Is Patsy Ramsey losing her battle with ovarian cancer

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by mysteriew, Apr 30, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mysteriew

    mysteriew A diamond in process

    Messages:
    23,795
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads - Patsy Ramsey losing
    1. Maikai
      Replies:
      75
      Views:
      20,156
    2. cynic
      Replies:
      1,003
      Views:
      182,552
    3. ginzy
      Replies:
      2,672
      Views:
      319,772

  3. izzyB

    izzyB Inactive

    Messages:
    3,282
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. Dark Knight

    Dark Knight New Member

    Messages:
    21,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Report: Patsy Ramsey undergoing outpatient chemotherapy

    DENVER (AP) - The mother of slain child beauty queen
    JonBenet Ramsey is being treated for a fourth time for ovarian
    cancer.
    Patsy Ramsey is undergoing chemotherapy in Georgia, where
    her father lives.
    Family attorney Lin Wood says Ramsey's recurrent battles
    with cancer have taken a "great toll" on her and her family but
    she remains "determined and positive."
    The Rocky Mountain News quotes friends as saying the
    treatment is grueling and that her situation is "grave."

    JonBenet was just six when she was found beaten and
    strangled in her parents' Boulder, Colorado, home in December
    1996. No one has ever been arrested. Patsy and her husband, John,
    were once considered under an "umbrella of suspicion" but a
    federal judge has said the evidence suggests an intruder killed
    JonBenet.
     
  5. VespaElf

    VespaElf Little Miss Showcase(runner-up)

    Messages:
    2,380
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I dont wish harm on anyone (even those I suspect of criminal behavior) but I echo earlier sentiments suspicious of this type of Ramsey news.
     
  6. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    RMN
    quote McLean.
    "Now that everybody knows the truth, where are all the public saying, 'We're sorry, we were wrong we crucified you,' " McLean asked. "She's not as bitter, probably, as I am about it. But it's just something you can't forgive."


    I suppose McLean doesn't read the forums?
     
  7. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wasn't aware that everybody knows the truth?
     
  8. bensmom98

    bensmom98 Former Member

    Messages:
    1,446
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I feel very badly for her. Whether or not she is in some way responsible for her daughter's death, or was involved in covering it up, she still has suffered. Nobody expects to outlive their children.
     
  9. Toltec

    Toltec New Member

    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know and GOD knows that Patsy wrote the ransom note. Her signing off on the acronmyn SBTC means something only to her.

    I have suspected that the C stands for Calamities because she loves saying that word.

    Satan brought the calamities...Suffering brought the calamities, etc...
     
  10. AutumnBorn

    AutumnBorn Hates Liver

    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SBTC. She belongs to Christ.

    I wish her healing and peace on the final leg of her journey.
     
  11. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0

    sissi,

    Why would the public all be saying "We were wrong"? Seventy five percent of the public is convinced a Ramsey killed JonBenet.
     
  12. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How would I know? This is as reported by the RMT, a quote of McLean's. I suppose people close to the Ramseys believe they were finally "cleared" of suspicion. Seventy five percent of forum members perhaps didn't get that "memo".?
     
  13. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good thinking Toltec!
     
  14. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At the risk of sounding insensitive ...

    If Patsy should pass from cancer,would that put an end to this case?
     
  15. bensmom98

    bensmom98 Former Member

    Messages:
    1,446
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Not without a confession...
     
  16. FULTON

    FULTON New Member

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I dont know if I would beleive Patsy if she actually confessed at this pont. Would she still be covering for somone else??
     
  17. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fulton:

    Actually, If they were covering up for someone,and Patsy did discover she only had a short time to live ... wouldn't that be a perfect way to put an end to the case.

    Patsy saying it was an awful accident,and she in a panic and not right of mind,staged the the crime scene. Then no one else has to pay for it.

    Again ... I am just running away with my thoughts here ... and it is far fetched and some what morbid.

    So .. on to some thing else .... how about the Ted Kennedy/Kopeckne thing??? LOL ... don't get me going there ....LOL!!!
     
  18. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0

    capps,

    Patsy would never voluntarily fall on her sword. They've been relatively successful with the coverup for over eight years now, and currently seem to have the D.A., the courts, and the media in their corner pushing the IDI theory in an obvious conspiratorial coverup.

    The widespread conspiracy aspects of the coverup alone tells me children were involved in the death of JonBenet. The courts and the media would never cover up to that extent for an adult -- but they would for children.

    IMO the case has been solved; it's just a matter of getting the truth to the people.
     
  19. jasmine

    jasmine Former Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly how do you know?
     
  20. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are probably right BC.
    You say in your opinion, the case has been solved ... can they do that? If the case is solved (involving children) can they just pretend to the public,after all this nationwide attention,that it is not solved? They would just let us believe it was never solved,and hope it would just go away? That doesn't seem right.

    Wouldn't we get at least a "The case has been solved,but for legal reasons the outcome cannot be opened to the public." Or some thing to that effect?
     
  21. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesn't seem right as you say, and I don't think that this would ever go down this way, but the truth is, we don't really know, and never really will. It is virtually impossible to look up a similar case because it would have the same coverup. There is just no precedent. Or if there is, we wouldn't know about it.

    Courts may go to extremes to protect children, but I would think that with a case with such massive national media attention, a coverup this large would just be too difficult to accomplish. Every libel case that is/was brought would get dragged down into this as well. It just seems too large for the legal system to be able to accomplish, therefore, I doubt they would even attempt it...

    Perhaps a more plausible idea for me, is that the grand jury concluded either that evidence existed to CHARGE a minor, but you can't prosecute children under 10, or that John or Patsy was probably guilty but there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Don't forget a grand jury doesn't determine guilt, but whether charges can be brought. They may have concluded that the only charges which could have POTENTIALLY have resulted in conviction were "unchargeable", if you will. All grand jury's are secret if they result in no charges. If noone can be charged, for WHATEVER reason, this must be kept secret to protect people from being tried in the public's eye.

    Don't forget, what if the grand jury concluded that they thought Patsy did it, but there wasn't enough evidence to charge? Shouldn't they keep this under a gag order? Would we want the whole country saying "Patsy did it, but there isn't enough evidence to charge her?" The burden in criminal trials is high for good reason. We must deal with it, for better or worse...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice