Patsy Ramsey

New Posts

Also, if it's a specific number that only the R's and close associates would know, how exactly does that point TO an intruder? The failure in logic is astounding.
 
IF innocent, the Rs could have moved beyond all this by doing one simple thing:

COOPERATE

Providing full disclosure would have allowed police to "clear" them. They should have allowed ALL records to be scrutinized, submit to questioning immediately, and for as long as necessary, submit to a normally conducted lie detector test, turn over articles of clothing from that night, allow BR to be fully questioned, refrain from directing PP to remove boxes of items from their home, etc., etc, etc.

Shouldn't have been that difficult, or problematic if they had nothing to hide.

Gee, there's another IF qualifier. Seems to be an issue for them.
 
I wouldn't cooperate with police who screwed up the crime scene as badly as BPD did. I wouldn't cooperate with a department with psycho cop Linda Ardnt who decided seconds after seeing the body that RDI.

I'd get a lawyer immediately
 
Chewy said:
I wouldn't cooperate with police who screwed up the crime scene as badly as BPD did. I wouldn't cooperate with a department with psycho cop Linda Ardnt who decided seconds after seeing the body that RDI.

I'd get a lawyer immediately
Click to expand...

I never said they shouldn't have gotten a lawyer. The 2 concepts aren't mutually exclusive.

Their wealth allowed them to secure the best legal advice possible. IF they had nothing to hide, said dream team wouldn't even of had to break a sweat; they would have been cleared, and LE would have moved on. We've seen it happen countless times. Instead they chose TV audiences and a PR firm over cooperating with LE while alleging there was "a killer on the loose."
 
"She had more handwriting styles than a class of sixth graders and was seemingly able to change as easily as turning on and off different computer fonts.

Throughout the day, Patsy's manner would change abruptly depending on the question. The woman was a chameleon."

These are observations by Thomas, indications of Patsy's level of DID.
 
Blue Bottle 01 said:
"She had more handwriting styles than a class of sixth graders and was seemingly able to change as easily as turning on and off different computer fonts.

Throughout the day, Patsy's manner would change abruptly depending on the question. The woman was a chameleon."

These are observations by Thomas, indications of Patsy's level of DID.
Click to expand...

Still nothing that points to someone being a psychotic killer.

I can write many ways. My handwriting has changed many many times.

Many people are chameleon like.. It is called adapting.
 
Ok, so you'd get a lawyer....and would you then cooperate? Instead of setting up interviews with the police (even with a lawyer present) they went on CNN, what just days after the murder? Couldn't let the other person in the house besides them be interviewed the day of the crime? And I don't mean a hard interview, just asked some questions...nope he doesn't know anything?
Nothing that the R's did doesn't even seem suspect? Not one little thing even makes you go hmm?
I don't get how the RDI's thoughts are able to be so blatantly scoffed at. I see a lot of smh's, pfft's, ugh's- they seem disrespectful to me. What happened to having respect for other points of view?
 
Venom said:
Ok, so you'd get a lawyer....and would you then cooperate? Instead of setting up interviews with the police (even with a lawyer present) they went on CNN, what just days after the murder? Couldn't let the other person in the house besides them be interviewed the day of the crime? And I don't mean a hard interview, just asked some questions...nope he doesn't know anything?
Nothing that the R's did doesn't even seem suspect? Not one little thing even makes you go hmm?
I don't get how the RDI's thoughts are able to be so blatantly scoffed at. I see a lot of smh's, pfft's, ugh's- they seem disrespectful to me. What happened to having respect for other points of view?
Click to expand...

I would do what my lawyer told me to do. That is what they are there for. If they felt the police were moving and working against me, Which is obvious here, I would just keep following my attys advice.
 
bettybaby00 said:
IF innocent, the Rs could have moved beyond all this by doing one simple thing:

COOPERATE

Providing full disclosure would have allowed police to "clear" them. They should have allowed ALL records to be scrutinized, submit to questioning immediately, and for as long as necessary, submit to a normally conducted lie detector test, turn over articles of clothing from that night, allow BR to be fully questioned, refrain from directing PP to remove boxes of items from their home, etc., etc, etc.

Shouldn't have been that difficult, or problematic if they had nothing to hide.

Gee, there's another IF qualifier. Seems to be an issue for them.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many innocent people went in and cooperated and were then convicted put in jail and later exonerated?! Lots. More than should be.

IT seems simple until you are in the position of having a child murdered and the police are looking right at you and not anywhere else.
 
Ryan Ferguson cooperated with the Police and the police did the same thing to him that they did to Patsy. Decided he was guilty, lied about evidence, ignored DNA evidence that pointed in other directions and made a basic rush to judgement. He spent 10 years in Jail for a crime he had nothing to do with. I'm sure he'd laugh at someone suggesting the "COOPERATING" with cops that have made a rush to judgment is smart at all.


They didn't contain the crime scene and the cop who was in charge is some psycho looney who "checked her gun to count that she had 18 shots left" "because she didn't think they'd survive" and felt she "looked into the eyes of evil" when she looked at John Ramsey.

"all the things she noticed suddenly fell into place."


Right honey, you didn't even bother to search the crime scene and "all that you noticed" which was a big fat nothing, because you didn't do your job......ten seconds of assessment and "JOHN DID IT!!!!"

Nope.....no rush to judgement there. No sir ree bob. LOL
 
Chewy said:
In what world does "Could not be eliminated" translate to "She definitely wrote it" ?

More of the leaps without actual evidence.


That's called GOSSIP not evidence.


Also someone has yet to explain why if they were writing the ransom note to point the suspicion at another person why they would specifically mention the $118,000 that only the Ramseys and few other people would know about? That detail drew attention directly to the Ramseys and their family and friends.

Any typical ransom note would say a million dollars or 200,000 dollars. And it's not even a careless mistake. It's a specific detail written into the letter.
Click to expand...

I stated the fact, followed by my opinion, based upon the facts, as I know them to be, at the present time. This is an opinion forum. It is NOT a gossip forum.

Consider, if you will, for a moment, that John knew nothing about the [faux] kidnapping until Patsy screamed for him on the early morning of December 26.

Patsy intentionally placing John's bonus amount in the RN speaks directly to John because he knows how few people were privy to the information.

Something about that bonus obviously angered Patsy. John fussed because she spent so much money but she told him that he wasn't the only "fat cat".



The lead in to my audience on the post referenced was "The talk around town..." thereby highlighting that it was talk and not presented on the forum as evidence.

The talk about Patsy turning herself in, and speculation about how she would manage this, was a well known worldwide rumor that did not come to fruition. And that's a fact.
 
Venom said:
Ok, so you'd get a lawyer....and would you then cooperate? Instead of setting up interviews with the police (even with a lawyer present) they went on CNN, what just days after the murder? Couldn't let the other person in the house besides them be interviewed the day of the crime? And I don't mean a hard interview, just asked some questions...nope he doesn't know anything?
Nothing that the R's did doesn't even seem suspect? Not one little thing even makes you go hmm?
I don't get how the RDI's thoughts are able to be so blatantly scoffed at. I see a lot of smh's, pfft's, ugh's- they seem disrespectful to me. What happened to having respect for other points of view?
Click to expand...


I would do what my lawyer said. I'd be so shocked that my child was killed that this would be the most significant thing on my radar. I also wouldn't trust myself to accurately remember information if I had been put on Valium or some other mood altering drug as the result of the shock of my daughter's murder.

I'd be concerned about my other childrens safety. (Something that really makes me wonder about some of the theories out there, it never seems to occur to people that the Ramseys were worried about Burkes safety and John Andrew)

I'd be terrified of trusting ANYONE and would pull into my shell and stick close to my husband and my lawyer. And I wouldn't give a crap about "making the cops job easier" because this isn't about "getting my daughter back" anymore. She's dead. It's pointless, the worst possible thing that could have happened DID happened. Solving the case would be the least of my concerns days after her death.

The fact that cops pressed to talk to a drugged out mother in grief shows how completely biased they were to begin with. You can see in the early interviews of Patsy that she was drugged. And instead of people recognizing that fact they use it against her.


As I stated before, I already posted my theory of how I think Patsy could have done it. But it's not based on judgements that I know I would be personally biased by. When I did have bias I admitted it, I didn't try to pass it off as "evidence."

I'll ask the same question back. Don't you think that some of the reasoning behind the arguments here are incredibly judgmental and biased towards the Ramseys, very similar to what happened to Lindy Chamberlain?
 
DeDee said:
I stated the fact, followed by my opinion, based upon the facts, as I know them to be, at the present time. This is an opinion forum. It is NOT a gossip forum.

Consider, if you will, for a moment, that John knew nothing about the [faux] kidnapping until Patsy screamed for him on the early morning of December 26.

Patsy intentionally placing John's bonus amount in the RN speaks directly to John because he knows how few people were privy to the information.

Something about that bonus obviously angered Patsy. John fussed because she spent so much money but she told him that he wasn't the only "fat cat".



The lead in to my audience on the post referenced was "The talk around town..." thereby highlighting that it was talk and not presented on the forum as evidence.

The talk about Patsy turning herself in, and speculation about how she would manage this, was a well known worldwide rumor that did not come to fruition. And that's a fact.
Click to expand...


So Patsy sent a secret message to John in the note that it took the cops ten seconds to notice?

Talk around the town is GOSSIP and if that is what you are building your theory on then it's flawwed.

I keep asking for evidence. It's one thing to have an opinion and base it on EVIDENCE and another thing to base it on gossip.

I posted my theory of how I think Patsy could have done it several pages ago. I based it on evidence. Not rumors and gossip.

Saying "something about the bonus bothered Patsy" isn't "evidence" it's gossip and speculation. Do you have any evidence that Patsy was 'bothered" by a bonus? Can you explain logically what woman and wife is "bothered" by her husband receiving a hundred thousand dollar bonus?
 
Blue Bottle 01 said:
The ransom amount comes from the Psalms.
Click to expand...

In your opinion. Just because someone had read psalms does not mean it is in the ransom. It is a dollar amount close to his bonus from the previous year. So It could just mean that someone knew that and it was a clue to who they were.
 
Originally Posted by Linda7NJ View Post
Fibers TIED into the knot.
Fibers in the paint tray
Fibers on the duct tape.
Click to expand...


Junebug99 said:
Name one, especially when victim was a young child and lived with her parents. Patsy fibers mean nothing she lived there for crying out loud.
Click to expand...


Patsy did live in the home but these were not magical fibers.

Patsy wore the article of clothing with the fibers left on the knot at her baby girl's neck, and also in the paint tote near the broken paintbrush and nearby, close to the tote, were brush splinters on the carpet.

Another Patsy fiber is on the white blanket. Then, 4 red fibers are on the tape removed from her mouth at the CS that remained in the basement on the blanket far below where Patsy was stationed wearing her sweater in the solarium.

Further, Patsy explains to LE during her interviews that she never wore the red Essentials sweater in the basement. And did not wear it while painting. Ever.


One would have to believe in multiple coincidences to believe the mother was not directly involved in the garroting of her child.

Even if we remove the Patsy fiber on the white blanket from the equation of fiber coincidences, the mother's fibers belong in the home; however, not in the key incriminating locations where they were found.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 117 more.
Total: 1,778 (members: 118, guests: 1,660)

Online statistics

Members online
118
Guests online
1,660
Total visitors
1,778
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
596,474
Messages
18,048,258
Members
230,011
Latest member
Ms.Priss74
Back
Top