Patsy Ramsey is close to death
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
Heebiejeebie
New Member
Actually, Beth died January 8, 1992.
luvbeaches
New Member
Heebiejeebie said:
Which was during her college holiday vacation...if I remember correctly. Jan. 8th, is holiday season in my house. Our tree doesn't even come down till mid-Jan.
Eagle1
Former Member
Ned, RR, and I guess myself, because as usual I've been hard at work on a project I need a break from, and don't get here every day. If I left anyone out, I'll catch you later. Nice to see you guys.
QUOTE >>There's a lesson in that. I will consider it another injustice, if she dies before she's exonerated. It was so unfair for people to heartlessly jump to the conclusion she'd kill her beloved daughter she so identified with. <<
"so identified with".....dont you mean lived her life vicariously through her daughter's beauty?
"so identified with".....dont you mean lived her life vicariously through her daughter's beauty?
luvbeaches
New Member
capps said:
Blanket or no blanket, I believe crime scene contamination was his goal...and he met that goal. But once they lawyered-up, it was over.
Eagle1
Former Member
Who among us would just leave our dead child lying there on the basement floor? Who'd be feeling scientific at such a time, thinking about preserving a crime scene?
Camper
New Member
Eagle1 said:
Perhaps none among us, but consider that a 'loving and or innocent person could' wrap the victim in a blanket and NOT remove them from the home to leave them in a secluded snow pile somewhere.
John reportedly said something about it having to have been and 'inside job'. Which could have meant a. one of the family did IT, b. someone involved in his business did IT, c. 'we' left the body 'inside'.
How did the saying go, 'whats in a name, a rose by any other name still smells as sweet'.
.
Moab
Member
What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
William Shakespeare
That one?
William Shakespeare
That one?
narlacat said:
narlacat,
You are correct. IMO the evidence is convincing the Ramseys knew where the body was long before they called 911 at 5:52 AM, and they are hiding the truth.
The 911 call was a 'performance' and the ensuing behaviors pointed to a coverup because the whole morning's activities by the Ramseys were based on a lie -- the whereabouts of Burke during the 911 call. The enhanced final 4 seconds of the 911 tape proved the Ramseys were lying, Burke was downstairs in the kitchen at 5:52 AM and had not been upstairs in bed until 7:00 AM as they claimed. In fact, Burke's bed was fully made, as if he hadn't even slept in it that night. The Ramseys were trying to cover up for Burke even before the investigation had gotten underway on day one.
The endless string of lies, obfuscations, and refusals to cooperate with the investigation, all pointing toward a coverup, substantiate the obvious -- the Ramseys are protecting someone, and it sure to hell isn't an intruder. The Ramseys would get deeply involved in a coverup ONLY if a Ramsey family member was involved in the death of JonBenet.
John admitting he moved the chair from in front of the trainroom door; John admitting the blue suitcase was up against the wall and directly under the window; and John admitting he closed and locked the basement window; all prove John was in the basement prior to the 911 call. None of these conditions existed when Officer Rick French searched the basement at 6:00 AM., so John had to have performed them prior to 6:00 AM.
Since the evidence, directly out of John Ramsey's mouth, proves he was in the basement prior to the 911 call at 5:52 AM and is lying about it, then John surely found JonBenet's body prior to the 911 call. Why else would he lie about being in the basement?
BlueCrab
.
Camper
New Member
Moab said:
Thank you very much Moab, in any case there are indeed a lot things that smell about what they did, particularly AFTER the fact.
A new train of thought just pulled into my brain station, 'What IF IF the older son came Christmas Day without any one knowing, (except for Barnhill who saw him - then R attorneys convinced him he did not see what he saw) Suppose 'he' just went upstairs and hung out. Suppose it was 'he' who was chastised on the 23rd. Suppose 'he' told JBR to expect a secret visit from Santa AFTER Christmas. Suppose he slipped out and left town, BEFORE R's woke up the morning of the 26th and found JonBenet, and put two and two together.
This would explain why JOHN wanted to get outta Dodge to take care of BUSINESS in Atlanta, this would also explain WHY an attorney was furnished for the entire family in Atlanta. Why would you want protection for the family, seems like since they were all happily there, when the murder happened, they could handle things on their own. One would think, wouldn't one?
Does anyone remember the date the attorney was acquired for the Atlanta portion of the family?
The train just left. I shall be busy with a brand new grandbaby that is due tomorrow, and some other intense personal business, so I may be scarce for some time. JUST because the baby is due tomorrow does not mean that it will happen, Mother Nature is in charge. SO will be reading off and on til B Day. Then gone for a time.
,
hollyjokers
New Member
LinasK said:
I'm impressed that you have such control over your emotions. By the grace of God I have never found myself in that type of situation, but I think my impulse on seeing my beautiful daughter in such obvious trauma would be exactly what John did. I don't believe my first thought would be crime scene preservation, it would be get her upstairs, get her help now. It was the BPD's mistake in letting JR search the house unaccompanied.
Hello Moab....
JonBenet was beyond help...therefore she was placed in the wine cellar until police discovered her.
I have mentioned this before but I spoke to a Psychiatrist...asked her why a Mother would kill a daughter she so much loved, and her answer was either to save the daughter from whatever harm she was experiencing...or to save herself (mom).
That rings true in this case. Patsy had to stage a crime to prevent herself from arrest and conviction...it's called self-preservation.
JonBenet was beyond help...therefore she was placed in the wine cellar until police discovered her.
I have mentioned this before but I spoke to a Psychiatrist...asked her why a Mother would kill a daughter she so much loved, and her answer was either to save the daughter from whatever harm she was experiencing...or to save herself (mom).
That rings true in this case. Patsy had to stage a crime to prevent herself from arrest and conviction...it's called self-preservation.
why_nutt
New Member
hollyjokers said:
It ought to be curious, then, that Patsy's first reaction (the same Patsy who was supposed to have been an uncontrollable emotional wreck all morning) was not to pick up JonBenet from the floor and hug her to herself. Instead, Patsy left JonBenet on the living room floor, covered with a swath of fabric, only touching her daughter in the most minimal of ways and reserving her greatest act of drama for a purely verbal outburst which would have done a Broadway actress proud.
tipper
Former Member
PMPT p. 20 "Patsy threw herself on her daughter's body."why_nutt said:
why_nutt
New Member
tipper said:
And what I wrote is not at odds with that. Obviously, Patsy did not literally throw herself on JonBenet's body, or there would be a very good theory about where those "stun gun" marks came from, since they then could have been post-mortem artifactual hemorrhages brought about by Patsy's fingers impacting with force on JonBenet's skin and breaking the decaying capillaries underneath. Even with that aside, at the moment Patsy first was able to witness JonBenet's body, JonBenet was covered by two items of fabric; a throw taken from some undetermined piece of furniture, and a Colorado Avalanche sweatshirt, again taken from some unidentified location. There is no evidence that Patsy threw these items aside in order to expose and touch her daughter's skin in an effort to revive her or even to caress her soothingly as the act of an upset mother intent on doing anything she could to help her child through this crisis which at the time had no clear status. So the point stands. If a person wants to claim that John's efforts at throwing inappropriate coverings off his daughter, picking her up off the floor she obviously did not belong on, and moving her to a location more instinctively comforting to her than where she was, if a person wants to claim that all these things are appropriate behavior for a distraught father, then the parallel claim can be made that a mother who does not do them, but who is of an even more dramatically emotional nature than the father, is a mother who perhaps wants to distance herself from her daughter who she has already spent a great deal of time accepting as dead, dead, dead, despite protestations to the contrary of a hope that she was alive.
Similar threads
