No, THIS is the truth!

I know there was a link to this story, but I felt it needed to be posted in full.

http://www.gaylordheraldtimes.com/a...ocal_news03.txt

May 29, 2004

Caller questions Ramseys on JonBenet Foundation

By Laurie Lounsbury, Staff Writer

CHARLEVOIX COUNTY - An appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live" television show helped launch John Ramsey's campaign for the 105th state House of Representatives seat, giving him instant name recognition throughout the district.

But a statement made on the show by his wife, Patsy, has triggered an outcry from those who question the existence of a foundation established in the name of their daughter, JonBenet, who was murdered Dec. 26, 1996. The murder has not been solved.

John and Patsy Ramsey appeared on "Larry King Live" May 12, the day after Ramsey officially announced his candidacy for the 105th District state House seat, a district that includes Charlevoix, Otsego, Antrim and Cheboygan counties.

EDITED BY ADMINISTRATION - IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE TOS TO POST AN ARTICLE IN ITS ENTIRETY.

There seem to be fewer Ramsey supporters posting recently. Certainly, it is hard to defend their integrity when they tell blatant lies like the above on National (Global?) television.

Cherokee said:

"This week, we did present $1,000 worth of scholarships to Mount McSauba Day Camp here in Charlevoix, where JonBenet and Burke both attended day camp," Patsy told Larry King and millions of viewers.

Click to expand...

Patsy made that statement on May 12th.

She didn't write the check for the $1000 until over two weeks later on May 27th after a reporter from the Gaylord Herald Times called and asked her about the alleged donation. Patsy said she was writing a check for that $1000 on the VERY day the reporter called. What a coincidence.

Patsy said on LKL, "This week, we did present $1000 worth of scholarships to Mounta McSauba Day Camp ..."

Patsy used the past tense "we did present" ... not the future tense "we will present" or "we have agreed to present." Patsy said, "this week" she had presented $1000 worth of scholarships.

It doesn't matter if she had mentioned donating money to Ike Boss or anyone ... THE MONEY WAS NOT DONATED WHEN PATSY SAID IT WAS. Patsy gave the impression the donation was already a "done deal."

Why can't these people tell the truth?

Why couldn't Patsy just let John's pathetically lame answer on LKL about the foundation stand, and let it go at that?

Why did Patsy have to insert herself into John's answer, and brag about a non-existant donation from a IRS declared "dissolved" foundation?

Why did Patsy have to make herself and John appear "better" than they really are?

Why wasn't the truth about the foundation good enough?

I'll tell you why ... for the Ramseys it's all about


It's always been about IMAGE and what other people think. It's the reason for the cover-up, and it's the reason John Ramsey is running for political office.

Some people never learn.



IMO

Cherokee said:

Patsy made that statement on May 12th.

She didn't write the check for the $1000 until over two weeks later on May 27th after a reporter from the Gaylord Herald Times called and asked her about the alleged donation. Patsy said she was writing a check for that $1000 on the VERY day the reporter called. What a coincidence.

Patsy said on LKL, "This week, we did present $1000 worth of scholarships to Mounta McSauba Day Camp ..."

Patsy used the past tense "we did present" ... not the future tense "we will present" or "we have agreed to present." Patsy said, "this week" she had presented $1000 worth of scholarships.

It doesn't matter if she had mentioned donating money to Ike Boss or anyone ... THE MONEY WAS NOT DONATED WHEN PATSY SAID IT WAS. Patsy gave the impression the donation was already a "done deal."

Why can't these people tell the truth?

Why couldn't Patsy just let John's pathetically lame answer on LKL about the foundation stand, and let it go at that?

Why did Patsy have to insert herself into John's answer, and brag about a non-existant donation from a IRS declared "dissolved" foundation?

Why did Patsy have to make herself and John appear "better" than they really are?

Why wasn't the truth about the foundation good enough?

I'll tell you why ... for the Ramseys it's all about

IMAGE​

It's always been about IMAGE and what other people think. It's the reason for the cover-up, and it's the reason John Ramsey is running for political office.

Some people never learn.



IMO

Click to expand...

:clap:

As always Cherokee, right on target!

The Ramseys (those Good Christians) lie and stretch the truth at every turn. They have been doing this for almost 8 years.

There will always be those who will find any rationale, no matter how silly to excuse their "mistakes" and "misspeak". Very unfortunate

There are none so blind........................

I would have loved to read the rest of that article. Link says not found

Nedthan Johns said:

I would have loved to read the rest of that article. Link says not found

Click to expand...

Here you go.

http://www.gaylordheraldtimes.com/articles/2004/06/01/news/local_news/local_news03.txt

Officially, the nonprofit JonBenet Foundation is closed, according to the IRS," Griffith said. "But if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to correct it on my Web site."

Griffith said her Web site, forumsforjustice.org, gets one million hits per month, and the hits have been increasing - especially hits from Michigan - since Ramsey declared his candidacy.

Griffith, like many Americans, grew interested in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case a few weeks after the tragic death of the young beauty queen occurred in December, 1996. She acquired the discussion Web site forumsforjustice.org, that deals with crime victims, in 2002. On Thursday, she launched another Web site, supportramseytruth.com.

"There's no tip line, no family Web site, so it's being left up to strangers to keep up with information about JonBenet," Griffith said.

"I would have thought that the Ramseys, being computer savvy, would have a Web site for JonBenet," she added.

---------------

Hah!...no web site for JonBenet from her computer savvy father. Guess the thousands of dollars in the foundation isn't enough to pay someone to make a web site....obviously John and Patsy are too busy running around to do it themselves.

To be fair in this $1,000 'scholarship' question, it must be pointed out that Patsy didn't say they presented a $1,000 CHECK - but a 'scholarship.'
The check comes later after a scholarship is announced and offered.
Which seems to have been the case.

At least that's how it has worked with my kids.

K777angel said:

To be fair in this $1,000 'scholarship' question, it must be pointed out that Patsy didn't say they presented a $1,000 CHECK - but a 'scholarship.'
The check comes later after a scholarship is announced and offered.
Which seems to have been the case.

At least that's how it has worked with my kids.

Click to expand...

Angel,

The point isn't whether Patsy said they presented a check or a scholarship ... the "noun" is not in question.

It is the verb phrase "we did present" that verifies Patsy's intention to mislead the public.

Patsy could have said, "We are planning to present $1000 worth of scholarships..." or "We have promised to present $1000 worth of scholarships...." But she did not.

Patsy said, "We did present ...."

She purposefully phrased her sentence to give the impression that "$1000 worth of scholarships" HAD ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED.

In addition, Patsy didn't follow up on her misleading statement until a reporter called her to ask about it. Suddenly, she plans to write a check THAT VERY DAY.

The point is ... even if the Ramseys intended to "present $1000 worth of scholarships to Mount McSauba Day Camp" Patsy misrepresented the timing of their actions. She worded her statement to imply "past action," not "past promise and future action."

Furthermore, why did Patsy even insert her statement into John's answer regarding the foundation? It's obvious she was trying to save face, and present a better image. She knew John's defense of the foundation looked weak, and she felt the need to shore it up for the general public.

And this is the crux of the situation ... whatever the timing of the scholarship presentation ... Patsy's statement implied previous action in order to present a better IMAGE.

This is the Ramsey's MO if you will. It's always been about IMAGE. Patsy proved by her statement on LKL she will intentionally mislead people if it will help the Ramsey IMAGE.

People say the Ramseys had no prior "pathology" when discussing the staging of the crime scene, but I say there is a pattern of behavior that would lead to such staging. The Ramseys have an overwhelming need for the approval of others ... the approval of an IMAGE they have created and presented in place of their true selves.



IMO

interview. Good going Trish!

i was once obsessed with this case. eventually i gave up, thinking justice would not happen in this life. but since i joined WS and have been lurking in JonBenet forum, my interest is renewed and i plan to get up to speed. i think Tricia's website is brilliant and will have great impact. "into" laci now, like many, but WS has piqued my hope that perhaps there will be denouement in this case. one thought i always had is that we will never KNOW what happened that night entirely, unless patsy finally snaps the bonds of reason and spills her guts. it's going to go down in history like lizzie borden...we know, but want to know ALL definitively.

Exciting isn't it Linda? After all these years, maybe justice will finally happen. I wish EasyWriter (FFJ) could bring his thread over.

If not go to FFJ and read his thread. It's awesome, he's either a lawyer, or Hodge or a detective....not sure who he is....or she.