Is Patsy Ramsey losing her battle with ovarian cancer

[narlacat]

Well John Ramsey said it best.....

"Perhaps Burke will talk about this case when he's 40."

JOHN AND PATSY WOULD BE DEAD BY THAT TIME.

HMMMMMM

Maybe not Toltec. Burke is 18 now.....in 22 years he will be 40. Patsy is 48 I think,maybe 49....so when Burke is 40, she would be 71.
John is 60 I think so when Burke is 40, John would be 82.
People live alot longer than 71 and 82.
Admittely Patsy has it stacked against her and would be doing well to reach that age I would think.

 

[Toltec]

Maybe not Toltec. Burke is 18 now.....in 22 years he will be 40. Patsy is 48 I think,maybe 49....so when Burke is 40, she would be 71.
John is 60 I think so when Burke is 40, John would be 82.
People live alot longer than 71 and 82.
Admittely Patsy has it stacked against her and would be doing well to reach that age I would think.

I beg to differ...

Patsy will most likely succumb to cancer in a few years and John is unlikely to survive past 75....and if he did live to be 82 at that point he wouldn't care if he was sent to jail.

Patsy, IMO commited this murder and John is covering for her. They will both be dead by the time Burkie Boy fesses up.

 

[Rainsong]

lawman,

IMO there is no credible evidence of an intruder. Please be specific and state at least one item of credible evidence of an intruder and we'll discuss it. Thanks.

If no credible evidence exists of an intruder, then on what do you base the presumed existence of the 'other' kid in you theory?

Rainsong

 

[GuruJosh]

If no credible evidence exists of an intruder, then on what do you base the presumed existence of the 'other' kid in you theory?

Rainsong

An "intruder" is someone UNINVITED.

BC's theory involves an invitee.

 

[Rainsong]

An "intruder" is someone UNINVITED.

BC's theory involves an invitee.

True, however, if Blue Crab doesn't think there is evidence of any outsider, on what does he base the 'invitee' being in the home?

Rainsong

 

[narlacat]

I beg to differ...

Patsy will most likely succumb to cancer in a few years and John is unlikely to survive past 75....and if he did live to be 82 at that point he wouldn't care if he was sent to jail.

Patsy, IMO commited this murder and John is covering for her. They will both be dead by the time Burkie Boy fesses up.

Why is it likely that John wont survive past 75, really 75 isnt that old. I have an aunty who is 74 and is fitter and healthier than me lol (I am somewhat younger than 74).
Either way, it will be interesting what will happen with Burky Boy when Mum and Dad are no longer around to protect him.

 

[capps]

I wonder if Burke now feels he is is receiving the attention from his parents;that he thought was lacking before the murder?

 

[BlueCrab]

True, however, if Blue Crab doesn't think there is evidence of any outsider, on what does he base the 'invitee' being in the home?

Rainsong,

There are a number of possible scenarios, some innocent and some evil. Here's one of them:

It was Christmas, and the boys had a lot of new toys to show off, but no time to do it. Burke had spent some of the afternoon and most of the evening at the White's boorish dinner party. And the Ramseys were leaving early the next morning for about 10 days of wintering at their Charlevoix getaway and then on to Florida for a voyage on the Disney Big Red Boat. The boys didn't have a chance to be together.

The young guest that night (in my theory) could have been invited by the parents, or he could have been snuck in by Burke and JonBenet after the parents had gone to bed. I tend to believe the latter because the security light on the corner of the house had been turned off and the bowl of pineapple and the tea glass on the table suggests Burke and JonBenet were waiting for someone to show up. He would be the fifth person in the house that night, and perhaps the killer of JonBenet.

On the other hand, had the guest been invited by the Ramseys, then a baby sitter would have likely accompanied him so the children could stay up late and play with their new toys under adult supervision while the parents got to go to bed early. They would be the fifth and sixth persons in the house that night, and the adult babysitter would likely be the killer of JonBenet.

BlueCrab

 

[narlacat]

Rainsong,

There are a number of possible scenarios, some innocent and some evil. Here's one of them:

It was Christmas, and the boys had a lot of new toys to show off, but no time to do it. Burke had spent some of the afternoon and most of the evening at the White's boorish dinner party. And the Ramseys were leaving early the next morning for about 10 days of wintering at their Charlevoix getaway and then on to Florida for a voyage on the Disney Big Red Boat. The boys didn't have a chance to be together.

The young guest that night (in my theory) could have been invited by the parents, or he could have been snuck in by Burke and JonBenet after the parents had gone to bed. I tend to believe the latter because the security light on the corner of the house had been turned off and the bowl of pineapple and the tea glass on the table suggests Burke and JonBenet were waiting for someone to show up. He would be the fifth person in the house that night, and perhaps the killer of JonBenet.

On the other hand, had the guest been invited by the Ramseys, then a baby sitter would have likely accompanied him so the children could stay up late and play with their new toys under adult supervision while the parents got to go to bed early. They would be the fifth and sixth persons in the house that night, and the adult babysitter would likely be the killer of JonBenet.

BlueCrab

Hi Bluecrab
Was the fifth person you are talking about tested for his DNA?
And was the baby sitter?

 

[BlueCrab]

Hi Bluecrab
Was the fifth person you are talking about tested for his DNA?
And was the baby sitter?

narlacat,

The fifth person's DNA was tested.

The sixth person's DNA may have been tested, but the authorities suspiciously pretend he never existed, so I don't know. He's not even mentioned in PMPT, even though he lived with the Stines and babysat and regularly drove Doug, Burke, and JonBenet to school. It appears that DS's name was also purged from PMPT at the last minute, except for one place. The publishing of PMPT pb was held up until the grand jury permanently adjourned in October of 1999. But the court put a gag order on everything. There's something suspicious going on with DS and NI, and Larry Schiller likely knows what it is. The names of DS and NI would otherwise exist and be more prominent in PMPT.

BlueCrab

 

[IrishMist]

Just chiming in...

Weren't they coming back to Boulder and THEN on to the Disney trip?

Burke may have been allowed to bring a friend for the first part of the trip. I remember taking many friends on vacation with us when I was growing up.
So this friend would be in the house on invitation, but when all He** broke loose, was sent home during the night...

 

[Rainsong]

Thank you, Blue Crab. I've read your theories previously and am still having difficulty determining on what you have based them--if there is no evidence of there ever having been an "outsider" in the home.

One can create any scenario one likes, but proper investigatory procedure is to follow the evidence. And this is where all your theories fail.

Rainsong

 

[BlueCrab]

Thank you, Blue Crab. I've read your theories previously and am still having difficulty determining on what you have based them--if there is no evidence of there ever having been an "outsider" in the home.

One can create any scenario one likes, but proper investigatory procedure is to follow the evidence. And this is where all your theories fail.

Rainsong,

With all due respect Rainsong, you will always have difficulty determining on what I base my theories because your mindset is just the opposite of mine.

IMO each and every one of my BDI theories are supported by the known facts and the known credible evidence in this case. Specifically where, in your opinion, has proper investigative procedures caused any of my BDI theories to fail?

BlueCrab

 

[Voice of Reason]

Some of the recent exchanges here at WS have been a bit bothersome to me. Please make sure you read what people say before you criticize them. Allow me to explain...

BlueCrab said
IMO there is no credible evidence of an intruder

to which Rainsong responded
If no credible evidence exists of an intruder, then on what do you base the presumed existence of the 'other' kid in you theory?

GuruJosh politely corrected Rainsong
An "intruder" is someone UNINVITED.

BC's theory involves an invitee.

to which Rainsong altered his wording, pretending BlueCrab said there was no evidence of an OUTSIDER, as opposed to INTRUDER
True, however, if Blue Crab doesn't think there is evidence of any outsider, on what does he base the 'invitee' being in the home?

BlueCrab explained one of his theories
There are a number of possible scenarios, some innocent and some evil. Here's one of them:
<theory omitted>

which Rainsong promptly discredited based on a statement BlueCrab never made (no outsider in the home)
Thank you, Blue Crab. I've read your theories previously and am still having difficulty determining on what you have based them--if there is no evidence of there ever having been an "outsider" in the home.

At this point, I must chime in. Rainsong, you appeared on this board just days ago, and you seem to have spent the majority of the past few days just trying to rebut everyone's opinion on this board. This is neither helpful towards the board or the Ramsey case. There are plenty of people on this board who agree with you. Maybe if you read some posts before posting, you will realize this. Furthermore, please don't twist people's words around so that you can try to back them into a corner and refute their theory...

 

[Rainsong]

At this point, I must chime in. Rainsong, you appeared on this board just days ago, and you seem to have spent the majority of the past few days just trying to rebut everyone's opinion on this board. This is neither helpful towards the board or the Ramsey case. There are plenty of people on this board who agree with you. Maybe if you read some posts before posting, you will realize this. Furthermore, please don't twist people's words around so that you can try to back them into a corner and refute their theory...

I have no idea why any questions posed to Blue Crab should bother you. I am trying to discern on what evidence Blue Crab has based his theories when he states there is no evidence of anyone in the home other than the family. Without evidence to validate a theory, one can create any theory one desires, including foreign factions, terrorists, spurned lover, swindled business colleague, mother of a runner-up in a pageant, etc.

To my knowledge I have not 'twisted' anyone's words. I have taken care to use their exact wordage.

Voice of Reason, I have been reading at this website for quite some time, but I do thank you for taking an interest in my reading habits.

Rainsong

 

[Lacy Wood]

I learned yesterday that you have to be careful what you say about posters so my post was deleted...so thank you Voice of Reason...You seem to have noticed what I did.

 

[JBRMod2]

I learned yesterday that you have to be careful what you say about posters so my post was deleted...so thank you Voice of Reason...You seem to have noticed what I did.

Tricia has very high standards and we strive to make this a safe place for posters of all POVs to have lively discussion without "unpleasantness".

Your moderators are unbiased.

 

[BeeBee]

One can create any scenario one likes, but proper investigatory procedure is to follow the evidence. And this is where all your theories fail.

Rainsong

I would also like to add that this is a message board. Or Crime Forum. Not an FBI forum. One can follow proper investigatory procedure if they like and if not, they can just post their theorys and/or ideas.

 

[Rainsong]

I would also like to add that this is a message board. Or Crime Forum. Not an FBI forum. One can follow proper investigatory procedure if they like and if not, they can just post their theorys and/or ideas.

Yes, it is a discussion board, however, when one proposes a theory on how a crime was committed, it should be based in fact. Don't you agree?

Rainsong

 

[BeeBee]

Yes, it is a discussion board, however, when one proposes a theory on how a crime was committed, it should be based in fact. Don't you agree?

Rainsong

Indeed -- as long as no-one tries to dictate to others how the facts should be interpreted.