Why Patsy: What incriminates her most. One sentence only.

[tipper]

I think it's verrrrrrryyyyyyy interesting both Wecht and Hodges wrote several books (which LW ignored and didn't even bother to comment on, much less sue). Both have similar opinions in which they believe both Ramseys are involved and JonBenet was sexual abused most likely in an incest situation.

My recollection is that the statute of limitations had expired on Wecht's book before the Ramseys hired Wood. He said on (I think) the Today Show that had he been their lawyer from earlier on, there would have been many more lawsuits. I don't know whether Hodges is worth a lawsuit. What are his assets?

I can only find the one book on JonBenet by Wecht. What other ones did he write about this case?

 

[vicktor]

Looking waaaaay back, the initial suspect was John Ramsey. Linda Arndt was there...she heard and saw things we still don't know about and she was terrified of John.

I think the only role Patsy has had was in the cover-up and declinations of being JB's murderer.

So Linda Arndt who was in charge of the crime scene is afraid of John, the corporate CEO. She isn't able to secure the crime scene, allowing guests to mingle and contaminate rooms. Then to further violate accepted procedures, she has John and Fleet search without her assistance. ( what was she doing, instructing guests on the proper way to answer a telephone call?) Reading between the lines, in 20 min. John was probably put off by her lack of experience and ability and began to work around her. Someone who had taken burglary reports and maybe arrested a couple of unruly drunk drivers, in her police career. In a TV interview she related an meaningful observation that Patsy looked at her thru spread fingers at one point. Then she said that after John found JB he glared angrily at her, leaving her thinking she might have to shoot him. What? Sounds like an officer overwhelmed and not in charge of her assignment.(Considering that it was a high profile crime, the BPD should have sent at least 1 other officer.)

 

[gretchen]

I never saw the pineapple

I never bought the pineapple

I never cut up the pineapple

I know nothing about the pineapple, except it was served with the wrong spoon.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Oh so true TLynn.

 

[Britt]

John had to be involved in it...after all he didn't try to stop Patsy from calling over upteen million friends...

Exactly, Show Me, and in typical John Ramsey fashion, he threw another person (in this case, Patsy) between himself and an action.

I think it's verrrrrrryyyyyyy interesting both Wecht and Hodges wrote several books (which LW ignored and didn't even bother to comment on, much less sue). Both have similar opinions in which they believe both Ramseys are involved and JonBenet was sexual abused most likely in an incest situation.

Exactamundo. The silence is deafening.

IMO Patsy killed JB and John was molesting JB and participated in the cover-up. But notice how he did all he could to keep all his options open, especially that first morning. He helped Patsy, thereby securing her loyalty, while doing all he could to stay off the cops' radar -- he didn't make the 911 call; he didn't touch the note -- letting the police find all the evidence pointing to Patsy, even helpfully handing them her notepad. He probably figured her arrest was imminent... and feeling secure in her loyalty (since he'd helped her cover, and SHE was the killer, after all), he lawyered up his side of the family and prepared to play dumb, clueless hubby for the cops. IMO.

IOW, he intended to get away with the cover-up, but just in case it didn't fly, he was protecting himself. He did all he could to make sure HIS contributions to the cover-up were invisible. IMO not because he killed JB and framed Patsy... but because SHE killed her and since he was the molester he had to make sure Patsy didn't turn on him.

My recollection is that the statute of limitations had expired on Wecht's book before the Ramseys hired Wood. He said on (I think) the Today Show that had he been their lawyer from earlier on, there would have been many more lawsuits.

Someone better explain to Wood that the clients hire the lawyers, not the other way around... lol.

I don't know whether Hodges is worth a lawsuit. What are his assets?

Now what was that Ramsey quote again about it being the principle of the thing and not the money? It was in reference to the Thomas suit. Anybody got that quote?

Man, you'd think if doctors are publishing books and appearing in the media claiming you're a child molester, money would be the least of your considerations.

 

[TLynn]

John doesn't get a pass from me because of the window...

He sees the basement window open about an inch

He closes it but doesn't lock it

Doesn't say anything to anyone - in DOI, he says he got distracted, forgot to mention it.

WHAT BURNS ME - is Smit touts the picture of a WIDE OPEN window as an intruder entry and John doesn't correct him. :furious:

Who's he protecting?! Certainly not the truth.

 

[Show Me]

Yep Britt, strange indeed for the principaled Ramsey. Wecht recently published another book and a section of the book is on JonBenet...is LW watching the book sales closely? Do so many books have to sell, before the publisher is worthy of suing?

TLynn....it burns me up LS decieved everyone about that window.

While looking for clues, John finds a suspicious van in the alley, watches it a few minutes....comes to the incredible conclusion the strange van is 'harmless'....since monitoring kidnappers don't use vans in alleys.

 

[Barbara]

I guess the only MEANINGFUL discussion over at the BB comes from me. When all other avenues of rationale fail, they must bring out the comparisons to other parents, however, there is no comparison. There are only one set of parents of a murder victim deserving of the criticism received and they are the Ramseys.

From Margoo (the "other" Ashley)

Barbara posted, "Any mother who goes on national tv ONE WEEK after the brutal murder of a child and says they want to get on with their lives......... That's enough for me to think she's involved!"
Barbara is totally mistaken. The Ramseys said no such thing. Cabell said it, in a PHRASE, but not in an isolated statement. Barbara (and others just like her) CHOOSE to make this interpretation.

CABELL: They said that they had to get over this five or six days of grieving and burying their daughter, now they want to get on with this new stage of their life, and that is: finding the killer. They wanted to get this off their chest, they want to get this in motion.


Here's what John said and what Erin Runnion said (for which she has NEVER been criticized):

RAMSEY: EarlyPrime, Aired January 1, 1997 - 4:34 p.m. ET
RUNNION: LKL, Aired July 25, 2002 (9 days after Samantha's murder)


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


KING: Don't you bang your fists and say why?
RUNNION: … I try, and every day is better. Every day is better.
KING: It is?
RUNNION: The busyness of all this. We had the quietness, the three days before they found him, but when we knew she was gone. We had those three days to grieve. And then once they found him, it was just an enormous relief.

RUNNION: That's all I could say was, why do they hurt them? Why do they -- you know, if you're sick, you're sick, but why do you have to hurt them, you know? To take your own illness out, to not realize how sick -- what a sickness it is and to hurt children, to realize that this is your problem, not a baby's. That these are human beings who have histories, that have personalities, that have potential that you can never imagine.

To take that away to feed your need, it's an unbelievable selfishness. It's unbelievable.

KING: A lot of people wonder looking at you where the anger is. Is there anger?

RUNNION: I have very little room for anger, very little room. It's all hurt. It's all sadness. And I don't -- I just...

KING: Do you look with hatred on the alleged perpetrator?

RUNNION: I don't. I don't look at him at all. I try not to look at him.

KING: And we were told that you don't even want to discuss what should happen to him.

RUNNION: Absolutely not.

KING: That's -- whatever the authorities want to do, you won't even give them input.

RUNNION: No, no. The district attorney has my complete faith and our judicial process is going to have to do better this time. And I think it will. I think it will.

KING: You didn't watch no television.

RUNNION: No.

~~~~~

People like Barbara (if inclined to be as heartless, mean, and judgmental) would say that it only took Erin Runnion three days to get over the murder of Samantha (to grieve). But, they don't do that to anyone in the way they do that to the Ramseys. They CHOOSE to take the nasty, unkind, heartless route with them and wrap it all up with their lip service, claiming to 'care' about JonBenét and justice. As I've said before, I ain't buyin' that anymore. They don't "care" about anything but making their "point", no matter who is getting hurt along the way. JMO.

Yeah, but Margoo omits how many days did it take for Erin Runnion to speak to the police? Did she set "conditions"? And most important, SHE DID NOT COVER UP (AT THE VERY LEAST) A MURDER

It is unfair to ANY other parents to be compared to the Ramseys. There is not a single parent of a murder victim who wants to be spoken about in the same sentence as the Ramseys. Did any other parent of a murder victim reach out to the Ramseys? I think not.

I'll say it again:

THE RAMSEYS WENT ON LKL ONE WEEK AFTER THE MURDER OF THEIR DAUGHTER, BEFORE SITTING WITH POLICE TO TELL THEIR STORY!

Can you say "red flag"? I can!

Don't you love the "mean, heartless and judgemental" adjectives used to describe me when they are still accusing Fleet White and Helgoth (the dead guy) and countless other innocent people like Priscilla, Santa, etc. (oh yeah, let's not forget the genius who started the "Steve Thomas did it" theories.

What a bunch of morons! (yeah, you Margoo/Mibro)

 

[Seeker]

I think we should e-mail the server and complain about stolen copywritten posts.

Many signature lines here say the posts are NOT TO BE COPIED TO ANY OTHER FORUM. A clear violation of copywrite law.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

So Linda Arndt who was in charge of the crime scene is afraid of John, the corporate CEO. She isn't able to secure the crime scene, allowing guests to mingle and contaminate rooms. Then to further violate accepted procedures, she has John and Fleet search without her assistance. ( what was she doing, instructing guests on the proper way to answer a telephone call?) Reading between the lines, in 20 min. John was probably put off by her lack of experience and ability and began to work around her. Someone who had taken burglary reports and maybe arrested a couple of unruly drunk drivers, in her police career. In a TV interview she related an meaningful observation that Patsy looked at her thru spread fingers at one point. Then she said that after John found JB he glared angrily at her, leaving her thinking she might have to shoot him. What? Sounds like an officer overwhelmed and not in charge of her assignment.(Considering that it was a high profile crime, the BPD should have sent at least 1 other officer.)

So Linda Arndt who was in charge of the crime scene is afraid of John, the corporate CEO. She isn't able to secure the crime scene, allowing guests to mingle and contaminate rooms. Then to further violate accepted procedures, she has John and Fleet search without her assistance. ( what was she doing, instructing guests on the proper way to answer a telephone call?) Reading between the lines, in 20 min. John was probably put off by her lack of experience and ability and began to work around her. Someone who had taken burglary reports and maybe arrested a couple of unruly drunk drivers, in her police career. In a TV interview she related an meaningful observation that Patsy looked at her thru spread fingers at one point. Then she said that after John found JB he glared angrily at her, leaving her thinking she might have to shoot him. What? Sounds like an officer overwhelmed and not in charge of her assignment.(Considering that it was a high profile crime, the BPD should have sent at least 1 other officer.)

Ned: Point is that Linda Ardnt observed a father that had just brought his brutally murdered stiff child up from the basement, and instead of shedding tears, he GLARED at detective Ardnt to the point it made her feel uncomfortable enough to count her bullets. Sounds to me her basic instints took over and instead of observing what should have been a natural reaction from John, she was met with anger from a father whose next move was to get on the phone and call for his pilot. Every reaction from these parents from the start was ABNORMAL. I am sick of hearing that everyone reacts to situations differently. NO ONE that is INNOCENT of a crime would even DREAM of phoning their pilot 30 minutes after carrying their DEAD child up from their basement. AT THAT MOMENT, HANDCUFFS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SLAPPED ON BOTH OF THEIR WRISTS.

 

[vicktor]

Ned: Point is that Linda Ardnt observed a father that had just brought his brutally murdered stiff child up from the basement, and instead of shedding tears, he GLARED at detective Ardnt to the point it made her feel uncomfortable enough to count her bullets. Sounds to me her basic instints took over and instead of observing what should have been a natural reaction from John, she was met with anger from a father whose next move was to get on the phone and call for his pilot.

Maybe John's reaction was frustration and anger that the BPD and FBI couldn't save his daughter. He could have expressed this, covering his feelings of loss and sadness. Could be that most men would be distraught, but maybe he was in a blame mode.

 

[Britt]

Maybe John's reaction was frustration and anger that the BPD and FBI couldn't save his daughter. He could have expressed this, covering his feelings of loss and sadness. Could be that most men would be distraught, but maybe he was in a blame mode.

Maybe. And maybe that justification would be more believable if he hadn't suggested "it has to be an inside job" after offering up as many "inside" suspects as he could think of. Why wasn't he directing his hostility their way? Nope. He was aiming the ol' evil eye at Arndt because he knew that she knew.

Ned - right on

 

[gretchen]

The Ramseys appearing on CNN for an interview one week after their daughter's brutal murder just really blows my mind.

 

[Texana]

The pineapple is the one thing that the Ramseys have not offered a plausible explanation for, and so, it points to them.

Everything else--what is a glare, what is not--who did the ransom note, who did not--who would have woken their son--would not--is all subject for back and forth debate.

The pineapple remains the single piece of evidence pointing towards the Ramsey parents or someone who knew Jon-Benet very, very well. In which case, the Ramseys would have "given up" that person.

But as my infrequent posts have said, the contamination of the crime scene ruins all.

 

[BrotherMoon]

The pineapple is the one thing that the Ramseys have not offered a plausible explanation for, and so, it points to them.

The pineapple remains the single piece of evidence pointing towards the Ramsey parents or someone who knew Jon-Benet very, very well. In which case, the Ramseys would have "given up" that person.

To Sandy the unfamiliar pineapple had the authentic taste and appearence of happiness ... TPOMJB

But as my infrequent posts have said, the contamination of the crime scene ruins all.

For court proceedings, yes, not for general knowledge.

 

[newtv]

You guys are good- thx to those who were able to keep it short-cuz it allows a reader to learn vs observe arguments..there is a lot of evidence and information that I do not recall being told by talking heads even- I am much more suspicious and thinking critically about them than ever before- but mostly wanted to say that you guys are impressive in what you know..I am kinda that way with the Laci case so I am open to believing you - I would never be close minded about a murde case-the only one I wont change my view on is scott peterson- no way that guy is innocent..and if the ramseys were involved in ths they will lead a hellish life-i really believe you pay a price somewhere- we the observers do not get to see it usually- but their lives cannot be easy being the OJ's of the white upper middle class - thank u for everything u do for justice,.:blowkiss:

 

[wenchie]

I believe that Jonbenet was killed by her mother in a rage, and that her father knows but is either in deep denial, or won't speak up because he was complicit in some way.

And...I do believe that they have more than enough evidence to have brought them to trial, and it's frustrating that they never did and probably never will.

That being said, am I the only one who noticed that her murder resembled an ancient Celtic pagan ritual.....in that she was given a ritual meal, hit on the head, garotted, and laid gently in a deep, dark place with the rope still around her neck and hands?

 

[LinasK]

What inciriminates her the most is the ransom note...

 

[BrotherMoon]

That being said, am I the only one who noticed that her murder resembled an ancient Celtic pagan ritual.....in that she was given a ritual meal, hit on the head, garotted, and laid gently in a deep, dark place with the rope still around her neck and hands?

Nope. (Celtic pagan is redundant.) She was sacrificed.

 

[twizzler333]

The pineapple is the one thing that the Ramseys have not offered a plausible explanation for, and so, it points to them.

Everything else--what is a glare, what is not--who did the ransom note, who did not--who would have woken their son--would not--is all subject for back and forth debate.

The pineapple remains the single piece of evidence pointing towards the Ramsey parents or someone who knew Jon-Benet very, very well. In which case, the Ramseys would have "given up" that person.

But as my infrequent posts have said, the contamination of the crime scene ruins all.

funny this should happen to me this morning.....I got up and found a bowl of cereal half eaten on the table. Asked my daughters when they decided to eat again last night. There were just non-chalant about it, "I guess late last night, why?" I told them no reason, just wondering because I didn't hear them get up. So is this something unusual for a child to do, get up in the middle of the night, fix a little snack and leave the remnants out for mom to clean up? Now, had I not been reading how everyone thinks this pineapple was sooooo significant, I probably would have just picked up the bowl, taken it to the dishwasher, whatever, no big deal. But since it apparently it is a big deal for a child to have had a snack without mom's knowledge, all of the sudden I noticed this cereal today. I just don't get it. What is the big deal about the pineapple?

I think if I had woke up this morning, found a ransome note stating my child would be killed, etc....I first of all would be hysterically calling my family down the street to get over here, then I would have called 911 and proceeded from there. And if someone wanted to know later that day after they found my murdered child in my basement why there was cereal on the table with her fingerprints and mine on it, would I think clearly at that precise moment? I don't think so. I could have been so distraught throughout the day worrying about my child, I could have easily sat down at that table, deep in my thoughts as to where my child was and was my child okay, etc, that I may have inadvertantly touched the bowl or whatever else may be lying on the table at that time. I mean, a pen could be lying there and I may in my moments of nervous energy caused by the anxiety and stress of having a missing child, pick the pen up and twist it through my hands or something. All of these things happening DO NOT point to guilt. What would you do? Really just put yourself in that place and imagine your life as it is right now and think of what you would REALLY do in reality.

I would glare at the stupid detective too, if I found my child down in the basement like that and brought her up. I would be so sickened by the fact that all they did was search ever-so-lightly through my house for any clues to help find my child, and then find out she was there the whole time, when had they done a thorough search they would have found her and not contaminated the crime scene, etc. I just have a problem with these theories.

I have seen where the Ramsey's could not have possibly written the RN, then there are other sites thaty claim they absolutely did without a doubt. What IS the truth here? Are we just going on some heresay, or are all of these facts? Where do we see the facts? I would love to see them myself.

I just want to know, like everyone else, the truth, and I have a hard time seeing the "facts" that point to the Ramsey's.

 

[Show Me]

Twizzler: The Ramsey's denied feeding JonBenet pineapple, and pineapple was found in her stomach. Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl. How could JonBenet fix herself the pineapple and not leave a fingerprint? The Ramsey's deny feeding JonBenet pineapple, which is the last thing she ate and the Whites did not serve it earlier. Patsy said she didn't recognize the pineapple bowl and wouldn't serve it that way. Did the killer have plenty of time in the kitchen to prepare fresh pineapple that night? Amazing all the things the kidnapper was supposed to do and all we have to go on is degraded DNA.

John IMMEDIATELY brought JonBenet up from the basement....wasn't he concern she was injured? No shaking her to wake her up...just 'ripped' off the unsticky duct tape and took her upstairs.

If my child had been kidnapped by 'monitoring' kidnappers who were watching my every move...the LAST thing I'd want would be tons of people over. AND I'd stay on the 911 line and sure as heck tell the operator the kidnappers are watching and for the police to be careful coming over.