People Magazine

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Aurora, May 13, 2004.

  1. Aurora

    Aurora Member

    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!
     
  2. purr

    purr Active Member

    wah

    wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    wanted to see you in there.

    your time will come...........
    dont give up aurora!

    purr
     
  3. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    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!
     
  4. Aurora

    Aurora Member

    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.
     
  5. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    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!
     
  6. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    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 Newsâ€

    See what I mean? “we have not excluded anyone†by Keenan with
    John agreeing just doesn’t jibe with “never been named as
    suspects.â€

    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.â€
    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.
     
  7. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    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.
     
  8. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    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?â€

    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.â€

    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.
     
  9. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

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