The Ramseys 1996 Christmas Letter & their morning coffee [Archive]

breezy1234

08-22-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
The Ramsey party was Dec. 23.

It's really hard to believe Karr hung around Boulder for almost FOUR DAYS and not a single person has come forward & said they saw him.

A hotel? A McDonald's? A taxi driver? A bus driver? Nobody?

Really? Where did you hear the evidence of what they have or don't have about who saw him or not? Do you really think they have to come on TV to tell us about it and if they don't it means it didn't happen? :rolleyes:

ava

08-22-2006, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
The Ramsey party was Dec. 23.

It's really hard to believe Karr hung around Boulder for almost FOUR DAYS and not a single person has come forward & said they saw him.

A hotel? A McDonald's? A taxi driver? A bus driver? Nobody?

I think he probably looks alot different now than he did then-no one may recognize him from 10 years ago

LI_Mom

08-22-2006, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Really? Where did you hear the evidence of what they have or don't have about who saw him or not? Do you really think they have to come on TV to tell us about it and if they don't it means it didn't happen? :rolleyes:

No, Breezy, I think we just have to hear from all his former classmates & ex-wives & friends & doctors & internet cafe users & people he emailed & people he spoke to on the telephone.... all the "real" witnesses have brilliantly evaded the news media.

LI_Mom

08-22-2006, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by ava

I think he probably looks alot different now than he did then-no one may recognize him from 10 years ago

It's possible but when you think of how often "America's Most Wanted" gets tips about suspects from some pretty old cases.... you have to wonder why a man who is now very well known all around the world is not recognized.

SillyMe

08-22-2006, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

It's possible but when you think of how often "America's Most Wanted" gets tips about suspects from some pretty old cases.... you have to wonder why a man who is now very well known all around the world is not recognized.

Not true, if someone is ordinary and does not draw attention why would you take notice of them at all? I know when I walk into a party I dont notice the quiet, withdrawn people who are antisocial first.

Slicky

08-22-2006, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
The Ramsey party was Dec. 23.

It's really hard to believe Karr hung around Boulder for almost FOUR DAYS and not a single person has come forward & said they saw him.

A hotel? A McDonald's? A taxi driver? A bus driver? Nobody?

I don't know about that. Unless he said or did something to cause himself to stand out in a crowd I wouldn't remember him. That was ten years ago anyway! Please!

LI_Mom

08-22-2006, 11:06 PM

I know the average person might not remember but Boulder has a population of over 4 million people... it's highly likely that SOMEONE would remember seeing him.

It's the Christmas season & people are more likely to speak to a stranger & wish them a happy holiday & ask them if they are visiting from out of town.

Slicky

08-22-2006, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I know the average person might not remember but Boulder has a population of over 4 million people... it's highly likely that SOMEONE would remember seeing him.

It's the Christmas season & people are more likely to speak to a stranger & wish them a happy holiday & ask them if they are visiting from out of town.

You're reaching. 4 mil people is the very reason that someone would be less likely to remember him. From what I can tell he, at that time, had an unremarkable appearance. He'd be lost in a sea of faces unless, like I said, he did something to cause himself to stand out.

merical

08-23-2006, 12:39 AM

I think this is what bothers me the most. The fact that somebody decided to publish the autopsy report and now the world (media) thinks that they have every bit of pertinent information. I don't buy it. There is always information that LE doesn't make public, stuff that usually isn't leaked and I honestly believe that if this guy winds up charged with the crime, then it will be something having to do with that.

LordMisRule

08-23-2006, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by merical
I think this is what bothers me the most. The fact that somebody decided to publish the autopsy report and now the world (media) thinks that they have every bit of pertinent information. I don't buy it. There is always information that LE doesn't make public, stuff that usually isn't leaked and I honestly believe that if this guy winds up charged with the crime, then it will be something having to do with that.

Yes! I don't know how many times we've been shocked on the courttv web board in regards to information presented in court when following a case through trial, even though we've discussed it ad nauseum before trial. I remember a couple things with the Laci Peterson case that came out during trial that we hadn't heard, and that whole case was always a news media headliner.

LexieRae

08-23-2006, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Victoria
Patsy Ramsey must have taken lots of photographs and video of the Christmas party they gave that year. Where are they? Why not talk to all those who were invited?

Karr father and wife has no photos of Christmas with three small boys? Who believes this?

Karr will say he did this all as a "sacrifice" to the memory of JonBenet to bring it back in the world's memory.

Patsy & John's Christmas party was on 12/23. There were 31 people there. They gave the BPD a list of everyone that was there. I am sure they were talked to. In my opinion, Karr was never at the party. John Ramsey said he does not know him.
However, the Christmas of 1994, they allowed the historical society to include their house in a Christmas tour and over 2000 people toured their home. On Karr's resume, it says he was interested in Victorian style homes.

Slicky

08-23-2006, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by LexieRae

Patsy & John's Christmas party was on 12/23. There were 31 people there. They gave the BPD a list of everyone that was there. I am sure they were talked to. In my opinion, Karr was never at the party. John Ramsey said he does not know him.
However, the Christmas of 1994, they allowed the historical society to include their house in a Christmas tour and over 2000 people toured their home. On Karr's resume, it says he was interested in Victorian style homes.

Very good angle Lexie! You might be on to something there. :beer:

jewel6

08-23-2006, 08:38 AM

where was karr the xmas of 2004?:confused: very good observation.

jewel6

08-23-2006, 08:40 AM

sorry i meant 1994.:punch:

MyrDawn

08-23-2006, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

It's possible but when you think of how often "America's Most Wanted" gets tips about suspects from some pretty old cases.... you have to wonder why a man who is now very well known all around the world is not recognized.

Just a wild crazy guess, but don't you think it's possible he wore a disguise back then, considering the reason he would have been there?

rrsafety

08-23-2006, 08:54 AM

MyrDawn

08-23-2006, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by rrsafety

I don't believe the Ramsey's home was a Victorian.

Right. It's a Tudor style house.

http://www.realtor.com/FindHome/HomeListing.asp?snum=15&locallnk=yes&frm=bymap&mnbed=5&mnbath=0&mnprice=1500000&mxprice=99999999&js=off&pgnum=2&fid=so&stype=&mnsqft=&mls=xmls&areaid=10779&poe=realtor&ct=Boulder&st=CO&sbint=&vtsort=&sorttype=&typ=1&x=68&y=14&sid=071F85AECEF8C&snumxlid=1060757747&lnksrc=00002

Paisley

08-23-2006, 10:12 AM

Paisley

08-23-2006, 10:14 AM

Slicky

08-23-2006, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by rrsafety

I don't believe the Ramsey's home was a Victorian.

Like that would matter to him. If he were in Boulder at the time and the home was open to public tours don't you think he'd jump on the chance to get in?

awareness

08-23-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Slicky

Like that would matter to him. If he were in Boulder at the time and the home was open to public tours don't you think he'd jump on the chance to get in?

depends on how interested he was and what the tour included. If your love "victorian" homes and this tour only included say a few of those, Im not sure Id take it myself. Just IMO.

Im curious how the ex didnt remember he was gone for days... cause that's what this all seems to be implying.

sunsplashed

08-23-2006, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Victoria
Patsy Ramsey must have taken lots of photographs and video of the Christmas party they gave that year. Where are they? Why not talk to all those who were invited?

Karr father and wife has no photos of Christmas with three small boys? Who believes this?

Karr will say he did this all as a "sacrifice" to the memory of JonBenet to bring it back in the world's memory.

Karr's father has photos of Karr's sons, just none of them include Karr. At least, that's the last I heard.

I don't find that odd. I hate being photographed, myself and so do my brothers and sister. Lots of people do. While there are a LOT of photos of children in our family on holidays and at other times, there are few of the adults.

I find Karr odd, just not the fact that he doesn't appear in the Christmas photos. Doesn't mean he was or wasn't there, of course, just that it's not been proven he was in Georgia.

JMO

murdershewrote

08-23-2006, 06:05 PM

Huh.....Boulder...4 million people...not even close

Boulder is a community of about 100,000 people including a student population at the University of Colorado of about 25,000. It located 25 miles northwest of Denver on US 36. Boulder is nestled in a valley at the foot of the Rocky Mountains and is known for its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The climate is dry and mild, with more than 300 days of sunshine each year; occasional winter snowstorms benefit the world-class ski resorts just a short distance away.

aproudmom

08-29-2006, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Not Telling
How do you know LE hasn't spoken to the guests that attended the party and they just aren't speaking about it? How do you know LE doesn't have pics and/or video from the party?

All I have to say is Steve T. the lead Det. He is the reason no one was ever looked at unless by someone else and if they found reason to believe the Ramsey's then Steve T. refussed to hear them..
read his Dep. that he gave in 2001..he is nothing but a liar.
So I am sure he never even wanted to see pictures or video because then he might have to say he was wrong and Patsy was not guilty of smashing her duaghters head againt the tub...plz.....

read all his lies and cover ups here

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

ghewitt21901

08-29-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by SillyMe

Not true, if someone is ordinary and does not draw attention why would you take notice of them at all? I know when I walk into a party I dont notice the quiet, withdrawn people who are antisocial first.

Sorry, but this guy looks and acts a little OFF, someone would have noticed him.

Barney

08-29-2006, 12:55 PM

Question, the Christmas Party on the 23d, it could be possible that someone may have wandered into the room where the Ramsey's note paper was, stole some sheets of it, and took it home wrote the ransom note at his or her leisure, and stole back into the house the night of the murder. Until this new suspect came up, I was always wondering how someone would be able to take so much time to write a note, but maybe that note was prewritten, why not ask everyone who attended that party to volunteer for DNA?

2L82run

08-29-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Barney
Question, the Christmas Party on the 23d, it could be possible that someone may have wandered into the room where the Ramsey's note paper was, stole some sheets of it, and took it home wrote the ransom note at his or her leisure, and stole back into the house the night of the murder. Until this new suspect came up, I was always wondering how someone would be able to take so much time to write a note, but maybe that note was prewritten, why not ask everyone who attended that party to volunteer for DNA?

Also found in the house was the pad of paper that the ransom note came from and on that pad was another sheet of paper that had a practice ransom note on it. This means that if someone took the pad prior to the day of the murder he would have had to bring the whole thing back, rip the three-page rasom note from it and place it on the stairs, and put the pad in a drawer. :shrug:

Mojo Bumpkin

08-29-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
The Ramsey party was Dec. 23.

It's really hard to believe Karr hung around Boulder for almost FOUR DAYS and not a single person has come forward & said they saw him.

A hotel? A McDonald's? A taxi driver? A bus driver? Nobody?

To be honest...I can't even recall the faces of people I ran into 2 weeks ago, let alone 10 years ago. It's ridiculous to think a reasonable number of people can remember him...JMHO.

LI_Mom

08-29-2006, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by ghewitt21901

Sorry, but this guy looks and acts a little OFF, someone would have noticed him.

And we have to believe someone would travel halfway across the country to kidnap a child and not care if a house full of people saw him there.

And not worry about leaving any prints or forensic evidence in the house. Why take that risk?

If the killer was at the party, it wasn't a stranger, imo.

Mojo Bumpkin

08-29-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

What? You mean you don't remember every stranger you saw ten years ago? What is wrong with you? ROFL......

I musta had me drinking goggles on back then..... :cool:

Mojo Bumpkin

08-29-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Or it may be that you are must normal (like most of the rest of us.) :D

Nah...you don't say! ;)

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 09:22 PM

I've read several posts wanting to know if anyone could find a copy of the Ramseys 1996 Christmas letter.

I found it quite by accident while I was searching for something else, so thought I'd share it with the posters looking for it.

Here's the link:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/1996christmasnewsletter.htm

jerzeegirl

08-31-2006, 09:24 PM

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by jerzeegirl

thanks sun, i was one of them looking for it.

You're welcome. I found it by accident while searching for the link about what JB was wearing at the White's party.

jerzeegirl

08-31-2006, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

You're welcome. I found it by accident while searching for the link about what JB was wearing at the White's party.

well if you havent found that, its in patsys 4/97 interview.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by jerzeegirl

well if you havent found that, its in patsys 4/97 interview.

Okay, thanks!

I noticed in the Christmas letter, Patsy used a LOT of exclamation points. Then, so do I.

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I noticed in the Christmas letter, Patsy used a LOT of exclamation points. Then, so do I.

Me too! lol

There was some talk about why Patsy wrote: 'friends' with quotes.

One final note ... thank you to all my 'friends' and my dear husband for surprising me with

It just occurred to me, you'd think after writing so much personal stuff to 'friends' and family, that she'd sign it "The Ramseys" and not use their names.

sunsplashed

08-31-2006, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Me too! lol

There was some talk about why Patsy wrote: 'friends' with quotes.

One final note ... thank you to all my 'friends' and my dear husband for surprising me with

It just occurred to me, you'd think after writing so much personal stuff to 'friends' and family, that she'd sign it "The Ramseys" and not use their names.

That seems odd to me, too. And IIRC, nowhere in the note is the name "JonBenet" used. That seems to me like the person is avoiding using the name.

JMO

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

That seems odd to me, too. And IIRC, nowhere in the note is the name "JonBenet" used. That seems to me like the person is avoiding using the name.

JMO

"JonBenet is enjoying her first year in 'real school.' Kindergarten in the Core Knowledge program is fast paced and five full days a week. She has already been moved ahead to first grade math. She continues to enjoy participating in talent and modeling pageants. She was named "America's Royale Tiny Miss" last summer and is Colorado's Little Miss Christmas. Her teacher says she is so outgoing that she will never have trouble delivering an oral book report!"

Added: LOL we posted at the same time. I was just kind of fascinated to see how Patsy "avoided" using her name "That little blonde child who lives with us?" "Whatshername?" "One of John's still living daughters who is under 21?"

Kind of disappointed when I saw Jonbenet...

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

That seems odd to me, too. And IIRC, nowhere in the note is the name "JonBenet" used. That seems to me like the person is avoiding using the name.

JMO

She did include a paragraph on JB.

JonBenet is enjoying her first year in 'real school.' Kindergarten in the Core Knowledge program is fast paced and five full days a week. She has already been moved ahead to first grade math. She continues to enjoy participating in talent and modeling pageants. She was named "America's Royale Tiny Miss" last summer and is Colorado's Little Miss Christmas. Her teacher says she is so outgoing that she will never have trouble delivering an oral book report!

I don't know, 4 names doesn't seem like that much. Did the older kids live there or just visit?

But no, I don't think it's a BIG deal. It just struck me as a tad unusual.

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Rippage
About exclamation points and the ransom note: I totally over use exclamation points. I've toned it down a bit, cause I was doing it after every dang sentence! (there I go, lol)

I read a diagnosis of the ransom note which stated that the writer was a southern female person. One of the referrences used to make this point: The writer uses the word "gentlemen" to refer to some men. Well, law enforcement regularly use this word, even when referring to serial killers or child molesters. Many northern (non le) men use this term as well. I am a female, originally from the south and I NEVER use the word "gentleman" ever. Just thought I'd mention that. I found that diagnostic referrence peculiar.

ok, If I'm on the wrong thread, tell me and I'll delete this.

Don't delete it!

It drives me absolutely NUTS when I hear people call serial killers & other creeps "gentleman."

Don't they know the definition of the word? LOL

angelskye

08-31-2006, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

That seems odd to me, too. And IIRC, nowhere in the note is the name "JonBenet" used. That seems to me like the person is avoiding using the name.

JMO

We've sent you the same link THREE times now in the same amount of hours and yet you continued to post MISinformation.

Now you post MISinformation from your OWN link. :rolleyes:

"JonBenet is enjoying her first year in 'real school'. Kindergarten in the Core Knowledge program is fast paced and five full days a week. She has already been moved ahead to first grade math. She continues to enjoy participating in talent and modeling pageants. She was named "America's Royale Tiny Miss" last summer and is Colorado's Little Miss Christmas. Her teacher says she is so outgoing that she will never have trouble delivering an oral book report!"

It sounds as though Patsy was VERY proud of JonBenet, as has been the testimony of everyone who knew her.

EDDIEisMINE

08-31-2006, 10:04 PM

I sign Our names to aquaintances that aren't really that close as our last name only, but, to family and friends I sign all of our names. It is more personal.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Added: LOL we posted at the same time. I was just kind of fascinated to see how Patsy "avoided" using her name "That little blonde child who lives with us?" "Whatshername?" "One of John's still living daughters who is under 21?"

Kind of disappointed when I saw Jonbenet...

lolol ;)

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

[...]

I don't know, 4 names doesn't seem like that much. Did the older kids live there or just visit?

But no, I don't think it's a BIG deal. It just struck me as a tad unusual.

I think either signature is fine. I tend to avoid the whole issue by just signing "All of us". I figure they can work out who we are from the return address.

LI_Mom

08-31-2006, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

I think either signature is fine. I tend to avoid the whole issue by just signing "All of us". I figure they can work out who we are from the return address.

As long as you don't forget the return address, it's fine. lol

I guess writing, like everything else, has become more casual these days.

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 10:19 PM

Holly

08-31-2006, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Me too! lol

There was some talk about why Patsy wrote: 'friends' with quotes.

One final note ... thank you to all my 'friends' and my dear husband for surprising me with

It just occurred to me, you'd think after writing so much personal stuff to 'friends' and family, that she'd sign it "The Ramseys" and not use their names. You're weird.:shrug:

All of the Christmas letters I receive are signed with the first names of all the family members.

Holly

08-31-2006, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

That seems odd to me, too. And IIRC, nowhere in the note is the name "JonBenet" used. That seems to me like the person is avoiding using the name.

JMO
:confused:
Try rereading the link and pay VERY close attention to the beginning of the 4th paragraph.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!
:shrug:

Buy 'em books and send 'em to school and all they do is eat the books.

Holly

08-31-2006, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Don't delete it!

It drives me absolutely NUTS when I hear people call serial killers & other creeps "gentleman."

Don't they know the definition of the word? LOL Ever heard of PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE?

Just because you believe that any and every accused person is guilty doesn't mean that everyone else in the world does.

Louisadelmar

08-31-2006, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by thannahh
Dear "friends" and gentlemen:

I was so happy to hear how great your children were doing in school. It's wonderful that your child is doing so well in baseball. That's great. Well, my kids are just doing okay in school. One can barely read, and the other gets by. But our school gets more money if more children need reading lab. So that's a good thing.

My son joined the baseball team, but he sits on the bench most of the time. When they all get home, they fight for the X- box. But's that's okay, we bought them each a one so that the fighting would stop. We also bought them each a computer so that they would quit fighting over that also. (we need our peace so that we can play around on the computer too) Funny, no one wants the remote any more, much less the book. What's wrong with these kids these days? You know, my moma blamed it on rock-n-roll in my day. But I really think it's the rap music. Yea, that's it. Or maybe it's them N.O. people that moved into our neighborhood after Katrina.

Well, things could be worse. My child could be picking his nose like the post above me.

The _______'s!

Love it!!

Holly

08-31-2006, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by ~Leslie~
Oh Christmas letters ...

A concept I've never been able to comprehend ...

WTF kind of person thinks it's acceptable to TORTURE friends and family with a platitudinous pile of pretentious crap just because another year is ending? Seriously ..I'd rather read JUNK MAIL and then use it to inflict a thousand paper cuts all over my freakin' tongue then suffer through one of those GD CHRISTMAS LETTERS ...

Oh sorry .. where were we?

Ok ..I'm done. Thanks be to Providence. Will you resign from this board now?

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Ever heard of PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE?

Just because you believe that any and every accused person is guilty doesn't mean that everyone else in the world does.

:beer: How did you do that? btw... thanks... WTH is the presumtion of innocence here????

Always better to err on the side of innocense. In ther past, I've seen outrage at "rush to judgement" by police .. but not here.
And this was a clear case of it!

Did the Ramsey's have too much money or something?

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 11:18 PM

Holly

08-31-2006, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

:beer: How did you do that? btw... thanks... WTH is the presumtion of innocence here????

Always better to err on the side of innocense. In ther past, I've seen outrage at "rush to judgement" by police .. but not here.
And this was a clear case of it!

Did the Ramsey's have too much money or something? How did I do what?

The poster to whom I was responding is bugged when she hears accused but not convicted males referred to as "gentlemen."

I don't know what her problem is. In a court of law, His Honor, will invariable will referred to the accused as "Mr." It is a rule of good manners that is even required of the prosecuting attorney.

In spite of what many posters and Nancy Grace believe, no one may legally pronounce an accused burden "Guilty" until the jury has done so.

Holly

08-31-2006, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

:lol: Unfortunately they dont have a clue!!! Self absorbed!!! I love getting Christmas updates.

It means I don't have to carry on year long boring correspondences.

DixieChick

08-31-2006, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Holly
How did I do what?

The poster to whom I was responding is bugged when she hears accused but not convicted males referred to as "gentlemen."

I don't know what her problem is. In a court of law, His Honor, will invariable will referred to the accused as "Mr." It is a rule of good manners that is even required of the prosecuting attorney.

In spite of what many posters and Nancy Grace believe, no one may legally pronounce an accused burden "Guilty" until the jury has done so.

I was referring to the large letters in red... I'll try it again....

hohum

08-31-2006, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

You're welcome. I found it by accident while searching for the link about what JB was wearing at the White's party.

She was wearing a red shirt. :lol:

samsong

08-31-2006, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

<<That seems odd to me, too. And IIRC, nowhere in the note is the name "JonBenet" used. That seems to me like the person is avoiding using the name.

JMO>>

It should have read "ransom note." Nowhere in the ransom note is the name, JonBenet used.

Of couse, it's used in the Christmas letter.

There is a difference between "the ransom note" and "the Christmas letter or Christmas message."

If I jumped on every tiny typing error someone made, I have more than 20,000 posts by now. And no, I don't mean "over," I mean "more than."

JMO

I knew what you meant and it does seem strange.

hohum

08-31-2006, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Holly
I love getting Christmas updates.

It means I don't have to carry on year long boring correspondences.

LOL, one boring letter a year is enough. My favorite was when someone put glitter in the letter and it fell out all over my kitchen floor. :lol:

jerzeegirl

08-31-2006, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Holly

:confused:
Try rereading the link and pay VERY close attention to the beginning of the 4th paragraph.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!
:shrug:

Buy 'em books and send 'em to school and all they do is eat the books.

That seems odd to me, too. And IIRC, nowhere in the note is the name "JonBenet" used. That seems to me like the person is avoiding using the name.

JMO

she meant the ransom note

jenniann

08-31-2006, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by jerzeegirl

well i dont think anyone here is saying that patsy is a murderer because she sends out xmas letters. Nor is she a murderer cuz her daughter was in pageants. The list could go on and on.

we were just stating how funny those letters are when people send em, and the funniest thing is, dont they all know, that people laugh about them?

My thoughts exactly!! Don't people who send out these things know that we really don't give a cr@p what their kid has done for a year. Why should we care what the hubby has done in whatever he does to earn a living? What impact does this have on my life?

Maybe it's just me but I've always had trouble understanding why anyone would be arrogant enough to assume someone else would be really interested in what my kids, hubby and I have done for the last year.

I just send a holiday card expressing that I still think of them. Maybe it's just me but I don't assume acquaintances are holding their breath until they get a mass produced letter from me detailing how wonderful my life is.
JMO

hohum

08-31-2006, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by jerzeegirl

That seems odd to me, too. And IIRC, nowhere in the note is the name "JonBenet" used. That seems to me like the person is avoiding using the name.

JMO

she meant the ransom note

The killer probably could not spell JonBenet.

LadyFisher

08-31-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Rippage
About exclamation points and the ransom note: I totally over use exclamation points. I've toned it down a bit, cause I was doing it after every dang sentence! (there I go, lol)

I read a diagnosis of the ransom note which stated that the writer was a southern female person. One of the referrences used to make this point: The writer uses the word "gentlemen" to refer to some men. Well, law enforcement regularly use this word, even when referring to serial killers or child molesters. Many northern (non le) men use this term as well. I am a female, originally from the south and I NEVER use the word "gentleman" ever. Just thought I'd mention that. I found that diagnostic referrence peculiar.

ok, If I'm on the wrong thread, tell me and I'll delete this. Maybe the writer was a southern gentleman who wanted to have a sex change operation! :shrug: Who knows!!!

msgatorslayer

08-31-2006, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by hohum

The killer probably could not spell JonBenet.

Or, if a stranger, wanting to keep JBR as an 'object' and not a real, true, person.

jenniann

09-01-2006, 12:59 AM

Back on topic-- it seems some like to get these "life is wonderful" Christmas newsletters. OK, fine, so you like to hear from these folks once a year telling you they and their kids are still perfect.

Personally, if they are real friends I would prefer a phone call once or twice a year and their asking "How are you doing"?

Regina.Lampert

09-01-2006, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
I've read several posts wanting to know if anyone could find a copy of the Ramseys 1996 Christmas letter.

I found it quite by accident while I was searching for something else, so thought I'd share it with the posters looking for it.

Here's the link:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/1996christmasnewsletter.htm From the link:

On a recent trip to NYC, my friend and I appeared amid the throng of fans on the TODAY show. Al Roker & Bryant actually talked to us and we were on camera for a few fleeting moments!

Little did she know just how much interaction with the media
she's have in the future, imo.

BTW, anybody know where the letter is that show's her using
the phrase "and hence" just as the writer of the ransom note did?

FurthurBB

09-01-2006, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
I've read several posts wanting to know if anyone could find a copy of the Ramseys 1996 Christmas letter.

I found it quite by accident while I was searching for something else, so thought I'd share it with the posters looking for it.

Here's the link:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/1996christmasnewsletter.htm

You know what I noticed about this note ... The writing style is very high school and not like the ransome note at all other than the all the !!!! but, every Christmas note I receive from family is like that.

Regina.Lampert

09-01-2006, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by EllyMCow

this link comments on it. IIRC, it is from a 1995 card that and hence was written by PR.

www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote

Do you know if the actual investigators ever examined handwriting by PR prior to 12/96? I can only recall samples PR provided after the murder. Just asking.

MOO Thank you. Here's a good
link with much information about this case.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/

Former Juror

09-01-2006, 08:46 AM

It is no secret that I suspect the Ramseys were involved in the murder of Jonbenet, IMOOC. While this letter was an interesting read, I don't find that it reveals any clues.

BTW, I absolutely hate getting one of those letters. They are fake, beyond words. Just once, I'd like to read the truth, like someone's battle with hemorrhoids or their husband's affair with his secretary. :chicken: :lol:

sunsplashed

09-01-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert
From the link:

On a recent trip to NYC, my friend and I appeared amid the throng of fans on the TODAY show. Al Roker & Bryant actually talked to us and we were on camera for a few fleeting moments!

Little did she know just how much interaction with the media
she's have in the future, imo.

BTW, anybody know where the letter is that show's her using
the phrase "and hence" just as the writer of the ransom note did?

This article purports to show an example of the use of "and, hence," by one of the Ramseys, either John or Patsy. You have to scroll down quite a bit to find it:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

sunsplashed

09-01-2006, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I find it puzzling that people insist on projecting themselves into the Ramseys' life and make judgments based on what they would/would not do and how they "feel" about things. The Ramseys had a lifestyle different from most, but still doesn't make them murderers.

Maybe the Ramseys' Christmas letter meant something to the people they sent it to. Of course, it would mean nothing to most of us posting here. JMO

I think both pro-Ramsey guilt people and pro-Ramsey innocent people have been guilty of projecting themselves into the Ramseys' lives, but I see it more with the people who think they're innocent.

They refuse to back up their statements with facts and links and instead rely on the assertion that no parent could do that to his/her child or that the Ramseys were good parents. Or, they just say someone is "wrong," but when asked to provide a link proving it, they say, "Look it up yourself," or "Read." That just makes the Ramseys seem more guilty, IMO.

I see the people who lean toward the Ramseys being guilty as being more open-minded and willing to at least accept a credible intruder theory. They also back up statements with facts or links. If wrong, they're usually able to admit it and apologize.

Actually, we have no idea whether the Ramseys could or couldn't do that to a child or if they were good or bad parents or had a good or bad marriage anymore than we know how their friends felt about their Christmas letter.

I think some people just wanted to see a sample of something Patsy wrote BEFORE JB's murder. I don't find that odd.

One thing we can agree on is that all these posts about the hatred for Christmas letters are getting nonsensical and childish.

JMO

Louisadelmar

09-01-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Maybe that's because the people who think the Ramseys had no involvement in death of their daughter posted facts and links a long time ago and just don't feel like addressing every new unsubstaniated theory that comes up.

[...]

JMO

Very true. Plus ALL evidence except direct evidence is subjective. So I get sick of going round and round the same argument I've gone round and round on with others for the 4-5-6-7-almost 8 years. And it is also why I get easily torqued when people can't be bothered to check basic facts before they decided Ramsey or not.

Sorry - I'm obviously feeling grumpy at the moment...

docg

09-01-2006, 05:12 PM

The ransom note contains three exclamation points. That's all. Three. One per page. To read some of the nonsense posted about Patsy one would assume every sentence ended with one.

Lest we forget, some of Darnay Hoffmann's "experts" even saw margin drift in the note. Why? 1. Because Patsy's margins drift -- and 2. because Darnay sent them crooked xerox's.

So much for the "experts," eh? Now if we could only get the rank amateurs to show an ounce of humility . . .

samsong

09-01-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I think both pro-Ramsey guilt people and pro-Ramsey innocent people have been guilty of projecting themselves into the Ramseys' lives, but I see it more with the people who think they're innocent.

They refuse to back up their statements with facts and links and instead rely on the assertion that no parent could do that to his/her child or that the Ramseys were good parents. Or, they just say someone is "wrong," but when asked to provide a link proving it, they say, "Look it up yourself," or "Read." That just makes the Ramseys seem more guilty, IMO.

I see the people who lean toward the Ramseys being guilty as being more open-minded and willing to at least accept a credible intruder theory. They also back up statements with facts or links. If wrong, they're usually able to admit it and apologize.

Actually, we have no idea whether the Ramseys could or couldn't do that to a child or if they were good or bad parents or had a good or bad marriage anymore than we know how their friends felt about their Christmas letter.

I think some people just wanted to see a sample of something Patsy wrote BEFORE JB's murder. I don't find that odd.

One thing we can agree on is that all these posts about the hatred for Christmas letters are getting nonsensical and childish.

JMO

I think you are exactly right.

jmgos1

09-05-2006, 10:56 AM

Reading through the police interview of Patsy taken April 30th, 1977 something puzzled me. Patsy said that she got dressed, put on her makeup, fussed with a little red jumpsuit of JonBenet and then headed downstairs to make coffee and a little breakfeast. Maybe its just me, but I found this odd. Wouldn't you start the coffee first and then do your dressing as you waited for the coffee. Even the best coffee maker on the market takes a few minutes. jmo

breezy1234

09-05-2006, 11:10 AM

static1

09-05-2006, 11:15 AM

Wasn't she wearing the same outfit she wore xmas day?

Hopeintown

09-05-2006, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by static1
Wasn't she wearing the same outfit she wore xmas day?

Yes.

hohum

09-05-2006, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Very true. Plus ALL evidence except direct evidence is subjective. So I get sick of going round and round the same argument I've gone round and round on with others for the 4-5-6-7-almost 8 years. And it is also why I get easily torqued when people can't be bothered to check basic facts before they decided Ramsey or not.

Sorry - I'm obviously feeling grumpy at the moment...

Who can blame you. People would rather ask questions than read, it's easier. Let them do the research and find the facts, then they will remember them.

jmgos1

09-05-2006, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by static1
Wasn't she wearing the same outfit she wore xmas day?

That is why I was questioning her behavior. She seemed to have been in a hurry to get things ready for their flight. jmo

Maybe "odd" was the wrong choice of words.

Athena

09-05-2006, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by jmgos1
Reading through the police interview of Patsy taken April 30th, 1977 something puzzled me. Patsy said that she got dressed, put on her makeup, fussed with a little red jumpsuit of JonBenet and then headed downstairs to make coffee and a little breakfeast. Maybe its just me, but I found this odd. Wouldn't you start the coffee first and then do your dressing as you waited for the coffee. Even the best coffee maker on the market takes a few minutes. jmo

Uh-oh I forgot to read the "what to do in the morning" manual. I too try to do as much as possible before I come down to make breakfast only because I hate going up and down the stairs nevermind that there bedroom is on the 3rd floor. Mine is only on the 2nd. While making breakfast the coffee is perking and then I can sit down and enjoy my coffee. JMO

static1

09-05-2006, 11:35 AM

In my opinion, the point is-she never went to bed.

breezy1234

09-05-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by static1
In my opinion, the point is-she never went to bed.

In my opinion you are wrong.

kindeekat

09-05-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by static1
In my opinion, the point is-she never went to bed.

Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's on here.

If any of us posters were there and know, it's a different story.

If not, all opinions are as valid as any others.

breezy1234

09-05-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by kindeekat

Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's on here.

If any of us posters were there and know, it's a different story.

If not, all opinions are as valid as any others.

Yep, all opinions are welcome even if they are not backed up with evidence and make no sense.

kindeekat

09-05-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Yep, all opinions are welcome even if they are not backed up with evidence and make no sense.

THAT is just your opinion.

I think there is no evidence whatever for a pedophile/intruder but I still like to read ALL the theories and evidence and, until we know for sure, debate the issues.

A closed mind will not help solve this murder. As of now, it is an UNsolved murder and all theories are welcome in MY world.

:seeya:

static1

09-05-2006, 12:00 PM

My opinion is based on the evidence that Patsy was wearing the same outfit she was wearing the day before. One conclusion could be, she never went to bed.

kindeekat

09-05-2006, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by static1
My opinion is based on the evidence that Patsy was wearing the same outfit she was wearing the day before. One conclusion could be, she never went to bed.

Indeed, and just as good an inference as any jmo.

Mandymax

09-05-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Have you never put on the same clothes two days in a row?

I haven't. Not when I'm in my own home with a closet full of clean clothing.

That always struck me as odd.

kindeekat

09-05-2006, 12:08 PM

Once again, this is "evidence" that could cut either way.

I can't see Patsy wearing the same outfit two days in a row but it's possible. It's also possible she never went to bed.

docg

09-05-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I think one is guilty of murder and one is an accomplice-after-the-fact.

JMO

Yes, but there are many kinds of complicity. There is also such a thing as manipulation. If one of them is guilty that person has been manipulating the authorities, the media and a whole slew of naive supporters, so why not his spouse?

Patsy called 911 first thing in the morning. The body was hidden in the basement, stashed there temporarily for future dumping in some remote spot while her killer pretended to be delivering her ransom. If Patsy knew about such a plan, WHY would she have called 911? The story is that John told her to call, but that's only a story -- and there are contradictory versions of that story. According to the version Patsy tells in the first Tracey documentary, SHE was the one who decided to make the call.

I think Patsy could have been manipulated into telling some "white lies" so John wouldn't look bad. She already knew he MUST be innocent because he was "ruled out" by some handwriting "experts." (And if such "experts" impress you, take a look at what some of them said about being 100% sure Karr's writing matched the note.) So what would be the harm of going along with John's version of this story? And what would have been the alternative? A public argument over who told who to make that call? How bad would THAT have been for their case?

breezy1234

09-05-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat

THAT is just your opinion.

I think there is no evidence whatever for a pedophile/intruder but I still like to read ALL the theories and evidence and, until we know for sure, debate the issues.

A closed mind will not help solve this murder. As of now, it is an UNsolved murder and all theories are welcome in MY world.

:seeya:

IMO a judge opinion that heard the evidence and said "Federal Judge: 'No Evidence' That Ramseys Killed JonBenét"

as well as the grand jury who heard the evidence means more than what you think or your world.

kindeekat

09-05-2006, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

IMO a judge opinion that heard the evidence and said "Federal Judge: 'No Evidence' That Ramseys Killed JonBenét"

as well as the grand jury who heard the evidence means more than what you think or your world.

My opinion is as good as anyone's at this point.

1_day_at_a_time

09-05-2006, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by jmgos1
Reading through the police interview of Patsy taken April 30th, 1977 something puzzled me. Patsy said that she got dressed, put on her makeup, fussed with a little red jumpsuit of JonBenet and then headed downstairs to make coffee and a little breakfeast. Maybe its just me, but I found this odd. Wouldn't you start the coffee first and then do your dressing as you waited for the coffee. Even the best coffee maker on the market takes a few minutes. jmo

I dont have a link but at one point PR said she was wearing the same outfit because she came down stairs first then saw the note ran upstairs and threw on the first thing she saw which was the last evenings clothes. she never had an explination for the makeup that i can recall.

2 different stories...:rolleyes:

MyrDawn

09-05-2006, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by jmgos1
Reading through the police interview of Patsy taken April 30th, 1977 something puzzled me. Patsy said that she got dressed, put on her makeup, fussed with a little red jumpsuit of JonBenet and then headed downstairs to make coffee and a little breakfeast. Maybe its just me, but I found this odd. Wouldn't you start the coffee first and then do your dressing as you waited for the coffee. Even the best coffee maker on the market takes a few minutes. jmo

I live in a one story house and usually start my coffee first, but not always. The Ramsey's bedroom was on the 3rd floor of their house. That's a lot of steps to go down to the 1st floor just to start coffee, then go back up again!

But, from what I've always heard, she hadn't dressed yet. She put on her makeup while John was in the shower, then went down to start the cofee. She didn't get dressed until after she found the note, which is why she grabbed the clothes she'd worn the night before instead of taking time to pick out another outfit.

docg

09-05-2006, 12:40 PM

Patsy wearing the same outfit tells me she was NOT up all night. Someone up all night staging would be sure to shower and change!

jerzeegirl

09-05-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I live in a one story house and usually start my coffee first, but not always. The Ramsey's bedroom was on the 3rd floor of their house. That's a lot of steps to go down to the 1st floor just to start coffee, then go back up again!

But, from what I've always heard, she hadn't dressed yet. She put on her makeup while John was in the shower, then went down to start the cofee. She didn't get dressed until after she found the note, which is why she grabbed the clothes she'd worn the night before instead of taking time to pick out another outfit.

she stated in her first interview that she got dressed before she went downstairs. Ill find it if you want , just to be sure.

LadyFisher

09-05-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by static1
Sure I have put on the same clothes 2 days in a row, but not at holiday time. And, I am not an affluent former beauty queen concerned with my image. After Patsy was dianosed with ovarian cancer and went through the chemo treatments that left her bald for quite sometime....I hardly think she gave much thought of keeping up any type of image! jmho

kindeekat

09-05-2006, 01:10 PM

I disagree.

I think appearances were EVERYTHING to Patsy. I NEVER saw her other than fully made up and dressed with accessories.

AND NO we cannot project ourselves into Patsy's life. What goes on behind closed doors is anyone's guess. GUESS being the operative word here.

kindeekat

09-05-2006, 01:14 PM

Maybe she was.

MyrDawn

09-05-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat
I disagree.

I think appearances were EVERYTHING to Patsy. I NEVER saw her other than fully made up and dressed with accessories.

AND NO we cannot project ourselves into Patsy's life. What goes on behind closed doors is anyone's guess. GUESS being the operative word here.

When did you ever see her other than on TV? Did you see how she dresses behind closed doors? I certainly dress differently for public than I do around the house! I'm wearing cutoffs and a t-shirt now, and I'm barefoot and have no makeup on. Tomorrow, I have an appointment, and you can bet I'll have on my makeup and a lot nicer clothes.

Jadedblueeyes

09-05-2006, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Have you never put on the same clothes two days in a row?

I highly doubt the outfit was soiled simply by attending a Christmas Party. I will occasionally throw my same clothes back on especially if I am in a hurry to go somewhere out of town. When I arrive at my destination is when I take a nice long shower and dress for the day. It is much more refreshing.

I see nothing wrong with Patsy putting the same clothes back on and this was a private jet........who was going to see her or even care?

IMO

Ocean

paperbackreader

09-05-2006, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

I highly doubt the outfit was soiled simply by attending a Christmas Party. I will occasionally throw my same clothes back on especially if I am in a hurry to go somewhere out of town. When I arrive at my destination is when I take a nice long shower and dress for the day. It is much more refreshing.

I see nothing wrong with Patsy putting the same clothes back on and this was a private jet........who was going to see her or even care?

IMO

Ocean

Agree with you....I buy Christmas outfit(s) once a year and plan on wearing them alot during the season. I often rewear my outfit because I'm not in those clothes but for a short time at a party or whatever. It's just a convenient holiday trick for me. Plus I wear my Christmas outfit alot that week. Once the season is over, I know I'll not be interested in those colors even.

LadyFisher

09-05-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat
I disagree.

I think appearances were EVERYTHING to Patsy. I NEVER saw her other than fully made up and dressed with accessories.

AND NO we cannot project ourselves into Patsy's life. What goes on behind closed doors is anyone's guess. GUESS being the operative word here. Appearances always seem more important when you are younger or when you haven't had to deal with serious illnesses...but that will fade into the background after something serious happens in your life....I have a cousin....whose clothes and makeup were always impeccable....she is now on chemo....during her latest break from all the meds..she and her hubby drove in to see family...she was in cutoff pants and had on her floppy hat....you lost all vanity after something she's going through...she realizes what is really important and it is your loved ones and spending time with them.

paperbackreader

09-05-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Appearances always seem more important when you are younger or when you haven't had to deal with serious illnesses...but that will fade into the background after something serious happens in your life....

True....one of the gifts of cancer is emerging knowing what's really important and what's not.

cantaloupe

09-05-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Have you never put on the same clothes two days in a row?

I have--for example, when I am not ready to really "get out of bed" but my dogs need to go out, sometimes I will slip on the clothes I took off to go downstairs and let them out, then come back to bed, or at least back upstairs to take a shower.

Sometimes I have put the clothes on when I needed to get dressed in a real hurry--like the doorbell rings and I'm still in bed, or when I took one of my kids to the ER in the middle of the night, or when some other kind of unanticipated or emergency situation meant that I had to be clothed quickly.

The question I would have is did Patsy show any signs of having done any other grooming----a shower, makeup, brushed hair, brushed teeth---when the authorities arrived. If not, then I can believe that she found the note, and in an attempt to get dressed as quickly as possible before LE arrived or whatever, she put on the same clothes.

static1

09-05-2006, 03:52 PM

Maybe you are right. Patsy really liked that sweater. She wanted to wear it two days in a row. In fact she liked it so much she couldn't part with it, even though LE needed it for testing, for over a year after the murder.

static1

09-05-2006, 04:12 PM

She provided it 2 months after it was requested.

Athena

09-05-2006, 04:15 PM

Just because you wear something two days in a row doesn't mean you cannot look impeccable. Only you may know that is the second time you've worn it especially if you usually wear it the next time around different people than the first. Definitely works for me. I certainly don't see a problem about wearing something from the day before for an airplane ride especially if it is comfortable.

According to John Ramsey's 4/97 transcript he said they also had a change of clothes at the place they were going. jmo

I won't even talk about how I look when I know I'm not going out or expecting anyone. :eek:

bullmoose

09-05-2006, 04:18 PM

To static: It is indeed a tribute to the BPD that they even asked for the sweater a year later; of course, even to them by then it must have been obvious that the Ramseys were suspects and that fiber analysis might be a good idea. Such a bunch of geniuses all working at one police department, its amazing they never got anyone to confess by then. bullmoose:lol:

static1

09-05-2006, 04:28 PM

Yes, and fibers from Patsy's jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature, were found on the blanket, were found on the duct tape on the mouth.

static1

09-05-2006, 04:54 PM

I am sure that if I buy a new jacket and wear it around the house for a couple of days that there will be fibers from it found inside my golf bag that I have stored for the season in an out of the way room in my basement.

I Love Books

09-05-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by static1
Sure I have put on the same clothes 2 days in a row, but not at holiday time. And, I am not an affluent former beauty queen concerned with my image.

Exactly. It's one thing to grab the sweats you walked around the house in the night before, but quite another to pick up the same dress clothes and put them on again. Especially when, as you say, you are a former beauty queen seemingly obsessed with image and perfection. And when you live quite an affluent lifestyle with no concern whatsover with the little things that concern the rest of us - such saving on laundry, water, work etc.

Can one be convicted on that? Of course not. But it's just one more piece in a puzzle full of "hmmmmm's".

DixieChick

09-05-2006, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
funny thing though, i dont know how many were posting on the SP board a while back but, when it was speculated that Lacy was in the clothes that she wore the night before......Most posters opinions were that There was No way lacy would have gotten up and put the same clothes on from the night before.

No, it was that Scott said she had on something different than what she was found wearing.

DixieChick

09-05-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by static1
Yes, and fibers from Patsy's jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature, were found on the blanket, were found on the duct tape on the mouth.

No... they did not match ANYONE'S in the Ramsey household.

jmgos1

09-05-2006, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

It was a pair of black slacks and a sweater jacket.

They were black velvet jeans that had been thrown on the tub the night before.

DixieChick

09-05-2006, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by static1

Actually, the fibers were consistent, which means match in expert speak, to Patsy's sweater jacket. And, a fiber from JR's shirt was inside her oversized Bloomies.

Bullmoose: I think to claim there was innocent transferrance of the fibers is illogical. I was just making a point. And, I think Patsy claimed she never wore that sweater in the basement.
Was the report to the Grand Jury a lie? The report said there was no match.

Athena

09-05-2006, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Appearances always seem more important when you are younger or when you haven't had to deal with serious illnesses...but that will fade into the background after something serious happens in your life....I have a cousin....whose clothes and makeup were always impeccable....she is now on chemo....during her latest break from all the meds..she and her hubby drove in to see family...she was in cutoff pants and had on her floppy hat....you lost all vanity after something she's going through...she realizes what is really important and it is your loved ones and spending time with them.

I so agree not to mention not spending your free time doing laundry. jmo

deputydi

09-05-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Cornblossom
Some of my picture albums were destroyed in a flood and if I had to prove my husband was or wasn't home after that date....I would be unable to do so.
You'd be pretty hard-pressed to find any pictures of ME at a family gathering -- I'm usually the one behind the camera. LOL.

thewhitewitch1

09-05-2006, 06:27 PM

deputydi

09-05-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
<snip>.... all the "real" witnesses have brilliantly evaded the news media.
Wouldn't you? I might tell a few friends that I knew this jerk, but I sure wouldn't go on television and announce it to the world.

Athena

09-05-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Oh pleas...........

Patsy's house, Patsy's jacket, Patsy's tray, Patsy, blanket ....and the duct tape was laid on the blanket when John pulled it off. Then Fleet White picked it up and looked at it and put it back on the blanket..

And BTW the fibers were consistent with Patsy's jacket which according to "experts" does not mean "same as."

Just trying to help - consistent just means that there is no proven contradiction within a known set of facts. The known set of facts here is that Patsy had a jacket and it was her house so it would be consistent with what they knew but does not mean it is a match; just a logical thought. They could probably have taken another sweater or shirt from another person in the same color or similar material, tested it and called it "consistent" but it would not have been logical if the person was not in the house.

LOL: Hope this makes sense -- but bottom line does not mean "match" jmo

Athena

09-05-2006, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by docg
Patsy wearing the same outfit tells me she was NOT up all night. Someone up all night staging would be sure to shower and change!

:beer:
This is probably the simplest yet best response I have read re: her clothes. Thank you. Patsy accidentally kills her daughter, stages a complex scene to cover it up, writes a three page ransom note, makes an academy award winning 911 call, but doesn't think to change her clothes. jmo

sunsplashed

09-05-2006, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

Was the report to the Grand Jury a lie? The report said there was no match.

If you think the BPD was so incompetent what makes you think anyone else in Colorado was any different?

sunsplashed

09-05-2006, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Just trying to help - consistent just means that there is no proven contradiction within a known set of facts. The known set of facts here is that Patsy had a jacket and it was her house so it would be consistent with what they knew but does not mean it is a match; just a logical thought. They could probably have taken another sweater or shirt from another person in the same color or similar material, tested it and called it "consistent" but it would not have been logical if the person was not in the house.

LOL: Hope this makes sense -- but bottom line does not mean "match" jmo

No, but since fibers consistent with Patsy's red sweater jacket were found tied into the ligature, it follows that the killer was probably wearing an identical red sweater jacket.

That's too much for me to accept. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be flippant with you. I've never seen you be anything but polite and mature when someone disagrees.

Even Steve Thomas, who as h*** bent on proving Patsy guilty said this was not a "fiber case."

JMO

msgatorslayer

09-05-2006, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

If you think the BPD was so incompetent what makes you think anyone else in Colorado was any different?

:lol: Now that's funny. I don't care which side your on!:D

docg

09-05-2006, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Athena

:beer:
This is probably the simplest yet best response I have read re: her clothes. Thank you. Patsy accidentally kills her daughter, stages a complex scene to cover it up, writes a three page ransom note, makes an academy award winning 911 call, but doesn't think to change her clothes. jmo

Before toasting me, Athena, think. Who in that family DID take a shower -- AND change clothes?

Who came to bed AFTER Patsy was sound asleep? Who was already in the shower when Patsy awoke? If Patsy is telling the truth, and on this matter I think she is, then John could have been up all night and she'd have no way of knowing.

sunsplashed

09-05-2006, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by docg

Before toasting me, Athena, think. Who in that family DID take a shower -- AND change clothes?

Who came to bed AFTER Patsy was sound asleep? Who was already in the shower when Patsy awoke? If Patsy is telling the truth, and on this matter I think she is, then John could have been up all night and she'd have no way of knowing.

We're on the same side (Ramseys are guilty), so I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but here:

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID35/36.html

...John says Patsy was in bed, but awake when he went to bed.

I thought John was the murderer until I read (and had someone knowledgeable demonstrate for me) just how sloppily the knots of the ligature were tied and when I learned that JB's hair had been brushed for bed. Then I reverted to my original suspicion that the murderer was Patsy.

I couldn't find where you've ever shared a theory of what happened that night, but I'd be highly interested in reading it if you ever do.

There is much that points to John as the murderer, I'll give you that. And I have my own, personal opinion as to motive as I suspect you do.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-05-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer

:lol: Now that's funny. I don't care which side your on!:D

If you'd ever lived there as I have (two places: Grand Junction and Boulder), you find it even funnier.

These people make the Keystone Cops seem like Interpol. ;)

JMO

sunsplashed

09-05-2006, 11:12 PM

hohum

09-05-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I so agree not to mention not spending your free time doing laundry. jmo

And Patsy said she hated doing laundry.

sunsplashed

09-05-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat

THAT is just your opinion.

I think there is no evidence whatever for a pedophile/intruder but I still like to read ALL the theories and evidence and, until we know for sure, debate the issues.

A closed mind will not help solve this murder. As of now, it is an UNsolved murder and all theories are welcome in MY world.

:seeya:

Thank goodness! A reasonable adult! Good for you! :)

hohum

09-05-2006, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by static1
She provided it 2 months after it was requested.

Maybe she was washing it. :D

Athena

09-05-2006, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Maybe she was washing it. :D

Nah - she hated doing laundry, remember? It was in one of the dirty clothes hampers but could not remember which one!!! :biggrin:

MyrDawn

09-06-2006, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

No, but since fibers consistent with Patsy's red sweater jacket were found tied into the ligature, it follows that the killer was probably wearing an identical red sweater jacket.

That's too much for me to accept. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be flippant with you. I've never seen you be anything but polite and mature when someone disagrees.

Even Steve Thomas, who as h*** bent on proving Patsy guilty said this was not a "fiber case."

JMO

The one Patsy wore was NOT a "red sweater jacket". It was red and black and gray. So, where were the black and gray fibers if those red fibers were from Patsy's jacket?

It's a bit much for me to believe so many of the red fibers would have transferred, and NONE of the black or gray ones.

hohum

09-06-2006, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Nah - she hated doing laundry, remember? It was in one of the dirty clothes hampers but could not remember which one!!! :biggrin:

The dry cleaners misplaced it.

docg

09-06-2006, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Also, who TOLD Patsy to call 911 without a second thought? Without even reading the entire ransom note? Who checked on Burke but did not wake him to ask him if he heard anything?

ALLEGEDLY told Patsy to call. This is their STORY. Or one version anyhow. We don't know what really transpired. As I see it, if John had wanted that call made, he himself would have made it. But perhaps that's your point?

As for Burke, they NEVER asked him what he'd heard, they actually admitted to not asking him or discussing anything about the case with him at all, ever.

docg

09-06-2006, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

The one Patsy wore was NOT a "red sweater jacket". It was red and black and gray. So, where were the black and gray fibers if those red fibers were from Patsy's jacket?

It's a bit much for me to believe so many of the red fibers would have transferred, and NONE of the black or gray ones.

Tufts of JonBenet's hair were found entwined in the knots. If any of Patsy's fibers were already in her hair, they could easily have gotten into those knots via the hair. Patsy was JonBenet's mother. No reason her fibers wouldn't have been all over her daughter. And could have been transferred to every part of the crime scene via the victim herself. Also Patsy was John's wife. So if HE constructed that "garotte" Patsy's fibers could have been transferred via John.

sunsplashed

09-06-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by docg

ALLEGEDLY told Patsy to call. This is their STORY. Or one version anyhow. We don't know what really transpired. As I see it, if John had wanted that call made, he himself would have made it. But perhaps that's your point?

As for Burke, they NEVER asked him what he'd heard, they actually admitted to not asking him or discussing anything about the case with him at all, ever.

Yes, my point, which I apologize for not making clearly, was that it does not make sense for a hysterical Patsy, who had not read the entire ransom note, to make the 911 call. It would have made more sense for an allegedly calmer John, who was, again allegedly, reading the entire ransom note at the time, to make the 911 call.

Yet he didn't. And I've asked myself why.

JMO

kindeekat

09-06-2006, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by docg

ALLEGEDLY told Patsy to call. This is their STORY. Or one version anyhow. We don't know what really transpired. As I see it, if John had wanted that call made, he himself would have made it. But perhaps that's your point?

As for Burke, they NEVER asked him what he'd heard, they actually admitted to not asking him or discussing anything about the case with him at all, ever.

I would have woken Burke up FIRST thing to ask him if he'd seen JonBenet (didn't she sometimes climb into bed with him?) or heard anything. Yet they didn't ask him a single thing, ever?

That is unsettling for many reasons.

nutmeg22

09-06-2006, 12:33 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sunsplashed
[B]

Yes, my point, which I apologize for not making clearly, was that it does not make sense for a hysterical Patsy, who had not read the entire ransom note, to make the 911 call. It would have made more sense for an allegedly calmer John, who was, again allegedly, reading the entire ransom note at the time, to make the 911 call.

Yet he didn't. And I've asked myself why.

In the paperback version of PM/PT, it says that before John finished reading the ransom note, he told Patsy to call the police. She was not yet COMPLETELY hysterical...at least that is my concept of it. I don't know why he didn't call except that he hadn't finished reading the note..

jacknpeytonsmom

09-06-2006, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by nutmeg22
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sunsplashed
[B]

Yes, my point, which I apologize for not making clearly, was that it does not make sense for a hysterical Patsy, who had not read the entire ransom note, to make the 911 call. It would have made more sense for an allegedly calmer John, who was, again allegedly, reading the entire ransom note at the time, to make the 911 call.

Yet he didn't. And I've asked myself why.

In the paperback version of PM/PT, it says that before John finished reading the ransom note, he told Patsy to call the police. She was not yet COMPLETELY hysterical...at least that is my concept of it. I don't know why he didn't call except that he hadn't finished reading the note..

I would think that John was probably more reasonable and level headed to read the note and try to glean something from it and told his wife to call 911. Calling 911, in my opinion, is a menial task. Call 911, get them over here and in the meantime, let's try to figure out what's going on by reading the note, searching the house, etc... I would have been perturbed with the operator as well and gotten off the phone. Just send someone now!

IMO

bullmoose

09-06-2006, 04:59 PM

I agree with you, jacknpeytonsmom, that John was staying calm,trying to glean something from the note. When you have a panic situation,as I believe that was for the Ramseys, someone has to stay calm or total chaos ensues. Panic is very catchy, understandably Patsy was falling victim to it, so I think John told her to call 911 to give her something to focus on doing,so that she didn't come unglued. Having her call diverted her attention from the very real horror of her daughter supposedly being kidnapped. Maybe that is why she called the others that came over immediately, because of her panic. bullmoose

sunsplashed

09-06-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by jacknpeytonsmom

I would think that John was probably more reasonable and level headed to read the note and try to glean something from it and told his wife to call 911. Calling 911, in my opinion, is a menial task. Call 911, get them over here and in the meantime, let's try to figure out what's going on by reading the note, searching the house, etc... I would have been perturbed with the operator as well and gotten off the phone. Just send someone now!

IMO

But on this point, Patsy is not consistent. In her 1997 interview with the police, Patsy does not say that John told her to call 911. She's not really clear about what happened at the time, which is as I would expect, but her words make it sound a lot more like it was her decision, not John's, to call 911 (which is what I believe is really the case).

JMO

Athena

09-06-2006, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

But on this point, Patsy is not consistent. In her 1997 interview with the police, Patsy does not say that John told her to call 911. She's not really clear about what happened at the time, which is as I would expect, but her words make it sound a lot more like it was her decision, not John's, to call 911 (which is what I believe is really the case).

JMO

Yes she did. 4/97 PR Interview

PR: And I uh, screamed for John. He was up in our bedroom still and he came running down and uh, I told him that there was a note that said she had been kidnapped. And uh, uh, I think he, he said, I said, ‘What should I do. What should I do,’ or something and he said, ‘Call the police,’ and I think somewhere, I remember I said something about, you know, check Burke or something and I think he ran back and checked burke and I ran back down the stairs and then he came downstairs. He was just in his underwear and he uh, took the note and I remember him being down hunched on the floor read, with all three pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, ‘Call 911’ or ‘Call the police,’ or something and then I did.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

hohum

09-06-2006, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by kindeekat

I would have woken Burke up FIRST thing to ask him if he'd seen JonBenet (didn't she sometimes climb into bed with him?) or heard anything. Yet they didn't ask him a single thing, ever?

The Ramsey's were under the impression that Burke was asleep until they woke him up. Later they found out he had been awake for a period of time that morning but had pretended to be asleep. I'm sure someone asked Burke what he had heard, if anything. Why do people keep harping on this? After 10 years, if Burke could have solved the crime I'm sure he would have.

hohum

09-06-2006, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
On a lighter note, can someone explain to me how all those dust bunnies get under my bed?

What are those? ;)

hohum

09-06-2006, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by docg

ALLEGEDLY told Patsy to call. This is their STORY. Or one version anyhow. We don't know what really transpired. As I see it, if John had wanted that call made, he himself would have made it. But perhaps that's your point?

As for Burke, they NEVER asked him what he'd heard, they actually admitted to not asking him or discussing anything about the case with him at all, ever.

John could not make the call and read the ransom note at the same time. If they had killed JB, why would they call the police so quickly? After all the note says don't call the police. Only truly panicked parents would call the police pronto for help.

sunsplashed

09-06-2006, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Yes she did. 4/97 PR Interview

PR: And I uh, screamed for John. He was up in our bedroom still and he came running down and uh, I told him that there was a note that said she had been kidnapped. And uh, uh, I think he, he said, I said, ‘What should I do. What should I do,’ or something and he said, ‘Call the police,’ and I think somewhere, I remember I said something about, you know, check Burke or something and I think he ran back and checked burke and I ran back down the stairs and then he came downstairs. He was just in his underwear and he uh, took the note and I remember him being down hunched on the floor read, with all three pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, ‘Call 911’ or ‘Call the police,’ or something and then I did.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

No, she's ambiguous about it.

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID35/35.html

ST: Okay. When you uh, after the note and after what I’m assuming is just sort of pandemonium, after seeing the note, uh, and you called for John, you went to the kitchen and called 911?

PR: Well…

ST: Is that right?

PR: …I called, um, I, ran up and opened, you know, pushed open her door and realized she wasn’t there and I ran to the stairwell that goes up to our room and called for John and, and, then, you know, momentarily went downstairs to the kitchen to call.

ST: Was that when John was checking Burke and the rest of the house that you made that call?

PR: Uh, I believe so. I mean everything just happened so fast right there. I, I don’t remember, I just remember at one point, you know, we were saying what about Burke and John ran into check Burke and I ran back downstairs and then suddenly he was downstairs and I mean it was just…

ST: Okay.

PR: …so fast, you know, everything.

ST: Um, and obviously Burke was Okay and he was able to sleep through this until he was later awakened. Is that right?

PR: Right.

ST: Okay. Um, but at some point John came back and caught up with you. You don’t recall if it was during the 911 call or after.

PR: Well I remember I, I remember myself being of the phone and he was crouched down on the floor there in the hallway looking, reading at the note.

ST: Okay.

PR: And I was on the phone so I don’t know which happened first or it, simultaneously or.

sunsplashed

09-06-2006, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by hohum

John could not make the call and read the ransom note at the same time. If they had killed JB, why would they call the police so quickly? After all the note says don't call the police. Only truly panicked parents would call the police pronto for help.

Of course he could have made the call and read the note at the same time. A millionaire CEO would have been able to multi-task. IMO, Patsy was not going to wait for his "approval."

JMO