Justice Watch Discussion Board "What do you think?" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... What do you think?, Luvsbeagles, 06:35:44, 6/01/2000 LB, Luvsa Mystery, 08:09:08, 6/01/2000, (#1) Luvsbeagles, 1000Sparks, 08:11:47, 6/01/2000, (#2) Luvsa Mystery, Sioux, 09:24:43, 6/01/2000, (#8) sioux, Luvsa Mystery, 14:48:09, 6/01/2000, (#36) Luvs>>, ayelean, 08:16:23, 6/01/2000, (#3) John is probably, Legalbeagle, 08:43:46, 6/01/2000, (#4) Luvsbeagles--I think that, fiddler, 09:05:16, 6/01/2000, (#5) Fiddler that sounds, Legalbeagle, 09:10:02, 6/01/2000, (#6) crazy,crazy,crazy, dixie, 09:23:04, 6/01/2000, (#7) I don't think John Ramsey, fiddler, 09:31:03, 6/01/2000, (#12) Boy do I agree, Legalbeagle, 09:27:23, 6/01/2000, (#10) manipulation, vic, 09:27:11, 6/01/2000, (#9) I think we , Legalbeagle, 09:29:14, 6/01/2000, (#11) John's smiles, nana2, 09:46:31, 6/01/2000, (#14) Yes, relationships do change people--, fiddler, 09:43:47, 6/01/2000, (#13) fiddler, Chickadee, 12:18:11, 6/01/2000, (#25) Yep, but the guilt, Legalbeagle, 09:47:59, 6/01/2000, (#15) My mother, momo, 10:49:52, 6/01/2000, (#16) Well, beagle lover... , Holly, 10:53:00, 6/01/2000, (#17) I have wondered too, he is not a stupid man,, Cassandra, 10:57:53, 6/01/2000, (#18) Momo, that sounds like, Legalbeagle, 11:33:54, 6/01/2000, (#19) wanna know what I think?, Edie Pratt, 11:42:42, 6/01/2000, (#20) Why John Covered, Nandee, 11:57:57, 6/01/2000, (#21) If that's true, Legalbeagle, 12:03:44, 6/01/2000, (#23) Luvsbeagles, Kelly, 12:01:10, 6/01/2000, (#22) edie, vic, 12:15:57, 6/01/2000, (#24) My opinion??, ConnieToo, 12:38:45, 6/01/2000, (#26) Was the dictionary marked, Legalbeagle, 12:40:52, 6/01/2000, (#27) Kelly, , gaiabetsy, 13:20:57, 6/01/2000, (#28) Help me Jesus! I've changed my mind.., Greenleaf, 13:22:09, 6/01/2000, (#29) Legalbeagle--supposedly, the, fiddler, 13:25:53, 6/01/2000, (#30) Patsy's Guilt, greenbean, 14:04:50, 6/01/2000, (#33) Covering for Patsy, Ryder, 13:28:26, 6/01/2000, (#31) Greenleaf #29, Ryder, 13:39:30, 6/01/2000, (#32) Ryder, yes!, greenbean, 14:11:34, 6/01/2000, (#34) Greenleaf>>>, ayelean, 14:18:06, 6/01/2000, (#35) After the appearance last night, Colorado-an, 15:06:29, 6/01/2000, (#37) Forgiveness, Luvsa Mystery, 15:28:25, 6/01/2000, (#38) Luvsa, Ribaldone, 19:37:39, 6/01/2000, (#45) Ribaldone, Luvsa Mystery, 22:33:33, 6/01/2000, (#51) Personally..., Ginja, 15:33:07, 6/01/2000, (#39) Ginja, Sioux, 16:08:49, 6/01/2000, (#41) follow the money, pinker, 15:36:54, 6/01/2000, (#40) ginja, v_p, 17:02:29, 6/01/2000, (#43) I honestly believe..., ace21214, 16:56:51, 6/01/2000, (#42) Ginja . . ., Anton, 18:37:32, 6/01/2000, (#44) Random? , Ribaldone, 19:47:09, 6/01/2000, (#46) Anton, I agree , fiddler, 20:00:25, 6/01/2000, (#47) yes, fiddler, sask, 20:12:25, 6/01/2000, (#48) ransom note, dixie, 20:38:34, 6/01/2000, (#49) Guilt throwers & guilt catchers, FT, 21:40:15, 6/01/2000, (#50) Right, FT..., Anton, 04:17:40, 6/02/2000, (#52) ................................................................... "What do you think?" Posted by Luvsbeagles on 06:35:44 6/01/2000 Hate to start a new thread but not sure where to put this. I am curious as to what you all think. Here is the question.......Assuming PR is the murderer (if you dont assume that, skip this) why is JR covering? Is it out of love? Is it to protect his family image? Is it because he is guilty of something almost as bad? Is it becasue he helped in the cover up after the fact? Is it something I havent thought of? I would like to see how the (in honor of JR) percentages fall. Thanks [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "LB" Posted by Luvsa Mystery on 08:11:42 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:11:42, 6/01/2000 My husband rented a video-movie the other night called "A Simple Plan". It is a good illustration of how "good people" can get caught up in bizarre circumstance and end up weaving the proverbial 'tangled web'. It stars Bill Paxton, Bridget Fonda, and Billy-Bob Thorton. If Patsy did do it {as you ask us to assume} I think JR may have found himself carried away by circumstance. It's just easier to believe a vile monster invaded their perfect little world and ruined it all then to believe his little world wasn't perfect after all. But, if John had no part at all in the murder or cover-up, who did Patsy mean when she said: "WE didn't mean for this to happen?" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Luvsbeagles" Posted by 1000Sparks on 08:11:47 6/01/2000 I think Patsy has the "goods" on him for something. Maybe it doesn't even pertain to JonBenet, but there's something - tax fraud? death of someone in his business? molestation? Yup, I thinks she's got something BIG over him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Luvsa Mystery" Posted by Sioux on 09:24:43 6/01/2000 Out of context maybe, but : I loved "A Simple Plan". Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "sioux" Posted by Luvsa Mystery on 14:48:09 6/01/2000 Me too! LOL. Did it remind you at all of the Rs case? Billy-Bob Thorton sure had me fooled. I'd didn't recognize him until the movie was nearly over. Good movie. :D [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Luvs>>" Posted by ayelean on 08:16:23 6/01/2000 I think that JR is scared $hitless that PR has planted enough false evidence against him that if she is indicted she will say that he was JBR's sexual abuser and he will not be able to disprove it. In reality PR is really protecting another individual that she knows or suspects abused JBR. JR knows that he is guilty of other things of equally serious matters but in the arena of his business. PR is holding his nose to the grindstone by intimidation. I also think he has as bad a case as she does of wanting the world to think he is untouchable and above reproach. I'm sure he is thinking of his marketability to make his next million. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "John is probably" Posted by Legalbeagle on 08:43:46 6/01/2000 overwhelmed right now. I don't think we'll ever know why he covered up in the days after the murder, but you can bet that subsequently it has gone much too far for him to back down. Giving up Patsy could only have been done immediately following JB's death--my guess is he panicked and fell prey to PR's psychopathy. However, after last nite's circus, any sympathy I ever had for him or his situation has evaporated. The gloves are truly off and, in Colorado, as in most jurisdictions, he is as guilty as she is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Legalbeagle ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Luvsbeagles--I think that" Posted by fiddler on 09:05:16 6/01/2000 John doesn't know FOR SURE, and doesn't want to know for sure. Denial, partly, the fact that it's way too late now to change stories, partly--and partly because of what he would have to face if he DID acknowledge PR's (even possible) involvement. Doing that would mean the end of his whole world. Also, he was the person who could, and should, have seen what was going on with his own family, but he didn't. He was the one who neglected and ignored PR and their kids to the point where something like this could happen. Now, I think he's trying belatedly to make up for that. I also think JR is the type of person who thinks of "my wife" primarily as HIS POSSESSION. If you criticize Patsy, you're criticizing him. If you arrest Patsy, you've stolen something that belongs to HIM. And he'll get you for that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Fiddler that sounds" Posted by Legalbeagle on 09:10:02 6/01/2000 right on target. These two have replaced honesty with self-protection (although I see PR as always being self-protective, even before the murder). But didn't it seem to you that JR kept juming in front of her answers, like he was afraid she'd blow it bigtime? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Legalbeagle ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "crazy,crazy,crazy" Posted by dixie on 09:23:04 6/01/2000 I also saw John jump in and not let Patsy speak for herself, makes me wonder what the heck he is afraid she will say? and didn't FW supposedly run interference also?. It seems ST knows that the way to solving this crime is thru Patsy and she is being 'guarded'. I don't think John is doing this out of love, I've yet to see any love between these two. I think Patsy has the goods on John. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "I don't think John Ramsey" Posted by fiddler on 09:31:03 6/01/2000 loves Patsy either, in any sense that a normal person would use that term. I think they're bound possibly by guilty knowledge, and certainly by dovetailing mental pathologies. Yeah, I do think he's trying to keep her from talking, but given the nuttiness of some the stuff she's said, I don't necessarily believe that's because he's afraid she'll incriminate herself, as much as that he can't possibly predict where she's going next. And for somebody as much into control as he is, that has to be painful. IMO, John is afraid of being laughed at as much as, or more than, being implicated in a crime. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Boy do I agree" Posted by Legalbeagle on 09:27:23 6/01/2000 with that! I think he's afraid she'll destroy what little he has left in the world. Too bad he didn't think of going to the mat for JBR when he had the chance. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Legalbeagle ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "manipulation" Posted by vic on 09:27:11 6/01/2000 We've seen how Patsy tries to manipulate people, she has been doing it for years to John. He has grown accustomed to things being not quite what they appear to be, so denial comes easy to him now. I have a sister-in-law who is a lying manipulating bitch, her 'stories' always contained enough truth to fly but with a little scrutiny, fell apart. My once honest to a fault, fun loving, dry sense of humor brother is pretty much gone. He is just like her, hey, everybody lies, he says. He believes EVERYTHING she says, no matter how ridiculous. It is amazing how relationships can cause people to change, especially for the worst. JR got the s**t end of this deal and he's no prize, either! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "I think we " Posted by Legalbeagle on 09:29:14 6/01/2000 all know people like that--who will lie when telling the truth is absolutely the only way to get OUT of trouble. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Legalbeagle ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "John's smiles" Posted by nana2 on 09:46:31 6/01/2000 John smiles inappropriatly. His smirk, saying that he enjoyed the encounter last night, needed to be wiped off his face. I think John is verrry happy the finger points to Phatsy, he wants to be seen as chivalrous(how dare you assault my wife)His southern charm stinks, like his wife's clothes. I wish I could figure out where he fits here, but he isn't innocent.! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Yes, relationships do change people--" Posted by fiddler on 09:43:47 6/01/2000 and, with JR and PR, I think their particular brand of religion plays a large part, too. Not Christianity in itself necessarily, but the kind of "faith" that requires you to deny any unpleasantness or imperfection, to do whatever is necessary to appear a good person, to always seem happy, to instantly forgive, and to claim you trust God's plan without question, no matter how miserable you actually are at the time. This is a recipe for producing emotionally clueless liars, IMO. When everything is just an act of willpower, the ability to distinguish between reality and one's own desires goes right down the tubes. I think that's why they ultimately passed their polygraphs--there is no "objective reality" to John and Patsy. There's only what they want to be true, and therefore, it is true. And anyone who doesn't agree is a moron. Geez, what a way to have to go through life. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "fiddler" Posted by Chickadee on 12:18:11 6/01/2000 "There's only what they want to be true, and therefore, it is true." Good (and accurate) observation,Fiddler.I thought this was particularly evident in JR's reply to Steve's comment that JB showed signs of previous abuse. "That's a lie!" He shouted. How can this man, who claimed he never read the autopsy (because parents don't want to know those things)be so sure? Was he with her 24/7? This smacked more of denial to known fact to me. Yup, I think Patsy has something on him...and there's probably a history of dirty little secrets they now feel forgiven for due to their faith.Confession isn't necessary according to John,remember? Ugh! They sicken me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Yep, but the guilt" Posted by Legalbeagle on 09:47:59 6/01/2000 has to surface somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised to see another act of violence touch their lives... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Legalbeagle ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "My mother" Posted by momo on 10:49:52 6/01/2000 and I were talking the other day about the murder of JonBenet. She brought up a few things that were quite thought provoking. She said that maybe Patsy killed JonBenet because she knew that JonBenet was suffering sexual abuse from John(and God knows who else). Maybe she thought she was doing the right thing. I believe that he was abusing JonBenet sexually. I wonder if there is something about his business that is top secret that would get him into big trouble with the government. Remember Patsy saying that JonBenet would never have to suffer from cancer or the death of a child? Could this be a "slip" because JonBenet was suffering? I believe she was chronically abused sexually for some time. Maybe Patsy suffered the same kind of abuse and could not let it happen to her little girl. Maybe it was premeditated. This is just a thought and not my true feelings. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Well, beagle lover... " Posted by Holly on 10:53:00 6/01/2000 I wonder what motivates the Routier and Aisenberg spouses. Like Kid Rock says, "Only God knows why". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "I have wondered too, he is not a stupid man," Posted by Cassandra on 10:57:53 6/01/2000 but I think it suits his purposes, whatever they are. Reputation...well, there goes that one! Family...Diminishing. Two daughters gone. Money...Also diminishing. And just spent a bundle chasing a good polygraph. He has his reasons. We just don't know what they are. Maybe he enjoys the company of lawyers! Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Momo, that sounds like" Posted by Legalbeagle on 11:33:54 6/01/2000 a good theory, the only problem I have with it is I don't think patsy has what you or I would call "compassion". She may tell herself she murdered JBR to "save" her, but probably it was more along the lines of "cleaning up a mess" in her mind. I go back and forth about JR, but I'm slowly coming around to believing there was major weirdness in that house. Poor Jonbenet--I hope wherever she is, she knows we're on her side.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Legalbeagle ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "wanna know what I think?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:42:42 6/01/2000 I'll tell you anyway,lol. I think the only question remaining is this; WHY DIDN'T THE PERP JUST GARROAT AND BLUDGEON JOHN RAMSEY? He keeps saying what a burdon he bears that anyone would be so mad at him, that that anger was responsible for his daughter's murder. I wonder why he wasn't the victim then, too! From what I've seen of him, it'd be so easy... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Why John Covered" Posted by Nandee on 11:57:57 6/01/2000 After all I have heard and read on this case, there is still one theory that holds water: Patsy notices John is not in bed. She gets the new Maglite flashlight JA just gave them for Christmas and goes looking for him. She finds him in JB's r oom, in a compromising position, (how tactful). Patsy, in a rage, goes to strike JR with the flashlight, misses and hits JB. JR says to Patsy, look what you've done, I was just molesting her, but YOU KILLED HER. Now, I will save you. You keep my secret and I'll keep yours.... and thus the joint cover up..... Just MHO.... As a parent, I can see no other reason they would protect each other. These two really deserve each other..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "If that's true" Posted by Legalbeagle on 12:03:44 6/01/2000 one will never turn on the other, which means no confession and all the more reason to indict them, arrest them and let a JURY decide. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Legalbeagle ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Luvsbeagles" Posted by Kelly on 12:01:10 6/01/2000 IMO, which I'm allowed according to Steve Thomas, John had been sexually abusing JBR for some time. I'm getting this from what I make out of the autopsy report. Somebody had been sexually abusing her, someone with access to her or someone that was allowed access. This could of happened so close to the time of her death that John was terrified the sexual abuse would be linked to him, so he's blowing smoke away from him and Patsy. God only knows who else he is protecting to save his own hide. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "edie" Posted by vic on 12:15:57 6/01/2000 Well, he would have liked to garOat John, but he was too busy being conflicted, what with being a pedophile, pervert, foreign faction intruder. Oh, yeah, practicing his penmanship, too! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "My opinion??" Posted by ConnieToo on 12:38:45 6/01/2000 There was a REASON the family dictionary was open to incest that night, and the following day. I think the Patsy did it to put the onus of suspicion on JR. JR knows he is dealing with a loose cannon in his wife, and doesn't want to have charges brought for something else... but hey, what do I know?? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Was the dictionary marked" Posted by Legalbeagle on 12:40:52 6/01/2000 at the word "incest"? This is truly weird. I can't believe these people were never arrested. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Legalbeagle ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Kelly, " Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:20:57 6/01/2000 I'm with you about John Ramsey sexually abusing his daughter and Patsy responding to it. I just read A MOTHER GONE BAD and being a victim of childhood sexual abuse, I gotta say I believe this Psychiatrist is on his toes. I believe Patsy had her problems and John had his and this is what you get out of a couple so controlled in normal life, how do they finally get a chance to "boil over"? Because, we all do, you know....boil over. I don't care how "together" we think we are, there is an override in our brains that makes sure we express our entire selves - not just the controlled part. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Help me Jesus! I've changed my mind.." Posted by Greenleaf on 13:22:09 6/01/2000 After watching the Larry King show, and listening to the Rams, I am inclined now to believe that John killed JonBenet. Not to exonerate Patsy, as I believe she had a hand in it, but the actual killing, imho, was done by John. To have been a CEO of a billion dollar company, I do not find him very articulate. In fact, I do not find him mature or bright. Someone, on another thread, here at JW, made the observation that Patsy seems smarter. I concur. In spite of her shortcomings, Patsy was animated, passionate and certainly more responsive to Steve Thomas. John wanted to change the subject, at every turn, and interrupted all the time. He was used to being obeyed, without question. I bet he made a lot of enemies, among his subordinates. My father's favorite quote: "There's nothing more obnoxious then an idiot with a little bit of authority." When I think of John Ramsey, I think of that. Patsy is flighty, immature and materialistic; However, I don't think she killed JonBenet. She may have been guilty of initiating the confrontation, which led to JonBenet's death, but I think that it was John who delivered the death blow. About the ransom note: Something about it has always bothered me. It may seem like an insignificant "clue," but please hear me out. The note was not folded. So what? You might ask. I say unfolded notes are a man thing. O.K. I was married to an attorney. He dealt in correspondence all day long. He never, ever folded his letters. His secretary folded his letters, put them in envelopes and mailed them. He didn't even fold his personal notes. Either his Sect. or I folded them and put into envelopes. Whenever he left me a note on the kitchen table, it was never folded. All the women I know, including myself, fold our letters. Like folding our laundry, we feel compelled to fold everything. It's just not a woman thing to leave three pages of UNFOLDEDpages on steps. I believe proper Patsy would have folded the ransom note and put it into an envelope, with perhaps: "To John Ramsey" on it. She would have placed it on the kitchen counter or on a table. Placing it out on the rungs of those spiral steps was a man thing. Laugh, if you like, but that is what I believe. I looked at John Ramsey, on Larry King, and I think I saw what Linda Ardnt (sp?) saw. "He done it." Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Legalbeagle--supposedly, the" Posted by fiddler on 13:33:02 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:33:02, 6/01/2000 corner of the dictionary page was folded up, pointing to that word. momo--that's really odd! PR killing JBR, premeditated, to save her from John, was my theory for a long time--I'm just now going back to JR being actively involved in the murder/coverup...he was enjoying himself too much insulting Steve Thomas to be totally innocent. So round and round we all go. I think that's probably a factor in why they haven't been arrested--no one on the prosecutor's side could figure out who did what, why. And "must be involved somehow" isn't enough for a murder prosecution. Let's hope Henry Lee can maybe pull some table legs out of his hat.... Edited to add: Greenleaf, you mentioned the non-foldedness of the note before as evidence it was written in the house. I remember it because that's so obviously true--this observation is, too! You're right, I DO always fold notes right after I write them, even when there's no necessity for it. So do both my daughters. My husband just leaves the pages as they are, and my sons don't fold, either. A lifetime of whispering, and keeping secrets, that women have but men don't? I wonder if PR folded her everyday lists and such. I wonder if the BPD even thought to check such a thing out. It's interesting you decided JR was more involved after seeing LKL. That's the same thing I felt, too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Patsy's Guilt" Posted by greenbean on 14:06:41 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:06:41, 6/01/2000 I believe Patsy was all over that house while JonBenet lay dead or dying. Mainly, I believe Steve Thomas's scenario. I believe she scripted that ransom note herself using the personal phrasing she thought only JR would catch, and left the dictionary open to "incest" to serve as a smack in the face to JR saying "Don't you EVER think you can turn ME in!" I believe that caution to use his "Southern common sense" was just another direct personal hint for him to carefully think it over and use that common sense (the phrase that only she, he and family knew) before making any accusations to the police. I think there were 2 separate crimes going on here. I believe that JBR was molested earlier, maybe on the 23rd, and that any FRESH sexual injury was staged by only one person, the killer - PR. I believe she was in her "Help me, Jeezus" mode for JR's benefit when Burke came upon them in the morning. She had, and still has, to keep up the charade for everyone, including JR. This is the easiest way for them all to deal with it, and yet not confront it. Their separate guilts keep them together. I don't think they even discuss it in their house, especially knowing that the BPD/GA police could bug their house at any time, if not in place already. Their nastiness was so evident last night, especially JR's. I actually suffered a stomach ache as soon as they started to shout Steve down. The constant interruptions, the shouting down - that was their plan. And the smile on JR's face while he faced Steve. That was evil personified. Couldn't you just picture him going toe to toe with PR over her spending, over her remodeling, over JBR? PR couldn't stand to be thisclose to Steve without reaching out and touching him. Here in NYC, Sante and her son, Kenneth, Kime were just convicted of murder. This was a wonderful victory for the prosecutors because there was no body and all the evidence was circumstantial. We need the next DA to step up to the plate, maybe even convene another grand jury to bring these 2 recalcitrants in and force them to answer questions (and then confront them with their contradictions and guilt). We need to see some of Steve Thomas's courage in the DA sector, and soon! All JMVHO, of course! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Covering for Patsy" Posted by Ryder on 13:28:26 6/01/2000 I think the answer to this can be found in his own words. He is doing this primarily because he wants his remaining child to not have to live with the stigma that his mother is a murderer - of her only other child. I think that is his greatest motive, but when he adds the fact that to have a wife who is also a suspected murderer by the public does not make for success in his business career, he doesn't think twice about defending her. But he is proving himself to be such a smug and deceiving speaker, that I'm beginning to wonder if he is as innocent as ST makes him out to be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Greenleaf #29" Posted by Ryder on 13:42:03 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:42:03, 6/01/2000 For me the letter points to Patsy and the previous vaginal trauma points to John. Given the vaginal infections, perhaps caused by bedwetting which JB supposedly had, ST's theory could stand on the possibility of some rough scrubbing of that area, I guess .. not in the medical field. But if the experts maintain that no way was the chronic vaginal trauma caused by bedwetting related ills, I'll take their word for it, at which point, I definitely start looking at JR. But to have the letter point one way (BTW, I do know woment who do not fold their letters) and the prior sexual abuse point the other way does not take us far. Add to this the possibility (getting stronger every day in my mind) that Patsy behaves like she could have problems of mental instability, then the possibilities multiply. This is a real tough one to crack, but both of them are extreme manipulators, Patsy is not any less intelligent than John, at all, she just likes to play on "feminine wile type of manipulation". IF the truth was on their side, these people's intelligence would have cleared them long ago. The war here is between these people's cunning and the truth, which unfortunately works against them. When they say and do seemingly "stupid" things it is because the truth does not allow them the room necessary to maneuver more skillfully. P.S. I have always suspected 1 or both of them of being guilty here. Last night only added to these suspicions. Their deviousness stuck out like a sore thumb. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Ryder, yes!" Posted by greenbean on 14:11:34 6/01/2000 Those could have been my very words. Their guilt is getting more and more transparent all the time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Greenleaf>>>" Posted by ayelean on 14:18:06 6/01/2000 Folded vs unfolded was discussed at length some time ago and someone found out that Patsy left pages unfolded more than John. I don't have the reference for this but at the time posters were pretty evenly split men vs women and folding vs unfolded. I myself tend to leave unfolded and only fold when it is necessary to keep a page from becoming dogeared or to fit an envelope. I love having a folder contain unfolded sheets of correspondence or copies. I remembered at the time that this did not contradict my belief that she wrote the note and did the murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "After the appearance last night" Posted by Colorado-an on 15:06:29 6/01/2000 I am rethinking my theory too. I have never felt John would cover for Patsy out of love. I have thought maybe what lead to the rage was John's fault. What if the bed wetting and toileting issues were the result of incest? Then he might feel guilty and cover up, not to mention cover his own behind. After seeing his "performance" last night and his demeanor I am wondering if it is because of protection of his name and his authority. He isn't used to anyone questioning him or his thought and deeds, he apparently is not handling that very well. He lowered himself to look like a youngster playing games. His attacks on ST looked immature. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Forgiveness" Posted by Luvsa Mystery on 15:28:25 6/01/2000 Did you notice that John misquoted James Robinson when he said on LKL last night that confession is not required for forgiveness? The day before, the Rs taped a James Robinson (televangelist) show in Tx. According to the JW poster who attended the taping, Robinson asked if they forgive all the people who said terrible things about them. It was Patsy (I think) that said: "isn't repentance required for forgiveness?" Robinson said no, because, he said: "Jesus forgave those who crucified him and they didn't repent." So, when ST said that 'confession' was necessary for forgiveness, John repeated what Robinson had said to them the day before but he confused repentance and confession. ST was probably referring to I John 1:9 IF WE CONFESS OUR SINS, HE IS FAITHFUL AND JUST AND WILL FORGIVE US OUR SINS AND PURIFY US FROM ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. NIV VERSION I think it dawned on John that the argument he was making wasn't helping them since he was saying in effect that (if they are guilty) they don't have to confess to be forgiven. Could this have been a mere coincidence or did ST hear about the taping the day before and set John/Patsy up with the question? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Luvsa" Posted by Ribaldone on 19:38:50 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:38:50, 6/01/2000 You're right. I noticed that too. John just jumped on that -- fresh out of prayer group -- he was like a kid in class who FINALLY knows the answer to the teacher's question. He was so eager to answer, "Oh oh I know the answer pick me, pick me!" And then he got it wrong!!!! LOL. I was lovin that moment. What a loser. He can't even remember what he learned last night in prayer group! ...repentance? ...confession? Ah what does it matter? It's all the same...isn't it? LOL I hope Robinson was watching. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Ribaldone" Posted by Luvsa Mystery on 22:33:33 6/01/2000 Yes. Exactly. John really thought he had a great come-back on ST. Then Patsy had to save John's bacon and say that forgiveness was between the perp and God. Funny how the Rs had just publically said they forgave everyone who have been saying bad things about them and by the very next day they threaten ST several times with litigation. ST patiently turned the other cheek numerous times. He didn't respond to Patsy's attack on his youth and inexperience, or to John's numerous insulting comments. In my opinion, ST made them look like real hypocrites. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Personally..." Posted by Ginja on 15:33:07 6/01/2000 ...I think it's obvious that BOTH have been involved since Minute One! As a matter of act, Minute One started long before John hit his daughter in the head. Ah yup...you heard me right...after JOHN hit her over the head! Patsy had the ideas...John followed through on them. Don't you think it's beyond strange that John KNOWS she was hit AFTER she was strangled? He claims the forensic evidence is indisputable. He's full of chit! The evidence proves nothing of the sort. But let's not get away from the point here...which is that John KNOWS she was hit after death. This is significant...especially for a man who has no other idea as to the injuries his daughter suffered. He has JUST started to admit she was molested. The other thing that struck me is his continuous referencing of the "professional garotte". We've been over this and over this...that was a piece of cord with a gd stick tied to the end of it! It was in no shape or form a "professional" ANYTHING! I'm straying. The question was why he's stuck by his woman's side. Both John and Patsy abused their daughter: emotionally, physically, sexually....BOTH of them. Can't say he was just a bystander...he went to the pageants (even if he got there late!)...he saw the bleached hair and paid the medical bills. His excuses that Beuf stated emphatically that JBR wasn't sexually abused is laughable. Aside from the fact that the Beufs and Ramseys were FRIENDS!, exactly how was he (Beuf) going to recognize whether JBR was being sexually abused/molested if the perp was her "loving" father? Her injuries...the evidence of her abuse...was internal! Hell...the kid had NO HYMEN and her vaginal opening was stretched how much larger than normal? Her opening measured 1 cm. For that age, the normal size is 9mm!!! She didn't have just chronic vaginal inflammation; she also had chronic esophagal inflammation! Both Patsy and John agreed last night that this was not done by a "random" intruder. And then the two both agree it couldn't be a friend of theirs. Well...who does that leave? These two are cunning. A lot of the twists and turns in the evidence is of their doing. Someone isn't trying to frame them; one isn't trying to frame the other. There is absolutely NOTHING other than molestation and participation in the murder that Patsy can hold over John's head. In other words, that's the ONLY reason he's covering for 'her'...likewise, it's the only reason she's covering for him. They're both in over their heads. Thomas finally acknowledge that probable cause is not an issue. It's proving it! And the Ramseys KNOW that! This is their stew and they threw everything in it they could think of ... kidnapping, sexual abuse, strangulation, ferocious head blow. How the hell do you prove that? That's why they did it that way. But make no mistake. This was no accident! Someone mentioned the old theory of Patsy walking in on John, striking the wrong person. And then later, John (or Patsy), in trying to stage a horrible crime scene, actually strangled their daughter to death, not realizing she was still alive. Legally, nothing could be done against either if that were the case. The blow was accidental. They thought she was dead, so the idea that you can't kill a dead person applies. IOW...if they had this out...they'd have used it. John and Patsy have had quite a few "outs" where one or the other could save his own hide; or both could work together and save their collective hides. Neither of them has done that. Not because they're innocent. They're arrogant. They're not going to admit to the world that John was molesting JBR, or that either accidentally did anything that night. Nor are either of them going to point fingers at Burke...who wouldn't be charged anyway. Outs that they don't take? Because their arrogant and know that this is a circumstantial case with no witnesses, and unless the State can prove what happened...then they don't have to talk or admit to anything. I think if someone had the balls to confront them with 'my' theory, e.g., premeditated murder to save their butts, we'd see them go into hiding REAL FAST! Just get a theory that connects most of the dots and these folks would be silent! As long as they're confronted with theories of bedwetting or rage, they're going to continue on their promo tours! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Ginja" Posted by Sioux on 16:08:49 6/01/2000 ** Aside from the fact that the Beufs and Ramseys were FRIENDS!, exactly how was he (Beuf) going to recognize whether JBR was being sexually abused/molested if the perp was her "loving" father?** And please tell me how can it be explained that they didn't know about the abnormal vaginal size, since Beuf practiced VAGINAL CHECKUPS in young girls , as a nurse documented? wOULDN'T HE THEN HAVE NOTICED THIS ENLARGEMENT? Or is that Beuf was the responsable one for that enlargement?And what role did Patsy have in this checkups? ** Her injuries...the evidence of her abuse...was internal! Hell...the kid had NO HYMEN and her vaginal opening was stretched how much larger than normal? Her opening measured 1 cm. For that age, the normal size is 9mm!!!** I guess the intruder must have been there in the basement for months, abusing Jonbenet a little each day so he could confuse the investigators after the murder. (As you know it was SOOOO well planned). Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "follow the money" Posted by pinker on 15:36:54 6/01/2000 JR is one of the biggest tightwad, cheapskate, skin flints around. He is the one who made sure the older kids always got cheap airline tickets. He is the one Patsey had to hid her shopping bags from. He probably hadn't fixed the broken basement window or upstairs shower yet cause he was looking around for a deal. The polygraph examiners were paid a 'handsome fee', he can't even talk about money he's so uptight. I think he was worried from the start what the effect would be on his busine$$. He thought they were smart enough that kidnapping scenario would be bought by all and the headlines would fade within a few days. That was the plan, the reason he partcipated in the cover up of Patsey's accidental rage. It's not that he cares about Patsey, it's just her reflection that counts. Of course by now that simple twist of fate has snow balled out of control and we're all sitting around scratching our heads. From the begining the Ramsey's have claimed to be a normal family. The last seminar for functional families had but one in attendance and it wasn't the Ramseys. Most JW members like myself probably read lots of true crime. I doubt if PMPT was anyone's first venture in that regard, just intrigued by the extremes of human nature. The millionaire miser. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "ginja" Posted by v_p on 17:02:29 6/01/2000 >>Don't you think it's beyond strange that John KNOWS she was hit AFTER she was strangled? He claims the forensic evidence is indisputable. He's full of chit! The evidence proves nothing of the sort. But let's not get away from the point here...which is that John KNOWS she was hit after death. This is significant...especially for a man who has no other idea as to the injuries his daughter suffered. He has JUST started to admit she was molested. <<< I had the feeling he was saying over and over that she was hit after the strangulation "which was the cause of her death" to make a point. The point being, ST's theory could not be true as it is outlined in his book if she were hit after she was strangled. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "I honestly believe..." Posted by ace21214 on 16:56:51 6/01/2000 that they each have something on each other. Perhaps the simplest explanation of John molesting JonBenet and Patsy walking in on them is true. It's impossible for me to believe that their love is so strong that John would cover up for her. I keep going back to the beauty pageants and John permitting his baby daughter to parade around like Pamela Lee. How many fathers do you know would be so passive about this? Not many, unless it excited them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Ginja . . ." Posted by Anton on 18:37:32 6/01/2000 I always enjoy reading your posts. I enjoy that northern common sense of yours. LOL I think John is covering because that's what he does. Patsy emotes and John covers. Patsy's out front and John's behind the scenes. Patsy told him "we have to be united to make people believe" and he considered her advice in terms of business. In developing and maintaining his billion-dollar-a-year business, John learned when to make deals, when to make lies, when to hide and when to make a PR show. I think he married Patsy for his own ego (he was still a struggling nobody, whereas she was a known "famous" entity, a pretty and young trophy wife, someone with contacts; movers and shakers in business, not eye lenses) and to have a real family again. Not because he loves family values but because so many in the business and political world do. As I've looked over the history of these two, I notice that John and Lucinda struggled mightily while John tried this scheme and that. He traveled, had at least one affair and finally scammed himself out of a marriage. He dated Patsy, then married her and then began to focus on a particular area of business -- computers. I have the feeling Patsy and her contacts saw computers as the "plastics" of the '80s. Get in and do well and you can go as far as you can keep yourself together. Patsy probably doesn't know beans about computers (except, apparently, how to post on forums) but she knows a lot about keeping up appearances, making a good impression, getting along with head honchos. John was probably a maverick, a greedy schemer who antagonized everyone in his efforts to scam people into cooperating. Patsy showed him how to focus, kiss butt and look good under pressure. I think it bugs the farts out of him to have to keep doing all of that now with people who are openly disdainful. I think he had gotten to think he was pretty hot potatoes himself, Mr. Entrepeneur Billion-dollar Baby. I think that JonBenét became a liability and became disposable. She was a symbol of perfection, in their eyes, the mascot of Family Ramsey. Whatever happened, she failed their expections. Clearly, sex abuse was involved. Clearly, to me, John and Patsy sexually abused her. As you say, Ginja, when the blow hit the head, Family Ramsey went into action. We don't know what caused this particularly drama to occur. Maybe JonBenét wet the bed at a dramatic moment and somebody's little head was insulted. Maybe she opened her mouth to someone else's little head, or started name-dropping at parties and pageants. Maybe she became the unexpected mole betraying Family Ramsey. Whatever the cause, Family Ramsey attacked, covered with every confusing piece of distraction they could conceive of and then hunkered in to scam the world. I think they're as appalled as we are that this scam has continued for 3 1/2 years. Every time they "have" to defend themselves on TV, it's a slap to their egos and a proof that Family Ramsey is flawed. They don't care about JonBenét or the BPD or the DA or the FBI or us. They're saving face because that face is the face that got them to the top of the world, as far as they're concerned. John had what he wanted -- CEO of a billion-dollar business. Patsy has what she's wanted -- world-wide fame. Some people buy a Mercedes because of the name. They don't know quality from quantity. They buy because they can, the same reason a dog licks his balls. Family Ramsey is doing just that. What is different is that most dogs don't do it on national television. Anton [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Random? " Posted by Ribaldone on 19:47:09 6/01/2000 In one breath Patsy says this was no random crime and then she says that JonBenet's name was never mentioned in the ransom note and when asked to speculate why she says, "maybe he didn't know the child's name." If it's not a random crime, then it was obviously planned, which is usually the case with kidnappings. Now if this highly intelligent intruder who has alluded the authorities and succeeded in making Patsy look guilty, planned this crime don't you think he would know WHO he was going to kidnap? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Anton, I agree " Posted by fiddler on 20:00:25 6/01/2000 more than 100%, if that's possible. I think John, in some dark corner of his psyche, still considers himself lucky (as the quintessential short, quiet nerd) to have scored a Miss America contestant like Patsy. No matter what the reality of life with Patsy was, she represented something to John similar to an expensive sports car, something he didn't really deserve, and thus has to fight for.... Ryder, your words expressed perfectly what I felt, but didn't know how to say. There's SO MUCH energy devoted to twisting the truth--what would happen if one of them decided to actually tell it, for a change? What would it take to make that happen? Any ideas? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "yes, fiddler" Posted by sask on 20:12:25 6/01/2000 As John might say, Patsy was a "gift" to him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "ransom note" Posted by dixie on 20:38:34 6/01/2000 I've never been very strong in believing Patsy wrote the note based on handwriting since some of the experts appear to have been discredited and some posters say Johns appears to match more that Patsys. The more I hear Patsy talk tho the more I hear the ransom note. On the LKL taping in just that hour I heard some more of these 'borrowed' phrases. 'You would of met your waterloo', lets set aside 'pride and predjudice' it is that kind of talking that sounds more like the ranson note, than everyday normal conversation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Guilt throwers & guilt catchers" Posted by FT on 21:40:15 6/01/2000 This thread reminds of the audiotape I'm presently listening to -- Brian Tracy's work on the psychology of achievement. Tracy mentions that most Americans are plagued by negative emotions left over from childhood. One of the most destructive of the negative emotions is guilt. Guilt throwing and guilt catching are perpetuated from generation to generation unless someone caught up in the cycle makes a concerted effort to stop the process. Guilt throwers are people who identify with a parent who successfully used guilt as a manipulative device to get desired results, and who emulate the parent's behavior. Guilt catchers are people who were victimized by guilt throwing parents, and who, due to progressive destruction of their self-esteem, become magnets for guilt for the rest of their lives. Guilt throwers and guilt catchers are attracted to one another and often become enmeshed in a vicious cycle. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Right, FT..." Posted by Anton on 04:17:40 6/02/2000 This is what I'm seeing, too. The Ramseys' behavior didn't start when JonBenét was killed. This is their "normal" behavior, probably escalated and a bit skewed because of the intense attention and potential consequences. They have their relationship script and their roles to play. Anton [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]