Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

[Deleted member 39678]

The issue arises when members post their links and sources and studies and are told they aren't credible, or they are an agenda, or they are biased. That is when people become defensive. The original question isn't offensive.

That just means they don't agree with some of the conclusions that others may have. Being biased or having an agenda may be a legitimate concern.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Evidence that the logo on a 9 year olds shoe would be the same as the size found in the basement would be helpful

Ya know what would have really been helpful....?

Cooperation from the Ramsey's. Instead all we have are lies, misdirection and deliberate attempts to mislead investigators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Evidence that the logo on a 9 year olds shoe would be the same as the size found in the basement would be helpful

Chewy,
James Kolar claims that BR opened Christmas gifts on Christmas Day, these are described in forensic terms as: Partially Opened Gifts.

These gifts were allegedly located in the wine-cellar according to PR, hence BR's footprint being present?

.

 

[Chewy]

That just means they don't agree with some of the conclusions that others may have. Being biased or having an agenda may be a legitimate concern.

Exactly, especially when there's not evidence being discussed and obviouus bias towards the parents.

The missing duct tape is blown off as irrelevant because "the cops didn't search the house" but then the missing underwear is proof!! :drumroll::drumroll:

 

[DeDee]

Hinky meters guide the investigation they don't count as evidence


She was tasered, where did they hide it? Where is the duct tape roll?


These are thing that bother me that it seems like people just ignore since it doesn't support their pet theory

The evidence observed by police at the scene strongly suggests that the attack came from someone outside the house; for instance:

1. A footprint made by a Hi-Tec stamped hiking boot was found in the concrete dust of the wine cellar. The boot has not been connected to any of the Ramseys or to the 400 people or more who have been to the Ramsey house.
   
2. An unidentified palm print was found on the door of the wine cellar. It does not belong to John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey.
   
3. A pubic hair was found on the blanket in which JonBenet was wrapped. It does not belong to John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey.
   
4. A piece of broken glass was found under a basement window. The window was open and the sill showed signs of disturbance.
   
5. There was a scuff-mark on the basement wall below the window. Someone had to have climbed in or out of this window (however, no footprints were found outside the window).
   
6. The duct tape and the cord used in the murder were not found in the Ramsey house. The offender must have brought them in and taken them out when he/she left the house after the murder.

Just ignoring questions is not objective.

Chewy, you are looking at very outdated information.

I may be one of the few on this forum who suspects a taser gun was used on JBR the night she died and, on occasion, prior to.

1. The HiTech boot print could have been a PO or Burke also owned a pair of HiTech's only his size was a youth 12 1/2. The print is an 8 1/2.

2. Two palm prints on the cellar door belong to Patsy. The third palm print was ID as belonging to Melinda Ramsey.

3. After further testing, it was determined that the hair was an ancillary hair belonging to Patsy Ramsey. "12/26/96 One pubic or auxiliary hair found on the white blanket in wine cellar - Pubic hair reportedly belonged to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial dna testing (FoxNews2002)"

4. Read whatever about research you can find re: the window and broken glass. There was no intruder.

5. The scuff mark on the wall is interesting since the Rs recently had the basement painted.

6. The duct tape and nylon cord do not necessarily remain unsourced. It is fairly obvious that Patsy purchased both items in December 1996 at McGluckin's. Much time and effort went into tracking down these 2 items. If premed, PR disposed of the excess prior to the 26th.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

OMO

 

[Chewy]

Chewy,
James Kolar claims that BR opened Christmas gifts on Christmas Day, these are described in forensic terms as: Partially Opened Gifts.

These gifts were allegedly located in the wine-cellar according to PR, hence BR's footprint being present?

.

Fantastic ! Where was the boot?

 

[Chewy]

Chewy, you are looking at very outdated information.

I may be one of the few on this forum who suspects a taser gun was used on JBR the night she died and, on occasion, prior to.

1. The HiTech boot print could have been a PO or Burke also owned a pair of HiTech's only his size was a youth 12 1/2. The print is an 8 1/2.

2. Two palm prints on the cellar door belongs to Patsy. The third palm print was ID as belonging to Melinda Ramsey.

3. After further testing, it was determined that the hair was an ancillary hair belonging to Patsy Ramsey. "12/26/96 One pubic or auxiliary hair found on the white blanket in wine cellar - Pubic hair reportedly belonged to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial dna testing (FoxNews2002)"

4. Read whatever about research you can find re: the window and broken glass. There was no intruder.

5. The scuff mark on the wall is interesting since the Rs recently had the basement painted.

6. The duct tape and nylon cord do not necessarily remain unsourced. It is fairly obvious that Patsy purchased both items in December 1996 at McGluckin's. Much time and effort went into tracking down these 2 items. If premed, PR disposed of the excess prior to the 26th.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

OMO

Thank you!:loveyou::loveyou::loveyou::loveyou::loveyou:

 

[MyBelle]

Burke owned hi-tech boots

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249
So again, this contradicts other information that some of the LE in the house that day DID wear that type of shoe. I believe Kolar mentioned this, didn't he?
PMPT was released October 18, 1999 and while Schiller obviously did extensive research, he did not have access to the case file, (at least not directly ) and, of course, Kolar did.

During their initial processing of the home, the Wine Cellar was examined in detail, and investigators noted the imprint of the poon of a boot in some mildew on the floor next to where JonBenét’s body had been concealed. It was from a “Hi-Tec” brand hiking style boot, and there appeared to be another partial boot or shoeprint impression nearby.
The poon of the boot was insufficiently distinguishable for comparison purposes, however. More specifically, there was nothing in the label of the boot impression that would help match it to another boot because of a wear pattern or other irregularity. Its presence in the cellar could only illustrate that at some point in time, perhaps days or months prior to the discovery of JonBenét’s body, someone wearing a Hi-Tec boot had stood in that room.
Foreign Faction: Who really kidnapped JonBenet? Pages 47, 48

Agent Walker had accompanied Sgt. Mason to the basement to inspect the Wine Cellar after the discovery of JonBenét’s body. He had been wearing a pair of Hi-Tec hiking boots at the time, and it was thought that the poon of his boot could have been responsible for the intruder’s footwear impression in the mold of that room.
Though I hadn’t read the reports yet, Trujillo told me that they believed Burke had also owned a pair of Hi-Tec brand hiking boots, and he could have been responsible for the intruder footprint evidence in the Wine Cellar.
BPD investigators had been contacted by a store clerk in Vail who believed Patsy Ramsey had purchased a set of Hi-Tec brand hiking boots before the murder. They had also been told by one of Burke’s playmates that he owned a pair of this brand of boot.
These were significant pieces of information, but didn’t lend themselves to helping investigators identify the exact set of boots responsible for the evidence located in the Wine Cellar. The boots purportedly owned by Burke were never recovered. Moreover, the imprint of the poon of the boot bore no distinguishing wear marks that would have allowed its comparison to any set of boots collected in the investigation.
Foreign Faction: Who really kidnapped JonBenet? Page 227

Burke is also a strong possibility considering the fact that he had recently been in the WC tearing open presents.
I learned, over the course of my inquiry, that it was Burke who had actually been responsible for tearing back the paper of the presents while playing in the basement on Christmas Day, and I wondered why Patsy would claim responsibility for doing this. Patsy had also told investigators that the unwrapped box of Lego toys in the same room was being hidden for Burke’s upcoming January birthday.
Foreign Faction: Who really kidnapped JonBenet? Page 339

Q. We have been provided, and again, one of the sources of this information is confidential grand jury material I can tell you in the question, but we have been provided information from two sources that your son Burke, prior to the murder of your daughter, owned and wore Hi-Tec boots that had a compass on them, which makes them distinctive. Do you recall -- if you don't recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you remember Burke having boots that had a compass on the laces?
A. Vaguely. I don't know if they were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is they were tennis shoes, but that is very vague. He had boots that had lights on them and all sorts of different things.
Q. But you do have some recollection that he had some type of footwear that had compasses attached to them?
A. I don't, I don't specifically remember them, but my impression is that he did, in my mind, yeah. But my impression was that they were tennis shoes.
Q. Sneakers?
A. Sneakers. Yeah. Ask Burke if he remembers it. I said, ask Burke, perhaps he -- well, we could certainly ask Burke.
John Ramsey, 2000 Interview

Q. Have you, whether it was before the interview in 1998 or subsequent to the interview in 1998, have you personally made attempts to find possible sources for the Hi-Tec shoe impression?
A. You mean like ask around if anybody had –
Q. Pick up the phone and call some friends, for example.
A. I didn't, no.
Q. Had you at any time, for example, some of the kids, like the Colby kids ever come over, did you ever go and just pick up the phone or walk across the alley and say, do you guys have Hi-Tec shoes? Did you ever do anything like that?
MR. WOOD: You are assuming she may have learned about it at the time she still lived there. She told you she wasn't sure when she first learned that.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not call the Colbys to ask if their children had –
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Whether it was from Boulder or Atlanta?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. Did you sit down and discuss with Burke at any length whether or not he ever had Hi-Tec shoes?
A. No.
Q. Did it cross your mind that he might be the source of that, for the Hi-Tec shoes?
A. No. Because my understanding was that it was an adult footprint. He was nine years old at the time.
Q. Do you know the source of your belief that it was an adult's foot, footprint?
A. Whoever told me about it or wherever I learned it in the first place.
Q. Did you get any details concerning how much of a shoe impression was present?
A. No. It was just a footprint.
Q. Did you take that to, to be a full footprint, and by that I mean like a shoe, a complete shoe impression?
A. That is what I imagined, yes.
Q. And that, whether you were told that directly or you just assumed that, you believe is the source of your belief that it was an adult's shoe?
A. Yes.
Q. You have been asked about whether or not anyone in your family owns Hi-Tec shoes or ever owned Hi-Tec shoes?
A. Yes.
Q. And I am not restating a question, Mr. Wood. And do you recall you said no one ever did?
A. Yes.
…
Q. Do you recall a period of time, prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on the shoelaces? And if it helps to remember –
A. I can't remember.
Q. Maybe this will help your recollection. They were shoes that were purchased while he was shopping with you in Atlanta.
MR. WOOD: Are you stating that as a fact?
MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as a fact.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Does that help refresh your recollection as to whether he owned a pair of shoes that had compasses on them?
A. I just can't remember, I bought so many shoes for him.
Q. And again, I will provide, I'll say, I'll say this as a fact to you, that, and maybe this will help refresh your recollection, he thought that -- the shoes were special because they had a compass on them, his only exposure for the most part to compasses had been in the plane and he kind of liked the idea of being able to point them different directions. Do you remember him doing that with the shoes?
A. I can't remember the shoes. I remember he had a compass thing like a watch, but I can't remember about the shoes.
Q. You don't remember him having shoes that you purchased with compasses on them?
MR. WOOD: She will tell you that one more time. Go ahead and tell him, and this will be the third time.
THE WITNESS: I can't remember.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Does it jog your memory to know that the shoes with compasses were made by Hi-Tec?
MR. WOOD: Are you stating that as a fact?
MR. LEVIN: Yes. I am stating that as a fact.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know that.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this as a fact. There are two people who have provided us with information, including your son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the murder of your daughter.
MR. WOOD: You are stating that Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec shoes?
21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
MR. WOOD: He used the phrase Hi-Tec?
MR. LEVIN: Yes.
MR. WOOD: When?
MR. LEVIN: I can't, I can't give you the source. I can tell you that I have that information.
MR. WOOD: You said Burke told you.
MR. LEVIN: I can't quote it to you for reasons I am sure, as an attorney, you are aware.
MR. WOOD: Just so it is clear, there is a difference between you saying that somebody said Burke told them and Burke telling you because Burke has been interviewed by you all December of 1996, January of 1997, June of 1998.
Are you saying that it is within those interviews?
MR. LEVIN: No.
MR. WOOD: So he didn't tell you, he told somebody else you are stating as a fact because I don't think you all have talked to him other than those occasions, have you?
MR. KANE: Mr. Wood, we don't want to get into grand jury information.
Okay?
MR. WOOD: Okay.
MR. KANE: Fair enough?
MR. LEVIN: I am sorry, I should have been more direct. I thought you would understand --
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Fleet Junior also says that he (Burke) had Hi-Tec shoes.
…
Q. Okay. Is this the first time that you've heard that Burke says that he had Hi-Tec?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. This is the very first time?
A. Yes.
Q. When you said in your book and then you said at other times too that you didn't own either brand –
MR. WOOD: Hold on. If you have got a reference of the book.
MR. KANE: I'm sorry. Page 232.
MR. WOOD: And then you said at other times, too. Be more specific to it.
MR. KANE: Okay. Well, I will stick to the book.
Q. (By Mr. Kane) But I don't think it is any big secret that you've said that a bunch of times.
16 A. I don't remember –
MR. WOOD: Okay. What is the question?
Q. (By Mr. Kane) When you made that statement in your book -- I mean, maybe I ought to authenticate. You wrote this book, is that –
A. Sure.
MR. WOOD: We are not asking you to authenticate it. We are just asking you to refer us to the page.
Patsy Ramsey, 2000 Interview

Hi-Tec Sports will launch hikers promo
MODESTO, Calif. - Hi-Tec Sports USA will step up the marketing of its new children's outdoor hiking boot with an incentive campaign centered around the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the New World.
The company plans to offer posters, stickers and other amenities as part of a Navigators' Club that children can join when they purchase an item in the new Navigators' series.
Hi-Tec unveiled an outdoor boot called the Columbus as part of the series. The shoe features a compass tied to the laces. It comes in mochaspruce and navy, priced to retail at $44.95.
Hi-Tec will coordinate the club membership in Modesto and will send promotional posters with new orders. Details of the promotion will be offered to children in product boxes.
David Pompel, marketing manager, said he expects the promotion to spur children's sales. He reported company-wide sales for Hi-Tec should grow by 60 percent this year.
"When the kids get something in the box, they get excited," he said. Pompel added that Hi-Tec's rugged outdoor look is growing more popular as children focus on the environment.
"We're getting into department stores where the athletic look is dying. We try to make ties to positive values like recycling and the environment."
Footwear News, July 29, 1991

The Ramseys denied any connection to Hi-Tec footwear until Grand Jury testimony proved otherwise.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the shoeprint was just part of the staging. Depending on when the shoes were purchased, they may not have currently fit BR.

 

[BOESP]

Again it is not "a game " I'm asking for legitimate evidence not gossip and theory.

I don't know of any evidence proving a stun gun was used on JonBenet. I know of opinion both for and against but no proof have I ever found.

Just for the record: a taser and a stun gun are two different weapons. :scared:

 

[DeeDee249]

JR did not need to "go" anywhere to get the mail. The house had a mail slot in the front door. He only needed to walk to his own foyer to get his mail.
Later, Det Arndt later admitted that she "assumed" he "went to get the mail" because she saw him looking through mail. She admitted she had no actual proof he ever left the house. He was unaccounted for for about 2 hours that morning, from about 10 am to noon. That is when many people believe he was in the WC putting the final touches on the crime scene.

 

[Tawny]

DeeDee isn't the only one. Do people think he was napping? Reading Better Homes and Garden magazine?

 

[DeDee]

I don't know of any evidence proving a stun gun was used on JonBenet. I know of opinion both for and against but no proof have I ever found.

Just for the record: a taser and a stun gun are two different devices. :scared:

"Stun guns and Tasers use identical technology to send a current of high voltage, low amperage electricity through the victim."

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/facts_5718684_difference-between-stun-taser-guns.html#ixzz2xPR2ZeXe

"Stun Guns affect the victim's central nervous system. You have to hold the stun gun to the person for 3-7 seconds for it to work effectively. Just touching the person with it will drop them to the ground..."

Two versions of Tasers are M18 and C2.
"Both versions use nitrogen propelled cartridges to fire two electronic probes at a speed of 135 feed per second into the body of an attacker."

http://ezinearticles.com/?Which-Is-The-Difference-Between-A-Stun-Gun-And-A-Taser?&id=785810

BlueCrab post #6 on Oct. 2004 Thread: Was a stun gun used in the crime or not?
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Was a stun gun used in the crime or not

IMO a stun gun was used on JonBenet. The coroner, John Meyer, the only pathologist to examine and measure the injuries on JonBenet's body itself, also agrees (after at first calling the injuries "abrasions" in the autopsy report). On pg 431 of PMPT pb:

"When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun."

I agree with BlueCrab that the stun gun was used on JBR.

The Air Taser 3400 was available in 1996. IIRC, it was available in black, yellow, and pink. The Rs had an opportunity to purchase one while in Coral Gables for the Super Bowl 1995. PR had the bedwetting issues of her children as a motive. BR told his psychiatrist that he did not wet his bed and had not in a long time. Yep. That stun gun sure could have reminded him not to wet his bed. And hence, he stopped.


Lou Smit introduced us to the stun gun theory.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/02lrams.html

The AIR TASER can be used in a touch-stun mode.

http://www.thespysupply.com/airtaser.htm

Shouldn't the measurement be from center to center instead of inner edge to inner edge? The latter method assures the shortest distance between the two marks.

OMO

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Unexpectedly, a witness stepped forward and broke both his silence and John Ramsey's story about the timing of the discovery of JonBenet's body.

[Stewart] Long said that John Ramsey climbed into a van with him and John Andrew and told them that JonBenet "was with Beth now." The father and son broke down in tears as John Ramsey described how he had discovered the body around eleven o"clock that morning.

Eleven o'clock would have been just about the time John Ramsey temporarily vanished from the sight of Detective Arndt. I recalled how Arndt described the marked change in his behavior after he came back, silent, brooding and nervous. - Steve Thomas ITRMI

 

[otg]

SBM

Most people here have been at it long enough to know the answers and can’t help but feel a little defensive when a new poster comes in challenging beliefs that are based on what they’ve learned over the years, especially when it comes from someone who has demonstrated less knowledge about the case than the people they are challenging.

I don't understand why people have to feel defensive about their beliefs if their confident in how they came to them. I would think they would welcome the opportunity to share their hard earned knowledge with all members, not just the ones that they agree with.

I completely agree with you on that, RANCH, and have said as much myself (sbm):

I have no problem with posters who seriously question our opinions and beliefs. I think it’s healthy to have to defend what we believe, if we truly believe it. If we don’t or can’t, our belief is not worth defending.

The difference is that I've seen how some posters ask serious questions because they want to know in order to understand something, and I've seen others (several others) establish a pattern of asking questions while mocking the answers they anticipate before anyone has even answered. Now, if someone does the latter, you and I both know they probably shouldn't expect a very polite answer.

To be honest, I've seen incorrect information posted here by members who have been posting for years about this case.

I know, and so have I. I don't always, but I have been known to question those I agree with if I feel it's important enough to correct. We can't all be correct all of the time, but we can try to get it right.

I don't think that newer members to this forum should be expected to take every post by long term members as fact. JMO.

They don't. But depending on how they ask, they might get a lot more help (if that's what they are looking for). In the post of mine that you quoted, I answered each of the questions that had been asked, even though the poster had started out with the accusation that posters here ignored those questions "since it doesn't support their pet theory".

Face it, this forum is mostly RDI (and some of the biggest squabbles happen over WODI -- Which One Did It). So far as I know, posters who see otherwise are still welcome. In fact, they even have their very own "hands off" thread to discuss their thoughts free from harassment. But they have to realize they're swimming against the tide here. Were I to go on one of the other forums where I would be in the minority, I would expect the same thing there. But I'd get a lot more of it if I started out by mocking their beliefs.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I completely agree with you on that, RANCH, and have said as much myself (sbm):The difference is that I've seen how some posters ask serious questions because they want to know in order to understand something, and I've seen others (several others) establish a pattern of asking questions while mocking the answers they anticipate before anyone has even answered. Now, if someone does the latter, you and I both know they probably shouldn't expect a very polite answer.


I know, and so have I. I don't always, but I have been known to question those I agree with if I feel it's important enough to correct. We can't all be correct all of the time, but we can try to get it right.


They don't. But depending on how they ask, they might get a lot more help (if that's what they are looking for). In the post of mine that you quoted, I answered each of the questions that had been asked, even though the poster had started out with the accusation that posters here ignored those questions "since it doesn't support their pet theory".

Face it, this forum is mostly RDI (and some of the biggest squabbles happen over WODI -- Which One Did It). So far as I know, posters who see otherwise are still welcome. In fact, they even have their very own "hands off" thread to discuss their thoughts free from harassment. But they have to realize they're swimming against the tide here. Were I to go on one of the other forums where I would be in the minority, I would expect the same thing there. But I'd get a lot more of it if I started out by mocking their beliefs.

Well otg, all I can suggest is if anyone runs into any posts that are "mocking" in nature it's best to either ignore them or hit the little alert triangle and let a mod handle it.

Responding in kind is not a good idea in my opinion. Impoliteness shouldn't happen here for any reason. JMO.

 

[gramcracker]

this link was posted in another thread. I tried really hard to keep the quotes at 10% and I think I succeeded

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-daughter.html

... Ramsey now spends much of his time promoting state laws that mandate the lifting of a DNA sample from anyone accused of a felony ... (His website is DNAFINGERPRINTLAW.COM.)

I guess he's done with that because the site no link-y no more and I couldn't find a current one

... "These things tear something out of your heart, and nothing can ever repair it," he says almost inaudibly, his thumb supporting his chin, middle finger over his mouth ...

classic gesture of someone who is lying

... "It started when our frantic call brought a single rookie cop who was so inexperienced she didn't seal off the house or collect evidence ...

huh? a single rookie cop? "she" can only refer to LA, who was a detective with years of experience (in addition to ALL the other LEOs on scene). and can you even imagine the allegations of persecution if she HAD sent the Whites/Furnies/Rev Hoverstock away that morning? that statement right there tells me those folks were invited to pollute the crime scene, and BPD was set up to be damned if they did/damned if they didn't: allowing the others to stay = chaos reigned; telling them to leave = BPD treated us like Suspects instead of Victims from Hour One

... "I kicked myself for not getting more sophisticated house security. We left it off that night because it would go off like a siren and catapult us out of bed."

they left it off EVERY night. and there was another "intruder" in their next home because that security system was turned off as well

... "The pageants were only an occasional fun thing."

liar

Yet Pam Archuleta ... said Patsy was “obsessed” by the contests ...

truth teller

The last time the Ramsey family went to Boulder was two years after the murder, when the grand jury was ready to announce its verdict ... they had to hide at the Archuleta’s inconspicuous ranch house ... Pam heard Patsy sobbing. "I went in and gathered her up in my arms. She had gotten so small and limp, like a rag doll.”

Then we heard "no indictment" ... and Patsy was shouting ‘Praise God, Praise God!’ And suddenly she wasn't this pathetic person but back to the strong friend I knew."

healed, again. hallelujah!

this is how history gets re-written, if it's allowed to stand

 

[Linda7NJ]

this link was posted in another thread. I tried really hard to keep the quotes at 10% and I think I succeeded



http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-daughter.html



... Ramsey now spends much of his time promoting state laws that mandate the lifting of a DNA sample from anyone accused of a felony ... (His website is DNAFINGERPRINTLAW.COM.)



I guess he's done with that because the site no link-y no more and I couldn't find a current one



... "These things tear something out of your heart, and nothing can ever repair it," he says almost inaudibly, his thumb supporting his chin, middle finger over his mouth ...



classic gesture of someone who is lying



... "It started when our frantic call brought a single rookie cop who was so inexperienced she didn't seal off the house or collect evidence ...



huh? a single rookie cop? "she" can only refer to LA, who was a detective with years of experience (in addition to ALL the other LEOs on scene). and can you even imagine the allegations of persecution if she HAD sent the Whites/Furnies/Rev Hoverstock away that morning? that statement right there tells me those folks were invited to pollute the crime scene, and BPD was set up to be damned if they did/damned if they didn't: allowing the others to stay = chaos reigned; telling them to leave = BPD treated us like Suspects instead of Victims from Hour One



... "I kicked myself for not getting more sophisticated house security. We left it off that night because it would go off like a siren and catapult us out of bed."



they left it off EVERY night. and there was another "intruder" in their next home because that security system was turned off as well



... "The pageants were only an occasional fun thing."



liar



Yet Pam Archuleta ... said Patsy was “obsessed” by the contests ...



truth teller



The last time the Ramsey family went to Boulder was two years after the murder, when the grand jury was ready to announce its verdict ... they had to hide at the Archuleta’s inconspicuous ranch house ... Pam heard Patsy sobbing. "I went in and gathered her up in my arms. She had gotten so small and limp, like a rag doll.”



Then we heard "no indictment" ... and Patsy was shouting ‘Praise God, Praise God!’ And suddenly she wasn't this pathetic person but back to the strong friend I knew."



healed, again. hallelujah!



this is how history gets re-written, if it's allowed to stand

Doesn't it just make your stomach turn?
I have to wonder, if he thinks that repeating his multiple versions over and over ....actually convinces those that actually care.

Warms my heart to hear he's a broken man. I wonder if he still believes it was worth it? I wonder if he had to do it all over again, would he do the same?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gramcracker]

I know, huh? pffttttt! I forgot to include this one:

"Do you still feel married to Patsy?" I ask, "Do you think about her a lot?"

"No, no," he says, his face relaxed but his eyes miserable. "Just occasionally, when a pleasant memory comes back."

"You talk of her in the present tense," I say.

"Do I? Oh well, just an accident."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...exonerated-in-the-murder-of-his-daughter.html

:what:

 

[Linda7NJ]

And this bit..,

We all know who he's talking about,

"Despite the new evidence, Ramsey is still haunted by suspicions that a close friend with access to the house had some role in the murder, and he questions this person’s alibi.
Michael Archuleta, who was the pilot of John’s King Air Jet, and his wife, Pam—also speaking publicly for the first time—share Ramsey’s suspicions."




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

"Ramsey says the new evidence can “never bring back my life. Once your reputation is tarnished, it stays tarnished.” But he now campaigns to expand the national DNA registry by requiring all states to take a sample from anyone charged with a felony in the hope that “one day I will get a call from somewhere in the country and a voice will say, “We know who killed your daughter.’”


All about him, I can't believe these statements.... Mind boggling.

"New evidence can't bring back MY life" ~ John Ramsey

Just let that line sink in for a moment.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk