People Magazine is out with the new issue. It has an article about John running and a sidebar which lists evidence in the case. It has some pictures and talks about Johns political aspirations as well as Patsy's cancer. Nothing that we didn't already know. :chicken: No mention of my protest!
wah wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wanted to see you in there. your time will come........... dont give up aurora! purr
Aurora Could you list the evidence People listed. That is, I'm wondering if they listed REAL evidence or Ramsey evidence. We all know there's a HUGE difference!
Key Evidence In The Ramsey Case by People mag When asked if John and Patsy had been cleared in their daughter's murder, Boulder county district attorney Mary Keenan says, "No, we have not excluded anyone from the investigation." To which John Ramsey responds, "That's the correct answer. No one should be excluded." But investigators are now looking closely at the intruder theory, which hinges on several pieces of evidence, including: Ramson Note The three page letter demanded $118,000 for JonBenet's safe return...the exact amount that Ramsey had recently received as a bonus. Ramsey calls this coincidence .."bizarre." Fiber Evidence Fibers, possibly from the clothes of JonBenet's parents, were found on her body and duct tape covering her mouth. Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood says since they shared the home, that should come as no surprise. DNA Evidence Police found blood in JonBenet's panties. They initially said the sample wasn't of sufficient quality to test, but last December the FBI sent it to the national database. That's it... We all know there is much more.
People Magazine Article Thank you Rickamorti! ****** PEOPLE: May24 BACK IN THE SPOTLIGHT new pictures: Patsy draped all over John the candidate, she's looking slimmer and healthy, John, at desk, with picture of campaign button inset By Pam Lambert, Lauren Commander in Charlevoix synopsis Fairly or not, John and Patsy Ramsey have been haunted by suspicion since their daughter JonBenet's murder. After almost 7 and a half years of proclaiming their innocence and chasing privacy, why is John now running for office? They, are of course, the couple at the center of a true crime mystery. The public first saw John and Patsy as grieving parents. Over the next few weeks that followed, questions grew about the couple's innocence: Why, when police started asking questions, had they gotten lawyers and refused to take lie detector tests? Why had someone composed a "practice" version of a ransom note on one of the Ramsey's legal pads? Why had that note demanded $118,00-the amount of the work bonus that John had recently received?" Neither John nor Patsy was ever charged with a crime, but in the face of relentless press coverage, why were they all but found guilty in the court of public opinion? After the Ramsys' trial by media, during which they were chased from Colorado to Atlanta, to their summer refuge in northern Michigan, one might expect that the family would crave nothing more than their privacy. Instead, John has done the one thing guaranteed to have the opposite effect: On May 11 he announced that he would run for a seat in the Michigan House, thereby reopening the Ramseys' lives to scrutiny. "One friend said, 'Why don't you open a restaurant instead? That's probably the next most crazy thing you could do. Why would you want to subject yourself to that?' " admits Ramsey, 60. "Some of that is true," allows Patsy, 47, who is in the midst of chemotherapy for a recurrence of ovarian cancer. "But we have been through the worst. This is something he's embarking on to try to make good come of the rest of his life." Or might John Ramsey just be tying to focus public attention on dramatic new turns in the investigation, that he claims will help exonerate him and his wife for once and for all? " A non-cynic would say this is clear evidence that they don't fear public scrutiny because they are not responsible for the death of their daughter." Whatever happens, judging by an emotional Mother's day interview with PEOPLE at their cottage-style home in Charlevoix, the lakeside Michigan community where they moved last summer, it's clear that the Ramsey's see themselves as writing as a new chapter in their life without JonBenet. Son Burke, now 17, is growing up fast, with college applications on the horizin. Perhaps a campaign isn't so risky after all. "John and Patsy have already been investigated clear back to their birth," says Patsy's sister Pam Paugh. It's clear there are no skeletons in their closet." snip It's true that the 'umbrella of suspicion"- as one Boulder police official called it-hanging over the Ramseys now appears to have some holes in it. In October 1999 a Boulder grand jury declined to indict either John or Patsy after a 13-month probe. On March 31, 2003 Atlanta judge Julie Carnes concluded that based on the selected documents and evidence she had reviewed in a civil lawsuit against the Ramseys, "The weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so." Mary Keenan has said "The investigation is continuing, we feel we are making forward progress." Colorado LE finally submitted DNA from a blood spot found on JonBenet's underwear-long known to have come from a male unrelated to her-to the FBI database. snip DA Keenan faces the same problems her predecessors confronted: The first police arriving at the Ramsey house allowed John to search his home and carry his daughter's body upstairs, thereby seriously contaminating the crime scene. "If the killer can be found, this group will find him," predicts Patsy. And then, she claims the mysterious clues such as the ransom note and the DNA "will fall in place." Even if that were to happen, the couple doubt they will ever be vindicated. "We can have a confession and we can have an execution, and there will still be 10 percent of the population who believe that somehow Patsy and I are involved," says John. snip During the months after JonBenet's murder, when the family relocated to Atlanta, that grim reality, they say, was at times too much to bear. "I was broken all the time. I couldn't even stand up for several days," says Patsy. Feeling under siege, the Ramseys turned to one another and in John's words, developed an "us against the world" attitude. "For better or worse, in sickness and in health," says Patsy "we have really tested those vows." snip To help protect Burke, the Ramseys went without television for three years." "We didn't want Burke to flip across Geraldo Rivera," says John. "And frankly we didn't need to see it either." says John. snip Since moving back to Charlevoix, the Ramseys have plunged full tilt into town life. Burke is an avid skate boarder at a local park. "Charlevoix really gave him back his childhood," says John. "He's able to be on his own and be safe.' snip in Box: KEY EVIDENCE IN THE RAMSEY CASE When asked if John and Patsy have been cleared of their daughter's murder, Boulder DA Mary Keenan says, NO, we have not excluded anyone from the investigation." To which John Ramsey responds, "That's the correct answer. No one should be excluded." But investigators are now looking closely at the intruder theory, which hinges on several pieces of evidence, Including: RANSOM NOTE: The 3 page letter demanded $118.000 for JonBenet's safe return-the exact amount that Ramsey had recently received as a bonus. Ramsey calls this coincidence "bizarre". FIBER EVIDENCE: Fibers, possibly from the clothes of JonBenet's parents, were found on her body and duct tape covering her mouth. Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood says since they shared the same home, that should come as no surprise. DNA EVIDENCE: Police found blood in JonBenet's panties. They initially said the sample wasn't of sufficient quality to test, but last December the FBI sent it to the national database. OK TO COPY TO OTHER FORUMS!
Aurora: “When asked if John and Patsy had been cleared in their daughter's murder, Boulder county district attorney Mary Keenan says, "No, we have not excluded anyone from the investigation." To which John Ramsey responds, "That's the correct answer. No one should be excluded." Thanks, Aurora, for this invaluable information. It look likes John has just thrown his lawsuit against Fox out the window. “Ramsey is candid about once being a “a PR nightmare.†A blurb on the jacket of the 2000 “The Death of Innocence†book by John and Patsy Ramsey says: “Though they have never been named as suspects in their daughter’s death, the media and others have unjustly tried and convicted them.†(Sunday, March 14, 2004 By George Weeks / The Detroit News†See what I mean? “we have not excluded anyone†by Keenan with John agreeing just doesn’t jibe with “never been named as suspects.†Of course, Mary is never sure which way she is going. Back in December of 2002, she was singing a different tune. “A key factor in the decision to reopen the investigation was Miss Keenan's "belief that the Boulder Police Department has done an exhaustive and thorough investigation of the Ramseys as potential suspects," Miss Keenan wrote to the Ramseys' Atlanta attorney, L. Lin Wood.†(By Frank J. Murray THE WASHINGTON TIMES } You can see why this would lead Wood to believe: "Please understand that this decision is being made for one reason only, the fact that a violent child murderer is at large," the prosecutor wrote to Mr. Wood in a letter that he said removes his clients from the suspect list.†(ibid) Of course, in his usual fashion, Wood contradicts himself: "This is the only chance we have of solving the case," Mr. Wood said. "While the Ramseys will not be exempt from the investigation, the truth is, this is not about going back and reinvestigating John and Patsy Ramsey." (ibid) If the Ramseys are not exempt, what is to keep it from “going back†and reinvestigating the Ramseys? It appears to me that Wood has created a very large problem for himself and his clients by filing the lawsuit against Fox. Here is political John saying Keenan is right to not exclud him and Patsy in the investigation while the lawsuit it totally dependent on the exact opposite. It is predicated upon the notion that the Ramseys have been removed from under the “umbrella of suspicion.†John and Patsy are being investigated as “non suspects?†How will this play in Peoria? I never thought Wood was all that bright, but the lawsuit against Fox is stupid with a capital S. JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE ) vs. ) NO. 1 03 CV-3976 ) FOX NEWS NETWORK, L.L.C., d/b/a ) Fox News Channel, ) 22. During the course of the murder investigation, evidence has been discovered and developed that links an intruder to the brutal murder of JonBenét Ramsey. (From the Complaint) Now wouldn’t it be a very strange world if there were evidence of an intruder AND evidence of Ramsey guilt? The bottom line is that IF Keenan has evidence of an intruder, this means the Ramseys would be excluded from the investigation. When she says they are not excluded, she is saying by logical inference that she has no evidence of an intruder; and John, poor oscillating John, goes right along with it. 31. The statement uttered by Ms. McKinley that “there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to brutal murder†is a false statement of fact and defamed the Ramsey.†(ibid) It looks to me that DA Keenan needs to be included in the same suit since ANY evidence of an intruder automatically excludes the Ramseys; something she as refused to do. So, attorney at flaw, when a reporter voices the logically implied position of LE, AND your client tacitly agrees with it, where do you go from here. Sorry (not), Mr. Wood, Waterloo is just over the next rise.
You've hit the nail on its head, EasyWriter. Actually, John's arrogance in running for office may be the nail in his own coffin, so to speak. I'm sure the FOX lawyers are rubbing their hands in glee, hanging on his every word. As you've pointed out, he's already made a huge gaffe in his choice of words. Did he forget the premise of his lawsuit against FOX? I'm sort of curious about the statement about Burke's finally being safe in Charlevoix. Wasn't he safe in Atlanta, the place they called "home" both before and after the murder of their daughter - the place Ramsey was going to fly to almost immediately after carrying her corpse up from the basement - the place where both of John's daughters are buried? I don't think Patsy gets it. She is once again being treated for recurrence of ovarian cancer - this must be about the third or fourth time since her cancer first was discovered, mestatasized to her liver. While I agree the worst would be having your daughter murdered, she has yet to reach the point where they tell her they can do no more for her. The worst may have been in 1996, but what's ahead isn't going to be a walk in the park, either. Just one more comment about why the Ramseys are so eager to get back in the public eye once more. Over the past 7+ years there has been a standing joke of sorts of how long the Ramseys could stay out of the limelight. Sure enough, it was only a matter of months before they were back out there, shining the spotlight on themselves, one way or the other. After the flurry of lawsuits against everyone who dared to mention their hallowed names in vain, it got pretty quiet for them. I honestly think they like reading about themselves and seeing themselves on TV. They like the limelight, no they crave it. Image and status in the community. It's everything to them.
Watching You : “You've hit the nail on its head, EasyWriter. Actually, John's arrogance in running for office may be the nail in his own coffin, so to speak. I'm sure the FOX lawyers are rubbing their hands in glee, hanging on his every word. As you've pointed out, he's already made a huge gaffe in his choice of words. Did he forget the premise of his lawsuit against FOX?†Given the previously blown opportunities, I can’t help but wonder if the Fox lawyers really understand the situation and\or how to most effectively deal with it. Indeed, I have trouble comprehending the lack of comprehension evidenced by LE and media from the beginning. The highly visible staging was ignored with theories of intruder running amok due to lack of thinking disciplined by an elementary grasp of the nature of evidence. That the absurd prattle of Lou Smit eventually became “Statements Of Fact†in a Federal Court tells of the gross incompetence of the “powers that be†and total mental chaos of the scene. The letter to Keenan was a core part of an effort to bring some order; to mentally bring the crime scene into the realm of reality, thereby dismissing the unrealistic intruder theories. The letter was consciously designed by certification and content to put Mary Keenan in a box; to shut down a Ramsey serving propaganda machine. It directly refutes much of the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder and indirectly refutes ALL by showing flawed method. If she didn’t already know, Mary Keenan was made aware that there is no evidence of an intruder. This laid the groundwork for me to say that Mary Keenan KNOWS there is no evidence of an intruder. I can say it whenever and wherever I want, as many times as I want and as loud as I want, and there is nothing she can do about it. This does not stand alone. It correlates with the efforts and results of many others on the FFJ forum and elsewhere. The petition presented by Tricia with the direct support of fellow travelers and the indirect support of FFJ members served to bring needed attention to incite some inquiry. I take my hat off to Tricia who boldly stepped out front and devoted much time, effort and expense to bring about the needed media attention. Without it, not much goes anywhere. A sincere, admiring salute to this “BOBâ€. The question about Ramseys being subject to investigation put to Keenan by People Magazine is a great deal more significant than most realize. The “Keenan propâ€, much touted by Wood and the Ramseys is gone. So, is her previous endorsement of the Carnes’ decision; meaning, its force is diminished by Keenan’s statement that she was not influenced by the judge’s ruling because it was made on “partial evidence.†From the outset, the only “evidence†that Wood and the Ramsey had or have to support their lawsuits is “somebody said.†Much reliance was and is put on the “somebody said†being an “experienced detectiveâ€, the DA, and a Federal Judge. This “supportâ€, never with any factual substance, has been undermined and is collapsing upon itself. This is what makes the People’s question, Keenan’s answer, and John’s response so important. To the best of my knowledge, Keenan has not made a Ramsey- supporting statement since her initial endorsement of the Carnes’ ruling. After the recant, she assumed the posture of “no commentâ€, “we’re following new leadsâ€, etc., but with no specifics lest she expose the farce. She has, in effect, withdrawn her support and cannot serve as direct or indirect witness for the Ramseys. If Fox takes the suit the distance, the Plaintiffs will be required to bring up and validate alleged evidence of an alleged intruder to “prove†the alleged fallacy of the Fox statement of no evidence of an intruder. Who is going to provide this “evidence?†Keenan? I don’t think so. She will resign before going down this road. I hope I am mistaken, but I can’t see the suit going to a full out trial. Granted, Wood is not too swift on the uptake, but surely he sees by now that he has committed a serious blunder; especially, with John running for office. He would like to see the suit disappear, but is in a bind. If he withdraws the Complaint, varied repercussions are likely. The best he can hope for at this juncture is a quick and quiet Summary Judgment of dismissal. My concern is that Fox will choose this route as well out of financial considerations. “Just one more comment about why the Ramseys are so eager to get back in the public eye once more..... I honestly think they like reading about themselves and seeing themselves on TV. They like the limelight, no they crave it.†(WY) True, but it goes far beyond the search for sense of self value via the rich and famous road. The first time I saw the Ramseys on TV, they were talking about the many calls and letters of support they had received. The first transcript I read, and all thereafter, showed the same theme. It’s still showing up over and over again in John’s political speeches. It is repeated incessantly like a mantra as if repeating makes it true. It’s a constant compulsion. It is “guilt drive.†It is seeking to negate the crime-related self devaluation by offsetting garnering of “public approval.†It won’t work. The adulation will never be enough. More and more is required in the effort to sustain the illusion. Behind it all, the truth remains. They know that the “public approval†is not of real selves, but only of a facade. This means they cannot help but see themselves as phonies, therefore, compounding the problem by the very means they utilize in attempted resolution. As you suggest, it will be their downfall.
Sidebars to People Article (Complete) Sidebar 1: THE KEY EVIDENCE IN THE RAMSEY CASE When asked if John and Patsy Ramsey have been cleared in their daughter's murder, Boulder County district attorney Mary Keenan says, "No, we have not excluded anyone from the investigation." To which John Ramsey responds, "That's the correct answer. No one should be excluded." But investigators are now looking closely at the intruder theory, which hinges on several pieces of evidence, including: * RANSOM NOTE The three-page letter demanded $118,000 for JonBenet's safe return-the exact amount that Ramsey had recently received as a bonus. Ramsey calls this coincidence "bizarre." * FIBER EVIDENCE Fibers, possibly from the clothes of JonBenet's parents, were found on her body and duct tape covering her mouth. Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood says since they shared the home, that should come as no surprise. * DNA EVIDENCE Police found blood in JonBenet's panties. They initially said the sample wasn't of sufficient quality to test, but last December the FBI sent it to the national database. Sidebar 2 PATSY'S STRUGGLE WITH CANCER Patsy Ramsey was first diagnosed with Stage 4 ovarian cancer in 1993. She was just 36, with two small children, Burke, 5, and JonBenét, 2. "It was devastating," she recalls. After nine months of chemo and surgery-she lost her hair and eyebrows-the cancer went into remission. The disease first recurred in 2002 and she went back into chemotherapy, but now she seems almost matter-of-fact that it keeps coming back. "It's no fun, but you've got to get up and take your bad medicine," says Patsy, who faces three more months of treatment. She's calmer partly because JonBenet's 1996 murder put her own life in perspective. "The whole ordeal with JonBenét was just the absolute worst thing in your life that can happen, so it makes even cancer pale in comparison," she says. Ramsey, who is a public speaker for the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition, draws comfort from her husband as well as the knowledge that Burke can "drive and warm up in the microwave. It's a lot easier for me in that regard mentally," she says. "I just have to worry about taking the chemotherapy and getting through it."