Who actually took it and why on earth virtually drape her with a rope? Was it taken by her usual photographer, or by a family member? The headline from the unknown magazine states that it is linked to Patsy Ramsey, but it appears to be professionally posed.
If memory serves, that set-up was chosen and overseen by Patsy, but photographed by a pro.
Hmmmm...are you giving us a little hint there, John?? Of COURSE it was a woman's handwriting. Even JOHN thinks there are some similarities in the author of the RN handwriting, and Patsy's handwriting. Ok....gee....an intruder that breaks into someones home, and kills their daughter, and they just HAPPEN to have a similiar handwriting as the mother of the murdered child. Hmmm..now what are the odds???
Yeah, isn't that interesting? Maybe John was hedging his bets.
A day after their daughter was brutally murderd and the BPDopes were hounding them. No evidence, no motive, a woman tranqullised and sedated yet still they only focused on them. Why?
Completely false. Even John claimed in Tracey's first crock that it wasn't until the third day that the police made any attempt to "focus" on them.
No evidence? Don't make me laugh.
Only on them? I guess the 600+ people looked at don't exist. I can furnish an interview with Jeff Merrick, if you like.
Check through the documents involved with the case and you will find that the Ramsey's cooperated a lot more than you may think.
Even if true, that can't be too much.
Yeah, as if he would show himself up. As for your 'circumstantial evidence' if there was any substance in either the note or the physical evidence, they would have been charged.
Oh, yeah? There's such a thing as having to prove which one did what, you know. Pete Hofstrom even said, "so what if she wrote the note? It doesn't prove she killed her." Sadly, he's right. A lot of people say whoever wrote the note is the killer, but that ain't necessarily so.
Hmm, there is something not right here, is there not? Two detectives giving different opinions. One is indicating that it could be pineapple, whilst the other, is stating that it is definetely pineapple. Who are we to believe?
I don't suppose you're aware that the English language contains a lot of nuances, subdivided by geography?
I mean, it cannot be Lou Smit can it? - he is a Ramsey friend. By saying that, he would not be helping their cause, one little bit.
Since he's giving John a chance to clear it up and will most likely accept anything he tells him, I'd say it's a big help.
I really cannot understand all this fuss, over crudely drawn heart. Kids write or draw on their hands, arms, legs etc, all the time. I know I did and I bet that you all did also.
Then why not just say so? The first day she described the heart clearly. The next day, she said she never even saw it.
That is strange, I don't see any reference to either.
Actually, Haney DOES in fact refer to the prior genital trauma. Here you go:
HANEY: Are you aware that there had been prior vaginal intrusion on JonBenet?
PATSY: No, I am not. Prior to the night she was killed?
Haney: Correct.
Pleased to help out.
It is a real mystery, that despite this 'case solving evidence' he suggested that they had ... she was never charged.
Not really, what with a DA who wouldn't even take a case to trial unless he had a signed confession and the proverbial busload of nuns as eyewitnesses.
It was you assuming that he was refering to the jacket fibres Solace. He did not say what this 'mystery evidence' was, he just indicated that it was highly significant and that it was enough bring charges. None were brought, so he was obviously lying.
No, it isn't obvious. He just meant that it would be enough anywhere but Boulder.
