Patsy Ramsey

[BOESP]

Sure it would have. DNA trumps all. Especially when you have it in two places that match the same profile. It says.. SOMEONE was here. And SOMEONE touched her and it was not an R.

IT says it all really.

I disagree.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I disagree.

And that is your prerogative .. But the first place police start looking when they have a crime scene is DNA. They use it to exclude, As was done in this case and they use it to include.

Here it excludes the R's and everyone else tested so far.

That points in one place.. Intruder.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think the BPD and DA's office will let you have access to the case files but good luck with that.

So where is the proof then? Is it in a book? Because that does not make it so.

 

[BOESP]

So where is the proof then? Is it in a book? Because that does not make it so.

There isn't much use in posting from either viewpoint is there?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There isn't much use in posting from either viewpoint is there?

I just don't understand how someone takes something from a book and takes it as fact. I can understand considering it but to just take something that has no official report and say it is true from a book, I just don't get that. Anyone can say anything in a book. They don't have to have proof. Especially if they quote some " closed official report".

I think there is enough to talk about that we know to be true from facts, dna and depositions.

 

[CherCher]

Yes as a matter of fact I did. As I also shared my son suffered from encopresis. Would you like to continue to mock my then seven year old child that you know absolutely nothing about? I'm sure he'd be interested in your vast judgment about his physical impairment due to issues with his colon.

If that doesn't get your rocks off I have another kid that peed the bed for a while, should we discuss his pee pee smelling pants as some great testimony to his "child abuse" and overall struggles in life?

Tell ya what, why don't you take the time to type out your theory. I'll have him review it when he gets back from his college classes and calls me from his apartment in the city.

I'm sure he'll be very interested in what some online gossip has to say about how completely I've destroyed his life.

Now that you all mention it, my kids don't like going to Bed Bath and Beyond, it all makes sense now! There are clothes hampers everywhere. The poor traumatized kids.


ETA I think it's in really tacky rude disgusting form that in lieu of a real discussion on this board, several of you have attempted to attack both mine and Scarletta's children as a "new topic."


How about we STAY ON TOPIC and DISCUSS EVIDENCE and not made up theories based on judgmental gossip.


:seeya::seeya::seeya::seeya:

Wow. Just wow. I can understand why you sympathize with the Ramsey family, and let's leave it at that. So sorry for your troubles, and I won't respond to you anymore. Sorry.

 

[Chewy]

No need to be sorry. It has nothing to do with you.
.

 

[Simply Caustic]

ETA: Deleted, as the quoted post was removed.

Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

 

[eileenhawkeye]

How about we stop projecting?

 

[Venom]

Wow. Just wow.

 

[DeDee]

I just don't understand how someone takes something from a book and takes it as fact. I can understand considering it but to just take something that has no official report and say it is true from a book, I just don't get that. Anyone can say anything in a book. They don't have to have proof. Especially if they quote some " closed official report".

I think there is enough to talk about that we know to be true from facts, dna and depositions.

Sources:

Patsy's Interview 06/98

**** Poop unflushed in JBs bathroom

(0272-24) THOMAS HANEY: I think we left off, finished with number 18, and it's a bathroom, so go to 19.
PATSY RAMSEY: This one looks like somebody went to the potty and didn't flush.
THOMAS HANEY: Okay, is that out of the ordinary?
PATSY RAMSEY: Not terribly, no.
THOMAS HANEY: Did you -- did you take JonBenet to the bathroom prior to putting her to bed?
PATSY RAMSEY: No.
THOMAS HANEY: Would she have gotten up during the night and gone to the bathroom?
PATSY RAMSEY: Possibly.
THOMAS HANEY: If she did, would she have flushed?
PATSY RAMSEY: Not necessarily.


**** JBs poopie pants in bathroom

TOM HANEY: How about 378?

PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her pants.

TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular pants, when she would have worn those last?

PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably recently because they are dropped in the middle of the floor, but I don't remember exactly.

TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.

PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It appears they are stained.

PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet had a problem with?

PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.

**** PJ bottoms with poop and candy with smeared poop are in Kolar's book

 

[gramcracker]

it was pointed out that someone celebrated as actively charitable and philanthropic was less so when there was an opportunity to make a difference in a positive way. the prior activity occurred during a recurring illness

the topic of taste was then introduced and the justification for the lack of initiative was that the person was ill, and that there was no requirement to get involved. which is true, but out of character for the person being discussed

since poor taste was the introduced topic, instances of prior poor taste were listed

that was the evolution of the conversation. I'm listening to the radio right now and what I'm hearing is "you can't always get what you want"

 

[gramcracker]

What's the motive straight through? It was an accident if they hit her over the head and didn't mean to kill her. So then the "thoughts and motives" are not the same as if it was premeditated.

It jumps all over the place which is why people won't lay out a straight theory all the way through. Because when you do, none of them make any sense.

That's why it's always hopping around and bits and piece and snide comments and snark instead of a clear lay out of the theories. Why all this "defensiveness" instead of just simply explaining the theory all the way through?

please direct me to the requirement that we post a theory? I believe each poster's POV is demonstrated by the content of their posts. a compete theory will be rebutted point by point, as individual points are rebutted as they are raised. same result in the end, either way. the lack of a posted theory is not an indication of lack of thought about and consideration of the circumstances

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Sure it would have. DNA trumps all. Especially when you have it in two places that match the same profile. It says.. SOMEONE was here. And SOMEONE touched her and it was not an R.

IT says it all really.

Why do you resort to lies?

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

to just take something that has no official report and say it is true

.

 

[BOESP]

:giggle:

 

[Chewy]

please direct me to the requirement that we post a theory? I believe each poster's POV is demonstrated by the content of their posts. a compete theory will be rebutted point by point, as individual points are rebutted as they are raised. same result in the end, either way. the lack of a posted theory is not an indication of lack of thought about and consideration of the circumstances

I've asked several times and have not received an answer to a simple question.

If the theory being presented is that the Ramseys had connections to the DA and knew they'd get special treatment and get away with a MURDER then why would they need to stage such a dramatic murder scene? Why not just stage an accident?

Even if the autopsy revealed she'd been "hit in the head" why wouldn't the DA just cover it up and say it could have been an accident? Why not get a "second opinion" that says it was caused by a fall? Apparently they can't even agree on whether or not she'd been molested. It wouldn't be shocking in the slightest to have different autopsy conclusions. Are you suggesting that the one honest guy in the whole scheme would be the forensic Medical Examiner Ala Quincy, who just "couldn't be swayed!!!!"

That's why I keep saying "In the moment." In the moment they realize they killed their kid by hitting her over the head. The theories presented are "the autopsy would reveal she'd been "hit" not "hit her head." Why would the Ramseys be so aware of this "in the moment." How would they know for sure this would be the case.

Traumatic head injuries can come up for a myriad of reasons. So why not just throw her in the bathtub and say she slipped and cracked her head.

Even if the autopsy revealed she'd "been hit" if they had the ability to manipulate the DA to cover up a murder why wouldn't they have the SAME ABILITY to cover up a murder by calling it an accident?

Not to mention the RISK that the DA would take in saying this huge staged murder scene concocted by two very unprofessional murderers could potentially go bust and have some "Smoking gun" mistake that would be revealed. What DA is going to say "hey do whatcha want, make it look good." It would be much less RISKY for the DA to cover up an "accident' than to cover up a MURDER that is clearly 100 percent a murder.

I have YET to get an answer to this question. Probably because there ISN'T a logical explanation. :seeya:

 

[lawstudent]

I've asked several times and have not received an answer to a simple question.

If the theory being presented is that the Ramseys had connections to the DA and knew they'd get special treatment and get away with a MURDER then why would they need to stage such a dramatic murder scene? Why not just stage an accident?

Even if the autopsy revealed she'd been "hit in the head" why wouldn't the DA just cover it up and say it could have been an accident? Why not get a "second opinion" that says it was caused by a fall? Apparently they can't even agree on whether or not she'd been molested. It wouldn't be shocking in the slightest to have different autopsy conclusions. Are you suggesting that the one honest guy in the whole scheme would be the forensic Medical Examiner Ala Quincy, who just "couldn't be swayed!!!!"

That's why I keep saying "In the moment." In the moment they realize they killed their kid by hitting her over the head. The theories presented are "the autopsy would reveal she'd been "hit" not "hit her head." Why would the Ramseys be so aware of this "in the moment." How would they know for sure this would be the case.

Traumatic head injuries can come up for a myriad of reasons. So why not just throw her in the bathtub and say she slipped and cracked her head.

Even if the autopsy revealed she'd "been hit" if they had the ability to manipulate the DA to cover up a murder why wouldn't they have the SAME ABILITY to cover up a murder by calling it an accident?

Not to mention the RISK that the DA would take in saying this huge staged murder scene concocted by two very unprofessional murderers could potentially go bust and have some "Smoking gun" mistake that would be revealed. What DA is going to say "hey do whatcha want, make it look good." It would be much less RISKY for the DA to cover up an "accident' than to cover up a MURDER that is clearly 100 percent a murder.

I have YET to get an answer to this question. Probably because there ISN'T a logical explanation. :seeya:

It's hard to answer any of this without knowing how the heck she got that head injury.

I don't think anyone actually thinks "Oh, the DA will cover this up no problem!" unless they are the DA's kid or the President of the US or something. The Ramseys weren't that influential. I could see them thinking "No one is going to believe we would beat our child, so if we say this was an accident, who will question it?" Or if, say, Burke hit her, I could see them thinking "They'll believe it's kids goofing around if we say that." I think many families would believe they could convince the DA something was an accident if they had always seemed presentable and respected.

One of the issues I have with RDI is that the injury was not visible and she was not dead. The crazy staging seems like such a leap. I know it's possible they heard the skull crack and knew it was bad, but I just don't know. And I know it would be possible to mistake her for dead, but it just seems they would have tried a bit more to save her and play it off as an accident at that point.

Obviously one issue was the sexual assault, but the evidence on that is still a bit murky so I can't quite figure out how that played out.

And I just don't know how you would present it to a jury and explain what actually happened. Such a strong head bash but no one knows exactly what happened. This isn't a situation with a crazy beating or shaking injuries or something that you can say was definitely the parents losing control. It just seems like there would be doubt.

Also, I think people would be very surprised at the conditions of many people's homes, at least at some points in their lives.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

One of the issues I have with RDI is that the injury was not visible and she was not dead. The crazy staging seems like such a leap. I know it's possible they heard the skull crack and knew it was bad, but I just don't know.

RSBM..

EXACTLY!!! She did not hide her kids from the doctor. If she had seen JBR go down from a head injury she would have called 911 and got her help. To say that she stood there and while her baby was breathing then staged this horrific crime and let someone strangle her is just preposterous.

 

[BOESP]

If JonBenet appeared dead (undetectable pulse and respiration) it doesn't matter if the head injury was visible or not.