What do we really know about dec 24 .06

[Brefie]

Im wondering how Patsy celebrates Christmas nowa days[or in Christmases past].Does she have a quite Christmas in rememberence of JBR ,are there any memorials placed in any newspapers,flowers placed on the grave,church masses to pray for JBRs soul,any of that sort of thing.With PRs ongoing illness and the events of 1996 this must be a very depressing time of year for her.

I am sure she has to maintain a holiday feeling for the other kids. For all the faults I believe she has, I am sure she would rather not ruin the major Christian holiday for the others.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't believe for a second that in Patsy's brief scanning of the note, she failed to pick up on any threats against JBR by talking to anyone. It's not like it was a cryptic warning, it was pretty clear. I would also think that a dispatcher should be trained to ask immediately if the note mentions such a warning, don't most of them? I doubt any RDI thinks the police are faultless - if they were, a Ramsey or two would be sitting in jail today.

I am sure she has to maintain a holiday feeling for the other kids. For all the faults I believe she has, I am sure she would rather not ruin the major Christian holiday for the others.

Your posts have some of the most amazing contrast I've ever read. It seems you are in the RDI camp, believing PR viciously and brutally murdered her own 6 year old daughter on Christmas night. It seems you also believe she is also concerned about spoiling the festive moods of others!

What a flip-flop!

My guess is that whoever killed JBR that night, using that garrote, and writing that RN, is a person who couldn't care less about anyone's holiday mood.

 

[Brefie]

Your posts have some of the most amazing contrast I've ever read. It seems you are in the RDI camp, believing PR viciously and brutally murdered her own 6 year old daughter on Christmas night. It seems you also believe she is also concerned about spoiling the festive moods of others!

What a flip-flop!

My guess is that whoever killed JBR that night, using that garrote, and writing that RN, is a person who couldn't care less about anyone's holiday mood.

That's your guess, not mine.

When did I say Patsy killed JBR? I have ALWAYS been one RDI who believed they weren't monsters every waking moment of their lives and pointed out that fact frequently.

So, no flip flop.

 

[Moab]

Im wondering how Patsy celebrates Christmas nowa days[or in Christmases past].Does she have a quite Christmas in rememberence of JBR ,are there any memorials placed in any newspapers,flowers placed on the grave,church masses to pray for JBRs soul,any of that sort of thing.With PRs ongoing illness and the events of 1996 this must be a very depressing time of year for her.

If Patsy is depressed it is because of her cancer, not JBR...she feels she has made her "peace on earth" with THAT CHILD. The Ramseys are characteristically absent from the cemetery in Georgia even though Nedra is there now too...people who want justice for JBR go, but the family hasn't been spotted there in years.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

As much as I think one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet, I could see why they wouldn't be visiting the cemetery all that often. My own father died 5 years ago, is buried twenty miles away, and it simply still hurts too much to visit his grave. I think of him every day, have pictures of him around the house, but standing there next to his grave stone makes me cry horribly. And that's without anyone from a paper wanting to photograph me while I do it.

 

[Rupert]

The stun gun theory has in no way been proven.
Lou Smit was so wrong about other stuff, what makes you think he got that right??
Surely you are not suggesting the Ramsey's had nothing to do with the death of daughter JUST because they are christian's?? That's ridiculous.

Narlacat, I think I've read it all. I've heard alternate theories for the stun gun marks (knitting board, buttons), but they don't seem as good to me as the stun gun. However, truth is stranger than fiction and the reason for those marks might surprise all of us.

I love a mystery and hope that the R's are truly innocent. I keep looking for a theory that would explain all of that. However, someone isn't talking and that seems to be similar to "I don't know" and hiring a lawyer. If RDI, that is so sad. And yes, I have been taken by hypocracy too, so it would really p--- me off if that is the case.

Either it was a very smart perp or weirdest cover up of an accident. If it was an intruder, that intruder would have to have had intimate knowledge. Of that I am sure of.

Just for fun and back to the mystery, any idea of how the RN might have some connections (hints) to the stun gun marks? stunned by the c...?

More likely saved by the cross with a diffuse reference to all sorts of things that out of pure luck confused and still mystifies some of us. If RDI, frankly my hat's off to them for the cover up.

If an intruder did it, let's get 'em. There were some who obviously didn't like the R's.

 

[sissi]

Or did they not like the "business".

I found this, and wondered, was ACCESS listed as an "anti business"??


Posted By: M.A. WAND, OFFICE OF FOREIGN ADMISSIONS, 492-2446
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info
Subject: New directory will list anti-2 businesses
Date: 16 May 93 21:47:55 GMT
Followup-To: [email protected]
Lines: 72


New directory will list anti-2 businesses


Colorado Daily, CU Boulder
May 13, 1993, pg 3


Service has no charge


By Chris Wolf, Staff Writer

 

[deanws]

That's your guess, not mine.

When did I say Patsy killed JBR? I have ALWAYS been one RDI who believed they weren't monsters every waking moment of their lives and pointed out that fact frequently.

So, no flip flop.

I am right there with you Bre. :clap:

 

[sissi]

I guess I should clarify the post two above. In 1993, there was a directory of businesses available for view that were called anti-2. Here is the full article as it appeared in 1993 ,written by Chris Wolf. I question , was Access on this list, on what side of this issue did they sit?

By Chris Wolf, Staff Writer


A directory of Boulder County businesses at least tacitly opposing Amendment 2
is being compiled by a Boulder group formed to oppose Amendment 2. The idea
comes in response to requests from gays, lesbians and bisexuals who live in
Boulder County or are planning to visit, according to a spokeswoman for the
anti-Amendment 2 group.


"When the boycott hit, we got calls from people who still had to come to
Colorado, but didn't want to support people who support Amendment 2," said
Patty Strear, a founder of the Boulder Organization for Non-Discrimination.
Additionally, Strear said, gays, lesbians and bisexuals who live in Boulder
"want to support the people who support them."


In a written statement, BOND announced Monday that it would publish "a direct-
ory of businesses in Boulder County that do not discriminate against employees
or customers on the basis of affectional or sexual orientation." Strear said
the directory will include hundreds of local companies, be free to the public
and will be published by late June.


Strear said Colorado voters' passage of Amendment 2 last November divided the
state between those who would deny some citizens their basic civil rights, and
those who would not. No matter what BOND or any other organization does, she
said, those lines have already been drawn.


"What people are doing now is committing to a policy," she said. "We're just
trying to nail that down a litle more.


"People's consciousness is being raised by Amendment 2; they're starting to
realize that there's a real threat out there to gay people, and Amendment 2 has
blown that wide open."


Strear said the list of Boulder County businesses committing to an
anti-Amendment 2 position has grown since December, when BOND sponsored a
"signature ad" in a local newspaper. She said an initial mailing sought the
participation in the directory of 470 local businesses, and a second mailing is
being planned. Participating businesses will receive a window decal, she said,
and directory users should look for the decal.


The mailing included a cover letter and a "Statement of Non-Discrimination" for
business owners to fill out and sign. A signed statement would affirm that the
business "is committed to equal treatment of employees ad customers without
regard to affectional or sexual orientation," and that "no employee that
complains about such discrimnation or harassment will be retaliated against in
any way."


The letter to business owners reads, in part: "BOND is an organization that is
working to promote equal civil rights for gay people, and to confront
discrimination based on real or perceived affectional or sexual orientation.
We believe that society benefits when people and businesses accept diversity
and treat each other with dignity.


"We don't expect businesses to tell their employees what to think or feel in
their personal lives. Rather, we want to encourage them to create an
environment in which no employee demeans or degrades another employee or
customer. We expect any organization which signs our statement to find their
own way to resolve any problems that do occur."


-end of article-

 

[Rupert]

Sissy,
You're a good sleuther.

So, to be clear, if you sign non-discriminatory, you get a logo decal from Bond certifying that you are for equal rights. If Access got the logo and some redneck didn't like it, he murdered JBR. I think that's unlikely and doesn't seem to connect.

If Access did not get the logo, then how would anyone single them out? Doesn'y seem to fit either.

That CW wrote the article is interesting, but it doesn't connect him or anti-2 to Access that I can see. Nice try, maybe there is something else there?

If IDI, indeed then the motive would explain everything. That motive could be very obscure, but when found out, very enlightening. However, I am just getting exhausted looking at all the intracies of IDI and (sorry to say) starting to fall into the RDI camp.

Keep on sleuthing, who know's?

 

[sissi]

John Ramsey recently ran for office on an anti- abortion, anti-gay rights platform, from this we can guess where his business stood with amend-2.
The original post, came from the "office of foreign admissions" at CU.
I am trying to get a "feel" for the origin of the wording in the ransom note.
"foreign faction, respect your business, not the country it serves" are the phrases I'm currently "playing with"
I keep going back to a student, one with knowledge of area politics, very much including the political sentiments of Ward Churchill and, possibly, those of the gay campus community. Finding this intruder will be most difficult, especially if he is foreign. Maybe the dna can be "classified by race" as in the Chase case, making this a little easier? I believe, based on the misinformation that was fed to us by the BPD through media releases, that once we "chuck" that, there is nothing to indicate a Ramsey was involved.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sissy,
You're a good sleuther.

So, to be clear, if you sign non-discriminatory, you get a logo decal from Bond certifying that you are for equal rights. If Access got the logo and some redneck didn't like it, he murdered JBR. I think that's unlikely and doesn't seem to connect.

If Access did not get the logo, then how would anyone single them out? Doesn'y seem to fit either.

That CW wrote the article is interesting, but it doesn't connect him or anti-2 to Access that I can see. Nice try, maybe there is something else there?

If IDI, indeed then the motive would explain everything. That motive could be very obscure, but when found out, very enlightening. However, I am just getting exhausted looking at all the intracies of IDI and (sorry to say) starting to fall into the RDI camp.

Keep on sleuthing, who know's?

The motive's not that obscure.

The intruder didn't kill a full grown man or a dog. He tied up and murdered a six year old blond hair blue-eyed American girl who is a contestant in child beauty pageants. He left writing at the scene that identified fat cats and the US as undesirable. The apparent motives are clearly personal gratification and possible revenge against fat cats that work in businesses that serve the US.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

That works unless, like me, you believe that ransom nor=te was completely bogus, just a distraction from the real crime.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That works unless, like me, you believe that ransom nor=te was completely bogus, just a distraction from the real crime.

Hey Nuisance,

If JBR was found in a park with her exact same injuries, the crime would have the appearance of a sexual assault and murder. The motive for the sexual assault would appear to be personal gratification and/or revenge, and the motive for murder would seem to prevent JBR from becoming a witness.

Change the location from the park to the R's basement, and the motives become less clear. Everything then is opened up to wild speculation, and scandal (which sells, BTW).

An intruder's motives of personal gratification, revenge, and to prevent JBR from talking is a reality-based scenario.

An otherwise caring family member's sudden motivation based on an 'accident coverup' or 'fit of rage' contradicts the evidence because black duct tape and cord were only found on JBR, but were not found in the residence, and therefore suggests premeditation.

 

[why_nutt]

If JBR was found in a park with her exact same injuries, the crime would have the appearance of a sexual assault and murder.

I think that is questionable. JonBenet had an injury to her vaginal opening, true, but it was very small, only existing at what was called the seven o'clock position. It was not a brutal injury with lacerations and abrasions to the whole of her vagina, as is common with sexual assaults. And her labia, both the majora and minora, were completely untouched, no scrapes, no bruises, no abrasions, not a drop of blood or fluid on them. If she was assaulted, how did her attacker manage to inflict a small injury to one part of the inside of her vaginal opening, but not to all of it? This is to some extent why I also tend to doubt the paintbrush-handle theory of attack. The handle was round. How did only one segment of it scrape against JonBenet, but not all of it? I can imagine how this could happen if JonBenet were unconscious and her attacker bothered to put her up on a table, and v e r y c a r e f u l l y and gently insert the handle just a little bit, but come on, how realistic is that scenario?

On the other hand, if JonBenet were feeling itchy Down There because of some small irritation (and goodness knows she had many of those), well, she was a little girl, and little girls scratch where it itches and have no particular desire to avoid that. My own opinion is that the abrasion inside JonBenet was inflicted by her own hand, the famous birefringent material being a flake of nail polish from JonBenet's finger. Why not? Can anyone make a reasonable, rational case that JonBenet could never have been the person who abraded her own insides? Her fingers were small, it would explain why the abrasion is so small.

An otherwise caring family member's sudden motivation based on an 'accident coverup' or 'fit of rage' contradicts the evidence because black duct tape and cord were only found on JBR, but were not found in the residence, and therefore suggests premeditation.

Come on, now. On December 23rd, there were many gingerbread houses at the Ramsey address. On December 24th, there were none. Does that mean that the Ramseys never bought a bunch of gingerbread houses? Of course not. Tape and cord, like food, they are consumables, they get used up, there is no proof that the tape and cord could not have been in the house before they were used up on JonBenet. One of the great lost opportunities on the part of investigators was not to force Patsy to account for the purchases she made at McGuckin's hardware store. She said she did not buy cord and tape there. Well, then what did she buy? She spent almost a hundred dollars there on December 9th, after having spent forty-six dollars there just a week before. It is awfully hard to spend almost one hundred and fifty dollars in a hardware store unless you are buying large and expensive equipment, which she did not do. The store did not sell food. It did not sell clothing. So, of the things that appeared on the receipt which were priced the same as tape, what were they, if not tape? This ought to be an easy question to answer. Surely she did not buy a hundred dollars' worth of AA batteries.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think that is questionable. JonBenet had an injury to her vaginal opening, true, but it was very small, only existing at what was called the seven o'clock position. It was not a brutal injury with lacerations and abrasions to the whole of her vagina, as is common with sexual assaults. And her labia, both the majora and minora, were completely untouched, no scrapes, no bruises, no abrasions, not a drop of blood or fluid on them. If she was assaulted, how did her attacker manage to inflict a small injury to one part of the inside of her vaginal opening, but not to all of it? This is to some extent why I also tend to doubt the paintbrush-handle theory of attack. The handle was round. How did only one segment of it scrape against JonBenet, but not all of it? I can imagine how this could happen if JonBenet were unconscious and her attacker bothered to put her up on a table, and v e r y c a r e f u l l y and gently insert the handle just a little bit, but come on, how realistic is that scenario?

On the other hand, if JonBenet were feeling itchy Down There because of some small irritation (and goodness knows she had many of those), well, she was a little girl, and little girls scratch where it itches and have no particular desire to avoid that. My own opinion is that the abrasion inside JonBenet was inflicted by her own hand, the famous birefringent material being a flake of nail polish from JonBenet's finger. Why not? Can anyone make a reasonable, rational case that JonBenet could never have been the person who abraded her own insides? Her fingers were small, it would explain why the abrasion is so small.



Come on, now. On December 23rd, there were many gingerbread houses at the Ramsey address. On December 24th, there were none. Does that mean that the Ramseys never bought a bunch of gingerbread houses? Of course not. Tape and cord, like food, they are consumables, they get used up, there is no proof that the tape and cord could not have been in the house before they were used up on JonBenet. One of the great lost opportunities on the part of investigators was not to force Patsy to account for the purchases she made at McGuckin's hardware store. She said she did not buy cord and tape there. Well, then what did she buy? She spent almost a hundred dollars there on December 9th, after having spent forty-six dollars there just a week before. It is awfully hard to spend almost one hundred and fifty dollars in a hardware store unless you are buying large and expensive equipment, which she did not do. The store did not sell food. It did not sell clothing. So, of the things that appeared on the receipt which were priced the same as tape, what were they, if not tape? This ought to be an easy question to answer. Surely she did not buy a hundred dollars' worth of AA batteries.

Every year before Christmas I buy 50 dollars worth of batteries. I only have one child and very few decorations that require them. Considering the Ramsey's had two young children I don't think buying a ton pf batteries is all that excessive.

I do think Patsy bought everything that was used that night.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You've quite an imagination, whynut, but you're way off.

If you found a 6 year old girl in the park with JBR's injuries, would you think she was murdered for her jewelry?

JBR could have been sexually assaulted without leaving related physical injuries. There's not necessarily a causal relationship between sexual assault and physical injury.

 

[why_nutt]

JBR could have been sexually assaulted without leaving related physical injuries. There's not necessarily a causal relationship between sexual assault and physical injury.

You are trying to have it both ways, then. You claim that JonBenet's injuries, if her body had been found in a park, would have compelled a theory of sexual assault. But then you reverse that and say that sexual assault may leave no injuries.

Let us go with your premise that sexual assault may leave no marks. Now, how do you prove that John and/or Patsy never assaulted JonBenet, according to Dr. Beuf's observations?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You are trying to have it both ways, then. You claim that JonBenet's injuries, if her body had been found in a park, would have compelled a theory of sexual assault. But then you reverse that and say that sexual assault may leave no injuries.

Let us go with your premise that sexual assault may leave no marks. Now, how do you prove that John and/or Patsy never assaulted JonBenet, according to Dr. Beuf's observations?

My claim that JBR's injuries compel a theory of sexual assault were in reference to JBR's injuries to her neck and wrists, not her personal injuries to which so much crass verbage is dedicated. JBR's head injury alone may suggest she fell at the park. Add the garrote neck injury and wrist ligature injuries, and it instantly changes to a criminal sexual assault and murder scenario, even without any personal injuries.

 

[Linda7NJ]

:waitasec: But was she found in the park with a RANSOM NOTE tacked to a nearby tree written on paper taken from her own home?