PDA

View Full Version : "It's a lady"?



Nehemiah
12-14-2003, 11:48 AM
In the NE book, Patsy is being interviewed by Tom Haney on June 23, 1998, and at this particular time she is being questioned about their relationship/thoughts concerning the Whites. But that is not what caught my eye. She states this:

"And we have been told that it's a LADY (emphasis mine) that knew us, knew we were leaving, knew...the dog wasn't there, knew we didn't use the alarm, you know, so--"

The reference to "a lady" came out of the blue; the questioning did not lead (in the book anyway) to anything about a woman. Of course, we know there was editing but what is Patsy meaning here, "and we have been told that it's a lady...."?

Toth
12-14-2003, 12:18 PM
Alot of things had been told to the Ramseys either directly or indirectly. Alot of stuff was probably false or merely hunches the investigators had had.
Early in the investigation AuntPam had been told many things particularly by reporters and she had a tendancy to believe everything she was being told and to repeat it.

eliza
12-14-2003, 12:28 PM
My feelings are that the Ramseys, both John and Patsy, every chance they get like to make little remarks like that to steer the investigation in any direction they can as long as it stays clear of Burke. When it comes to Burke,Patsy has said it loud and clear {You don't want to go there}

Maxi
12-14-2003, 01:56 PM
Aunt Pam once said she thought the crime was done by a woman who was jealous of the Ramsey's social status and wealth. And remember that one analysis of the letter said it was written by a woman or a "genteel" man.

TLynn
12-14-2003, 02:13 PM
My thoughts same as Maxi -

Patsy was probably referring to the RN - since it's been analysed as written by a female.

But a LADY! Much like the use of "gentlemen" - Weren't no lady that murdered your daughter...

Toth
12-14-2003, 02:14 PM
When it comes to Burke,Patsy has said it loud and clear {You don't want to go there} So don't go there!

Shawna
12-14-2003, 02:25 PM
Is Patsy accusing Priscilla White of murder in the NE book?

When Patsy was shown a photograph of her red and black plaid jacket, with the black pants, Patsy told Detective Haney

"Priscilla had a jacket like this. I mean, until I saw this picture I had thought that I had worn my Christmas sweater to their house...and then I saw this picture and I said "Oh, I must have worn THAT sweater to their house."

"But, then I thought, well, maybe I had her jacket. I mean, you know, I don't know".

Detective Trip DeMuth: ...That you were wearing yours on Christmas and not hers"?

PR: "Well I could have been in her house in the living room, you know, what I mean, and been cold, and she said, "Here put this on." I just can't remember. My point is we both had jackets similar to that".

What a liar? I doubt Priscilla had a jacket similar to Patsy's.

:nono:

Ivy
12-14-2003, 02:44 PM
Toth, we BDIers are allowed to post here at WS, whether you like it or not. It's obvious you want to silence us...but don't go there, pal.

eliza
12-14-2003, 03:00 PM
perfectly said Ivy, you took the words right out of my mouth!

Maxi
12-14-2003, 03:37 PM
On the radio show, Pam once implied that the killer was an overweight woman. I don't think Priscilla is overweight. Pam also talked about someone who had gotten so close to the family that she was hurt when she felt left out of something like a trip.

Imon128
12-14-2003, 04:08 PM
I realize that Patsy must have been somewhat nervous, even for a woman with her background of speaking/debating/journalism/CNN interview/???, however, that NE Police Files book accounting of what Patsy was saying made Patsy seem almost incoherent. Her words were almost in circles at times, her thoughts rambled, and some of her answers left me really scratching my head saying...'what the h*ll did she just say?"

It might have been that she didn't finish her sentence. We know she and/or John think a woman wrote the note, so maybe Patsy started to answer with that, and realized the question wasn't about the note?

K777angel
12-14-2003, 05:56 PM
Toth - just because Patsy Ramsey says "don't even go there" when it comes to considering Burke Ramsey as being involved in his sister's death somehow - does NOT mean we have to abide by it! LOL!
It means .... "Hmmm... maybe we need to take a closer look at this. It sure seems to strike a nerve."
Just like she said in the first crock when the question of Burke's possible involvement was mentioned, "Don't even think about it!"
Whoa!!!
I think now I WILL "think about it." And have.

gretchen
12-14-2003, 06:50 PM
I think when Patsy made that statement regarding Priscilla's jacket, she was once again throwing someone other than herself "under the bus." It is obvious to me that Patsy doesn't care who is under the umbrella of suspicion, as long as it is not herself or her family.

Patsy knows full well if that jacket was hers or Priscilla's. She sounds like a child who got her hand caught in the cookie jar.

Imon128
12-14-2003, 06:54 PM
Yeah, kind of like John's insinuation of Priscilla's involvement (merely because she was from CA) when he spoke of a stun gun.

MsBee
12-16-2003, 12:36 AM
Why are you condemning Patsy? It makes no sense. She shows nothing but love for her daughter.

Shylock
12-16-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by MsBee
Why are you condemning Patsy? It makes no sense. She shows nothing but love for her daughter. You mean for THAT CHILD...

Imon128
12-16-2003, 09:07 AM
Shylock...or MY DAUGHTER, OUR DAUGHTER, SOMEBODY'S DAUGHTER LOL :-)

Maxi
12-16-2003, 10:19 AM
I still say that's just a Southernism.

"Can't help lovin' that man of mine"

Imon128
12-16-2003, 10:21 AM
Could be, maxi. I guess I am of the mindset that she's distancing herself from JB or the case, or something. Perhaps I'm just not used to the southern lingo.

Toth
12-16-2003, 11:54 AM
It's obvious you want to silence us...but don't go there, pal. Not at all. I just want Tracey's "barking mad" to silence themselves.

Nehemiah
12-16-2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Imon128
Could be, maxi. I guess I am of the mindset that she's distancing herself from JB or the case, or something. Perhaps I'm just not used to the southern lingo.


I never thought about that being ascribed to the southern way of talk, but I'll start taking note and report my findings. I'm smack dab in the middle here of southern lingo.

Barbara
12-16-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Toth
Not at all. I just want Tracey's "barking mad" to silence themselves.

Ahhhhhh, Tracey. I guess he has become the epitome of virtue and righteousness for the RST....and just when I thought they couldn't get any more unbecoming!

Maxi
12-16-2003, 04:07 PM
"That child" or "that man" may not be just a Southern expression of affection. My mom says my grandfather, who was from northern Scotland, always referred to my uncle (his only son) as "that man". It was said with much affection.

ajt400
12-16-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by eliza
When it comes to Burke,Patsy has said it loud and clear {You don't want to go there}

Would you not say the same thing if your 8 year old was being accused of being the murderer of your daughter? Why is it so out of line for her to have said that?

My mom probably would have punched the guy and then spit in his face.

Britt
12-16-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Maxi
...my grandfather, who was from northern Scotland, always referred to my uncle (his only son) as "that man". It was said with much affection.
I can buy that. "That child" may just be an insignificant expression.

What I wonder about is why Patsy sometimes referred to her husband and son by their full names, e.g. "John Ramsey did not do this," etc., as if they were strangers. IMO that suggests distancing, or perhaps that to Patsy they are virtual strangers.

Barbara
12-16-2003, 04:32 PM
It is extremely clear that they are not the warm and fuzzy close knit family they have tried so hard to portray.

The terminology is only a small part of what makes them anything BUT warm and fuzzy

ajt400
12-16-2003, 05:06 PM
Maybe, or maybe that's just the way she speaks. I do that sometimes. I do alot of strange things sometimes, but I do that as well. Ususally when I am trying to get a point across.

Imon128
12-16-2003, 05:19 PM
Another connection one could make is that the ransom note doesn't use JonBenet's name. Is there a correlation, some wonder?

ajt400
12-16-2003, 05:36 PM
Maybe the person didn't know her name? Does that pop up on anyone elses weird meter? I mean, it is a 3 page letter with not one mention of JonBenet by name. But John Ramsey is mentioned how many times???

Imon128
12-16-2003, 06:06 PM
I think the killer knew her name. He probably didn't just amble along a sidewalk and decide to go in...also he called John Mr. Ramsey, and there were other indications in the note the killer was familiar enough to know her by name. It is very odd that the killer went to such lengths to avoid the name. This somewhat indicates to me that the note was a fake, trying to sound more like some foreign faction, just out to get some money. Distancing, of a sort, by the notewriter? JMO

Maxi
12-16-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Britt
I can buy that. "That child" may just be an insignificant expression.

What I wonder about is why Patsy sometimes referred to her husband and son by their full names, e.g. "John Ramsey did not do this," etc., as if they were strangers. IMO that suggests distancing, or perhaps that to Patsy they are virtual strangers.

The family has a strange Victorian sort of sensibility going. I believe that was the usual way of referring to your husband back then. Only I think it would properly be, "Mr. Ramsey did not do this".

My Scottish grandmother signed her letters to my mom, "Your loving mother, Catherine Barron". The kids got a good laugh out of it, but never doubted her love for them.

eliza
12-16-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by ajt400
Would you not say the same thing if your 8 year old was being accused of being the murderer of your daughter? Why is it so out of line for her to have said that?

My mom probably would have punched the guy and then spit in his face.


In all honesty I'm sure I would have never said anything even close to that statement. In fact I would have told them to go wherever they need to , just find the killer of my beloved daughter. My kids have always stood up and faced the music when they had to, sometimes it was not so easy, but I'm a firm believer in the truth, no matter where it may lead.

Shylock
12-17-2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Ivy
If I knew my son had killed my daughter and believed that it was unintentional, I might have responded in much the same way Patsy did when she said, "Don't go there, pal!" That is, if I, like Patsy, were extremely status-conscious and determined to avoid a scandal at all costs. I'm not so sure John & Pats covered up for Burke because of being "status-conscious". I think they didn't know if he could be charged (hence the looking up of the word "incest"), and I think John probably dictated the situation to Patsy, stating that he had now lost TWO daughters and was not about to lose a son.

Toth
12-17-2003, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Shylock
(hence the looking up of the word "incest"),
Hence?

Oh, and by the way,,, I don't think either John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey would quite need the assistance of a dictionary to know what the word 'incest' meant. Ask yourself, did you have to go look it up in the dictionary before making this post?

Oh,, and furthermore,,, that stuff about the page being dogeared and turned at the word incest... ain't true.

Maxi
12-17-2003, 01:46 AM
Maybe someone was looking up how to spell it.

Blazeboy3
12-17-2003, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Toth
Alot of things had been told to the Ramseys either directly or indirectly. Alot of stuff was probably false or merely hunches the investigators had had.
Early in the investigation AuntPam had been told many things particularly by reporters and she had a tendancy to believe everything she was being told and to repeat it.

ok... so, TOTH: YOUR POINT?...I FAILED TO SEE(HELP?) IN REGARDS TO ABOVE INFO...???!~!!!;:confused: :dontknow:

Blazeboy3
12-17-2003, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by eliza
My feelings are that the Ramseys, both John and Patsy, every chance they get like to make little remarks like that to steer the investigation in any direction they can as long as it stays clear of Burke. When it comes to Burke,Patsy has said it loud and clear {You don't want to go there}

Main Entry: car·i·ous
Pronunciation: 'kar-E-&s, 'ker-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin cariosus, from caries
Date: 1676
: affected with caries
Pronunciation Key
© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

LET'S NOT FORGET IN DOI THAT Mr. John RAMSEY STATED (our cars are more important/registered instead of our kids...!!!)??? SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES ABOUT KIDS AND CARS... (HEEHEE THE NEXT WORD IN dictionary/Merriam-Webster above was:
Main Entry: car·jack·ing
Pronunciation: 'kär-"ja-ki[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: car + hijack + -ing
Date: 1991
: the theft of an automobile from its driver by force or intimidation
- car·jack·er noun
Pronunciation Key
© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy
:confused: :confused: :confused: :dontknow: :dontknow: :dontknow:

Shylock
12-17-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Toth
I don't think either John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey would quite need the assistance of a dictionary to know what the word 'incest' meant. Ask yourself, did you have to go look it up in the dictionary before making this post? OK Toth, everyone knows sex between a parent and their child is incest, but is sex between a child and their GRANDMOTHER considered incest? Do you know--I don't. I guess I would have to look it up, probably the same way Patsy had to look and see if sex between siblings is considered incest. The other question Patsy probably had, was "is incest (between siblings) against the law or just a religious/social taboo"? Seeing how laws in different states works, I couldn't tell you that either--and I doubt you could accurately tell me. So there you have your answer, Toth...Both you and I *WOULD* have some reason to look up the word.

Also, we are discussing this after the fact, so we already have an idea about what answers we will find--Patsy didn't. And not a single person has EVER described Patsy as being a "sexually savy" person, have they? The fact is, Patsy is just the type of "social bimbo" that wouldn't know what the total defination of the word "incest" is. She fits the mold quite well.

And by the way, the finding of the dog-eared dictionary is well documented by Thomas who was standing right there when it was discovered. There is absolutely NO reason for him to make up such a story, since his whole PDI theory has nothing to do with "incest"... If anything it throws a wrench into his theory. Nobody, not even your buddy Smit, has ever denied the dictionary story.

Imon128
12-17-2003, 10:01 AM
However, John and/or Patsy might have gone to the dictionary to show a sibling by marriage, what incest is...???

Toth
12-17-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Shylock
And by the way, the finding of the dog-eared dictionary is well documented by Thomas who was standing right there when it was discovered. Yep, well-documented! Note the Crime scene Photo of the dictionary, note the listing showing the dictionary was seized as evidence, note all the many, many questions about that dictionary in the depositions and interview transcripts. ........ Or perhaps note the absence of all these things!

But you are right about one thing. Thomas is always standing right there when something is discovered or overheard.

Imon128
12-17-2003, 10:30 AM
In light of JB's vaginal injuries, and some experts opinions that JB had prior vaginal trauma/injuries, I think it's very pertinent about the 'incest' page being dogearred.

Nehemiah
12-17-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Imon128
Another connection one could make is that the ransom note doesn't use JonBenet's name. Is there a correlation, some wonder?

I have always thought that:
1. If an intruder, perhaps he did not know how to spell the name, or maybe even how to pronounce it correctly if he had only seen it written previous to the murder; or,
2. If a family member...since the name is unusual and spelled unusually, to write it out would make it appear to the police that the perpetrator was someone w/in the family because the name was written.

Toth
12-17-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Imon128
In light of JB's vaginal injuries, and some experts opinions that JB had prior vaginal trauma/injuries, I think it's very pertinent about the 'incest' page being dogearred. You could show those experts a bell pepper and they would say "child sexual abuse". And once again, you are still thinking that the dictionary was in fact open to incest and was in fact dogeared when neither is true.

Toth
12-17-2003, 12:54 PM
But you are right about one thing. Thomas is always standing right there when something is discovered or overheard. Provided that 'something' is bad for the parents, that is.

Nehemiah
12-17-2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Toth
You could show those experts a bell pepper and they would say "child sexual abuse". And once again, you are still thinking that the dictionary was in fact open to incest and was in fact dogeared when neither is true.

Toth, how do you know that is untrue about the dictionary? What is your source on that info being false?

Toth
12-17-2003, 02:33 PM
Toth, how do you know that is untrue about the dictionary? What is your source on that info being false?

Yep, well-documented! Note the Crime scene Photo of the dictionary, note the listing showing the dictionary was seized as evidence, note all the many, many questions about that dictionary in the depositions and interview transcripts. ........ Or perhaps note the absence of all these things!

But you are right about one thing. Thomas is always standing right there when something is discovered or overheard.

Don't you think if the dictionary had actually been noted to be open to that page and dog-eared or the page turned down in any way that it would have been taken into evidence, photographed and talked about in the interviews/depositions?

Don't you think its about time you stopped believing in Steve Thomas.

And you can stop believing in that Bible being open to Psalm 118, even LHP stated she always saw it closed.

K777angel
12-17-2003, 03:37 PM
I've always thought the dictionary dog-eared to the page where "incest" was listed was silly.
Even if the page WAS dog-eared to that page - so what?
How many OTHER words were on that page too??
How could it be claimed that it was "incest" that was the target word when there were so many others there?
It'd be different if that word had been highlighted.

I think this one is probably much ado about nothing.

Ivy
12-17-2003, 03:46 PM
Toth, don't you think it's time for you to stop doubting every single thing Steve Thomas says, just because he isn't an Intruder Did It theorist?

Even Lou Smit doesn't deny that the dictionary was found open with the page bent to point to the word "incest," and that a photo of the page is in the police files. Most of your fellow IDI theorists don't bother trying to argue that fact. They don't, because the police photo of the dog-eared dictionary page is real. It exists.

ajt400
12-17-2003, 03:48 PM
Because, Angel, that happens to fit some peoples theories. I would think that if the R's are so concious as to stage a crime scene, stage a fake-kidnapping--they would certainly not leave a book dog-eared to a page that had incest on it. That's just my opinion though.

Toltec
12-17-2003, 04:45 PM
Steve Thomas was looking at crime scene photos when he came upon the picture of the dictionary. Thomas was called to the case three days after the murder...

If JonBenet was molested on 23 December and 25 December...I tend to believe that she and Burke played Doctor. I don't believe Burke killed JonBenet...it was a furious Patsy who blamed JonBenet ONLY for what she and Burke were caught doing.

LHP claimed that she caught Burke and JonBenet playing Doctor...so would it be hard to believe that he did so that night?

This is my opinion only and may not be copied or quoted on any other forum.

Toth
12-17-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Toltec
LHP claimed that she caught Burke and JonBenet playing Doctor...so would it be hard to believe that he did so that night?
She claimed no such thing, until she developed dollar signs in her eyes.

Ivy
12-17-2003, 05:14 PM
ajt...If the dog-eared dictionary page is significant and concerns the sexual abuse of JonBenet, it doesn't necessarily mean the page was dog-eared that night or that the adult Ramseys didn't know the meaning of the word, "incest." One of them could have looked up the word for Burke and/or JonBenet prior to that night so they would understand that sexual play between a brother and sister is taboo. However, even if the page was dog-eared that night for some reason, the Rs might have simply forgotten about it, or else didn't think LE would consider it significant.

The Rs weren't perfect in staging the coverup. For one thing, they neglected to remove Burke's Swiss Army knife, which was later found by LE on a shelf not far from JonBenet's body. It's interesting that when Burke was interviewed, he said he knew what happened, and that the killer had a knife.

Toltec
12-17-2003, 05:16 PM
Toth...you post as if you know the Ramseys...or wish you did...which I highly doubt.

ajt400
12-17-2003, 05:59 PM
Everyone here posts as if they know the Ramsey's....did you miss that? When in actuality, we are all just stating what we may have done in similar situations.

Also, why sit down with the kids (both under 10) and a dictionary to explain logically why incest is wrong? Why not pull out the enclyclopedia? Why dog ear it? Just in case one of them forgets and needs a refresher course?

Why not spank them?

Maxi
12-17-2003, 06:05 PM
does anyone remember when and where LHP claimed to have caught the kids playing doctor?

Shylock
12-17-2003, 08:06 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toth
Note the Crime scene Photo of the dictionary.
Toth, are you foolish enough to believe ALL the crime scene photos have been released to the public?

note the listing showing the dictionary was seized as evidence,
We are talking about a PHOTO of the dictionary. Who knows if the dictionary was seized. Who cares?

note all the many, many questions about that dictionary in the depositions and interview transcripts.
Yes, Lin Woodie was smart enough not to go there pal, wasn't he! And Darnay was his usual too stupid self to go there. So how does not discussing it prove it doesn't exist? We haven't discussed the planet Pluto today Toth, so I guess by your logic that makes its existance a myth.

Shylock
12-17-2003, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by ajt400
Also, why sit down with the kids (both under 10) and a dictionary to explain logically why incest is wrong? Where do you get the idea they sat down with anybody and the dictionary?

1) They find the son has molested the daughter and in the process caused her great physical harm.

2) They don't know what the son can be charged with. Murder? Incest?

3) They look up the word "incest" because even if they stage an accident they don't know if the son can be charged with it, and there is no way they can hide the molestation.

sissi
12-17-2003, 08:39 PM
Hmmm..it's interesting that LHP was quick to mention this activity,when no one ,other than LHP has brought it up.
Interesting in that it was her daughter who played upstairs in the bedroom ,alone with Jonbenet, most of that afternoon,of the 23rd.,while she cleaned for the party.

Hate me for this,but is it not interesting that Patsy helped "spruce" Arriana "up" for the party,giving her clothes,shoes,etc. to wear,and I "BETCHA" she was given
clean underwear to wear after a bath. She wouldn't be wearing size six,Jonbenet may have opened the larger package for her or she may have helped herself to a few pairs. Are any missing other than the "wednesday " ones.
Now,would arianna write a ransom note,ridiculous! However,do we know if arianna was ever molested,and do we know if she could have confided in her molester an incident with Jonbenet,telling him that she was doomed, and in serious trouble if Jonbenet tells. Can we say in that clan of young adults there is not one capable of writing that note? It seems that is how they got their "pass"!
They had pads of paper and sharpies from the Ramsey home,they knew the room,they knew Patsy used the steps as a pickup for items left for her by LHP,and for pete's sakes,they had a KEY! Most of all ,they had a reason for stopping by.....to pick up a check..if caught before the murder,it would be an easy and simple explanation!
JMO IMO......just for today

ajt400
12-18-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Shylock
Where do you get the idea they sat down with anybody and the dictionary?

1) They find the son has molested the daughter and in the process caused her great physical harm.

2) They don't know what the son can be charged with. Murder? Incest?

3) They look up the word "incest" because even if they stage an accident they don't know if the son can be charged with it, and there is no way they can hide the molestation.

Oh, c'mon, Shylock. Let's not try to play mind games here. I didn't just pull the dictionary post out of my butt. Why would yoiu dog ear a page in a dictionary if you are not going to go back and look at it?

Secondly, why look into a dictionary regarding incest if you are wondering what your son could be charged with? That makes no sense. Does the dictionary have the charges that willed be filed against you underneath the explanation of a word now? Hmm, I must have missed that. Wouldn't they know if JBR was dead he could be charged with murder? Why not look up manslaughter? Why not sexual abuse? Why not murder? Why not, while you have the dictionary out, look up garrote, and sexual crime scene staging?

Answer to comment 3 is pretty much answered above. Incest has nothing to do with the murder of a child. Why would they be worried about that?

Imon128
12-18-2003, 02:01 PM
I'm with Shylock on this. Must have been some nervous twitter going on about the 'incest' thing, the death, and the death penalty, but I'm thinking about JAR, here. JMO

TLynn
12-18-2003, 02:05 PM
Bottom line: the dictionary open and dog-earred is a FACT.

I believe it was a poster (couple years back) that first mentioned Linda exclaiming the kids played Doctor - I don't know it that's true - it could be a forum rumor.

Imon128
12-18-2003, 02:06 PM
I believe that info (dog-earred page) came from Steve's book, and he noticed it in a photo. I do believe it's relevant.

ajt400
12-18-2003, 03:50 PM
Okay, let's put it this way....

If this happened to you, would you look in the dictionary to see whther or not your child could be put on trial for incest?

Why not look into criminal trials of children? They must have known that children are tried differently and more leniently than adults are.

Imon128
12-18-2003, 03:52 PM
Unless the child is of age and can be tried with the death penalty in force. Incest with a half sibling...is it incest, they might wonder?

eliza
12-18-2003, 04:11 PM
I for one do believe the dog-eared page to be a fact. If this was just a nasty rumor the Ramseys would have had plenty of time to put that to rest. The fact that they never even mention it and they avoid the subject altogether only deepens my belief. In my opinion this case has everything to do with incest. I believe the whole cover-up was done because of the total embarrassment surrounding JBRs death. My believe is the 2 kids were playing doctor several times before that fateful night. I believe the dictionary was used by Patsy in a lecture to the children prior to that evening. When the cover-up was in progress a few days later, all was forgotton about a lecture and the dictionary being used as a reference. In my opinion the dictionary is a very important clue and was missed in the rush to cover-up.

ajt400
12-18-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Imon128
Unless the child is of age and can be tried with the death penalty in force. Incest with a half sibling...is it incest, they might wonder?


So you believe it may have been JAR? Burke is not a half sibling....I know you know that!

Is an 8 year old a child of age?


I do believe, Eliza, that are avoiding the total subject altogether. Maybe they thought it patently ridiculous and not worth an excuse.

Imon128
12-18-2003, 04:19 PM
Yes, I do think JAR....

ajt400
12-18-2003, 04:24 PM
Do you think his alibi was incorrect or lied? You know that a few murder investigations have been solved that way before, right? Honestly, in the beginning, I leaned towards him, too.

Imon128
12-18-2003, 04:27 PM
I think he could have lied, using another person as well. Why would he admit to any involvement? That's why I think the killing was done at the time that it was.....an alibi was to be in place and a likely suspect was out of Boulder, visiting mumsey. No connection, right? Or wrong?

ajt400
12-18-2003, 04:29 PM
So maybe premeditation on his part?

Imon128
12-18-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by ajt400
So maybe premeditation on his part?

Very likely. That ties in with the note, IMO.

ajt400
12-18-2003, 04:31 PM
I have always thought the note was written beforehand, it just seems to long and drawn out to do after the murder. IMO the offender was in a rush to leave, or displace himself with the crime altogether.

ajt400
12-18-2003, 04:31 PM
Do you think this was maybe a cry for attention from his father and step mother?

Imon128
12-18-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by ajt400
Do you think this was maybe a cry for attention from his father and step mother?

It might have been, or an act of rebellion against them, or more likely IMO, to cover his covert inappropriate activities with JB. I think he might have been spoiled and out of control, and drowning in self pity, not realizing how good he had it. Perhaps typical of some teenagers his age, from a wealthy family. Dunno. He was having problems at that time, no doubt, and why was he busing tables at Jay Elowsky's? He surely didn't need the money, did he? Did daddy cut him off? Why was he there, in that capacity? Community service for his drunkeness?

ajt400
12-18-2003, 04:54 PM
I don't think he would have fit the streotypical profile of a spoiled kid from a rich family because JR didn't aquire the wealth until his second marriage was under way. Maybe because of his jealousy because of that.

BTW, I do not knock any parent that expects their child to work, especially if they are rich. It creates a work ethic that may otherwise not develop. I have had a full time job since I was 16.

Imon128
12-18-2003, 04:59 PM
JR didn't seem to want for much, that we know about. John, even according to Patsy, was very attentive to his first wife's and his kids. I can imagine, though, seeing how Burke and JonBenet (especially her with the bucks spent on pageants) would be a source of malcontent, if JAR didn't have the same bene's. But I think JAR had at least, a good setup from John and Patsy for JAR's college days there in Boulder. While I'm certain it wouldn't have hurt him to work, why WOULD he have, especially at Pasta Jays, in that capacity? John was dumping mega bucks into JB's pageants, via Patsy, why would JAR not be able to study and be free of work obligations? JAR was having drinking problems at that time. That entire JAR thing, is a red flag, IMO.

Maxi
12-18-2003, 05:07 PM
I think JAR was definitely in Atlanta at the time of the murder. The police would have investigated his alibi thorougly. To me, the only way JAR figures into the murder would be if the murder involved two people: JAR in Atlanta and the killer in Boulder.

Imon128
12-18-2003, 05:16 PM
We must remember that Steve Thomas felt JAR and Melinda were given a pass prematurely, although I have a feeling he sort of bought JAR's alibi. MJenn showed us that JAR could have gone to Boulder in the time frame....I sure do think JAR had an accomplice. Brad Millard had NO reason to spend the night at JAR's house in Atlanta that night, as they purport. Why would he have?

Toth
12-18-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by eliza
I for one do believe the dog-eared page to be a fact. Why on earth do you believe such a thing?
If Steve Thomas was looking a phot and suddenly "noticed" the dictionary being open to a certain page and its being 'dog eared' don't you think he would have to have an extremely large magnifying glass? How would such an item be visible unless it were a close up of the dictionary. IF it were a close up of the dictionary, then someone would have noticed it then and it would have been logged into evidence then.

What on earth would anyone gain by looking at a dictionary?
Spelling? Precise definition? I want all of you to suddenly drop what you are doing, go grab a dictionary, look up the word 'incest' and then reflect for a moment: what possible benefit was that? What did you just learn that you did not already know?
Just what nuance was in the dictionary that was unknown to you already? Just what could you have reasonably expected to find in any dictionary definition of the word that you did not already know? Now go back to the dictionary and repeatedly look up the word until it becomes dog eared? What more did you gain that you didn't gain the first time?

A little common sense about this dictionary: Steve Thomas saw it. Steve Thomas seems to "see" and "hear" alot in this case that bears little semblance to the truth.

eliza
12-18-2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by ajt400
So you believe it may have been JAR? Burke is not a half sibling....I know you know that!

Is an 8 year old a child of age?


I do believe, Eliza, that are avoiding the total subject altogether. Maybe they thought it patently ridiculous and not worth an excuse.



ajt400, If this was my family and rumors are being told and they were totally false I would want to set the record straight. I would think that it would be my right to at least say certain things are not true to defend my family. If the rumors are true I guess it would be kind of stupid to tell the world they are not true when proof could be shown. The Ramseys are not shy people and have spoken on several occasions. I just find it enlightning the subjects they avoid. Its little things like the dictionary that give the Ramseys a bad rep. If I were the Ramseys I would be knocking down the untruths one by one, that is if they are indeed untruths.

Imon128
12-18-2003, 05:59 PM
I think they are protecting JAR, albeit they may hate him. They are the type who'd hate to send a son/stepson to the death penalty. JMO.

eliza
12-18-2003, 06:52 PM
I do understand what you are saying about the dictionary, Toth. But please remember you and I are not desperate. This may be a subject that you and I have never faced so it it hard for us to understand how Patsy may have approched the subject with her children to make them understand that what they were doing was wrong.Using the dictionary to show them is not a bad idea in my book. I think she looked at it , thought maybe if I show it to them in black and white they will understand, so she just turned the corner a little so she could get to it quick to show the kids and have a discussion. My gut instinct tells me that this case is all about 2 kids playing doctor and it got totally out of hand. If you put all the pieces together like the dictionary, a book that was supposely given to Patsy by her father" Why Johnny can't tell right from wrong", calls to the childrens Pediatrician, JBRs trips to the school nurse. To me all of these incidents may be tied into what may have going on just prior to JBRs death.

Shylock
12-18-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by ajt400
Okay, let's put it this way....
If this happened to you, would you look in the dictionary to see whther or not your child could be put on trial for incest?
Well, first you have to find out if it IS incest. This has been discussed before. The majority of people know the defination of "incest" is sexual relations between a parent and child. Most people wouldn't be so sure the defination extends to sexual relations between siblings.
So John and Patsy weren't sure, and they looked it up.

Shylock
12-18-2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Toth
A little common sense about this dictionary: Steve Thomas saw it. That's right Toth, Steve Thomas saw it, and documented it. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to doubt Thomas' account. It adds nothing to his theory--no reason for him to make it up. And notice how your buddies Smit and Wood don't even go there--even during depositions.
I suggest you change your line, Toth. Start telling everyone the intruder dog-eared the page to make it look like the parents were involved. (The same way that nasty intruder looked through all those personal papers until he found John's bonus amount to make someone at Access Graphics look involved.)

Toth
12-18-2003, 07:25 PM
They are the type who'd hate to send a son/stepson to the death penalty. They are the type who'd hate to send a spouse to the death penalty too. They are also the type who wouldn't hesitate to do either. Having intense regret and disappointment in someone does not prevent or delay you from doing the right thing.

Nehemiah
12-19-2003, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Toth
Having intense regret and disappointment in someone does not prevent or delay you from doing the right thing.


Maybe not you, or maybe not me, or maybe not some people...but a LOT of people will do anything to stay in denial, especially if it involves their kids.

Imon128
12-19-2003, 08:48 AM
I agree, Nehemiah. Further, I think some people will delay or be prevented, by their desire to keep their social status and what they consider a normal life.

Nova
12-19-2003, 10:13 PM
Sorry, this is late, Maxi, but:

"Can't help lovin' that man of mine"

Was written by Oscar Hammerstein II, a Jewish New Yorker and the grandson of immigrants from Europe. True, he was creating language patterns that sounded "Southern" (and African-American) to his ear, but I don't think anybody claims he was an expert on the South.

Maxi
12-20-2003, 12:19 AM
Oh, I know, but that man sure did try to use Southern phrases. :-) Maybe I should have used "I'm gonna was that man right out of my hair." That's SOUTH Pacific.

I don't really know if "that man" or "that child" is a Southernism. As I said, my Scottish grandfather used "that man" as a term of great affection. I just don't see it as distancing on Patsy's part.

Toth
12-20-2003, 12:49 AM
I don't really know if 'that man' or 'that child' is a Southernism. It is common in the South but no where near as common as such things as y'all or 'come back soon, ya hear'. However, I don't think it is significant in any way.

Ivy
12-20-2003, 01:05 AM
No one in my family is a Southerner, and we often use "that" as a term of endearment in the same way your grandfather did, maxi. Just today I said to my bichon, Fritty, as I gave my husband (her "daddy") a wink, "Where is that daddy, Fritty? Did he forget to take his little girl for her walk?" Later, as they were leaving on their walk, I said to him, "Now, take good care of that little girly-boo." Our whole family uses "that" in this affectionate way, so I've never thought of Patsy's referring to JonBenet as "that child" as an attempt to distance herself from her.

shamu
12-20-2003, 01:16 AM
Maxi! I love it... "Your loving mother, Catherine Barron"

I am writing a genealogy book and working on a page right now where an 1800s ancestor Parthena talks about her first husband, Ham.

A teenage girl borne of Ham's second marriage looked up and realized first wife was staring at her..

"Honey, I Just love you," said Parthena.

"You are Ham's child. And I loved that man so much."

-----

contrast that with "and I loved him so much"

not as strong, eh?

shamu
12-20-2003, 01:21 AM
Haha Ivy, "THAT little girly-boo"

Must say that to somebody today

Blazeboy3
12-20-2003, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by sissi
Hmmm..it's interesting that LHP was quick to mention this activity,when no one ,other than LHP has brought it up.
Interesting in that it was her daughter who played upstairs in the bedroom ,alone with Jonbenet, most of that afternoon,of the 23rd.,while she cleaned for the party.

Hate me for this,but is it not interesting that Patsy helped "spruce" Arriana "up" for the party,giving her clothes,shoes,etc. to wear,and I "BETCHA" she was given
clean underwear to wear after a bath. She wouldn't be wearing size six,Jonbenet may have opened the larger package for her or she may have helped herself to a few pairs. Are any missing other than the "wednesday " ones.
Now,would arianna write a ransom note,ridiculous! However,do we know if arianna was ever molested,and do we know if she could have confided in her molester an incident with Jonbenet,telling him that she was doomed, and in serious trouble if Jonbenet tells. Can we say in that clan of young adults there is not one capable of writing that note? It seems that is how they got their "pass"!
They had pads of paper and sharpies from the Ramsey home,they knew the room,they knew Patsy used the steps as a pickup for items left for her by LHP,and for pete's sakes,they had a KEY! Most of all ,they had a reason for stopping by.....to pick up a check..if caught before the murder,it would be an easy and simple explanation!
JMO IMO......just for today

Blazeboy3
12-20-2003, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by Imon128
I think they are protecting JAR, albeit they may hate him. They are the type who'd hate to send a son/stepson to the death penalty. JMO.

Protecting JAR...what if it's not the core reason/cause for the R's actions?...!?@#@! ... I'm afraid to think otherwise...!!!:o :( :mad: :confused: :dontknow:

Imon128
12-20-2003, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Blazeboy3
Protecting JAR...what if it's not the core reason/cause for the R's actions?...!?@#@! ... I'm afraid to think otherwise...!!!:o :( :mad: :confused: :dontknow:

Hi Blaze...it sure would be nice to have an answer to all these things, wouldn't it? I'd really like to see justice for JB, and automatically, I think it would help some little kids on earth today who could get in a similar position.

Nova
12-20-2003, 09:25 PM
Maxi,

I've certainly heard constructions like Patsy's in the South, but I have no idea whether using "that [noun]" instead of a name is more prevalent in the South.

Even if it is a common, West Virginian expression, however, it's not the only way PR could refer to her deceased daughter. Whether the usage is "distancing" is a matter for linguists and psychoanalysts, I suppose.

I'm reluctant to draw broad conclusions from PR's speech because we have a record of just a few utterances. I don't think we know how PR "usually" refers to JBR.

Blazeboy3
12-21-2003, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by Imon128
Hi Blaze...it sure would be nice to have an answer to all these things, wouldn't it? I'd really like to see justice for JB, and automatically, I think it would help some little kids on earth today who could get in a similar position.

Hi Imon128...nice to see your post--THANK YOU!!! ... I hope/ pray for justice for JonBenet and YES, it would help kids on earth today who would be caught in a similar position (especially those children affected by JonBenet's death in BOULDER--who to-date most-likely have buried in their subconscious this "ordeal" ... ya know? ... IMHO ... this is "Life/ Lessons Learned ..." IMHO... Happy Holidays to you/yours from Omaha!:) :) :)

WHAT HAVE THE R's DONE TO "OTHER KIDS/FUTURE-WISE?"... ONLY TIME WILL TELL...???:rolleyes:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1221jon1.html
"Most people come and see, and I end up with their kids competing in the next one.''

Griego's 10-year-old daughter, Breanne, passed her Little Miss Colorado title along to JonBenet in May 1996, and she still happily competes. But JonBenet's death has shaken her.

"It scared my daughter very much,'' LaDonna Griego said. "Now she's sleeping in our bedroom. She still looks over her shoulder.''

The constant criticism of pageantry has wounded Breanne, mostly because it is something she loves.

"Having people trash it really bothers her,'' LaDonna Griego said. "My daughter has been known to go to the grocery store and hide all the Globes on the back shelf.''

Kristine Griffin, JonBenet's 19-year-old modeling coach, sometime-babysitter and dear friend, still suffers from the loss of her protege.

Blazeboy3
12-21-2003, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by Toth
Why on earth do you believe such a thing?
If Steve Thomas was looking a phot and suddenly "noticed" the dictionary being open to a certain page and its being 'dog eared' don't you think he would have to have an extremely large magnifying glass? How would such an item be visible unless it were a close up of the dictionary. IF it were a close up of the dictionary, then someone would have noticed it then and it would have been logged into evidence then.

What on earth would anyone gain by looking at a dictionary?
Spelling? Precise definition? I want all of you to suddenly drop what you are doing, go grab a dictionary, look up the word 'incest' and then reflect for a moment: what possible benefit was that? What did you just learn that you did not already know?
Just what nuance was in the dictionary that was unknown to you already? Just what could you have reasonably expected to find in any dictionary definition of the word that you did not already know? Now go back to the dictionary and repeatedly look up the word until it becomes dog eared? What more did you gain that you didn't gain the first time?

A little common sense about this dictionary: Steve Thomas saw it. Steve Thomas seems to "see" and "hear" alot in this case that bears little semblance to the truth.

did what you asked; my findings are:

Main Entry: in·cest
Pronunciation: 'in-"sest
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin incestus sexual impurity, from incestus impure, from in- + castus pure —more at CASTE
Date: 13th century
: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship
Main Entry: caste
Pronunciation: 'kast also 'käst
Function: noun
Etymology: Portuguese casta, literally, race, lineage, from feminine of casto pure, chaste, from Latin castus
Date: 1613
1 : one of the hereditary social classes in Hinduism that restrict the occupation of their members and their association with the members of other castes
2 a : a division of society based on differences of wealth, inherited rank or privilege, profession, or occupation b : the position conferred by caste standing : PRESTIGE
3 : a system of rigid social stratification characterized by hereditary status, endogamy, and social barriers sanctioned by custom, law, or religion
4 : a specialized form (as the worker of an ant or bee) of a polymorphic social insect that carries out a particular function in the colony
- caste·ism /'kas-"ti-z&m/ noun
Main Entry: pres·tige
Pronunciation: pre-'stEzh, -'stEj
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French, from Middle French, conjuror's trick, illusion, from Latin praestigiae, plural, conjuror's tricks, from praestringere to graze, blunt, constrict, from prae- + stringere to bind tight —more at STRAIN
Date: 1829
1 : standing or estimation in the eyes of people : weight or credit in general opinion
2 : commanding position in people's minds
synonym see INFLUENCE
- pres·tige·ful /-f&l/ adjective
Main Entry: pres·tige
Pronunciation: pre-'stEzh, -'stEj
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French, from Middle French, conjuror's trick, illusion, from Latin praestigiae, plural, conjuror's tricks, from praestringere to graze, blunt, constrict, from prae- + stringere to bind tight —more at STRAIN
Date: 1829
1 : standing or estimation in the eyes of people : weight or credit in general opinion
2 : commanding position in people's minds
synonym see INFLUENCE
- pres·tige·ful /-f&l/ adjective

by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

IT NEVER ENDS...I COULD GO ON & ON!:dontknow: :confused:

SisterSocks
12-21-2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by eliza
My feelings are that the Ramseys, both John and Patsy, every chance they get like to make little remarks like that to steer the investigation in any direction they can as long as it stays clear of Burke. When it comes to Burke,Patsy has said it loud and clear {You don't want to go there}


Ya Know, I would have said worse than Patsy did.
Someone throwing blame on my Son.
Just my thought...
Socks

Jayelles
12-21-2003, 03:43 PM
Ya Know, I would have said worse than Patsy did.
Someone throwing blame on my Son.


If I had stalled giving police interviews that way the Ramseys did, I don't think I'd feel I had room to criticise anyone for anything.

By avoiding those vital police interviews in the early days, the Ramseys left themselves prone to all sorts of speculation - including that they were protecting Burke.

In the absence of factual information, people DO speculate. They base their speculation on what they actually know - and they knew that the Ramseys were NOT sitting down with police to tell them what they could.

Maxi
12-21-2003, 04:48 PM
I think that's very true, Jayelles. The Ramseys have not behaved like typical victim parents. Any atypical behavior tends to raise a flag for cops, reporters, and the public. They may not have realized that they were arousing suspicion at the time they began, but they surely must have realized it within a few days. Once that realization hit, their failure to change their odd behavior says to me that they had more of a need or desire avoid formal interrogation than to help police clear them and get on with the investigation.

Toth
12-21-2003, 06:21 PM
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by 'atypical victim behavior'. I don't see anything at all that would indicate that.
And I surely don't understand the rest of your post about a desire to avoid a formal interrogation when they were adamantly insisting their lawyers arrange one and it is even your "Bible", PMPT, that the lack of an interview was due to BPD's intransigence, not the Ramseys.

Shylock
12-21-2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Toth
And I surely don't understand the rest of your post about a desire to avoid a formal interrogation when they were adamantly insisting their lawyers arrange one YEEHAW!-More swamp gas! Insisting their lawyers arrange an interogation???...ROFLMAO!
The truth is that the Rammers had their lawyers tell the BPD to FAX them any questions they had. Arndt compiled all the questions which were FAXed and basically all came back with the same canned answers, "Maybe", "Don't remember", "Can't recall", blah-blah-blah...typical Ramspeak.

Imon128
12-21-2003, 09:57 PM
Add to that, the R's had lawyers in place at the time they felt JB's body was being ransomed, so to speak, and still didn't just go down and talk to LE. They had what they considered a soireé in place with a time and date, and didn't want to miss it, so they could 'just get on with their lives'. Ugh.

Nehemiah
12-21-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Toth
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by 'atypical victim behavior'. I don't see anything at all that would indicate that.
And I surely don't understand the rest of your post about a desire to avoid a formal interrogation when they were adamantly insisting their lawyers arrange one and it is even your "Bible", PMPT, that the lack of an interview was due to BPD's intransigence, not the Ramseys.

To me, this is the real sticking point of the whole ordeal--the fact that the Rs didn't go straight to the BPD and face the interrogation so that they could be cleared. I think that is what totally makes them appear that they have knowledge of this murder. Them "adamantly insisting" anything is ridiculous; they are adults who could have gotten in their Jeep Cherokee or Jag and driven to the BPD without anyone's "permission".

Imon128
12-21-2003, 10:46 PM
Well said, Nehemiah! The R's seem to take advice (so they claim) that only makes themselves look better and to postpone any kind of 'scrutiny'. I believe that was the purpose of the RN, to avoid scrutiny of any dirty laundry in their purported perfect lives. I really believe they were/are more concerned with looks than any kind of justice or helping other little girls who might have potential to end up similar to JB.

BlueCrab
12-21-2003, 11:19 PM
The coverup has been obvious from day one; probably because the Ramseys had lawyers in place from day one. It appears they could have had lawyers in place even before the 911 call was placed at 5:52 A.M. that morning (according to comments from Fleet White).

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

Toltec
12-21-2003, 11:33 PM
Welcome back BlueCrab...long time no hear!

I remember John Ramsey placing a time limit on the interrogations...which to me sounded very insensitive. Poor little JonBenet...Daddy does not want his time to be wasted on you baby. Placing a time limit when it comes to clearing themselves makes themselves all the more guilty.

Imon128
12-21-2003, 11:35 PM
Another of their stipulations was the place they (the R's) wanted to meet, and they wanted to be joined at the hip, that is, interviewed together, not each/alone.

Nehemiah
12-21-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by BlueCrab
The coverup has been obvious from day one; probably because the Ramseys had lawyers in place from day one. It appears they could have had lawyers in place even before the 911 call was placed at 5:52 A.M. that morning (according to comments from Fleet White).

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

And that is why I always wondered about the cell phone records.

Imon128
12-21-2003, 11:57 PM
It IS kind of strange that the snowshoeing Bynum found out and showed up so quickly, when John didn't have Bynum on his list of close friends, and further stated in a deposition that no lawyers were on his list of those whom John considered close friends. Hmmm.

Nehemiah
12-22-2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Imon128
It IS kind of strange that the snowshoeing Bynum found out and showed up so quickly, when John didn't have Bynum on his list of close friends, and further stated in a deposition that no lawyers were on his list of those whom John considered close friends. Hmmm.

Neither were the Fernies on the list, yet they were called to the house that very morning. Whazzup with that?

Imon128
12-22-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Nehemiah
Neither were the Fernies on the list, yet they were called to the house that very morning. Whazzup with that?

I find that strange as well. When it comes to considering who the R's called that morning, I think they had a reason for doing so. Friendly folks with potential to get some moola (to get the show on the road in case John couldn't scrounge it up) and/or take care of Burke at their place. JMO.

Nehemiah
12-22-2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Imon128
It IS kind of strange that the snowshoeing Bynum found out and showed up so quickly, when John didn't have Bynum on his list of close friends, and further stated in a deposition that no lawyers were on his list of those whom John considered close friends. Hmmm.

Your post brought this letter by FW in 1998 to mind. This is just an excerpt:


For the purpose of assisting them in the Ramsey investigation, the Boulder Police Department in July 1997 accepted the pro bono legal services of Daniel S. Hoffman with the firm of McKenna & Cuneo, Robert N. Miller with the firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green, and MacRae, and Richard N. Baer with the firm of Sherman & Howard. All are prominent Denver attorneys. Responding to our public information request, the Boulder city attorney's office supplied us with copies of the final agreement between the city
and these attorneys dated July 30, 1997 and an earlier draft of that agreement dated July 28, 1997. In the draft, these attorneys jointly made the following disclosures to the city:


"As we indicated to you, our respective firms have or had certain
relationships that we feel obligated to disclose to you. Specifically:

1.Sherman & Howard L.L. C. ("S. & H.") represents Lockheed Martin in various matters. Lockheed Martin currently owns Access Graphics, the company that employs the father of the deceased. In addition, in 1994,S. & H. represented Access Graphics in a lawsuit brought by a terminated employee ...

2.Mr. Hoffman is outside counsel for Lockheed Martin in a number of litigations, one of which is currently pending. It is reasonable to assume that during our representation of you, Mr. Hoffman may be retained by Lockheed Martin. Additionally, Mr. Haddon represents Mr. Hoffman personally, in a case against Mr. Hoffman, his former law firm, and a number of Mr. Hoffman's former partners at the firm.

3.Robert Miller is currently co-counsel with Mr. Haddon on a litigation in which they obtained a significant verdict for their client and which will proceed on appeal. 11

John Ramsey was the president and chief executive officer of Access Graphics, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. In the fall of 1997 Access Graphics was sold by Lockheed Martin to GE Capital in a complicated transaction reported in the news media to be valued at $2.8 billion. The value attributed to Access Graphics was likely in excess of $200 million. Prior to the sale, John Ramsey left Access Graphics under adverse circumstances after attempting to purchase Access Graphics from Lockheed Martin. Mr. Hoffman was identified in the April 18, 1997 issue of Colorado Journal to be the "lead attorney" for Lockheed Martin in an age discrimination case which days before had resulted in a $7.6 million settlement. The "Mr. Haddon" referredto in the disclosures is Harold Haddon, the criminal defense attorney currently representing John Ramsey. The final agreement that was executed by the city and these three attorneys did not contain these disclosures. According to Mr. Baer, they were deleted at the request of the city attorney. The city attorney has recently indicated to us that he has no knowledge of the role these attorneys have played in the investigation.

www.web.dailycamera.com/extra/ra...leetletter.html

Imon128
12-22-2003, 12:19 AM
Oh what a web....poor Steve Thomas trying to untangle this mess. Sometimes money talks, people walk. Steve's book surely pointed out some of the intricate webs of the GOBs.

Blazeboy3
12-22-2003, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by SisterSocks
Ya Know, I would have said worse than Patsy did.
Someone throwing blame on my Son.
Just my thought...
Socks

Really...???:rolleyes: IMHO it's easier to post/"said than done!"...be true to oneself...it's your/one's gift in LIFE/LIVING!?

Maxi
12-22-2003, 09:16 AM
Profilers and cops, who have lots of experience in victim family behavior, have said that the Ramseys' behavior was not typical. Some lawyers have said it wasn't typical, but it should be. So that opinion comes from all sides.

Again, according to those with experience in these matters, most victim parents are interrogated seperately, immediately or very soon after the crime. John Ramsey rejected that police request even before any lawyers came on the scene to advise him.

Toth
12-22-2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Nehemiah
they are adults who could have gotten in their Jeep Cherokee or Jag and driven without anyone's "permission". The BPD had a great number and variety of vehicles and despite their behavior are adults also and were perfectly capable of driving to the attorney's conference room.

Imon128
12-22-2003, 12:49 PM
LE DID go to the R's and were met by Bynum who informed LE that the R's wouldn't be talking to them at the home. Further, Beuf said that Patsy wasn't in any shape to talk to them. LE tried, then the R's tried to set up their own terms for communicating with LE. Why?

Nehemiah
12-22-2003, 12:55 PM
Yes, Imon, why not go to the BPD, make themselves available for complete interrogation so as to be cleared?

Maybe they just made poor choices at the time per the suggestions of attorneys, but this does not give them a free pass to spin that the BPD didn't make effort to interview them, in my opinion. Whether the Rs have knowledge or not of the murder of JB, this action itself raises much suspicion.

Barbara
12-22-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Imon128
LE DID go to the R's and were met by Bynum who informed LE that the R's wouldn't be talking to them at the home. Further, Beuf said that Patsy wasn't in any shape to talk to them. LE tried, then the R's tried to set up their own terms for communicating with LE. Why?

Why? Because IMO, they have a lot to hide from.

No matter how much effort is put into the SPIN, the Ramseys refused to cooperate, period!

Toth, et al, please show us any other parent/s of a murdered/kidnapped, or for that matter a victim of any violent or sexual crime that set up "terms" for talking to the police.

There aren't any.

How many suspects do you know that demanded "terms and conditions" to speak with LE?

Only those Ram$$eys.


And then the gall to critique those of us who find their behavior more than suspicious. Seven years later, I am more convinced than ever that the Ramseys know damn well what happened that night.

Poor JonBenet will not rest in peace until...............