Patsy Ramsey, who killed her daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, is dead at 49
Sam Sloan
Everybody is thinking it, but nobody yet has been the first to say it,
so I will.
This was truly the murder of the century. Everybody who has studied
the case quickly realizes that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old
beauty queen daughter.
All of the evidence points to her and to her husband, John Ramsey. No
evidence points to any other possibility.
To their credit, they stuck together and to their story. Usually, in
such cases, one member of the couple eventually breaks down and
accuses the other of the crime.
Now that Patsy Ramsey is dead, we are all waiting to see if her
husband finally confesses that his wife did it.
Sam Sloan
bmp1213
stretch. What about the DNA evidence? If I remember correctly, that
evidence actually cleared them.
Bianca
> Patsy Ramsey, who killed her daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, is dead at 49
>
> Everybody is thinking it, but nobody yet has been the first to say it,
> so I will.
>
> This was truly the murder of the century. Everybody who has studied
> the case quickly realizes that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old
> beauty queen daughter.
>
> All of the evidence points to her and to her husband, John Ramsey. No
> evidence points to any other possibility.
The DNA evidence said they didn't do it.
Do a Google on Ramsey + DNA.
And the news reports of her death have been consistently reporting that
the DNA said the parents didn't do it.
Tim Farrow
"Bianca" <n...@chance.org> wrote in message
news:e7jnk1$92o1$2...@netnews.upenn.edu...
I bet you think OJ was innocent too.
Michael Snyder
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:449d5805....@ca.news.verio.net...
> To their credit, they stuck together and to their story. Usually, in
> such cases, one member of the couple eventually breaks down and
> accuses the other of the crime.
Not to be euphamistic, usually the woman rats out the man.
Bianca
...and I'm not saying that Patsy didn't know who killed Jon Benet. The
OP said "All of the evidence points to her and to her husband..."
And ALL of the evidence didn't point to them.
Mike V.
<msn...@socmen.org> posted :
How is that a euphemism?
Bill
> This was truly the murder of the century. Everybody who has studied
> the case quickly realizes that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old
> beauty queen daughter.
>
>
the basement and fell off of it and banged her head real bad and died as a
result of those injuries. I thought that Mr. & Mrs. Ramsey then became the
architects of the greatest cover-up of the century. My thinking behind the
Ramseys simply not just calling the cops and reporting an accidental death
was that they both could not let JonBenet simply die, she had to become as
immortal as possible, the media star she was destined to become if only in
death. So they developed the elaborate hoax. Nobody killed that girl.
My opinion, I could be wrong.
EnEss
> Patsy Ramsey, who killed her daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, is dead at 49
> This was truly the murder of the century. Everybody who has studied
> the case quickly realizes that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old
> beauty queen daughter.
That is just BS. Not *everybody* says that. There are a lot of people--not
all tinfoil-hat-wearing freaks either--who say it makes no sense that either
parent did this.
> All of the evidence points to her and to her husband, John Ramsey. No
> evidence points to any other possibility.
There are a lot also who say there is evidence pointing in other directions.
> Now that Patsy Ramsey is dead, we are all waiting to see if her
> husband finally confesses that his wife did it.
We are?? Which idiot is doing that, please tell me. If this was true, why
would the husband "confess"? For one thing, he's prosecutable as an
accessory, if nothing else. In any case, why would he "say" anything?
Don't hold your breath.
NS
(add sbc before global to email)
EnEss
"Bill" wrote:
> I never thought the girl was murdered. I thought she was riding her bike
> in
> the basement and fell off of it and banged her head real bad and died as a
> result of those injuries. I thought that Mr. & Mrs. Ramsey then became the
> architects of the greatest cover-up of the century. My thinking behind the
> Ramseys simply not just calling the cops and reporting an accidental death
> was that they both could not let JonBenet simply die, she had to become as
> immortal as possible, the media star she was destined to become if only in
> death. So they developed the elaborate hoax. Nobody killed that girl.
> My opinion, I could be wrong.
You think?? Ha! Not only *could* you be wrong, but I see no way in the
universe you could be right.
Of all the multitude of scenarios I've heard suggested--and we've all heard
some pretty whacked-out ones--this is the most far-fetched one ever. Except
for the one saying space aliens did it, that is.
=> Vox Populi©
"bmp1213" <bonnie....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151164856....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Umm, no evidence points to any other possibility? I believe that is a
> stretch. What about the DNA evidence? If I remember correctly, that
> evidence actually cleared them.
You don't remember correctly, numbnuts.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Sam Sloan <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote:
> This was truly the murder of the century. Everybody who has studied
> the case quickly realizes that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old
> beauty queen daughter.
As someone who thinks (based only on what I've read and heard) that
this is the most likely explanation, let me add my voice to those
denouncing this as nonsense. The evidence is pretty thin, which would
go a long way toward explaining why she was never even arrested, much
less charged and convicted.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
csa...@telisoft.com
People like you are sick. *Everyone* is not thinking it. Go read up
and understand the case before you open up your pie hole.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Sam Sloan wrote:
> > Patsy Ramsey, who killed her daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, is dead at 49
> >
> > Everybody is thinking it, but nobody yet has been the first to say it,
> > so I will.
> >
> > This was truly the murder of the century. Everybody who has studied
> > the case quickly realizes that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old
> > beauty queen daughter.
> >
> > All of the evidence points to her and to her husband, John Ramsey. No
> > evidence points to any other possibility.
>
>
> The DNA evidence said they didn't do it.
Bull fucking shit!
> Do a Google on Ramsey + DNA.
Dumbass! Do a Google on JFK and UFO's and you'll find a link between
the two.
> And the news reports of her death have been consistently reporting that
> the DNA said the parents didn't do it.
And if the news reports told you that there was free methamphetamine
being distributed on the moon every night, would you try to build your
own spaceship in order to get there?
Foreign DNA in JBR's panties could have gotten there a number of ways.
This was only trumped as evidence of the Ramseys innocence after they
finally landed a dupe in the DA's office.
=> Vox Populi©
=> Vox Populi©
Yes, all the RELEVANT evidence pointed to Patsy.
=> Vox Populi©
"127.0.0.1" <127....@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:E%kng.885$Ai1...@fe06.lga...
"Proof" ...? LOL!
Surely an illiterate jackass like you meant "evidence" ...right?
How about 356 pages of evidence, eh?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312253265
=> Vox Populi©
"Mike V." <mich...@SPAMcox.net> wrote in message
news:bfrq92l61oqm7eqt9...@4ax.com...
He's another illiterate 'murrikan like dubya ...
=> Vox Populi©
<csa...@telisoft.com> wrote in message
news:1151200431.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Oh, so YOU know more than the actual Detectives that Investigated the Case,
eh dipshit?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312253265
>
Kim
*no* parole. And her sentence will be a **hell** of a lot longer than in
Colorado.
EnEss
> <csadler wrote:
>> People like you are sick. *Everyone* is not thinking it. Go read up
>> and understand the case before you open up your pie hole.
> Oh, so YOU know more than the actual Detectives that Investigated the
> Case,
> eh dipshit? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312253265
Anyone who has absolute trust in the infalibility of the police/criminal
justice system gives me pause to wonder. That's kind of scary.
And the previous poster is correct. The stated presumption of the OP that
"everyone" is thinking the same thing is blanketly false. Not everyone is
thinking the same thing. When does that ever happen anyway?
R. Steve Walz
In other words, you don't.
Steve
lb...@blackburn.edu
were some interesting comments in a chapter of
the book, The Cases That Haunt Us by John
Douglas, Mark Olshaker. (He argued that the
parents were innocent.)
Harry
I know nothing about who killed who, however what i do know
is that when a father repeatedly rapes his daughter, both the
mother and daughter are silenced through violent threats and
actions of the rapist.
The Talmud A-OK's rape of children, especially before age 3 . . .
Once Satan has you by the balls nothing is sacred.
Truly
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Harry wrote
in message
<1151224151.8...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>:
>The Talmud A-OK's rape of children, especially before age 3 . . .
No, actually it doesn't.
Morton Davis
EnEss
What is your point?? Why do you bring this up? What does it have to do w/
the subject of discussion?
Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm sure that this isn't true, and in any event, I don't think that the
Talmud was a book read in this household.
And the fact that Patsy probably wrote the kidnap note suggests that
she took a leadership role inconsistent with that of the poor oppressed
living victim - though it's possible that John dictated it to her.
FragileWarrior
LOL! There's no "could" about it.
Joseph
FACTS of the case, try reading the following...
http://drinkthis.typepad.com/shapiro/2006/05/the_ghost_of_ch.html
Bill McReynolds is a retired Colorado University Journalism professor
who played Santa each year at the Ramsey's home Xmas parties. His pot
belly and white beard fit right into the role.
He thus knew the Ramsey family and their home layout quite well.
Moreover, the child knew McReynolds and could have easily been conned
into following "Santa" downstairs for a little Xmas surprise.
After all, who would suspect "Santa" (or even a Catholic priest, for
that matter) of the murder and/or molestation of a young child?
"HO! HO! HO! Merry Christmas!"
Joseph
=> Vox Populi©
"Bill" <bi...@null.inv> wrote in message
news:cahng.17032$LT2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
You are.
=> Vox Populi©
"EnEss" <star...@global.net> wrote in message
news:Nfjng.123073$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
The nutter shills that the Ramsey's hired as "investigators" spent 100s of
hours collecting as many pages of "evidence" to support the contention
that "Satanists" did it as part of a ritual sacrifice.
=> Vox Populi©
"J.D. Baldwin" <INVALID...@example.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:e7klc2$kho$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> In the previous article, Sam Sloan <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote:
>> This was truly the murder of the century. Everybody who has studied
>> the case quickly realizes that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old
>> beauty queen daughter.
>
> As someone who thinks (based only on what I've read and heard) that
> this is the most likely explanation, let me add my voice to those
> denouncing this as nonsense. The evidence is pretty thin, which would
> go a long way toward explaining why she was never even arrested, much
> less charged and convicted.
Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
"some circumstantial evidence is quite strong ...
as when one finds a fish in the milk"
-- Thoreau
=> Vox Populi©
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:449E30...@armory.com...
> Steve
=> Vox Populi©
"Kim" <spendst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C0C364F5.463D%spendst...@yahoo.com...
> Now Patsy is in God's judicial system...and if she is indeed guilty there is
> *no* parole. And her sentence will be a **hell** of a lot longer than in
> Colorado.
And hopefully more painful than her cancer ...
Burn Patsy ... BURN!
=> Vox Populi©
<Joseph> wrote in message news:nret92t3rpgi1mns8...@4ax.com...
Was Bill a member of "a small foreign faction" ... ?
LOL!
sar...@racsa.co.cr
> Patsy Ramsey, who killed her daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, is dead at 49
>
> Everybody is thinking it, but nobody yet has been the first to say it,
> so I will.
>
> This was truly the murder of the century. Everybody who has studied
> the case quickly realizes that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old
> beauty queen daughter.
>
> All of the evidence points to her and to her husband, John Ramsey. No
> evidence points to any other possibility.
>
> To their credit, they stuck together and to their story. Usually, in
> such cases, one member of the couple eventually breaks down and
> accuses the other of the crime.
>
> Now that Patsy Ramsey is dead, we are all waiting to see if her
> husband finally confesses that his wife did it.
>
> Sam Sloan
It's an absolute hoot observing how Americans like you can be so fucked
up. For a society that falsely projects itself as a society of laws,
Americans are among the first to abandon the fundamental idea that
someone is innocent (by definition) until proven guilty. If there had
been enough evidence suggesting guilt "beyond a reasonable" doubt, then
the Ramseys would have been prosecuted. In the absence of that
evidence, why anyone should give a shit about your anti-American
opinion is puzzling.
Joseph
<harry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>The article you quote contains this:
>
>"In my mind, the killer was a young, high-risk pedophile, a social
>outcast with a God complex who believed he had the divine right to take
>life."
>
>That description could fit any number of righties in alt.obits.
***Try reading the ENTIRE article. The reporter dedicated five years
of his life exclusively to investigating the Ramsey murder case. He
cites several suspects and examines the evidence in each instance.
Only McReynolds had a clear opportunity and motive. He knew the child
and family. He also knew the home inside and out.
The killer accessed and egressed the Ramsey home through a basement
window, the only path that would not have set off the household alarm,
which was armed at the time and required entering a code to disable.
There were no misspellings on the ransom note and the vocabulary used
indicated a high degree of English skills, as would befit a professor
of journalism.
One could go on, but why bother? No one is really interested in the
truth here. Just smart-assed comments and one liners from the peanut
gallery.
=> Vox Populi©
<Joseph> wrote in message news:ujkt921d8th6rbta9...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:57:39 -0400, Harry Krause
> <harry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Joseph wrote:
>>> ***Given the slight chance that you might really be interested in the
>>> FACTS of the case, try reading the following...
>>>
>>> http://drinkthis.typepad.com/shapiro/2006/05/the_ghost_of_ch.html
>>>
>>> Bill McReynolds is a retired Colorado University Journalism professor
>>> who played Santa each year at the Ramsey's home Xmas parties. His pot
>>> belly and white beard fit right into the role.
>>>
>>> He thus knew the Ramsey family and their home layout quite well.
>>> Moreover, the child knew McReynolds and could have easily been conned
>>> into following "Santa" downstairs for a little Xmas surprise.
>>>
>>> After all, who would suspect "Santa" (or even a Catholic priest, for
>>> that matter) of the murder and/or molestation of a young child?
>>>
>>> "HO! HO! HO! Merry Christmas!"
>>
>>
>>The article you quote contains this:
>>
>>"In my mind, the killer was a young, high-risk pedophile, a social
>>outcast with a God complex who believed he had the divine right to take
>>life."
>>
>>That description could fit any number of righties in alt.obits.
>
> ***Try reading the ENTIRE article. The reporter dedicated five years
> of his life exclusively to investigating the Ramsey murder case. He
> cites several suspects and examines the evidence in each instance.
Everyone is a "suspect" until they are eliminated.
>
> Only McReynolds had a clear opportunity and motive. He knew the child
> and family. He also knew the home inside and out.
So did Patsy and John, numbnuts.
>
> The killer accessed and egressed the Ramsey home through a basement
> window,
Really? No physical evidence of any human ingressing and egressing through
that window, just wild-assed speculation because it was found "unlocked"
long AFTER the crime was committed.
And the fat old turd McReynolds could barely walk in the front door, there is
NO chance he could have entered and exited from the small, ceiling level
casement window.
> the only path that would not have set off the household alarm,
> which was armed at the time and required entering a code to disable.
No need for Patsy or John to disable anything, they were already inside
with full access to the entire house, which they were intimately
familiar with.
>
> There were no misspellings on the ransom note and the vocabulary used
> indicated a high degree of English skills, as would befit a professor
> of journalism.
Or a multi-millionaire CEO ... or the College educated socialite
wife of same, eh?
>
> One could go on,
You could...
> but why bother?
exactly, your naked speculation isn't any more probative no matter
how high you pile it.
>No one is really interested in the truth here.
So why are you here?
> Just smart-assed comments and one liners from the peanut
> gallery.
Sez the loon who can't support his wild speculation.
Betsy
<Joseph> wrote in message
news:ujkt921d8th6rbta9...@4ax.com...
I thought McReynolds was a fat, old guy with a big gut. You really think
he could have climbed in through that little window and then CLIMBED
BACK OUT? Phhht. If anyone climbed in and out that window, it would have
been a young, strong, skinny guy. But I don't believe for a moment
there was an intruder. Someone who lived in the house did it, and the
rest helped cover it up.
Betsy
=> Vox Populi©
<Joseph> wrote in message news:ksht92plv1fgkvrk0...@4ax.com...
> ***Given the slight chance that you might really be interested in the
> FACTS of the case, try reading the following...
>
> http://drinkthis.typepad.com/shapiro/2006/05/the_ghost_of_ch.html
>
> Bill McReynolds is a retired Colorado University Journalism professor
> who played Santa each year at the Ramsey's home Xmas parties. His pot
> belly and white beard fit right into the role.
Also made him TOO FAT and TOO OLD to possibly enter and exit successfully
via the small, ceiling level casement widow the kkkonspiracy-kooks claim
the "intruded" used.
Bzzzzzzzzzt! Times up. Thank's for playing ... better luck next time.
Hester Mofet
Has his DNA ever been tested against the DNA found on Jon Benet? Of
not, why not?
Hester Mofet
earthage2002
"=> Vox Populi©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
news:F1Bng.30$EQ3....@news.uswest.net...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Vandar
> There were no misspellings on the ransom note and the vocabulary used
> indicated a high degree of English skills, as would befit a professor
> of journalism.
"bussiness"
"posession"
Incorrect capitalization and punctuation throughout.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Yes it has. No match. Nor does his handwriting match that of the
"kidnap note".
The "kidnap note", remember? The Ramsey suck-ups among us never seem
to.
Cyli
<eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Or a multi-millionaire CEO ... or the College educated socialite
>> wife of same, eh?
>>
>Not only was she college educated, her degree was in journalism.
Degree or major? I'd assumed she dropped out after 2 or 3 years, when
she married John. Incorrect assumption?
--
r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.
earthage2002
"Cyli" <cyl...@com.invalid> wrote in message
news:7a8u929toqs0r1m93...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:28:12 -0700, "earthage2002"
> <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Or a multi-millionaire CEO ... or the College educated socialite
>>> wife of same, eh?
>>>
>>Not only was she college educated, her degree was in journalism.
>
> Degree or major? I'd assumed she dropped out after 2 or 3 years, when
> she married John. Incorrect assumption?
> --
>
Patsy Ramsey, mother of slain beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, returned to West
Virginia University, her alma mater, to visit her sorority and the
journalism school.
snip
Ramsey graduated from the journalism school with a degree in advertising in
1979.
R. Steve Walz
> >>
> >> "Proof" ...? LOL!
> >>
> >> Surely an illiterate jackass like you meant "evidence" ...right?
> >>
> >> How about 356 pages of evidence, eh?
> > --------------
> > Steve
---------------
I didn't say that!
You're a post-changing piece of shit, THAT'S what you are!
I said:
"In other words, you don't."
That is:
YOU don't have any actual proof, other than your delusional skreed!
*IF* there were "proof", then they WOULD have been prosecuted!
The fact that they WEREN'T PROVES that there WASN'T!!!!!
You have proven yourself a cowardly dishonest piece of lying SHIT!!
Steve
mega...@gmail.com
French last name, put 'em together and what have you got? A girl? I
can't see it. Can someone explain the history and logic behind that
name?
Dan
It was a feminine version of her father's name, John Bennett Ramsey.
--
Dan
"...there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also
know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some
things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we
don't know we don't know."
Zen Master Donald Rumsfeld
Cyli
<eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Cyli" <cyl...@com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:7a8u929toqs0r1m93...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:28:12 -0700, "earthage2002"
>> <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Or a multi-millionaire CEO ... or the College educated socialite
>>>> wife of same, eh?
>>>>
>>>Not only was she college educated, her degree was in journalism.
>>
>> Degree or major? I'd assumed she dropped out after 2 or 3 years, when
>> she married John. Incorrect assumption?
>> --
>
> Ramsey graduated from the journalism school with a degree in advertising in
>1979.
Thanks for the information.
Vandar
J.D. Baldwin
It's been a while since I read / thought about this note. It's always
seemed to me to be an obvious attempt to throw off the scent with a
couple of deliberate spelling errors. I could probably write fifteen
paragraphs about why this is so, but I'm sure there are ten million
deconstructions of the thing on the web with the same idea, so here
are just a few bullet points off the top of my head:
- the gross misspellings are confined to the first paragraph, as
if it was too much effort to come up with realistic ones
throughout, though there are (also seemingly deliberate) errors
in grammar here and there
- despite these misspellings, the author of the note put the
accent aigu on "attaché" -- yeah, that's the mark of a real
rube. And the little caret to insert the forgotten "not"
in the one sentence.
- lots of semi-florid language: "I advise you ..." "law enforce-
ment countermeasures and tactics" ... "constant scrutiny" ...
"immediate execution"
- the "rhetorical triple" used in the sequence of threats on page
2: "If we catch you ... she dies. If you alert ... she dies.
If the money ... she dies."
- signing off with "Victory!" when there was no elaboration what-
ever on the ideological goals of that "small foreign faction"
DinoPro
Harry wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know nothing about who killed who, however what i do know
> is that when a father repeatedly rapes his daughter, both the
> mother and daughter are silenced through violent threats and
> actions of the rapist.
>
> The Talmud A-OK's rape of children, especially before age 3 . . .
> Once Satan has you by the balls nothing is sacred.
>
> Truly
How quick one is to blame the parents. Perhaps if the police (
detectives ) looked beyond the Ramsey's they would have found other
leads. They botched the crime scene and the investigation. Remember the
Smart girl kidnapping ( disapperance ). The cops had locked up the
handy-man and the media found him guilty. The handy-man died in jail
while the detectives prosecuted the true couple who had committed the
abduction.
Cases like the above are not always straight forward and should be
treated as such...
bmp1213
incorrectly, as several have pointed this on on this thread and several
others. Here are a couple of links:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/19.html
=> Vox Populi© wrote:
> "bmp1213" <bonnie....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151164856....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Umm, no evidence points to any other possibility? I believe that is a
> > stretch. What about the DNA evidence? If I remember correctly, that
> > evidence actually cleared them.
>
> You don't remember correctly, numbnuts.
Cliff and Linda Griffith
> > "bussiness"
> > "posession"
> >
> It's been a while since I read / thought about this note. It's always
> seemed to me to be an obvious attempt to throw off the scent with a
> couple of deliberate spelling errors. I could probably write fifteen
> paragraphs about why this is so, but I'm sure there are ten million
> deconstructions of the thing on the web with the same idea, so here
> are just a few bullet points off the top of my head:
>
> - the gross misspellings are confined to the first paragraph, as
> if it was too much effort to come up with realistic ones
> throughout, though there are (also seemingly deliberate) errors
> in grammar here and there
>
> - despite these misspellings, the author of the note put the
> accent aigu on "attaché" -- yeah, that's the mark of a real
> rube. And the little caret to insert the forgotten "not"
> in the one sentence.
>
> - lots of semi-florid language: "I advise you ..." "law enforce-
> ment countermeasures and tactics" ... "constant scrutiny" ...
> "immediate execution"
>
> - the "rhetorical triple" used in the sequence of threats on page
> 2: "If we catch you ... she dies. If you alert ... she dies.
> If the money ... she dies."
>
> - signing off with "Victory!" when there was no elaboration what-
> ever on the ideological goals of that "small foreign faction"
I agree with you. I adhere to the theory that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note.
Her pen, her paper, her paintbrush: IIRC, those items weren't left out in
plain sight, so any intruder would've had to search for them. Patsy's
handwriting was never definitively excluded, although the handwriting of
some other people was. How many people who might have committed the crime
would know the amount of John's bonus? Patsy was a Francophile, as
evidenced by the [unnecessary] accent aigu in JonBenét's name, as well as
the [Jzahn] pronunciation of "Jon". Patsy would've certainly known about
the accent aigu in "attaché" and would've added it, although it's not widely
used in American English these days. I think the misspellings were
deliberate and relatively uncommon. [Well, I have to take back "uncommon",
I guess.] "Possession" is among the 100 most-often misspelled words, but
"business" isn't.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/misspelled.html
Patsy (as well as John) was in a hyper-religious phase at the time, thus the
SBTC. (I only heard "Saved by the Cross" or Subic Bay as an explanation
for that. Subic Bay is too off-the-wall for me.) And wasn't the Bible open
to or marked at a Verse 118, or something?
I think it all started with a stressed mother reacting to a bed-wetting
accident. The housekeeper mentioned the linens having been changed
(comforter or something in the washer or dryer?), and a jumpsuit of some
sort had been rinsed-out. I can't come up with a theory about the
pineapple; but I think it's relatively irrelevant, except for the fact that
it was found by autopsy. As I remember it, the Whites didn't serve
pineapple, so JonBenét must have eaten some at home after the family
returned from the Whites'. They say John carried the sleeping JonBenét to
bed. Maybe JonBenét woke up when she wet the bed, went downstairs for a
snack, and then woke her mother up to tell her about the accident. When my
granddaughter was having accidents, she reported them to her mother,
especially if the bed was too wet for her to continue sleeping in it. Patsy
had had a long day, delivering gifts to friends, dining at the Whites', and
getting ready for an early-morning trip to Michigan. (By some reports, a
trip that she wasn't eager to take) Contending with a bedwetting accident
may have sent her over the edge. I think John helped her cover it up, and
calling all of those friends to come over was part of it. If it had
happened to me, I would have called my best friend/neighbor...and that would
probably be a mistake; but I wouldn't have called "all those people" and
allowed them to traipse through the scene of the "disappearance" before the
police had time to arrive and investigate.
I don't expect John to make any announcement about JonBenét's murder, unless
it's, "Okay, after all this time, I have concluded that Patsy did, in fact,
kill JonBenét." (And I don't expect him to say that.) Anything else would
lay blame at his feet for covering it up, or for remaining silent all these
years about his "conclusion". Even as John lies dying, I don't think he'll
make any important pronouncements about JonBenét's death. I doubt Burke had
anything to do with it, but he may have heard his parents saying something
important. He was only nine, so he may have blocked things out or he may
have heard the "family version" so often that he views it as fact. He
wouldn't want to believe that his parents were capable of such a thing.
Linda
Cliff and Linda Griffith
news:1151345098....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How quick one is to blame the parents. Perhaps if the police (
> detectives ) looked beyond the Ramsey's they would have found other
> leads. They botched the crime scene and the investigation.
Correction: The Ramseys botched the crime-scene by having all their friends
come over before and while the police were there, trying to investigate.
The woman in charge of the investigation cow-towed too much to the parents,
and that, too, botched the investigation; but the Ramseys did it first.
Linda
atlr...@gmail.com
with the evidence. D.N.A. evidence was discovered that DID NOT match
ANY family member. It appears the intruder story does hold water with
the police now after all.
Just google JonBenet Ramsey and DNA
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
Ramona
Kris Baker
<atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151353194....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> If you are going to post such an inflamed title , at least stay
> current with the evidence. D.N.A. evidence was discovered
> that DID NOT match ANY family member. It appears the
> intruder story does hold water with the police now after all.
>
> Just google JonBenet Ramsey and DNA
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
>
> Ramona
Ramona, do you understand what you're reading there? You're reading a
pro-Ramsey, PR puff piece. With NO input from the investigators actually
involved in this case. Look at the date in your URL. 2004? Things have
changed a lot. Here's a lot of information for you; you might
want to print it out.
Do you know what that DNA is?
That DNA really does *not* "exclude" either parent or a relative; all it is,
is a miniscule amount of DNA that doesn't match anyone. The amount is so
small, it's fragmented....and since it's from her panties, it could have
come from whoever sewed the crotch (a little boy in Korea?), whoever
manufactured the elastic, or any other source that could have touched those
panties before she put them on.
It's nowhere near the amount that would have been deposited by a rapist
(where's the semen?)
There's NO "stun gun" evidence. In fact, the Ramseys have specifically
refused to have JonBenet's body exhumed to confirm that evidence. It's
easier to plant speculation. The shoe print was matched to Burke Ramsey.
The mysterious palm print on the doorframe leading to the room where JBR's
body was found, was matched to Melissa Ramsey.
"JonBenet - A Closer Look" is actually a rehash of a two-years- old "48
Hours" presentation. The link you posted is a rehash of the rehash.
Everyone remembers when Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan took
over the case, four years ago, right? Mary Keenan, supposed to find "the
real killer" and supposedly pro-Ramsey. Tom Bennett works for Mary
Keenan.
Here's what THEY think of the presentation, as reported by the Boulder Daily
Camera (newspaper):
****************************
http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/city_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2422_3414...
Contrary to what was reported on a "48 Hours" special that aired Saturday
night on CBS, DNA evidence found in JonBenet's underwear doesn't necessarily
belong to the killer, Boulder County District Attorney's Office investigator
Tom Bennett said Monday. The office took over the Ramsey case two years ago
and entered the DNA evidence into a national database for the first time
earlier this year.
"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be,"
Bennett said. "It's minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can't
just jump to conclusion it's positive proof that will trace back to the
killer."
Bennett - a retired police detective with more than 30 years on the job -
said nobody from CBS or "48 Hours" contacted him about the special. Instead,
private investigators once hired by the girl's parents, John and Patsy
Ramsey, offered their theories on the DNA and possible suspects.
"I would simply say this is dated news," Bennett said. "It is not indicative
of any breakthrough because it's not a breakthrough."
*********************************
You really need to look at what's being said by who in the case, and who has
the impetus to keep certain stories in the news.
Kris
Grizzlie Antagonist
making it a federal crime for any dickless Ramsey suckup to squeak
"DNA! DNA!" on a Usenet bulletin board.
Cliff and Linda Griffith
I'm glad to see you back! I hope you'll stay!
Linda Griffith
"Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote in message
news:E8Yng.73213$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Kris Baker
"Cliff and Linda Griffith" <grif...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:wWZng.3342$Ai1...@fe06.lga...
> Hey, Kris!
>
> I'm glad to see you back! I hope you'll stay!
>
> Linda Griffith
I replied to a cross-post, without noticing.
Mea Culpa, over and out
Kris
atlr...@gmail.com
Kris Baker wrote:
> <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151353194....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > If you are going to post such an inflamed title , at least stay
> > current with the evidence. D.N.A. evidence was discovered
> > that DID NOT match ANY family member. It appears the
> > intruder story does hold water with the police now after all.
> >
> > Just google JonBenet Ramsey and DNA
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
> >
> > Ramona
>
> Ramona, do you understand what you're reading there?
I only posted the link as a beginning help.
> You're reading a
> pro-Ramsey, PR puff piece.
As opposed to an anti-Ramsey, PR puff piece, gotcha.
> With NO input from the investigators actually
> involved in this case. Look at the date in your URL. 2004?
Again, I only added the link as a convenient starting place.
> Things have
> changed a lot. Here's a lot of information for you; you might
> want to print it out.
>
> Do you know what that DNA is?
Yes, I took bio and chem as electives throughout my grad and undergrad
degrees.
>
> That DNA really does *not* "exclude" either parent or a relative; all it is,
> is a miniscule amount of DNA that doesn't match anyone.
It doesn't match anyone in the family.
>The amount is so
> small, it's fragmented....and since it's from her panties, it could have
> come from whoever sewed the crotch (a little boy in Korea?), whoever
> manufactured the elastic, or any other source that could have touched those
> panties before she put them on.
DNA can possibly show "race," depending on the integrity of the sample.
So, it appears you are certain the D.N.A. is that of a "korean boy"
which would show on the sample.
>
> It's nowhere near the amount that would have been deposited by a rapist
> (where's the semen?)
There wouldn't be any if there was no rape.
>
> There's NO "stun gun" evidence. In fact, the Ramseys have specifically
> refused to have JonBenet's body exhumed to confirm that evidence. It's
> easier to plant speculation. The shoe print was matched to Burke Ramsey.
> The mysterious palm print on the doorframe leading to the room where JBR's
> body was found, was matched to Melissa Ramsey.
> "JonBenet - A Closer Look" is actually a rehash of a two-years- old "48
> Hours" presentation. The link you posted is a rehash of the rehash.
>
> Everyone remembers when Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan took
> over the case, four years ago, right? Mary Keenan, supposed to find "the
> real killer" and supposedly pro-Ramsey. Tom Bennett works for Mary
> Keenan.
> Here's what THEY think of the presentation, as reported by the Boulder Daily
> Camera (newspaper):
Oh goody a presentation. Remember, the police department botched the
investigation from the beginning destroying evidence that could either
exclude or include the Ramsey family. Yet, they have no hesitation in
naysaying. Perhaps that is the problem. They spend lots of time on PR
campaigns over investigation.
>
snip
>
> You really need to look at what's being said by who in the case, and who has
> the impetus to keep certain stories in the news.
Exactly! The Boulder P.D. muck fu'd badly. Now they are willing to
make a statement whenever the wind blows.
You need to remember innocent until proven guilty. One day that shoe
could be on your foot.
You might also note that the FBI failed to take seriously the sister of
Elizabeth Smart's recovered memory. Fortunately a t.v. show played the
information and Elizabeth herself was recovered from that memory.
Ramona
>
> Kris
Poe
> In article <1151365921.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> atlr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>That DNA really does *not* "exclude" either parent or a relative; all it is,
>>>is a miniscule amount of DNA that doesn't match anyone.
>
>
>>It doesn't match anyone in the family.
>
>
> "Intruder theory" left no other signs in JonBenet's bedroom, no trace
> footprints, no hair or skin cells, no fiber transfers. "The intruder"
> also felt comfortable enough to sit down in the Ramseys' kitchen, write
> a long and detailed ransom note, without any worry about being caught,
> and tried a couple rough drafts as well.
>
> -c
Yep - the damn note. Less is always best, but Patsy didn't know that rule.
EnEss
> "DinoPro" wrote:
>> How quick one is to blame the parents. Perhaps if the police (
>> detectives ) looked beyond the Ramsey's they would have found other
>> leads. They botched the crime scene and the investigation.
> Correction: The Ramseys botched the crime-scene by having all their
> friends
> come over before and while the police were there, trying to investigate.
> The woman in charge of the investigation cow-towed too much to the
> parents,
> and that, too, botched the investigation; but the Ramseys did it first.
I disagree, Linda. Whatever the Ramseys did, it was up to the police 100% to
secure the crime scene properly. Even a suburban police force ought to know
that. I would think that would be criminal investigation 101. I read that
the female detective on the scene the morning of the 26th--the only one
there at the time (another serious error)--wanted to give John Ramsey
something to do to cool him out so she instructed him to go through the
house again and look for anything out of the usual order, or missing, or
that might look suspicious/give concern, etc. She told the neighbor over
keeping them company to go w/ him. I understand her wanting to cool him out
by giving him "a job", but it was the single worst and stupidest thing she
could've done. None of those neighbors should've been there; all of them
except John should've gone to the neighbors and wait there while John waited
there w/ the detective for the supposed ransom call to come in. She should
not have allowed John to touch a thing or anywhere unescorted in that house.
Furthermore, they should've gotten a forensics collection unit over there
ASAP to begin combing the house w/ a fine tooth comb. I understand they were
short-staffed due to the holidays, but then they should've done whatever
they had to to get professionals over there to do the job. Telling John to
search through the house w/o a LE official to accompany him was first-rate
amateurish.
It started w/ that bungle and went downhill from there. Suspect the Ramseys
all you want, but you can't blame the sloppy, unprofessional police work on
anyone but the Boulder PD. Dino is right about one thing: the BPD botched
the case, which has as much likelihood of ever being solved as George Bush
does of reversing the deficit.
NS
(add sbc before global to email)
EnEss
"Kris Baker" wrote:
> "Linda Griffith" wrote:
>> Hey, Kris!
>> I'm glad to see you back! I hope you'll stay!
> I replied to a cross-post, without noticing.
> Mea Culpa, over and out
Why, what's up w/ Kris? Why is she boycotting the NG? (I've been away a long
time myself)
Betsy
"EnEss" <star...@global.net> wrote in message
news:YX0og.73353$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
I was wondering the same thing...
Cliff and Linda Griffith
> I disagree, Linda. Whatever the Ramseys did, it was up to the police 100%
to
> secure the crime scene properly.
<snip> for brevity
Everything you say is true. However, as I remember it, the Ramseys already
had their friends roaming around inside the house before the police ever had
time to arrive on scene. Once the police got there, the crime scene was
already compromised. Everything went downhill from there, and yes...that
policewoman screwed up.
Linda
EnEss
> Kris Baker wrote:
>> That DNA really does *not* "exclude" either parent or a relative; all it
>> is,
>> is a miniscule amount of DNA that doesn't match anyone.
> It doesn't match anyone in the family.
Lawrence Schiller tonight on "The Abrams Report" explained that the tiny
sample of undefined DNA was only able to provide 11 "markers" in testing. He
said that 14 are needed to give a match to anyone. So it seems this
much-ballyhooed piece of evidence continuously referred to by believers in
the intruder theory is not the evidence helpful to the Ramseys as many have
thought. It seems it the DNA *could* belong to one of the Ramseys but it
hasn't provided enough markers to prove or disprove anything definiitive.
And if it's proven beyond a doubt to belong to some yet-unknown party, it
still doesn't prove anything definitive anyway...unfortunately.
> DNA can possibly show "race," depending on the integrity of the sample.
> So, it appears you are certain the D.N.A. is that of a "korean boy"
> which would show on the sample.
Kris never said that and you know it. Again, because there are insufficient
markers to pin down ID, the race of the person who left the DNA on the
panties is not possible to determine either.
>> It's nowhere near the amount that would have been deposited by a rapist
>> (where's the semen?)
> There wouldn't be any if there was no rape.
Agreed. But I do think Kris has a cogent point. Given the spread of the
crime scene, the brutality of the crime and all that would've been involved
for an intruder to commit this crime, one would expect to find more DNA from
this source than that tiny speck in the panties that is insufficient to link
to anyone.
EnEss
> "EnEss" wrote:
>> I disagree, Linda. Whatever the Ramseys did, it was up to the police 100%
> to secure the crime scene properly.
> <snip> for brevity
> Everything you say is true. However, as I remember it, the Ramseys
> already
> had their friends roaming around inside the house before the police ever
> had
> time to arrive on scene. Once the police got there, the crime scene was
> already compromised. Everything went downhill from there, and yes...that
> policewoman screwed up.
You're right of course. But that doesn't implicate the Ramseys as guilty.
All it tells anyone is that they had no training in conducting criminal
investigations, which no one would argue that they did, or that they would
be expected to. If you can imagine for a moment that the Ramseys are
innocent, you can imagine they'd be in a state of heightened fear and
anxiety. They couldn't be expected to behave totally clear-headed. That's
what the police are supposed to do at the time of a reported crime. They are
supposed to be clear-headed, objective, dispassionate and to put proper
investigative protocol into place immediately.
=> Vox Populi©
Thanks for being so mature. However, I don't believe I am remembering
incorrectly, as several have pointed this on on this thread and several
others. Here are a couple of links:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/19.html
She wasn't killed by Vaginally, numbnuts.
You do comprehend the difference between coincidence and causation, eh?
She could have had the DNA of the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir
in her panties ... ain't got shit to do with whether or not her own psychotic
mother killed her on that cold Christmas Eve ...
=> Vox Populi©
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:449F42...@armory.com...
>=> Vox PopuliŠ wrote:
>>
>> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> > Do you have any proof that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter?
>> >>
>> >> "Proof" ...? LOL!
>> >>
>> >> Surely an illiterate jackass like you meant "evidence" ...right?
>> >>
>> >> How about 356 pages of evidence, eh?
>> > --------------
>> > In other words I'm still illiterate ... !!!!ALTERED BY YOU!!!!
>> > Steve
> ---------------
> I didn't say that!
> You're a post-changing piece of shit, THAT'S what you are!
> I said:
> "In other words, you don't."
> That is:
> YOU don't have any actual proof, other than your delusional skreed!
> *IF* there were "proof", then they WOULD have been prosecuted!
> The fact that they WEREN'T PROVES that there WASN'T!!!!!
>
> You have proven yourself a cowardly dishonest piece of lying SHIT!!
Sez the pig-ignorant moron who refuses to read 356 pages of evidence
written by THE LEAD police investigator in the case ...
ROTFLMOA!!!
=> Vox Populi©
>> Hello,
>>
>> I know nothing about who killed who, however what i do know
>> is that when a father repeatedly rapes his daughter, both the
>> mother and daughter are silenced through violent threats and
>> actions of the rapist.
>>
>> The Talmud A-OK's rape of children, especially before age 3 . . .
>> Once Satan has you by the balls nothing is sacred.
>>
>> Truly
>
> How quick one is to blame the parents.
Yeah ... damn those empirical FBI/DOJ statistics that show PARENTS/RELATIVES
are far and away the #1 killer of young children.
> Perhaps if the police (detectives ) looked beyond the Ramsey's
Why look beyond the killers?
>they would have found other leads.
Their job isn't to "find other leads" for the defense. Their job is to
collect the evidence and finger the perps that the evidence points to.
> They botched the crime scene and the investigation. Remember the
> Smart girl kidnapping ( disapperance ). The cops had locked up the
> handy-man and the media found him guilty. The handy-man died in jail
> while the detectives prosecuted the true couple who had committed the
> abduction.
>
> Cases like the above are not always straight forward and should be
> treated as such...
So when you find a dead fish in your cat's bowl of milk, you immediately begin
looking at the dog, right?
=> Vox Populi©
with the evidence. D.N.A. evidence was discovered that DID NOT match
ANY family member. It appears the intruder story does hold water with
the police now after all.
Really? Does the mystery DNA say WHEN it was placed there?
Was JonBenet killed vaginally?
Can two things exist simultaneously without being causal?
=> Vox Populi©
"Hester Mofet" <HesterNO...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:250620061519218536%HesterNO...@speakeasy.net...
> In article <ksht92plv1fgkvrk0...@4ax.com>, Joseph wrote:
>
>> ***Given the slight chance that you might really be interested in the
>> FACTS of the case, try reading the following...
>>
>> http://drinkthis.typepad.com/shapiro/2006/05/the_ghost_of_ch.html
>>
>> Bill McReynolds is a retired Colorado University Journalism professor
>> who played Santa each year at the Ramsey's home Xmas parties. His pot
>> belly and white beard fit right into the role.
>>
>> He thus knew the Ramsey family and their home layout quite well.
>> Moreover, the child knew McReynolds and could have easily been conned
>> into following "Santa" downstairs for a little Xmas surprise.
>>
>> After all, who would suspect "Santa" (or even a Catholic priest, for
>> that matter) of the murder and/or molestation of a young child?
>>
>> "HO! HO! HO! Merry Christmas!"
>
> not, why not?
'cause that would eliminate the kook-kkkonspiracy krowds favorite speculation.
>
> Hester Mofet
=> Vox Populi©
"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GcQng.4232$oa1....@news02.roc.ny...
> mega...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> What kind of a name is "JonBenet" anyway? Take a boy's name and a
>> French last name, put 'em together and what have you got? A girl? I
>> can't see it. Can someone explain the history and logic behind that
>> name?
>
> It's a feminized version of her father's name - John Bennett Ramsey.
How perverse.
EnEss
"=> Vox PopuliŠ" wrote:
> She wasn't killed by Vaginally, numbnuts.
What does that even mean?
> She could have had the DNA of the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir
> in her panties ... ain't got shit to do with whether or not her own
> psychotic
> mother killed her on that cold Christmas Eve ...
FTR, it wasn't Christmas Eve. It was during the overnight hours following
Christmas Day.
There's no evidence Patsy Ramsey was ever psychotic, or that she exhibited
signs of pychosis any time after her daughter's murder.
Ange1o DePa1ma
"Bianca" <n...@chance.org> wrote in message
news:e7jnk1$92o1$2...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Sam Sloan wrote:
>> Patsy Ramsey, who killed her daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, is dead at 49
>>
>> Everybody is thinking it, but nobody yet has been the first to say it,
>> so I will.
>>
>> This was truly the murder of the century. Everybody who has studied
>> the case quickly realizes that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old
>> beauty queen daughter.
>>
>> All of the evidence points to her and to her husband, John Ramsey. No
>> evidence points to any other possibility.
>
>
> Do a Google on Ramsey + DNA.
> And the news reports of her death have been consistently reporting that
> the DNA said the parents didn't do it.
DNA evidence is perfect for what it does, which is tie person A to a crime
committed against person B. However, the fact that person A's DNA is absent,
or that person C's DNA is present, does not mean that person A did not
commit the crime either alone or as an accomplice.
My suspicion is that parents are responsible for the overwhelming majority
of suspicious deaths in children under the age of 7 or so. That includes
SIDS. Excluding the fiendish obsessions of homocidal maniacs, parents are
generally the only individuals with motive and/or opportunity to murder a
young child.
DinoPro
EnEss wrote:
> "=> Vox Populi©" wrote:
> > She wasn't killed by Vaginally, numbnuts.
>
If only < Vox Populi > were there to testify with the above bit of
information !!
This case would have been solved last year.
Another member of the Lunatic Fringe...........................
Ken Smith
> <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151353194....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> If you are going to post such an inflamed title , at least stay current
> with the evidence. D.N.A. evidence was discovered that DID NOT match
> ANY family member. It appears the intruder story does hold water with
> the police now after all.
> ===
>
> Really? Does the mystery DNA say WHEN it was placed there?
Interesting. Somehow, some way, somebody's DNA got under JonBenet's
fingers. Evidence suggests that she was subdued by a stun gun, which I
presume the Ramseys didn't own. I haven't been following the situation
since forever, but it seems that if that is what the autopsy shows, you
can forget Patsy as a suspect.
From CBS' 48 Hours:
______________________________________________________________________
From the outset, police never seriously considered the evidence that
someone outside the Ramsey family may have killed JonBenet.
"I don't think the Ramseys did it and I think they ought to start
looking for the people that did," says retired homicide Det. Lou Smit,
who once quit because police ignored the intruder theory.
Now, he's back on the case, working for the Boulder district attorney.
He can no longer speak publicly, but he spoke to 48 Hours back in 2002:
"This murder was not conducted upstairs in a nice bedroom. This murder
was conducted in a basement, and it was very vicious."
Autopsy results showed evidence that JonBenet may have been subdued with
a stun gun, and then eventually killed with an intricately tied device
known as a garrot.
The current investigation also focuses on the possibility of two
intruders, because of two very clear, and different, boot prints in the
room where JonBenet was found. And, there's another clue investigators
are interested in: a rope found in the bedroom next to JonBenet's.
What's more, detectives are now seriously investigating a lead that was
ignored years earlier: a report of an unknown blue van spotted outside
the Ramsey house the night before and the day after JonBenet was murdered.
After a murder investigation that went nowhere, the answer to the
question, "Who killed JonBenet," is likely in the Denver police
department crime lab.
"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult
for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic
specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.
He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of
JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to
have that DNA matched to an individual."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
________________________________________________________________
> Was JonBenet killed vaginally?
From http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm:
________________________________________________________________
Pathologists working with Boulder police say that JonBenet's vagina
showed indications of long-term sexual abuse, according to Det. Thomas,
citing "a panel of pediatric experts from around the country." He
doesn't name them. He writes there were "no dissenting opinions among them."
"We gathered affidavits stating in clear language," he writes, "that
there were injuries (to JonBenet's vagina) 'consistent with prior trauma
and sexual abuse'....'There was chronic abuse'...'Past violation of the
vagina'... 'Evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse.'"
_________________________________________________________________
Even if John Ramsey was fucking his daughter silly every night, it
doesn't mean that he killed her, Vox.
> Can two things exist simultaneously without being causal?
Whether they *can* is beside the point, Vox. There is at least one
credible explanation for the facts which doesn't require the Ramseys'
involvement, and the only credible explanation seems to exonerate the
Ramsey family.
The evidence of use of a taser is Huxley's "ugly little fact," which
appears to destroy your beautiful theory, Vox. Suffice it to say that
there is much more most reasonable people would need to know before we
can get to your conclusion.
EnEss
"Ange1o DePa1ma" wrote:
> My suspicion is that parents are responsible for the overwhelming majority
> of suspicious deaths in children under the age of 7 or so. That includes
> SIDS. Excluding the fiendish obsessions of homocidal maniacs, parents are
> generally the only individuals with motive and/or opportunity to murder a
> young child.
Statistically, you're right of course. But my problem w/ this case has
always been that I can see no "motivation" for either parent to brutally
assault their much beloved little daughter. People who knew the Ramseys
intimately, including people who worked for them in their home and had
occasion to overhear candid exchanges between parents and children, have all
said they can't recall any instance in which either parent even raised their
voices at the children. If anything, many who knew them perceived that they
were overly indulgent w/ the kids and never disciplined them. I realize
Patsy was tired the end of that day and had a lot to contend w/ that night
and I could see a parent losing her patience w/ a child who caused some
problem late at night that would delay a tired mom or dad from getting to
bed when he or she was ready to turn in, like say to clean up a bed-wetting
accident. But how does a parent who never even speaks harshly to a child go
from there to clocking the kid on the head so hard it fractures her skull?
That has never made sense to me in the context of these parents, and I don't
see Burke doing it either. I can see a tired and exasperated Patsy losing
her cool and scolding JB uncustomarily at the discovery of the wet sheets,
etc. But any more than that? Why? The child had been bed-wetting off and on
for some time and the mother was used to dealing w/ it. What would make her
snap in this particular instance to the point that she could issue a fatal
blow to the child's head?
Some argue that perhaps the child fell backwards in the confrontation w/ her
mother and hit her head against the side of the tub, causing the skull to
fracture. Aside from the fact that an injury like this is rarely serious in
a healthy child or adult, why in the world would Patsy not have summoned
immediate medical help for her daughter if that was the cause? This is a
mother who adored her children--lived for and, at times, through them. No
matter how stressed she might've been at the moment, a person like this does
not give the child up for dead and said, "Oh well, it's too late to help
her...I guess I have no choice but to let her die and come up w/ a scheme to
make it look like someone else did it. I know! A kidnapping!"
I just can't buy it.
=> Vox Populi©
"Ken Smith" <for...@it.com> wrote in message news:44A1A0DD...@it.com...
>=> Vox Populi© wrote:
>> <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151353194....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> If you are going to post such an inflamed title , at least stay current
>> with the evidence. D.N.A. evidence was discovered that DID NOT match
>> ANY family member. It appears the intruder story does hold water with
>> the police now after all.
>> ===
>>
>> Really? Does the mystery DNA say WHEN it was placed there?
>
> Interesting. Somehow, some way, somebody's DNA got under JonBenet's
> fingers.
Fingers?
I though everyone was whining about the DNA in her sweet little panties?
> Evidence suggests that she was subdued by a stun gun,
No, only nutters suggest that.
> which I presume the Ramseys didn't own.
What makes you presume that, eh Ken?
> I haven't been following the situation since forever, but it seems that if
> that is what the autopsy shows, you can forget Patsy as a suspect.
There you go again, wild ass speculation and fabrication of facts not in
evidence.
"The results of the autopsy revealed that JonBenét was killed by strangulation
and a skull fracture. A garrote made from a length of nylon cord and the handle
of a paintbrush had been used to strangle her; her skull had suffered severe
blunt trauma; she may have been sexually assaulted. The official cause of death
was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma. The missing
half of the paintbrush was never discovered. It was noted by experts that the
construction of the garrote required a special knowledge of knots. Autopsy also
revealed that the child had eaten pineapple only a few hours before the murder,
of which her mother claimed to be unaware."
>
> From CBS' 48 Hours:
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> From the outset, police never seriously considered the evidence that someone
> outside the Ramsey family may have killed JonBenet.
And the Jews never really much suspected anyone outside the 3rd Reich
for perpetrating the Holocaust ... go figure.
>
> "I don't think the Ramseys did it and I think they ought to start looking for
> the people that did," says retired homicide Det. Lou Smit,
Bwhahahahah! I met that nutter quack personally, had lunch with him,
the Ramsey's personal private detective whose name I can't recall,
and attorney Lee Hill at Effrains Mexican on 63rd st.
This looney toon "true-believer" holey-baable thumper Smit
actually brought a file filled with nearly 100 pages, all "research" in support
of his nutter theory that JB was killed by -- I kid you not -- "Satanists
performing
a Satanic Ritual"!
As a courtesy to Lee, I had to sit through this utter quackery listing to grown
men speculate that the big-red boogeyman and his followers did it.
After nearly an hour of his hysterical nearly speaking in tongues rants
and rails against "evil Satan worshipers" who had infiltrated good-fearing
christian society and their ritual child sacrifices I finally couldn't take it
anymore
-- and asked him point blank -- "what sect of Satanism calls for, much less
practices
"child sacrifice" ?
You'd have thought someone cut out their tongues ... they had a look like a
child
who's just had their favorite candy yanked out of their hands ...needless to say
the conversation and lunch ended very shortly thereafter, and I was never
invited back to sit in on one of their "brain storming" sessions.
> who once quit because police ignored the intruder theory.
What really scared me after meeting this utter quack Smit was that
he *was* a homicide detective in Colorado Springs for many years,
and the realization and horror that this completely possessed christer
believed in active sky pixies and evil red bogeymen and applied his
superstitious nonsense in his work. I couldn't help wonder how many
poor saps in El Paso county were railroaded, or how many real killers
let go, because this whack-job was receiving his base running signals from
"gaaaawd".
>
> Now, he's back on the case, working for the Boulder district attorney. He can
> no longer speak publicly, but he spoke to 48 Hours back in 2002: "This murder
> was not conducted upstairs in a nice bedroom. This murder was conducted in a
> basement, and it was very vicious."
>
> Autopsy results showed evidence that JonBenet may have been subdued with a
> stun gun, and then eventually killed with an intricately tied device known as
> a garrot.
Only nutters like Smit, and other Ramsey shills, make such a preposterous
claim. The autopsy made no such findings.
>
> The current investigation also focuses on the possibility of two intruders,
> because of two very clear, and different, boot prints in the room where
> JonBenet was found.
Left during what day of what year of the many years the Ramsey's owned
that house?
> And, there's another clue investigators are interested in: a rope found in the
> bedroom next to JonBenet's.
>
> What's more, detectives are now seriously investigating a lead that was
> ignored years earlier: a report of an unknown blue van spotted outside the
> Ramsey house the night before and the day after JonBenet was murdered.
Oh my, lions and tigers and ... BLUE VANS -- Oh MY!
One a public street, during the holidays, in a tourist town like Boulder ...
an "unknown" BLUE VAN!!
>
> After a murder investigation that went nowhere, the answer to the question,
> "Who killed JonBenet," is likely in the Denver police department crime lab.
>
> "I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a
> killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg
> LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.
>
> He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet
> Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA
> matched to an individual."
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
> ________________________________________________________________
>
>> Was JonBenet killed vaginally?
>
> From http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm:
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> Pathologists working with Boulder police say that JonBenet's vagina showed
> indications of long-term sexual abuse,
So, did it kill her?
Did the DNA show that the sexual abuser was also the killer?
Again, Ken, can you comprehend the difference between coincidence and
causation?
> according to Det. Thomas, citing "a panel of pediatric experts from around the
> country." He doesn't name them. He writes there were "no dissenting opinions
> among them."
OK, so the Ramseys, besides being killers, were abusive parents, either
directly or via neglect.
>
> "We gathered affidavits stating in clear language," he writes, "that there
> were injuries (to JonBenet's vagina) 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual
> abuse'....'There was chronic abuse'...'Past violation of the vagina'...
> 'Evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse.'"
Daddy's Little Whore.
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Even if John Ramsey was fucking his daughter silly every night, it doesn't
> mean that he killed her, Vox.
Ex-fucking-zactly! Ken.
You seem to finally be grasping that coincidence =/= causation.
>
>> Can two things exist simultaneously without being causal?
>
> Whether they *can* is beside the point, Vox.
What point is it beside, Ken?
> There is at least one credible explanation for the facts which doesn't
> require the Ramseys' involvement, and the only credible explanation seems to
> exonerate the Ramsey family.
Only of a kook-kkkonspiracy nutter like you gets to define "credible".
What page of your KmsSTFD is that one on, eh nutter?
> The evidence of use of a taser
Taser? I though you nutters claimed it was a "stun gun" ... LOL!
"Molten" ...? "Melted" ...? "Stun Gun" ...? "Taser" ...? WMD!?!
> is Huxley's "ugly little fact," which appears to destroy your beautiful
> theory, Vox.
Only if you say so, Ken "molten steel" Smith.
> Suffice it to say that there is much more most reasonable people would need
> to know before we can get to your conclusion.
Only of you use your KmsSTFD to define "reasonable people" ...
LOL!
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
> news:449F42...@armory.com...
> >=> Vox PopuliŠ wrote:
> >>
> >> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >> > Do you have any proof that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Proof" ...? LOL!
> >> >>
> >> >> Surely an illiterate jackass like you meant "evidence" ...right?
> >> >>
> >> >> How about 356 pages of evidence, eh?
> >> > --------------
> >> > In other words I'm still illiterate ... !!!!ALTERED BY YOU!!!!
> >> > Steve
> > ---------------
> > I didn't say that!
> > You're a post-changing piece of shit, THAT'S what you are!
> > I said:
> > "In other words, you don't."
> > That is:
> > YOU don't have any actual proof, other than your delusional skreed!
> > *IF* there were "proof", then they WOULD have been prosecuted!
> > The fact that they WEREN'T PROVES that there WASN'T!!!!!
> >
> > You have proven yourself a cowardly dishonest piece of lying SHIT!!
>
> Sez the pig-ignorant moron who refuses to read 356 pages of evidence
If the prosecutor can't convince a grand jury then he's just a liar
puffing his laughable skreed. Last *I* looked they had tried three
different grand juries and had got virtually tossed out of every one!
Your so-called "evidence" is dogshit!
Steve
Greegor
> Yeah ... damn those empirical FBI/DOJ statistics
> that show PARENTS/RELATIVES
> are far and away the #1 killer of young children.
That's a half truth.
With most of the EXPOSURE, this is natural.
If you take EXPOSURE into account, blood
parents don't look so bad, not by a longshot!
People who are NOT related by blood have
a huge percentage considering EXPOSURE.
Kane wrote
> So when you find a dead fish in your cat's bowl
> of milk, you immediately begin
> looking at the dog, right?
You don't have a cat do you?
You're not supposed to be feeding cats milk!
Falling into an old incorrect cliche'?
Pushing the CLICHE' and ignoring other
possibilities is a botched investigation.
It's just the EASY thing for lazy bureaucrats to do.
"Round up the usual suspects!" is just plain dumb.
0:->
> Kane wrote
>> Yeah ... damn those empirical FBI/DOJ statistics
>> that show PARENTS/RELATIVES
>> are far and away the #1 killer of young children.
>
> That's a half truth.
How can it be a "half truth?" Children don't half die when they are killed.
> With most of the EXPOSURE, this is natural.
What is natural?
What is "this" you speak of?
> If you take EXPOSURE into account, blood
> parents don't look so bad, not by a longshot!
Well shut my mouth, you are about to provide the logic that would shoot
down some of Doug's favorite claims. <chuckle>
> People who are NOT related by blood have
> a huge percentage considering EXPOSURE.
Yes, they surely do.
Boyfriends. Day Care workers.
And please don't give me the bullshit that foster parents don't have as
much or more exposure. Compared to partying parents they run about 24/7,
easily.
So your argument just crapped out, Greg.
>
> Kane wrote
>> So when you find a dead fish in your cat's bowl
>> of milk, you immediately begin
>> looking at the dog, right?
Isn't this odd. Must be I have Alzheimer's. I wrote the above WHEN?
Do you recognize this poster? "=> Vox Populi© wrote:"
It belongs in place of "Kane wrote:" above.
> You don't have a cat do you?
Sure. I've had lots of cats, dogs, horses, farm livestock.
I know what to feed them and what not.
> You're not supposed to be feeding cats milk!
Yep, you are right, unless they are tiny kittens.
> Falling into an old incorrect cliche'?
How could I. I'm not "=> Vox Populi©"
Notice that little copyright symbol? Now who do we know that has picked
up the habit of putting a copyright after his name, eh?
> Pushing the CLICHE' and ignoring other
> possibilities is a botched investigation.
So I did an investigation, did I, and fed my cat milk....? R R R R R
You are into the sauce, ain'tcha Greg?
> It's just the EASY thing for lazy bureaucrats to do.
Which bureaucrat claimed to fed cats milk, Greg?
> "Round up the usual suspects!" is just plain dumb.
The contents of your post meet that criteria, Greg. Very dumb indeedy.
I am Kane. The poster was "=> Vox Populi©"
Doubtless our redoubtable sock who has killer trained police dogs at his
disposal. Or someone of similar intelligence and wit.
As for you, I guess with so little practice preserving attributions,
rather that all your practice at aborting them when they might show you
to be the fool you ARE, you can't be blamed for mucking up the
attributions in this case.
Or are you holding some proof I am => Vox Populi© and are going to
spring it on us any moment now?
Grilliant, Breg, Grilliant.
R R R R R R R R R R ...
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
clifff...@yahoo.com
Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> Now that Patsy Ramsey is dead, we are all waiting to see if her
> husband finally confesses that his wife did it.
And open himself up to all kinds of charges in concealing
the murder and aiding the murderer? Fat chance.
--
Cliff
Greegor
> And please don't give me the [e.d.] that foster parents don't have as
> much or more exposure. Compared to partying parents they run about 24/7,
> easily.
>
> So your argument just crapped out, Greg.
Um, Kane, are you arguing backwards or what?
In a year in the USA, Foster contractors have
only a small percentage of the exposure hours.
Their percentage of abuse is greater than their
percentage of exposure.
In Texas, the likelihood of abuse by a foster
is 4x the level in parents homes.
0:->
> Kane wrote
>> And please don't give me the [e.d.] that foster parents don't have as
>> much or more exposure. Compared to partying parents they run about 24/7,
>> easily.
>>
>> So your argument just crapped out, Greg.
>
> Um, Kane, are you arguing backwards or what?
No, your argument crapped out. Bio parents can conceal their child
whenever they wish. Foster's cannot do that.
> In a year in the USA, Foster contractors have
> only a small percentage of the exposure hours.
I offered logical argument and facts that support my claim.
Show me yours? Where do you come by this percentage of exposure hours?
Give me a number, not small...a number.
I can tell you that the child is seen by SOMEONE outside the foster home
on average 3 to four hours a week, more if they are in school. The
foster parent must open their home to every child's worker, once a
month, for one to two hour visits, PER CHILD.
Are they not subject to providing access to the child continuously? Do
they not have to allow various practitioners to see them?
Part of putting a child in state custody is the rehabilitation aspect.
This requires Dx, evaluation, and Tx, trips to see OTs, MDs,
Psychologists and even pediatricians and dentists.
A bio parent can get out of all these things if they wish. A foster
parent cannot.
All children are required to have a face to face, in the foster home,
with their worker, once every 30 days. Foster home supervisors also
visit on a monthly basis.
Every child in the home, unless a sibling, is likely to have a different
worker than the next, hence there will be multiple agency visits TO THE
FOSTER HOME
> Their percentage of abuse is greater than their
> percentage of exposure.
Empty babbling. You don't know the "percentage of their exposure" so you
sure as hell can't make a comparison between abuse percentages and
exposure percentages.
They abuse percentage is a tiny fraction of that of the parents
substantiated for abuse, Greg. Over 90%, and more including relatives.
You got a foster parent abuse percentage number you want to share with us?
> In Texas, the likelihood of abuse by a foster
> is 4x the level in parents homes.
How can they be. The child isn't IN the parent's home. They are in state
care.
The ONLY reasonable comparison has to be limited to client parent vs
foster parent.
An actual count of real abuse in bio homes is virtually impossible.
Unless there is an allegation there will NEVER BE A DISCOVERY OF ABUSE.
With foster parents there are literally a dozen or more people they are
exposed to on a regular basis that can and do report them...often for
things they didn't do, or for things that WOULD NOT BE ABUSE IF DONE BY
A PARENT.
Nevertheless they, because of their contract and training, AND THE STATE
STATUTES that make them MORE accountable than bio parents, are charge
with abuse for 'spanking,' or sending a child to bed without their supper.
You and yours are liars, Greg. Plain and simple.
Bit here I am, awaiting your proof for your claims.
Have at it.
Or are you too good to lower yourself to having to explain your claims?
Greg the Magnificent, is it?
0:->
Michael T
>
> Why, what's up w/ Kris? Why is she boycotting the NG? (I've been away a
> long time myself)
>
> NS
Among other things Kris objected to the frequent personal attacks - and
bailed back in April. Can you blame her?
Michael T
news:1151365921.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> You need to remember innocent until proven guilty. One day that shoe
> could be on your foot.
>
> Ramona
>>
What I find somewhat incredulous is those who take an intractable position
that the Ramsey's are innocent and that the evidence clearly points to some
other perp.
I prefer a more nuanced approach which allows for both their possible guilt
as well as their possible non-involvement. It is unfortunate that there is
so much conflicting evidence - and so many opposing theories.
Do I think it is more likely than not that they are responsible? A
resounding yes.
Do I also think a case could be made to exclude them as perps? Yes I do. But
I simply choose to disagree. I cannot get past the ransom note and the
attendant clues surrounding it. But it does not rise to the level of a
smoking gun. Dammit!
I hope some of you got to watch Larry King Live tonight which featured a
retrospective following Patsy's death. The 'taped' confrontation between the
Ramsey's and former Boulder Police Detective Steve Thomas made for very
compelling television.
Michael T.
Greegor
> And please don't give me the [e.d.] that foster parents don't have as much
> or more exposure. Compared to partying parents they run about 24/7, easily.
> So your argument just crapped out, Greg.
Greg wrote
> > Um, Kane, are you arguing backwards or what?
Kane wrote
> No, your argument crapped out. Bio parents can conceal their child
> whenever they wish. Foster's cannot do that.
Is that what you said, right before you said my argument crapped out?
It seems more like your logic slipped a cog or jumped a track.
<snip!>
Kane wrote
> Greg the Magnificent, is it?
Nah, You're the Megalomaniac.
0:->
>> Kane wrote
>> And please don't give me the [e.d.] that foster parents don't have as much
>> or more exposure. Compared to partying parents they run about 24/7, easily.
>> So your argument just crapped out, Greg.
>
> Greg wrote
>>> Um, Kane, are you arguing backwards or what?
>
> Kane wrote
>> No, your argument crapped out. Bio parents can conceal their child
>> whenever they wish. Foster's cannot do that.
>
> Is that what you said, right before you said my argument crapped out?
> It seems more like your logic slipped a cog or jumped a track.
Actually there is nothing logical in your post now, and very little then.
The question was, of course, and you avoided answering it, of course,
are bio parents as subject to being observed by officials as foster
parents are.
The answer, of course, is no, that would be impossible. Foster's sign
away privacy rights upon volunteering to foster children.
And by the very statutes involved must and do submit the child to a
constant stream of mandated reporters, EVEN TO THE BIO PARENTS FOR
VISITATIONS.
There is NOT comparison.
Your argument, false and phony, was that fosters have a higher "rate" of
abuse than bio parents. The two groups are not comparable based on their
ability to conceal abuse. A bio parent can, a foster parent cannot.
>
> <snip!>
Yes, I notice you have lost the argument.
> Kane wrote
>> Greg the Magnificent, is it?
>
> Nah, You're the Megalomaniac.
Seen any asinine self aggrandizing Petitions to The Court from me yet?
Seen me testify ERRONEOUSLY AS TO ACCUSATIONS OF STATE MALPRACTICE AND
LAWBREAKING to the US Congress House Ways and Means Committee hearing?
That, Greg, was megalomania at it's best. You are such a simp.
Your own worst enemy.
edrh...@hotmail.com
> > Tim Farrow wrote:
> >> "Bianca" <n...@chance.org> wrote in message
> >> news:e7jnk1$92o1$2...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> >>> Sam Sloan wrote:
> >>>> Patsy Ramsey, who killed her daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, is dead at 49
> >>>>
> >>>> Everybody is thinking it, but nobody yet has been the first to say it,
> >>>> so I will.
> >>>>
> >>>> This was truly the murder of the century. Everybody who has studied
> >>>> the case quickly realizes that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old
> >>>> beauty queen daughter.
> >>>>
> >>>> All of the evidence points to her and to her husband, John Ramsey. No
> >>>> evidence points to any other possibility.
> >>>
> >>> The DNA evidence said they didn't do it.
> >>> Do a Google on Ramsey + DNA.
> >>> And the news reports of her death have been consistently reporting that
> >>> the DNA said the parents didn't do it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Nope...I believe OJ is guilty as hell. You need another crystal ball.
> > ...and I'm not saying that Patsy didn't know who killed Jon Benet. The
> > OP said "All of the evidence points to her and to her husband..."
> > And ALL of the evidence didn't point to them.
>
> Yes, all the RELEVANT evidence pointed to Patsy.
So only evidence that you agree with is "relevant?"