Ramsey Friend, Member of "Small Foreign Faction", Was Never Investigated

The Boulder Police Department failed to investigate, nor did they even know about, a Ramsey family friend who belonged to a suspicious foreign-oriented organization. The friend regularly provided care for JonBenet Ramsey, the six-year-old pageant beauty queen murdered on Christmas night of 1996 in Boulder, Colorado.

The perpetrators of the brutal rape, murder, and possible torture of JonBenet had left a three-page ransom note in the Ramsey house in which they identified themselves as representing a "small foreign faction". The murder has gone unsolved, with no viable suspects.

However, it has been learned that Colorado University student Nathan Inouye, who was a member of what would be considered a "small foreign faction", regularly baby-sat and drove JonBenet to school in 1996. Inouye belonged to the 29-member Asian Pacific American Coalition, called APAC, at Colorado University in Boulder.

APAC at Colorado was a liberal pro-active group of students who suspiciously disbanded their campus organization just weeks after JonBenet was murdered. APAC's stated goals were to advance the social and political well-being of Asian Americans. However, among the organization's concerns was its perception that violence and other serious crimes, including rape and murder, against Asian-American women were going unsolved and unpunished in the U.S.

For example, in reporting its list of activities and accomplishments to the University for the year of 1996, it wrote "Later that year APAC held a day of rememberance for Thingh Minh Lyh, a Vietnamese student in California who was a victim of racial violence. APAC members wore and passed out gray ribbons, and passed out flyers which described the incident."

Nathan Inouye, who in 1996 lived at the home of Glen and Susan Stine, had been hired by the Stines to provide care for their son Doug while the parents worked. The Stines, who were close friends of the Ramseys, were employed at Colorado University -- Glen as vice president, and Susan as a director. Their son Doug and Burke Ramsey, JonBenet's older brother, were also best friends. The Stines and the Ramseys lived five blocks apart in the upscale neighborhood and both houses were within walking distance of the University.

Inouye regularly helped baby-sit the Ramsey children, especially when the parents were out of town. He also regularly drove nine-year-old Doug, nine-year-old Burke, and six-year-old JonBenet to school as part of a carpool which included taking turns driving among the two mothers and himself.

Nevertheless, and despite what it called a thorough investigation of possible suspects not living in the Ramsey's house following the 1996 murder of JonBenet, the Boulder police, at least as of the year 2000, had apparently never even heard of Nathan Inouye nor the Asian Pacific American Coalition. These allegations are substantiated by the questions and responses between the Ramseys and a team of law enforcement investigators sent from Colorado to Georgia to interview the Ramseys in Atlanta in August of 2000. The Ramseys had moved to Atlanta in 1997.

In the offices of Ramsey attorney Lin Wood on August 28 and 29, the following discussion occurred with Patsy Ramsey:

DETECTIVE JANE HARMER (asking about the name "Nathan" mentioned in the Ramseys book "Death of Innocence"): "You mention a kid by the name of Nathan that was living with the Stines. Was he living with them prior to December of '96?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Yes, he was."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "And at any time did he look after Burke or JonBenet?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He would, on occasion, take them to school in the morning."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "Do you know anything more about him, his last name?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Inouye, Nathan Inouye."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "Do you know how to spell that?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I-N-O-U -- maybe Y-E or E."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "Is he a white male?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He is an American, but of Japanese descent, I believe."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "How old is he?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He has graduated now and is doing missionary work, I think. Susan would know exactly where he is, but at that time he was a college junior or senior."

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Mr. Wood, can you facilitate getting the information to us so we can contact him?"

ATTORNEY LIN WOOD: "I think we said yesterday, if you all make a hit list for me, so to speak, point by point what you want me to do, and we will do it."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "That is it."

John Ramsey's interview on August 29 immediately followed Patsy Ramsey's interview:

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Mr. Ramsey, your wife told us that there was a college student that was staying with the Stines, I believe, named Nathan Inouye?"

ATTORNEY LIN WOOD: "It was a reference in the book."

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Okay. Had you, prior to the murder of your daughter, had you any contact with him?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Yeah. We would see him at their house. He would drive the kids to school occasionally in a carpool. Patsy would take them, sometimes Susan would, or Nathan would take them."

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Was there anything unusual about his conduct -- and I am asking for your contemporaneous impression, and then I'm going to ask you about the post-murder impression. Your contemporaneous impression of Mr. Inouye I assume was favorable if you let him drive your kids to school?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Yes. He was a very, very kind, nice person."

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Keeping in mind you told us that you are suspicious of everyone, is there anything in particular about Mr. Inouye, using the power of hindsight, that causes you today to be particularly suspicious of him?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Nothing specifically in terms of his actions or what he said. Have I eliminated him? No, I haven't. I thought about that from time to time, but I don't consider him of strong, strong interest."

When Patsy Ramsey, during her interview, mentioned that Nathan Inouye had graduated and is doing "missionary work", he was actually serving as an "environmental promoter" in Kingston, Jamaica as a member of the Peace Corps. After serving in the Peace Corps from 1999 to 2001, Inouye completed graduate work at UCLA in 2003 to get a secondary science teaching certificate and a masters in education. Inouye is now teaching science at a high school in California, his home state.

JMO

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,
Say it ain't so! You're back on NATHAN???????????????????????????????????????
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. Opportunity: To make this theory credible, you have to demonstrate that Nathan was in Boulder during Xmas 1996. You are well aware that his own self-report is that he was in California with his family, as well might be expected of a college student during a Xmas break (indeed NOT being home would be pretty unusual). You have provided no such evidence.

2. Motive: You haven't offered any credible explanation for why APAC would wish to either kidnap or murder JBR. Was JR secretly raping Asian-American students at CU? Being concerned about rape/violence against Asian-American women doesn't strike me as particularly sinister. On any large university campus there will be any number of activist student groups engaged in battling this and other perceived injustices of the world. That's what college kids do! Where is your evidence that APAC ever resorted to violence to achieve its objectives? What motivation do they have for penning a RN alluding to a kidnapping and demanding ransom, but then turning around and killing JBR instead? Exactly what political objective did that achieve? Ever notice that when Mideast terrorists capture someone and behead them, they exhibit no hesitation in announcing who they are since the whole point is to terrorize people and get them to fear the organization responsible and listen more seriously to their demands in the future etc. We see ZERO evidence of that behavior in this case.

Moreover, if the motivation was political, how do you explain all the sexual aspects of the crime? Given that Nathan presumably must have easily known John was worth quite a bit (his peers may not have paid attention to the billion dollar sales story about Access Graphics, but if you're driving around the kids of that CEO, it seems improbable you wouldn't take notice), why ask for only $118,000? Wouldn't the political objectives of this group been WAY better served by collecting the $118,000 or a much much higher amount (millions)?

3. Means: did Nathan sneak into the house or was he invited? If invited and he committed this crime, why didn't Burke or the parents rat him out? If uninvited, why select a time when the parents were home? It sounds as if he had plenty of less risky opportunities to snatch JBR, e.g., in the course of car-pooling he could have offered to take the boys down to the mall to play video games and had pretty unlimited access to her. This gets back to motivation. If it's only to commit a kidnapping, there's much easier ways to do this than a B&E in which you're taking a gamble of being seen/caught by a neighbor or even shot by John (would Nathan know that house SO well that he could be certain John had no gun hidden?).

From where I sit, this theory massively fails the "sniff test." Until you can establish means, motive AND opportunity, this theory will go nowhere fast.

Oh yeah, APAC disbanded in spring 1997 (their site was last updated April 14, 1997: http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~apac/Home.html), not just "weeks" after JBR died. For a student group whose members were about to graduate, this is hardly an illogical to disband. I encourage everyone to look hard at the activities and photos at this site and see if you see anything remotely sinister about it. Then recall what John and Patsy kept saying even though pressed about whether there was anything about Nathan that would give him pause: there was NOTHING! In light of all this countervailing evidence, why would BlueCrab trot out such a theory?

DocWatson,

What makes you think I think that Nathan Inouye is the killer in this theory?

He could be the killer, of course, but there were 29 members in APAC and Nathan was more than likely only the link between the privileged Ramseys and the liberal pro-active APAC members. NONE of them were investigated. Any one of them could have been a loose cannon eager to make a political statement by denigrating a rich white child beauty queen with a high profile in the community and a father whose name and picture was just in the news.

Yes, I agree with you that the evidence is skimpy, but that's because there was NO INVESTIGATION. That's the point of this thread. Nevertheless, the solid link between JonBenet and APAC exists, and IMO there's enough evidence to justify further investigation.

JMO

BlueCrab said:

DocWatson,

What makes you think I think that Nathan Inouye is the killer in this theory?

He could be the killer, of course, but there were 29 members in APAC and Nathan was more than likely only the link between the privileged Ramseys and the liberal pro-active APAC members. NONE of them were investigated. Any one of them could have been a loose cannon eager to make a political statement by denigrating a rich white child beauty queen with a high profile in the community and a father whose name and picture was just in the news.

Yes, I agree with you that the evidence is skimpy, but that's because there was NO INVESTIGATION. That's the point of this thread. Nevertheless, the solid link between JonBenet and APAC exists, and IMO there's enough evidence to justify further investigation.

JMO

Click to expand...

I'll freely concede I don't know the first thing about police investigations and perhaps they really do explore leads this weak. But the reality is, you haven't made a solid connection between JBR and APAC. The connection to APAC is derivative: it's a function of Nathan being a member. According to this theory, literally any acquaintance of Nathan's would count, or to draw more parallel analogy, police could investigate anyone who was a member of any club/organization/association that was somehow connected to anyone who had regular access to the Ramsey house (e.g., the postman, other delivery people, gardeners, contractors etc.). So if the mailman was a member of Rotary International (!!!), then the police, in your view, would have just cause to query everyone in Rotary and demand that they provide an alibi for Christmas night 1996. Does that sound even remotely reasonable to you?

The reality is that if any of the other 28 students demanded to know why they were being questioned, all the police could really offer was "well you knew Nathan Inouye, didn't you?" I pray that our civil liberties these days aren't that fragile that we've given the police that much leeway to do their business. Unless some reasonable grounds exist for suspicion (and I don't think knowing Nathan really qualifies), I would hope that the law would view questioning such remotely-connected individuals as beyond reason. Is there some lawyer on the boards who might confirm what's plausible here?

BlueCrab said:

Yes, I agree with you that the evidence is skimpy, but that's because there was NO INVESTIGATION.

Click to expand...

You don't know that BlueCrab. The same as you don't know what Beckner has that disproves the stun gun, this information has never been released or leaked to the public. They might have completely investigated this kid and his cronies.

BC, I think you make some very good points about APAC and the possibility of someone meeting or having knowledge of the Ramseys through Nathan. JAR was a student at CU himself, and the possibility exists that a friend/acquaintance of his (possibly thru Nathan) is the perp. I personally believe that the perp is someone very familiar with the house and grounds and someone who felt a degree of comfort inside the home, but hey....stranger things have happened.

DocWatson said:

I'll freely concede I don't know the first thing about police investigations and perhaps they really do explore leads this weak. But the reality is, you haven't made a solid connection between JBR and APAC. The connection to APAC is derivative: it's a function of Nathan being a member. According to this theory, literally any acquaintance of Nathan's would count, or to draw more parallel analogy, police could investigate anyone who was a member of any club/organization/association that was somehow connected to anyone who had regular access to the Ramsey house (e.g., the postman, other delivery people, gardeners, contractors etc.). So if the mailman was a member of Rotary International (!!!), then the police, in your view, would have just cause to query everyone in Rotary and demand that they provide an alibi for Christmas night 1996. Does that sound even remotely reasonable to you?

The reality is that if any of the other 28 students demanded to know why they were being questioned, all the police could really offer was "well you knew Nathan Inouye, didn't you?" I pray that our civil liberties these days aren't that fragile that we've given the police that much leeway to do their business. Unless some reasonable grounds exist for suspicion (and I don't think knowing Nathan really qualifies), I would hope that the law would view questioning such remotely-connected individuals as beyond reason. Is there some lawyer on the boards who might confirm what's plausible here?

Click to expand...

DocWatson,

So you don't think a young man who babysat JonBenet while her parents were out of town and who regularly drove her to school is not worth investigating? And his real-time connection to a suspicious "foreign faction" is not worth investigating?

And you naively ask should every one of the 29 members of APAC at Boulder be checked out? You damned right well they should! And so did the investigative team that was sent to Atlanta on August 28 and 29, 2000 to interview the Ramseys in behalf of the United States. That team consisted of:

Mike Kane
Bruce Levin
Mitch Morrissey
Mark Beckner
Tom wickman
Tom Trujillo, and
Jane Harmer.

The question is: Did they follow through and properly investigate Nathan Inouye and APAC? I doubt it. The investigation of Inouye probably got no further than a telephone call to Susan Stine and maybe a telephone call to Jamaica to talk to Nathan. Therefore, I still don't think they are aware of APAC and Inouye's membership in that "small foreign faction" at the time of the murder.

Even John Douglas, the ex-FBI profiler and author whom the Ramseys hired told the Ramseys that the killer was likely a young man who knew the house and its occupants and had a deep resentment of John Ramsey.

JMO

aRnd2it said:

You don't know that BlueCrab. The same as you don't know what Beckner has that disproves the stun gun, this information has never been released or leaked to the public. They might have completely investigated this kid and his cronies.

Click to expand...

Rnd2,

Well, as of August 28, 2000, the cops didn't even know Nathan Inouye existed. That's clear from the Atlanta interviews. And if they didn't know about Nathan, then they didn't know about his membership in APAC.

I was the one who released the information on the internet about Nathan's membership in APAC, and that was less than two years ago. I doubt if Keenan has followed up with an investigation of her own on Nathan Inouye or APAC. There's no money in the Boulder budget for any further active investigations into the JonBenet Ramsey murder.

JMO

BlueCrab,

Before you investigate APAC, the local UAW, or any other group, you first have to prove someone else other than the three surviving Ramseys was in the house. That has never been done, and never will be.

Then you have to address why Patsy would write a note to cover for the additional person, and why both she and John would lie to protect them.

BlueCrab said:

DocWatson,

So you don't think a young man who babysat JonBenet while her parents were out of town and who regularly drove her to school is not worth investigating? And his real-time connection to a suspicious "foreign faction" is not worth investigating?

And you naively ask should every one of the 29 members of APAC at Boulder be checked out? You damned right well they should! And so did the investigative team that was sent to Atlanta on August 28 and 29, 2000 to interview the Ramseys in behalf of the United States. That team consisted of:

Mike Kane
Bruce Levin
Mitch Morrissey
Mark Beckner
Tom wickman
Tom Trujillo, and
Jane Harmer.

The question is: Did they follow through and properly investigate Nathan Inouye and APAC? I doubt it. The investigation of Inouye probably got no further than a telephone call to Susan Stine and maybe a telephone call to Jamaica to talk to Nathan. Therefore, I still don't think they are aware of APAC and Inouye's membership in that "small foreign faction" at the time of the murder.

Even John Douglas, the ex-FBI profiler and author whom the Ramseys hired told the Ramseys that the killer was likely a young man who knew the house and its occupants and had a deep resentment of John Ramsey.

JMO

Click to expand...

"Hello, Mrs. Stine? Was Nathan living at your house on Xmas night 1996?"
"No, Detective Thomas, he had gone home to California for Xmas."
"Thanks so much."

"Hello, Mr. Inouye, was your son with you on the night of Xmas 1996."
"Yes he was. Would you like me to send you the photo we took of everyone at the Xmas family dinnner."
"Yes, that would be helpful to have in our files in case some WACKO on Websleuths accuses us of not investigating him."

End of investigation. It doesn't require an army of investigators to check out one person who has a rock-solid alibi, so you have no idea whether this easily-investigated possibility has in fact been explored. LE had already established that John didn't view Nathan with ANY misgivings. If Nathan had deep resentments towards John, then he evidently kept these well hidden. And if he was out of the picture physically, then your theory "works" if and only if he somehow transmitted those deep resentments to one of his fellow APAC members. The notion that LE should squander valuable resources checking out this 1 in a million possibility is ludicrous. As I say, using your "2 degrees of separation" logic, this would have automatically extended the investigation to potentially thousands of people. I am grateful you have no control over LE resources in my community else the taxes to live there would be sky high!

Nehemiah said:

BC, I think you make some very good points about APAC and the possibility of someone meeting or having knowledge of the Ramseys through Nathan. JAR was a student at CU himself, and the possibility exists that a friend/acquaintance of his (possibly thru Nathan) is the perp. I personally believe that the perp is someone very familiar with the house and grounds and someone who felt a degree of comfort inside the home, but hey....stranger things have happened.

Click to expand...

---------In a hurry have not read carefully all points on this thread - just skimmed so far. But, but, but, WHO - maybe a WHO involved here ??, WHO was yet to come home 'that' night, so House Alarm was not set!! Perhaps a wearer of a garment with some different fibers - maybe some of those found on Jon Benet/area.

NOTE: also on fibers my post on Stun Gun thread. Could some of those unidentified fibers be from the 'NEW scarf' that JR had tucked in the casket with JonBenet. A NEW scarf that JonBenet had never seen or heard of - a 'to be' Christmas gift, IF IF I recall correctly. That would be worth an 'exhumation wouldn't it'?


----------------A missionary, wonder what gave PR a thought like that? Nathan musta been a really NICE guy so was/is Scott Peterson. Hmmm




.

Hey, that's a very unusual thought, we overlooked so far. Yes, evidently there was someone still due to come in! (Or, we have to admit the family were a bit careless about some things like that.)

New scarf, I was thinking they said was silk, but I may be wrong, and yes, it does seem very strange that John would want it buried and not exhumed, I've always thought.

About APAC, I just checked "past events" at the link to see what they were about. Mostly about Asian womens' problems here? Nathan's DNA, prints, etc. were probably checked?

The one thing that I personally am comfortable in thinking, is that JonBenet would never have gone willingly to the basement with someone she did not know.

IF IF the scream was indeed heard by the neighbor, then it was determined the scream had to have come from the basement. The BPD established that fact, if I am remembering correctly.

IF IF the scream came from JonBenet bedroom, then the 'parents' would have awakened.

"The Scarf", the scarf, anyone know or that can point to specific information about 'the scarf'. Sounds like the title of a book. Eagle1, I cannot remember with any specifics about what the material was thought to be. I don't with clarity remember that it was thought to be silk.

I do remember there was reference to the scarf in DOI, I do not have that book at this time. Can someone find the reference in DOI for us??

In fact my muddled brain seems to think it was a Scottish pattern, IF IF that is a fact, then it would NOT most likely have been silk, and would have included multiply colored fibers. Seem odd to give a child a silk scarf in the dead of winter. MOP.

I also seem to remember that PR put such loving reference to the scarf, that it did not take on a life of its own as did other aspects of this case. I personally think 'the scarf' may have some excellent answers we have been looking for, for eight years. IF IF GA makes a decision on whether to exhume etc.



.

You're absolutely right that giving JonBenet a silk scarf in the middle of winter would not make a bit of sense. A Scottish plaid would make a lot more sense. I still have some of the books, not DOI, which was from the library.
Will do some looking today if I don't forget. They probably don't any of them have much of an index.

BlueCrab said:

Rnd2,

Well, as of August 28, 2000, the cops didn't even know Nathan Inouye existed. That's clear from the Atlanta interviews. And if they didn't know about Nathan, then they didn't know about his membership in APAC.

I was the one who released the information on the internet about Nathan's membership in APAC, and that was less than two years ago. I doubt if Keenan has followed up with an investigation of her own on Nathan Inouye or APAC. There's no money in the Boulder budget for any further active investigations into the JonBenet Ramsey murder.

JMO

Click to expand...

The small foreign faction in the note does not exist. Someone like patsy made it up IMO. To twist the lie into an allegation against an innocent man is ridiculous. And you did accuse him in your post. Patsy and John KNOW this man is innocent, and I suspect so do you

I do remember that Patsy wrote in DOI, that 'John' had bought a beautiful scarf for JonBenet. WELLLLLLLLL how do WE know that it wasn't bought by John for John? I guess the length of the scarf would tell a tale for certain. Exhumation would tell us that.

IF IF IF it was a scarf bought by John for John, it would have been a mans scarf, and mens scarves are typically very very long.

A childs scarf would have been much much shorter. An exhumation would tell us the answer to this.

So Patsy's comment in DOI leaves an open ended wonderment, since she does NOT say that John bought it for her for Christmas, or for her birthday (that was past wasn't it - so how come JonBenet had not received it already). (I need definite clarification on m wonderment here.)

Just where was the scarf on the day after Christmas?

Buriel was quite some time later after murder ie autopsy fighting over body being released etc.

There again the 'missing/non existent' Christmas video was not available to see JonBenet opening her gifts, did JonBenet open her scarf gift Christmas morning.

Again we have Patsy saying in DOI, that JOHN HAD purchased a scarf for JonBenet, well how come she did not have it already? No mention in DOI whether JonBenet loved this 'beautiful scarf' IF IF OR WHEN she received it Christmas morning.

Welllllllll, he coulda purchased it after she died, but, the only way we would ever know that is IF IF IF the fibers found with JonBenet matched the scarf in the casket, huh?

I need someone to look up the phrasing in DOI, I no longer have my book DOI that Toltec sent to me. Toltec are you still reading here, Merry Christmas.

The size of the scarf in the casket would tell the whole story, since Patsy says John bought it FOR JonBenet.

I just don't see a 6 year old wearing a man sized scarf. So that is the LONG and the SHORT of my thoughts on 'the scarf'.




.

Is it true that four items were placed in the coffin. Scarf, Tiara, Bear and some thing that started with a C? S.B.T.C ?

Camper said:

I do remember that Patsy wrote in DOI, that 'John' had bought a beautiful scarf for JonBenet. WELLLLLLLLL how do WE know that it wasn't bought by John for John? I guess the length of the scarf would tell a tale for certain. Exhumation would tell us that.

IF IF IF it was a scarf bought by John for John, it would have been a mans scarf, and mens scarves are typically very very long.

A childs scarf would have been much much shorter. An exhumation would tell us the answer to this.

So Patsy's comment in DOI leaves an open ended wonderment, since she does NOT say that John bought it for her for Christmas, or for her birthday (that was past wasn't it - so how come JonBenet had not received it already). (I need definite clarification on m wonderment here.)

Just where was the scarf on the day after Christmas?

Buriel was quite some time later after murder ie autopsy fighting over body being released etc.

There again the 'missing/non existent' Christmas video was not available to see JonBenet opening her gifts, did JonBenet open her scarf gift Christmas morning.

Again we have Patsy saying in DOI, that JOHN HAD purchased a scarf for JonBenet, well how come she did not have it already? No mention in DOI whether JonBenet loved this 'beautiful scarf' IF IF OR WHEN she received it Christmas morning.

Welllllllll, he coulda purchased it after she died, but, the only way we would ever know that is IF IF IF the fibers found with JonBenet matched the scarf in the casket, huh?

I need someone to look up the phrasing in DOI, I no longer have my book DOI that Toltec sent to me. Toltec are you still reading here, Merry Christmas.

The size of the scarf in the casket would tell the whole story, since Patsy says John bought it FOR JonBenet.

I just don't see a 6 year old wearing a man sized scarf. So that is the LONG and the SHORT of my thoughts on 'the scarf'.

Click to expand...

Good thoughts here, Camper Girl. I think someone borrowed my DOI and didn't return it, so I can't look it up...but one thing that I truly believe, is that the Ramseys "wrote" that book to answer the questions that were floating around at that time, or that they thought would later surface. I think that was the entire purpose for DOI.

(Example..Patsy in DOI talks about hanging the phone back in the cradle. Now why would anyone even address that? I believe she does because she knows that coming down the pike is the allegation that the phone wasn't hung up properly and hence the 911 recording of Burke's voice. Just a side note here.... to make my point)

In other words, if they thought the scarf would be an issue down the road, then they addressed it in the book. So, Camper, you may be onto something because otherwise why would they spend time in describing the scarf?

Nehemiah said:

...but one thing that I truly believe, is that the Ramseys "wrote" that book to answer the questions that were floating around at that time, or that they thought would later surface. I think that was the entire purpose for DOI.

Click to expand...

Right, I'm sure we all had questions about the color purple, glad she set us straight on that.

BrotherMoon said:

Is it true that four items were placed in the coffin. Scarf, Tiara, Bear and some thing that started with a C? S.B.T.C ?

Click to expand...

Was it the stuffed cat, Sister Socks? Can't remember either. Not so sure about a bear. I don't think that was in the coffin.