THIS article says what I believe about the motive for the murder and who the perp was

[BBB167893]

What "type" would that be? This kind of thing transcends class, income, and racial lines. I have had murder touch my own family. Here's a clue- anyone is capable of anything. The end.

Damn skippy!

 

[BBB167893]

Perhaps I didn't read Shapiro's article through, but I got the impression that he was blaming her religious inclinations for the murder.

I'll give it another going over. I have to anyway. There are a lot of other things in it I wish to talk about.

I think you're wrong about the DNA not meeting minimum standards for inclusion---especially the last DNA that was found years later.

Well, in this particular instance, it really doesn't matter if you think I'm wrong, because I'm not. The DNA database specificially requires a sample to have 13 full markers for inclusion, because partial DNA profiles are notoriously unreliable. Well, the sample submitted by the DA's office in 2003 did NOT have 13 markers. It had 9-1/2, and they had to amplify it artificially to get THAT many. As for the last DNA they found, I never heard that it was a complete sample, either. But even assuming that it was, it's helpful to remember what an FBI criminologist and a forensice expert said about the DNA in this case: that the TESTS have gotten better, not necessarily the DNA itself.

You're welcome to read the articles yourself. I'm sure someone around here would have them. Probably cynic. He's a wealth of information. I'd suggest talking to him about this. He has more expertise than I do.

The DNA cannot be discounted...

WANNA BET?

it was found under her nails on some of the spots on her underwear, and along the waistband.

It's impossible to say that the DNA under her nails is in any way related to the other DNA, MUCH LESS to this crime.

It was a problem for the Grand Jury...

Does the phrase, "too dumb to get out of jury duty," mean anything to you? My understanding is that the GJ had the same problem a lot of IDIs do: they were too scared to think that a parent could do this crime.

Not that it matters. The Grand Jury was nothing but a dog-and-pony show for the media, anyway.

and Barry Scheck has been silent on it. He wouldn't discount it for his innocence project.

Frankly, as I see it, if it WERE of any use, he wouldn't be quiet about it for just that reason. That means nothing to me.

I could have been wrong about the football player...

Okay. (I'll be generous and leave it at that.)

but it was a strong blow with a lot of force behind it,

Maybe. Provided that there WAS a blow in the true sense, and that she wasn't thrown into something. But even assuming that it was a strong blow, what does that prove?

and there were nail marks in her neck from the garrotte.

No, there weren't! The autopsy report and photographs are quite clear about that. The idea of scratch marks (or as you say it, nail marks) is another one instance where Lou Smit dreamed up "evidence" out of thin air.

I'd probably get along with IDIs a lot better if they didn't insult my intelligence by trying to gaslight me with this garbage.

I can't imagine even bad parents murdering a child that way....

Far as I'm concerned, Maikai, that's precisely the problem! It's been my experience that most IDIs either CAN'T imagine such a thing, or just don't WANT to. And speaking from personal experience, I can sympathize with that, to a degree. Nobody WANTS to think that a parent, or even another HUMAN could do such a thing. It opens up too many doors that we want to keep locked, namely that if it could happen to someone like the Rs, it could happen to ANY ONE OF US! A lot of people don't want to face that. But what separates the men from the boys (for lack of a better term) in this thing we call life is the ability to face some pretty unpleasant facts, because only by facing them can we DO something about them. But we'll never do anything about them by pretending they don't exist.

But while I can have sympathy for the average person not wanting to believe that, when a jury or a prosecutor clings to those naive notions in the face of evidence, my sympathy goes right out the window! And in this case, that naive notion infected the "prosecutor's" office WITH A VENGEANCE! And please, don't take my word for it! Just read what "Trip" DeMuth, Pete Hofstrom, and most notably Mary Lacy have said!

not to mention the stun gun.

Just like the "scratch marks," I wish you WOULDN'T mention things that don't exist! Another fabrication in the face of evidence.

There is plenty of exculpatory evidence.

News to me, my friend!

Folks, I think I'm MAD now!

 

[BBB167893]

It's more than just the "type." It's all the elements of the crime, when connected make it unlikely the Ramseys were involved in this crime--be it an accident or intentional.

It's specifically by connecting the elements of the crime (the REAL elements, not IDI fantasies like stun guns) that points to the Ramseys. Shapiro's article mentions that.

Considering the temperament of Patsy, she wouldn't have had the presence of mind to creep around the house without lights on doing a coverup.....doesn't make sense......

Makes sense to me! She didn't want anyone to SEE anything! Also, I'm not sure what you mean by her "temperment."

and a big thing to me is, you can't write what you don't know....there is no indication Patsy or John knew the movie lines.

No indication the person who WROTE it did, either! Like I've been saying for a long time, the movie lines were actually MISquoted.

I think you're making a big mistake, Maikai; focusing on the supposed movie lines to the exclusion of all the OTHER RN content. That's where it's at! And I'm not alone in that sentiment. I'd be more than happy to furnish anyone who wants them with what the profiling experts (the ones who did NOT sell out!) had to say about it! Shapiro touches on that, but doesn't go into much detail.

 

[Squishified]

He would have done a better job of it. These are not the type of people that would have killed a child in this way, and if it was just Patsy, John would not have been a part of it anymore than most parents would coveup for one another--I'm talking normal upper middle class, educated parents.....neither knew the movie lines....no lights were blaring from the house that night--it's ludicrous to continuing saying a Ramsey did it.

I would say, that if John did indeed participate in the cover-up, that he did a good job. After all, we're still talking about this case today.

 

[twinkiesmom]

One thing is for sure in my mind is that PR planned this. No way that note was written and thought out that night, the lifelike baby doll for Christmas, changing the color of the tree to purple which gives biblical meaning. To me it seemed she planned this.

I don't think so...These items were remarked upon in DOI (book). It sounds more like she was trying to impute meaning in these items after the fact.

The note was most likely written that night, possibly with outside help. Are the phone records permanently unretrievable or did the DA just drop the ball on obtaining them?

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think so...These items were remarked upon in DOI (book). It sounds more like she was trying to impute meaning in these items after the fact.

The note was most likely written that night, possibly with outside help. Are the phone records permanently unretrievable or did the DA just drop the ball on obtaining them?

The DA didn't drop the ball, per se. They refused to ALLOW police to have a warrant to obtain them.
Later, a judge ruled them permanently unobtainable because some tabloid reporters had tried to obtain them illegally.

 

[DeeDee249]

Perhaps I didn't read Shapiro's article through, but I got the impression that he was blaming her religious inclinations for the murder. I think you're wrong about the DNA not meeting minimum standards for inclusion---especially the last DNA that was found years later. The DNA cannot be discounted...it was found under her nails on some of the spots on her underwear, and along the waistband. It was a problem for the Grand Jury...and Barry Scheck has been silent on it. He wouldn't discount it for his innocence project.

I could have been wrong about the football player...but it was a strong blow with a lot of force behind it, and there were nail marks in her neck from the garrotte. I can't imagine even bad parents murdering a child that way....not to mention the stun gun. There is plenty of exculpatory evidence.

Another falsehood that seems to never go away. There were NO nail marks on her throat. NONE. Those were petechiae, and mentioned as such in the autopsy. NO official mention has ever been made (other than opinions on forums) that there were nail marks or scratches on her neck. In addition, there was NO evidence of her own flesh under her fingernails, which there would have been had she dug her nails in her neck.
Go back and check the autopsy and if you can find anywhere that Mayer says they are nail marks, please post it.

 

[Whaleshark]

Maikai,

The generalizations about the Ramseys not being 'the type', and being 'middle class' people so they couldn't do something like this, and 'hard to imagine' even bad parents doing something like this -

that's all your limitations of belief and acceptance in your own mind...ugh, so annoying.

Like what, middle class people can't abuse and harm their kids? What is that? Maybe you don't choose to see it, but there are horror stories every day. Some of the worst hidden family secrets are in what people thought were 'perfect' or 'rich, upper middle class families'.

I don't want to have to rewrite a response to these kinds of statements over and over again, but I guess it has to be done to remind people who say such things.

So, let's start here:

- This woman was not poor and minority. She planned her children's murders. She was white and lived in a big house. I couldn't imagine this from a 'good' or 'bad' parent, lower or middle class, or whatever, either....but it happened:

Woman Shoots Her teenage kids for being mouthy
http://brittaj17.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/woman-shoots-her-teenage-kids-for-being-mouthy-jan-2011/
Julie Powers Schenecker was arrested for shooting her two teenage children Calyx Powers Schenecker,16 and Powers Beau Schenecker, 13. They were “allegedly” shot and killed by their mother on Thursday, for “misbehaving”. The 50-year-old, Schenecker, was arrested on Friday after the police were called to her house where they found her on the back porch covered in blood. It was reported that the POLICE were so upset at the bloody scene, they had to receive counseling....
___

Let's see...next:

- Rise in Child Abuse Called National 'Epidemic'
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/rise-child-abuse-called-national-epidemic/story?id=701293

..."It covers across the socioeconomic spectrum," Bilchik said. "So this isn't about just impoverished families."
__

And next:

- A "normal middle-class house in a normal middle-class neighborhood”
http://homesweethome.wordpress.com/2006/11/15/a-normal-middle-class-house-in-a-normal-middle-class-neighborhood-2/

....“She was a home-maker, and he worked in real estate and home loans. If you were to walk into their home and not know what happened, there was no indication of any abuse.”

...Police say the child’s injuries were extensive and brutal. They say she also had “possible welts that blistered up or actual burn marks from some type of hot liquid,” “She has these injuries pretty much all over her body.”

...One thing stood out. Police say “I’ve seen a lot of child abuse cases where the child is abused in (one) certain way,” such as being hit with something or cut or burned. But they say this child had several different types of injuries. And they believe she had been tortured over several months.
__

Oh, and just for you:

- How social workers were duped by Middle Class Doctor Couple who abused their three adopted children for a decade

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017183/How-social-workers-duped-middle-class-child-abuse-pair.html

'Perceptions and assumptions' about the couple's social class swayed professionals, review concludes:

- One child was hit with a stiletto shoe and another with a dustbin lid
- School friends tried to help but weren't taken seriously
- Social workers waited SIX MONTHS before acting after one of the children complained

Professionals were condemned for missing 'many opportunities' to help the youngsters because they were swayed by the scientists' social class and status.

Behind the door of the couple's $450,000 home in leafy Cheshire, the two boys and a girl - referred to as B, C, and D for legal reasons - were punched, slapped and smothered.
__

...i really see no need to go further, but if you insist I can drum up thousands more cases just like this -- including 'good christian families' and whatnot which one could dare not fathom would do such horrible things. sigh, please...

as for the movies, why must you insist that they would not know those movie lines anyway? why? because they SAID they were not familiar with those movies? ugh, seriously. Patsy said she saw the movie Speed while on an airplane. She remembered the plot of the movie. She said that John and Burke used to go regularly and get those kinds of movies together, AND they had a home theater in the house. And there were movie posters there as well. And, Patsy spent a lot of time resting in bed, watching tv and whatnot.

On November 29, a month before JonBenet's death, the movie 'Dirty Harry' had aired on TBS in Boulder.

On the night JonBenet was murdered, the movie 'Nick of Time' aired at 7:30 P.M -
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-ransomnote.htm

Movie "In the Nick of Time"
1999 February 18 - Lawrence Schillers book "Perfect
Murder, Perfect Town
Page 225:

"On the night JonBenet was murdered, the movie 'Nick of Time' aired at 7:30 P.M. on a Boulder cable channel. The story centers on an unarmed political faction that kidnaps a six-year-old girl. The victim is told, "Listen to me very carefully.' Bill Cox, who was staying with Fleet and Priscilla White, told the police he remembered watching the movie that night."

The movie Ransom was playing in Boulder during December 1996.
__

And as for your own statement, "you can't write what you don't know....", then how can you say in the same sentence that "there is no indication Patsy or John knew the movie lines" ? What kind of indication would there be, unless there is recorded eyewitness history of seeing them watching, knowing and learning, and then repeating those lines? You don't know either what they did or did not memorize. So you can't say that they did NOT know those lines as well. How can you write what you don't know? Unless you live in their heads, you don't know whether they actually did or didn't know those movie lines either.

 

[DeeDee249]

Let me add that to say the Rs didn't know the movie lines is perplexing beyond belief. How can ANYONE say that- even people who KNEW them? NO ONE has any way of knowing whether they knew the lines from those CURRENT (at the time) movies. To make that a factor in whether they wrote the note makes no sense either.
TWO things make me believe Patsy wrote the note- the handwriting and the way the note was written, which to me, in the same linguistic style as her Christmas newsletters and other writings. The writing itself is spot on.

 

[Maikai]

What do you base that idea on? And I wasn't asking WHAT, I was asking WHY. Would you have us believe that he'd just throw his own wife to the dogs? He'd already lost one daughter, now another, and if he did that, he'd lose Patsy too. (That's assuming that he wasn't involved in some way.)

Yes, if his wife could do such a horrendous crime, he'd throw her to the dogs. It would mean she was crazy, and I don't see him living with a lunatic...especially with Burke.



Give me a BREAK. Do not ever tell me that someone is not the "type" to do something. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that about a killer, I'd have my rent paid for the next year, easy.

There's never been a parent that garrotted her child...the method of the killing and other acts are not the acts of doting, loving parents with no history of child abuse whatsover. There is no motive. On the other hand, there's plenty of crazies out there that have done worse acts---losers of society


Neither did the person who wrote the RN, in case you haven't noticed! The lines weren't quoted verbatim, but the subject matter is something neither parent was familiar with---especially Dirty Harry. Again, no history of any interest in extortion movies.



I'll TELL you what's ludicrous, Maikai: the intruder theory. I plan to KEEP saying it!

And I say a RDI is ludicrous when there's exculportory evidence. So there!

 

[Tadpole12]

It's more than just the "type." It's all the elements of the crime, when connected make it unlikely the Ramseys were involved in this crime--be it an accident or intentional.
The light that was off was outside the sunroom...don't know if that is relevant or not, or if it just burnt out on its own.

It's too bad the neighbors didn't take more notice of the moving lights---could have been someone using a flashlight. Especially going into the basement---would the perp have turned the lights on? Considering the temperament of Patsy, she wouldn't have had the presence of mind to creep around the house without lights on doing a coverup.....doesn't make sense......and a big thing to me is, you can't write what you don't know....there is no indication Patsy or John knew the movie lines.

Heyya Maikai, iirc it was noted that the basement light was discovered to be 'on' the morning of the 26th.

 

[Tadpole12]

I cannot begin to imagine why anyone would decorate a Christmas Tree with Purple.
And Yes, I can see why Patsy Ramsey might think that time was running out.
But what person in their right mind would take a young child to meet them in death?
I can't get my head around subjecting that small girl to The Beauty Pageant Circuit. But then I am a bit old fashioned.

Heyya Sabot,

If the tree was in a mauve colored room it wood coordinate, quite lovely?

 

[Tadpole12]

I have spent nearly 6 decades in the South, born n' bred, as they say. Many generations of GRITS.

So I can understand the religious fervor Patsy had, though I don't share her religious beliefs.

I'm still not able to accept that Patsy planned this murder, though. I will have to see evidence which convinces me that was the case, and I haven't seen it yet.

For one thing, while we don't know who was sexually abusing JonBenet. Yes, it could have been some horrible ritual or torture Patsy performed in some state of mental illness--sadly, it's not uncommon; but I have not seen the evidence that proves it was her and not someone else from the inner circle. As mentioned, statistically it was far more likely a young male. If it were John Ramsey, then there must have been others before JonBenet, as pedophiles don't just suddenly develop their desires to molest in middle age.

So I'm always stuck on this because, contrary to the endless accusations that those of us who believe the Ramseys are the culprits come to our conclusions out of some hate we pulled from nowhere, I actually entirely follow what the evidence tells me. What the prior molestation tells me is no more nor less than someone close to JonBenet, who had enough private access to her before that night to molest her on more than one occasion, was sexually abusing her. The manner and reason I can guess at, using the medical evidence, but guessing doesn't give me proof of whom it was beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will share this with you, hoping that our beloved FFJ poster Cherokee won't mind. She has stated as clear a picture of Patsy's state of mind as I've seen, and we've all followed all the books, article, interviews, and interrogations for 15 years, so this isn't something devised from nothing. Cherokee's take on Patsy's psyche mirrors Shapiro's, as well. Thank you, Cherokee: brilliant.

Tonight (12/26/11) 9 pm EST -A special Jonbenet Ramsey show on Websleuths radio! - Forums For Justice

As mentioned, statistically it was far more likely a young male. If it were John Ramsey, then there must have been others before JonBenet, as pedophiles don't just suddenly develop their desires to molest in middle age. - KK

Heyya KK, in the material I've read concerning AEA, it was often noted to be predominately practiced among adolescent males, 17 - 25, iirc.


Re: the JRDI scenario, the term 'situational molester' has been referenced.

 

[Sabot]

Heyya Sabot,

If the tree was in a mauve colored room it wood coordinate, quite lovely?

A Mauve coloured room? Good God.

Hang on a minute, that would cover up the salpetre stains that keep on coming through on my walls.

Don't you just love The Internet. Now where can I buy mauve house paint?

PS. I think I'll pass on the purple christmas tree. You can have too much of a good thing.

 

[KoldKase]

I haven't seen this writing sample of Oliva's. Perhaps you could provide a link or source so we can make our own comparisons to follow your theory? Aunt Pam told a reporter when Patsy died that Patsy had her "Victory." Does that make Aunt Pam a suspect?
QUOTE]

I found this on one of the other websites......http://www.webbsleuths.com/dcf/jbr_evidence/62.html

I hope the link works. A poster Braveheart compared the handwriting. I may have sent it to J...because I don't know how to post things like that. It was so long ago, who knows? The link on 21. and 28. post shows the handwriting. The first post most likely has Olivia's handwriting, but I have a different computer, and all that shows up is a red X in the box. That's not the complete grievance--it doesn't have the double consonant words on it. I suspect I probably threw it out....along with other things like the rap sheet of a former housekeeper and a particular family member.

Thanks for finding this for us.

I looked at the comparisons Braveheart made and posted at his/her links; the other sample to compare was not showing up for me, either, on the thread itself.

Since Braveheart altered the sample in both comparisons to thicken and thin the letters, that makes it harder to get a true comparison, IMO.

But I'm not expert, at any rate, so all I can say is from the comparisons Braveheart made with the samples used and my own two eyes, I don't see these two documents as being written by the same person.

JMO

Thanks again for finding that.

 

[KoldKase]

Perhaps I didn't read Shapiro's article through, but I got the impression that he was blaming her religious inclinations for the murder. I think you're wrong about the DNA not meeting minimum standards for inclusion---especially the last DNA that was found years later. The DNA cannot be discounted...it was found under her nails on some of the spots on her underwear, and along the waistband. It was a problem for the Grand Jury...and Barry Scheck has been silent on it. He wouldn't discount it for his innocence project.

I actually thought I heard the Bode Tech scientist Williamson, who worked on the longjohns, state on one of the news shows where she was interviewed that she did collect a full DNA profile from the longjohns with her "touch" DNA test. As I remember it, she said she collected enough intact DNA not to need more specific testing of some kind or other...? It's not my area of expertise and, like the "enhanceed tape of the 911 call" I heard Geraldo play one night on his show so many years ago, no transcripts of Williamson saying this are available that I've found and no one else has dropped in to say they heard her say it, as well. So again, I end up being told I am wrong about that. Whatever, it's what I remember.

Having said that, the DNA collected from under the fingernails contained only 1 to 3 or 4 markers, from all acounts, including Dr. Lee and Lou Smit. Those samples were not able to be eliminated as potential matches for the DNA from the underpants and longjohns, but those few markers would also not be eliminated as potential matches for millions of other DNA profiles. So it's not a good argument to include them as "matching." They don't. It's like saying both these people have hair, two feet, and two hands, so they're the same person.

Also, we don't know what the grand jury would have decided as far as an indictment if they'd been asked to vote by Hunter, since we weren't there and the only grand juror who has spoken was tightly edited by Schiller on his documentary aired the evening of the day Patsy was buried. We did recently learn that the grand jury did not vote at all, one way or the other, as Hunter dismissed them without a vote or summary from them. I think we all know by now that the grand jury was a dog-and-pony show brought by Hunter too late and only because he was ordered to do so or have the case taken away from him by the Governor, in response to Steve Thomas's public letter of resignation. Hunter did not ever intend to take this case to trial; his obstruction of the investigation by the BPD proved that beyond any doubt to me.

 

[KoldKase]

I could have been wrong about the football player...but it was a strong blow with a lot of force behind it, and there were nail marks in her neck from the garrotte. I can't imagine even bad parents murdering a child that way....not to mention the stun gun. There is plenty of exculpatory evidence.

A child can do immeasurable damage with a ball bat or golf club if swung with vigor. That's why children are required to wear helmets in T-ball. That's why toy companies manufacture bats and balls in soft foam. Burke was plenty large enough to do that damage to JonBenet's skull, if you notice him wearing his ball cap and glove in the photo of the two of them, in which he has a black eye, also. He already had hit JB in the face with a golf swing the previous year, doing enough damage to cause Patsy to consult with a plastic surgeon, if memory serves? I'm not saying I think Burke delivered the blow to JB's skull; just that he was fully large enough to do it. Many parents would know this, particularly those with children in sports.

I think what I am hearing from you, Maikai, is that you are basing your intruder theory on your belief that the Ramseys just could not do this, being the nice, upper class, educated Christians you believe them to have been. I've heard this from many Ramseys supporters. I get it. You just can't believe they could perform the elements of this crime.

From my point of view, I don't look at what I believe about their character as relevant. I never knew the Ramseys. I never was in their house, their lives, or their heads. I can't say what they were or were not capable of to a certainty of fact based on what I think about their outward social, religious, and personal images.

What I do know is that our public personas are what we present to others to exclude them from our private selves. Just like we don't wear our bedclothes to business meetings or school or shopping, we dress up who we are when we interact with others. We even do that with our spouses and ourselves. Humans are maddeningly complex beings.

There is an entire science of the psychology of the human mind, and it's about as specific as our understanding of the Universe. We think we may be close to the truth, but often, we're as accurate as when we once believed the Earth was flat or that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

So believe what makes you comfortable; we all do. But understand that in the realm of evidence, the character of the Ramseys is a plethora of misdirection, professional PR, and self-delusion--ours and theirs.

What we do know about their character is that they stalled this investigation by hiring lawyers within hours of their child being murdered in their home and using their lawyers as their excuse to this day for doing so; we know they hid evidence for years from LE--the package of Bloomies; according to interview transcripts their lawyer released, they lied repeatedly and badly, to the public, but more importantly, to LE investigators. But that is evidence which requires interpretation more than, say, a cord around the neck strangling the child to death. So what we deduce about them as human beings, as parents, based on their BEHAVIOR, is forever arguable.

In the end only the evidence in the house and on the body, as muddied as that has been in the combating sides of the investigation, lights the way to the truth.

Someone was sexually assaulting JonBenet before that night. That is a fact no one who wants to know the truth of this murder would ever deny. NO PEDIATRICIAN OR MEDICAL EXAMINER HAS EVER SAID THAT EVIDENCE OF CHRONIC VAGINAL INFLAMATION AND AN ERODED HYMEN DOESN'T EXIST. Only one that I remember once said it MIGHT NOT be evidence of prior molestation, and he changed his opinion eventually, becoming a crusader for abused children, even using JonBenet as an example.

Think of how damning this PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is against the Ramseys. They, OF ALL PEOPLE, argue to this day that no one had molested her previously, though Patsy said in 1998 DA interview she hadn't even heard that before--not from her own defense lawyers or investigators. How could she know it wasn't true? Someone slipped into her home and did it the night she slept in her bed, she claimed until her death; how can that educated, upper class, loving mother know it wasn't true, then, when Detective Haney told her the evidence proved it was?

So how can the Ramseys deny the factual autopsy evidence, the best evidence they had to lead to their "intruder," if they believed there was one? It logically narrows the suspect pool significantly.

But Team Ramsey avoids it, denies it, and obscures it. Only one reason I can imagine that explains why: because they have no explanation other than it was someone very close to the child, someone they don't want to be caught and never have.

This could go to motive, as well, for the subsequent attack and murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Sadly, it's not an uncommon motive in child murders.

If the parents stonewall the investigation and deny the most important evidence matters, if they lie to LE and the public so often it's hard to keep up with the lies, how can anyone who is seeking truth and justice for the abused and murdered child not believe the parents are the prime suspects?

The evidence tells the truth.

 

[madeleine]

I would say, that if John did indeed participate in the cover-up, that he did a good job. After all, we're still talking about this case today.

it's not them doing a good job,it's the cops/DA doing a lousy job IMO

 

[Sabot]

If I had been one of The Ramseys then I would have gotten a Lawyer tout de suite, guilty or innocent. And even more quickly today.
The rumours of parental involvement start immediately. This would be a terrible shock if your child had just been murdered. And a sensible precaution if you were involved. No one can define guilt by this action.

 

[Tadpole12]

A Mauve coloured room? Good God.

Hang on a minute, that would cover up the salpetre stains that keep on coming through on my walls.

Don't you just love The Internet. Now where can I buy mauve house paint?

PS. I think I'll pass on the purple christmas tree. You can have too much of a good thing.

Heyya Sabot.

Yes the internet is grand.
And yes, a good primer can cover a lot of damage.

I had tried to find a specific article re the Ramseys,
it was, iirc, a memorial piece about PR and her 'blue suit';
describing some of PR's little idiosyncracies.
The article included an anecdote describing how PR had her painters, contracters paint the same room numerous times until the right shade was acheived.
iirc the shade was mauve?