View Poll Results: Did Patsy write the ransom note?

Voters
317. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, Patsy wrote the note

    289 91.17%
  • No, Patsy did not write the note

    28 8.83%
Page 21 of 41 FirstFirst ... 111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 525 of 1004

Thread: The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

  1. #501
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    There was more than one version of that 911 call. There was an "enhanced" version where the background noise was eliminated and the volume increased and in that version you can clearly hear a child's voice asking "What did you find?". Then you hear JR's voice say "We're not speaking to you" in a harsh voice. That version was supposedly played on the Geraldo Rivera show. Some of us have heard that version and the child's voice and some have not. As JB was supposed to be "kidnapped" (and in reality she was dead) at the time that 911 call was made, the child's voice can only belong to BR. As his parents have insisted that he was asleep until they woke him to go to the White's after the police arrived, his voice on that tape proves his parents are lying about his being asleep.
    Later, BR said that he had been awake that morning all along and heard his parents rushing around the house and his mother's voice sounding very upset. He said that he pretended to be asleep when his parents looked in his room because he sensed they were upset about something.
    At some point, JR admitted that BR was, in fact, awake that morning. But he said they "felt it was better" to say that he remained asleep so that he "wouldn't be bothered" by questions.

    If YOUR kid was kidnapped and their sibling was in a room just down the hall, wouldn't you WANT them questioned to see if they saw or heard anything that might help police find your sister? Or help in the investigation? NO...only people with something to hide don't want to talk to police or have their family members talk to police. And none of them did...the silence of the family members, extended family included, speaks volumes.
    DeeDee249,
    Then you hear JR's voice say "We're not speaking to you" in a harsh voice.
    It really makes you wonder: We're why not the first person I'm?

    Burke is no innocent bystander as some attempt to portray him. He obviously knows stuff, and it could in fact be a BDI case.

    Why would you not speak to your own son, when JonBenet is lying dead down in the basement?

    How did Burke know John was looking for anything at all? Burke must have been present when John said I'm going down to the basement to look for X.

    One possible explanation is that John went looking for JonBenet after reading the ransom note, so to hide from Burke that JonBenet was dead?

    But this does not explain why he would not talk with Burke after the search.

    Anyway why did Burke not ask Did you find JonBenet?

    Ether Burke knows JonBenet is downstairs and is asking indirectly, or he is asking, did you find any forensic evidence?

    .

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  3. #502
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,620
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249,

    It really makes you wonder: We're why not the first person I'm?

    Burke is no innocent bystander as some attempt to portray him. He obviously knows stuff, and it could in fact be a BDI case.

    Why would you not speak to your own son, when JonBenet is lying dead down in the basement?

    How did Burke know John was looking for anything at all? Burke must have been present when John said I'm going down to the basement to look for X.

    One possible explanation is that John went looking for JonBenet after reading the ransom note, so to hide from Burke that JonBenet was dead?

    But this does not explain why he would not talk with Burke after the search.

    Anyway why did Burke not ask Did you find JonBenet?

    Ether Burke knows JonBenet is downstairs and is asking indirectly, or he is asking, did you find any forensic evidence?

    .
    I think the "we're" JR meant was himself and Patsy. Without being able to hear clearly the inflection in JR's voice, it is hard to tell whether he meant that comment as "we are not speaking to you (because we are upset with you)" or "we are not speaking to you (because our conversation is between your mother and me)".
    BR's comment (if it is accurate) is odd- you are right- how did he know they were looking for something if he was unaware of them searching the house?
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  5. #503
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I think the "we're" JR meant was himself and Patsy. Without being able to hear clearly the inflection in JR's voice, it is hard to tell whether he meant that comment as "we are not speaking to you (because we are upset with you)" or "we are not speaking to you (because our conversation is between your mother and me)".
    BR's comment (if it is accurate) is odd- you are right- how did he know they were looking for something if he was unaware of them searching the house?
    DeeDee249,
    Also the parents must have told Burke go back to bed and act asleep until we tell you otherwise, or words to that effect?

    Upset or the conversation being exclusive, John simply does not want to tell Burke anything.

    JonBenet is dead and John tells his son, We are not speaking to you. Either Burke was involved or he is getting the brush off, so to shut him up, e.g. keep him in the dark? But the latter does not square with Burke knowing John had been searching the basement.

    I'm assuming John found something of significance which he did not want to relate to Burke, since if Burke knew, that then might represent a weak point in the version of events?

    .

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  7. #504
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249,
    Also the parents must have told Burke go back to bed and act asleep until we tell you otherwise, or words to that effect?

    Upset or the conversation being exclusive, John simply does not want to tell Burke anything.

    JonBenet is dead and John tells his son, We are not speaking to you. Either Burke was involved or he is getting the brush off, so to shut him up, e.g. keep him in the dark? But the latter does not square with Burke knowing John had been searching the basement.

    I'm assuming John found something of significance which he did not want to relate to Burke, since if Burke knew, that then might represent a weak point in the version of events?

    .
    "What did you find" may simply refer to the note.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sandover For This Useful Post:


  9. #505
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    "What did you find" may simply refer to the note.
    sandover,
    The note, how so, if Burke is aware of the contents of the note he should be asking after JonBenet?

    What relationship is there between the note and Burke asking his father who has just returned from the basement, what he found?


    .

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  11. #506
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,309
    I can hear a male voice for a very short second and I cannot tell what he is saying. What I do hear clearly and always have is Patsy saying "Help me Jesus, help me Jesus, they're going to arrest me." Its plain as day.

    So my question remains "Why were they going to arrest you Patsy?"
    There are things that we don't want to happen but have to accept, things we don't want to know but have to learn, and people we can't live without but have to let go.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Agatha_C For This Useful Post:


  13. #507
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    646
    For what it's worth, it also sounds like she could be saying ..."please bless me" which may also fit in with the "Help me Jesus".

    Of course, I only used Audacity to clip the bit of audio and amplify it.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wonderllama For This Useful Post:


  15. #508
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    sandover,
    The note, how so, if Burke is aware of the contents of the note he should be asking after JonBenet?

    What relationship is there between the note and Burke asking his father who has just returned from the basement, what he found?


    .
    How was it determined he had just returned from the basement?

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to sandover For This Useful Post:


  17. #509
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,620
    Although Patsy and JR claimed to never have gone in the basement, Patsy TOLD LE that she "heard John screaming as he came up from the basement". Of course, the good ole' BPD NEVER picked up on that and never asked about that discrepancy.
    Patsy also said that she never wore that red/black fleece jacket when in the basement. Yet its fibers were found in the paint tote, on the INSIDE of the duct tape from JB's mouth and entwined in the knot of the garrote. The BPD never asked her about that discrepancy either.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  19. #510
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    How was it determined he had just returned from the basement?
    sandover,
    Its a factoid I've picked up along the way. Its irrelevant as to the posed questions about Burke.

    Presumably John had been searching somewhere other than where they were located, otherwise Burke has no need to query him.

    Even if Burke is innocent, e.g. there is no forensic evidence linking him to the crime-scene, he still played along for his parents and backed their version of events.

    QED: He knows one of his parents sexually molested and murdered JonBenet!

    Family loyalty usually comes at a price, I wonder what Burkes is?




    .

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  21. #511
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Although Patsy and JR claimed to never have gone in the basement, Patsy TOLD LE that she "heard John screaming as he came up from the basement". Of course, the good ole' BPD NEVER picked up on that and never asked about that discrepancy.
    Patsy also said that she never wore that red/black fleece jacket when in the basement. Yet its fibers were found in the paint tote, on the INSIDE of the duct tape from JB's mouth and entwined in the knot of the garrote. The BPD never asked her about that discrepancy either.
    DeeDee249,
    ITA. I have Patsy pencilled in as the person who asphyxiated JonBenet and applied the garrote as staging.

    Why she was never placed on the stand, given the incriminating evidence, is beyond belief. This is why I reckon there was a conspiracy, e.g. a backroom chat, promise of brown envelopes, juicy upcoming contracts, or old skeletons to be left in their closet?


    .

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  23. #512
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,620
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249,
    ITA. I have Patsy pencilled in as the person who asphyxiated JonBenet and applied the garrote as staging.

    Why she was never placed on the stand, given the incriminating evidence, is beyond belief. This is why I reckon there was a conspiracy, e.g. a backroom chat, promise of brown envelopes, juicy upcoming contracts, or old skeletons to be left in their closet?


    .
    Well for one thing, unless Patsy had been arrested and gone to trial, there was no way to place her on the witness stand. She could have been called to testify before the Grand Jury, but she never was. THAT, to me, is one of the biggest blows to the case. If Patsy had to face that GJ she wouldn't have been allowed to have her lawyer, LW, present. That had to be SOME back room deal the DA made with LW. It was inexcusable for the Rs not to have been called before the GJ.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  25. #513
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Well for one thing, unless Patsy had been arrested and gone to trial, there was no way to place her on the witness stand. She could have been called to testify before the Grand Jury, but she never was. THAT, to me, is one of the biggest blows to the case. If Patsy had to face that GJ she wouldn't have been allowed to have her lawyer, LW, present. That had to be SOME back room deal the DA made with LW. It was inexcusable for the Rs not to have been called before the GJ.
    DeeDee249,
    Absolutely, both JR and PR would want to minimise anything declared on record. Pre-Trial interview statements can always be amended at trial due to a refreshment of memory or the discovery of new evidence, e.g. the remaining size-12's.

    Only what comes out of Patsy's mouth at trial or is presented as productions by the prosecution are facts everything else is for the birds and crimetv.

    .

  26. #514
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Well for one thing, unless Patsy had been arrested and gone to trial, there was no way to place her on the witness stand. She could have been called to testify before the Grand Jury, but she never was. THAT, to me, is one of the biggest blows to the case. If Patsy had to face that GJ she wouldn't have been allowed to have her lawyer, LW, present. That had to be SOME back room deal the DA made with LW. It was inexcusable for the Rs not to have been called before the GJ.
    You know there is something blatantly wrong when a Grand Jury convenes for whatever reason concerning a six-year-old's murder and neither parent testifies before them. All opinions and assumptions aside, that speaks to me as having something to hide. Nothing, and I mean nothing, would have prevented me from testifying and spilling my guts if it meant helping get a child killer off the streets.

    Nope. Boulder isn't going to prosecute a dead person.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BOESP For This Useful Post:


  28. #515
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Well for one thing, unless Patsy had been arrested and gone to trial, there was no way to place her on the witness stand. She could have been called to testify before the Grand Jury, but she never was. THAT, to me, is one of the biggest blows to the case. If Patsy had to face that GJ she wouldn't have been allowed to have her lawyer, LW, present. That had to be SOME back room deal the DA made with LW. It was inexcusable for the Rs not to have been called before the GJ.
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP
    You know there is something blatantly wrong when a Grand Jury convenes for whatever reason concerning a six-year-old's murder and neither parent testifies before them. All opinions and assumptions aside, that speaks to me as having something to hide. Nothing, and I mean nothing, would have prevented me from testifying and spilling my guts if it meant helping get a child killer off the streets.
    Damn skippy! It's like I said: the GJ was intended to do two things: jack and s**t. And Jack left town.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  29. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  30. #516
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Damn skippy! It's like I said: the GJ was intended to do two things: jack and s**t. And Jack left town.


    And left Boulder holding the bag.

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BOESP For This Useful Post:


  32. #517
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Damn skippy! It's like I said: the GJ was intended to do two things: jack and s**t. And Jack left town.
    SuperDave,
    So you reckon the GJ, was just used as some kind of legal device to shield the R's from any further legal process?

    Over here in the UK we have the Leveson Inquiry into Press and Media conduct. Which is shining light onto some questionable practices, or the Dark Arts as some in the media refer to them as. Somehow I never question all these euphemisms for what they are. A bit alike the President who lost his brain but saved the world from communism.

    So we have the curious situation where the Inquiry was setup by the UK's Prime Minister to investigate malpractise etc, and report any changes or improvements, yet when the PM appeared at the Inquiry, Lord Leveson asked the PM for his thoughts and opinions on any changes required LOL.

    With three of societies most powerful players, e.g. the Press, Politicians, and the Police directly involved in criminal undertaking, and corruption on an industrial scale. It is obvious to me that the Inquiry is just another legal device to limit and defuse the consequences of the above.


    .

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  34. #518
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    SuperDave,
    So you reckon the GJ, was just used as some kind of legal device to shield the R's from any further legal process?
    Somehow, I doubt it, UKGuy. Though God only knows what went on behind the scenes and can't be revealed due to the secrecy statute.

    As I've stated recently, I think the only people the GJ was intended to shield were in the DA's office. Specifically, to shield them from the Governor's office.

    Over here in the UK we have the Leveson Inquiry into Press and Media conduct. Which is shining light onto some questionable practices, or the Dark Arts as some in the media refer to them as. Somehow I never question all these euphemisms for what they are. A bit alike the President who lost his brain but saved the world from communism.
    I'm guessing you mean Ronald Reagan?

    So we have the curious situation where the Inquiry was setup by the UK's Prime Minister to investigate malpractise etc, and report any changes or improvements, yet when the PM appeared at the Inquiry, Lord Leveson asked the PM for his thoughts and opinions on any changes required LOL.

    With three of societies most powerful players, e.g. the Press, Politicians, and the Police directly involved in criminal undertaking, and corruption on an industrial scale. It is obvious to me that the Inquiry is just another legal device to limit and defuse the consequences of the above.
    A typical ploy in politics.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  35. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  36. #519
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    106
    This is a little off topic, but is there a discussion about the "sample note" that patsy wrote. A few things in the notes, she writes about her young attorney is good looking, but smokes. That someone sitting beside her is taking notes and it looks boring. She signs the note Love, Mommy.

    I thought the note was weird and wanted to read what others thought. I did a search but it didnt bring up anything.

  37. #520
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,620
    Quote Originally Posted by qtc View Post
    This is a little off topic, but is there a discussion about the "sample note" that patsy wrote. A few things in the notes, she writes about her young attorney is good looking, but smokes. That someone sitting beside her is taking notes and it looks boring. She signs the note Love, Mommy.

    I thought the note was weird and wanted to read what others thought. I did a search but it didnt bring up anything.
    You may be confusing the "sample note" with the "practice note" and Patsy's writing samples.

    The "practice note" was a sheet of paper still attached to the legal pad on which the ransom note was written and torn from. It consisted of three words: "Mr & Mrs Ramsey..". It is believed that a decision was made to address the ransom note to Mr. Ramsey alone in order to play up the aspect of revenge against JR's business. It is interesting that although the handwriting of the practice note matched the ransom note, nothing much was made of this despite the FACT that Patsy's sister had said that Patsy DID write that practice note and it was supposed to be the start of an invitation or something. I do not know if Patsy or her sister were ever asked to explain why the handwriting on the ransom note (which Patsy denied writing) matched the handwriting on the practice note (which Patsy admitted writing).
    LE was also given some letters Patsy wrote- one of which describes her "good looking attorney". This was just one of several writing samples that were used to match Patsy to the RN. It isn't JUST handwriting- that can be disguised simply by writing with the opposite hand, though Patsy was said to be ambidextrous. Experts also look at linguistics, grammar, phrasing and spelling and punctuation. Patsy had two things in her writing that match the RN that are not common in the average penmanship. One was her very odd way of writing the letter "Q" which Patsy made like the number 8. I have never seen anyone else do that- and to think they would expect us to believe that the "SFF" author also made their "Qs" like that is ludicrous. Patsy also was fond of using acronyms (initials that stand for a title or phrase) and putting periods between each letter- something that is not really done anymore but may have been the custom when Patsy was majoring in journalism in school. One example right in the note is "S.B.T.C." at the end, and Patsy's habit of signing her even most personal letters as "P.P.R." followed by the initials of her college degree (B.A.?) and other professional designations. A VERY odd and unusual way to sign a personal letter- even a business letter would not be signed with initials instead of a name.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  39. #521
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,447
    She also refers to the "two gentlemen from the CBI" -- as in "The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you."

    http://blabbieville.tripod.com/patsychart8letter2.gif

    More:
    http://blabbieville.tripod.com/index.htm
    and:
    http://blabbieville.tripod.com/ramseysamples.htm
    .

  40. The Following User Says Thank You to otg For This Useful Post:


  41. #522
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    LE was also given some letters Patsy wrote- one of which describes her "good looking attorney". This was just one of several writing samples that were used to match Patsy to the RN.

    This is the handwriting sample note I was referring to.

    She starts out writing in cursive, and is told to switch to print.

    I am wondering if the words contained in that note were off the top of patsy's head. Was she told to write about anything? Was she told to write about what she observed in the room? Why did she sign it Love Mommy? The note was not written to JB or Burke.

  42. #523
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by qtc View Post
    This is the handwriting sample note I was referring to.

    She starts out writing in cursive, and is told to switch to print.

    I am wondering if the words contained in that note were off the top of patsy's head. Was she told to write about anything? Was she told to write about what she observed in the room? Why did she sign it Love Mommy? The note was not written to JB or Burke.
    That was an "extemporaneous" handwriting sample, meaning off the top of her head.

    She had already been given specific words to write, etc., in the "London Letter," a commonly used transcript composed to include various letters of the alphabet in various combinations, and the words from the ransom note, as well.

    That Patsy and John often used phrases we find in the ransom note in their extemporaneous writings, conversation, and interviews has always been striking to those of us aware of what the ransom note actually contained, linguistically speaking.

    It's simply far fetched to imagine an intruder not known to or familiar with them on a very personal level could have written that note. It's also far fetched that in addition to those red flags, Patsy's handwriting exemplars matched 24 out of 26 letters in the ransom note, according to CBI handwriting analyst Chet Ubowski, but she didn't write it.

    Add in that she was in the house during the commission of the crime, with no alibi (JR and Burke claimed to be asleep), the note was written on her pad, with her pen, and the writer felt comfortable enough in the home to spend time to write one, and possibly two, practice notes before the final one was completed, and that's a lot of evidence that Patsy wrote the note.

    Now factor in the fiber evidence includes fibers from her clothes which were tied into the ligature knots and stuck on the duct tape from the child's mouth. Also the paintbrush used was hers.

    Add in her fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple to which the pineapple in JB's digestive system was matched.

    Read all the evasions, changing stories, and outright lies she told LE and the public, and it's hard not to find her at least suspicious.

    I believe there is no doubt she was involved in this murder.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  43. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


  44. #524
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Rural area, eastern Nebraska
    Posts
    1,111
    KoldKase: Newbie here. Have followed your posts quite a while, heard you on radio with Kolar. Agree - Patsy is author, and involved. Two quick comments: Notice linguistically in RN minimum use of contractions. Printed copies of Patsy interviews also denote her use of full language over use of contractions, i. e. "we will", as opposed to "we'll". Also, in the published exemplar of the Pageant Entry she completed for JB, notice in the description space about JB, she MISSPELLED the word "crowned". BTW, what is your take on the tape around JB's legs that was stated in the Kolar book, pg 123?
    We want the truth, but can we handle the truth?

  45. The Following User Says Thank You to midwest mama For This Useful Post:


  46. #525
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,620
    Quote Originally Posted by midwest mama View Post
    KoldKase: Newbie here. Have followed your posts quite a while, heard you on radio with Kolar. Agree - Patsy is author, and involved. Two quick comments: Notice linguistically in RN minimum use of contractions. Printed copies of Patsy interviews also denote her use of full language over use of contractions, i. e. "we will", as opposed to "we'll". Also, in the published exemplar of the Pageant Entry she completed for JB, notice in the description space about JB, she MISSPELLED the word "crowned". BTW, what is your take on the tape around JB's legs that was stated in the Kolar book, pg 123?
    The "tape on the legs" was determined to be a transcription error- i.e. an error when the sentence was transcribed. It is supposed to be "tape on the LIPS".
    Sometimes things are transcribed from a recording, and words are heard incorrectly. KK will weigh in, I am sure, with her own opinion.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  47. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


Page 21 of 41 FirstFirst ... 111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Best Untainted Evidence-The Ransom Letter
    By angelwngs in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 598
    Last Post: 09-20-2008, 08:20 AM
  2. Replies: 323
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 10:36 PM
  3. What if there was no ransom letter?
    By OceanEyes in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 07-27-2007, 05:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •