The actual vs. desired outcome

[JMO8778]

You started this thread Holdon. How is it you think anyone could know what the desired outcome was? That question can never be answered so this topic is kind of hard to take seriously. Maybe there are some writers monitoring this thread and they are looking for ideas????? That's the only reason I can think of for starting a thread like this.

good thought

 

[Ames]

Wasn't quite sure what thead to post this on...but, over on FFJ awhile back, the subject of Patsy heading down for coffee the morning of the 26th came up...and that's when she found the note. Another poster, I believe it was Rashomon, asked if Patsy mentioned the coffee in ANY of her police interview. She didn't...but she did mention it in a CNN interview. Now why is that? I can post a link to that CNN interview, if needed.

 

[Ames]

Its on THIS board, not FFJ....post #413 on the "PR INTERVIEW" thread. It was RiverRat, not Rash...that I discussed this with.

RiverRat...I found the transcript of the CNN Interview that you were referring to.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/11/slain....ranscript.html

From Patsy's own mouth...


RAMSEY, P: I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing I -- I just gotten up. We were on our -- it was the day after Christmas, and we were going to go visiting, and it was quite early in the morning, and I had got dressed and was on my way to the kitchen to make some coffee, and we have a back staircase from the bedroom areas, and I always come down that staircase, and I am usually the first one down. And the note was lying across the -- three pages -- across the run of one of the stair treads, and it was kind of dimly lit. It was just very early in the morning, and I started to read it, and it was addressed to John. It said "Mr. Ramsey," And it said, "we have your daughter." And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. I can't -- "we have your daughter." and I don't know if I got any further than that. And I immediately ran back upstairs and pushed open her door, and she was not in her bed, and I screamed for John. "




RiverRat...I have went back and looked at all of PR interviews with investigators...and I didn't see no mention of making coffee in any of them, either. I believe that this is something that she made up, just to have a reason to head downstairs...therefore finding the note. But, as you can see...from another post above, that I made regarding an article from Vanity Fair...she has told three different versions...two of them she told to the same person.. French.

 

[BOESP]

Its on THIS board, not FFJ....post #413 on the "PR INTERVIEW" thread. It was RiverRat, not Rash...that I discussed this with.

RiverRat...I found the transcript of the CNN Interview that you were referring to.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/11/slain....ranscript.html

....

Ames, I find John's statement odd (from above interview, transcript dated 1 January 1997):

"RAMSEY, J: ... let them know that we are healing ... But the other -- the other reason is that -- for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened."

He sure jumped through the five steps of grief awfully quickly. I believe this sets a record that at minimum usually takes the bereaved several months to go through and usually up to two years to complete. It is unusual for a parent of a dead child to say "we now have to find out why this happened." Most parents five days after the homicide would be interested in finding out WHO did it and be in the anger stage. Patsy did add they wanted to find the killer too but the grief cat was already out of the bag.

Wanting to know why it happened is an interesting statement. The entire interview is a bizarre particularly since it is less than a week after JonBenet died.

 

[Solace]

Ames, I find John's statement odd (from above interview, transcript dated 1 January 1997):

"RAMSEY, J: ... let them know that we are healing ... But the other -- the other reason is that -- for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened."

He sure jumped through the five steps of grief awfully quickly. I believe this sets a record that at minimum usually takes the bereaved several months to go through and usually up to two years to complete. It is unusual for a parent of a dead child to say "we now have to find out why this happened." Most parents five days after the homicide would be interested in finding out WHO did it and be in the anger stage. Patsy did add they wanted to find the killer too but the grief cat was already out of the bag.

Wanting to know why it happened is an interesting statement. The entire interview is a bizarre particularly since it is less than a week after JonBenet died.

Not to mention after five days, they are now starting the grieving process. They should be finished with it shortly.

Okay, lets see where I would be if I had found my daughter in the same condition as JB. First of all, my hair would have turned completely white. I would not be on television, because what would be the purpose. She is dead. I would leave it to LE to find her. I would not be much good in front of the camera anyway. And you would not be able to get me there either. I would probably have to dig so deep into my soul just to keep from killing myself and that would be because I had another child. If I did not, I would not care about much.

This interview is a testament to just how full of $h#% these two really are.

 

[BOESP]

... This interview is a testament to just how full of $h#% these two really are.

I agree, Sol! Another truly bizarre comment was Patsy telling JonBenet during that CNN interview that she (Patsy) would be with her (JonBenet) soon. Maybe she was contemplating suicide????

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I agree, Sol! Another truly bizarre comment was Patsy telling JonBenet during that CNN interview that she (Patsy) would be with her (JonBenet) soon. Maybe she was contemplating suicide????

I think she was working the cancer sympathy angle. I don't believe Patsy would commit suicide. I'm reminded of something I read once where someone said to her, "Patsy, you must be going crazy..." and her reply was, "I'm not going crazy for anybody." I think that was the real Patsy - you ain't taking me down without a serious fight, but this cancer I have fought in the very recent past might *sobs daintily*....

After all, what is her legacy for the world? Is it a message of hope and determination for parents of murdered children? Nope. It's a message of inspiration for those battling ovarian cancer. She didn't want to be known as a mother who fought for justice for her murdered child, she wanted to be known as a woman who fought ovarian cancer the best she could.

While that's great and all, what about JonBenet? If her own mother would rather talk about fighting cancer than fighting a child killer in her own website, where does that leave JonBenet?

 

[Ames]

Ames, I find John's statement odd (from above interview, transcript dated 1 January 1997):

"RAMSEY, J: ... let them know that we are healing ... But the other -- the other reason is that -- for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened."

He sure jumped through the five steps of grief awfully quickly. I believe this sets a record that at minimum usually takes the bereaved several months to go through and usually up to two years to complete. It is unusual for a parent of a dead child to say "we now have to find out why this happened." Most parents five days after the homicide would be interested in finding out WHO did it and be in the anger stage. Patsy did add they wanted to find the killer too but the grief cat was already out of the bag.

Wanting to know why it happened is an interesting statement. The entire interview is a bizarre particularly since it is less than a week after JonBenet died.

There is something odd about everyone of their interviews. She has given three different scenarios about what she was doing when she found the note on the stairs. One of which, she told in her interview with investigators, a different one that she told to French, and YET ANOTHER one, going down for coffee...that she told to CNN. Cr@p, they have told so many different stories...that they can't keep them all straight. JB was asleep when John brought her in, no wait...she walked in on her own. John read told three different investigators that he read to JB before she fell asleep (kind of hard to do if she was ALREADY asleep, when he brought her in, don't cha think?), and then he says that HE READ...not that he read to JB...even though he told three different investigators at THREE different times, that he read to JB. Patsy says that she sang to JB too...and then changes her story. John says that he took off her shoes...Patsy said that JB wore boots to the party.....the list goes on and on.

 

[Solace]

I agree, Sol! Another truly bizarre comment was Patsy telling JonBenet during that CNN interview that she (Patsy) would be with her (JonBenet) soon. Maybe she was contemplating suicide????

I took that totally as a ploy for "pity me" I am dying. Totally!!! She had been "cleared" of cancer. And as far as she knew, she had beaten it. It came back in 2002 I believe.

 

[Solace]

I think she was working the cancer sympathy angle. I don't believe Patsy would commit suicide. I'm reminded of something I read once where someone said to her, "Patsy, you must be going crazy..." and her reply was, "I'm not going crazy for anybody." I think that was the real Patsy - you ain't taking me down without a serious fight, but this cancer I have fought in the very recent past might *sobs daintily*....

After all, what is her legacy for the world? Is it a message of hope and determination for parents of murdered children? Nope. It's a message of inspiration for those battling ovarian cancer. She didn't want to be known as a mother who fought for justice for her murdered child, she wanted to be known as a woman who fought ovarian cancer the best she could.

While that's great and all, what about JonBenet? If her own mother would rather talk about fighting cancer than fighting a child killer in her own website, where does that leave JonBenet?

I remember that she said she is not going crazy for anyone. I forget the conversation.

 

[Solace]

There is something odd about everyone of their interviews. She has given three different scenarios about what she was doing when she found the note on the stairs. One of which, she told in her interview with investigators, a different one that she told to French, and YET ANOTHER one, going down for coffee...that she told to CNN. Cr@p, they have told so many different stories...that they can't keep them all straight. JB was asleep when John brought her in, no wait...she walked in on her own. John read told three different investigators that he read to JB before she fell asleep (kind of hard to do if she was ALREADY asleep, when he brought her in, don't cha think?), and then he says that HE READ...not that he read to JB...even though he told three different investigators at THREE different times, that he read to JB. Patsy says that she sang to JB too...and then changes her story. John says that he took off her shoes...Patsy said that JB wore boots to the party.....the list goes on and on.

I was just reading the Bonita papers (for those unfamiliar, they are the notes of the secretary to Assistant DA Hoffman. In it the notes clearly say John said that Burke and Patsy went to bed and he stayed up to read to JonBenet.

Okay, here we go again. Anyone think something funny was going on and they changed the story. I don't see John molesting her, but the autopsy says she has previous injuries. This is all speculation on my part and I hate speculation because there isno answer to it.

I NEED ANOTHER BOOK SOON.

 

[BOESP]

I was just reading the Bonita papers (for those unfamiliar, they are the notes of the secretary to Assistant DA Hoffman. In it the notes clearly say John said that Burke and Patsy went to bed and he stayed up to read to JonBenet.

Okay, here we go again. Anyone think something funny was going on and they changed the story. I don't see John molesting her, but the autopsy says she has previous injuries. This is all speculation on my part and I hate speculation because there isno answer to it.

I NEED ANOTHER BOOK SOON.

In John's earlier interviews (I forget if it was 1997 or 1998) he mentions that he often read to one or both children. Like I said ... I sit on the fence on this one but it hasn't set off my hinky meter yet. I still think John was a philanderer and not a child molestor, but I have nothing but personal opinion to base that on. I've never met him in person but I have watched his interviews (no I am not a masochist ).

I don't know if you were posting here a few months ago when I quoted a very close friend of mine's opinion. She was a regional director for child protective services and spent 25 years in that field. She thought it would be very likely a father would be molesting a daughter and the mother found out. She thought it could apply to the Ramsey case. She was really-really good at her job and I value her opinion highly but I am 50/50 about John.

 

[Solace]

In John's earlier interviews (I forget if it was 1997 or 1998) he mentions that he often read to one or both children. Like I said ... I sit on the fence on this one but it hasn't set off my hinky meter yet. I still think John was a philanderer and not a child molestor, but I have nothing but personal opinion to base that on. I've never met him in person but I have watched his interviews (no I am not a masochist ).

I don't know if you were posting here a few months ago when I quoted a very close friend of mine's opinion. She was a regional director for child protective services and spent 25 years in that field. She thought it would be very likely a father would be molesting a daughter and the mother found out. She thought it could apply to the Ramsey case. She was really-really good at her job and I value her opinion highly but I am 50/50 about John.

Lately there have been posts re John fingering the Whites and the MacReynolds. When I see John on Larry King, he acts about as laid back as one can get and gives the impression that this could never ever happen. Yet, he absolutely is lying when he says Burke was not awake and we woke him at 7:00 that morning. He also says that he and Patsy both checked on Burke to see if he was okay. THERE IS NO WAY THAT BURKE STAYED ASLEEP after they checked on him and you never hear anyone (interviewer)
ask "well Burke stayed asleep when you rushed into his room and turned on the lights?" - because that is what happened according to Burke - he saw them both and John ran out and Patsy was muttering something like Oh God, oh God.. - So John gets away with that also.

So, what did they tell him to make him keep his mouth shut. He leaves the house and asks NO QUESTIONS on the ride except to talk about his new game. Steve Thomas says when detectives tried to talk to him that morning, John immediately came over and said he is going to the White's house and they let him go (unbelievable), but they did. Now I know that IDIs will say how does Thomas know that he was not there. Well hopefully the detectives all speak to each other.

Anyway, my point is that he is ruthless when it comes to naming MacReynolds and his friend Fleet White. Fleet is taking copious notes that morning - it had to flip John out. Patsy tells Thomas in April that she thought Fleet and his wife were acting very strangely.

There is no way they believed that Fleet was acting strangely. HE IS THE ONE WHO SCREAMED CALL AN AMBULANCE. The neighbor Stanton said she heard a child scream around midnight and figured the parents heard it also and so she did not worry about it. She recants later, but I believe she heard it. MY POINT. If she heard her scream, then John heard it and so did Patsy and so did Burke. They had to have.

John does not want them talking to Burke at all. So all three are lying. Burke knows more than he is saying without a doubt - whether he has buried it is another thing.

John in his last interview with Larry King describes Burke as doing great "he is very nice to me". That could mean nothing or it could mean he knows that Burke knows something and is hoping that Burke will stay nice to him. He is manipulative again. Who describes a college kid as doing great, he is very nice to me.

I don't think Burke will ever speak because this case would bring way too much on him - the press would never leave him alone - for that reason alone, he will not speak. It will be interesting to see how he fairs in the next 20 years - I am serious. His subconscious has a great deal to hide.

John is incredibly manipulative and you can see it in his interviews. How about the one where Trish calls up and asks them both why no money has been put into a fund for a camp for children (I Believe) in JonBenet's name. They both have their perennial smiles on their face and it is obvious that Trish is asking them why they are saying one thing and doing another and also she asks about Judge Carnes not having all the discovery and yet made a decision on the case. John quickly says I only heard the first part of the question (and idiot Larry does not fill him in, so he gets away with the Carnes issue) Anyway, Patsy says we have just donated $1,000 to the Fund and smiles. Turns out to be a lie - the money is not put in the fund until weeks later. They are both incredibly manipulative and aftrer this lengthy diatribe of mine - IT IS POSSIBLE THAT JOHN COULD HAVE BEEN MOLESTING JON BENET. It is possible.

Why is John going to back Patsy up on this whole thing? Is it possible that he could actually feel this sorry for her after she did what she did to JonBenet. I guess it could be possible if he did not see any blood at all and so the real horror of what she suffered is not "so" apparent. And I could see him feeling sorry for her and then later learning how severe the wound was, it is too late to say anything.

Or lhe is backing her up because something else happened. This is such a rage killing - I just think it is possible that he could have been molesting her.

I DON'T KNOW.

 

[JMO8778]

In John's earlier interviews (I forget if it was 1997 or 1998) he mentions that he often read to one or both children. Like I said ... I sit on the fence on this one but it hasn't set off my hinky meter yet. I still think John was a philanderer and not a child molestor, but I have nothing but personal opinion to base that on. I've never met him in person but I have watched his interviews (no I am not a masochist ).

I don't know if you were posting here a few months ago when I quoted a very close friend of mine's opinion. She was a regional director for child protective services and spent 25 years in that field. She thought it would be very likely a father would be molesting a daughter and the mother found out. She thought it could apply to the Ramsey case. She was really-really good at her job and I value her opinion highly but I am 50/50 about John.

just curious..did she think that could have caused Patsy to explode and kill JB?

 

[JMO8778]

Lately there have been posts re John fingering the Whites and the MacReynolds. When I see John on Larry King, he acts about as laid back as one can get and gives the impression that this could never ever happen. Yet, he absolutely is lying when he says Burke was not awake and we woke him at 7:00 that morning. He also says that he and Patsy both checked on Burke to see if he was okay. THERE IS NO WAY THAT BURKE STAYED ASLEEP after they checked on him and you never hear anyone (interviewer)
ask "well Burke stayed asleep when you rushed into his room and turned on the lights?" - because that is what happened according to Burke - he saw them both and John ran out and Patsy was muttering something like Oh God, oh God.. - So John gets away with that also.

So, what did they tell him to make him keep his mouth shut. He leaves the house and asks NO QUESTIONS on the ride except to talk about his new game. Steve Thomas says when detectives tried to talk to him that morning, John immediately came over and said he is going to the White's house and they let him go (unbelievable), but they did. Now I know that IDIs will say how does Thomas know that he was not there. Well hopefully the detectives all speak to each other.

Burke was questioned by police at the White's for 41 mins.John says this in DOI,and he also has the nerve to get angry about it,saying that is illegal under Colorado law.
Excuse me????? His daughter is missing,he does not bother to ask him anything himself,and he gets angry when he finds out police asked him questions???

Did I miss something here?????

Or lhe is backing her up because something else happened. This is such a rage killing - I just think it is possible that he could have been molesting her.

I DON'T KNOW.

I do,too.Sometimes I question if it was really all happened over soiling issues/bedwetting.
I sense(d) a lot of evil from Patsy and John both.I wouldn't put anything past either of them.They are not above it,any of it,IMO.

Also John had that mark on his face afterwards.To me that says he got into a scuffle somehow,either between Patsy and JB,trying to get JB away from her,or he got into something w/ Patsy after JB was already dead,perhaps when he found out.

 

[Solace]

just curious..did she think that could have caused Patsy to explode and kill JB?

John, in answering a question about Patsy and what she went through re cancer, said among other things "there is no way you would ever see Patsy in a bikini. She had a scar from her groin all the way up under her breast.

So she is not feeling very sexy. I am not being mean about Patsy, in no way I promise. But she is not feeling very sexy - and well within her rights I might add.

I know the question is for BOESP, but I could see her getting white with rage if something like this happened especially after all she has been through and you are going to do this to me also and with my own child. Sh*% forget Patsy, I could kill him or most definitly maim him severely.

I would pull a Dexter on him and cut the family jewels off.:furious:

 

[Solace]

Burke was questioned by police at the White's for 41 mins.John says this in DOI,and he also has the nerve to get angry about it,saying that is illegal under Colorado law.
Excuse me????? His daughter is missing,he does not bother to ask him anything himself,and he gets angry when he finds out police asked him questions???

Did I miss something here?????
I do,too.Sometimes I question if it was really all happened over soiling issues/bedwetting.
I sense(d) a lot of evil from Patsy and John both.I wouldn't put anything past either of them.They are not above it,any of it,IMO.

You are 1000% right. They are not above it at all. The fact that they can name MacReynolds and Fleet White tells me that they are there to take the light off them. They have their son lying - they say they never talked to him about it - Who the hell do they think they are talking to CrimeLibrary posters?

GOD I NEED TOM MILLER'S BOOK. HE IS GOING TO TELL HOW THE RAMSEYS USED THEIR MONEY TO MANIPULATE AND STAY OUT OF JAIL AND IT IS IN JAPANESE.

IT CAN'T GET MUCH WORSE. I am tempted to start studying Japanese.

 

[JMO8778]

Ames, I find John's statement odd (from above interview, transcript dated 1 January 1997):

"RAMSEY, J: ... let them know that we are healing ... But the other -- the other reason is that -- for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened."

He sure jumped through the five steps of grief awfully quickly. I believe this sets a record that at minimum usually takes the bereaved several months to go through and usually up to two years to complete. It is unusual for a parent of a dead child to say "we now have to find out why this happened." Most parents five days after the homicide would be interested in finding out WHO did it and be in the anger stage. Patsy did add they wanted to find the killer too but the grief cat was already out of the bag.

Wanting to know why it happened is an interesting statement. The entire interview is a bizarre particularly since it is less than a week after JonBenet died.

Seeing as John threw the book at every person he could possibly try to name as a suspect,(he pointed out Jeff Merrick so many time that Thomas finally asked him why John kept bringing up his name), I think he said it in order to frame anyone he could,and esp. with Merrick,as he'd been upset w. John when he worked at AG,saying he would 'bring John down to his knees'.So I suspect he said it in order to point the blame at him,as he later did,(or anyone else he could,for that matter). As in 'we have to find out why this happened' ..and John comes up with, 'Well,Merrick is angry with me and he said xxxxx,so maybe that's why it happened'.

 

[JMO8778]

John, in answering a question about Patsy and what she went through re cancer, said among other things "there is no way you would ever see Patsy in a bikini. She had a scar from her groin all the way up under her breast.

So she is not feeling very sexy. I am not being mean about Patsy, in no way I promise. But she is not feeling very sexy - and well within her rights I might add.

I know the question is for BOESP, but I could see her getting white with rage if something like this happened especially after all she has been through and you are going to do this to me also and with my own child.

Patsy's comment that "JB had to go there" (to heaven) is interesting,IMO,I wonder if by that she meant that one of them had to go (either JR or JB),because the situation was intolerable for her and too much for her to handle,and it sure wasn't going to be John being the one that 'had to go',he was her ticket to continued wealth.Dee dee had a good post saying something similar awhile back.I don't recall which thread,but she said that for both JR and Patsy,it stopped what neither of them could.
Also before she died,she made the comment that 'I guess some things you can't take back',and I wonder if by that she meant she killed JB on purpose,but later regretted it.

 

[UKGuy]

just curious..did she think that could have caused Patsy to explode and kill JB?

JMO8778,

Its either that or JonBenet refused to take part in something that Patsy had already initially approved, so Patsy became enraged?

Personally I reckon this is a homicide resulting from long term molestation, whichever parent did it.

Without the multiple staging and the masking of the sexual assault, I would lean more towards some toileting incident?


.