guy...I think he left the state or something...but they didn't look all that hard at some of these suspects either imho!!!

[diplomat]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


According to KHOW's Peter Boyles, in five years Boulder police tracked down:

4,800 letters
5,300 phone tips
6,300 interviews and
140 possible suspects

Unfortunately the evidence kept bringing them right back to Ramseys again and again.

And the BPD cleared how many of these suspects. John Andrew and his sister and the White's? So that leaves 136 suspects. No wonder the case hasn't been solved. I'm surprised no one has yet suggested that JB killed herself. Harz, you have a strong imagination, what do you think about that theory?

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by diplomat


It is overwhelming how many suspects there are that were not cleared. Any idea why they weren't investigated and cleared, at least to eliminate and shorten the list. There are still many suspects other than the Ramseys that have never been clearer...imo they focused in too much time on Patsy and didn't investigate this case properly from the beginning...a lot of these suspects have left Colorado and some still haven't been found to ? Sorry if my post wasn't clear above...I meant that John and Patsy had privately hired a former FBI profiler to give them a profile of JB's killer..one of the things he said was...it could be someone that enjoys torturing barbie dolls!!! I didn't mean the prophet guy was the FBI was the profiler...I don't proofread my posts...so I make a lot of errors! :seeya: