Question for IDIs (RDIs feel free to chime in too!)

[SnarkyCow]

**I would like to preface this post by saying I'm not being sarcastic or inflamitory. Although I am an RDI, I am interested in the hearing both sides of the argument.**

IDIs, what are your opinions/how do you explain the following:

1. Was JB asleep when they got home from the Whites as John & Patsy said she was?

2. Why would Burke say she was awake & helped carry in presents if she was actually asleep?

3. How/why would feeding JBR pineapple fit into an intruder's plan to kidnap/sexually assault/murder her?

4. What would an intruder accomplish by leaving a three page long ransom note at the scene of a murder?

I have a lot more questions, but I'm going to take them a few at a time - otherwise it gets too overwhelming for me.:)

Thanks for your ideas & opinions,

Snarks

[LindaA]

I think you will find lengthy discussions of all these points from both RDI and IDI POV on the board.

[shill]

Asked and answered. You'll just have to do a lot of reading.

[SnarkyCow]

Okay thanks!:beer:

[elvislives]

**I would like to preface this post by saying I'm not being sarcastic or inflamitory. Although I am an RDI, I am interested in the hearing both sides of the argument.**

IDIs, what are your opinions/how do you explain the following:

1. Was JB asleep when they got home from the Whites as John & Patsy said she was?

2. Why would Burke say she was awake & helped carry in presents if she was actually asleep?

3. How/why would feeding JBR pineapple fit into an intruder's plan to kidnap/sexually assault/murder her?

4. What would an intruder accomplish by leaving a three page long ransom note at the scene of a murder?

I have a lot more questions, but I'm going to take them a few at a time - otherwise it gets too overwhelming for me.:)

Thanks for your ideas & opinions,

Snarks

Hey Snarky,

I can probably save you some time reading thru the old posts since I looked into these same questions. Keep in mind that these are not MY explanations, just those of others who have posted here.

1&2. Apparently there is some discrepancy as to whether Burke said JB was awake and walked in or she was asleep and was carried. Apparently he has said both. I interview kids all the time and this is not unusual...they tend to mix things up and get confused. Plus his grand jury testimony is sealed. So in other words its somewhat of an unknown.

3. The intruder was known to JB. He woke her up in the night and coaxed her down to the kitchen under the pretense of a late night snack. Some even think the pineapple he fed her was laced with drugs. Another theory is that JB woke up on her own, went downstairs to get a snack and ran into the killer. Others believe that she ate the pineapple at the whites and it took a long time to digest. My personal favotite (Wallycleaver;s theory) is that the killer was addicted to pina coladas and planned to hold JB ransom in order to get some cash to support his habbit. SHe ate the pineapple, which enraged him so instead of kidnapping her he killed her. ;)

4. The ransom note was left by accident--the kidnapping was foiled when she was killed by accident and in his haste to clean up the scene and flee, the killer neglected to go back upstairs and grab the note. OR-The killer left the note intentionally to buy some time to skip town. Or-The killer was a deranged lunatic and why he wrote and left the bizarre note is a mystery (like that freak in Chicago who broke in at night, snatched a 6 year old from her bed, took her to a nearby basement then killed and dismembered her body. Then he went back to the parents house and left a phony ransom note saying don't call the police/fbi etc...when in fact he had already killed her. I never heard of that case until I saw it on a crime show last night)

Anyway, those are the explanations (at least the ones I remember) that I have read. Hope it saves you some time.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=elvislives;8791061]Hey Snarky,

(like that freak in Chicago who broke in at night, snatched a 6 year old from her bed, took her to a nearby basement then killed and dismembered her body. Then he went back to the parents house and left a phony ransom note saying don't call the police/fbi etc...when in fact he had already killed her. I never heard of that case until I saw it on a crime show last night)



This guys name was William Heirins. Here is an excerpt:

A month later he invaded the bedroom of six-year-old Suzanne Degnan, abducting the child and leaving a written demand for $20,000 ransom as a ruse, to baffle the police. Retreating to a nearby basement, Heirens murdered the child and dismembered her remains with a hunting knife, wrapping the pieces in paper and dropping them into storm drains as he roamed the streets in early morning darkness. The case was still unsolved on June 26, when police answered a prowler call on Chicago's north side. Confronted with uniforms, Heirens drew a pistol and squeezed the trigger twice, his weapon misfiring each time. Undaunted, he began to grapple with the officers, struggling fiercely until he was cracked on the head with a flower pot.

[SnarkyCow]

Elvis, Thanks so much for your responses. When did that happen in Chicago? (I'm from Chicago) Cripes! What a horrible thing! :(

On another note:

I'm so new to the Ramsey case (considering some people have followed it for ten years and I just started after the whole JMK thing) and I've tried to keep an open mind throughout what I've read in books and on multiple messageboards. No IDI theory or explanation has sounded plausible to me. I don't want to think that parents could do this to their child, but all I've read and the little bit of evidence available in this case points to the Ramseys being involved in the death of their daughter (in my opinion). "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line" and all that.

The questions I posted above (especially the pineapple) are some that have really bothered me since the beginning of my research on this case. From what I've read I believe John & Patsy are lying about JB being asleep when they arrived home and they are lying about the pineapple. In my opinion, lying about these things sets the stage for lying about everything else.

I see no possible way feeding JonBenet pineapple fits into an intruder's plan. It's like "Gee, I'll feed her pineapple then kidnapp her, and garrote her, and crack her skull, sexually assault her and leave a three page note in my handwriting."

A lot of people say "Parents couldn't do this to their child!" or "They have no history of abuse or violence!" - I wish this were true, I wish we didn't have to worry about parents causing their children pain, but it happens all the time - with or without a history of violence.

In my hometown (which is a very wealthy, white collar, upper-crust place to live - much like a lot of Boulder, CO) a women drugged & smothered her three beautiful children in 1999 because she was upset that her estranged husband was seeing another women. Now, I know this is nothing like the JBR case, but there was no history of any violence or abuse until this happened. This women just snapped. It does happen. It can happen to people with no history of violence or abuse. In the case of the women from my hometown she snapped because of her husband, but no one would have ever thought she was capable of doing what she did to those three, beautiful angels. See the following quote from this link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C01E2DA133EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63

A mother who drugged her three children and smothered them in their beds was found guilty of murder today after a jury rejected her claim of insanity.

The mother, Marilyn Lemak, 44, could be given the death penalty in the killings of the children, Nicholas, 7; Emily, 6; and Thomas, 3, in 1999.

Prosecutors said Mrs. Lemak, a former nurse, knew what she was doing when she killed the children, contending that she wanted to punish her husband, Dr. David Lemak, for their pending divorce. He was seeing another woman.

The jury, which deliberated for nine hours on Tuesday and today, rejected two other verdicts, guilty but mentally ill and not guilty by reason of insanity.

Mrs. Lemak showed no reaction as the verdicts were read.

Judge George Bakalis will sentence her because she chose not to be sentenced by the jury. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

The authorities said Mrs. Lemak fed the children peanut butter laced with her antianxiety medication, tucked them into bed, sang a lullaby and smothered them with her hands in their home in Naperville. She then slashed her wrists with a knife and stabbed a photograph of her estranged husband and his girlfriend.

In an emergency call to 911, Mrs. Lemak sobbed as she told the dispatcher, ''My three kids are dead and I want to be dead too, and it didn't work.'' When the dispatcher asked her why she did it, Mrs. Lemak said, ''My husband didn't want us anymore.''


I cannot buy the "a parent wouldn't do this to their child so it had to be an intruder" line of reasoning. If I could see cold, hard facts that point to someone else being in the house that night I would be more than willing to give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt. Most IDI theories I've seen have been full of holes or really far fetched and I haven't been able to buy into one of them. I guess this is the reason I hopped down from the fence onto the RDI side. Yes, a lot of RDI theories are full of holes too, but my gut feeling and my KISS (keep it simple stupid) mentality find the evidence pointing straight to someone who lived in that house.

I know everyone is set in their theories & many won't even consider going to the other side. As an RDI, with an open mind, I am more than happy to continue listening to both sides. I'm not firmly rooted in a particular theory and am open to people from RDI & IDI camps expounding on theirs ideas/explanations.

Thanks for letting me ramble yet again & for your opinions and input.

Snarks:)

[nuisanceposter]

Snarky - you've hit upon the basis for my RDI foundation - the Ramseys have been lying about many different things from day one, they would have no reason to lie about the things they have unless one of them was involved, and they would only cover this hard and this long for one of their own. That, and the evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night falls way short of conclusive for me.

According to ST's book, the Ramseys originally told police that JonBenet was tucked in bed, with Patsy singing to her and John reading a book. ST also said the Rs changed their story about the house being locked as well.

People claim ST is lying, but as the main detective he had access to the actual police reports and no one has ever challenged his claims in his book. The Rs sued him for slander, but then offered him a settlement they didn't have to that didn't restrict him at all.

The pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine is a big deal - there's no way that was eaten prior to the digested matter thought to be the cracked crab in her large intestine, and there's no way an intruder fed it to her and then waited around for an hour or so while got digested to the point of being in her small intestine. It was definitely pineapple, and definitely came from the bowl on the table.

The fiber evidence is a big deal. The only way the IDI can deal with it is to insist it's all a lie, but they can't prove that, and the manner in which the fiber evidence was brought up does not suggest an attempt to coerce a confession through police trickery.

The DNA is a big deal, because it isn't a big deal. It isn't related to this crime, it's artifact DNA as Lacy said, and the nail DNA and the undie DNA have NOT been proven to be a match.

The RN is a ridiculous bit of diversion. Real kidnappers don't leave notes that long, they don't count on the victim's house to provide supplies for them, they don't stop and assault and kill the victim before they even get her out of the house, and they don't leave behind the victim. Even a dead child can be ransomed, especially if the parents don't know she's dead.

Same with a pedophile. They don't leave RNs, and they don't stop and molest and kill a child in her own house with parents home. They take her somewhere else where they feel safe.

Same with a killer. They take the victim elsewhere, to a safe place. They usually don't take the time to wipe down and redress the child, and a true sadist would have torn JonBenet to shreds before, during, and/or after he killed her.

This killer is one that has never pulled off a crime such as this prior to this night, and has never done so again. The forensic evidence falls short of producing a valid intruder, and serves to indicate Ramsey involvement more than anyone else. The Ramseys have been caught lying repeatedly. I don't know how anyone can fail to see the truth of this case - you can get away with murder if you have enough money and know the right people. IMO.

[Louisadelmar]

For starters - What is your source that The Ramseys offered ST & Co. a settlement and not the other way around?

[elvislives]

Hey Snarky, that crime occurred in Chicago...I think in the 1940s. I could be wrong on the time. Again, I never even heard of it until I saw a show last night called 'Infamous Murders' and the old news footage looked to be in the 40s or 50s. This killer also had the distinction of being Illinois' first max security inmate to get a college degree (your tax dollars hard at work). Also, he later recanted and now says he is innocent.I am pretty sure he is still alive. He was only 17 at the time of the crime. You would have loved last nights episode of Infamous Murders--it profiled serial killers - all from Chicago --and there were LOTS of them.

Regarding the Ramsey murder, I'm trying to play catch up too. At the time of the crime, I presumed based on what I heard that the mother had killed her accidentally, then they staged the rest of the crime. The only thing I thought was weird was that her husband appeared to be in cahoots with her. But in any case, Patsy seemed like a kook--parading her young daughter around like a tart, dying her hair, enrolling her in beauty pageants etc. It didn't seem to be too much of a stretch that she snapped and killed her. Anyway, I presumed the mom guilty and never followed the case. I only became reinterested because a friend of mine emailed me the autopsy report recently (after the JMK thing) and I read it and was pretty shocked at the findings.

So I migrated from a die hard RDI to a fence sitter. I can't come up with a single scenario that fits the facts AND seems plausible.

And I'm only on "holiday light" hours for 2 more weeks, so we have to solve this thing asap!! Keep those theories coming, everyone. I'll latch onto one of them sooner or later.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=nuisanceposter;8791135]


Same with a pedophile. They don't leave RNs, and they don't stop and molest and kill a child in her own house with parents home. They take her somewhere else where they feel safe.QUOTE]


Hey NP, I saw a crime show last night where this guy broke into a family home in Chicago, snatched their 6 year old kid, then broke into another home where he killed and dismembered this child in the basement. Then he went back to the kidnapped girls room and wrote a bogus ransom note (that he never followed up on) asking for 20k and warning the parents not to call the police or the fbi.

I'm not suggesting that's what happened in the Ramsey case, but just pointing out that weird, seemingly motive-less, bizarre crimes happen.

[nuisanceposter]

For starters - What is your source that The Ramseys offered ST & Co. a settlement and not the other way around?

Here.

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

In a letter released to the public, former Detective Steve Thomas said the following:

- He was not the one who sought the settlement.
- He did not admit to any wrongdoing.
- He did not personally pay one single penny to the Ramseys.
- The book can continue to be published as is with no corrections.
- He can continue to speak on the case if he so wishes.



This is why the Rs sought the settlement:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/05302000petrocelliongeraldo.htm

In order for the Ramseys to prove any kind of defamation, they're going to have to prove that what was said about them was false. The most logical way to do that is to tell us who really did it, if it's not them. That would require them to submit to evidence, depositions, all kinds of discovery that they've refused to submit to so far.

But beyond that, since the Ramseys are clearly public figures, even if they can prove the falsity, they additionally have to prove some kind of what's called "actual malice" in the law, which in layman's terms means that whoever is saying these things would have to have some conscious knowledge that they're really not true. I think that's almost an impossible burden for any public figure libel plaintiff, and especially the Ramseys.


EL, I'm aware that not every killer/pedo/kidnapper acts exactly the same every time, but there's a reason a standard becomes a standard. Nothing has been standard in the Ramsey case, but the crime you see here would have had to have been enacted by a person who there is no evidence exists - a killer/pedo/'napper who bucks conventions, can mimic the handwriting of the residents perfectly, knows the layout of a rambling house, knows their routines, can convince a child to sit and eat pineapple with him and then waits an hour or so to kill her, has a key or can go through windows/doors without leaving any sign of being there, has DNA that degardes extremely rapidly, knows exactly where the child's clothes are and can go up and down stairs washing and redressing a child without making any noise or leaving any footprints or any forensic evidence whatsoever - and on top of that, has the parents telling obvious lies about the crime and their actions that evening for a decade to come. Lol! This person does not exist.

[Coloradokares]

Hey Snarky, that crime occurred in Chicago...I think in the 1940s. I could be wrong on the time. Again, I never even heard of it until I saw a show last night called 'Infamous Murders' and the old news footage looked to be in the 40s or 50s. This killer also had the distinction of being Illinois' first max security inmate to get a college degree (your tax dollars hard at work). Also, he later recanted and now says he is innocent.I am pretty sure he is still alive. He was only 17 at the time of the crime. You would have loved last nights episode of Infamous Murders--it profiled serial killers - all from Chicago --and there were LOTS of them.

Regarding the Ramsey murder, I'm trying to play catch up too. At the time of the crime, I presumed based on what I heard that the mother had killed her accidentally, then they staged the rest of the crime. The only thing I thought was weird was that her husband appeared to be in cahoots with her. But in any case, Patsy seemed like a kook--parading her young daughter around like a tart, dying her hair, enrolling her in beauty pageants etc. It didn't seem to be too much of a stretch that she snapped and killed her. Anyway, I presumed the mom guilty and never followed the case. I only became reinterested because a friend of mine emailed me the autopsy report recently (after the JMK thing) and I read it and was pretty shocked at the findings.

So I migrated from a die hard RDI to a fence sitter. I can't come up with a single scenario that fits the facts AND seems plausible.

And I'm only on "holiday light" hours for 2 more weeks, so we have to solve this thing asap!! Keep those theories coming, everyone. I'll latch onto one of them sooner or later.

Then use that time to fly into Denver go to Boulder talk to people . I promise I won't even taint the waters with introductions or opinion. Just go to Boulder. Then let us know what opinions you have at the end of that trip.

[elvislives]

Then use that time to fly into Denver go to Boulder talk to people . I promise I won't even taint the waters with introductions or opinion. Just go to Boulder. Then let us know what opinions you have at the end of that trip.

I'm working part time thru the holidays, plus I live in California so a trip to Boulder in the dead of winter is out of the question. Couldn't those with plausible opinions (that fit with the physical evidence) just post them here and spare me the trip? Pretty please??

[watson]

Ok NO FOOLING, I'm not an IDI or RDI. Honestly I didn't even know what the initials meant for the longest time (RDI= relative did it. IDI = intruder did it), but I figured it out. Never have I encountered a cold case (which this is) where people seemed so polarized into debating societies based on post crime spin and media, choosing 1 or the other option from these limited commercial sources (excepct maybe the OJ case, but then there was a big racial divide there). I advise everyone, don't 'just' be an RDI or a IDI, THINK, and ANALYZE for YOURSELVES, policemen, and LE, and book writers are no smarter than anyone else, or the people on this board. Read and learn the REAL original evidence (in the case facts of various reputatable web sites), HERE in the REAL facts and REAL evidence is where the truth ALWAYS and MUST lie, then follow the MOST LIKELY course of the real facts and evidence wherever it leads, no matter where it leads....and thereby discover the probable truth. No one just has to 'pick' that a relative did it, or an intruder did it.....there is a REAL truth here and it's in the REAL evidence where everyone can discover it.

[SnarkyCow]

Ok NO FOOLING, I'm not an IDI or RDI. Honestly I didn't even know what the initials meant for the longest time (RDI= relative did it. IDI = intruder did it), but I figured it out. Never have I encountered a cold case (which this is) where people seemed so polarized into debating societies based on post crime spin and media, choosing 1 or the other option from these limited commercial sources (excepct maybe the OJ case, but then there was a big racial divide there). I advise everyone, don't 'just' be an RDI or a IDI, THINK, and ANALYZE for YOURSELVES, policemen, and LE, and book writers are no smarter than anyone else, or the people on this board. Read and learn the REAL original evidence (in the case facts of various reputatable web sites), HERE in the REAL facts and REAL evidence is where the truth ALWAYS and MUST lie, then follow the MOST LIKELY course of the real facts and evidence wherever it leads, no matter where it leads....and thereby discover the probable truth. No one just has to 'pick' that a relative did it, or an intruder did it.....there is a REAL truth here and it's in the REAL evidence where everyone can discover it.

I think you and I are saying the same thing, essentially :beer: I didn't chose to be RDI because it was either that or IDI. From where I sit & from the facts I've read I've come to the conclusion that John & Patsy had something to do with the death of their daughter.

I think it's smart to allow yourself (universal "you") to keep an open mind as more and more info comes out about this case. If I heard or saw something that for sure pointed to an intruder I wouldn't be bull-headed (HA! Get it SnarkyCow - Bull?!) enough to stick with my RDI theories. I think a lot of people on these boards automatically assume anything that doesn't fit with their theory is an automatic lie or spin - I don't want to become jaded like that. I'd like to keep an open mind for new information and clues to this case.

As I said above "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line" and the most straight line I can see is one that goes directly from JR & PR to JBR:

John & Patsy Ramsey ------------------------ JonBenet Ramsey

I'm more than willing to listen to any theory, whether fence sitter, RDI, or IDI, but until I hear something that makes more sense than my "straight line" theory I am of the opinion that John & Patsy Ramsey are the ones responsible for their daughter's murder.

[elvislives]

Ok NO FOOLING, I'm not an IDI or RDI. Honestly I didn't even know what the initials meant for the longest time (RDI= relative did it. IDI = intruder did it), but I figured it out. Never have I encountered a cold case (which this is) where people seemed so polarized into debating societies based on post crime spin and media, choosing 1 or the other option from these limited commercial sources (excepct maybe the OJ case, but then there was a big racial divide there). I advise everyone, don't 'just' be an RDI or a IDI, THINK, and ANALYZE for YOURSELVES, policemen, and LE, and book writers are no smarter than anyone else, or the people on this board. Read and learn the REAL original evidence (in the case facts of various reputatable web sites), HERE in the REAL facts and REAL evidence is where the truth ALWAYS and MUST lie, then follow the MOST LIKELY course of the real facts and evidence wherever it leads, no matter where it leads....and thereby discover the probable truth. No one just has to 'pick' that a relative did it, or an intruder did it.....there is a REAL truth here and it's in the REAL evidence where everyone can discover it.

Amen to that Watson. But first off, I thought RDI stood for Ramsey did it, not relative. In any case, I think we're on the same page here...maybe you can help me take a side.

IMO everything circumstantially points to the Ramseys. Especially (and I've had numerous arguements with co-workers about this)...but especially their lack of cooperation with police. I just can't understand why educated people would refuse to help police find their daughters killer. I know this is circumstantial and not scientific evidence, but it bothers me none the less.

BUT The major problem that I have yet to get around is the autopsy report. People can argue all they want that black is white and white is black, but the reality is that the head wound and the strangulation occurred more or less simultaneously. I have yet to develop a scenario where the Rs would intentionally kill their daughter and conspire in the cover up. The accident theory makes sense to me, but is impossible based on the physical evidence. Can you or anyone come up with a RDI theory that supports the autopsy evidence?

The other physical evidence...the ransom note, the window, the knots etc are a mystery to me and since I am neither a handwriting, window nor a knot expert the theory can be nebulous on these topics.

[Athena]

I agree with you, elvislives re the autopsy report. Several months ago after doing much research, I came to the conclusion that the head injury occurred at or close to death which means the strangulation took place first. While I realize everyday parents kill their children, I have yet to read a murder by a parent that tortured a child to death. This is the primary reason I have a problem believing the Ramseys killed their daughter. Seems to me the murder was cold and heartless.

Another issue is the ransom note. The ransom note, IMO, seemed a clever way to frame the Ramseys. I just cannot understand how well-educated people could write a note putting details in it that points directly to themselves. Why would one want to "frame" themselves? I don't believe JR or PR were stupid enough to use an amount that could be directly traced back to JR's bonus nor can I see a parent who has just killed a child writing such a lengthy note and using the words "beheaded" "executed" etc. It just doesn't make sense to me. Re: the pineapple -- from everything I've read it could have been eaten as early as the morning before her death or up to a couple of hours before her death. If the coroner were so sure that the pineapple were eaten just before her death he would have estimated time of death and he did not.

What makes sense to me is that someone who knew the Ramseys wrote that note and felt empowered by it. A note that rendered a seemingly confident John Ramsey totally helpless. I also believe the person who wrote the note never really thought that the Ramseys would call the police and may have very well had the intention of collecting the money. In addition to that there were other people of interest whose handwriting matched the note and scored much higher than Patsy did. There was a consensus of six experts (4 hired by BPD and 2 hired by the Ramseys) said chances that Patsy wrote the note were 4.5 on a scale of 5 with 1 on the scale being a higher probability. Every other so-called expert that claimed Patsy wrote the note all reviewed copies of the ransom note and handwriting samples. It is a fact that in order to accurately analyze handwriting to any point of accuracy - the originals are necessary as copies and especially copies of copies, would distort and blur the letters and would not show the pressure of the writing. Also in order to accurately analyze handwriting, the differences become more important than the similarities.

I do lean towards IDI however am open to all evidence whether it points to an intruder or not. It is also true that there is circumstantial evidence that can point to the Ramseys but it is also true there was quite a bit of evidence that has been collected, never explained and cannot be traced to the Ramseys. Much of what was alleged to have been traced back to the Ramseys would not be unusual since it was their home. I just have not been convinced by anything I've read that the Ramseys committed this crime.

In another thread I've also posted other ransom notes where the child had already been killed and there was never an intention by the perp of returning the child for money. There are also ransom notes which appear to have been almost "cut and pasted into this one."

Whether IDI or RDI no one theory seems to incorporate every element in this case. It is certainly a complex case.

[Athena]

The Ramsey case is not the first ransom note and kidnapping scenario used to draw attention away from a murder. In 1978, the murder of Gail Jackson and several other women occurred in Columbus, Georgia. There was a ransom note in this case also and parallels can be drawn between the notes in both the Ramsey and Jackson cases. Below, the first lines of the notes are compared.
Ramsey: "We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction."
Jackson: "We are an organization composed of seven members."
The purpose of these statements is to suggest that a group of people is involved in the crime. Initial examination of the Jackson note revealed that the seven men mentioned were seven white men and experts, who examined the note in March of 1978, felt that it was a "bogus" ransom note. By looking in the opposite direction of what the staged note implied, experts concluded that the offender was a black man, "possibly an artillery man or military policeman" who was solely responsible for the murder. William Hance, a black man in an artillery unit at Fort Bennings, was later arrested in the Jackson case. He confessed that the note was a "hoax" and he was the only person involved in the murders.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/ransom.html

Hauptman note: Lindbergh case:
Dear Sir! Have 50,000$ redy 2500$ in 20$ bills 1 5000$ in 10$ bills and 10000$ in 5$ bills. After 2-4 days we will inform you were to deliver the Mony. We warn you for making anyding public or for the polise the child is in gut care. Indication for all letters are signature and 3 holes.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Hauptmann/Ransom.htm

LaMarca Note: Weinberger Case
Attention,'' it said. ``I'm sorry this had to happen, but I am in bad need of money, & couldn't get it any other way. Don't tell anyone or go to the police about this, because I am watching you closely. I am scared stiff, & will kill the baby at your first wrong move ... Your baby sitter.''

It demanded $2,000 in small bills. The money was to be placed in a brown envelope and left near the Weinberger home, next to a signpost at Albemarle Road and Park Avenue, at 10 o'clock the next morning.

http://tinyurl.com/y2ggod


William Hance - Gail Jackson case:
The letters were signed "Forces of Evil," a fictitious group the appellant had created. The second of these letters received by the Chief of Police demanded either the apprehension of the Columbus strangler or a $10,000 ransom in return for the victim's safety. In addition, the appellant found an Army Cap with a different unit insignia than his unit and placed this near the crime scene, also in order to avert suspicion.

http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/8449/

Attached was a note written in pencil on brown parcel-wrapping paper. It began:

"Mr. Cudahy: We have kidnapped your child and demand $25,000 for his safe return. If you give us the money he will return as safe as when you last saw him, but if you refuse, we will put acid in his eyes and blind him."

The note continued with a number of threats,

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/outlaws/cudahy_kidnapping/3.html

[shill]

The evidence that is available is being interpreted to fit what posters want to believe.
No one knows what caused the head wound or how, but they will tell you it's a fact that it happened this way...
No one knows when JB ate pineapple or how she got it, but they will tell you it's a fact that it happened this way...
No one knows if the garrote and ligature were staged , but they will tell you it's a fact because...
The evidence is real, making it fit the crime they think did or didn't happen is what is being done to it.

[shill]

No one talks about the thousands of fibers found that have not matched anything in the Ramsey's house or person, including the beaver fur in JB's hand.

[Coloradokares]

I'm working part time thru the holidays, plus I live in California so a trip to Boulder in the dead of winter is out of the question. Couldn't those with plausible opinions (that fit with the physical evidence) just post them here and spare me the trip? Pretty please??

Save you the trip find rock hard solid evidence of an intruder....

[shill]

Save you the trip find rock hard solid evidence of an intruder....
Items brought into the house by an intruder;
-)Parachute cord
-)Black duct tape
-)Beaver fir
-)Flashlight
-)Thousands of foreign fibers
-)DNA
-)Pubic hair

[andU]

Same with a killer. They take the victim elsewhere, to a safe place. They usually don't take the time to wipe down and redress the child, and a true sadist would have torn JonBenet to shreds before, during, and/or after he killed her.



I disagree, IMO, she was killed, murdered by strangulation and her head bashed. The scene was staged, not by the parents, to mask and confuse the investigation ..... which it certainly did.

[aussiesheila]

**I would like to preface this post by saying I'm not being sarcastic or inflamitory. Although I am an RDI, I am interested in the hearing both sides of the argument.**

IDIs, what are your opinions/how do you explain the following:

4. What would an intruder accomplish by leaving a three page long ransom note at the scene of a murder?

I have a lot more questions, but I'm going to take them a few at a time - otherwise it gets too overwhelming for me.:)

Thanks for your ideas & opinions,

SnarksIn answer to question 4 Snarks, here I go with my pedophile intruder theory again. Since IMO JonBenet was killed by pedophiles who were known to the family, one of them being Santa, who Patsy had let in because he had told her he was bringing a friend to photograph JonBenet with him for a magazine; what I think they hoped to accomplish by leaving a ransom note (which I think they forced Patsy to write), was that the murder could be made to look as though it had been perpetrated by a kidnapper, so no-one would be on the trail of a group of pedophiles, who along with one or two other Ramsey friend/relative(s) who happened not to be there that night, had been sexually abusing her for years.

[LindaA]

I'm with you up to a point on that one Aussieshiela, but much of what you say doesn't sound plausible. I still don't think PR would have lain down for a nap in the midst of all this, She would have wanted to be right there fussing over JBR's appearance. I can't see them forcing her to write the note; I don't think she wrote it. I can't see her protecting them to her dying day.

[LadyFisher]

Elvis, Thanks so much for your responses. When did that happen in Chicago? (I'm from Chicago) Cripes! What a horrible thing! :(

On another note:

I'm so new to the Ramsey case (considering some people have followed it for ten years and I just started after the whole JMK thing) and I've tried to keep an open mind throughout what I've read in books and on multiple messageboards. No IDI theory or explanation has sounded plausible to me. I don't want to think that parents could do this to their child, but all I've read and the little bit of evidence available in this case points to the Ramseys being involved in the death of their daughter (in my opinion). "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line" and all that.

The questions I posted above (especially the pineapple) are some that have really bothered me since the beginning of my research on this case. From what I've read I believe John & Patsy are lying about JB being asleep when they arrived home and they are lying about the pineapple. In my opinion, lying about these things sets the stage for lying about everything else.

I see no possible way feeding JonBenet pineapple fits into an intruder's plan. It's like "Gee, I'll feed her pineapple then kidnapp her, and garrote her, and crack her skull, sexually assault her and leave a three page note in my handwriting."

A lot of people say "Parents couldn't do this to their child!" or "They have no history of abuse or violence!" - I wish this were true, I wish we didn't have to worry about parents causing their children pain, but it happens all the time - with or without a history of violence.

In my hometown (which is a very wealthy, white collar, upper-crust place to live - much like a lot of Boulder, CO) a women drugged & smothered her three beautiful children in 1999 because she was upset that her estranged husband was seeing another women. Now, I know this is nothing like the JBR case, but there was no history of any violence or abuse until this happened. This women just snapped. It does happen. It can happen to people with no history of violence or abuse. In the case of the women from my hometown she snapped because of her husband, but no one would have ever thought she was capable of doing what she did to those three, beautiful angels. See the following quote from this link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C01E2DA133EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63



I cannot buy the "a parent wouldn't do this to their child so it had to be an intruder" line of reasoning. If I could see cold, hard facts that point to someone else being in the house that night I would be more than willing to give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt. Most IDI theories I've seen have been full of holes or really far fetched and I haven't been able to buy into one of them. I guess this is the reason I hopped down from the fence onto the RDI side. Yes, a lot of RDI theories are full of holes too, but my gut feeling and my KISS (keep it simple stupid) mentality find the evidence pointing straight to someone who lived in that house.

I know everyone is set in their theories & many won't even consider going to the other side. As an RDI, with an open mind, I am more than happy to continue listening to both sides. I'm not firmly rooted in a particular theory and am open to people from RDI & IDI camps expounding on theirs ideas/explanations.

Thanks for letting me ramble yet again & for your opinions and input.

Snarks:)

Snarky, the case you gave as an example isn't similar to this case. First off, Patsy and John have always proclaimed their innocence, never wavering! Look at the 911 call from the example you gave in comparison to Patsy's! Joh Douglas states in his books, if Patsy had killed JB in an act of revenge to JR, she would have continued to find ways to stick it to him, she didn't. They were monitored closely by LE at the Steins home. Would John have stayed married to a woman who he suspected of murdering his child, and then allowed her to raise their son? Nope! The fact is these parents had nothing to hide, the media delved into every aspect of their lives. imho an intruder did this horrendous crime! jmho

[nuisanceposter]

AS, how was this group of pedos getting repeated access to JonBenet to have been sexually abusing her for years? Were John and/or Patsy aware that this gang of pedos was abusing JonBenet - for years? What do you base your belief that they had been abusing her for years on?



Shill, that list does not include rock solid evidence of an intruder.

Parachute cord, maybe. That's a new one. I could easily see pleasure pilot John Ramsey having some parachute cord around.

The tape - I've heard that piece of tape had already been used elsewhere before it was out over JonBenet's mouth, and it was put over her mouth after she had been killed, because it had bloody mucus from her face on it. Why would you tape the mouth of a dead child, unless for staging?

A beaver hair - Patsy had a lot of brushes, both paint and make up. That hair could have easily come from one of those brushes, as they are often made of animal hair. Maybe the paintbrush that was broken and used on JB was made of beaver hair.

That flashlight belonged to the Ramseys.

Foreign fibers - I might have to doubt the existance, since I'm not hearing any more details on these fibers other than they were found. Where were they found? How do we know they weren't already there before this murder even occurred?

DNA - undie and nail DNA are not conclusive matches. Find me a source other than one paid by the Ramseys or repeating "facts" trotted out by those paid by the Ramseys and I might be able to consider it. There aren't enough markers to match the two. The undie DNA was fragmented and degraded, and Dr Lee found DNA on identical pairs of undies. Even Lacy said the DNA may be artifact and unrelated to this case.

Pubic hair - too many conflicting reports. Was it a pubic hair or an ancillary hair? According to PMPT, there were countless people who slept in JB's bed - including Nedra Paugh and JAR. That hair could have come from any of them, or even the laundry.

[SnarkyCow]

Snarky, the case you gave as an example isn't similar to this case. First off, Patsy and John have always proclaimed their innocence, never wavering! Look at the 911 call from the example you gave in comparison to Patsy's! Joh Douglas states in his books, if Patsy had killed JB in an act of revenge to JR, she would have continued to find ways to stick it to him, she didn't. They were monitored closely by LE at the Steins home. Would John have stayed married to a woman who he suspected of murdering his child, and then allowed her to raise their son? Nope! The fact is these parents had nothing to hide, the media delved into every aspect of their lives. imho an intruder did this horrendous crime! jmho

I realize that case and this case are nothing alike. That's why I posted this:

Now, I know this is nothing like the JBR case, but there was no history of any violence or abuse until this happened.

I was pointing out that parents DO harm their children, as much as people here don't want to believe they do. And parents with NO history of violence can snap. That was my point, as I mentioned in the post you quoted. I am not comparing cases.

Also, if they had nothing to hide why did it take so long for them to talk to LE, why wouldn't they agree to polygraphs and why couldn't they remember the smallest details? More on this later.... I'm off to lunch.

Snarks

[elvislives]

Save you the trip find rock hard solid evidence of an intruder....

Thats the problem, CK. There is NO rock solid evidence of an intruder, nor is there rock solid evidence to support the RDI. However, as I have pointed out before, you can't charge someone with first degree murder based on a LACK of evidence.
In the Elizabeth Smart case there was NO rock solid evidence of an intruder. In fact, most people...myself included...thought the parents were involved because of the lack of intruder evidence. It was even leaked to the press that the screen that this mystery intruder used to gain access was CUT FROM THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE. And why would a 14 year old kid allow herself to be abducted without even screaming for help? Nothing made sense. Many people were even speculating that the Smart father had been molesting Elizabeth and had to finish her off to keep her quiet (sound familiar?). There was never enough evidence to charge the parents, and I suspect that if she had never been found they would be the prime suspects to this day.

So while I hear in your tone that you are frustrated with anyone who doesn't condemn the Rs, I think it is important to remember that most of us here are looking for the truth, whatever that may be. I have no motivation to defend anyone who brutally killed a child, but by the same token I would never want to blame someone for such a horrific crime unless I was sure they were guilty.Clearly you are sure the Rs are guilty, I'm just not entirely convinced yet.

[LindaA]

And I am frustrated by continuing to hear the RDIs say the IDIS don't believe parents harm their own children. Obviously they do. I think what most IDIs think is that these parents don't fit the profile of parents who murder nor does the method by which JBR died seem to fit with the way parents who murder usually do it. ANd that the staging doesn't fit with trhe scenario of parents covering up a murder-by-blow-to-the-head.

I also agree with Elvislives that there is no really solid evidence either way as far as we know. JMO.

[andU]

And I am frustrated by continuing to hear the RDIs say the IDIS don't believe parents harm their own children. Obviously they do. I think what most IDIs think is that these parents don't fit the profile of parents who murder nor does the method by which JBR died seem to fit with the way parents who murder usually do it. ANd that the staging doesn't fit with trhe scenario of parents covering up a murder-by-blow-to-the-head.

I also agree with Elvislives that there is no really solid evidence either way as far as we know. JMO.

Linda, Amen!

[SnarkyCow]

And I am frustrated by continuing to hear the RDIs say the IDIS don't believe parents harm their own children. Obviously they do. I think what most IDIs think is that these parents don't fit the profile of parents who murder nor does the method by which JBR died seem to fit with the way parents who murder usually do it. ANd that the staging doesn't fit with trhe scenario of parents covering up a murder-by-blow-to-the-head.

I also agree with Elvislives that there is no really solid evidence either way as far as we know. JMO.

Maybe you should be frustrated with the IDIs who continually say a parent wouldn't do to a child what was done to JonBenet. It's not RDIs making it up - there are a lot of IDIs who say it. They also say a person with no history of violence or abuse could commit such a heinous crime - which, as shown by my above example, is also false. You may not be one of the IDIs who says these things, but there are several who do.

[Louisadelmar]

Maybe you should be frustrated with the IDIs who continually say a parent wouldn't do to a child what was done to JonBenet. It's not RDIs making it up - there are a lot of IDIs who say it. They also say a person with no history of violence or abuse could commit such a heinous crime - which, as shown by my above example, is also false. You may not be one of the IDIs who says these things, but there are several who do.

The woman you cited does fit a profile of parents who kill.


DuPage County State's Attorney Joseph Birkett is prosecuting the case. He plans to argue that Marilyn Lemak killed the children to spite her estranged husband after learning he'd begun dating another woman.

Defense attorney John Donahue has said he will argue that Lemak, dogged by a depression that only worsened as her divorce dragged on, was insane at the time of the killings.
http://www.cjwm.com/cgi-bin/newsscript.pl?record=15

The Ramseys don't.

[SnarkyCow]

The woman you cited does fit a profile of parents who kill.


DuPage County State's Attorney Joseph Birkett is prosecuting the case. He plans to argue that Marilyn Lemak killed the children to spite her estranged husband after learning he'd begun dating another woman.

Defense attorney John Donahue has said he will argue that Lemak, dogged by a depression that only worsened as her divorce dragged on, was insane at the time of the killings.
http://www.cjwm.com/cgi-bin/newsscript.pl?record=15

The Ramseys don't.

They found her guilty though, not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but insane. They said she knew exactly what she was doing when she did it.

Prosecutors said Mrs. Lemak, a former nurse, knew what she was doing when she killed the children, contending that she wanted to punish her husband, Dr. David Lemak, for their pending divorce. He was seeing another woman.

The jury, which deliberated for nine hours on Tuesday and today, rejected two other verdicts, guilty but mentally ill and not guilty by reason of insanity.

I see what you are saying, but my only point in posting that link was to show that parents with no history of violence can snap and do unspeakable things. Yes, the situations are different and the case I posted is easier to understand because we know the motive. In the JBR case, if the parents did it (as I think they did, IMO) we don't know the motive - so who knows if one or both of them snapped. Maybe they do fit the profile of parents who kill - we don't have enough information to say they don't.

Thanks for your response, I do hear what you are saying. :)

Thanks,

Snarks

[LindaA]

Snarks, I think it highly unlikely that they both snapped at the same time. The enthralling thing about this case is that nothing fits any established profile, which is why the IDIs have a hard time accepting the RDI point of view. I'm thinking of the recent cases in which mothers murdered thier children. The motive became obvious almast immediately:
extreme depression, vengance against the other parent, financial difficulties, and the child becoming an inconvenience -- standing in the way of another relationship. I can't think of any others offhand. Maybe someone else can. The Rs don't seem to fit any of these.

Even in the Jeffrey MacDonald case MacDonald had been on amphetamines before the murder. The theory is he suddenly snapped because his one daughter had wet his side of the bed. But his wife did not snap as well. I"m wondering what else we can learn from the MacDonald case that would help us understand the Ramsey case -- either way, RDI or IDI.

[Louisadelmar]

They found her guilty though, not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but insane. They said she knew exactly what she was doing when she did it.



I see what you are saying, but my only point in posting that link was to show that parents with no history of violence can snap and do unspeakable things. Yes, the situations are different and the case I posted is easier to understand because we know the motive. In the JBR case, if the parents did it (as I think they did, IMO) we don't know the motive - so who knows if one or both of them snapped. Maybe they do fit the profile of parents who kill - we don't have enough information to say they don't.

Thanks for your response, I do hear what you are saying. :)

Thanks,

Snarks

I don't recall people specifying a history of violence per se. Most IDIs say there is no history that fits any of the profile e.g. drug/alcohol abuse, mental disorder, marital problems, lack of family/friend support, isolation, financial problems, lack of education etc.

Though I'm sure someone has said it, I don't recall any IDI posts saying parents don't kill. Anyone who has any interest in crime knows parents do kill. But there is usually something in their background that either is obvious or comes out after the fact.

[SnarkyCow]

Snarks, I think it highly unlikely that they both snapped at the same time. The enthralling thing about this case is that nothing fits any established profile, which is why the IDIs have a hard time accepting the RDI point of view. I'm thinking of the recent cases in which mothers murdered thier children. The motive became obvious almast immediately:
extreme depression, vengance against the other parent, financial difficulties, and the child becoming an inconvenience -- standing in the way of another relationship. I can't think of any others offhand. Maybe someone else can. The Rs don't seem to fit any of these.

LOL - I too think it unlikely they snapped at the same time. I just re-read that and was like hmmmm.... I'm not real bright! :D :rolleyes:

Maybe the Rs don't seem to fit the profile, but we cannot say for sure because there is so much about them and the case we are not privy to. Who knows about their problems? People good at keeping up appearances can oftentimes be good at hiding their ugly secrets.

To use a lame metaphor (bear with me, I'm on a tangent): Think of the Ramsey house. Think about how neat it was in those places that people could see and how messy & unorganized it was in just the family areas. How do we know their lives weren't similar to their house: All nice and neat on the outside, messy & ugly on the inside?

We cannot say, nor should we assume, the Ramseys do not fit the profile because we do not know if they did or not. We don't know the secrets & most evidence that would have (maybe) revealed what happened secretly in that house was contaminated or staged.

I think it is also important to remember that not all crimes fit into a nice, neat little profile package. There are crimes of rage, jealousy, passion, etc. that are based purely on raw emotion.

I cannot base my opinion of John & Patsy being involved in the murder of their daughter solely on the fact that they don't fit a certain profile. I've yet to see any evidence or proof of an intruder, and in my opinion, the evidence we have seen doesn't point to anyone but the Ramseys.

Snarks

[andU]

LOL - I too think it unlikely they snapped at the same time. I just re-read that and was like hmmmm.... I'm not real bright! :D :rolleyes:

Maybe the Rs don't seem to fit the profile, but we cannot say for sure because there is so much about them and the case we are not privy to. Who knows about their problems? People good at keeping up appearances can oftentimes be good at hiding their ugly secrets.

To use a lame metaphor (bear with me, I'm on a tangent): Think of the Ramsey house. Think about how neat it was in those places that people could see and how messy & unorganized it was in just the family areas. How do we know their lives weren't similar to their house: All nice and neat on the outside, messy & ugly on the inside?

We cannot say, nor should we assume, the Ramseys do not fit the profile because we do not know if they did or not. We don't know the secrets & most evidence that would have (maybe) revealed what happened secretly in that house was contaminated or staged.

I think it is also important to remember that not all crimes fit into a nice, neat little profile package. There are crimes of rage, jealousy, passion, etc. that are based purely on raw emotion.

I cannot base my opinion of John & Patsy being involved in the murder of their daughter solely on the fact that they don't fit a certain profile. I've yet to see any evidence or proof of an intruder, and in my opinion, the evidence we have seen doesn't point to anyone but the Ramseys.

Snarks

You have made a good point, but I'm still IDI ....

[SnarkyCow]

You have made a good point, but I'm still IDI ....

That's cool ~ I totally respect your opinion and thank you for respecting mine! :beer:

[LindaA]

Yes, Snarks, you do make a good point. I agree. However, the Rs have been under extreme scrutiny for the last 10 years and not one iota of evidence concerning any of these conditions has ever been made public.

I think almost every piece of evidence is open to interpretation.

I also believe there is evidence we have not seen, which much exclude the Rs as the perps or they would have been arrested and JMK would never have been brought back to Colorado.

So that why I'm about 90% IDI, but as the poll we had not too long ago said, I wouldn't drop dead if some evidence came to light that proved the Rs guilt. But at this point I have not seen that evidence and I cannot imagine a scenario that fits with the evidence that has the Rs murdering their daughter and covering it up with the staging present in this crime.

[bullmoose]

In the Elisabeth Smart case in Utah a couple years ago a nutcase self-proclaimed prophet who had worked just once for a couple hours for the family in the house, came in and kidnapped the daughter; he left no evidence of the break-in that I'm aware of. At least not that the police found, so of course they believed that there was no intruder, even when the younger daughter described him later and a sketch was made of him. The apparent lack of evidence pointing to an intruder in this case, considering the actions of the BPD from the very beginning, is hardly shocking. Remember, they only considered the Ramseys as suspects; so if in their mountains of collected things the BPD took out of their house there is proof of an intruder, the proof is still undicovered. Lou Smit, hired by the DA to check the case went in a different direction than the BPD; he thought there was as much or more evidence pointing to an intruder and away from the Ramseys; but as he said, he followed the evidence. The BPD,on 12/26/96 were convinced they knew who did it and fashioned their investigation accordingly, to try to prove their theory, that the Ramseys did it. Up until now, not enough evidence has been collected to effect an indictment or arrest of anyone; so the BPD has covered itself in what? Certainly not glory. My opinions on this case have changed over the years; at first I assumed the Ramseys had to be involved; statistically it was likely; but for me when I started researching the case for myself my opinions changed. Reading the shamelessly self-serving book of Steve Thomas tipped me into thinking that the Ramseys were innocent. My own experience at the hands of self-righteous cops is that they are perfectly capable of intellectual and actual dishonesty whenever they feel justified in doing so; IMO this occurred in Jonbenet's case by the BPD. I was left thinking that an honest investigation by them never took place; IMO what happened was more akin to a witchhunt by Synthroid Steve and his pals.

[SnarkyCow]

Bullmoose,

Of course LE focused on the family - the Ramseys were the only people LE could prove were in the house that night. If there was evidence of an intruder the Ramseys would certainly not be the focus of the investigation.

I've noticed from your posts that you have a serious problem with Steve Thomas. You say his book was "shamelessly self-serving." That is exactly how I feel about DOI - I think that book was disgusting and completely focused on the inconvenience to Patsy & John due to the murder of JonBenet. (I read DOI before Steve Thomas's book and the Ramseys' book is one of the first things that made me lean toward RDI).

If Steve Thomas's book is so full of lies and defamation of character, etc. why is he still allowed to speak on the subject & sell the book after the Ramseys' law suit against him?

Peace & hairgrease,

Snarky

PS. I don't necessarily agree with everything ST says but, being a lead detective on the case, his opinion does deserve to be considered (in my opinion).

[LindaA]

Snarks, I believe Bullmoose's point is that LE focused on the Ramseys beforethe evidence was even collected. Of course we know now that is standard police procedure, but we IDIs don't think the Ramseys's were aware of that back in '96. Don't think many people were at that time.

A lot of us have problems with ST's book because there are a lot of conflicts between what he said in the book and what he said when he was under oath in his depo. Perhaps Athena will be along to tell you more about that.

I do agree with you about DOI. I believe it was the Rs attempt to win sympathy.

[elvislives]

Hey Snarks,

Which parent do you think killed JB and why? Or do you think they both killed her together, and again what was their motive?

I think you said or implyed that you think they were both involved in the cover up and I have to agree with that. Some here believe that John could have killed JB and covered it all up unbeknownst to Patsy, but that seems sort of unbelievable to me (although not impossible).

So which Ramsey do you think was the killer? Like many others, I think that if Patsy (or John) had been home alone that night with the kids, they would have been charged and tried for first degree murder. It is the presence, and imo unexplained complicity of the other parent that makes this case so unique. Thoughts?

[Louisadelmar]

[...]

If Steve Thomas's book is so full of lies and defamation of character, etc. why is he still allowed to speak on the subject & sell the book after the Ramseys' law suit against him?

Peace & hairgrease,

Snarky

PS. I don't necessarily agree with everything ST says but, being a lead detective on the case, his opinion does deserve to be considered (in my opinion).

His book was no longer bring printed when the case was resolved. The court can't recall the sold copies and most of what was still for sale was either in the 'mark it down, move it out bin or second hand. You'll notice he wasn't out talking about how Patsy was guilty after the settlement. Now, of course, he can kick the dead lady as much as he likes.

[elvislives]

Snarks, I believe Bullmoose's point is that LE focused on the Ramseys beforethe evidence was even collected. Of course we know now that is standard police procedure, but we IDIs don't think the Ramseys's were aware of that back in '96. Don't think many people were at that time.

A lot of us have problems with ST's book because there are a lot of conflicts between what he said in the book and what he said when he was under oath in his depo. Perhaps Athena will be along to tell you more about that.

I do agree with you about DOI. I believe it was the Rs attempt to win sympathy.

I think I may be the only one who has not read ST book or the DOI. But maybe some of you who have can answer this question. Usually when a child is murdered, the immediate family members are the prime suspects. It should be standard police procedure (at least it is in my city) to explain to the parents that the job of the police is to ELIMINATE them as suspects so they can focus all their resources on finding "the real killer". Usually this brings about parental cooperation. Does anyone know if this was done in the Ramsey case?

[SnarkyCow]

Snarks, I believe Bullmoose's point is that LE focused on the Ramseys beforethe evidence was even collected. Of course we know now that is standard police procedure, but we IDIs don't think the Ramseys's were aware of that back in '96. Don't think many people were at that time.

A lot of us have problems with ST's book because there are a lot of conflicts between what he said in the book and what he said when he was under oath in his depo. Perhaps Athena will be along to tell you more about that.

I do agree with you about DOI. I believe it was the Rs attempt to win sympathy.

Truth be told I haven't heard much about ST's depo - I will definitely look into it further & would appreciate any info anyone would like to share. Thanks for the tip. :) I don't necessarily agree with everything ST said in his book, but I had to consider it, just as I felt it necessary to consider what the Ramseys had to say in DOI.

[SnarkyCow]

Hey Snarks,

Which parent do you think killed JB and why? Or do you think they both killed her together, and again what was their motive?

I think you said or implyed that you think they were both involved in the cover up and I have to agree with that. Some here believe that John could have killed JB and covered it all up unbeknownst to Patsy, but that seems sort of unbelievable to me (although not impossible).

So which Ramsey do you think was the killer? Like many others, I think that if Patsy (or John) had been home alone that night with the kids, they would have been charged and tried for first degree murder. It is the presence, and imo unexplained complicity of the other parent that makes this case so unique. Thoughts?

I do think they were both involved in the cover up and I do believe that one of them killed her (I've always leaned toward Patsy). I'm not sure of a motive because, as I said earlier in this thread, I don't know what the Ramseys were like behind closed doors. I don't know their problems, stressors, pain, secrets, etc.

Sorry about the wishy-washy answer. :rolleyes: I guess it's fair to say I lean toward Patsy as the one who murdered her, but I'm not ready to rule John out.

Cheers,

Snarky

[Louisadelmar]

I think I may be the only one who has not read ST book or the DOI. But maybe some of you who have can answer this question. Usually when a child is murdered, the immediate family members are the prime suspects. It should be standard police procedure (at least it is in my city) to explain to the parents that the job of the police is to ELIMINATE them as suspects so they can focus all their resources on finding "the real killer". Usually this brings about parental cooperation. Does anyone know if this was done in the Ramsey case?

I think it was done during the first interview (April? 1997). But I'd have to check to be sure. I never got the impression it was done that first day and then MeLinda was reduced to tears in her interview and Beuf was worried about Patsy and then Eller tried to trade the body for an interview and Meyer refused to hold the body. Then when the Ramseys got back from the funeral they called to set up an interview and were turned down.

[Louisadelmar]

Truth be told I haven't heard much about ST's depo - I will definitely look into it further & would appreciate any info anyone would like to share. Thanks for the tip. :) I don't necessarily agree with everything ST said in his book, but I had to consider it, just as I felt it necessary to consider what the Ramseys had to say in DOI.

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

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.htm

[SnarkyCow]

I think it was done during the first interview (April? 1997). But I'd have to check to be sure. I never got the impression it was done that first day and then MeLinda was reduced to tears in her interview and Beuf was worried about Patsy and then Eller tried to trade the body for an interview and Meyer refused to hold the body. Then when the Ramseys got back from the funeral they called to set up an interview and were turned down.

I thought the conditions of their interview set by the Ramseys were turned down, not the interview itself. I thought LE wanted to do it on their "turf" and call the shots, but the Ramseys had all these stipulations and demands that were innappropriate. I don't think LE said "No, we don't want to talk to you, thanks and goodbye." I thought the Ramseys eventually said no to the LE interview because LE wouldn't bow to their stipulations.

Is this the time this happened or was it another interview? I can't remember so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.:beer:

Snarks

[SnarkyCow]

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

Thanks for the link! :rose:

[LadyFisher]

Snarks, I believe Bullmoose's point is that LE focused on the Ramseys beforethe evidence was even collected. Of course we know now that is standard police procedure, but we IDIs don't think the Ramseys's were aware of that back in '96. Don't think many people were at that time.

A lot of us have problems with ST's book because there are a lot of conflicts between what he said in the book and what he said when he was under oath in his depo. Perhaps Athena will be along to tell you more about that.

I do agree with you about DOI. I believe it was the Rs attempt to win sympathy.

Linda, I agree with you in your first paragraph, I don't think 10 years ago the Ramseys were aware that LE would consider them suspects...I think they were very naive. It was at the suggestion of a friend they retained an attorney, they were still grieving and in shock. I do disagree that DOI was just a ploy to gain sympathy though. I believe they wrote the book to reveal just what they had to endure from LE, media, outright lies concerning them, and coping with the murder of a child...in it, I saw a family that had to endure many trials and struggles, from the loss of John's older daughter to Patsy's cancer ordeal. I believe they were trying to show the world that just because they had some money before JB's death, they were a somewhat normal family. I feel like this couple had to endure more than most, not only the murder of their beloved daughter, but also being accused of doing it....I would/could not have handled it all with the dignity that this couple did! jmho Hope all of you JB boarders have a very Merry Christmas!

[SnarkyCow]

I thought the conditions of their interview set by the Ramseys were turned down, not the interview itself. I thought LE wanted to do it on their "turf" and call the shots, but the Ramseys had all these stipulations and demands that were innappropriate. I don't think LE said "No, we don't want to talk to you, thanks and goodbye." I thought the Ramseys eventually said no to the LE interview because LE wouldn't bow to their stipulations.

Is this the time this happened or was it another interview? I can't remember so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.:beer:

Snarks

This is what I found regarding the delay in the Ramsey interview in 1997. This is just a snippet because for the full article you have to pay:

Ramseys' demands stall inquiry
Date: March 5, 1997 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: B7 Word Count: 360

The parents of slain child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey have delayed a formal police interview by demanding that they be questioned together, rather than separately as the police have specified, the Rocky Mountain News reported today.

The couple also wants a doctor on hand should one of them become ill during the questioning, a source told the newspaper, noting that these stipulations were the major sticking points holding up a formal interview with John and Patricia Ramsey. Also, the


here is the pay-per-view site for this article: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AT&p_theme=at&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EADA30134D3755B&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

[shill]

Shill, that list does not include rock solid evidence of an intruder.

Parachute cord, maybe. That's a new one. I could easily see pleasure pilot John Ramsey having some parachute cord around.

The tape - I've heard that piece of tape had already been used elsewhere before it was out over JonBenet's mouth, and it was put over her mouth after she had been killed, because it had bloody mucus from her face on it. Why would you tape the mouth of a dead child, unless for staging?This is the cord detectives alleged Patsy bought a whole package of along with the tape. Either a intruder brought it in or the Ramseys took a trip outside their home to dispose of it with the other missing items.
And there was tape on JB's legs too.

A beaver hair - Patsy had a lot of brushes, both paint and make up. That hair could have easily come from one of those brushes, as they are often made of animal hair. Maybe the paintbrush that was broken and used on JB was made of beaver hair.More then one, and you would think it would match a brush, but it didn't. It didn't match anything in the house. Beaver hair is also used to trim Santa Clause costumes.

That flashlight belonged to the Ramseys.It was first believed to be a police officers but when they realized it wasn't, they took it into evidence. There are no fingerprints connecting it to the Ramseys and the Ramseys said it wasn't theirs.

Foreign fibers - I might have to doubt the existance, since I'm not hearing any more details on these fibers other than they were found. Where were they found? How do we know they weren't already there before this murder even occurred?They exist, they don't match anything known, so they come from the unknown. Patsy and John are knowns, an intruder is unknown.

DNA - undie and nail DNA are not conclusive matches. Find me a source other than one paid by the Ramseys or repeating "facts" trotted out by those paid by the Ramseys and I might be able to consider it. There aren't enough markers to match the two. The undie DNA was fragmented and degraded, and Dr Lee found DNA on identical pairs of undies. Even Lacy said the DNA may be artifact and unrelated to this case.Hasn't been ruled out yet. Have they found any DNA other then that mentioned and JB's? Shouldn't the Ramseys DNA be all over everything as you would believe the killers would be? There should be more DNA evidence on JB from Patsy and John then an intruder, not less.

Pubic hair - too many conflicting reports. Was it a pubic hair or an ancillary hair? According to PMPT, there were countless people who slept in JB's bed - including Nedra Paugh and JAR. That hair could have come from any of them, or even the laundry.I thought it was identified as from a caucasion male. NP and JAR are considered intruders. And JAR should be on the suspect list, but his alibi seems pretty solid yet suspicious. Who keeps a movie stub from that night for months?

[thewhitewitch1]

This is what I found regarding the delay in the Ramsey interview in 1997. This is just a snippet because for the full article you have to pay:



here is the pay-per-view site for this article: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AT&p_theme=at&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EADA30134D3755B&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM


A doctor on hand in case one of them becomes ill during the interview??
That's just bizarre. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

QUOTE from Shill:

I thought it was identified as from a caucasion male. NP and JAR are considered intruders. And JAR should be on the suspect list, but his alibi seems pretty solid yet suspicious. Who keeps a movie stub from that night for months?
END QUOTE

I've never read that he had kept a movie ticket stub from that night. Can I respectfully ask for a source? I've been known to hang onto movie ticket stubs.
I do find it odd that Patsy repeatedly refers to her husband in interviews as "John Ramsey". It's almost as if she has to clarify which John she is talking about. This has made me wonder about JAR also. That and the neighbor saying that he saw him at their home that night, only to recant later. Also his odd statement that the killer should recieve forgiveness when asked what punishment he'd want the killer to recieve.
I'm sure they did a DNA test on him, though...didn't they?
Then I think about Melindas palm print being on the cellar door frame...and the two different shoe prints. Would the Ramseys lie to protect them?
Somehow I don't think Patsy would...and she would have had to have known that they were there in their home that day and/or night.
Flight schedules were checked for the both of them, though too...weren't they? So...seems like it couldn't have been either or both of them despite the odd little things that look like it could have been.

[LindaA]

A doctor on hand in case one of them becomes ill during the interview??
That's just bizarre. IMO

Why bizarre? Patsy was heavily medicated, I believe and in a state of near collapse. Considering her recent health problems, I don't find it bizarre at all.

[shill]

QUOTE from Shill:

I thought it was identified as from a caucasion male. NP and JAR are considered intruders. And JAR should be on the suspect list, but his alibi seems pretty solid yet suspicious. Who keeps a movie stub from that night for months?
END QUOTE

I've never read that he had kept a movie ticket stub from that night. Can I respectfully ask for a source? I've been known to hang onto movie ticket stubs.
I do find it odd that Patsy repeatedly refers to her husband in interviews as "John Ramsey". It's almost as if she has to clarify which John she is talking about. This has made me wonder about JAR also. That and the neighbor saying that he saw him at their home that night, only to recant later. Also his odd statement that the killer should recieve forgiveness when asked what punishment he'd want the killer to recieve.
I'm sure they did a DNA test on him, though...didn't they?
Then I think about Melindas palm print being on the cellar door frame...and the two different shoe prints. Would the Ramseys lie to protect them?
Somehow I don't think Patsy would...and she would have had to have known that they were there in their home that day and/or night.
Flight schedules were checked for the both of them, though too...weren't they? So...seems like it couldn't have been either or both of them despite the odd little things that look like it could have been.A friend of JAR that vouched for him was a pilot. John said he and JAR had gone into the Army Surplus store were the parachute cord was thought to have been purchased. The knots were consistant with a knot used to secure a camping tent line. JAR had High Tech boots. JB would trust him and he would be comfortable hanging in the house. He knew he'd be leaving in the morning to meet up with the family and the note would hopefully give him the time to get home before P&R called to let them know what was happening. He was on a plane to meet them before the sh*t hit the fan.

[andU]

In the Elisabeth Smart case in Utah a couple years ago a nutcase self-proclaimed prophet who had worked just once for a couple hours for the family in the house, came in and kidnapped the daughter; he left no evidence of the break-in that I'm aware of. At least not that the police found, so of course they believed that there was no intruder, even when the younger daughter described him later and a sketch was made of him. The apparent lack of evidence pointing to an intruder in this case, considering the actions of the BPD from the very beginning, is hardly shocking. Remember, they only considered the Ramseys as suspects; so if in their mountains of collected things the BPD took out of their house there is proof of an intruder, the proof is still undicovered. Lou Smit, hired by the DA to check the case went in a different direction than the BPD; he thought there was as much or more evidence pointing to an intruder and away from the Ramseys; but as he said, he followed the evidence. The BPD,on 12/26/96 were convinced they knew who did it and fashioned their investigation accordingly, to try to prove their theory, that the Ramseys did it. Up until now, not enough evidence has been collected to effect an indictment or arrest of anyone; so the BPD has covered itself in what? Certainly not glory. My opinions on this case have changed over the years; at first I assumed the Ramseys had to be involved; statistically it was likely; but for me when I started researching the case for myself my opinions changed. Reading the shamelessly self-serving book of Steve Thomas tipped me into thinking that the Ramseys were innocent. My own experience at the hands of self-righteous cops is that they are perfectly capable of intellectual and actual dishonesty whenever they feel justified in doing so; IMO this occurred in Jonbenet's case by the BPD. I was left thinking that an honest investigation by them never took place; IMO what happened was more akin to a witchhunt by Synthroid Steve and his pals.

Bullmoose, I couldn't have stated my own feelings any better! In fact, I have even wondered if the perp(s) couldn't have been (current or past) affiliated with Boulder's Finest???? ... or at least have law enforcement/military training...:confused:

[SnarkyCow]

A friend of JAR that vouched for him was a pilot. John said he and JAR had gone into the Army Surplus store were the parachute cord was thought to have been purchased. The knots were consistant with a knot used to secure a camping tent line. JAR had High Tech boots. JB would trust him and he would be comfortable hanging in the house. He knew he'd be leaving in the morning to meet up with the family and the note would hopefully give him the time to get home before P&R called to let them know what was happening. He was on a plane to meet them before the sh*t hit the fan.

I find this very interesting. Can anyone source this for me? Not because I don't believe it, but because I'd be interested in reading about this further. Thanks a bunch!

Snarks

[andU]

QUOTE from Shill:

I thought it was identified as from a caucasion male. NP and JAR are considered intruders. And JAR should be on the suspect list, but his alibi seems pretty solid yet suspicious. Who keeps a movie stub from that night for months?
END QUOTE

I've never read that he had kept a movie ticket stub from that night. Can I respectfully ask for a source? I've been known to hang onto movie ticket stubs.
I do find it odd that Patsy repeatedly refers to her husband in interviews as "John Ramsey". It's almost as if she has to clarify which John she is talking about. This has made me wonder about JAR also. That and the neighbor saying that he saw him at their home that night, only to recant later. Also his odd statement that the killer should recieve forgiveness when asked what punishment he'd want the killer to recieve.
I'm sure they did a DNA test on him, though...didn't they?
Then I think about Melindas palm print being on the cellar door frame...and the two different shoe prints. Would the Ramseys lie to protect them?
Somehow I don't think Patsy would...and she would have had to have known that they were there in their home that day and/or night.
Flight schedules were checked for the both of them, though too...weren't they? So...seems like it couldn't have been either or both of them despite the odd little things that look like it could have been.

I will have to double check their alibis, but this brings some 'what if' thoughts to me.... I'm almost positive that they either did DNA on both and of course they were not a match. I would lean toward believing either or both of them were 'intruder' guests that night ... didn't they have keys? ... they sure would know their way around, and why would the Ramsey's have to know that they were there in the house.....waiting? I was also hung up on JAR's comment about forgiving the person(s) who commited this horrific act on his baby sister....

[Athena]

Bullmoose, I couldn't have stated my own feelings any better! In fact, I have even wondered if the perp(s) couldn't have been (current or past) affiliated with Boulder's Finest???? ... or at least have law enforcement/military training...:confused:

Remember the movie Ransom where Mel Gilbson's son is kidnapped and a cop becomes a hero only to find out he was the kidnapper? May sound far-fetched but because ST was so adamant from the very beginning and he leaked all the info to the press early and tried to make the evidence fit his theory -- does make you go hmm......

This analysis has always been one that has fascinated me:

THE OFFENDER:
The offender , and human monster, is above all an individual who has a tremendous need for excitement, recognition and attention. It is an organized offender who is skilled, pays close attention to details, and is capable of meticulously carrying out a complex plan. The offender has the need and ability to control others, and is in some position of power or authority. Being of high intelligence, this individual would be employed as a professional, and simply could not tolerate a subservient job. An ability to communicate would be present, with reasonably good social skills, but only in their role as a professional. In everyday personal relationships they would come across as a very cold, distant and insensitive person. It is not likely that they would have a spouse, or many close , personal relationships. They would be totally wrapped up in their profession , and their life would be their job in Law Enforcement. This very knowledgeable offender knows about Police procedures, and as stated in the ransom note/letter, is "familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures, and tactics". This individual has also had extensive training, and probably did some extra studying, on matters involving child abduction and molestation.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/behavior.html

[aussiesheila]

I'm with you up to a point on that one Aussieshiela, but much of what you say doesn't sound plausible. I still don't think PR would have lain down for a nap in the midst of all this, She would have wanted to be right there fussing over JBR's appearance. I can't see them forcing her to write the note; I don't think she wrote it. I can't see her protecting them to her dying day.I have to say LindaA, that I think your criticisms are very reasonable and I agree that what I say is hard to envision.

Yes, I think Patsy would have wanted to be around to fuss over JonBenet's appearance. However I do know how hard it is to stay awake late at night after a long day when nothing much is happening, as I think was the situation while they were sitting waiting for the photographer. Santa might have encouraged her to have a quick nap and promised he would wake her up as soon as the photographer arrived.

As far as forcing her to write the note, I do think it possible. Manipulative, controlling people are skilled in methods of making others do what they want and 'blackmailing' is just one of the methods they might use.

I believe Patsy suspected that JonBenet was being sexually abused by a close family member as well as one of their best friends but she had not made any attempt to stop it. I think the mastermind of the coverup would have been well aware of this and would have malevolently used the fact that she turned a blind eye to the abuse to make her submit to his will. I believe he would have pointed out to her in no uncertain terms that he could embellish the facts to make it sound as though she was a totally negligent and abusive mother. I imagine he would have threatened her that if she didn't co-operate and write the note he would let John know the distorted and exaggerated details of her negligence. Patsy would have known that John would be so appalled that he would file for divorce and would in all probability get custody of Burke. That, to Patsy I imagine would have been too horrible to contemplate so she wrote the note. I think she protected the pedophiles to her dying day for the very same reasons.

[nuisanceposter]

Remember the movie Ransom where Mel Gilbson's son is kidnapped and a cop becomes a hero only to find out he was the kidnapper? May sound far-fetched but because ST was so adamant from the very beginning and he leaked all the info to the press early and tried to make the evidence fit his theory -- does make you go hmm......
<snip>




What about the leaks coming out of Hunter's office, Athena? Just overlooking those to blame ST for this travesty? How convenient. How one-sided. As for that profile of the killer...that's a fancy bit of fluff. it reminds me of the profile of the RN author that basically describes Patsy - a woman, from the south, around forty years old...I'll go see if I can find that.



JAR was CLEARED, people. Jeez, take the time to find out who was and wasn't cleared before you start accusing them of this crime. That info is online:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Ramsey%20Did%20It%20Theories

According to Schiller, police ascertained that on Christmas Day, "at about 8:30 P.M., John Andrew went to his friend Brad Millard's home in Marietta to play video games. After an hour, they left to catch a 10:30 show at the Town and Country Movie Theater in Marietta with another friend, Chris Stanley. John Andrew said that after the movie he went back to Brad Millard's house to get his car and arrived back at his mother's house at 1:00 A.M. The next morning he left his mother's house with Melinda, who had come there to pick him up. Together they boarded a flight to Minneapolis at 8:36 A.M. local time. That was forty-four minutes after Patsy called 911 to report that JonBenet was missing." (Schiller, 1999a:67).

<snip>

* DNA Not a Match. JAR's DNA does not match DNA collected at the scene.
* JAR Officially Cleared. John Andrew Ramsey (JAR) has been officially cleared by law enforcement based on evidence that he was in Atlanta on December 25, 1996 (Zaret 1997).


He wasn't in Boulder, he didn't kill his baby sister. The comment about forgiveness I believe pertains to his father and stepmother's involvement. I'd like to see a link for Shill's info as well.

AS - so Patsy's so tired that she needs a nap while waiting for some photographer she has no need to put herself out for, but doesn't think that JonBenet might want to be her bed sound asleep? I can believe that Patsy was aware her daughter was being molested and chose to ignore it - the medical history speaks of that, as well as the chronic signs of abuse found in the autopsy...but John Ramsey has been lying and covering up in this investigation just as much as Patsy has been. He's contradicted himself and changed his stories every bit as much as she has, therefore imo, he has to have been involved as well. Why would he allow anyone, whether family member or friend, to get away with abusing and murdering his daughter, and cover up for that person for the past ten years?

And what recent health problems was Patsy suffering from that she would need a doctor on hand while she does an interview on national television? Her growing dependence on anti-anxiety meds? She was stoned to the gills in that interview. Her cancer was in remission. I'd think if her health was so poor that she may collapse at any time, then her job as a MOTHER would be to get her sorry butt down to the police station and cooperate in finding the sleazebag who killed her child, rather than waste her energy on presenting the image she wants people to see to the public. PR can wait, but this killer needed to be stopped before he killed another child....oh wait...that's right - he's never struck again. Talk about things that make you go hmmmmm...

[LindaA]

Gee, Nuisance, why don't you tell us how you really feel?

[LindaA]

I do wish you RDIs would decide how you feel about the DNA evidence. You cite it as clearing John Andrew and JMK, but turn around and say it was too degraded to clear the parents. Can you explain the double standard?

[SnarkyCow]

JAR was CLEARED, people. Jeez, take the time to find out who was and wasn't cleared before you start accusing them of this crime. That info is online:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Ramsey%20Did%20It%20Theories

According to Schiller, police ascertained that on Christmas Day, "at about 8:30 P.M., John Andrew went to his friend Brad Millard's home in Marietta to play video games. After an hour, they left to catch a 10:30 show at the Town and Country Movie Theater in Marietta with another friend, Chris Stanley. John Andrew said that after the movie he went back to Brad Millard's house to get his car and arrived back at his mother's house at 1:00 A.M. The next morning he left his mother's house with Melinda, who had come there to pick him up. Together they boarded a flight to Minneapolis at 8:36 A.M. local time. That was forty-four minutes after Patsy called 911 to report that JonBenet was missing." (Schiller, 1999a:67).

<snip>

* DNA Not a Match. JAR's DNA does not match DNA collected at the scene.
* JAR Officially Cleared. John Andrew Ramsey (JAR) has been officially cleared by law enforcement based on evidence that he was in Atlanta on December 25, 1996 (Zaret 1997).


He wasn't in Boulder, he didn't kill his baby sister. The comment about forgiveness I believe pertains to his father and stepmother's involvement. I'd like to see a link for Shill's info as well.

Thank you for this NP. :beer: That some people could think JAR secretly flew to and from Boulder to kill his little sister without being detected, but will not for a second believe the parents (who were not only in the same city, but in the same house that the murder was committed) had anything to do with it seems ridiculous.... especially since JAR was officially cleared and the Ramseys were not.

[nuisanceposter]

I do wish you RDIs would decide how you feel about the DNA evidence. You cite it as clearing John Andrew and JMK, but turn around and say it was too degraded to clear the parents. Can you explain the double standard?

Yes. It isn't *JUST* the DNA that has served to clear JMK and JAR. It's also whether or not they were in the Ramasey house at the time, or even in Boulder. Hell, even in Colorado. Neither of them were...but both John and Patsy Ramsey were in the house at the same time JonBenet was murdered.

Personally, after hearing the DNA was fragmented and degraded whereas JonBenet's was fresh and complete, and considering Dr Lee found DNA on identical pairs of underwear, I don't believe the sample of DNA in JonBenet's undies has anything whatsoever to do with her murder.

Mary Lacy herself admitted that the DNA may very well be artifact and have nothing to do with the murder. It's only people who steadfastly ignore facts (such as the state of the foreign DNA and presence of DNA on other undies) who can't grasp how the DNA can serve to clear some but not others.

[nuisanceposter]

Thank you for this NP. :beer: That some people could think JAR secretly flew to and from Boulder to kill his little sister without being detected, but will not for a second believe the parents (who were not only in the same city, but in the same house that the murder was committed) had anything to do with it seems ridiculous.... especially since JAR was officially cleared and the Ramseys were not.

Yep, I know...the same people who insist the fiber evidence is all a lie, yet there's nothing about the interview to indicate that Levin was using trickery to coerce a confession from the Rs. They just can't believe it, so they accuse someone completely unrelated to the investigation of being set up and lied to by the evil evil BPD and passing on these lies - but they can't see the multitude of lies the Rs keep telling. These same people try to say the Ramseys were cleared and people like FW weren't. I'll never understand the driving need people have to believe the Rs are innocent, no matter how much evidence indicating their involvement is known.

And you can bet I won't hestitate to tell you exactly how I feel. I'm sick and tired of JonBenet lying cold and lonely in her grave at only six years old while her parents, who should be her best champions, use her to make themselves look better and have done next to nothing to solve her murder and give her justice she deserves. Why did John Ramsey hire people to keep him out of jail rather than search for the killer? If there is all of this fiber evidence that isn't from the Rs and could be from the killer, WHY aren't the RST focusing on that, and solving this crime? Wouldn't JonBenet be better served by the people her parents hire finding this killer rather than wasting time filing lawsuits?

What about all of the other little girls out there? Don't the Rs realize all of those other daughters are in danger from this killer, if there really was an intruder? Don't they care enough about anyone other than themselves to do something to solve this crime, catch this guy, and make him accountable for his actions?

NO! All they care about is themselves! All they are concerned with is looking good to the poublic and perpetuating a bunch of LIES that serve to make them look innocent! IMO.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by snarkycow <snip>
"That some people could think JAR secretly flew to and from Boulder to kill his little sister without being detected, but will not for a second believe the parents (who were not only in the same city, but in the same house that the murder was committed) had anything to do with it seems ridiculous.... especially since JAR was officially cleared and the Ramseys were not."
__________________
I think you mispeak. Most IDIs have for more than a second at some point thought that the Ramseys might have done it. Many still say they are willing to change their minds if they see evidence to prove the RDI. I don't think the JAR did it view is held by many IDIs at all. Besides if you think JAR did it, then you are an RDI, aren't you? :eek:

[LindaA]

Nuisance,
I appreciate, respect, and understand your passion about this case and justice for JonBenet, but why are you directing so much vitriol at the IDIs? We, too, want justice for JB and her family. You are unceasingly rude and sarcastic about the IDI views, implying we are stupid or somehow complicent in helping the Ramseys escape justice.

You say the IDIs are blind to the facts, but I say you are just as blind -- or pretend to be. Nothing in this case is simple -- so much is how you interpret it. For example,you conveniently cite the DNA excluding JAR, but when I mention your previous take on it, you tap dance around it. If you feel the DNA is degraded, why mention it at all?

I think most IDIs have said they leave room for doubt, would believe the RDI if they had more solid evidence. Some of the theories they put forth are "out there." You don't have to believe them. That's more than I can say for most RDIs. Their -- and your -- attitude is "I know what happened, and if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot."

[SnarkyCow]

Originally posted by snarkycow <snip>
"That some people could think JAR secretly flew to and from Boulder to kill his little sister without being detected, but will not for a second believe the parents (who were not only in the same city, but in the same house that the murder was committed) had anything to do with it seems ridiculous.... especially since JAR was officially cleared and the Ramseys were not."
__________________
I think you mispeak. Most IDIs have for more than a second at some point thought that the Ramseys might have done it. Many still say they are willing to change their minds if they see evidence to prove the RDI. I don't think the JAR did it view is held by many IDIs at all. Besides if you think JAR did it, then you are an RDI, aren't you? :eek:

I didn't really misspeak - I didn't mention IDIs specifically in my above post, I said "some people" - you assume I am speaking about all IDIs and that is not a fair assumption on your part. That is why I worded my statement the way I did.

I agree that JAR being a Ramsey could "technically" fall into the RDI theory seeing as how he is a Ramsey by name, but not all IDIs feel the same way, as we can see by this quote of Shill's:

I thought it was identified as from a caucasion male. NP and JAR are considered intruders. And JAR should be on the suspect list, but his alibi seems pretty solid yet suspicious. Who keeps a movie stub from that night for months?

Cheers,

Snarks

[nuisanceposter]

I'm directing my vitriol at John and Patsy Ramsey, the two people who have let their own child down in a manner I have never seen before and pray I will never be witness to again.

Technically, I didn't bring up the DNA at all. I don't believe it's related to the case. The link I supplied stating JAR has been cleared brought up the DNA, and then you asked about it, so I gave you my impression.

What did I tap dance around? I'll be more than happy to be more specific.

The RDI have solid proof. We have the innumerable contradictions and lies the Rs have told through the years that the IDI dismiss as being the result of their grief. We have the fiber evidence the IDI denies exists, without any proof that it doesn't. We have the fact there is more evidence of Ramsey involvement in JonBenet's murder than any evidence of an intruder. The Rs not passing polys right away, Patsy not being cleared as author of the RN. It's not my fault the IDI refuse to accept or even acknowledge such evidence.

I don't think people who don't agree with me are idiots. Take Athena for example...she's clearly not an idiot. She knows her info and presents it in an easy to read manner with links. Her arguments challenge me, and make me review my links for the best way to reply. I don't think you're an idiot, either, Linda. I can disagree with people without developing a dislike for them. It's just a message board...and I realize that off this board, we're all the same - people who care about a little girl who died way before her time and would like justice for her. That doesn't make anyone an idiot, it makes them good, caring people who value a child.

[nuisanceposter]

And by the way, *I* keep movie ticket stubs for months, if not years. I took my kids to see Cars and Pirates of the Caribbean earlier this year, and still have the ticket stubs from both. I was actually glad I kept them, because my youngest needed to do a little presentation on what they did over the summer with items related to their activities, and he was able to take the stubs in to say he'd been to the movies over the summer and saw two movies he really liked.

What can I say? I'm a pack rat. I keep everything because you never know when you might need it. I bet if you checked my house, you could easily find a short length of cord and a bit of duct tape, and once you used what there was, there'd be nothing left. What does that remind you of? I guarantee you my house is every bit as cluttered as the Ramsey house was.

[elvislives]

And by the way, *I* keep movie ticket stubs for months, if not years.
I bet if you checked my house, you could easily find a short length of cord and a bit of duct tape, .

Hmmm.....

And where were YOU on the night of December 25, 1996??? ;)

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=nuisanceposter;8792031]

And you can bet I won't hestitate to tell you exactly how I feel. I'm sick and tired of JonBenet lying cold and lonely in her grave at only six years old while her parents, who should be her best champions, use her to make themselves look better and have done next to nothing to solve her murder and give her justice she deserves. Why did John Ramsey hire people to keep him out of jail rather than search for the killer? If there is all of this fiber evidence that isn't from the Rs and could be from the killer, WHY aren't the RST focusing on that, and solving this crime? Wouldn't JonBenet be better served by the people her parents hire finding this killer rather than wasting time filing lawsuits?

What about all of the other little girls out there? Don't the Rs realize all of those other daughters are in danger from this killer, if there really was an intruder? Don't they care enough about anyone other than themselves to do something to solve this crime, catch this guy, and make him accountable for his actions?
QUOTE]

This is exactly the point that teeters me to the RDI side. I just cannot understand why innocent parents would not cooperate with the investigation. The other element of their behaviour that is missing is rage. Parents of murdered children usually feel not just depression at the loss of their child, but rage. And I am very well aware that we all grieve in different ways and human behaviour is not a hard science, but nonetheless their reactions to the murder are disturbing to me.

[LindaA]

Snarks, then to whom were you referring as "some people?"

[LindaA]

Originally posted by Nuuisance poster: <snip>

Technically, I didn't bring up the DNA at all. I don't believe it's related to the case. The link I supplied stating JAR has been cleared brought up the DNA, and then you asked about it, so I gave you my impression.
Well, since youpasted it to your post as the proof that JAR was cleared, you certainly did mention it.

What did I tap dance around? I'll be more than happy to be more specific. Stating the DNA was one of 2 items that cleared JAr and then statinig you don't think it was just the DNA.

The RDI have solid proof. We have the innumerable contradictions and lies the Rs have told through the years that the IDI dismiss as being the result of their grief. We have the fiber evidence the IDI denies exists, without any proof that it doesn't. We have the fact there is more evidence of Ramsey involvement in JonBenet's murder than any evidence of an intruder. The Rs not passing polys right away, Patsy not being cleared as author of the RN. It's not my fault the IDI refuse to accept or even acknowledge such evidence.

I don't think people who don't agree with me are idiots. Take Athena for example...she's clearly not an idiot. She knows her info and presents it in an easy to read manner with links. Her arguments challenge me, and make me review my links for the best way to reply. I don't think you're an idiot, either, Linda. I can disagree with people without developing a dislike for them. It's just a message board...and I realize that off this board, we're all the same - people who care about a little girl who died way before her time and would like justice for her. That doesn't make anyone an idiot, it makes them good, caring people who value a child.[/QUOTE]

If that's the way you truly feel, then it is certainly not coming through in your posts.

[SnarkyCow]

Snarks, then to whom were you referring as "some people?"

I was refering to people who believe that JAR flew from Georgia to Boulder to murder his sister and then flew back to Georgia undetected.

I said "some people" because "some people" seem to consider JAR a possible suspect even though he was cleared. "Some people" would include anyone who feels this way - whether IDI or RDI. That is why I said "some people."

According to your previous statement this could include IDIs, like Shill, who would consider JAR an intruder or RDIs who, because his last name is Ramsey (and the fact he was cleared by LE isn't good enough for them), include JAR in their RDI theory.

Why are we getting into semantics? There are "some people" who think JAR should still be considered as a suspect and those are the people I was refering to.

Respectfully yours,

Snarky

[LindaA]

Usually when people are talking about who believes what around here they are talking about the people on this board. My bad. Sorry. Carry on.

[SnarkyCow]

Usually when people are talking about who believes what around here they are talking about the people on this board. My bad. Sorry. Carry on.

No apologies necessary LindaA ~ I have no problem clarifying my meaning. (My brain definitely works faster than my fingers sometimes and clarification may be needed). I appreciate you asking me what I mean instead of assuming you know what I mean, if you know what I mean ;)

Peace,

Snarks

[Coloradokares]

Items brought into the house by an intruder;
-)Parachute cord
-)Black duct tape
-)Beaver fir
-)Flashlight
-)Thousands of foreign fibers
-)DNA
-)Pubic hair


Parachute cord or cord bought at McGuckins
Black Duct tape. McGuckins
Beaver fur. Patsy did own Beaver Fur Boots. They were never given to police claims no longer had them
Flashlight....well....it was theirs or one that looked like it
Neither clears nor convicts anyone
THOUSANDS of foreign fibers. People came and went at the Ramseys. They even held open houses and parties.
Pubice hair was a ancillary body hair of Patsys.

Now Shill I don't disagree that the potential exists that an intruder may have done this. I just want the intruder found so the evidence you listed can be proven.

[LindaA]

CK, was it ever proven that the cord and duct tape were actually purchased at McGuckins? Wasn't it proven only that items -- two among hundreds that sold for the same price -- were purchased there by PR?

[SnarkyCow]

Snipped from CK:Pubice hair was a ancillary body hair of Patsys.


Really?! I always wondered what happened with that hair and wasn't sure we had an answer. Thanks CK - that is interesting!

Incidentally, before anyone else asks, and NOT because I don't believe you - do you have a source for this? I ask because I want to add it to my repertoire o' facts. Thanks so much!

:) Snarky

[bullmoose]

To CK: You know as well as everybody else that the supposed matches you list are in your opinion only, because McGuckin's had thosands of items available at the listed prices, and they didn't give itemized receipts, so its not a match at all, just the Twister's guess. As for the pubic hair being from Patsy, I'm going to have to see a link or a verifiable quote before I let that claim stand unchallenged. And beaver hair from a boot? Where can I check on this? And if Patsy had a beaverhaired boot,I find the glib assertion that the boot was never given to the police interesting. Tell us more. When were the boots requested from the Ramseys, what evidence can you show that this ever happened? Did the Ramseys ever claim to have owned beaver boots? And the flashlight? Theirs? Or one that looked like one they owned? I have half a dozen flashlights that look like that one. What does it prove? I would like verifable information or the polite disclaimer IMO. This is JMO, of course.

[Coloradokares]

Thats the problem, CK. There is NO rock solid evidence of an intruder, nor is there rock solid evidence to support the RDI. However, as I have pointed out before, you can't charge someone with first degree murder based on a LACK of evidence.
In the Elizabeth Smart case there was NO rock solid evidence of an intruder. In fact, most people...myself included...thought the parents were involved because of the lack of intruder evidence. It was even leaked to the press that the screen that this mystery intruder used to gain access was CUT FROM THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE. And why would a 14 year old kid allow herself to be abducted without even screaming for help? Nothing made sense. Many people were even speculating that the Smart father had been molesting Elizabeth and had to finish her off to keep her quiet (sound familiar?). There was never enough evidence to charge the parents, and I suspect that if she had never been found they would be the prime suspects to this day.

So while I hear in your tone that you are frustrated with anyone who doesn't condemn the Rs, I think it is important to remember that most of us here are looking for the truth, whatever that may be. I have no motivation to defend anyone who brutally killed a child, but by the same token I would never want to blame someone for such a horrific crime unless I was sure they were guilty.Clearly you are sure the Rs are guilty, I'm just not entirely convinced yet.

No, I have no tone at all. And to say that clearly I am sure the R's are guilty is in contradiction with what it is I believe. I am clearly sure of this though, that there was enough evidence to take them to trial and it is for reason of our DA's office that they are free today. He wanted a sure thing a rock solid case a confession. Scott Peterson IMHO was convicted and sentenced to death on less evidence than what we have that is against the Ramseys. I am fairly convinced with a niggling 2% for error that the Ramseys either had an intruder who was flawless in setting them up and leaving not a mere trace of himself behind and that they the Ramseys knew something about the murderer and for whatever reason decided to help in the staging and coverup of their daughters murder. To save their own lives. Or indeed they had to be involved in the the murder and staging restaging of the death scene of JonBenet. One the other.

I am from Boulder or rather I was now I still live within 20 miles. So my knowledge of this case is much more personal in nature in that I know people who knew the Ramseys, actually lived only blocks from them and friends who knew a few of the officers involved I personally know a former ABC affiliate investigative reporter who interviewed many of the people involved in the case who knew the Ramseys or the investigators people in the DA's office etc. Its that 6 degree of separation thing. So that is why I threw it out there to say please come to Boulder. Not today. DIA is closed with a Blizzard in progress out here.

Did you know that Patsy Ramseys was treated with some serious depression and mental health drugs prior to the murder. You can believe that was due to chemo and maybe it was exactly that or could it be as many have speculated here that their was evidence of Patsy unraveling and obsessing with JonBenet? The Mega JonBenet thing Barbara Fernie and other friends wanted to discuss with her upon their return from the Disney Crusie.

LHP sued the Ramseys so you can seek out information on a candyrose about all that. But she recounts a lifestyle and screaming sessions with JonBenet over the potty issues and other things. Steve Thomas didn't pull this out of thin air you know. Patsy may have had some outward signs of things getting very chaotic in that household clutter and organization wise. Yet had a need to be seen as a perfect wife mother etch and was frenzied in her community activities. The christmas home tours etc. Its known she felt she needed to be in contol of things .

However there are also things you won't find in books or media or on internet files. People here are very closed up regarding the JonBenet case. If they really knew anything they don't talk alot except to well known personal friends etc. If you think that Patsy could have written the Ransom note then is it a far toss from reality if you know the pattern to see some overkill? Perhaps BiPolar and Manic is a word that has more than once been hinted at around Boulder. Steve Thomas and other detectives also interviewed alot of people who said Patsy was charming one moment and a real viper in the next second if she didn't get her way. IDI's scalded me in boiling oil once for this. But she was sweet as honey in one moment and could verbally rip you a new one in the next if she became unhappy. Her interviews with police even showed this.

I am telling you the things you might hear if you were to speak with the right people out here. Patsy was starting to seem obsessive regarding JonBenet and the paegant thing. JonBenets dance instructer spoke of this in was it Sinclairs book. or was it Schillers. Hard for me to remember right now. Notes are packed away for the holidays. Under boxes of Christmas stuff right now in a closet. Want the house presentable for the holidays. This is stuff that is hard to prove unless you drag people into court and make them swear under oath to answer questions directed a certain direction. Have you as an ER doctor any familiarity with the potential either undiagnosed or off medication for these issues. I do . I have a family member that is bipolar as much as we love and are a support system for her our lives are littered with train wrecks. They can be brilliant and sweet one moment and swosh knock a coach to his rear on the field the next. I am not lying about that and you know that too if your a doctor. You know if its true they also don't like taking medication. The medications were said to be over depression and anxiety but they can be some of the ones prescribed in situations like I am saying as well. These are the things that people who knew them knew. Many people would not know this about our daughter in law. This is also what gives me just some doubts deep down inside that something really bad happened in Boulder that night ... when you consider the holidays are triggers for cycling etc. Call it my own personal doubt that maybe there are things that are hidden away. Or not open to public knowledge. Perhaps undiagnosed. Things that would have come out perhaps in a trial. Thats all I am saying I think there was more than enough evidence for trial. I want the evidence seriously reviewed. I know, we had a grandjury. That never was going to make a recommendation or take a vote cause one of jurors even said there is no way a mother could do this to their child. This was stated before and after the covening of the grand jury. I don't know. I guess I am more and more inclined as time goes by to see the possibility that yes something horrible happened in Boulder that night. I think the evidence suggests to me that Ramseys are either guilty or they know who did this and participated in the coverup. But that is only my opinon. Because I think its ludicrous to suggest they knew nothing and were innocent as the driven snow. Maybe they were. But innocence just does not act like they did with as many coincidences as there were. Not normally anyway. Ok pour the boiling oil over my head again. But something has never been right about this case. We know there was influence used from the moment the 911 call was made. IMHO the DA's office has alot to account for in this matter. JMHO

[Louisadelmar]

Snipped from CK:

Really?! I always wondered what happened with that hair and wasn't sure we had an answer. Thanks CK - that is interesting!

Incidentally, before anyone else asks, and NOT because I don't believe you - do you have a source for this? I ask because I want to add it to my repertoire o' facts. Thanks so much!

:) Snarky

If I recall correctly it was never verified that the hair was Patsy's. Can't find anything on Google. My recollection is it was an unnamed source in a newspaper article.

I haven't forgotten you Snarky, on a source for the bit about the Ramseys being told the time had passed for a meaningful interview. I think it was either PMPT or Dougla' book. I'll go through them today or tomorrow and see if I can find it.

[bullmoose]

To CK: I have put the cauldron of oil on to simmer; because it is the hollidays we'll use scented oil this time, OK? Just kidding:biggrin:

[andU]

NP,.....
"The RDI have solid proof. We have the innumerable contradictions and lies the Rs have told through the years that the IDI dismiss as being the result of their grief. We have the fiber evidence the IDI denies exists, without any proof that it doesn't. We have the fact there is more evidence of Ramsey involvement in JonBenet's murder than any evidence of an intruder. The Rs not passing polys right away, Patsy not being cleared as author of the RN. It's not my fault the IDI refuse to accept or even acknowledge such evidence."

If there is such solid proof, why not share it with LE, so they can make an arrest and get this case closed?

[andU]

Please note inserted comments:
No, I have no tone at all. And to say that clearly I am sure the R's are guilty is in contradiction with what it is I believe. I am clearly sure of this though, that there was enough evidence to take them to trial and it is for reason of our DA's office that they are free today. He wanted a sure thing a rock solid case a confession.

If there was enough evidence, why weren't they brought to trial? If there had been that much evidence against them the DA would have had no choice but to prosecute them.


"I am from Boulder or rather I was now I still live within 20 miles. So my knowledge of this case is much more personal in nature in that I know people who knew the Ramseys, actually lived only blocks from them and friends who knew a few of the officers involved I personally know a former ABC affiliate investigative reporter who interviewed many of the people involved in the case who knew the Ramseys or the investigators people in the DA's office etc. Its that 6 degree of separation thing. So that is why I threw it out there to say please come to Boulder. Not today. DIA is closed with a Blizzard in progress out here."

Yes, we know you are from Boulder, or lived there once, and know people there. That doesn't make you any different than the rest of us since you were not at the Ramsey home the night of the murder, were you?

"Did you know that Patsy Ramseys was treated with some serious depression and mental health drugs prior to the murder. You can believe that was due to chemo and maybe it was exactly that or could it be as many have speculated here that their was evidence of Patsy unraveling and obsessing with JonBenet? The Mega JonBenet thing Barbara Fernie and other friends wanted to discuss with her upon their return from the Disney Crusie."

You keep slipping your opinion in and insinuating that it came from someone in the know, if you have quotes or citations, would you please enter them with your text, it is difficult to tell what is your opinion and what was spoken by someone else.

"LHP sued the Ramseys so you can seek out information on a candyrose about all that. But she recounts a lifestyle and screaming sessions with JonBenet over the potty issues and other things. Steve Thomas didn't pull this out of thin air you know. Patsy may have had some outward signs of things getting very chaotic in that household clutter and organization wise. Yet had a need to be seen as a perfect wife mother etch and was frenzied in her community activities. The christmas home tours etc. Its known she felt she needed to be in contol of things . "

Steve Thomas didn't pull it out of the air? He doesn't lie? .... and if Patsey were so hell bent on being in control, I find it difficult that she would be taking mind altering drugs, before the murder.

"However there are also things you won't find in books or media or on internet files. People here are very closed up regarding the JonBenet case. If they really knew anything they don't talk alot except to well known personal friends etc. If you think that Patsy could have written the Ransom note then is it a far toss from reality if you know the pattern to see some overkill? Perhaps BiPolar and Manic is a word that has more than once been hinted at around Boulder. Steve Thomas and other detectives also interviewed alot of people who said Patsy was charming one moment and a real viper in the next second if she didn't get her way. IDI's scalded me in boiling oil once for this. But she was sweet as honey in one moment and could verbally rip you a new one in the next if she became unhappy. Her interviews with police even showed this."

Once again, you are implying things with no source. I've never read anywhere that Patsy may have been diagnosed BiPolar or Manic. Personally, I think we can all be vipers if the situation calls for it. Defending one's self and family certainly calls for it. I would be.

"I am telling you the things you might hear if you were to speak with the right people out here. Patsy was starting to seem obsessive regarding JonBenet and the paegant thing. JonBenets dance instructer spoke of this in was it Sinclairs book. or was it Schillers. Hard for me to remember right now. Notes are packed away for the holidays. Under boxes of Christmas stuff right now in a closet. Want the house presentable for the holidays. This is stuff that is hard to prove unless you drag people into court and make them swear under oath to answer questions directed a certain direction. Have you as an ER doctor any familiarity with the potential either undiagnosed or off medication for these issues. I do . I have a family member that is bipolar as much as we love and are a support system for her our lives are littered with train wrecks. They can be brilliant and sweet one moment and swosh knock a coach to his rear on the field the next. I am not lying about that and you know that too if your a doctor. You know if its true they also don't like taking medication. The medications were said to be over depression and anxiety but they can be some of the ones prescribed in situations like I am saying as well. These are the things that people who knew them knew. Many people would not know this about our daughter in law. This is also what gives me just some doubts deep down inside that something really bad happened in Boulder that night ... when you consider the holidays are triggers for cycling etc. Call it my own personal doubt that maybe there are things that are hidden away. Or not open to public knowledge. Perhaps undiagnosed. Things that would have come out perhaps in a trial. Thats all I am saying I think there was more than enough evidence for trial. I want the evidence seriously reviewed. I know, we had a grandjury. That never was going to make a recommendation or take a vote cause one of jurors even said there is no way a mother could do this to their child. This was stated before and after the covening of the grand jury. I don't know. I guess I am more and more inclined as time goes by to see the possibility that yes something horrible happened in Boulder that night. I think the evidence suggests to me that Ramseys are either guilty or they know who did this and participated in the coverup. But that is only my opinon. Because I think its ludicrous to suggest they knew nothing and were innocent as the driven snow. Maybe they were. But innocence just does not act like they did with as many coincidences as there were. Not normally anyway. Ok pour the boiling oil over my head again. But something has never been right about this case. We know there was influence used from the moment the 911 call was made. IMHO the DA's office has alot to account for in this matter. JMHO"

Speaking to the 'right' people there or anywhere would give you the same ending, their opinion. If there are eye witnesses that have not come forward then they are as guilty as you are saying that Patsy was. Witholding information from a major crime is illegal and a person can be prosecuted.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, just as all of us are. But, if you know something to be fact, could you please cite your source? Thanks!

[nuisanceposter]

If there is such solid proof, why not share it with LE, so they can make an arrest and get this case closed?

That's what Thomas was wanting to do, but couldn't get anywhere with Ramsey-friendly DA Hunter's office stopping police from doing their job correctly. It's been said before that Hunter should be brought up on charges of prosecutorial malfeasance and obstruction of justice for his conduct in the Ramsey case. BPD no longer has the case - it's been in possession of the Boulder DA's office since, IIRC, 2000. Lin Wood threatened to sue Lacy to get it to her.

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t6836.html


Lin Wood, the Ramseys' Atlanta attorney, wrote to Keenan Oct. 9 to say he was prepared to file a lawsuit on the Ramseys' behalf to get the case out of the hands of Boulder police. He charged that they had lost all objectivity in the case and had also ignored a Sept. 16 letter from him offering new leads.

The subsequent announcement on Dec. 20 that Keenan would indeed take control of the investigation was applauded by Wood, who no longer plans to sue the Boulder police. He has faith that Keenan's efforts will be substantial.

<snip>*it gets better*<snip>

While no member of Keenan's staff will discuss its capacity for handling a complicated murder probe, former Assistant Boulder District Attorney Bill Wise said major homicide investigations are way outside the scope of what that office's investigators typically handle.

"As of the time that I was last there, two years ago, we did not have investigators trained to do a homicide investigation," Wise said.

Another veteran investigator who has worked on the Ramsey case extensively, and would speak only on the condition of anonymity, is skeptical that Keenan's investigators can accomplish much in the case without outside assistance.

"Boulder P.D. has worked this case for six years and has accumulated thousands and thousands of interviews, investigative notes, scientific examinations and results," the investigator said. "And now, you give it to somebody brand new and expect them to even process this?"

That investigator also questions the renewed involvement of Smit, who worked the Ramsey case under Keenan's predecessor but quit in September 1998 when it became clear that Kane's grand jury probe would focus on John and Patsy Ramsey as top suspects. That 13-month grand jury yielded no indictments.

"If the criticism is that the Boulder P.D. has not been objective," said the veteran investigator, "then why would you hire somebody else who has shown that they are not objective, but at the other extreme?"


*and I really like this part at the beginning of the article:

It's hard to ascertain who, other than Smit, is handling Ramsey investigative work for Keenan's office - or what they are doing.

What is known is this:

• Keenan has not asked Boulder police for help.

• She has not asked the Boulder County Sheriff's Department for help.

• She has not asked the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for help.

• She has not asked former prosecutor Michael Kane, who directed the Ramsey grand jury probe, for help.

• She has not asked her county commissioners for more money.

[Coloradokares]

To CK: You know as well as everybody else that the supposed matches you list are in your opinion only, because McGuckin's had thosands of items available at the listed prices, and they didn't give itemized receipts, so its not a match at all, just the Twister's guess. As for the pubic hair being from Patsy, I'm going to have to see a link or a verifiable quote before I let that claim stand unchallenged. And beaver hair from a boot? Where can I check on this? And if Patsy had a beaverhaired boot,I find the glib assertion that the boot was never given to the police interesting. Tell us more. When were the boots requested from the Ramseys, what evidence can you show that this ever happened? Did the Ramseys ever claim to have owned beaver boots? And the flashlight? Theirs? Or one that looked like one they owned? I have half a dozen flashlights that look like that one. What does it prove? I would like verifable information or the polite disclaimer IMO. This is JMO, of course.

http://www.joshua-7.com/jonbenet/01_26_99.htm

This is on the Beaver hair boots. This is only one of my links to that info this is from the Enquirer but I do have others. Also as to the ancilliary hair I am going to have to search my notes I have a link and I know that I do. But the notes are packed in a box. For now it was part of my clean the den efforts. But let me see if I can google something and get back with you. Nusiance Poster and I both have told you this more than once in the past. The Flashlight as you well know who knows it was wiped clean. So as to a disclaimer and not just my opinion looks like we handled this ok as soon as I find something on that ancilliary body hair of Patsy Ramsey. Do you really think Nusiance Poster and I would both lie about such? Good grief. If I say it you just put it in the bank that I have read it. Also if the enquirer isn't good enough for you. Let me know. I'll get really credible source as I believe Longmont's paper and Boulders also had articles on it. Right now i have over 2 ft down here and I have to keep scooping snow. huff puff and when I sang I am dreaming of a White Christmas the other day this was NOT what I had in mind:biggrin:

[Coloradokares]

The woman you cited does fit a profile of parents who kill.


DuPage County State's Attorney Joseph Birkett is prosecuting the case. He plans to argue that Marilyn Lemak killed the children to spite her estranged husband after learning he'd begun dating another woman.

Defense attorney John Donahue has said he will argue that Lemak, dogged by a depression that only worsened as her divorce dragged on, was insane at the time of the killings.
http://www.cjwm.com/cgi-bin/newsscript.pl?record=15

The Ramseys don't.

That Patsy Ramsey was on some serious anti depression and anxiety meds at the time of the murder is common knowledge. Ramsey(s) don't maybe perhaps one Ramsey does fit. Not that sanity was proved or disproved. That is done in court.

[Louisadelmar]

That Patsy Ramsey was on some serious anti depression and anxiety meds at the time of the murder is common knowledge. Ramsey(s) don't maybe perhaps one Ramsey does fit. Not that sanity was proved or disproved. That is done in court.


I believe she started on those after the murder.

[Louisadelmar]

Parachute cord or cord bought at McGuckins
Black Duct tape. McGuckins
Beaver fur. Patsy did own Beaver Fur Boots. They were never given to police claims no longer had them
Flashlight....well....it was theirs or one that looked like it
Neither clears nor convicts anyone
THOUSANDS of foreign fibers. People came and went at the Ramseys. They even held open houses and parties.
Pubice hair was a ancillary body hair of Patsys.

Now Shill I don't disagree that the potential exists that an intruder may have done this. I just want the intruder found so the evidence you listed can be proven.

The police went over their closet floors with tape. No matching fur was found. I don't recall reading that she had beaver fur boots.

[Coloradokares]

I thought the conditions of their interview set by the Ramseys were turned down, not the interview itself. I thought LE wanted to do it on their "turf" and call the shots, but the Ramseys had all these stipulations and demands that were innappropriate. I don't think LE said "No, we don't want to talk to you, thanks and goodbye." I thought the Ramseys eventually said no to the LE interview because LE wouldn't bow to their stipulations.

Is this the time this happened or was it another interview? I can't remember so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.:beer:

Snarks

You are correct Snarks.

[Louisadelmar]

I thought the conditions of their interview set by the Ramseys were turned down, not the interview itself. I thought LE wanted to do it on their "turf" and call the shots, but the Ramseys had all these stipulations and demands that were innappropriate. I don't think LE said "No, we don't want to talk to you, thanks and goodbye." I thought the Ramseys eventually said no to the LE interview because LE wouldn't bow to their stipulations.

Is this the time this happened or was it another interview? I can't remember so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.:beer:

Snarks
DOI, ppbk, pp 271-2

The fact is that on December 26 and 27, 1996 I was interviewed for several hours by Linda Arndt and other police officers. Patsy was with me most of the time on the 27th, except when the cops took me to a small bedroom. Patsy and I were more than willing, and anxious, to talk as long as the police wanted - and told them so. After all, our daughter had been murdered, and we wanted to get our hands on the killer. The issue became the detective' insistence, during the afternoon of the twenty-seventh, that we go down to the police station. Patsy was physically unable to leave the house. In fact, Dr. Francesco Beuf, who was there as a friend told the police that in his professional opinion as one of our family doctors, Patsy was in no condition to be taken to the police station. We told the police, "Come here to us and we will work with you as long as you want." They refused. But that started one of the urban legends: the Ramseys won't cooperate.

[...]
Following our return from JonBenet's funeral, we became aware of the law enforcement bias toward us. Nevertheless, we wanted to help, and the police were told that Patsy and I were available for a joint interview. They chose January 18, 1977 at 10:00 A.M. We asked that the investigators interview us together, in a doctor's presence, at our attorney's office, and that we have some input as to which detectives would conduct the interview. At that time we wanted Linda Arndt to continue to be involved.

The police abruptly cancelled our meeting and said in writing to our attorneys that "the time for interviewing John and Patsy as witnesses who could provide critical information that would be helpful in the initial stages of our investigation has passed."

There is also a bit in John Douglas' book about how the Ramseys did continue to talk throughout this period with Arndt and others who they trusted.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Nuuisance poster: <snip>

Technically, I didn't bring up the DNA at all. I don't believe it's related to the case. The link I supplied stating JAR has been cleared brought up the DNA, and then you asked about it, so I gave you my impression.
Well, since youpasted it to your post as the proof that JAR was cleared, you certainly did mention it.

What did I tap dance around? I'll be more than happy to be more specific. Stating the DNA was one of 2 items that cleared JAr and then statinig you don't think it was just the DNA.

The RDI have solid proof. We have the innumerable contradictions and lies the Rs have told through the years that the IDI dismiss as being the result of their grief. We have the fiber evidence the IDI denies exists, without any proof that it doesn't. We have the fact there is more evidence of Ramsey involvement in JonBenet's murder than any evidence of an intruder. The Rs not passing polys right away, Patsy not being cleared as author of the RN. It's not my fault the IDI refuse to accept or even acknowledge such evidence.

I don't think people who don't agree with me are idiots. Take Athena for example...she's clearly not an idiot. She knows her info and presents it in an easy to read manner with links. Her arguments challenge me, and make me review my links for the best way to reply. I don't think you're an idiot, either, Linda. I can disagree with people without developing a dislike for them. It's just a message board...and I realize that off this board, we're all the same - people who care about a little girl who died way before her time and would like justice for her. That doesn't make anyone an idiot, it makes them good, caring people who value a child.

If that's the way you truly feel, then it is certainly not coming through in your posts.[/QUOTE]


Yes that is exactly what is coming through in Nusiance Posters posts. She has never called anyone an idiot a synthroid a twister or anything. She has shown respect each time she comes to the plate. Yet sorry the same is not returned from some IDI's. Not all. But some. No matter how many links I post I am accused of never having a link which is simply not true I just posted another one about 15 -20 minutes ago. On and on it goes. I have to say that if you imply the Ramseys may have knowledge or guilt regarding JonBenet's death. Reason gets tossed out the window. I believe there was some serious issues that could be raised regarding the investigation and lack of prosecution of the JonBenet murder case. But not all LE was tainted dirty uniformed or just plain idiots in Boulder. Yet do I take issue with each post that implies all Boulderites are stoopid liars who can't tie their shoes? No. All I am saying is the IDI's who live in glass houses should not cast stones. Mercifully their are several of you who thoughtfully present your case. And just to answer a quick question of yours yes living in Boulder would give anyone a perspective the rest of the nation cannot have. Boulder is still small enough for that to happen we are still only 97 thousand.

[Coloradokares]

To CK: I have put the cauldron of oil on to simmer; because it is the hollidays we'll use scented oil this time, OK? Just kidding:biggrin:

I appreciate all the extra expense. THANKS!! :biggrin:

[Coloradokares]

I believe she started on those after the murder.

No that would be incorrect. She describes them in interview even. Mostly it is described as dealing with the cancer battles chemo etc. Atavan Ativan. something like that and Paxil...and others I can't remember right at the time. I was going to stop posting for a few days and fly on out of here. Our airport is messed up. Over 2 ft down.... Hope to fly out maybe tomorrow.

[elvislives]

No, I have no tone at all. And to say that clearly I am sure the R's are guilty is in contradiction with what it is I believe. I am clearly sure of this though, that there was enough evidence to take them to trial and it is for reason of our DA's office that they are free today. He wanted a sure thing a rock solid case a confession. Scott Peterson IMHO was convicted and sentenced to death on less evidence than what we have that is against the Ramseys. I am fairly convinced with a niggling 2% for error that the Ramseys either had an intruder who was flawless in setting them up and leaving not a mere trace of himself behind and that they the Ramseys knew something about the murderer and for whatever reason decided to help in the staging and coverup of their daughters murder. To save their own lives. Or indeed they had to be involved in the the murder and staging restaging of the death scene of JonBenet. One the other.

I am from Boulder or rather I was now I still live within 20 miles. So my knowledge of this case is much more personal in nature in that I know people who knew the Ramseys, actually lived only blocks from them and friends who knew a few of the officers involved I personally know a former ABC affiliate investigative reporter who interviewed many of the people involved in the case who knew the Ramseys or the investigators people in the DA's office etc. Its that 6 degree of separation thing. So that is why I threw it out there to say please come to Boulder. Not today. DIA is closed with a Blizzard in progress out here.

Did you know that Patsy Ramseys was treated with some serious depression and mental health drugs prior to the murder. You can believe that was due to chemo and maybe it was exactly that or could it be as many have speculated here that their was evidence of Patsy unraveling and obsessing with JonBenet? The Mega JonBenet thing Barbara Fernie and other friends wanted to discuss with her upon their return from the Disney Crusie.

LHP sued the Ramseys so you can seek out information on a candyrose about all that. But she recounts a lifestyle and screaming sessions with JonBenet over the potty issues and other things. Steve Thomas didn't pull this out of thin air you know. Patsy may have had some outward signs of things getting very chaotic in that household clutter and organization wise. Yet had a need to be seen as a perfect wife mother etch and was frenzied in her community activities. The christmas home tours etc. Its known she felt she needed to be in contol of things .

However there are also things you won't find in books or media or on internet files. People here are very closed up regarding the JonBenet case. If they really knew anything they don't talk alot except to well known personal friends etc. If you think that Patsy could have written the Ransom note then is it a far toss from reality if you know the pattern to see some overkill? Perhaps BiPolar and Manic is a word that has more than once been hinted at around Boulder. Steve Thomas and other detectives also interviewed alot of people who said Patsy was charming one moment and a real viper in the next second if she didn't get her way. IDI's scalded me in boiling oil once for this. But she was sweet as honey in one moment and could verbally rip you a new one in the next if she became unhappy. Her interviews with police even showed this.

I am telling you the things you might hear if you were to speak with the right people out here. Patsy was starting to seem obsessive regarding JonBenet and the paegant thing. JonBenets dance instructer spoke of this in was it Sinclairs book. or was it Schillers. Hard for me to remember right now. Notes are packed away for the holidays. Under boxes of Christmas stuff right now in a closet. Want the house presentable for the holidays. This is stuff that is hard to prove unless you drag people into court and make them swear under oath to answer questions directed a certain direction. Have you as an ER doctor any familiarity with the potential either undiagnosed or off medication for these issues. I do . I have a family member that is bipolar as much as we love and are a support system for her our lives are littered with train wrecks. They can be brilliant and sweet one moment and swosh knock a coach to his rear on the field the next. I am not lying about that and you know that too if your a doctor. You know if its true they also don't like taking medication. The medications were said to be over depression and anxiety but they can be some of the ones prescribed in situations like I am saying as well. These are the things that people who knew them knew. Many people would not know this about our daughter in law. This is also what gives me just some doubts deep down inside that something really bad happened in Boulder that night ... when you consider the holidays are triggers for cycling etc. Call it my own personal doubt that maybe there are things that are hidden away. Or not open to public knowledge. Perhaps undiagnosed. Things that would have come out perhaps in a trial. Thats all I am saying I think there was more than enough evidence for trial. I want the evidence seriously reviewed. I know, we had a grandjury. That never was going to make a recommendation or take a vote cause one of jurors even said there is no way a mother could do this to their child. This was stated before and after the covening of the grand jury. I don't know. I guess I am more and more inclined as time goes by to see the possibility that yes something horrible happened in Boulder that night. I think the evidence suggests to me that Ramseys are either guilty or they know who did this and participated in the coverup. But that is only my opinon. Because I think its ludicrous to suggest they knew nothing and were innocent as the driven snow. Maybe they were. But innocence just does not act like they did with as many coincidences as there were. Not normally anyway. Ok pour the boiling oil over my head again. But something has never been right about this case. We know there was influence used from the moment the 911 call was made. IMHO the DA's office has alot to account for in this matter. JMHO


Hey CK, your comments are exactly the reason I joined this board--to get some insider information. I had NOT heard about LHP's comments, which I think are very interesting. One of the weird things about this case is that there is so little information from the Ramsey inner circle. I've been hoping Fleet White would write a book but I know it's not his style. I live in Los Angeles, and when OJ Simpson's wife was first murdered, I thought he had nothing to do with it, based on the benevolent public image he had. Then all the friends and relatives came out of the woodwork with stories of their abusive relationship and his violent side, jealousy, etc. He was a person with a public image that was very different from his private side.


And yes, I've had lots of experience with people with mental health issues, psychiatric medications, what happens when they don't take them, etc. so I know exactly what you;re talking about there.

Let me ask you this: what is the prevailing theory of Boulderites? I'm gleaning from your comments (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think Patsy is the killer. She was my prime suspect from the beginning, but I no longer believe that this was an accident. IF she did it, I think it was a Susan Smith type of thing...intentional that is. The thing that baffles me is why would John Ramsey protect her? If you can share some inside theories with me I would really appreciate it.

[Louisadelmar]

No that would be incorrect. She describes them in interview even. Mostly it is described as dealing with the cancer battles chemo etc. Atavan Ativan. something like that and Paxil...and others I can't remember right at the time. I was going to stop posting for a few days and fly on out of here. Our airport is messed up. Over 2 ft down.... Hope to fly out maybe tomorrow.

No those were drugs she started after the murder. We talked about this at some length here a few months ago.

[Louisadelmar]

1997
TT: Okay. Patsy, I need to go through a couple of things here. What medications are you on right now? Are you still on Paxel?
PR: I’m on Paxel, um hum.
TT: How often do you take that?
PR: In the evenings (inaudible) once a day.
TT: Just a bedtime?
PR: Um hum.
TT: And, what’s the dose on that?
PR: 30 milligrams.
TT: And, are you taking anything else right now?
PR: I just started Monday taking something for this sinus infection. I know your going to ask me the name of it.
TT: Is it an over the, I’ll start (inaudible).
PR: No, it’s a prescription.
TT: Okay.
PR: You take it once a day for five days. Dr. Beuf prescribed it.
TT: Okay. And, are you taking anything else right now?
PR: Um, no.
TT: Any over the counter medication, vitamins . . .
PR: Vitamins. I’m taking vitamin C.
TT: Okay.
PR: (Inaudible) vitamin C.
TT: Just for that sinus infection?
PR: Right.
TT: Is that an ongoing type or just . . .
PR: Well, I just. . .
TT: (Inaudible)
PR: I just, since Monday started taking a lot of it.
TT: Okay. Okay. Um, any, any other uh, any other drugs, originally you were taking Paxel and what was the other drug you were taking? Lorzipan.
PR: Ah yeah, right.
TT: Are you still taking that at all?
PR: Uh, occasionally. Kind of as, on an as needed basis.
TT: When was the last time you took the Lorizpan?
PR: Uh, I took one last night about 6:30.
TT: How’s that, how’s that one make you feel. I mean, out of the two do any of them effect you at all that you can notice?
PR: I mean I don’t really notice anything, but I, usually I take the Adavan if I’m, I start getting, evenings are difficult for me.
TT: Um hum.
PR: When I start getting tired and I feel the onset of this, not feeling real good. Last night I was pretty, I just been missing JonBenet a lot lately.
TT: Okay.
PR: And uh, you know, it, it seems to, to kind of quell that . . .
TT: Takes the edge off a little bit.
PR: Takes the edge off a little bit.
TT: What kind of dose are you taking on the Adavan when you take it?
PR: Uh, a half milligram.
TT: Okay. Took it last night, how, about how many times a week are you taking that? Once, twice?
PR: Well, probably a couple.
TT: A couple of times a week is all?
PR: Yeah.
TT: Okay. The Adavan and the Paxel, um . . .
PR: The Paxel is an anti-depressant.
TT: Um hum. Either one of them, do you think either one of them’s kind of, uh, changing your thought process or clouding your mind, memory, anything like that?
PR: No.
TT: Okay. It’s not, not effecting any judgment or anything like that?
PR: No, huh uh.
TT: Okay. Um, I all this, I know with the sinus infection your probably not even thinking about it, um, have you taken any alcohol? How much alcohol . . .
PR: No. I don’t drink alcohol.
TT: Okay. Uh, do you drink alcohol at all?
PR: No. Not since I’ve been on the Paxel at all.
TT: Okay. When did you start the Paxel?
PR: Uh, I don’t know. February maybe.
TT: Okay. Beg…towards the beginning or the end of February?
PR: I can’t remember exactly.
TT: Okay. And the Adavan, did you start that about the same time?
PR: Simultaneously.


She started them in February.

Paxel=Paxil
Lorizpan=Lorzepan=Ativan
Adavan=Ativan

[Coloradokares]

Hey CK, your comments are exactly the reason I joined this board--to get some insider information. I had NOT heard about LHP's comments, which I think are very interesting. One of the weird things about this case is that there is so little information from the Ramsey inner circle. I've been hoping Fleet White would write a book but I know it's not his style. I live in Los Angeles, and when OJ Simpson's wife was first murdered, I thought he had nothing to do with it, based on the benevolent public image he had. Then all the friends and relatives came out of the woodwork with stories of their abusive relationship and his violent side, jealousy, etc. He was a person with a public image that was very different from his private side.


And yes, I've had lots of experience with people with mental health issues, psychiatric medications, what happens when they don't take them, etc. so I know exactly what you;re talking about there.

Let me ask you this: what is the prevailing theory of Boulderites? I'm gleaning from your comments (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think Patsy is the killer. She was my prime suspect from the beginning, but I no longer believe that this was an accident. IF she did it, I think it was a Susan Smith type of thing...intentional that is. The thing that baffles me is why would John Ramsey protect her? If you can share some inside theories with me I would really appreciate it.

I'll speak with you. PM after Christmas ok. Its not my theory I will relate but what I will share with you will be the truth. Sorry If I get time before Christmas I'll PM you. Its crazy here right now. We are getting socked with a huge blizzard. I will also see if I can get some Boulderites to talk with you. I am surprised at your interest in the personal recounts. I have been so ridiculed for having been from Boulder and the sarcasm regarding that has dripped. All because it leads back to the Ramseys. Not all posters but many who feel the Ramseys couldn't have done this are very sarcastic. That I can't help. Its where the evidence seemed to lead all along. I did not know the Ramseys I knew some who did. I know people who interviewed the first investigator on the scene. I personally do not know a police officer or member of the DA office. But I know what we saw daily out here and how the case was handled and what Boulderites say between themselves and in the coffee shops. I am so tired of being ridiculed I guess its hard to trust when someone actually wants to hear about what Boulder thinks. I guess I sort of learned to just sit and put out the redigested spin. Its like if the truth shows the Ramseys were not perfect many don't want to hear it. But they were like anyone else. Not as perfect as the picture that was painted of them. JMHO.

[SnarkyCow]

DOI, ppbk, pp 271-2

The police abruptly cancelled our meeting and said in writing to our attorneys that "the time for interviewing John and Patsy as witnesses who could provide critical information that would be helpful in the initial stages of our investigation has passed." [/i]

Thank you for finding this for me ~ I really appreciate it!

I do wish the above quote was stated somewhere other than "Death of Innocence." Just as a some people think ST's book is full of one-sided opinions and spins on the truth, I do not rely on the Ramseys' book to be factual and unbiased.

I am not familiar with Douglas's book, however, I do believe the Ramseys continued to talk to people they trusted because the people they trusted would not be asking them the tough questions, the people they trusted were on their side. I'd imagine I'd want to align myself with as many people as I could who were on my side. I'd definitely want to continue talking to the people who believed me and who didn't question my innocence.

Thanks again,

Snarky

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a65/snarky44/chuck-fu.gif ----> isn't he cute, I just had to add him because he makes me laugh!

[Louisadelmar]

Thank you for finding this for me ~ I really appreciate it!

I do wish the above quote was stated somewhere other than "Death of Innocence." Just as a some people think ST's book is full of one-sided opinions and spins on the truth, I do not rely on the Ramseys' book to be factual and unbiased.

I am not familiar with Douglas's book, however, I do believe the Ramseys continued to talk to people they trusted because the people they trusted would not be asking them the tough questions, the people they trusted were on their side. I'd imagine I'd want to align myself with as many people as I could who were on my side. I'd definitely want to continue talking to the people who believed me and who didn't question my innocence.

Thanks again,

Snarky



You should definitely read Cases That Haunt Us by Douglas. I'm sure AMazon has it used.

Would you talk with people you didn't trust? I would be very reluctant to do that. Jennifer (Runaway Bride) Wilbank's fiance felt the same way.

[Louisadelmar]

Missed the edit window and wanted to add. I don't think the average person differentiates between an investigator for the DA and one for the police. In theory they are all working to solve the crime. I don't find it odd that the Ramseys would want to talk with the investigators they felt most comfortable with.

If you had a choice between two equally qualified doctors, with which would you rather put your confidence and health choices. The one you liked and could talk to or the one who had a lousy bedside manner, made your daughter cry, and went around saying bad things about you?

[SnarkyCow]

You should definitely read Cases That Haunt Us by Douglas. I'm sure AMazon has it used.

Would you talk with people you didn't trust? I would be very reluctant to do that. Jennifer (Runaway Bride) Wilbank's fiance felt the same way.

Honestly? If I didn't have anything to hide, if I were innocent, I would talk to anyone and everyone who could help catch the killer of my daughter. I would understand about being considered a prime suspect - I'd consider it logical seeing as I was one of the only people proven to be in the house during my daughter's murder. If I were innocent, I'd do whatever it took to help LE get past the formality of me being a suspect so they could get on with finding the monster that murdered my baby.

If I didn't have anything to hide I'd pretty much do the exact opposite of what the Ramseys did.

Snarky http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a65/snarky44/avata2.gif

[SnarkyCow]

You should definitely read Cases That Haunt Us by Douglas. I'm sure AMazon has it used.

Thank you for the suggestion - I will definitely buy & read this.

[shill]

I was refering to people who believe that JAR flew from Georgia to Boulder to murder his sister and then flew back to Georgia undetected.

I said "some people" because "some people" seem to consider JAR a possible suspect even though he was cleared. "Some people" would include anyone who feels this way - whether IDI or RDI. That is why I said "some people."

According to your previous statement this could include IDIs, like Shill, who would consider JAR an intruder or RDIs who, because his last name is Ramsey (and the fact he was cleared by LE isn't good enough for them), include JAR in their RDI theory.

Why are we getting into semantics? There are "some people" who think JAR should still be considered as a suspect and those are the people I was refering to.

Respectfully yours,

Snarky

Those "some people" are the BPD who knew JAR was alleged to be with his mother and they had talked to those who said they were with JAR, and yet they felt they needed to fly out there and sniff around and interview these witnesses in person because they still suspected him. So the BPD believed JAR could have flown in and out to commit this crime.
They had no choice but to clear him because they couldn't disprove his alibi. I was pointing out that his alibi is not without suspicion.
Of course the trick to getting away with premeditated murder is creating a solid alibi.

[SnarkyCow]

If you had a choice between two equally qualified doctors, with which would you rather put your confidence and health choices. The one you liked and could talk to or the one who had a lousy bedside manner, made your daughter cry, and went around saying bad things about you?

I'd want to talk to both of them. I'd go with the one with the best idea of how to solve the problem - the one with the most aggressive treatment. If being treated with kid gloves didn't give the best results, I'd opt for not being treated with kid gloves. There are some things more important than my comfort and I'd rather my daughter cry now, and get the best treatment, than be coddled and not get better.

[shill]

Remember the movie Ransom where Mel Gilbson's son is kidnapped and a cop becomes a hero only to find out he was the kidnapper? May sound far-fetched but because ST was so adamant from the very beginning and he leaked all the info to the press early and tried to make the evidence fit his theory -- does make you go hmm......



There are way to many parallels to that movie. Mel's character being a wealthy pilot who drives a Jaguar.
The kidnappers always intending on killing the son no matter what.
The son's hands bound above his head on the bed.
The kidnapping done right under the parents nose.
The lead kidnapper goes nuts when Mel refers to the kidnappers as low life scum beneath him.
The similar dialogue and the release date just a week before Christmas.

[shill]

There are way to many parallels to that movie. Mel's character being a wealthy pilot who drives a Jaguar.
The kidnappers always intending on killing the son no matter what.
The son's hands bound above his head on the bed.
The kidnapping done right under the parents nose.
The lead kidnapper goes nuts when Mel refers to the kidnappers as low life scum beneath him.
The similar dialogue and the release date just a week before Christmas.

It's like a copycat crime. They always talk about people copying crimes and trying to figure out if it is the real killer or a copycat or if the crime was a copy of a previous crime like the Columbine shooting.
Why not a movie copycat killer?

[Louisadelmar]

Hey CK, your comments are exactly the reason I joined this board--to get some insider information. I had NOT heard about LHP's comments, which I think are very interesting. One of the weird things about this case is that there is so little information from the Ramsey inner circle. I've been hoping Fleet White would write a book but I know it's not his style. I live in Los Angeles, and when OJ Simpson's wife was first murdered, I thought he had nothing to do with it, based on the benevolent public image he had. Then all the friends and relatives came out of the woodwork with stories of their abusive relationship and his violent side, jealousy, etc. He was a person with a public image that was very different from his private side.

And yes, I've had lots of experience with people with mental health issues, psychiatric medications, what happens when they don't take them, etc. so I know exactly what you;re talking about there.

Let me ask you this: what is the prevailing theory of Boulderites? I'm gleaning from your comments (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think Patsy is the killer. She was my prime suspect from the beginning, but I no longer believe that this was an accident. IF she did it, I think it was a Susan Smith type of thing...intentional that is. The thing that baffles me is why would John Ramsey protect her? If you can share some inside theories with me I would really appreciate it.


LHP thought (and said) the Ramseys were wonderful and then she found out the tabs would pay big money for anti-Ramsey stories.

I've already posted the excerpt about the medication and when she started it. I'm sure if she'd been bi=polar there would have been all kinds of stories. The tabs dug deep and paid big money searching for dirt on the Ramseys. They were very frustrated by their squeaky clean past.

At this point any views the run of the mill Boulderite had on the Ramseys have been tainted just like the rest of the country. I'm sure they would be interesting but I'm not sure how accurate.

[Coloradokares]

LHP thought (and said) the Ramseys were wonderful and then she found out the tabs would pay big money for anti-Ramsey stories.

I've already posted the excerpt about the medication and when she started it. I'm sure if she'd been bi=polar there would have been all kinds of stories. The tabs dug deep and paid big money searching for dirt on the Ramseys. They were very frustrated by their squeaky clean past.

At this point any views the run of the mill Boulderite had on the Ramseys have been tainted just like the rest of the country. I'm sure they would be interesting but I'm not sure how accurate.


I am not talking tabloid chatters. I am talking about the interviews with investigators and also things that came out in LHP suite against the Ramseys for falsely accusing her of murdering their daughter. Lots of people have apparently clean pasts. But theirs was not as squeaky as you make it sound complete with adultry in first marriage by John. Different issues for Patsy would be was she in fact molested as a child herself. I don't know if that is only an accusation leveled or fact. But one thing is certain, LHP was not the only one to speak about these issues.....That is way underestimating the run of the mill discredited in your eyes Boulderite condemned because we lived here. And one thing is certain .....what we lived and was our personal experience and what we saw taking place is equal to what you read anywhere....hands down. Just my opinion of course. As to the bipolar..I am not sure if a diagnosis was ever proved. But don't say there was no speculation regarding these issues....one thing you cannot do is keep people from noticing when things are just a bit off kilter. And people who were loyal to the Ramseys expressed concerns. They fell away one by one as the Ramseys did everything they could to discredit them and turn them into suspects. And now elvislives you see....... Nothing said by any Boulder Valley person makes one bo diddly difference. We don't know jack squat do we..... we is all a bunch of twisters......

[nuisanceposter]

Thank you for finding this for me ~ I really appreciate it!

I do wish the above quote was stated somewhere other than "Death of Innocence." Just as a some people think ST's book is full of one-sided opinions and spins on the truth, I do not rely on the Ramseys' book to be factual and unbiased.

Here's what Steve Thomas had to say in his book (hb, pg 129-130) about that interview:

I hand-delivered a letter to Commander Eller from attorney Patrick Burke that laid out their conditions for us to interview the Ramseys. The points, which were plainly unacceptable, included having the session take place the very next day in the office of another Ramsey lawyer. Patsy would have both a doctor and a lawyer at her side, probably be available for only one hour, and be questioned only by Detective Arndt. They wanted Peter Hofstrom of the DA's office present.

<snip>

Eller wasn't about to let them stack the deck. The short lead time of less than 24 hours would give us no time to prepare, and we refused to walk in unprepared. He countered with an alternative suggestion - silmultaneous interviews the following week at police headquarters, with Eller assigning any detectives he wanted to do the questioning. The interview would continue until police were satisfied, would be videotaped, and Hofstrom would not be welcome.

Team Ramsey came back with a diatribe. How dare we turn down their guidelines? This was another example of the "cruel and insensitive treatment" of their clients by the police. Anyone could see the Ramseys had nothing to do with the death of their daughter, and it was inexplicable why police continued to treat them as suspects.

These exchanges were only opening shots, and the interview issue remained unresolved. As far as the detectives were concerned, the Ramseys were being treated like suspects because they had done nothing to convince us they weren't.
__________________________________

Quite a different relation of events than what the Rs would have us believe. Stacking the deck is right. The Rs want all this special treatment and want to designate the rules of the interview - hmmm, not making them look like they're very interested in cooperating with investigators to solve their daughter's murder...how GENEROUS of the Rs to give police only one hour to interview and less than 24 hours to prepare for it.

And gotta wonder just why exactly the police want the one detective that managed to screw up the entire crime scene, Linda Arndt, to be the person who questions them. Arndt, who thought JR was dangerous when he brought up JB's body, checking the amount of bullets she had. It's because Patsy has already bonded to Linda when she brought Burke in to an interview. Patsy sat and cried for Linda about how hard her life is, and Linda took pity. Not only that, but Arndt had gone so far to help the Rs as to fax the RST private police documentation, such as a list of questions police meant to the Rs.

The whole thing just reeks like a pile of manure. No wonder police turned down the Rs "offer" of an interview. You're right to question the veracity of information in DOI, Snarks. I've already pointed out other inconsistencies and outright lies that the Rs tried to pass off as truth in their self-serving epic, such as JR saying FBI hadn't been called when FBI had been, and had even been in the Ramsey house on 12/26.

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>

I've already pointed out other inconsistencies and outright lies that the Rs tried to pass off as truth in their self-serving epic, such as JR saying FBI hadn't been called when FBI had been, and had even been in the Ramsey house on 12/26.


The way you post information is so misleading - IMO.

We've been 'round and 'round about the FBI being at the Ramsey house on the 26th.......and still you insist on telling it just a little different from how it actually happened.

I would hate to make my decisions based on twisted facts.

JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

No those were drugs she started after the murder. We talked about this at some length here a few months ago.


I've come to the conclusion that it's ok to throw whatever at the wall (board in this case) just to see what sticks. Links/sources - and for that matter - truth - don't really seem to be important. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

The way you post information is so misleading - IMO.

We've been 'round and 'round about the FBI being at the Ramsey house on the 26th.......and still you insist on telling it just a little different from how it actually happened.

I would hate to make my decisions based on twisted facts.

JMO

What did I twist, SC? What was misleading?

I listed the page numbers I got my information from, in both DOI and PMPT. John Ramsey said the FBI hadn't been called, and that was incorrect. Not only had the FBI been called, but they were on the case that day and even visited the Ramsey home. JR saying they hadn't been called was not the truth, and he had at least three years to figure out what the truth was before he wrote that in DOI (copyright 2000).

[sweetcharlotte]

What did I twist, SC? What was misleading?

I listed the page numbers I got my information from, in both DOI and PMPT. John Ramsey said the FBI hadn't been called, and that was incorrect. Not only had the FBI been called, but they were on the case that day and even visited the Ramsey home. JR saying they hadn't been called was not the truth, and he had at least three years to figure out what the truth was before he wrote that in DOI (copyright 2000).

Yes, I believe I was there during that discussion......and if I remember correctly you only quoted the part of PMPT that fit your story.


JMO

[nuisanceposter]

That's right - I added the little <snip> thing, so it wasn't like I was trying to mislead people. Jeez, I gave the page numbers I found the info on! That's so people can go read it for themselves. You did the snip too, and when asked about it, said that you did so because part of the text didn't really apply to your post.

We all do the snip thing, and it's quite useful (as well as a space saver) at times, especially when you're posting text that you have to copy word for word out of a book.


Bottom line here - did JR say the FBI hadn't been called?

Yes, he did.

Had the FBI been called?

Yes, they had. They set up taps and traps on the phone from BPD HQ and toured the Ramsey home after JB's body had been found in person in the form of Agent Ron Walker.

Did JR have enough time and the ability to figure that out before he had DOI published stating that FBI hadn't been called?

Yes, he did, and still chose to write incorrect and untrue statements...imo, in attempt to do exactly what you're accusing me of - trying to twist info and mislead people.

[sweetcharlotte]

That's right - I added the little <snip> thing, so it wasn't like I was trying to mislead people. Jeez, I gave the page numbers I found the info on! That's so people can go read it for themselves. You did the snip too, and when asked about it, said that you did so because part of the text didn't really apply to your post.

We all do the snip thing, and it's quite useful (as well as a space saver) at times, especially when you're posting text that you have to copy word for word out of a book.


Bottom line here - did JR say the FBI hadn't been called?

Yes, he did.

Had the FBI been called?

Yes, they had. They set up taps and traps on the phone from BPD HQ and toured the Ramsey home after JB's body had been found in person in the form of Agent Ron Walker.

Did JR have enough time and the ability to figure that out before he had DOI published stating that FBI hadn't been called?

Yes, he did, and still chose to write incorrect and untrue statements...imo, in attempt to do exactly what you're accusing me of - trying to twist info and mislead people.

ROFL. So you finally realized that the FBI didn't have to go to the house to set taps & traps?

Yes, they were at BPD HQs until AFTER JonBenet was found. They shuffled in the Ramsey home about the time the Ramseys were being taken out.

Would I have felt like John Ramsey did, i.e., that they were not on the case.
Yes, how was he to know they were sitting down at BPD?

Did he lie? I'd have to re-read what he said in DOI - in context, but IMO, no.

Have I lied? No.

[nuisanceposter]

I never said the FBI had to be in the Ramsey to set up the taps and traps. That's how you perceived what I said, and when I realized you had misunderstood me, I clarified that. Go back and re-read the conversation if you don't agree.

I said the FBI were on the case as early as 10:45 am, down at HQ, monitoring incoming and outgoing calls at the Ramsey house, waiting for the kidnapper. Walker had come from Denver to BPD HQ with a four man kidnapping team specifically for that reason.

Larry Mason had gotten a page at around 9:45 am, stating that "FBI agent is looking for Bob Whitson." When Mason got the page, he made the 25 minute drive to HQ where he met Walker.

This information can be found on pages 10-11 in the hardback edition of PMPT. According to that, FBI were on the case and involved in the investigation well before JonBenet's body was found around 1 pm. When her body was found, Mason drove Walker over to the house and Walker saw JonBenet's body lying under the tree around 1:30. Then Walker and Mason went downstairs to the wine cellar and viewed the crime scene.

That was when Mason saw there was no time to lose in clearing the house, securing the crime scene, and getting search warrants.

This was also the same time frame in which another detective overheard JR on the phone arranging a flight out of Boulder and informed Mason, who told JR to cancel his plans. Next JAR and Melinda et al arrived from Denver, and then the family left with a patrol car as escort to go to the Fernies'.

That info is found on pages 17-18 of PMPT. Quite a bit different than his claim that BPD kept the police at bay and would not let them inside the house (DOI, pb, pg 24). They didn't need to go into the house, even you admit that, SC, and when JonBenet was found, not only did police not keep FBI out of the house, but Mason himself drove FBI agent Walker over.

In DOI on page 27, JR says, "The morning of the twenty-sixth, I had been told the FBI was "on the way." Now I learned they weren't even on the case." conveniently not mentioning that FBI stopped being on the case when jurisdiction changed after the crime turned from a kidnapping to a murder. He fails to mention the FBI had been tapping phones and visited the house, leaving the reader with his earlier impression that the BPD had kept the feds at bay. Now isn't that misleading?

I'll say it again...John Ramsey had more than enough time to find out what the truth was in regards to the FBI in his daughter's murder investigation, and he owed to his daughter to know exactly what was being done in her murder investigation. He chose to publish information that was incorrect rather than make sure he was writing the actual facts.

What other facts in DOI have been twisted to mislead people? Hmmm, the situation with the January 1997 interview, for one. They didn't bother to mention that they set such unreasonable conditions on an investigation. Why, I bet if the situation had been the other way around, and the BPD wanted to do something without giving the RST even 24 hours to prepare and only an hour to do it in, the Rs and their supporters would have been screaming at the injustice and unreasonable conditions.

[sweetcharlotte]

Same ole/same ole....... JMO

[nuisanceposter]

Same ole/same ole....... JMO

Exactly - the Ramseys are telling half-truths and the people who don't bother to investigate farther actually believe them. It's real easy to believe people are innocent when they sit and spin a pretty story complete with tears all over it, describing a world of perfect family bliss and the horror of police who think they could be guilty and seemigly persecute them, but when you listen to another side of the story, the cracks in the veneer begin to show.

[sweetcharlotte]

Exactly - the Ramseys are telling half-truths and the people who don't bother to investigate farther actually believe them. It's real easy to believe people are innocent when they sit and spin a pretty story complete with tears all over it, describing a world of perfect family bliss and the horror of police who think they could be guilty and seemigly persecute them, but when you listen to another side of the story, the cracks in the veneer begin to show.


What cracks? It's been ten years........and I don't see a Ramsey or their "veneer" cracking. LOL LOL

[nuisanceposter]

No, Charlotte, you wouldn't. I've pointed out to you twice now how John Ramsey twisted the truth and mislead people in DOI. I won't hestitate to do it again, even though you'd obviously prefer to believe the Ramsey lies than to admit they're less than truthful.

I'm not trying to convince you, I know you won't change your mind....but I will point out stuff like this so that someone else who is reading this discussion hears more than one side of the story and has an opportunity to decide for themselves what really happened.

That, and I just really like to debate. :D

[andU]

No, Charlotte, you wouldn't. I've pointed out to you twice now how John Ramsey twisted the truth and mislead people in DOI. I won't hestitate to do it again, even though you'd obviously prefer to believe the Ramsey lies than to admit they're less than truthful.

I'm not trying to convince you, I know you won't change your mind....but I will point out stuff like this so that someone else who is reading this discussion hears more than one side of the story and has an opportunity to decide for themselves what really happened.

That, and I just really like to debate. :D

I have to add my 2 cents worth, here.... I would venture to guess that each of us have told half-truths if not total lies. That does not make a person a murderer. Show the evidence, that makes the Ramseys murderers and I will believe it. That evidence, IMO, does not exist.

[SnarkyCow]

I have to add my 2 cents worth, here.... I would venture to guess that each of us have told half-truths if not total lies. That does not make a person a murderer. Show the evidence, that makes the Ramseys murderers and I will believe it. That evidence, IMO, does not exist.

That is a fair, valid point.... However, none of us have told half-truths, lies and had our six year old daughter discovered murdered in our basement (and been the only people proven to be inside the house the night it happened). Half-truths and lies become a much bigger deal when one is a suspect in a mysterious murder.

I watched JR on LKL last night. I don't want to believe he had anything to do with it - I hope something does come to light proving there was an intruder, but as I've said, in my opinion, all the evidence in this case points to the Ramseys' involvement in the murder of JBR.

SnarkyCow

[bullmoose]

http://www.joshua-7.com/jonbenet/01_26_99.htm

This is on the Beaver hair boots. This is only one of my links to that info this is from the Enquirer but I do have others. Also as to the ancilliary hair I am going to have to search my notes I have a link and I know that I do. But the notes are packed in a box. For now it was part of my clean the den efforts. But let me see if I can google something and get back with you. Nusiance Poster and I both have told you this more than once in the past. The Flashlight as you well know who knows it was wiped clean. So as to a disclaimer and not just my opinion looks like we handled this ok as soon as I find something on that ancilliary body hair of Patsy Ramsey. Do you really think Nusiance Poster and I would both lie about such? Good grief. If I say it you just put it in the bank that I have read it. Also if the enquirer isn't good enough for you. Let me know. I'll get really credible source as I believe Longmont's paper and Boulders also had articles on it. Right now i have over 2 ft down here and I have to keep scooping snow. huff puff and when I sang I am dreaming of a White Christmas the other day this was NOT what I had in mind:biggrin:
CK: I sure am sorry if you are snowed in for the holiday; I've been watching the weather channel and it looks bad for flying in or out; I hope you make it to where you were going. As for the link you provided for me yesterday I thank you; but CK, its a link to a 1999 National Enquirer article.The NE has no credability whatsoever for truthfullness. As far as I can tell the unnamed sources that they quote only exist in the minds of the writers of the article. I see that the article mentions beaver boots, but I have never seen any reference as to whether these boots ever existed in actuality. The article also says that Kane had a brilliant case that would certainly return an indictment, proving this and that to the grand jury about Patsy and John's guilt; but, as we all know, the grand jury returned no indictment. Outside of spelling their names correctly, IMO, there was not a word of truth in that article. The NE is a cheesy tabloid that is useful only to line the bottom of birdcages with, my parakeets constantly are making masterful responses to the articles exposed to them.

[Coloradokares]

I watched JR on LKL last night. I don't want to believe he had anything to do with it - I hope something does come to light proving there was an intruder, but as I've said, in my opinion, all the evidence in this case points to the Ramseys' involvement in the murder of JBR.

SnarkyCow

I got to figure out that snip thing. The above is a copy and paste. SnarkyCow you just said it all right there. I don't want to believe that John or Patsy had anything to do with it. I hope I pray something does come to light proving there was an inturder. But as you say. There is evidence in this case that points to Ramsey involvement. Across the years you take a bit here and some heartfelt recounting from another these are things that don't have links or pagenumbers in books and you keep adding it to the known inconsistencies and it takes all you got not to point a finger. So you try to recount it cause its the truth you live with. No one has ever said a mean vindictive thing and they say it respectfully. But the end result is the same. Patsy was a drama queen who was just a bit out of control for a controlling person. She could be sweet honesuckle sweet. But fire off in 2.3 if she disagreed. That is what twists in your gut when you can't find a rational explanation for the inconsistencies. The lack of cooperation that was real not a figament of imagination. You just said it all. We need the Ramseys to be innocent. Life does not always give us what fits nice and tidy inside the box. CK

[andU]

That is a fair, valid point.... However, none of us have told half-truths, lies and had our six year old daughter discovered murdered in our basement (and been the only people proven to be inside the house the night it happened). Half-truths and lies become a much bigger deal when one is a suspect in a mysterious murder.

I watched JR on LKL last night. I don't want to believe he had anything to do with it - I hope something does come to light proving there was an intruder, but as I've said, in my opinion, all the evidence in this case points to the Ramseys' involvement in the murder of JBR.

SnarkyCow

I agree with what you say, Snarky, but (you knew there was one, right?) until evidence is strong enough to bring either him or someone else to trial, I will keep praying for him to be innocent, as he is until proven guilty. I believe they could have tried this case on circumstancial evidence 10 yrs. ago, but I don't think it could be now, because there is Reasonable Doubt. Well, ok, they could bring it to trial, but there wouldn't be a conviction without much more evidence.

[Coloradokares]

CK: I sure am sorry if you are snowed in for the holiday; I've been watching the weather channel and it looks bad for flying in or out; I hope you make it to where you were going. As for the link you provided for me yesterday I thank you; but CK, its a link to a 1999 National Enquirer article.The NE has no credability whatsoever for truthfullness. As far as I can tell the unnamed sources that they quote only exist in the minds of the writers of the article. I see that the article mentions beaver boots, but I have never seen any reference as to whether these boots ever existed in actuality. The article also says that Kane had a brilliant case that would certainly return an indictment, proving this and that to the grand jury about Patsy and John's guilt; but, as we all know, the grand jury returned no indictment. Outside of spelling their names correctly, IMO, there was not a word of truth in that article. The NE is a cheesy tabloid that is useful only to line the bottom of birdcages with, my parakeets constantly are making masterful responses to the articles exposed to them.

Yeah but that was the one I had sitting in my favorites at the moment. I got a ton of stuffs Bullmoose in notebooks. Things I made reference to over the years as I'd read a newpaper article or watch tv or read a book. Long before I knew about internet chat forums regarding JonBenet. To tidy up and make things pristine in our rather smallish home as we would be entertaining holiday guests I boxed it all up and stuck it under a bunch of boxes with the soul intent to take it out to storage units. I swore off the forums in my heart the other day with yet another awful accusation to my being less than truthful. Truth is where you live it and how you percieve it. Just because you didn't hear it does not mean it was not said with tears rolling down the cheeks of the friend that recounted it.. Well so I Boxed up my notes and said thats it I am done. I don't blame Ames. What kind of fool is it that puts themselves through this. For what purpose do I waste my days.... Especially when I got a wonderful life aside from it. I was finished Ames reminded me of all that I have. I actually had no intention of ever putting myself out to explain once again. If your name isn't in a book there is no page number that does not mean you did not know the Ramseys or knew those who did know them. It means you don't have a page number. Or a link or a reference. Boulderites talk among themselves. If things come to trial then alot is going to just come out. The personal talks about did you hear this or see that . Hey bullmoose you know what...your ok... but the forums man they just are not about finding the truth they are about defending opinion. Opinion did not murder JonBenet ....another human being did that. So Opinions are not a rare commoditiy everyone has and is entitled to their own.

I know you don't believe the article. Soon as I can I hope to give you a more credible source. I know its also on crimeblog. I think it was Longmonts paper I read that first covered her boots. So you got parakeets. I used to have a budgie. A rare cobalt blue. Now I have a cockatiel who raises the roofs. I had to bring him home in the blizzard when we could see we were not going anywhere. Thousands are still stranded out at DIA. Sure hope he didn't get drafted excessively. The drifts are taller than I am. I think when the roads clear we may try to drive it..... Flying may not be a good option this year for the holidays. Merry Christmas Bullmoose. I think you do care for the truth.

[elvislives]

I'll speak with you. PM after Christmas ok. Its not my theory I will relate but what I will share with you will be the truth. Sorry If I get time before Christmas I'll PM you. Its crazy here right now. We are getting socked with a huge blizzard. I will also see if I can get some Boulderites to talk with you. I am surprised at your interest in the personal recounts. I have been so ridiculed for having been from Boulder and the sarcasm regarding that has dripped. All because it leads back to the Ramseys. Not all posters but many who feel the Ramseys couldn't have done this are very sarcastic. That I can't help. Its where the evidence seemed to lead all along. I did not know the Ramseys I knew some who did. I know people who interviewed the first investigator on the scene. I personally do not know a police officer or member of the DA office. But I know what we saw daily out here and how the case was handled and what Boulderites say between themselves and in the coffee shops. I am so tired of being ridiculed I guess its hard to trust when someone actually wants to hear about what Boulder thinks. I guess I sort of learned to just sit and put out the redigested spin. Its like if the truth shows the Ramseys were not perfect many don't want to hear it. But they were like anyone else. Not as perfect as the picture that was painted of them. JMHO.

Look forward to it. I've been watching the news about the blizzard...maybe I'll get the info sooner rather than later:)

[elvislives]

I watched JR on LKL last night. I don't want to believe he had anything to do with it - I hope something does come to light proving there was an intruder, but as I've said, in my opinion, all the evidence in this case points to the Ramseys' involvement in the murder of JBR.

SnarkyCow

I got to figure out that snip thing. The above is a copy and paste. SnarkyCow you just said it all right there. I don't want to believe that John or Patsy had anything to do with it. I hope I pray something does come to light proving there was an inturder. But as you say. There is evidence in this case that points to Ramsey involvement. Across the years you take a bit here and some heartfelt recounting from another these are things that don't have links or pagenumbers in books and you keep adding it to the known inconsistencies and it takes all you got not to point a finger. So you try to recount it cause its the truth you live with. No one has ever said a mean vindictive thing and they say it respectfully. But the end result is the same. Patsy was a drama queen who was just a bit out of control for a controlling person. She could be sweet honesuckle sweet. But fire off in 2.3 if she disagreed. That is what twists in your gut when you can't find a rational explanation for the inconsistencies. The lack of cooperation that was real not a figament of imagination. You just said it all. We need the Ramseys to be innocent. Life does not always give us what fits nice and tidy inside the box. CK

I must be in the minority here. I HOPE the Ramsey's are guilty. To have been subjected to all the accusations and scrutiny that you murdered and molested your daughter when you are guilty means you've escaped justice. But to endure those hideous accusations when you are innocent is a horrible travesty. So again, I am hoping to find out they did it.

[Louisadelmar]

I must be in the minority here. I HOPE the Ramsey's are guilty. To have been subjected to all the accusations and scrutiny that you murdered and molested your daughter when you are guilty means you've escaped justice. But to endure those hideous accusations when you are innocent is a horrible travesty. So again, I am hoping to find out they did it.

I felt the same way years ago when I was on the fence. Ultimately I decided that based on the evidence we had, I wouldn't vote these people guilty. From there I decided I would rather be wrong in defending people who turned out to be guilty than wrong in adding my voice to the accusations against people who turned out to be innocent.

Had the 911 call contained Burke's voice or had John's fibers been verified to be in her underwear I would have changed sides with a clear conscience.

[LindaA]

Louisadelmar, you echo my thought exactly in your last post. :beer:

[Coloradokares]

I felt the same way years ago when I was on the fence. Ultimately I decided that based on the evidence we had, I wouldn't vote these people guilty. From there I decided I would rather be wrong in defending people who turned out to be guilty than wrong in adding my voice to the accusations against people who turned out to be innocent.

Had the 911 call contained Burke's voice or had John's fibers been verified to be in her underwear I would have changed sides with a clear conscience.

Louisadelmar, I am in the same boat your in. It goes against everything I believe in to judge someone wrongly or unfairly. I get mad not because I am judging them but because the matter was left like a kiss from a sister. I am only willing to look at the evidence and not steadfastly deny its existence. The difference I between you and I is I believe the fibers were verified ....I first looked for innocent ways to explain them being there like John carried her upstairs....but then realize opps she was wiped down....size 12's placed on her. So I try so very hard to make myself believe that I am content to let the jury decide should that day come. But there is alot out there that cannot be explained in many other ways. Or such is my opinion. I am not saying you'd never find an intruder theory advocate in the city limits of Boulder. But Mark Beckner was on tv just night before last saying there has not been a murder in Boulder other than the one he was speaking of in over 4 years. What about Jason Midyette.... This was an adult murder he was speaking of and the suspects are pretty much given. I forget the name as I was talking about our travel plans and how the storm could affect them with my husband. The point Mark Beckner must not consider Jason Midyette a murder.....that is outrageous.... That poor baby couldn't broke all his own bones etc...... Life in Boulder....the beat goes on and on and on.

[andU]

Louisadelmar, I am in the same boat your in. It goes against everything I believe in to judge someone wrongly or unfairly. I get mad not because I am judging them but because the matter was left like a kiss from a sister. I am only willing to look at the evidence and not steadfastly deny its existence. The difference I between you and I is I believe the fibers were verified ....I first looked for innocent ways to explain them being there like John carried her upstairs....but then realize opps she was wiped down....size 12's placed on her. So I try so very hard to make myself believe that I am content to let the jury decide should that day come. But there is alot out there that cannot be explained in many other ways. Or such is my opinion. I am not saying you'd never find an intruder theory advocate in the city limits of Boulder. But Mark Beckner was on tv just night before last saying there has not been a murder in Boulder other than the one he was speaking of in over 4 years. What about Jason Midyette.... This was an adult murder he was speaking of and the suspects are pretty much given. I forget the name as I was talking about our travel plans and how the storm could affect them with my husband. The point Mark Beckner must not consider Jason Midyette a murder.....that is outrageous.... That poor baby couldn't broke all his own bones etc...... Life in Boulder....the beat goes on and on and on.

It isn't just Boulder, CK ..... Life anywhere, the beat goes on as does life, .... without the beat there is no life... this 'stuff' is happening in every state of the union... we just don't hear about it. Granted that this case has overwhelming attributes.

[SnarkyCow]

I must be in the minority here. I HOPE the Ramsey's are guilty. To have been subjected to all the accusations and scrutiny that you murdered and molested your daughter when you are guilty means you've escaped justice. But to endure those hideous accusations when you are innocent is a horrible travesty. So again, I am hoping to find out they did it.

Elvis - I hear you. I should rephrase my earlier comments. The emotional me, the one who wants to think the best of everyone, wants to believe the Ramseys could not do to a child what was done to their daughter.

In light of the known evidence, along with the Ramsey half-truths and their lack of cooperation with LE, I firmly believe they were involved in the murder of JonBenet. I guess I wish there were a way for me to believe they didn't do it, but there isn't.

Truthfully, I only want justice for JonBenet. I want whoever killed her to be punished severly and I want the mystery to end. As someone who believes the Ramseys were involved in the murder of their daughter it is them I want to see punished.

It would make me feel better if it weren't the Ramseys, but I believe it was, and my "feeling better about it" has nothing to do with it.... it's strictly about justice for JonBenet.

Hope this made sense ~ Thanks for listening,

Snarky

[Coloradokares]

It isn't just Boulder, CK ..... Life anywhere, the beat goes on as does life, .... without the beat there is no life... this 'stuff' is happening in every state of the union... we just don't hear about it. Granted that this case has overwhelming attributes.

What is overwhelming is again their is power money and influence and that is Business as usual in the Boulder DA's turn your head way of doing business. Now I can't help but wonder why it is that the poor and uneducated are made examples and called murder. While upper class rich and locally influential murders are not labeled such and given a pass.....once again we shall humor the masses with a grandjury. I hope the grand jurors do the right thing. My opinion is Lacey is following lockstep in her mentors footsteps. She learned alot from Alex Hunter ..... do not prosecute till you have a confession ..... You know of course this is a powerful and influential family once again ...

[nuisanceposter]

That's right where I'm at...I've spent ten years following this case, reading everything I could, and at this point I am personally convinced there is enough evidence of Ramsey involvement in JonBenet's murder to believe one of her parents killed her and very little to zero possibility that anyone other than a Ramsey was in that house that night.

I see no reason to believe that the fiber evidence Levin referred to was a calculated trick to coerce the Rs into confession. Nothing about that interview denotes a tone of deception designed to trap them. They've been given special treatment from day one, and that interview was no exception.

The Ramseys have never acted like that was a real RN or a real kidnapping. They've changed their stories and been caught lying repeatedly through the years. They have spent little to no time worried about searching for the killer - they showed no concern whatsoever that this killer will strike again, at their house or anyone else's. They would have no reason to behave like they have or lie unless they have something to cover up, and I think they would only cover up like they have for one of their own.

John Ramsey says he read all 3 or 4 years worth of emails between Tracey and Karr - yet doesn't seem to harbor any bad feelings toward Karr, despite the sickening and incredibly disgusting things he was saying about JonBenet. How could you sit there and read all that hideously lustful talk about your own child, and not end up with some bad feelings towards the creep who was talking about having sex with her? And saying she liked it? I want to smash his face in and she isn't even my baby.

That's how I sleep at night, Shill - I am absolutely convinced the Ramseys know exactly what happened to JonBenet and exactly who did it. That's why I don't have a problem speculating about them being involved...I'm already convinced beyond a doubt that they were involved based on the evidence I've read.

You guys like to talk about Douglas - now I haven't read it, but I read others talking about his book on another board, pointing out that a mother whose daughter was murdered by a relative sat with the coroner and went over every single mark on her daughter's body, to define what was part of her murder and how it was caused. That's how a parent of a child murdered ruthlessly by someone else behaves - they don't arrange a flight out of Boulder within half an hour of the body being found and never even bother to read the autopsy. My own father was killed in a car accident, and when we got the autopsy report, I read through it very carefully to know exactly what happened to my beloved dad.

Of course, there's some question as to whether the Rs read the autopsy or not - John said they didn't, and Patsy said she did. That was also right after she had told interviewers that she had seen the heart on JB's hand the morning of the 26th - then realized what an error she'd made - so the very next time she was interviewed, she started out the session clarifying that she hadn't seen the heart after all, but had read about it in the autopsy. Which was it, Patsy, and why do you have to be so obvious about lying?

[LindaA]

I do hear what you are saying, NP, you can explain away only so many inconsistancies. Which parent do youthink killed JBR and how did it happen? If you have posted this before, forgive me and point me to which thread it is in; I just don't remember seeing a theory from you and would be interested in y our ideas.

I am also intrigued by the conflict between those who think the Ramsey's received preferential treatment and those who think they were railroaded from the start. I am more likely to agree with the latter group, from all I've read over the years.

As for the mystery fibers, I think it's open to interpretation. There seems to be concrete proof of the existance of the red fibers attributed to PR but not for those incriminating JR. Do you have an explanation for that? I think that if those fibers actually existed JR would have been convicted long ago, as others have said. As a matter of fact I have to wonder why if there is such concrete proof why does the DA continune to pursue any other suspect such as JMK? I ithink there must be other evidence known to the DA but not to us that exculpates the Ramseys.

I think you contradict yourself when you cite both JR's attempt to fly to Atlanta immediately after the killing yet claim they seemed to show no fear that the criminal would strike again. That to me shows just that -- let me get my family to safety asap. However, this raises another question in my mind. Was JR so naive that he thought the police would actually allow him to leave town? Why wasn't he concerned with staying in touch with the investigation? Was he that naive? In survival mode? Or, as you say, aware of what actually had happened? If he was, wouldn't he realize that flying to Atlanta wouldn't keep him from being arrested? He seems naive in so many ways reagarding police procedure, but are we assuming a lot? 10 years ago weren't we all less aware of investigative techniques?

Also, I believe it was in DOI that the R's said that they had a neighbor pick up Burke inside the garage and transport him to school in a locked car every day. When at school they were allowed to drop him off right at the door where a staff member met them. Burke wore some kind of communication device that he could use to summon help at any time. That sounds to me like someone who was concerned about his child's safety. I apologize for not having a link, but I believe it was in DOI, which I no longer have. I have never heard this being refuted, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Many people find autopsy reports -- much less the actual body of a loved one -- too painful to read/view. I wouldn't judge JR by someone else's behavior.

[Tober]

4. What would an intruder accomplish by leaving a three page long ransom note at the scene of a murder?

Excellent question, especially considering that by not taking the body, the so-called intruder voided any chance of collecting the ransom.

[Athena]

Louisadelmar, you echo my thought exactly in your last post. :beer:

Exactly. I believe most of the IDIs here have said if we see concrete proof that the Ramseys were involved in JBR's death we would have no hesitation in believing they did it. I just haven't seen any. I do not believe for one minute that if those fibers proved to be a match to JR's shirt, he wouldn't have been arrested. There would be NO innocent explanation as to how those fibers got there. There are far too many other fibers found on JBRs body that just have not been explained or identified. JMO

[Athena]

Excellent question, especially considering that by not taking the body, the so-called intruder voided any chance of collecting the ransom.

I don't know that the note was actually written for ransom. Nor do I believe if it were the perp believed the Ramseys would call 911. Considering the body was not found until 1PM; had the Ramseys not called 911 chances are the perp could have collected the money. The perp also could have been naiive enough to believe if people thought it was a kidnapping a 'body' would not have been searched for. JMO

[LadyFisher]

That's right - I added the little <snip> thing, so it wasn't like I was trying to mislead people. Jeez, I gave the page numbers I found the info on! That's so people can go read it for themselves. You did the snip too, and when asked about it, said that you did so because part of the text didn't really apply to your post.

We all do the snip thing, and it's quite useful (as well as a space saver) at times, especially when you're posting text that you have to copy word for word out of a book.


Bottom line here - did JR say the FBI hadn't been called?

Yes, he did.

Had the FBI been called?

Yes, they had. They set up taps and traps on the phone from BPD HQ and toured the Ramsey home after JB's body had been found in person in the form of Agent Ron Walker.

Did JR have enough time and the ability to figure that out before he had DOI published stating that FBI hadn't been called?

Yes, he did, and still chose to write incorrect and untrue statements...imo, in attempt to do exactly what you're accusing me of - trying to twist info and mislead people.

The way I understood DOI, John and Patsy were reflecting on their personal thoughts at specific time periods throughout their ordeal. I understood it as John was wondering throughout the morning hours why the FBI wasn't there in their home? Am I mistaken here? I don't think he was trying to suggest anything other than his own thoughts that horrible day. I guess I will have to reread the book!

[aussiesheila]

I'm directing my vitriol at John and Patsy Ramsey, the two people who have let their own child down in a manner I have never seen before and pray I will never be witness to again.

Technically, I didn't bring up the DNA at all. I don't believe it's related to the case. The link I supplied stating JAR has been cleared brought up the DNA, and then you asked about it, so I gave you my impression.

What did I tap dance around? I'll be more than happy to be more specific.

The RDI have solid proof. We have the innumerable contradictions and lies the Rs have told through the years that the IDI dismiss as being the result of their grief. We have the fiber evidence the IDI denies exists, without any proof that it doesn't. We have the fact there is more evidence of Ramsey involvement in JonBenet's murder than any evidence of an intruder. The Rs not passing polys right away, Patsy not being cleared as author of the RN. It's not my fault the IDI refuse to accept or even acknowledge such evidence.

I don't think people who don't agree with me are idiots. Take Athena for example...she's clearly not an idiot. She knows her info and presents it in an easy to read manner with links. Her arguments challenge me, and make me review my links for the best way to reply. I don't think you're an idiot, either, Linda. I can disagree with people without developing a dislike for them. It's just a message board...and I realize that off this board, we're all the same - people who care about a little girl who died way before her time and would like justice for her. That doesn't make anyone an idiot, it makes them good, caring people who value a child.
Sorry nuisanceposter, but as one of the IDIs you are criticising I must take you up on a number of points

1. RDIs do not have any proof of Ramsey guilt in any lies John Ramsey is supposed to have told in relation to the murder because there are none IMO. There is not a single instance relating to this case where John (and I am only talking about John, not Patsy) Ramsey has been shown to have lied. However I agree with you that Patsy lied all along after the murder, or at the very least did not tell the whole truth about certain things. But just because she told lies does not necessarily mean she or John killed JonBenet.

2. I am not in denial about the black fibre evidence found around JonBenet's thigh and crotch area. I just don't believe the fibres were from John's black shirt or the dark coloured blanket in the suitcase either and there has been nothing shown so far to say that they definitely did. Actually I think the black fibres came from hoods some intruders wore over their heads to prevent any of their head hairs getting on JonBenet's body as they sexually molested her.

3. I am not in denial about the red fibres consistent with Patsy's jacket being found entwined in the cord of the garotte either. I think they came from Patsy's jacket but only got to the garotte by secondary transfer. I think they first got onto JonBenet's neck as Patsy was putting her to bed, then hours later, as that garotte was repeatedly tightened around JonBenet's neck by the intruders during the abuse session they were transferred from JonBenet's neck to the cord.

4. I don't believe you can cite a single instance of John failing or even coming close to failing any polygraphs. Sure Patsy failed polygraphs because Patsy lied to cover up a few things to do with a murder that was committed not by her or her husband or son, but by others who were known to her IMO.

5. OK so Patsy has not been cleared as author of the ransom note, that IMO is because she was the author of the ransom note. But that still does not mean either she or John (or Burke) were the murderers IMO.

[Louisadelmar]

[...]
4. I don't believe you can cite a single instance of John failing or even coming close to failing any polygraphs. Sure Patsy failed polygraphs because Patsy lied to cover up a few things to do with a murder that was committed not by her or her husband or son, but by others who were known to her IMO.

[...]

I must have missed or forgotten this. When did Patsy fail polygraph(s)?

[aussiesheila]

Did you know that Patsy Ramseys was treated with some serious depression and mental health drugs prior to the murder. You can believe that was due to chemo and maybe it was exactly that or could it be as many have speculated here that their was evidence of Patsy unraveling and obsessing with JonBenet? The Mega JonBenet thing Barbara Fernie and other friends wanted to discuss with her upon their return from the Disney Crusie.
JMHO
Maybe Patsy was depressed prior to the murder because she suspected that JonBenet was being sexually abused and it was bringing up 'issues' for her to do with her own childhood sexual abuse that I think she suffered but had always been in denial about.

Sorry Coloradokares, it's late and I don't have time to reply properly or to the rest of your post, why by the way I largely agree with.

[Louisadelmar]

She was put on the antidepressants and mental health drugs after the murder. It's in the 1997 interview.

[aussiesheila]

I must have missed or forgotten this. When did Patsy fail polygraph(s)?OK, came close to failing, or had some difficulty passing, as I think she did.

I will take it back if this is incorrect, Louisad.

[Louisadelmar]

Inconclusive is the word you're looking for.

Thought you might be interested in this tidbit.

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Proc;action=print;num=1011498360
[…]
The available scientific research for polygraph shows that a greater percentage of inconclusive exams are found in the innocent.
[…]

[Coloradokares]

She was put on the antidepressants and mental health drugs after the murder. It's in the 1997 interview.

:no: Neither one of us knows that. Not you or me other than her own admission and she admits to having taken these drugs through her struggle with cancer. Before JonBenet's death So that is again apparently an inconsistency. We will not KNOW till the records are subpeoned . Which JonBenet's medical records and Patsys both can be obtained now without permission since they are both deceased. Time for that Office of Special Prosecutor I believe to clarify all Patsy's medical records and use of prescription medications. Ativan is a anti anxiety med she used Ativan during her battle with cancer. Also Paxil. I read the interview. I want to know why she says she needed these drugs for the battle with cancer then answers she never took them till after the death of JonBenet.. It does seem inconsistent to me....Not that the use of medication of that type in the battle with cancer would be unusual. If I had the same cancer as Patsy I might require these medications as well. Especially with small children. Her battle for life and seeing her children grow up was on.

[Coloradokares]

Maybe Patsy was depressed prior to the murder because she suspected that JonBenet was being sexually abused and it was bringing up 'issues' for her to do with her own childhood sexual abuse that I think she suffered but had always been in denial about.

Sorry Coloradokares, it's late and I don't have time to reply properly or to the rest of your post, why by the way I largely agree with.

I await your response. I also have heard of Patsy's sexual abuse in her own childhood.

[bullmoose]

CK: I know I am always doing this, but I have to ask, what interview are you talking about where you are saying Patsy said she was taking these drugs before Jonbenet's murder? I have no knowledge of it, nor have I heard anything until your last post about Patsy allegedly being sexually abused. I would appreciate links or quotes from wherever you are getting this from, please don't give me another link to the Enquirer, which likes to quote"unnamed sources" for their fabrications.

[Louisadelmar]

:no: Neither one of us knows that. Not you or me other than her own admission and she admits to having taken these drugs through her struggle with cancer. Before JonBenet's death So that is again apparently an inconsistency.
Please show me the quote.

Here again is what I found regarding when she started the Paxil and ativan. I didn't see anything earlier in the interview about cancer.

TT: Okay. When did you start the Paxel?
PR: Uh, I don’t know. February maybe.
TT: Okay. Beg…towards the beginning or the end of February?
PR: I can’t remember exactly.
TT: Okay. And the Adavan, did you start that about the same time?
PR: Simultaneously.
TT: Okay.

:We will not KNOW till the records are subpeoned . Which JonBenet's medical records and Patsys both can be obtained now without permission since they are both deceased. Time for that Office of Special Prosecutor I believe to clarify all Patsy's medical records and use of prescription medications. Ativan is a anti anxiety med she used Ativan during her battle with cancer. Also Paxil. I read the interview. I want to know why she says she needed these drugs for the battle with cancer then answers she never took them till after the death of JonBenet.. It does seem inconsistent to me....Not that the use of medication of that type in the battle with cancer would be unusual. If I had the same cancer as Patsy I might require these medications as well. Especially with small children. Her battle for life and seeing her children grow up was on.

They signed the waivers for their medical records 10 years ago. If death is your requirement, JonBenet's been dead for 10 years so they've had access to her records since she died.

[sweetcharlotte]

I await your response. I also have heard of Patsy's sexual abuse in her own childhood.


You have heard of Patsy's sexual abuse? Link please or is this something else that you can only support from your boxed up notes? I think it's time your opened up those boxes.

JMO

[shill]

You have heard of Patsy's sexual abuse? Link please or is this something else that you can only support from your boxed up notes? I think it's time your opened up those boxes.

JMO
There is this crazy conspiracy story that at one point describes Patsy and her sister being brought to sex parties with government officials, and Patsy allegedly was a sex slave for President George Bush Sr.. It ends with aliens form outer space controlling things. There are enough truths in it to help it sell.
It's an entertaining read, I wish I still had the link.

[Zoey]

There is this crazy conspiracy story that at one point describes Patsy and her sister being brought to sex parties with government officials, and Patsy allegedly was a sex slave for President George Bush Sr.. It ends with aliens form outer space controlling things. There are enough truths in it to help it sell.
It's an entertaining read, I wish I still had the link.


Is this the one you are talking about?

http://www.konformist.com/jonbenet.htm

[shill]

Is this the one you are talking about?

http://www.konformist.com/jonbenet.htm

Yes, Thank you.

[sweetcharlotte]

Thanks, Shill & Zoey.........

[Athena]

CK: I know I am always doing this, but I have to ask, what interview are you talking about where you are saying Patsy said she was taking these drugs before Jonbenet's murder? I have no knowledge of it, nor have I heard anything until your last post about Patsy allegedly being sexually abused. I would appreciate links or quotes from wherever you are getting this from, please don't give me another link to the Enquirer, which likes to quote"unnamed sources" for their fabrications.

The same "internet article" that says Patsy was abused by government officials when she was a child also talks about outerspace aliens. LOL :rolleyes:

[Athena]

Is this the one you are talking about?

http://www.konformist.com/jonbenet.htm

Ha ha! I am catching up with posts and just posted re: this article under bullmoose's ?'s to CK before I read this page. Glad we are all on the same page at least.