This is the truth!

[Maikai]

Prior to 12/26/96, the Ramseys were living the American Dream. They were a good Christian family who had obtained a certain level of success both together and individually. Overnight their world was turned upside down through the acts of one (or more) loser. Their one fault was they were too trusting, and let their guard down. The loser, once he came up with a plan, found it easy to obtain access to the home. Whatever his original motive was, he murdered an innocent defenseless child with a lot of potential. The Ramseys to this day have no idea who could have done this, or why they did it.

[Maikai]

were very complimentary about the family. No one has a life with few blemishes, and all of a sudden become a sadistic killer of a beloved child--it doesn't happen. What changed? They got an attorney right away......and at least one lead detective didn't like it.....and took the law into his own hands, and was determined to find guilt, once he made his mind up that it was the parents.

Slain girl's father a top Boulder exec

By Charlie Brennan and Kevin McCullen





%%byline%%By Charlie Brennan and Kevin McCullen
News Staff Writers


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOULDER -- Ramsey was a name well-known in Boulder long before it became linked to tragedy. John Ramsey, the 53-year-old father of 6-year-old slaying victim JonBenet Ramsey, had a big impact on the community since moving to town five years ago.
Ramsey had owned a Georgia-based computer company, Advanced Products Group, that merged with two other companies to form Access Graphics in 1989 in Boulder. Access Graphics, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corp., distributes computer equipment and peripherals. Ramsey joined the company as vice president for sales and marketing and became president and chief executive officer in 1991.
He won the Boulder County Business Report's Esprit Entrepreneur of the Year award in 1995. He was well-liked by his employees.
JonBenet occasionally visited her father at Access Graphics. "She was an adorable child,'' said Laurie Wagner, a company vice president.
Her charm won her the title of Little Miss Colorado this year. Already she was following in the footsteps of her mother. Patricia "Patsy'' Ramsey reigned as Miss West Virginia in 1977. "They were so serious about this beauty-queen stuff, but they never put any pressure on her,'' said Dee Dee Nelson-Schneider. Al Cox, president of the Miss West Virginia pageant, said Patricia Ramsey and her family were close friends who contributed to a pageant scholarship every year.
"This is unbelievable,'' Cox said. "She is a real big supporter to our program and maintained close ties to us.'' The pain of the Ramseys' loss reverberated across town at High Peaks Elementary, the back-to-basics school JonBenet attended. The Boulder Valley School District dispatched counselors to the school, which was opened Friday for parents and students who wanted to talk about the tragedy. "She was a very bright child,'' said Barbara Chomko, director of secondary education for the district and former principal at High Peaks.
Students are on vacation until Jan. 6, and a team of grief counselors is scheduled to be at school that week, Chomko said.
The tragedy also stunned the close-knit neighborhood of narrow, tree-lined streets and well-appointed homes where the Ramseys settled in 1991. "She was a beautiful little girl,'' neighbor Diane Brumfitt said. "But her personality -- she was very engaging and charming.''
"They're such a nice family,'' neighbor Joe Barnhill said, petting Jacques, a bichon frise. The dog once belonged to JonBenet but has become a regular boarder with the Barnhills, who cared for the girl's dog this summer while the Ramseys vacationed at their summer home in Michigan.
"Why something like this would happen to such wonderful people,'' Barnhill said, "I'll never know.''


December 28, 1996

[Jayelles]

I don't think that there are many who believe the Ramseys are "sadistic" killers. I have seen VERY few posts over the years where someone thinks they actually planned it - about as many as there are people who think a cop did it or the al Quaeda.

I'm sorry Jayelles but I felt this section of text was a bit out of bounds.
So I had to edit it.

Accidents happen. People make mistakes - perfect families too.

By all means have a pro-Ramsey thread (despite spin to the contrary, this isn't an exclusively anti-Ramsey board after all) - but PLEASE keep things in persepctive.

[Blazeboy3]

Prior to 12/26/96, the Ramseys were living the American Dream. They were a good Christian family who had obtained a certain level of success both together and individually. Overnight their world was turned upside down through the acts of one (or more) loser. Their one fault was they were too trusting, and let their guard down. The loser, once he came up with a plan, found it easy to obtain access to the home. Whatever his original motive was, he murdered an innocent defenseless child with a lot of potential. The Ramseys to this day have no idea who could have done this, or why they did it.

Hey IMHO if you can live with that "thought" and BELIEVE it...more power to ya. IMHO it's putting BLINDERS on because it's safe but not true. :HappyBday
I believe Sylvia Browne/John Edwards in the saying/thought: There are no accidents...everything happens for a reason. :blushing:
IMHO, it was planned (premeditated) like Patsy said; Why, I don't know but have a general idea. Read "The Franklyn Cover-Up" and it talks about the trauma-induced mind-controll of children and a place in Colorado...the Franklyn Cover-Up happened in my hometown and it was played out to be a hoax ... remember knowledge is neutral ... it's an interesting read FWIW!

[Blazeboy3]

Prior to 12/26/96, the Ramseys were living the American Dream. They were a good Christian family who had obtained a certain level of success both together and individually. Overnight their world was turned upside down through the acts of one (or more) loser. Their one fault was they were too trusting, and let their guard down. The loser, once he came up with a plan, found it easy to obtain access to the home. Whatever his original motive was, he murdered an innocent defenseless child with a lot of potential. The Ramseys to this day have no idea who could have done this, or why they did it.

So, how do you really know the R's "have no idea" ... share? :eek:

[popcorn]

Since when does the American dream include cancer, divorce, infidelity, the death of one child and the sexual exploitation of another? It only appears they were living the American Dream to those that are not. Success isn't measured by the square footage of one's home or how many toys are in the garage. It's measured by the interpersonal relationships to those around us. They were failing weither the death was an accident they couldn't handle or the reaction of an intruder.

John was emotionally bankrupt from the death of Beth and Patsy wasn't the hormonally intact and balanced woman she had been due to cancer treatments.

[BrotherMoon]

Comments such as these are not required...

[Barbara]

Since when does the American dream include cancer, divorce, infidelity, the death of one child and the sexual exploitation of another? It only appears they were living the American Dream to those that are not. Success isn't measured by the square footage of one's home or how many toys are in the garage. It's measured by the interpersonal relationships to those around us. They were failing weither the death was an accident they couldn't handle or the reaction of an intruder.

John was emotionally bankrupt from the death of Beth and Patsy wasn't the hormonally intact and balanced woman she had been due to cancer treatments.

Excellent post!

Remember, there are many people in prison, mental hospitals, etc. who were living the American Dream.

John was living the American dream when he was married to Lucinda.

There are people living the American dream today, as were on 9/11, who are currently planning the next attack on America.

That mantra of living the American dream is a pure waste of the alphabet when used in this context!

[Brefie]

Hmmm.....if their one fault was that they were too trusting...just WHY did they lawyer up before their child was cold???? One would think that if a person were too trusting that they may want to co operate with the police in the matter of finding the killer of their child......just thinking out loud.....

[Barbara]

Prior to 12/26/96, the Ramseys were living the American Dream. They were a good Christian family who had obtained a certain level of success both together and individually. Overnight their world was turned upside down through the acts of one (or more) loser. Their one fault was they were too trusting, and let their guard down. The loser, once he came up with a plan, found it easy to obtain access to the home. Whatever his original motive was, he murdered an innocent defenseless child with a lot of potential. The Ramseys to this day have no idea who could have done this, or why they did it.

They were NOT a good Christian family. Good Christian families don't sexualize their children. Good Christian families don't prank women stating their husbands have a mistress. Good Christian families wouldn't associate with the type of friends (The Stines) who would steal a man's wallet through a crack in their front door, call the police and have the man arrested, nor would they associate with those who would impersonate a police officer, nor would they drink and drug themselves during a police investigation so that they could not be helpful. GOOD CHRISTIANS don't arrange a photo op at the memorial service of their daughter's tragic death. GOOD CHRISTIANS don't worry about looking like Jackie Kennedy during a funeral! GOOD CHRISTIANS don't go from salon to salon until they find one to DYE THE HAIR OF A SIX YEAR OLD CHILD! GOOD CHRISTIANS DON'T LIE. GOOD CHRISTIANS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND DON'T BLAME EVERYONE BUT THEMSELVES FOR THEIR MISTAKES! And finally.........GOOD CHRISTIANS DON'T BRAG ABOUT BEING GOOD CHRISTIANS!!!

TOO TRUSTING??? They had convinced themselves within the first HOURS of the investigation that the police were after them and got lawyers and then refused to grant an interview with the very people who could investigate this crime. They left town AND DIDN'T COME BACK. I don't call that trusting at all! :liar:

The Ramseys were extremely lucky that the BPD bungled this crime scene! :behindbar

[Nehemiah]

I am an avowed fence sitter, but the mere fact that the Rs lawyered up to the degree that they did has always made me very suspicious. Even if that can be chalked up to taking someone else's advice, then the fact that they themselves did not constantly bombard the police station makes me suspect. I realize that their attorneys reportedly advised them not to do that, however, John was a big CEO and capable of making decisions. I think they have to take responsibility for their lack of "cooperation" with the police. Within a few hours of finding their child's body, they lawyered everyone up to the inth degree....and started their own investigation, counter to the police. Something about that picture seems very out of place, to me.

And now we have Haddon and Co, in another part of Colorado, claiming that the police bungled Kobe Bryant's case. Is there a pattern here, by the R's attorneys, to create a diversion?

IMO

[Show Me]

I am an avowed fence sitter, but the mere fact that the Rs lawyered up to the degree that they did has always made me very suspicious. Even if that can be chalked up to taking someone else's advice, then the fact that they themselves did not constantly bombard the police station makes me suspect. I realize that their attorneys reportedly advised them not to do that, however, John was a big CEO and capable of making decisions. I think they have to take responsibility for their lack of "cooperation" with the police. Within a few hours of finding their child's body, they lawyered everyone up to the inth degree....and started their own investigation, counter to the police. Something about that picture seems very out of place, to me.


IMO

And going on CNN with JonBenet not dead a week later to claim their innocence (amazing how they managed to put themselves together for the interview) And to state they'd work with police. Then wait months to talk to the very people who were trying to catch the killers of their daughter.

John said he'd take a polygraph and when the BPD asked him to, he said he was INSULTED. Why? Why not clear your name?

Of course the list goes on and on...John says 'this' and John says "that" and John does nothing.

[Maikai]

Within a few hours of finding their child's body, they lawyered everyone up to the inth degree....and started their own investigation, counter to the police. Something about that picture seems very out of place, to me.IMO

It wasn't long before it was known the people the Ramseys turned to for help (BPD) in the very early hours had also made mistakes in those crucial early hours. Hiring of experts was not done to counter the police, but to help them. The experts were offered to the BPD on a silver platter. JR as a CEO relied on experts in various fields in his business. Why should this have been any different? They had no clue how they were suppose to act, and were in no condition to make their own decisions.

[Barbara]

It wasn't long before it was known the people the Ramseys turned to for help (BPD) in the very early hours had also made mistakes in those crucial early hours. Hiring of experts was not done to counter the police, but to help them. The experts were offered to the BPD on a silver platter. JR as a CEO relied on experts in various fields in his business. Why should this have been any different? They had no clue how they were suppose to act, and were in no condition to make their own decisions.

Wrong again Maikai. The hiring of experts was to keep them out of prison. They themselves have admitted that. They were in no condition to make their own decisions, yet they made the decision to appear on LKL. They state to this day that they spoke with police, etc AGAINST THEIR LAWYER'S ADVICE. So how very convenient that they make very selective decisions when it is to their advantage, but not for JonBenet's advantage. :boohoo:

AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN A CONDITION! No excuses. There are no other parents of murder victims who drugged and drank themselves into a condition that prevented them from talking to police! Find me any parent of a murder victim who claimed to be "in no condition" to speak with police. And to top it off, were in a condition to go on national tv and to arrange a photo op at their own child's memorial service. :sick:

What a load of sh*t!

[Shylock]

They had no clue how they were suppose to act, and were in no condition to make their own decisions.
No clue how to act???
How about acting like INNOCENT people!

If you want to see how INNOCENT people act when a child is taken and murdered, just look at the Van Damms, and the Klass and Walsh famlies.

The Ramseys are involved in their daughter's death up to their eyeballs, and they acted accordingly from the moment they made the 911 call.

[Nehemiah]

It wasn't long before it was known the people the Ramseys turned to for help (BPD) in the very early hours had also made mistakes in those crucial early hours.

"It wasn't long" was only a very few hours after finding the body of their child. To what do you refer when you say this? We are talking about a very very short time~~not even "days".

Naturally, I don't know the truth. I AM personally familiar with people creating diversions, and this "appears" to be such a time. And now, with Haddon & Co. crying police foul-up in another high profile case, it makes me go hmmm.....

I do not think the Rs in any way premeditatedly murdered their daughter. I can't get off the fence on their side for any length of time due to the reasons I have cited on this thread. I wish I could; I really do.

IMO

[Maikai]

There are no other parents of murder victims who drugged and drank themselves into a condition that prevented them from talking to police! Find me any parent of a murder victim who claimed to be "in no condition" to speak with police. And to top it off, were in a condition to go on national tv and to arrange a photo op at their own child's memorial service. :sick:

What a load of sh*t!

They were with the police 24/7 at the Stines house---isn't it interesting that no leaks have come out about the conversations that went on then. I can name a family who cooperated with police and both ended up on trial, with the husband ending up in prison---the Dowaliby's. The husband was eventually released, when it came out that they were railroaded. The investigation of the Ramseys could have been scripted from what happened to the Dowalibys.

BTW: How does a good Christian act?

I think it's obvious from some of the responses that some just don't like the Ramseys-----it's possible the perp was of a similar mindset--he/she just didn't like them for some reason, which is why they were targeted--and the beauty queen daughter would have been the perfect victim.

[Barbara]

They were with the police 24/7 at the Stines house---isn't it interesting that no leaks have come out about the conversations that went on then. I can name a family who cooperated with police and both ended up on trial, with the husband ending up in prison---the Dowaliby's. The husband was eventually released, when it came out that they were railroaded. The investigation of the Ramseys could have been scripted from what happened to the Dowalibys.

BTW: How does a good Christian act?

I think it's obvious from some of the responses that some just don't like the Ramseys-----it's possible the perp was of a similar mindset--he/she just didn't like them for some reason, which is why they were targeted--and the beauty queen daughter would have been the perfect victim.

They were with police 24/7 at the Stines house? And where, pray tell, can we get proof of that??? One has to have something to leak about before it can be leaked. They would have to answer questions for there to be a leak!

You have mentioned the Dowaliby family, but still haven't answered to where we can find parents who did not speak to the police because they were in "no condition". The Ramseys were not the Dowalibys and the Ramseys had a team of lawyers, which is conveniently forgotten when you like to speak of railroading. I doubt Haddon, et al would allow "railroading". Yet another poor excuse. Isn't that why families are allowed to have lawyers???????

How does a good Christian act??? Like a good Christian. I have made a list that tells how a good Christian does NOT act, so I guess that leaves the Ramseys out. Like I said before, Good Christians don't brag about being Good Christians! Good Christians don't prank to intentionally hurt others and brag and laugh about it. You draw your own conclusions.

Actually, if one wants to see a perfect example of how NOT to behave like a good ........anything, one only has to read the moron Ashley's post at the end of the timeline thread at Webbsleuths. Now there's someone the Ramseys can be proud of!

It is true that many do not like the Ramseys. However, it is not for the reasons you have talked yourself into believing. It is because they are not the people they brag about being and it has been shown time and time again. It could also be because they are covering up a MURDER!

[Shylock]

I can name a family who cooperated with police and both ended up on trial, with the husband ending up in prison---the Dowaliby's.
Yeah, well in case you don't know it, David Dowaliby is just as guilty as the Ramseys and OJ. He may have gotten off on appeal, but that doesn't make him innocent. The police consider their case "closed". They know he did it, but there will never be enough evidence to put him back in prison.

And where did you get the idea the Dowaliby's cooperated with the police? They did until they found out they were the prime suspects then they pulled a Ramsey.

Where are they now? Just like the Ramseys, they show no real interest in solving their daughter's murder. The Dowaliby's changed their name, moved out of the state they were living in, and David got a nose job so nobody else could identify him and connect him to the crime.

That was a good choice of example, Maikai. If any other people prove guilty people ACT GUILTY like the Ramseys, it's the Dowaliby's.

[Barbara]

Wow Thanks Shylock

Since I didn't follow the Dowaliby case, I couldn't speak to that, but I'm glad you cleared that up.

OMG, OJ's GUILTY!!!!????? :eek:

[Britt]

They got an attorney right away......and at least one lead detective didn't like it.....and took the law into his own hands, and was determined to find guilt, once he made his mind up that it was the parents.
How exactly did this rogue detective take the law into his own hands? I, for one, would be interested in seeing your proof of this. Did he tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses? What, exactly?

[Barbara]

How exactly did this rogue detective take the law into his own hands? I, for one, would be interested in seeing your proof of this. Did he tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses? What, exactly?

Isn't it interesting that the "other" detective Lou Smit, decided that the parents DID NOT do it and took the law into his own hands, stealing evidence for his own presentation and then having to make a "deal" to cover the ass of the DA in order for him to keep the evidence he HAD NO RIGHT TO TAKE! Had Hunter not been corrupt and needed Smit to keep his secrets, Smit would have had to give it back.

How convenient that it gets left out of conversation.

[Show Me]

It wasn't long before it was known the people the Ramseys turned to for help (BPD) in the very early hours had also made mistakes in those crucial early hours. Hiring of experts was not done to counter the police, but to help them. The experts were offered to the BPD on a silver platter. JR as a CEO relied on experts in various fields in his business. Why should this have been any different? They had no clue how they were suppose to act, and were in no condition to make their own decisions.

Well Maikai...when the Ramseys are awaiting the Grand Jury decision John himself tells Patsy: (DOI, paperback edition, page 331)

"You need to recognize what's happening," I explained further. "The number one job of our attorneys and investigators has always been to keep the two of us out of jail." My words had a cold, hard ring."
-------
Doesn't sound to me like John is trying to aid the police. The number one job of the RST has ALWAYS been to keep the Ramseys out of jail....whoa not look for JonBenet's killer. Maybe JonBenet rates as the number two job?

[Britt]

OMG, OJ's GUILTY!!!!????? :eek:
lol... Oh Barbara, don't be silly. Prior to 6/12/94, OJ Simpson was living the American Dream. He was rich, successful and handsome. He had lots of friends, a wonderful girlfriend, and was a great father. He was an attentive family man and a dependable ex-husband. He was a popular and well-loved sports hero. Life just doesn't get any better than that! The man was damn near perfect. No one has a life with few blemishes (just ignore the evidence of prior abuse!) and all of a sudden become a sadistic killer of a beloved ex-wife! It doesn't happen. What changed? OJ was obviously railroaded. Those cops never liked him and were out to get him from the get-go, dontcha know!

[Shawna]

Or that you all believe JonBenet's face appeared on a door as some sort of sign to you?

Jonbenet's face appeared on Mickie's closet door along with Beth's. There was a thread about it on Purgatory if I remember correctly. :D

[jat]

I see you wearing one of those t-shirts with an arrow pointing up and the words "I'm with stupid" on it.

Folks, maybe this will be moved to the parking lot, but comments like these really bring the credibility and intellect of the site down. It just isn't necessary.

[tezi]

Wrong again Maikai. The hiring of experts was to keep them out of prison. They themselves have admitted that. They were in no condition to make their own decisions, yet they made the decision to appear on LKL. They state to this day that they spoke with police, etc AGAINST THEIR LAWYER'S ADVICE. So how very convenient that they make very selective decisions when it is to their advantage, but not for JonBenet's advantage. :boohoo:

AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN A CONDITION! No excuses. There are no other parents of murder victims who drugged and drank themselves into a condition that prevented them from talking to police! Find me any parent of a murder victim who claimed to be "in no condition" to speak with police. And to top it off, were in a condition to go on national tv and to arrange a photo op at their own child's memorial service. :sick:

What a load of sh*t!

Amen Barbara! Thanks for pointing out how they drank and drugged themselves so that they couldn't talk to the police.

Yes, the police were at the Stine's. But let's not forget that Patsy was doped up on valium and John was drunk and on valium. :boohoo: Also, don't forget that when John kept saying he was sorry, the good Dr. Beuf and someone else (whose name has slipped my mind, maybe John's brother Jeff) took John for a walk....Geez, I wonder what was said on that walk away from the police's prying ears????? :banghead:

Again, wonderful points as usual Barbara!:clap:

[vicktor]

-------
the number one job of the RST has ALWAYS been to keep the Ramseys out of jail....whoa not look for JonBenet's killer. Maybe JonBenet rates as the number two job?

Some time after the crime, the private investigators came up with who might be the best suspect and gave that to the BPD. Along with him the BPD found a tip that had been called in on him by a friend of his in the months after the crime, that they had not followed up on. If this person had left his DNA at the scene the case would have been solved.

[Britt]

Some time after the crime, the private investigators came up with who might be the best suspect and gave that to the BPD. Along with him the BPD found a tip that had been called in on him by a friend of his in the months after the crime, that they had not followed up on. If this person had left his DNA at the scene the case would have been solved.
Gary Oliva, I presume? What made him a "best suspect"? Not exactly a close bud of the Ramseys, was he? How did he know so much about the family? How did he get access to JonBenet to have inflicted the prior abuse within the three days or so prior to her death?

[Amraann]

Jat...... Exactly!

I would like to remind everyone that WS encourages all POV's.
Some replies here were more about attacking Maikia and less about debating the actual topic and differing views therof.
I respectfully request that everyone be permitted to debate their ideas on this subject without threat of being attacked personally.
Thank you for your attention:)

Amra

[Show Me]

Some time after the crime, the private investigators came up with who might be the best suspect and gave that to the BPD. Along with him the BPD found a tip that had been called in on him by a friend of his in the months after the crime, that they had not followed up on. If this person had left his DNA at the scene the case would have been solved.

If the person had left his DNA at the scene? How can a person not leave some DNA at the crime scene?

Besides didn't John tell us in DOI, the number one job of his attorneys and investigators was to keep the two of them out of jail? So what does that have to do with a DNA-less suspect?

[vicktor]

Gary Oliva, I presume? What made him a "best suspect"? Not exactly a close bud of the Ramseys, was he? How did he know so much about the family? How did he get access to JonBenet to have inflicted the prior abuse within the three days or so prior to her death?

1. yes
2.There are several of my posts during the last 2-3 weeks describing this, check those out.
3. no, his connection was geographic
3a. the reference to $118,000, fatcat, and good southern common sense? He could have found an old check stub by going through a couple of drawers in John's desk; he seemed to have a pretty good vocabulary and may have heard the word 'fatcat' and remembered the meaning; maybe he had read something about John, saw something in the house about the south etc.
4. He didn't. Lots of differing opinions about that.

[Show Me]

If Olivia was going thru the desks looking for checkstubs, where's all the DNA, hair, fingerprint evidence?

[vicktor]

If the person had left his DNA at the scene? How can a person not leave some DNA at the crime scene?

Besides didn't John tell us in DOI, the number one job of his attorneys and investigators was to keep the two of them out of jail? So what does that have to do with a DNA-less suspect?

Criminals break into houses all the time and do burglaries assaults murders etc. where they don't leave DNA that is recovered by LE. If they aren't cut or scratched and don't commit rape, there probably won't be any DNA recovered by LE. If you are asking the theoretical question about someone leaving their presense, then yes, they probably would leave 1-2 hairs somewhere, and might slough off some dead skin cells as they brushed by a doorway. The point is that LE can't begin to vacuum the whole house, test every surface and identify every hair found. That applies to the crime scene also.

2. O.K. I get you... Oliva was first identified by the PI's , then checked out by the BPD and given a DNA test. They were working offensively to find suspects that might solve the crime. IMO, Oliva is the best suspect,yet his DNA was found not to match. The conclusion is that the DNA isn't revelant. The contention is that the Ramsey PI's would have solved the crime by identifying Oliva, had the Ramsey's and the DA's conjecture about the DNA been true. IOW, if Oliva HAD left DNA then the PI's would have solved the case.

[Ivy]

Even if Oliva knew the Rs had a dog and that it was a bichon frise and not a rotweiller, how would he have known that Jacque had been taken to the neighbors' and wouldn't be at the Rs' to give his presence away by yapping and behaving as most bichons would at seeing a stranger? What if Jacque usually slept in JonBenet's room?

Oliva didn't kill JonBenet, but he makes a handy scapegoat for those who can't accept that one of the three Ramseys did.

imo

[Ivy]

In DOI John writes: (page 8, hardback)

...Patsy wanted to drop of a couple of gifts on our way home from the Whites'. We pulled up the driveway at the Walkers' and Patsy took a small package to the door, talked for a few minutes and returned to the car. Then we drove a few blocks to the Stines' house. Patsy had bid on three gift baskets at a recent silent auction benefit, she and Burke took one of the packages to their door. We had another basket in the trunk of the car intended for our friends the Fernies', but we decided it was to late now to make any more visits. We would deliver their gift when we returned from Michigan.

NE Book Page 49:

Tom Trujillo: "Was she [JonBenet] awake at all when you were over at the Stines' house?

Patsy Ramsey: "Uh, well, I just went to the door. We didn't all go in. I just went to the door... and gave them a basket of something... for a Christmas present or something. We were going, I remember, cause I had a big basket in the car to take to the Fernies, but since JonBenet had fallen asleep and it was getting kind of late.. I think we just decided not to go to the Fernies."

1998 Tracey Documentary:

Susan Stine: "They came to our house and I talked to Patsy for awhile maybe 10 or 15 minutes and they all seemed perfectly normal. They were all the same - bubbly about Christmas and about where they were going and we, my husband and I, waved good-bye to them as they were leaving and that was the last time we saw them as an intact family."

So, Did Patsy go to the Stines' door alone, or did Burke go with her? If Patsy and Susan visited for 10 to 15 minutes and Burke had gone with her to the door, what did Burke do...just stand there while the women chatted? Or did he go inside and visit with his pal Doug Stine? Was JonBenet awake while the Rs were parked at the Stines?

Most of us remember that John and Patsy claimed that JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home and was carried upstairs, but that Burke said JonBenet actually carried a Christmas present into the house walked upstairs to bed on her own.

Why all the discrepancies? (As most of us know, what I posted here is just the tip of the iceberg.)

imo

[Blazeboy3]

Since when does the American dream include cancer, divorce, infidelity, the death of one child and the sexual exploitation of another? It only appears they were living the American Dream to those that are not. Success isn't measured by the square footage of one's home or how many toys are in the garage. It's measured by the interpersonal relationships to those around us. They were failing weither the death was an accident they couldn't handle or the reaction of an intruder.

John was emotionally bankrupt from the death of Beth and Patsy wasn't the hormonally intact and balanced woman she had been due to cancer treatments.
IMHO...my American dream doesn't include such things as cancer, divorce, infidelity, death of one/any child, sexual exploitation of any type, etc. IMHO the R's were living the life they wanted to live regardless of "any consequences," OR the R's were prepared to "suffer the consequences" ... i.e., sue all/any--make lots of money in Burke's name "AND" be KNOWN TO ALL regardless of WHO/WHAT/WHEN/WHERE/WHY AND HOW!!!

[Blazeboy3]

Jat...... Exactly!

I would like to remind everyone that WS encourages all POV's.
Some replies here were more about attacking Maikia and less about debating the actual topic and differing views therof.
I respectfully request that everyone be permitted to debate their ideas on this subject without threat of being attacked personally.
Thank you for your attention:)

Amra
Amen/ditto that thought! IMHO we are here to share/vent but not attack each other IMHO! :) :) :)
On that note...anyone want to SHARE our "weather" (stormy that is +/sum LOL)

[Blazeboy3]

In DOI John writes: (page 8, hardback)

...Patsy wanted to drop of a couple of gifts on our way home from the Whites'. We pulled up the driveway at the Walkers' and Patsy took a small package to the door, talked for a few minutes and returned to the car. Then we drove a few blocks to the Stines' house. Patsy had bid on three gift baskets at a recent silent auction benefit, she and Burke took one of the packages to their door. We had another basket in the trunk of the car intended for our friends the Fernies', but we decided it was to late now to make any more visits. We would deliver their gift when we returned from Michigan.

NE Book Page 49:

Tom Trujillo: "Was she [JonBenet] awake at all when you were over at the Stines' house?

Patsy Ramsey: "Uh, well, I just went to the door. We didn't all go in. I just went to the door... and gave them a basket of something... for a Christmas present or something. We were going, I remember, cause I had a big basket in the car to take to the Fernies, but since JonBenet had fallen asleep and it was getting kind of late.. I think we just decided not to go to the Fernies."

1998 Tracey Documentary:

Susan Stine: "They came to our house and I talked to Patsy for awhile maybe 10 or 15 minutes and they all seemed perfectly normal. They were all the same - bubbly about Christmas and about where they were going and we, my husband and I, waved good-bye to them as they were leaving and that was the last time we saw them as an intact family."

So, Did Patsy go to the Stines' door alone, or did Burke go with her? If Patsy and Susan visited for 10 to 15 minutes and Burke had gone with her to the door, what did Burke do...just stand there while the women chatted? Or did he go inside and visit with his pal Doug Stine? Was JonBenet awake while the Rs were parked at the Stines?

Most of us remember that John and Patsy claimed that JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home and was carried upstairs, but that Burke said JonBenet actually carried a Christmas present into the house walked upstairs to bed on her own.

Why all the discrepancies? (As most of us know, what I posted here is just the tip of the iceberg.)

imo
IMHO this is not what really happened and therefore doesn't really make any sense...just my opinion. I believe more (much more) went on that night which included the Stines and it's a "secret." I would do "cartwheels" if they were (Stine's) related to the author R.L.Stine (I'm pushing 46 LOL)... see/seek...
http://www.bookfinder.us/review7/0671529544.html
Forbidden Secrets
Stine R. L Book Review
AUTHOR: Stine, R. L.
From the Publisher
The dark poweer of the Fear family consumes all those connected with it. No one can escape the evil of the family's curse — not even the Fears themselves. Savannah Gentry doesn't believe that. She marries Tyler Fear. But then she goes with him to Blackrose Manor. That's when the deaths begin. That's when she learns his terrible secret.

[Show Me]

Ok Vicktor I understand your point...thank you.

Ivy....the Rams change their stories so much I can never keep up with the latest 'truth'. Excellent find.

[solosamtheman]

No clue how to act???
How about acting like INNOCENT people!

If you want to see how INNOCENT people act when a child is taken and murdered, just look at the Van Damms, and the Klass and Walsh famlies.

The Ramseys are involved in their daughter's death up to their eyeballs, and they acted accordingly from the moment they made the 911 call. Exactly the point I tried to make a while back. Those families were willing to bare their souls and allow their dirty laundry to be broadcasted all over the world to find out what happened to their children. The Ramseys were far more interested in protecting themselves.......from what?

[vicktor]

Even if Oliva knew the Rs had a dog and that it was a bichon frise and not a rotweiller, how would he have known that Jacque had been taken to the neighbors' and wouldn't be at the Rs' to give his presence away by yapping and behaving as most bichons would at seeing a stranger?

Oliva didn't kill JonBenet, but he makes a handy scapegoat for those who can't accept that one of the three Ramseys did.

imo

With this crime as with most, whether the perp is successful is a matter of luck. If Oliva had broken in and found their dog barking at him as he walked around, he no doubt would have maybe looked for something to steal, forgot his plan and left. If he believed that a dog lived there, he probably would have avoided breaking in. He likely didn't observe the house enough to know for sure if a dog regularly lived there.

[Ivy]

victor, you're saying that Oliva may not have been familiar enough with the house to know the Rs owned a dog...but that Oliva knew the layout of the house and thus knew where everyone's bedrooms were...and also, on which staircase to place the note?

imo

[lisafremont]

AND he felt secure enough to write such a long, long "note" (and even practice first) on a pad of the Ramseys with their own Sharpie pen, without fear of being discovered! He wrote a ransom letter demanding a low and weird sum from a millionaire but had already killed the child and left her body behind.

This "intruder" is either a very bad kidnapper-for-ransom---
didn't come prepared with ransom letter
used items from the house to kill with
left body of child, guaranteeing no payment
demands relatively small amount from very rich man

or a very bad sadistic pedophile----
didn't take child with him,
as Adam Walsh, Polly Klaas and Danielle Van Damm were taken

OR

it wasn't an intruder!
Gee!

[vicktor]

Ivy, if the intruder broke in after the Ramseys had got home, he would have been faced with walking around in quiet and semi-darkness trying to see who slept where. Since this sounds unlikely, he came in after the Ramseys had left to go to the Whites. In 15 min. he could have checked out the basement, seen the kitchen, went upstairs to see the bedrooms. Not being a spur of the moment crime, he might have come to the alley for several nights on the chance he might see the family leave from the garage. He didn't necessarily know about the stairs, anywhere in or near the kitchen would have worked also.

LisaFremont, the basement had several rooms he could have hidden in. He probably had a stun gun and could have had another gun, increasing his confidence level. A veteran detective has noted that people who have just killed someone are highly physically and emotionally agitated. Add to this that the intruder would not spend 1+ hrs. writing and copying a ransom letter after the crime risking discovery and you reach the conclusion that the note was written beforehand. There may have been more than 1 yellow legal pad in the kitchen, making it easy for him to take one downstairs to wait for the R's to retire.

Yes, probably a deranged pedophile, who had motive, opportunity ( and I forget the 3rd. one) . Managed to avoid detection at 7-8 different times, got very lucky.

P.S. A similar crime occured in Bldr 8 mo. after the JBR case. A man broke into a 2 story home and waited for the family to come home in the eve. After they had gone to bed he went into the 14 yr. old girls room and attempted to assault her. She made a noise, bringing her mother to the room to confront the intruder. He then ran out, jumping from the 2nd story balcony. As of several months afterwords no suspects or arrests were announced, and it was never stated that the police had found DNA, other evidence (or fingerprints) at the house.

[lisafremont]

But, Viktor, Patsy Ramsey wrote that "ransom" letter! Why on earth would she do that for an "intruder"?
:waitasec:

[Levi]

But, Viktor, Patsy Ramsey wrote that "ransom" letter! Why on earth would she do that for an "intruder"?
:waitasec:
I think that there was an intruder, I think it was someone close too the family, somone who knew the family, & Jon Benet, very well, & the house & area of their home. Becuase on Court TV's the system they aired a 2nd look @ the this case. It showed the detective who worked on this case simply & easy get into their basement, but I @ the time of the murder I was convinced that her parents, or one of them killed her. Didn't she have a brother living in the house too? I think this is a baffaling case, I have 2nd thoughts everytime I think about it.

[Shylock]

the reference to $118,000, fatcat, and good southern common sense? He could have found an old check stub by going through a couple of drawers in John's desk
Victor, have you read Thomas' book? The BPD spent DAYS going through ALL the paperwork in the Ramsey house. They found NO reference to the $118,000 figure in JR's desk or anywhere else. It was JR's secretary who told them it was his bonus amount. If she hadn't done so, they probably wouldn't know that at all.

[Britt]

It was JR's secretary who told them it was his bonus amount. If she hadn't done so, they probably wouldn't know that at all.
Hey, does she have an alibi?

[lisafremont]

How could there have been an intruder when the window sills were still covered with undisturbed dust, and cobwebs remained in the places where the spiders had spun them in the window wells?

There was no physical evidence of an intruder.

Couple that with the ransom letter that was so clearly written by Patsy Ramsey and you have an inside job and cover up. NOT a "kidnapping" turned murder.

IMO

[Maikai]

Jat...... Exactly!

I would like to remind everyone that WS encourages all POV's.
Some replies here were more about attacking Maikia and less about debating the actual topic and differing views therof.
I respectfully request that everyone be permitted to debate their ideas on this subject without threat of being attacked personally.
Thank you for your attention:)

Amra

I can take it....personal attacks don't bother me...some of them are funny.

[Maikai]

And I'm not talking a quick trip post-12/96. If you're familiar with Boulder, you'd have to realize a couple things. One....beauty pageants--let alone children beauty pageant winners are not exactly in vogue there. So....if you look at the victim (JBR), she would be a perfect kidnap victim.

Secondly, Pearl Street is not all that big of a geographic area. Anyone that spent any amount of time around the mall area, would have learned of Access Graphic, and JR.

Thirdly, Boulder has always been a draw for transcients---back in the 60's and 70's, it was a place where a lot of hippies hung out, strumming guitars and smoking pot, and dropping LSD. Boulder then evolved into a place with nuevo rich, and hi-technology companies moving in. Some really resented the "fat cats" that had moved in, driving up rents and property values, and they resented ostentacious shows of their money. It became a place of those that have and those that don't---not much middleclass in between. You have the University influence---with students and residents from academia. There has always been a fair amount of drugs.

So if you look at the Ramseys lifestyle, they would have been pretty visible. Add to that the article in the newspaper about JR's company making a billion dollars, and IMO, someone that he came across at some point in time, could have gotten an idea and/or harbored some kind of resentment. if they didn't know much about the family, once inside the house they would have seen evidence of JBR's participation in the pageants. I don't think they were close enough to be on a radar screen---they left handwriting, and called JBR "your daughter." The long rambling note IMO, is more like the mind of someone on methamphetamine....and the crime if you take it at face value, was that of an amateur.

[tezi]

I lived twelve miles from Boulder. I used to go to the Pearl Street Mall. I left in 1996. But, I didn't know who the Ramsey's were until after the murder of JB. And yes, I read the newspapers before she was murdered.

The note was more like the mind of someone in a panic trying to cover up something that they did, not so much like someone on meth....Yes, it was a crime of an amateur, Patsy Ramsey.

[BrotherMoon]

I can take it....personal attacks don't bother me...some of them are funny.

See, Amra???? It's all in FUN! Why, when a person is de-sensitized to the point of moral bankruptcy personal attacks are equated with knock-knock jokes. And the conscience, well, is that something to be paid attention??? Nawwwww!!!!! Dumb = numb, so let the barbs fly. No one gets hurt and we all can puke our idiotic thoughts and call it "The Truth", 'cuz nuttin' bothers the dead (headed).

[Show Me]

Interesting though both Hodges and Wecht wrote not ONE but TWO books declaring the Ramsey's guilt. Lin Wood has ignored both. You think, hey two more publisher's....mo' money.

An example of one of the damning quotes from Wecht. "Dr. Cyril Wecht, the forensic pathologist better known for his criticism of the JFK autopsy, has no doubt about molestation or who the guilty party is. "This to me is evidence of sexual abuse," he said in a newspaper interview. "I think any forensic gynecologist and forensic pathologist would agree with that." He would also state, point blank, "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, her father would have been arrested."

Yet McKinley/Fox are currently being sued for slander.

[Shylock]

..and the crime if you take it at face value, was that of an amateur.
Yeah, I guess you could call a 9-year old an "amateur".... (I doubt he went around hitting other kids over the head with a baseball bat every day.)

[vicktor]

But, Viktor, Patsy Ramsey wrote that "ransom" letter! Why on earth would she do that for an "intruder"?
:waitasec:

One suspect's handwriting was very similar to the note. If you want to fill out the theory, which includes the handwriting, use the feature that allows you to view any posters posts going back a few months. A sample of his handwriting was posted on Webbsleuths in approx. June 03 within a thread not related to his name or handwriting. I don't know where it is found at this time.

[Britt]

Interesting though both Hodges and Wecht wrote not ONE but TWO books declaring the Ramsey's guilt. Lin Wood has ignored both. You think, hey two more publisher's....mo' money.
Exactly, Show Me. But we don't want to go there, pal... not down that path, buddy.

[vicktor]

Victor, have you read Thomas' book? The BPD spent DAYS going through ALL the paperwork in the Ramsey house. They found NO reference to the $118,000 figure in JR's desk or anywhere else. It was JR's secretary who told them it was his bonus amount. If she hadn't done so, they probably wouldn't know that at all.

No, I haven't. But reading a few select passages left me wondering if Thomas was spinning or distorting facts. Assuming that statement is correct, the intruder could have drawn the 118 figure from the book by the FBI profiler, that included 118 cases. The note writer did spent a lot of time referencing crime movies and procedures. But I seem to remember that Patsy said that she didn't know the figure either, before Dec. 1996. If you want to say that Patsy wrote it W or W/O JOhn's help, the 118 could logically only point to his bonus amt. Why use a figure that only a few people at Access would know about, if you're trying to make it look like an Access employee did it?

[Shylock]

But I seem to remember that Patsy said that she didn't know the figure either, before Dec. 1996. If you want to say that Patsy wrote it W or W/O JOhn's help, the 118 could logically only point to his bonus amt. Why use a figure that only a few people at Access would know about, if you're trying to make it look like an Access employee did it?
I wouldn't trust anything John or Patsy told the police. Let's remember Patsy supposedly couldn't remember the Santa Bear or Burke having shoes with a compass on them, and John couldn't remember the flashlight he got as a present from his son or the family bowl and spoon that was on the table. The Ramsey's select memory recall is one thing that has always made them look guilty.

Why use a figure only Access Graphics people would know? Because the whole object of the ransom note to begin with was to point the crime outside the house--and it worked perfectly. John also commented to Arndt that it had to be an "inside job", further pointing the crime in that direction. And one of the first people John threw under the bus was Jeff Merrick, a former AG employee.

[Blazeboy3]

I wouldn't trust anything John or Patsy told the police. Let's remember Patsy supposedly couldn't remember the Santa Bear or Burke having shoes with a compass on them, and John couldn't remember the flashlight he got as a present from his son or the family bowl and spoon that was on the table. The Ramsey's select memory recall is one thing that has always made them look guilty.

Why use a figure only Access Graphics people would know? Because the whole object of the ransom note to begin with was to point the crime outside the house--and it worked perfectly. John also commented to Arndt that it had to be an "inside job", further pointing the crime in that direction. And one of the first people John threw under the bus was Jeff Merrick, a former AG employee.

LOL, your 1st paragraph is so so true...remember John saying he/we "were out of our minds" ... I agree w/John in regards to "they(him/Pats) totally travelled BEYOND NORMAL boundaries/limits"...

[Show Me]

Not only did John and Patsy not remember the bear and the shoes, Shylock....I find it very interesting they didn't remember much of the evidence they owned!

Example: Their pineapple bowl, their flashlight.

I also think it's a real gem Patsy trying to make us believe an ex-beauty queen/socialite is going to wear the same stinking clothes to meet Melinda's fiance, (forget about the closets full of fresh clean clothing) and Patsy skipped her shower also, 'cause her shower was broken (must be a family rule you can't use any other shower in the house, therefore if your shower is broken you can't bath until it's fixed).

Yet Patsy put on her makeup...cause momma always told her never to leave the house without your makeup on.

Obvious to me Patsy was up allllllll night. Same clothes, no shower and same makeup which IMO she never took off to begin with.