JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY'S DISAPPOINTING AND INSULTING RESPONSE TO CINA WONG

[Tricia]

A couple of weeks ago I attempted to have a mature conversation (on Twitter under the name Websleuths) about the evidence in the Ramsey case with JonBenet's older half-brother John Andrew Ramsey.

Via a tagged tweet from Websleuths I invited him to listen to our live stream with Cina Wong and I pointed out how many matches Ms. Wong made between Patsy's writing and the writing of the ransom note.

Cina Wong is a very well respected and professionally recognized handwriting expert who has testified in over 65 court cases.

In response to my tweets John Andrew blocked me, called me a troll, and proceeded to attempt to attack Cina Wong and her credentials in a very immature manner.

John Andrew tweeted and asked if Cina Wong knew Henry Lee. WTH?
It never occurred to me the obvious reason for asking this question. There is only one reason why he would say this. Think about it.

I am posting here the responses to John Andrews's accusations about Cina Wong. If you have any trouble following what is going on please post your questions.

These same screenshots will be tweeted out by Websleuths and we will make John Andrew aware of these answers if he is curious to know the truth.

JAR's behavior is so disappointing. He is acting like a spoiled rich kid frat boy.

Please take a look at the tweets and responses.

Tricia
PS. I did make a crack about Lin Wood when JAR tweeted he would record my stream and send it to "Lin". "GOOD" I replied then suggested that perhaps the intruder also stole the election. That is my part but hey, using Lin Wood as a threat opens one's self up to these types of answers.

 

[887sMtreme]

I love your crack about Lin Wood. Going to wade through those tweets now.

 

[wonderllama]

Lin Wood isn't just away with the pixies, he appears to have invested in Pixie Timeshare!

 

[SurrealisticSlumbers]

I'm so sorry this little girl's killer was never held accountable. All these years later and no closer to justice. JonBenet would now be a 30 year-old. Might be married, be starting a family now - who knows. I saw an interview with the other brother, Burke. He seemed a bit "off." Lots of stuff that jumps out to me as weird with the whole family.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm so sorry this little girl's killer was never held accountable. All these years later and no closer to justice. JonBenet would now be a 30 year-old. Might be married, be starting a family now - who knows. I saw an interview with the other brother, Burke. He seemed a bit "off." Lots of stuff that jumps out to me as weird with the whole family.

SurrealisticSlumbers,
Her killer might actually be dead but her abuser very much alive.

Yup, Burke's Dr Phil interview was a reputational disaster for BR, so much so, a third gratis episode was canned in an attempt to retrieve the situation.

Not much empathy for JonBenet was on show during this interview.

Weird is correct. I usually use dysfunctional, since they were, its as if the Addams Family married into the Kardashians, and while everyone is busy spending the $$, someone is abusing Wednesday

If we post the facts then other folks can make their mind up, resulting in Justice for JonBenet.

Can it happen look at the #MeToo movement.

.

 

[Tobiano8th]

just read Bugliosi's book on the OJ Simpson trial.

he says (and i hope it's a decent paraphrase) that Henry Lee is all reputation and personal courtroom charm (sort of like a columbo charm)..........says his work/testimony is actually quite weak.. apparently, Judge Ito told the prosecutors not to ask Lee too many probing questions, as he is/was world expert and his work is unassailable.. so LOL.

 

[Tobiano8th]

i may have misconstrued BR's comment about Henry Lee... i thought he was implying HL had worked for R team and was an IDI guy (of course, Henry Lee makes it clear even to his clients that DNA evidence speaks volumes no matter what it says about his client).

i gather Henry Lee though maybe R family adversary.

my comment re: celebrity investigator and bugliosi's comment stands....... VB says his sterling reputation is far greater than reality in HL's case.

 

[proust20]

Bugliosi was the Sothern California equivalent of LW.

 

[Tobiano8th]

Bugliosi was the Southern California equivalent of LW.

what do you mean by this? serious question... i'm not sure.

i presume Lin Wood ("LW") wasn't always like he is today.....

i've loved Bugliosi's stuff. i.e. his books and the "Lee Harvey Oswald trial".... he is a blowhard like Gerry Spence. but i seriously think that is required to be a success criminal court attorney.

 

[proust20]

Lee Harvey Oswald = IDI

 

[UKGuy]

Lee Harvey Oswald = IDI

proust20,
I'll be hoodwinked, here was me thinking it was a Mafia job!

.

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

I'm so sorry this little girl's killer was never held accountable. All these years later and no closer to justice. JonBenet would now be a 30 year-old. Might be married, be starting a family now - who knows. I saw an interview with the other brother, Burke. He seemed a bit "off." Lots of stuff that jumps out to me as weird with the whole family.

Hello, I think you need to look at motive. And also to remember that this was a premeditated crime. (Also the Burke and Patsy theories are not medically sound. We know that JB was already dead when she received the head injury, which is why there was almost zero internal bleeding.)

So given that this was a premeditated crime, as a woman, I do not want to give John or John Andrew (at least one is a sexual abuser) a free pass, and blame Patsy or Burke. It's also worth nothing that if Patsy or Burke had accidentally killed JB (which is not medically sound), the family could have claimed that the little girl fell and hit her head.

It's important to remember that John and John Andrew WANT us to believe that Patsy and Burke committed the crime, which is has been not possible due to medical evidence.

So, since it was a premeditated crime, we must look at motive:

1) To silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse, including what may have occurred on December 23, 1996. (And fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found in JB's bed; not sure if they were also found in Burke's bed.) The police were called on December 23, 1996. However, the person who opened the door said that the police had been called by mistake.

JB was intelligent, articulate, and outspoken. Had she reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, she would be taken very seriously. Had Burke reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, he would not be taken as seriously. (I believe Burke was autistic.)

Therefore the MOTIVE to silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse is stronger than any MOTIVE to silence Burke.

2) To frame Patsy, or at least to discredit her. Obviously a judge or jury would not convict Patsy, but she was discredited and disgraced. People were willing to blame Patsy, claim that she killed JB by accident, and yet give John or John Andrew (at least one of whom is a sexual abuser) a free pass. Talk about sexism and bias.

There was an obvious MOTIVE to frame Patsy: ransom note included some of her expressions and choice of words. Also Patsy's notepad and writing pen were used. Patsy's paintbrush was actually used to strangle JB. (JB died from strangulation, and was already dead when she received the head injury). Now, if Patsy herself had strangled JB (and we know that she did not do this), she would have the intelligence to hide or throw out the paintbrush. (And would Patsy write a note to incriminate herself? She was an intelligent woman.)

Patsy's items that were used: paintbrush, notepad, writing pen. Plus the ransom note cast suspicion on Patsy.

What motive would John Andrew have to frame or at least cast suspicion on Patsy? He would want his father to reunite with his mother, NOT because he cared if his parents got back together, BUT due to John's WEALTH.

Therefore, John Andrew would have the above two motives. Remember that John Andrew's suitcase was found near JB's body. The suitcase contained a semen-encrusted blanket (semen belonged to John Andrew), a children's book called Dr. Seuss, and some other items. So, why was the suitcase near JB's body? Because someone (likely John the father) had every intention of disposing of JB's body, but also of disposing of the incriminating suitcase.

As previously mentioned, fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found on JB's bed.

Lastly, there has been some suspicion that JB told Melinda (her older half-sister) about the sexual abuse. However, I like to think that Melinda would have done the right thing, and reported this to police.

I believe that John Andrew also had a key to the house.

You need to also ask why John the father was not framed for the crime - only Patsy the mother!

And let's use common sense: a routine "sexual predator" would be more interested in framing the father than the mother!

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

proust20,
I'll be hoodwinked, here was me thinking it was a Mafia job!

.

But why was Patsy framed? Why wasn't John also framed?

My suspicions are John and/or John Andrew.

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

Hello, I think you need to look at motive. And also to remember that this was a premeditated crime. (Also the Burke and Patsy theories are not medically sound. We know that JB was already dead when she received the head injury, which is why there was almost zero internal bleeding.)

So given that this was a premeditated crime, as a woman, I do not want to give John or John Andrew (at least one is a sexual abuser) a free pass, and blame Patsy or Burke. It's also worth nothing that if Patsy or Burke had accidentally killed JB (which is not medically sound), the family could have claimed that the little girl fell and hit her head.

It's important to remember that John and John Andrew WANT us to believe that Patsy and Burke committed the crime, which is has been not possible due to medical evidence.

So, since it was a premeditated crime, we must look at motive:

1) To silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse, including what may have occurred on December 23, 1996. (And fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found in JB's bed; not sure if they were also found in Burke's bed.) The police were called on December 23, 1996. However, the person who opened the door said that the police had been called by mistake.

JB was intelligent, articulate, and outspoken. Had she reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, she would be taken very seriously. Had Burke reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, he would not be taken as seriously. (I believe Burke was autistic.)

Therefore the MOTIVE to silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse is stronger than any MOTIVE to silence Burke.

2) To frame Patsy, or at least to discredit her. Obviously a judge or jury would not convict Patsy, but she was discredited and disgraced. People were willing to blame Patsy, claim that she killed JB by accident, and yet give John or John Andrew (at least one of whom is a sexual abuser) a free pass. Talk about sexism and bias.

There was an obvious MOTIVE to frame Patsy: ransom note included some of her expressions and choice of words. Also Patsy's notepad and writing pen were used. Patsy's paintbrush was actually used to strangle JB. (JB died from strangulation, and was already dead when she received the head injury). Now, if Patsy herself had strangled JB (and we know that she did not do this), she would have the intelligence to hide or throw out the paintbrush. (And would Patsy write a note to incriminate herself? She was an intelligent woman.)

Patsy's items that were used: paintbrush, notepad, writing pen. Plus the ransom note cast suspicion on Patsy.

What motive would John Andrew have to frame or at least cast suspicion on Patsy? He would want his father to reunite with his mother, NOT because he cared if his parents got back together, BUT due to John's WEALTH.

Therefore, John Andrew would have the above two motives. Remember that John Andrew's suitcase was found near JB's body. The suitcase contained a semen-encrusted blanket (semen belonged to John Andrew), a children's book called Dr. Seuss, and some other items. So, why was the suitcase near JB's body? Because someone (likely John the father) had every intention of disposing of JB's body, but also of disposing of the incriminating suitcase.

As previously mentioned, fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found on JB's bed.

Lastly, there has been some suspicion that JB told Melinda (her older half-sister) about the sexual abuse. However, I like to think that Melinda would have done the right thing, and reported this to police.

I believe that John Andrew also had a key to the house.

You need to also ask why John the father was not framed for the crime - only Patsy the mother!

And let's use common sense: a routine "sexual predator" would be more interested in framing the father than the mother!

 

[NanaNZA]

Hello, I think you need to look at motive. And also to remember that this was a premeditated crime. (Also the Burke and Patsy theories are not medically sound. We know that JB was already dead when she received the head injury, which is why there was almost zero internal bleeding.)

So given that this was a premeditated crime, as a woman, I do not want to give John or John Andrew (at least one is a sexual abuser) a free pass, and blame Patsy or Burke. It's also worth nothing that if Patsy or Burke had accidentally killed JB (which is not medically sound), the family could have claimed that the little girl fell and hit her head.

It's important to remember that John and John Andrew WANT us to believe that Patsy and Burke committed the crime, which is has been not possible due to medical evidence.

So, since it was a premeditated crime, we must look at motive:

1) To silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse, including what may have occurred on December 23, 1996. (And fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found in JB's bed; not sure if they were also found in Burke's bed.) The police were called on December 23, 1996. However, the person who opened the door said that the police had been called by mistake.

JB was intelligent, articulate, and outspoken. Had she reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, she would be taken very seriously. Had Burke reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, he would not be taken as seriously. (I believe Burke was autistic.)

Therefore the MOTIVE to silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse is stronger than any MOTIVE to silence Burke.

2) To frame Patsy, or at least to discredit her. Obviously a judge or jury would not convict Patsy, but she was discredited and disgraced. People were willing to blame Patsy, claim that she killed JB by accident, and yet give John or John Andrew (at least one of whom is a sexual abuser) a free pass. Talk about sexism and bias.

There was an obvious MOTIVE to frame Patsy: ransom note included some of her expressions and choice of words. Also Patsy's notepad and writing pen were used. Patsy's paintbrush was actually used to strangle JB. (JB died from strangulation, and was already dead when she received the head injury). Now, if Patsy herself had strangled JB (and we know that she did not do this), she would have the intelligence to hide or throw out the paintbrush. (And would Patsy write a note to incriminate herself? She was an intelligent woman.)

Patsy's items that were used: paintbrush, notepad, writing pen. Plus the ransom note cast suspicion on Patsy.

What motive would John Andrew have to frame or at least cast suspicion on Patsy? He would want his father to reunite with his mother, NOT because he cared if his parents got back together, BUT due to John's WEALTH.

Therefore, John Andrew would have the above two motives. Remember that John Andrew's suitcase was found near JB's body. The suitcase contained a semen-encrusted blanket (semen belonged to John Andrew), a children's book called Dr. Seuss, and some other items. So, why was the suitcase near JB's body? Because someone (likely John the father) had every intention of disposing of JB's body, but also of disposing of the incriminating suitcase.

As previously mentioned, fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found on JB's bed.

Lastly, there has been some suspicion that JB told Melinda (her older half-sister) about the sexual abuse. However, I like to think that Melinda would have done the right thing, and reported this to police.

I believe that John Andrew also had a key to the house.

You need to also ask why John the father was not framed for the crime - only Patsy the mother!

And let's use common sense: a routine "sexual predator" would be more interested in framing the father than the mother!

Um..no.

 

[proust20]

I agree that the motivation for the murder is of primary importance. MO The sexual abuse of JB seems to be most likely. Although I do not have a specific theory, the concept of premeditation often is not considered seriously. This could be an error?

The RN and the 'garrote' could have been assembled at any time. The 911 on Dec. 23 could have been a rehearsal. The rolls of duct tape and binding cord could have been disposed of prior to the 25th. The staging may have been a well-considered mise-en-scene which deliberately suggested the chaotic. Over the years, some have found occult underpinnings, which inevitably lead to premeditation.

Statistics show that a child is usually molested by a family member or a care giver. Similarly, a family member or care giver is usually responsible for the murder of a child found dead in their house. The person who discovers the body is in most cases the killer. So how do those statistics compile?

 

[ilovewings]

what do you mean by this? serious question... i'm not sure.

i presume Lin Wood ("LW") wasn't always like he is today.....

i've loved Bugliosi's stuff. i.e. his books and the "Lee Harvey Oswald trial".... he is a blowhard like Gerry Spence. but i seriously think that is required to be a success criminal court attorney.

I absolutely adore Bugliosi: He was brilliant-- His book about the OJ trial was right on the money- I saw being interviewed as well. How can there be any comparison betwen him and Lin wood, who is a total loser nut job?

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

and yet give John or John Andrew (a

Um..no.

Could you please clarify your response?

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

I agree that the motivation for the murder is of primary importance. MO The sexual abuse of JB seems to be most likely. Although I do not have a specific theory, the concept of premeditation often is not considered seriously. This could be an error?

The RN and the 'garrote' could have been assembled at any time. The 911 on Dec. 23 could have been a rehearsal. The rolls of duct tape and binding cord could have been disposed of prior to the 25th. The staging may have been a well-considered mise-en-scene which deliberately suggested the chaotic. Over the years, some have found occult underpinnings, which inevitably lead to premeditation.

Statistics show that a child is usually molested by a family member or a care giver. Similarly, a family member or care giver is usually responsible for the murder of a child found dead in their house. The person who discovers the body is in most cases the killer. So how do those statistics compile?

Okay are you suggesting that Patsy may be in on this? It seems very strange for an intelligent woman to frame herself with a note to frame herself? And why leave the paintbrush? Why not destroy the paintbrush?

Do you know much about Elizabeth,?
If Patsy were in on this, why not wait for her husband to dispose of the body and the suitcase. Then you can call the police.

Lastly do you think that John Andrew was there on December 23?

And do you think John and John Andrew planned this together,?

I still can't understand why Patsy didn't wait for her husband to dispose of the suitcase and the body before she called the police. That's why I view her as innocent.

Thank you.

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

Um..no.

Could you please clarify. Do you think Patsy was in on this? Then why not wait until her husband disposed of the suitcase and the body before calling the police?