Justice Watch Discussion Board "5/31 LKL Thread #3" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... 5/31 LKL Thread #3, Ryder, 10:20:14, 6/01/2000 PLeAzZZZZZe......, Sioux, 10:26:45, 6/01/2000, (#1) Sioux, Ryder, 10:42:18, 6/01/2000, (#3) Further comment, Ryder, 10:40:39, 6/01/2000, (#2) well said, Ryder, becky, 11:09:59, 6/01/2000, (#4) Sinister, sabrina, 11:38:26, 6/01/2000, (#6) Chivalrous Pig, Edie Pratt, 11:54:44, 6/01/2000, (#7) Sabrina, Ryder, 13:05:06, 6/01/2000, (#8) Sinister..., tinky, 14:16:40, 6/01/2000, (#23) LK politely told John to put a sock in it, Cassandra, 11:10:56, 6/01/2000, (#5) Larry, Ryder, 13:09:13, 6/01/2000, (#9) Ryder,, gaiabetsy, 13:14:30, 6/01/2000, (#10) gaiabetsy, Ryder, 13:47:45, 6/01/2000, (#15) Ryder, Sioux, 13:36:19, 6/01/2000, (#13) "would you kill your dog?" ANSWER!, Ryder, 13:15:45, 6/01/2000, (#11) zero hours at the police station, Ryder, 13:23:26, 6/01/2000, (#12) Yes, I know, Ryder--, fiddler, 13:46:26, 6/01/2000, (#14) fiddler, gaiabetsy, 13:53:09, 6/01/2000, (#16) Suspects "sharing" info.?, v_p, 13:56:00, 6/01/2000, (#17) v-p,, gaiabetsy, 13:59:30, 6/01/2000, (#18) v_p, Ryder, 14:29:38, 6/01/2000, (#25) Oh, goodness,, gaiabetsy, 14:01:33, 6/01/2000, (#19) you now what,, gaiabetsy, 14:04:06, 6/01/2000, (#20) well girls, pat, 14:09:32, 6/01/2000, (#21) didn't see this thread, Cher, 14:13:31, 6/01/2000, (#22) Pat and Cher, FT, 14:28:31, 6/01/2000, (#24) FT, Ryder, 14:39:42, 6/01/2000, (#26) Ryder, FT, 14:43:58, 6/01/2000, (#27) More beer-can moments, sarah, 15:22:56, 6/01/2000, (#28) It's Me Again, eedayspa, 15:49:31, 6/01/2000, (#29) Confessions and Cops, Ginja, 16:50:56, 6/01/2000, (#31) John Q. Public, v_p, 16:49:56, 6/01/2000, (#30) How dumb are the Ramsey?, Ribaldone, 17:24:11, 6/01/2000, (#32) Ribaldone.., sarah, 18:49:53, 6/01/2000, (#36) vote.com, nana2, 17:31:13, 6/01/2000, (#33) RIB, straykat2, 18:37:04, 6/01/2000, (#35) the LKL Sideshow, sarah, 17:50:29, 6/01/2000, (#34) Nana2, Colorado-an, 19:23:05, 6/01/2000, (#37) ................................................................... "5/31 LKL Thread #3" Posted by Ryder on 10:46:39 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:46:39, 6/01/2000 I think the LKL interview warrants further discussion and the other threads are already very long. The Cnn transcript of the interview is now up: http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html eedayspa: I'm taking as my starting point, some comments from you on another thread. While I agree that everyone missed a few cues to expand and fully explain their point, including ST, LK, I still think that last night's interview was not the least bit disappointing for me. Yes, the camera concentrated a great deal on the Ramseys, sometimes showing them, while others were talking. But I think this was good because, beyond all the different points scored through words alone, it was important for the public to really watch the Ramseys and their reactions when faced with important and relevant questions. I think that LK asked all the right questions, avoided soft questions. Many times LK facilitated the continuing dialogue when the exchanges were getting difficult. In such scenarios, no one performance can be perfect because no one single individual can entirely control the thread of discussion. So the end result is that everyone lacks time to say everything they would want to. Last night's interview was particularly successful because the Rams were not allowed to take up much time with posturing discourse. They made the usual attempts like Patsy's recourse to religion, her attempt to appeal to LK as a new father, the bit about ST's dog - but this was not tolerated for long and didn't succeed in side-tracking the discussion. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "PLeAzZZZZZe......" Posted by Sioux on 10:26:45 6/01/2000 Where is the transcript of this historical session??!!??? I aM GoInG SzQuIzOiD BecausE I DidN'T See ThE ShOW Last NIghT...... Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Sioux" Posted by Ryder on 10:42:18 6/01/2000 The transcript is now up at the CNN site. Will try to get the URL for you. You're in for a real treat, although their demeanour was an important factor too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Further comment" Posted by Ryder on 10:40:39 6/01/2000 The portrait that the Ramseys provided of themselves in a hot discussion which they were not allowed to totally control was very disturbing. As could have been expected, given flashes of aggression evident in other interviews, Patsy came off looking the worst. We were treated to snickering in a mocking fashion at innappropriate times, condescension, intimidation, a very clear phoney veneer throughout most of the hour and many attempts at manipulation of emotion. As a character, I have to say that she came off as rather sinister, clearly grabbing for whatever pieces of composure she could, but not succeeding too well. Patsy gave herself away by her demeanor throughout the entire show, including some sudden leaps between the show of animosity and unconvincing tearfulness. As for JR. Whereas at some parts of the earlier "Today" show I had actually felt sorry for him, last night all such feelings vanished. He was insulting and condescending as when he repeated 3 times to LK that "He had not gone to the police because THIS was the police." Three times this was said in a mocking way, looking over at LK to attempt to get the host to make fun of ST for whatever criteria JR found so amusing, but which certainly was not made clear to the public. JR incessantly attempted to intimidate ST into silence by referring to the law suit and making other comments whose message was to silence ST. JR is clearly a man who is accustomed to calling the shots and is not accustomed to being questioned outright. I think that both Ramseys looked exactly like what many posters accuse them of being: dishonest privileged people who rely on numerous shady tactics to overpower their adversaries when it becomes clear that spelling out the truth does not work to their advantage. I think that thanks to yesterday's interview, the public was treated to the real Ramseys in action. I would really like to see an opinion poll of guilt in this case taken after yesterday's interview. The Ramseys quite simply were confronted with incriminating facts about their stories and behavior to which they were clearly unable to provide any convincing answers whatsoever. But it is in their unsuccessful attempts to do so, their fudging on crucial questions and their arrogant attitude throughout the full hour, that they did a lot of further damage to their image. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "well said, Ryder" Posted by becky on 11:09:59 6/01/2000 I never disliked the Ramsey's before last night, always felt like they got caught in bad circumstance and then ...oh the tangled web we weave. But last night...they seemed mean and snotty and vindictive. I have a feeling sensor that has been a curse all of my life, and in references to jonbenet, I detected nothing but aggression and annoyance rather than sadness or remorse that should follow the death of a child. It was like she was talking about a smashed car instead of a dead child. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Sinister" Posted by sabrina on 11:38:26 6/01/2000 Ryder, love this word in describing Patsy. SINISTER I never disliked John...until last night. I thought it was totally inappropriate for him to imply that Steve "lost his job." I felt they were both mocking Steve at times, especially when speaking about his dog. John's true persona came out last night, he interrupted Steve so many times and was downright rude. I have to say that I think John was not only protecting his wife, but I think he is somewhat involved. His statements about nothing in their family points to prior abuse are rediculous. Don't abusers have to start abusing sometime in their life and they don't always start when they are 18? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Chivalrous Pig" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:54:44 6/01/2000 JR defending Patsy's honor is laughable. Where's the lawsuit against the guy that told the tabs PR was loose as a goose in college? Now, THAT's insulting. I have yet to hear his outrage about that. Or, for the murderer, come to think of it. JR doesn't even flinch when he speaks of him/her. Not even when the sexual attrocities done to his little girl are brought up. Guess he's comfortable with that. 3 1/2 yrs later, and he's finally insulted by something other than a suggestion to take a polygraph. Whatta ya know about that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Sabrina" Posted by Ryder on 13:05:06 6/01/2000 I do think "sinister" is an appropriate word for Patsy. The initial shot of the Rams in the introduction to the LKL show really deserves a second look. I wish I had the knowledge and equipment to post that shot of both JR and Patsy because I feel that this is definitely a case of a picture saying 1,000 words. Close to the end of the interview, when speaking of this future meeting between the Rams and the BPD, Patsy said in a highly street-talk sort of tone something like "I'd like to see you broker the terms of this meeting". The vocabulary and the tone seemed shockig, given that this is about the death of their little girl. I think the beginning shot of the LKL intro also shows us the true JR. Terribly smug and arrogant and accustomed to the power which will bring anyone within 10 feet of him to their knees. This was the worst image blow for both of them, without a single doubt. But they will come back fighting. For sure and soon. IMO. This is because they are absolutely determined to win this media war. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Sinister..." Posted by tinky on 14:16:40 6/01/2000 Patsy was sinister, wasn't she? What a pair. Actually, it was John who lost his job not Steve. Steve quit, John was dropped like a lead balloon. It was amusing to watch John during the interview. I am sure it was difficult for him knowing he was not in charge of this discussion. Steve did do a wonderful job, and even Larry managed to keep them in line. I found many things distasteful about the R's behavior, but one thing Patsy said made me(and hubby) do a double take. When Steve was saying that if his dog had been murdered he would be at the Sheriff's dept. demanding that the killer be found. Patsy smarted off and said to him..."Would you kill your dog?" I found that comment(among others) to be very sick. She is one strange woman. And if I hear her refer to her DAUGHTER as "that child" one more time, I think I am going to PUKE! Also, I think last night gave us a glimpse into what it might be like when the R's are on trial(and they will be, eventually for something). They have told so many stories that they will never be able to keep them straight. All it will take is a good attorney(NYL!!!) and they will both be tripping over their words. I don't think they have a clue just how many different stories they have told. At some point, I expect John-Boy to drop kick Patsy...I can see her getting blamed for everything...prior abuse and all. Maybe it was Ratsy, Matsy, Hapsy, Slapsy...or one of Patsy's other personalities, but I can see John drop-kicking her into another solar system one of these days. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "LK politely told John to put a sock in it" Posted by Cassandra on 11:10:56 6/01/2000 or words to that effect. LOL JR was really obnoxious. Nobody was talking to him and he kept butting in. He was worse than Lin Wood! If only Steve Thomas had asked her what she meant by SBTC while they were discussing the ransom note! I WOULD LOVE TO BE A FLY ON THE WALL IN THE COLORADO OFFICES OF THE LAWYERS FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE RST, AS THEY DISCUSS THEIR REACTIONS TO THE LKL DEBACLE, THE LATEST PILEUP IN THE ONGOING SALVATION ROAD TOUR WITH LIN WOOD AT THE WHEEL!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Jay Leno should be EXCELLENT tonight. Last night was a re-run. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Larry" Posted by Ryder on 13:09:13 6/01/2000 I think that Larry was successful, many times, of putting them in their place, and of nixing their attempts to control the interview. But I honestly think that one of the highlights of this was when PR misunderstood what Larry meant by "You must be completely out of your mind" That was a gem of an exchange and it showed how Patsy perceived Larry to be looking at them. It was priceless. It said to me that PR perceived that LK didn't side with them and thus that their appearance on the show had flopped as a media relations objective. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Ryder," Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:14:30 6/01/2000 no kiddin'. It was one of those funny miracles that happen once in awhile by mistake. Synchronicity? Perhaps? I mean, if we can't nab these Rams legitimately, maybe the only way justice will ever be served is through these tiny innuendos - a la OJ? Whatya think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "gaiabetsy" Posted by Ryder on 13:47:45 6/01/2000 Some other things I noticed: 1. Patsy has a habit of saying "we" when it is clear that she has been singled out, apart from John. 2. They both like the word "inuendo" and accuse others of being manipulative in this regard. She took Katie Couric on regarding that issue, yesterday morning. BUT, the true masters of inuendo are the Ramseys themselves. I have NEVER met anyone who comes close to them in this area. They constantly imply things, without saying them, which are misleading. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Ryder" Posted by Sioux on 13:36:19 6/01/2000 Thank you, thank you so much. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. ""would you kill your dog?" ANSWER!" Posted by Ryder on 13:15:45 6/01/2000 I think that the "Would you kill your dog?" question was SOOOOOOO stupid and irrelevant that I cannot think of any intelligent individual who would dignify it by answering it. Doesn't the "No, I wouldn't kill my dog." Sound like the answer of a child responding to adults? Of course this is what the Rams were trying to do: humble the person they were addressing into the subordinate position of the child. Their condescension knows no bounds. That is what the public really got a good look at yesterday. I think that it is to Steve's credit that he refused to get into the "See Spot run ..." mode into which the Rams were trying to steer him and the whole interview. In fact, what he did do with this question, was turn it into something relevant to the discussion. What does "Would you kill your dog?" have to do with anything? If it is more of this devious appeal to emotion (i.e. Larry, you've just had a baby ....) to side-track the discussion it didn't work. The fact of the matter is that some people do kill their dogs, their babies, their 6 year-olds too). Surely THAT fact is not being disputed here. The real question is whether these folks belong in the group who would never do it or the group who could, who would and who did. No amount of side-stepping obscures the fact that any legal procedure cannot just accept their word and the word of their hired experts on this issue. I think I understand fully the intentions of that question, one of which was to say "See he's not answering" but no intelligent person would answer such a question in this context. The Rams lost some very serious points around the "dog" issue, not the least of which is the use of a rather unflattering analogy where a child is being compared to an animal. Not any child, BTW, THEIR child. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "zero hours at the police station" Posted by Ryder on 13:23:26 6/01/2000 I'm glad that this was pointed out, in spite of the Rams' attempts to lie about it. Even Larry couldn't believe this, you can hear his disbelief on the tape as he makes a comment off-camera, the camera being focused on someone else. The reason why the Rams never wanted to go to the police station (aside from how it would look) is that they don't get into any situation which they do not fully control. These 2 are very aware of how best to control the immediate environmnet. That is also why large numbers of people were brought to their house early on the 26th, a tactic which continued later in the day, when they went to the Fernies' house. Friends, clergy, the pediatrician, family members - everyone and their uncle was brought in to surround them and thus create a wall between them and the police. Insistence that they be "interviewed" in the Fernies' home with all these supporters lurking about was an attempt to shield themselves from tough police questioning. What gall for her to come back to the issue of non-cooperation with the police with "We have offered .... the overtures to the possible etc. etc." the logic of which ALWAYS is "my way or no way". America needs to see this and hear these 2 talk. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Yes, I know, Ryder--" Posted by fiddler on 13:46:26 6/01/2000 Steve missed a golden opportunity to ask JR how on earth he could equate his daughter with a family pet. Patsy couldn't send JBR to go live with the Barnhills, so she had no choice but to put her to sleep? Hey, John, is that the analogy you really intended, or is your subconscious getting a few words in edgewise? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "fiddler" Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:53:09 6/01/2000 exactly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Suspects "sharing" info.?" Posted by v_p on 13:56:00 6/01/2000 Last I heard, the R's are still suspects. Pats made it perfectly clear, with her trademark hand-gestures, they wanted to go to the BPD and "share" information -- you show me yours and I'll show you mine. For chit's sake, wouldn't that be nifty for ALL murder suspects? "Could you come in and show us what you've got Mrs. Smith? We will share with you what we have...we want to be fair you know." "Certainly, I can describe the black man who took my babies and you can do a composite!" "And we will share our conjured scenario about a surveilled intersection that we plan to spring on the kidnapper in order to make him/her confess!" "Well great! I'll bring Starbucks." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* I see nothing wrong with a kinder, gentler approach to murder suspects. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "v-p," Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:59:30 6/01/2000 you're marvelous. You understand the entire situation. Please let me know more about you and you're point of view. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "v_p" Posted by Ryder on 14:34:15 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:34:15, 6/01/2000 I agree. During the entire discussion about their future visit to the police, I wanted to shout: "Ask them if they are agreeing to go and answer questions about the presence of a dead body in their basement OR if they just want to mosie on down to the BPD WITH THEIR DETECTIVES (no missing the insistence on that) just to go and gain access to any evidence of which they are not aware, having been acquired after their buddies at the D.A.'s office stopped feeding it to them. What the BPD wants is for them to answer questions. A normal expectation, particularly for suspects who swear they are innocent. What the Rams want is a] to gain access to all BPD new evidence and b] to feed the BPD false leads concerning possible suspects for their intruder theory. Beckner: If you read here (or anyone from your team) you should make the above distinction clear for the entire public and include the fact that when a dead body is found in someone's cellar, it is not unreasonable for the police to feel justified in wanting to interrogate the owners of the house who WERE at the house during the crime. This then should be accompanied by an exact list of the limited Ramsey cooperation to this investigation. Someone ought to have made the above clear. I was frustrated by this topic. Confusion here will result in the same thing which occurred with the FBI / independently-administered polygraph. It is amazing that these 2 still think that the world should judge their innocence on the basis of a self-sponsored (good term Katie) polygraph. JR, smirking said, we are not fools. Well, JR, (smirk, smirk) we, who closely listen to you and watch your tactics, are no fools either. (more smirks) Be it the police, journalists and interviewers or the general public, the more all of these people learn about the case, JR (smirk - can't seem to stop), the more you will continue to lose, buddy. (smirk). Actually, they both smirked, every time they were cornered. At some point, I thought, if one's access to sound was not working, one would never know that this was about these people's dead daughter. I mean honestly. Both LK and ST kept straight faces throughout the entire thing, and there on the right, we have 2 smirking heads, parents of the murdered child. Unbelievable. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Oh, goodness," Posted by gaiabetsy on 14:01:33 6/01/2000 I really I don't think I'm in a good position. Let me know where you stand. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "you now what," Posted by gaiabetsy on 14:04:06 6/01/2000 I have changed my meds and I hope you know you can't take advantage of a sick person. I just want you to know I feel a lot of respect for you and some of your abilities. Don't mess with me, though. I believe I know your limits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "well girls" Posted by pat on 14:10:47 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:10:47, 6/01/2000 I think any hope pats had of making the social scene in atlanta just ended. That girl's climbing ladder just caved off the scene. These are the most manipulative sickening people since oj,,maybe they could all have lunch together and sneer at decent people in the world. compare them to fred goldmans family. Steve stepped into a bigger pig sty than he knew. I detected an allmost gentleness in his interactions with patsy,,firm, uncompromising but gentle,,the way you deal with a defective crazy killer who is fundamentally pitiful. That girl isnt going to heaven or the junior league and I suspect she doesn't know the difference. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "didn't see this thread" Posted by Cher on 14:13:31 6/01/2000 I didn't see this thread, so I am bringing my post over from the Newstand thread:Before this appearance, some posters were concerned that the Rams would be able to manipulate the situation to make themselves appear in a sympathetic light. But one cannot be vituperative and appear sympathetic. They lost that opportunity when JR used such vitriolic language as the following: ST "...failed miserably..." If ST failed so miserably in his job as a detective, why are they so upset with the evidence he writes about in his book? ST "...lined his pockets..." with profits from the book. The singular message from ST's book is that he acted from conviction while others around him flailed in a sea of politics and self-interest. This was probably the worst thing JR could say. JR pulled out a copy of "...your book, your disgraceful book..." Name-calling is almost always interpreted as a juvenile last resort. It accomplishes nothing and never advances an argument. At the end of the interview, JR boastfully and, as another poster has remarked, sadistically remarks to ST, "You can spend a lot of time with what you call 'Team Ramsey.'" This was accompanied by an extremely odd gesture where he flapped his arms like a rooster. His arms had been by his sides but as he made this comment, his elbows extended out three or four times. JR, who has extremely strong protective instincts (recall the many times he lamented his ability to "protect" JBR in DOI), feels very, very threatened by ST. He is angry with him to the point where he's lost his ability to strategize. Cher . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Pat and Cher" Posted by FT on 14:28:31 6/01/2000 Pat, I think Patsy is probably too old for the Junior League, but I feel sure she will try to con her way into Heaven. After all, she confessed. From the LKL transcript: P. RAMSEY: "You must have conjured something in your head for you to come out and call me a murderer of my child. I want to hear one through 10. When did I write this ransom note? Before or after I killed JonBenet?" That should be good enough for St. Peter, right? "Yes, St. Peter, I confessed, right there on national TV, on Larry King Live! I even admitted that I wish I had been arrested and faced a trial! Is it MY fault I wasn't arrested? IS IT? I don't think so! Now, let me into Heaven this instant! "Hey, who locked the gates? Was that you, St. Peter? Pal, you don't want to go there -- you open these gates this instant! Do you understand me? "Now, listen carefully, Mister. I do not particularly like you. In fact, I am your worst nightmare. I am your Waterloo! You let me in there NOW, do you hear? ==closes eyes, regroups== "Um, Pete? Petey? It's not all your fault, Pete. You are a young man. You do not have good leadership to lead you down a path of experience. I can understand that. I feel sorry for you, truly. Can't we all just work together? Please, Pete, won't you open the gates for li'l ole Patsy? Please? ==closes eyes, regroups, dials cell phone== "Susan? Susan, can you hear me? It's Patsy. I'm up here in the lobby and St. Peter won't let me through the gates! Can you get here right away and fix this? Thanks, hon. You're a doll." *** Cher, JR flapped his arms like a rooster? Is that, like, an Alpha male thing? :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "FT" Posted by Ryder on 14:44:53 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:44:53, 6/01/2000 lol, I know. BUT Larry didn't buy the crock for a second, cut right in there with a no-nonsense question. Larry is a Scorpio, meant to cut through the superfluous at the speed of light, and know where the sentence is going before it gets said. I will bring examples. Have been too fascinated by people's comments to go to work on my transcript of the thing. P.S. I love your "Listen carefully Mister.... " Patsy's mention of ST's Waterloo really cracked me up. Heck maybe she could have come up with Lazarus being raised from the dead, on the spot. Now they are into Job and concentrating on the fact that God did eventually restore all of Job's gifts to him. They're so cute, you know, one really has to laugh sometimes. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Ryder" Posted by FT on 14:43:58 6/01/2000 Were you thinking of typing a transcript of the whole show? Did you know that Byron posted the official transcript on his Boyles thread? http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html Of course, it would be great if you could fill in some of the "crosstalk." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. " More beer-can moments" Posted by sarah on 15:22:56 6/01/2000 John showed his true personality - trite, mean-spirited, and vengeful. I kept thinking, " geeze, these two have now convinced themselves that they are crack- trial-lawyers and their dream-visions are making themselves look like a couple of crack- HEADS instead... That is how much they have distanced themselves from the fact that it was THEIR DAUGHTER JON BENET WHO WAS MURDERED. This aspect of their personality always amazes me. A True Patsy Moment was clearly caught on camera for the entire world to see: Patsy grabbed Jon Benet's picture like it was some kind of legal paper or something, and attempted to shove it in to the camera and in Steve's face. Her fingers wrenched the picture like she was a pretend attorney at a pretend trial attempting to present an argument.... Unfortunately, what the world saw in her gesture was a woman devoid of ANY motherly love for the person in the picture, and far removed from maternal or parental instincts, while her mouth uttered the words "that child".. Although a great show, and some great surprises, these were the Ramseys we here at Justice Watch have known all along. Imagine the spectacle they made of themselves to the not-so-informed rest of the world! Steve, I think you did a great job. More later...Much more! ... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "It's Me Again" Posted by eedayspa on 15:49:31 6/01/2000 I mention the "case" whenever I can to those that don't really know I follow it, especially when I am looking for a little feedback about a recent event. After the GJ finished, at the lie detector press conference, I asked around. Well, today I did too. And although Ryder is making some GREAT posts, and good points...the average non-case person (John Q Public) doesn't interpret things the way we do. For instance, I am sure over at the OTHER forum, they are saying how well the LKL went for the Ramseys. LOL. So, looking thru the average Joe's eyes, last nite was a draw, as has been said by others, because there was no clear way to really determine the good guys from the bad. Steve looked good a couple of times, the Rams may have a couple of moments, but the whole thing was so "uncivilized", it was hard to fall in love with either side. The average Joe was not impressed by either side, and those that thought the Rams are involved, still do, so it didn't change any minds. And Larry did do better than average, I'll give him that. But he started in after the commercial breaks in awkward places and could have been more strategic. So this post is just clarifying what I've said earlier, and Ryder, you are really doing a great job on your posting.... Starling....where are you? What did you think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Confessions and Cops" Posted by Ginja on 16:50:56 6/01/2000 One of the things that blew my mind was when Patsy talked about her faith getting her through all this. I don't remember exactly how the exchange progressed, except that it ended with Steve telling the Rams that it was in the Bible that in order to be forgiven, you have to confess. The Rams went ballistic...I think John even said no such thing was in the bible. Of course, we all know John doesn't know what's in the bible anyway! As far as them going to Boulder...they won't be going. They were firm on that on LKL and Today. They WILL NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS...they are beyond that, as John says. They're saying they will go WITH THEIR DETECTIVES to exchange information only. Yeah, right...we all know what they want! I was very concerned when I read various articles in the papers today saying how Beckner should "accept" this latest "offer to cooperate" of the Ramseys. (Wasn't it wonderful when Thomas said right out they spent zero hours at the police station...and over John denials, stated the FBI was involved since Day One!) Anyways, I wish these reporters would wake up and smell the coffee! Do they really think the Rams will go to Boulder and answer questions? I'm not so sure...when the "deal" falls through, it'll be Beckner who gets the shaft from the press. Chit, I think it was Chuck Green who said that if the BPD doesn't take the Rams up on their latest offer, it will show how blind-sighted the BPD really is! Someone want to tell me when Chuck started taking drugs!!!!! Same thing with the polycrapping! Beckner should consider it! What is wrong with these people? I forgot what I watched last night, but they had a criminologist on saying that because so much time had passed since the crime and the polycrap, the polycrap is bogus (ha! just like the ransom note!) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "John Q. Public" Posted by v_p on 16:49:56 6/01/2000 My little sister was over one day while I was printing our Holly's intruder theory. She asked who I thought did it, (she doesn't follow the case at all), and I said, of course, the Ramseys. She started looking through PMPT and when she came to the ransom note she just cracked up laughing. She said, "well who the hell ever took this stupid damned thing seriously. Are you SERIOUS? Someone believed this was a REAL ransom note??" I thought her reaction was pretty telling about John Q. Public. He/she has not followed or researched the case as much as most of us and most have not even read the ransom note. Cher - >>This was accompanied by an extremely odd gesture where he flapped his arms like a rooster. His arms had been by his sides but as he made this comment, his elbows extended out three or four times.<<< That's the old 'cock o'the roost stance. Pssst, John, there's a snake in the hen-house and she's about to bite you in the arse. Sorry, but Patsy started all this farm talk with her "ego the size of a barn" comment. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "How dumb are the Ramsey?" Posted by Ribaldone on 17:35:44 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:35:44, 6/01/2000 People used to always refer to John as highly intelligent and savvy. Well, I think we can put that myth to rest right now. Here's a sampling of some of the really stupid and damning things the Rams did last night: 1. John brought up that pyscholiguistics experts "testified" that Patsy wrote the note. (I guess Steve didn't get a chance to say it so John helped him out). 2. How many times did John refer to Patsy as a murderer? 7 3. How many times did Patsy refer to John's involvement? 2 4. How many times did Patsy refer to herself as the killer? 3 (that's really smart Patsy -- if someone else doesn't call you a murder on national TV, then by all means call yourself one) LOL 5. Patsy "clarifies" for John (and the rest of the world) that they paid John Douglas. Steve was alluding to this and, apparently, John wasn't catching on fast enough to suit Patsy so she blurts out, "because we paid him." (This was not in the first draft of transcripts, but loud and clear on TV). 6. How many times did Patsy distance herself from JonBenet or refer to her (as well as herself and John) in a disassociative manner? 8 7. John refered to Steve's book as "fact." At the start of the show he said, "let's deal with facts," and proceeded to read from the cover of Steve's book. (Lin Wood called the book fiction just a few days ago and now John has graciously contradicted Wood by referring to the book as factual. Very savvy!). 8. Patsy exonerates Steve by saying "It's not his fault. This young man didn't have the proper leadership. So how then can this "young man" be guilty of malicious slander? 9. Both adamantly agreed that the killer wrote the ransom note. This point goes to Darnay Hofman because he may be able to use this in his civil trial. Shouldn't be too hard to prove beyond preponderance that Patsy wrote the note. 10. John pushed Steve so hard on issue of Patsy's past history that he succeeded in getting Larry King to state that not all criminals have a past history of criminal activity. (another savvy move!). I think LKL's point was well made because everyone knows that this is true particularly in the case of parents who unintentionally kill their kids in a fit of rage. More often than not parents who shake their babies to death don't have a criminal history. After the first time, they usually don't do it again. 11. Patsy sounded like a complete fool when she said Steve didn't have a family. She sounded bitter, rude and just plain stupid. I guess if you don't have a family (even though you're a young newlywed), you're just worthless. 12. They compared their beloved child to a dog and once again opened the door for Steve to say that he would have been down at the police station every day to find out who killed his dog. Which is exactly what the Ramsey's DID NOT do for their daughter. 13. John compliments the FBI for the umpteenth time . . . then turns around and says they don't trust them to administer the polygraph. Huh? 14. When John defers to Steve's "factual" book by reading the book cover he says, "Why were the Ramseys handled with kid gloves and not asked to take a polygraph test." Previously John maintained that the BPD had been out to get them from Day 1 with a lynch mob mentality, now he sources Steve's book as "fact" and reads that he and Patsy were treated with kid gloves by the BDP. 15. Patsy said she wished she had been arrested. If you're innocent, wouldn't you "wish" to be exonerated, not arrested? 16. When the show was going to a break the camera panned back and showed Patsy lean toward Steve with her arm extended (at the elbow) toward him. It looked like she was giving him the business, "Don't go there pal!" I thought this looked VERY bad. Without knowing what she said, it looked like she was being aggressive toward him, and probably was. They don't have a prayer for a malicious slander suit because Steve refused to be baited and state as fact that Patsy was the killer. If they take him to civil court, he shouldn't have too much problem gathering enough experts to testify that Patsy did or most likely did write the note. If he can prove by a perponderance of doubt that she wrote the note, then by the Ramseys own admissions, she must be the killer. A side note: This morning on CNN Roger Cosack said that it was unbelieveable that the Ramsey's attorney let them do this while they are still under the umbrella of suspicion and that the Bar Association should or may look at disbarment for misconduct or incompetence (paraphrased). I think I've found the perfect job for John-boy. He should get himself hired by the BDP so he can help him built a case against Patsy. He's already doing a bang-up job. John's about as savvy as my 3-year old niece. Edited for typo. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Ribaldone.." Posted by sarah on 18:49:53 6/01/2000 A really great post, well thought out and demonstrated. I'll be sending you all the beer cans I've collected this week. In fact, I think you get the Post Of The Week Award for this one. I agree John has been implicating Patsy all along, intentional or otherwise. But she is catching on. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "vote.com" Posted by nana2 on 17:31:13 6/01/2000 I just participated in a poll on the Rams, where of 13,873 respondents, 80% thought the Rams were guilty!!!. AND THEN, the results were sent to Alex Hunters office!! I hope the results were sent singly -That would be poetic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "RIB" Posted by straykat2 on 18:37:04 6/01/2000 Rib is in excellent form with that post! Excuse me while I wipe off my screen and keyboard. I just crashed my computer with a spray of laughter at Rib's post. A good belly-laugh is the best therapy. You have just put the Ramsey's own words into the "proper" prospective. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. " the LKL Sideshow" Posted by sarah on 17:50:29 6/01/2000 Good post Ginja and Ribaldone. This was to be a post on another thread. I'm so tired (i almost wrote 'tird'...) I can't remember who started the thread to give them credit. But this can be posted here too. ..Someone was thinking ole John-boy appears to be in it deeper than they originally thought.. ..so I wrote.. MAKE NO MISTAKE- THEY are BOTH involved. There are so many reasons why, and the first that comes to mind is the 911 call, right at the beginning of the dog and pony show 3 years ago. If John were innocent and unaware, he certainly would have stopped Patsy from calling the local police, OR all their many friends. This was a kidnapping, he would know better. He would have called the FBI, if he called any one. If Patsy were innocent, that is, set up by John, SHE would know better than to call the local police, and certainly wouldn't have called friends over. Kidnapping in the real world is a family crisis, not a sideshow. The mere fact that these people treated Jon Benet's death ( OR her pretend kidnapping) with such indignity and belittlement in order to save their own snively behinds tells me what kind of people they are, and explains why she had a bed-wetting and soiling problem in the first place. These people are desperate. John and Patsy will do ANYTHING to keep a jury from being able to convict, including an attempt to go one-on-one with Steve Thomas on national television. They want to find out what we know, what Steve knows, and they want to find out what the Boulder police know. That is what it was all about. A quote from John on the LKL show last night: J. RAMSEY: Tell me one tangible piece of evidence that's presentable in a court of law that says that one of us..." No John, and the BPD won't tell you either.. You might as well go ahead and back out of the deal now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Nana2" Posted by Colorado-an on 19:23:05 6/01/2000 After reading your post I too went over to www.vote.com to cast my vote. I don't know that it can make a difference but why not give it a try. Hopefully lots of posters will see your post and go vote also, so Alex Hunter will get lots of input on what the public thinks. Thanks for sharing the information. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE