"Death Of Innocence" Analysis - By Sylvia

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Moab, May 13, 2005.

  1. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Last edited: May 13, 2005
  2. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Foreword DOI

    Foreword.


    First thing I noticed when I received the book, there is still the big photo of both Ramsey’s on the front cover. The picture that was on the hardback back cover was a small photo of JonBenét face. Oh well that is gone, all what is left now is a photo of a girl sitting with her back towards the photographer. Guess it could be JonBenét, but one cannot even be sure of that anymore. To me that means her importance has already diminished.

    They still start with the same nonsense of suspicions that were cast upon them by the ‘inexperienced’ police force and the world media “that almost crushed our ability to live.†Again I say their own actions made the police and the media suspicious, they caused that to happen, no one else. It was their lack of cooperation they gave the BPD that left LE and the rest of the world no other choice then to become suspicious.

    What happened to them overcomes everyone who loses a child to murder, everyone experiencing the loss of a child in such a way has to be cleared first in order to get the investigation going. Up to now, I cannot come up with one person who didn’t go through the whole system of being cleared and who ever complained about it. Those parents saw and knew the necessity of it and did it without thinking or complaining which lead to the fact that they could indeed be cleared. The Ramsey’s seems to think they stand above these other parents and refused, still do, to let LE clear them. Bad luck Ramsey’s, you are no better or more believable then all those other parents that went through the same ordeal of being cleared. As a matter effect your own non-cooperation, lies, and inconsistencies made you prime suspects in the eyes of LE and most of the people in the world who do have common sense.

    As you say “Our criminal justice system now operates on the presumption of guild, and then challenges the defendant to prove his or her innocence†lacks any common sense and knowledge of how the system works. Let me explain it to you for once and for all, the presumption of innocence applies only during a court of law and is reserved for the presiding judge and jury. Outside a court of law there is no such thing as the presumption of innocence. If that were the case no one could ever be accused, arrested or ordered to stand trial, as truly innocent people can’t, by law, be accused, arrested or stand trial. So try to educate yourselves on this technicality of the law.

    One thing I have to say, because of the foreword it becomes clearer that this book has nothing to do with what happened to JonBenét, but what happened to poor P. Ramsey and poor J. Ramsey. What happened to poor innocent JonBenét is clearly of far less importance to the Ramsey’s, but then again we already knew that.

    Of course, again they are trying to confuse everyone by stating: “At this date, more then three years after that Christmas, our memories are not completely trustworthy on some details, we simply do not have a total recall.†Let me tell you something Ramsey’s! Most, if not every, parent knows exactly what happened when their child was injured or murdered even after more than three years. Why? Because of the impression it left on them! Their willingness to get every detail straightened out in order for LE to be able catch whoever did this to their child and to them, shows how it affected them. Even after the perpetrator is caught, those horrible memories will always be their in their mind. Again your lack of, better even no cooperation at all, should be a clear signal to everyone in the world. I hope people have learned a few things from it, if you are innocent always cooperate with LE if you want the death of our loved one revenged, second if there is no cooperation LE is left with any other choice then to look upon you as their prime suspect! That is completely justifiably!
     
  3. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 1

    Chapter 1

    The chapter begins with J. Ramsey trying to give you the look what a great family we are, with a story that starts on Christmas morning. The usual kid of stuff, kids excited, gifts under the Christmas tree, turning the lights on and more of that kind of things. The first interesting thing J. Ramsey writes on page 3: “JonBenét asked for Burke’s assistance with the name tags, since he could read and she couldn’t.†Amazing a six-year-old child that could not recognize simple names on the gift tags, but that is able to act during pageants as a 20-year-old seductive woman. To me it says time spent at those pageants could have been used better with teaching the child to read a little. There even seem to be some form of competition going on, since there is written it was fun to see whose pill of gifts would become the biggest, a good way to teach a child greed.

    Now it is time for the biggest event of the morning, not for JonBenét as it turns out, but for P. Ramsey. P. Ramsey had bought a look-alike doll for JonBenét, this was the ultimate and most special gift for JonBenét that Christmas, the My Twin Doll. Only it did not turn out the way P. Ramsey thought it would. At page 4 J. Ramsey writes the following: “JonBenét opened the box and examined the doll with a look of curiosity. ‘Well, now, doesn’t she look like you?’ Patsy asked. JonBenét held the doll at arm’s length and tilted her head slightly. ‘I really don’t think she looks that much like me’ she concluded and laid the doll to one side.†It is obvious that the little girl was not that interested in having a twin, but reading a few pages further that P. Ramsey wanted to dress up JonBenét in manner as she did. DOI page 7 “She wanted JonBenét to wear a red turtleneck with her black velvet pants so that mother and daughter would be dressed alike.†To me, this says P. Ramsey was living her life through the little girl. The little girl, however, didn’t wish to be a copy nor did she wish for look-alike dolls to live her life through.

    It is obvious the P. Ramsey was the one who was into pageants, not the little innocent girl. Sure JonBenét liked to dress up, so does every other girl at the age of six, but that doesn’t mean they like parading on a stage on a regular basis, being turned in to a twenty-year old vamp. It is Christmas day, the children are enjoying their gifts, but what it already on P. Ramsey’s mind, of course a pageant in the first week of January. Getting the outfits ready, spreading them out on the bed. This is no little girl’s dream, a mother who doesn’t know what is important, and is pushing this child in to something she doesn’t want. It is all beauty above education, it is about using your body to get somewhere instead of using your brain to get the same result.

    First they will go to Charlevoix, celebrating Christmas on the 26th, lasting until when? After that they plan go on the Disney’s Big Red Boat, that will take place on the 29th of December and through New Year’s. J. Ramsey calls it a “cruise,†here we call such a thing a tour or a mini-cruise. Bluff, that is their game! It is so obvious in everything. Get real, a cruise is going on a cruise ship, sailing the ocean, going to ports in different countries, being at sea for at least three to four weeks.
     
  4. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 1 part 2

    A nice family, so close, yet J. Ramsey obviously spends hour at the airport, checking plane, loading some gifts. Sure, that would take hours. Al this, while there is a pilot to fly the plane. I assume that pilot was more than capable of checking plane, weather conditions, and what else is needed. Wouldn’t a close family be closer at Christmas day, here it is usual to spend that time with your family, not at airports? So obviously he doesn’t pay much attention to his wife and children. That is the reason there is no time for him to help JonBenét riding her new bike around the block a couple of times. No airports are the place he “always loved hanging about, and Christmas day was no difference.†Well it should have made a difference, but sure blame it on “T-I-M-E.†Nonsense, it selfishness and lack of responsibility, it is all about making choices and at that Christmas day the airport was more important then the family, simple as that. Looking for excuses afterwards is so easy!

    After that we get a description of the dinner party at the Whites house. “We had eaten together last Christmas, so it was the beginning to feel like a new tradition for us to join their family.†We are talking of the same Whites I hope, the ones who never paid for anything and let the Ramsey’s pick up the bill? The same P. White who was jealous of P. Ramsey? (Could not imagine why though!) The same Whites with the duct tape and rope, not to forget Whites supposedly owning a stun gun? The Whites that would soon end up on the RST suspect list. Sure a nice way to join their family, hypocrites!

    At 8:30 P.M. they decided to leave the Whites party, and head for their home. They made two side trips to ‘friends,’ the Walkers and (by all means) let us not forget the Stines. Each visit seems to take up a couple of minutes. Then suddenly there is no time left for the third and last package to be delivered at the Fernies. Strange, as the Fernie was called the morning they found the ‘ransom note’ being a special friend and it seems it did not take him long to get there either. P. Ramsey called them, as last, after she made the call to 911, which came in at 5:52 a.m. During that call, an officer was dispatched. Yet, being called as last person Fernie manages to get there at 6:03 a.m. So here we have a few possibilities:

    • Fernie does not live far from the Ramsey’s and the couple of extra minutes would not have been such big problem to overcome.
      Fernie really lives far away, but in that case, he could not have made it to be there the following morning so soon after the call came in.
      Fernie is not really such a good friend after all, or they would have taken the trouble of some extra time to bring them the gift as well. Only, then why call the Fernies the next morning?
      Was something was not going so well on the trip back home?

    Taking less then an hour drive from the White, via the Walker’s, and the Stines and not delivering a package to your dearest of friends, that you called the following morning when you were “in need†tells me a lot. That, to my opinion, is a one-way direction friendship, take, and not give. Besides isn’t Christmas evening a little too late to bring gifts anyhow to friends? You couldn’t have done that the day before, or even earlier? However, here again they are not that truthful. In their book, Ramsey claims he got Burke to bed at 9:30 that evening. By that time he according to himself had parked the car in the garage, took a ‘sleeping’ JonBenét out of the car. Brought her upstairs, took off her coat and shoes, and went downstairs again. Then is written the following: “Meanwhile I went downstairs to try to get Burke to come up to bed, but he was deeply involved in assembling the miniature parking garage he had received that morning. I could tell he wasn’t going to go to bed until the project was finished, so I settled down on the floor beside him. Helping him to complete what his mind was focused on was the best way to get us both in bed quickly.†All these activities must have taken up quite some time, at the least half an hour. Yet when asked by the BPD the next morning he said something quite different, Steve Thomas book page 25 says: “Officers reconstructed some of the timeline of the previous night from the parents’ recollection. John Ramsey said the family had returned home from the party about 10 o’clock.†I can understand not knowing the exact time, but a one-hour difference is a little too much for me. The following morning you remember it was round 10:00 p.m.; four to five years later, you suddenly remember it was round about 9:00 p.m.? Now that sounds a bit weird to me.
     
  5. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 1 part 3

    So after delivering the gifts, except the one for the Fernies, they returned home. According to J. Ramsey JonBenét was fast asleep in the backseat of the car. She had supposedly fallen asleep during the ride home. On page 9 of their book, J. Ramsey states: “I got her out of the car and carried her upstairs to her room, laid her on the bed, and took off her coat and shoes. I was amazed at how sound asleep she was.†On the other hand, he declared to two different officers, present at the crime scene the next morning that he read both children as story before they went to sleep that night. In Steve Thomas’s book page 25 is stated: “John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o’clock and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed to Arndt that he had read to JonBenét after tucking her in.†Later he retracted the bedtime readings story. Only can two officers misunderstand the same thing? I do not think so, especially since there is more proof that JonBenét was awake upon arrival at home. Burke’s June 1998 statement goes as follows: “He said his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home, but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenét walked in slowly and went up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy Ramsey.†Not only was she awake, but P. Ramsey followed her up the stairs. So again, no sleeping JonBenét!

    Funny, although Burke declares his sister carrying presents into the house of a friend, in their book J. Ramsey claims it was Burke who carried a present, guess where? Right the first time, of course at the Stines house. The same Stines they moved in with in Boulder after the murder, and the same Stines that moved with them to Atlanta later on. The same Stine who committed a felony by impersonating a police officer (Beckner) via e-mail.

    Finally, we reach the end of the chapter, P. Ramsey was already in bed, and J. Ramsey joined, taking a melatonin to sleep good and of course to set things straight in his twisted way he now states he read a bit before turning out the light. After all you need some excuse for the reading the bedtime story to both children, in order to give the impression that both officers totally misunderstood the poor guy.
     
  6. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 2

    Chapter 2

    Chapter II starts reasonably, yet after only a few lines, yes we already have a quite remarkable fact that somehow doesn’t seem to fit. Here we find the following: “Take a shower, get dressed, get going. I swing out of bed and abruptly remember that my shower is still broken. Don’t need one this morning.†Again, a totally insignificant remark. A detail that most likely any parent whose child was murdered would forget, or at least, not think of first.

    However, there is more. You see in Chapter 1, on the first page, J. Ramsey states: “Patsy got up and moved towards her bathroom at the other end of the master suite.†Doesn’t make you wonder why she went into her bathroom? If we may believe them, the shower was broken. Now don’t tell, me P. Ramsey never leave the house without makeup, however, P. Ramsey does not shower for two days? A little bit unhygienic. Now don’t tell me P. Ramsey went to put on makeup, because one normally washes before putting on makeup! Therefore, that cannot be it. Or, was the shower, on the 25th of December, still in perfect working condition? Just a question?

    Then it goes on as follows: “Just put my clothes on. And of course, my makeup†a little further it continues with, “I reach for my clothes and start dressing. Minutes later I hurry down the back stairs.†No mentioning of putting on makeup anymore. Only the sentence: “Minutes later I hurry down the back stairs.†Now ask yourself, getting dressed and putting on makeup in just a few minutes, which woman can do that? Can you? I certainly cannot. Doesn’t this all sound at least a little suspicious? In addition, there is no indication, or even the slightest remark, on washing up. Washing? No, that isn’t so important, as long as you have your makeup on. Doesn’t that make you think of the foreign DNA? Now, here we have a good reason for foreign DNA to show up--hygiene did not exactly run in the family.

    The next stupid mistake starts at the bottom of the same page. “I hurried down the spiral staircase to the bottom floor and stop. What is this? I wonder. I turn around to look at the three pieces of paper on a step near the bottom. I bent over.†Now doesn’t this give you the impression that she descended that staircase completely? It is in the words, “to the bottom floor and stop.†Anyhow, you should try it sometime, to stop on the steps of a spiral staircase, turn around, and bend over to read something that is on the steps below you. Bet you, you can’t!

    Next, she says, “Must be a note from the cleaning lady, Linda†Sure of course, Mrs. L. Hoffman-Pugh drove over to the house in the middle of the night to put a three-page note on the bottom of the staircase. As we know, it wasn’t there the evening before, when she went up that staircase. Further, would Mrs. Hoffman-Pugh have needed at three-piece note to remind her employer about a loan of $2.500? Isn’t it more likely that Mrs. Hoffman-Pugh would have left that note at a more appropriate place--like on the kitchen counter or table? Again, I only have one word for this statement: RIDICULOUS.

    In their book P. Ramsey writes "I race back up the stair and stumble towards JonBenét's bedroom, pushing the door wide open. The bed is empty! John Help! I scream JonBenét is gone. He meets me wearing only his underwear. There is a note downstairs." However, there are some problems with this statement, as there seem several version of discovering JonBenét gone, and the finding and handling of the ransom note.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2005
  7. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 2 part 2

    In Steve Thomas’ book is written on page 24: “She originally told officer French that she checked the bedroom before finding the note on the stairs, but she later told Arndt that she had gone downstairs and found the note first and only then hurried to the bedroom and found JonBenét missing.†These are clearly contradicting statements. Guess she decided to use the second statement, the one made to Arndt, for the book. However, she never states that she took the note upstairs.

    Later J. Ramsey declared on video tape made by the Boulder authorities that on the morning of December 26, 1996, that he, J. Ramsey, had been in the upstairs in his bathroom, when he heard P. Ramsey scream. He hurried downstairs, while she was coming up and she handed him the ransom note on the second floor landing. At about on the same time (and on video tape made by the Boulder authorities) P. Ramsey claimed she did not pick up the note. Oops, I think we definitely have a contradiction here. Can one or rather both of you, please tell me who is telling the truth here?

    On page 11, P. Ramsey writes the following "J-o-n-nn! John-n-n-n!" I scream, "JonBenét's gone" He meets me etc... John tears down the stairs; he seems to be shouting, but nothing makes sense. "Burke!" John yells. "What about Burke?" Remember, this happened on the floor where Burke is sleeping, J. Ramsey is one floor higher, yet he reacts to the screaming of P. Ramsey and Burke, who is on the same floor, sleeps though all the screaming and yelling. Pay attention to the following sentence “Both of us race to Burke's room at the far end of the second floor and find him apparently still asleep.â€

    The word apparently tells it all. Burke stated during an interview that he pretended to be asleep. The following is part of his videotaped statement, he made in June 1998, at the age of eleven. He heard the "house creaking" during the night, he said, and when he awoke, his mother was turning on the lights and in a rush, saying "Oh my gosh, oh my gosh" then his father turned the lights off again. Burke stayed in bed "wondering if something bad had happened." He heard his father trying to calm his mother, then telling her to call the police. Burke told the detective he did not get out of bed that morning and that a police officer looked into his room. When analyzing this, Burke’s statement does not make sense. First, about hearing the "house creaking" during the night. Either he was awakened by something during the night or he was well instructed. Then, he goes on to state, that, when he awoke, his mother was turning on the lights, while saying "oh my gosh, oh my gosh." That doesn't sound very convincing to me. After discovering her daughter has been kidnapped, the mother can only think to say, "Oh my gosh"?

    Think about this. The father is trying to calm the mother and he tells her to call the police? Why didn't he call the police himself, if the mother was obvious in distress and needed to be calmed down? Also, the fact that a child would think something bad has happened by hearing his mother say "Oh my gosh" doesn't sound convincing to me. That a nine years old would stay in bed, when he thought something bad had happened, is, to say at least, strange. Wouldn't such a young child, at such a moment of stress, seek the safety of his parent’s arms? It just does not add up.

    On the following page, under the text of the ransom note, is an even more ridiculous statement, used as an excuse for calling the White family and the Fernies’. “Standing next to the wall phone, I instantly dial 911, and try to make the voice on the other end of the line understand. It is as if she doesn’t believe what I am saying.†After that follows, a lot of nonsense about getting help, therefore, calling the White family and the Fernies.
     
  8. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 2 part 3

    Now, let us have a look at the transcript of the 911 call, made on the morning of the 26th:

    P. Ramsey: “(inaudible) police.â€
    Police dispatcher: “(inaudible)â€
    R. Pamsey: 755 Fifteenth Street.â€
    Police dispatcher: “What is going on there ma’am?â€
    P. Ramsey: “We have a kidnapping…Hurry, please.â€
    Police dispatcher: “Explain to me what is going on, ok?â€
    P. Ramsey: “We have a…There’s a note left and our daughter is gone.â€
    Police dispatcher: “A note was left and your daughter is gone?â€
    P. Ramsey: “Yesâ€
    Police dispatcher: “How old is your daughter?â€
    P. Ramsey: “She is six years old…she is blond…six years old.â€
    Police dispatcher: “How long ago was this?â€
    P. Ramsey: “I don’t know. Just found the note and my daughter’s (inaudible).â€
    Police dispatcher: “Does it say who took her?â€
    P. Ramsey: “What?â€
    Police dispatcher: “Does it say who took her?â€
    P. Ramsey: “No….I don’t know it’s there…there’s a ransom note hereâ€
    Police dispatcher: “It’s a ransom note.â€
    P. Ramsey: “It says STBC Victory….Please.â€
    Police dispatcher: “OK, what is your name? Are you...â€
    P. Ramsey: “Patsy Ramsey. I’m the mother. Oh my God, please…â€
    Police dispatcher: “I’m…OK, I’m sending an officer over, OK?â€
    P. Ramsey: “Please.â€
    Police dispatcher: “Do you know how long she’s been gone?â€
    P. Ramsey: “No, I don’t. Please, we just got up and she’s not there. Oh my God, Please.â€
    Police dispatcher: “OK.â€
    P. Ramsey: “Please send somebody.â€
    Police dispatcher: “I am, honey.â€
    P. Ramsey: “Please.â€
    Police dispatcher: “Take a deep breath (inaudible).â€
    P. Ramsey: “Hurry, hurry, hurry (inaudible).â€
    Police dispatcher: “Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?â€

    Now, does it sound to you like the voice on the other end of the line, the police dispatcher, doesn’t understand her? She is saying twice, that she is sending someone over, an officer. Now to me, that sounds like she [police dispatcher] understood exactly what was going on. There's no doubt in my mind. Is there in yours? Oh, I can already hear it coming! They are going to say: 'Yes, but P. Ramsey was in a panic and didn’t understand that the police dispatcher understood her.' Well, for someone who was in a panic and did not understand the police dispatcher, she [P. Ramsey] gave some answers, which indicated that she understood the dispatcher very well. When asked for age, she didn’t only give JonBenét’s age, but also her hair color. In addition, she clearly stated when asked, who signed the ransom note. Also, most of the other questions are answered correctly. So, no doubt about it--she understood all too well what the police dispatcher was saying. Don’t you think so too?
     
  9. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 2 part 4

    What is even odder is the fact that the ransom note was clear on the point of contacting anyone! They were even forbidden to talk to a stray dog, although I don’t think a stray dog would have been able to inform the police or FBI. Still the fact remains that P. Ramsey not only calls the police, however she also invites over a couple of friends (4 persons) at the same time. Calling the 911 sounds normal to me, but taking risks of having your daughter beheaded just to have some kind of gathering of friends? Doesn’t seem she takes the ransom note serious. Or, were they invited for some other and more obscure reason? Witnesses, others who have to find, but fail to find, the body, and not to forget contamination of the crime scene?
    After finally arriving already at page 13, it is apparent that J. Ramsey takes over the writing from here. Well, I can already tell you he isn’t doing such a great job either. After two sentences, he's already slipping-up, and it's even a double slip-up. After declaring he had been running around in underwear and going upstairs to dress, he's on his way back down! Yes, a big double slip-up. He writes, “I stop in JonBenét’s bedroom and look under the bed to make sure she isn’t there.†The first part of the slip up is obvious--do you expect to find your kidnapped child hiding under her bed? You have a ransom note, so you are not taking that seriously? Even if by any remote chance the child would have been able to hide from the kidnapper, wouldn’t she have sought the immediate safety of the parents upon hearing them? According to J. Ramsey, this happening took place upon the arrival of Officer R. French at their house.

    Let us go to Steve Thomas’s book, where we find the following quote on page 19: “Reichenbach and John Ramsey went to the second floor to look into the missing child’s bedroom.†Moreover, halfway down the same page he writes: “The father lifted the dust ruffle to peer beneath his daughter's bed and was told not to touch anything else.†We all know that Sergeant Reichenbach arrived at the house after officer R. French had been shown the ransom note, and had already talked to the parents. So, what is going on here now? Are we to believe here, that J. Ramsey, after already having verified himself that JonBenét wasn’t under her bed, looked under the bed for a second time? If he already knew she wasn’t there, then what is the reason for repeating this ceremony in front of Sergeant Reichenbach? What reason? Something like--contaminating the crime scene even more?

    Back to DOI, at the bottom of the same page is the second blunder. Here he states the following: “I meet Patsy and Officer Rick French in the hallway near the front door. I tell him my daughter has been kidnapped. The uniformed officer walks us in and asks us to repeat our problem. He keeps asking questions, and seems to grasp the situation quickly. He insists we move into the corner sunroom.â€

    However, in Steve Thomas’s book at page 16, Officer R. French has given a total different police report statement, as follows here: “He noted that although it was still before dawn her hair was already done and her makeup was in place. They were joined at the door by a man in a long-sleeved blue-and-white-stripped shirt and khaki slacks. Patsy and John Ramsey told the officer that their daughter, JonBenét, was missing and their nine-year-old son was asleep upstairs. They escorted Officer French though a foyer and kitchen area to a back hallway, where pieces of legal white paper covered with blocky handwriting were spread out on the wooden floor.â€

    We can be absolutely sure that the events that took place, as described in Steve Thomas’s book, are the correct ones, since there will be a police report statement from Officer R. French that will confirm it. And, if we were to believe J. Ramsey, Officer French knew his way around the house very well. So well, that he insisted they should move to the corner sunroom.

    However, there are even two more lies in that statement by J. Ramsey. The first is that in the book he states that the uniformed officer seems to gasp the situation quickly. That brings us back to the Larry King Live show aired on March 27, 2000. Take notice that this interview is after the book was already written. J. Ramsey states the following about Officer French: “They - a uniformed officer arrived relatively quickly, and I said - I handed him the note. I said; ‘my daughter‘s been taken.’ He said: ‘Gee, don’t you think she just ran away.’†Now, it is no longer Officer French who seems to grasp the situation quickly. Now, he is suddenly handed over the ransom note--can you still follow it? Talk about lying to get attention and saying 'look how pitiful we are'. Thereby showing us once again how deceitful they are, and cannot be trusted in any way.
     
  10. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 2 part 5

    The following mistake is one page further, which was also handled and proven a lie in the statement of Officer French [in Steve Thomas’s book as already quoted above]. Here J. Ramsey writes: “Another officer, Officer Veight, I believe, comes in after he moves the squad car to the next block. He is shown the ransom note.†Did you notice there is no mentioning of Officer French being shown the ransom note? Yet, it is stated that another officer that came in was shown the ransom note, thereby implying it was not shown to Officer French. This while Officer French stated he was led immediately to the back hallway and shown the note that was there on the floor. Moreover, on the Larry King Live show, J. Ramsey even dares to state that he handed over the ransom note to Officer French.

    Then we get the perfect 'good parent' remark that all friends had arrived, including Father Hoverstock, “I remember Burke, asleep in his room.†Although Ramsey is declaring that Father Hoverstock had arrived before the victim advocates, it is known through police reports that it was the other way around. Also, these police reports and most likely also the reports made by the victim advocates, state that they [the victim advocates] had already arrived by 6:45 A.M., and Father Hovenstock had arrived after 6:45 A.M. Implying therefore that he, 'the perfect father', J. Ramsey, just happened to have forgotten his son, while his daughter was “kidnappedâ€, for at least 45 minutes. Can you imagine forgetting the safety of your other child? Wouldn’t that be your first concern, getting the other child to safety? But no, perfect J. Ramsey forgets for 45 minutes that he also has a son, as the last person to whom his son was mentioned, was Officer French when he came in the morning before 6:00 A.M.

    And what does this perfect Ramsey decide, after the fact that he finally realized he also had a son still upstairs? He makes sure that this child is being transported, away from his parents. And more importantly, away from the safety of the police's presence, to an unsafe place. Does that make any sense to you?

    Following that decision, J. Ramsey writes on page 14: “I wake Burke up and as gentle as possible tell him that JonBenét is missing and he is going to his friend Fleet’s house for a while. Burke looks distressed and begins to cry, so I know he understands the gravity of our predicament. I help him get dressed, and momentarily he and Fleet are leaving the house, Burke carrying his new Nintendo 64 game under his arm.†First of all, he didn’t have to wake up Burke, as Burke stated later to the police that he had already been awake earlier that morning. The enhanced 911-call tape confirms his [Burke's] statement. Although gently told that his sister is missing, [which could also mean she ran off or was hiding somewhere, as I do not think a 9 year old child immediately thinks of a kidnapping], he [Burke] looks distressed and starts crying? Did Burke know more--to understand the gravity of the situation? Did Burke hear or see anything? If so, what? Officer French didn’t report a distressed and crying Burke, when he tried to ask the child some questions, before he left the house. Apparently Burke is not so distressed and crying that it prevents him from taking his new Nintendo 64 game with him. Strange situation--to say at least!

    J. Ramsey goes on, with another stupid remark on the top of the following page: “I suddenly remember our large walk-in refrigerator, could JonBenét have been put inside, trapped there?†Now, is he honestly trying to make us believe a kidnapper would be so stupid to leave the “kidnapped†child in the house, risking that the child would be found either dead or alive--meaning he wouldn’t get the money he is after? Please, give us a break! Just thinking however it could be a very useful tip for the police (determination of time of death for instance)!

    Near the end of the chapter is, to some extent, a comical statement made by J. Ramsey, concerning his concern that the BPD arrived at the house with normal squad cars. The statement goes as follows: “More squad cars are move away from the front of the house to locations down the block. We don’t want the kidnapper to think we have called the police, since he said he was watching the house. Yet the police officers do not seem to be using much discretion: the cars are marked, the police are wearing uniforms.†To some extend he is right, police should have come to the house in unmarked cars and should not have been in uniform. However, this statement comes from a guy who for whom it was too tough to call 911, and instead let his ‘distressed’ wife make the call. If he himself had called, he would have been able to state that note mentioned that the “kidnappers†were watching the house. Moreover, this is coming from a guy that lets his wife invite over five persons, while the note said no contact with anyone. Remember the stray dog? Guess the Ramsey’s were not using much discretion either.

    On to the next and last error we will address in this chapter. He, J. Ramsey now writes about how he concludes that if the kidnappers are watching the house, he might catch them watching the house. Therefore, he goes upstairs to the second floor, takes his binoculars, and spots a ‘strange vehicle’ in the alley behind the house of the Barnhill family, who live across the street. According to him: “After several minutes of watching the vehicle, nothing happens, so I finally go back downstairs.†It makes you wonder what should have happened, or better, what did he [J. Ramsey] expect would happen? It apparently took him several minutes to find out. Exactly what does he think should have happened? And what is making him so sure that it is safe after watching the ‘strange vehicle’ for several minutes, so that it doesn’t seem to worry him anymore? In addition, he does not even feel it is important enough to inform the police about the ‘strange vehicle.’ According to him, this took place after Detective Arndt arrived at the house, and she never mentioned that she lost sight of him twice. Please explain, then, how on earth he could have gone upstairs at that time? It just doesn’t fit.
     
  11. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 3

    Chapter 3

    While I started to read Chapter 3, my mouth fell open after just reading three complete sentences, plus some loose words. I just could not believe what I just had read! I even wondered whether I had read it correctly. In fact, I read the sentence again to make sure that I understood what was actually written there. However, there was no doubt possible--I had been reading it perfectly correct. Yes, the sentence read, “Patsy spends most of the morning in the sunroom, praying and clutching a cross that was part of our Christmas decorations.†A cross used as part of Christmas decorations? Excuse me! Are they sure they are Christians? To me, a born and raised Catholic, a cross is not a Christmas decoration, a manger is. A crib represents the birth of Christ, a cross his death. Since Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ, a cross most certainly not a part of Christmas decorations. It wouldn’t even enter my mind to use a cross as a specific Christmas decoration. I think most, if not all, Christians would agree with me on this. So why did these "good Christian" Ramseys feel the need to use it as such a specific decoration? Makes me wonder, are they such "good Christians,†or was there another, more sinister reason, for using the cross as a Christmas decoration?

    On the first page and the second page, J. Ramsey is trying to convince everyone he is not consciously registering everything. Remarks as, “Things come into my awareness and disappear randomly. In and out. Confusion. Noise†DOI page 17 and on page 18 “Everything seems scrambled and chaotic.†However the description given by detective Arndt is, well let us say, a somewhat different J. Ramsey. “Ramsey seemed distracted, but his manner remained cordial, and she felt he understood her. While Ramsey’s language was clear and articulate, and he even smiled and joked,........†Okay, here is the situation, your daughter has been kidnapped, and you are smiling and joking? Get real, joke right!

    On page 18, J. Ramsey writes, “I see some new mail lying on the floor of the foyer floor, beneath the mail slot by our front door. I think if the kidnapper is going to communicate with me, maybe there is a note from him in this pile. I sort carefully through the letters. Nothing.†This shows he is not taking the ransom note extremely serious--if he is taking it serious at all. The ransom note clearly stated that it concerned more than one kidnapper, and it also stated how communications would take place, which was via the phone between 8 and 10 a.m. However, detective Arndt sees the event in quite a different light, as we can read in Steve Thomas' book on page 26, “Detective Arndt couldn’t account for John Ramsey until noon. She found him reading some correspondence.†and “Ramsey had been out of contact for over an hour.†This is why Arndt's statements are so important. Reading correspondence is not the same as sorting carefully through the letters. Besides, it must have been one hell of a pile of letters to take more than an hour to sort through them. The fact remains that Arndt caught him reading, not sorting, and that just shows exactly how cold, cool he was. Would you go and read your correspondence if your child was kidnapped?

    One of the first victims they tried to pin the “kidnap†[murder] on, are Jeff Merrick, and L. Hoffmann-Pugh. Ridiculous of course, as far as Mr. Merrick is concerned in Steve Thomas’s book you can read how he was fired by Access Graphic in kind of a shady way, of course his ‘old pal’ Ramsey did nothing to stop it. Mr. Merrick appealed to Lockheed-Martin, the corporate owner of Access Graphic, which offered a settlement. That did not fall too well with Ramsey! Guess now Ramsey saw his chance to strike back at Mr. Merrick, it sure gives you an inside on what kind of person J. Ramsey really is. Mr. Merrick was cleared after months, however on page 77 of Steve Thomas’s book is an interesting passage concerning Mr. Merrick: “For months to come we crawled all over Merrick, who finally walked into the police department one Saturday morning to answer still more questions, against the advice of his attorney but wanting to settle things once and for all. ‘I am here, on a murder case, without a lawyer, talking to two detectives, having been pointed out by John Ramsey as a suspect,’ Merrick said to me. ‘Now where is John Ramsey?’†Yes where were you, J. Ramsey, nowhere near any police department I bet, but hiding behind his lawyers somewhere! The one who should have done what Mr. Merrick did is, even after all this time still doing the same thing, hiding behind lawyers.
     
  12. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 3 part 2

    The way L. Hoffmann-Pugh is accused is described in the DOI in a bizarre way. Actually, it is so contradicting that you will not need other books to see how ridiculous this accusation is. This is accusation is done by P. Ramsey, however J. Ramsey tries to throw in some weight too and thereby makes it almost laughable. On page 19 in DOI, he writes: “Patsy remembers that her mother, Nedra Paugh, had said that Linda had remarked to her at one time, ‘JonBenét is so pretty, aren’t you afraid someone might kidnap her.†Is that how they came up with the terrorist kidnap idea? Ramsey continues by writing: “Now those comments seem strangely menacing.†Oh, do they Ramsey? So, if I understand it all well, the kidnapper(s) in advance warns you of the act itself. Courteous kidnapper(s) I might say, only I do not think kidnapper like that do exist. Besides, she did not need your Christmas bonus of $ 118,000, just the loan of $ 2.500, which was already promised to her. On page 20, it goes further, J. Ramsey writes: “Patsy later tells me she was thinking, If it’s Linda, it’s okay, because she is a good, sweet person. She is just upset. She may need the money, but she won’t hurt JonBenét.†So here we have a good, sweet person committing a hideous crime, kidnap to me is a hideous crime, murder even worse. Why would she be upset anyhow, she was promised the money already as a loan. In addition, yes, she did need money, $ 2,500 only, not exactly J. Ramsey’s Christmas bonus! The mentioning of the possibility that JonBenét might be kidnapped was menacing [meaning, scary, ominous, alarming, threatening], but the thought that she if she had done it was okay? Right that makes complete sense!

    After this follows the pathetic statement about checking out the basement. Yes, he checked out the basement, as he suddenly remembered the broken window in the basement. He goes to the basement as he suddenly thinks that is the way the kidnapper(s) got in and out of the house. Except, he conveniently forgets to report this information to the police that are present in the house. Guess he wasn’t so worried after all about that broken window, or he would have at the least informed Law Enforcement Officers about this “possible†point of entry. Every normal concerned father of a kidnapped child would run to the police officers to inform them about such a “disturbing†discovery, but not J. Ramsey--hell no!

    The story continues with a lot of other nonsense, until we finally get to the point were he and Fleet White got to the basement together, near 1:00 p.m. In between, he feels the need to say that, “Fleet doesn’t mention to me that he had been down to the basement earlier that morning.†It makes it sound like some kind of strange accusation. After all, did J. Ramsey tell Fleet White (or anyone else), that he had been down there as well? No, he did not!

    Following the strange remark about Fleet White not having told J. Ramsey that he had been in the basement that morning, there is even a stranger remark, which concerns the broken window pain. It goes as follows: “We head downstairs, and I take Fleet over to the broken window pain and explain my breaking in there last summer. I tell him that I had found this window open earlier.†Now a few questions immediately pop up, like why was it so important to lead Fleet White instantaneously to the room with this broken window? After all as said before, he never mentioned it to anyone before. And, why explain his breaking in to the house via that particular window last summer? Again, this was also not mentioned to any Law Enforcement Officer, and now he suddenly feels the need to tell Fleet White about it. To me, this just proves that the whole open window statement was a complete farce. If it had been important--he would have reported it that morning to the authorities present.
     
  13. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 3 part 3

    Fleet White had already told J. Ramsey about the broken window, and apparently, it did not worry him one bit either. Most likely, because no one would be able to enter the house that way, since the window well was covered with a metal grate. Therefore, the broken window would have been obscured from sight. In addition, the window was closed and only unlatched. Another annoying factor is that J. Ramsey didn’t say anything about the suitcase that he had found placed under the window. Why? Fleet White could have easily debunked the fact that the suitcase was placed under the window, as he had moved it there early that morning, while looking for glass. Steve Thomas mentions on page 20: “White went downstairs. The lights were on, and shadows danced in the big basement. A small broken window in a large room where a model railroad was laid out caught his attention, and on the floor beneath the window he found a piece of glass, which he placed on the ledge. He dropped to his hands and knees, searching for other pieces of glass and moved a suitcase in doing so.â€

    When we come to the point of finding the body--lie after lie is made. It starts with J. Ramsey writing that he is unable to untie one of her hands, as the knot is too tightly bound around JonBenét´s wrist. However, the coroner describes in the autopsy report, that only one hand was tied. So how did the hand get free? In the book, J. Ramsey states twice, that both hands were tied tightly. A bit further, he writes: “Stumbling out of the room, I run to the stairs, carrying my still child.†Still child? Murdered child you mean!

    He goes on writing: “I run into the living room, where Linda Arndt is standing, and I lay JonBenét on the floor in front of the Christmas tree.†In front of the Christmas tree? Right! I just can’t get the point of this statement he makes here, since it is a complete lie. It is commonly known that this statement is totally incorrect and just a plain lie. Detective Arndt has quite a different recollection of how the events took place. As stated in Steve Thomas' book, on page 28: “John Ramsey emerged from the basement carrying the body of JonBenét, not cradled close but held away from him, his hands gripping her waist. The child’s head was above his, facing him, her arms raised high, stiffened by rigor mortis and her lips blue. The child was obviously dead. Arndt ordered Ramsey to put her body down near the front door.†This is the true story, so why lie? What is the point of changing the story? However, Arndt's story goes further: “Linda Arndt felt the body for a neck pulse, noticed the odor of decay, and chose to move the body into the living room herself. She lay the dead child on her back, on a rug before the Christmas tree.â€

    So J. Ramsey forgot where he had placed the child on the floor, near the front door as ordered by detective Arndt. Oh well it can happen to anyone right? Occasionally it happens that someone misplaces his or her dead child. So, Ramsey, what are you trying to prove here? Of course you are trying to stick to your story--the one about you not knowing the child was dead, the child who wasn’t breathing, whose eyes were closed, who’s cool to the touch, stiff with rigor mortis, and whose body is spreading an odor of decay. Still, you had to ask detective Arndt whether she was dead. Steve Thomas' book page 28: “The detective and the father were over the body face to face, and he asked if his daughter was alive.†You might fool the ignorant, but not me, nor any other human being with common sense! Normal parents do not disturb the crime scene, no matter how emotional they are. They do not go carrying a murdered child around, as they know how important it is to preserve evidence in order to solve the crime, so that the murderer can be caught and punished. They might want to hug their dead child, however, they do not go running around with the body. So why was it so necessary to disturb the crime scene Ramsey? Did you have to hide something, did you have to contaminate the body and the crime scene for some reason?

    In addition, to make sure the contamination continues; a lot of hugging, falling on the body, covering it with blankets, and sweaters takes place. You know you never can be certain enough. Of course, the top performance is the P. Ramsey Lazarus show: “Patsy is wailing: ‘Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Ask him to raise our daughter. Pray for JonBenét.’†This part of the book was written by the P. Ramsey, and what is wrong with it? Simple! When a Christian refers to God as 'him', they use the capital H, so it should have been: “Ask Him to raise our daughter.†In using the capital H in him, Christians show respect for God. In addition, as a Good Christian P. Ramsey should have known that you never ask back for what He has taken, as everything belongs to Him. All that is given to us is on a temporary basis, until He decides to claim it back. I can understand someone saying: “Oh God, please no, don’t let this be true.â€--as there is a period of disbelief/denial, a period in which it is hard to accept a death. Yet, P. Ramsey seems to skip that period of denial or disbelief. Could you immediately comprehend your daughter's death, murdered in your own home? Doesn’t that show that P. Ramsey already knew she was dead?
     
  14. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 3 part 4

    The next amazing phrase J. Ramsey utters is that he prefers to die, as his daughter is no longer there. This proves again, that his son Burke is not that important to him. Instead of going on for Burke’s sake and being there for the child that is left, J. Ramsey prefers to die. This is actually the second time he forgot about his son that morning. The first was when he did not even bother to check whether Burke was still safe in his bed.

    What also disturbed me was J. Ramsey’s description of P. Ramsey after the body was found. “I watch Patsy kneel down and curl up in a corner behind the China cabinet like a terrified child.†Hiding like a terrified child for what reason? There were no terrorists, there were no kidnappers, so why be terrified? I would have understood her being overcome with grief--but terrified, no! Terrified the BDP were on to them, that they knew they had murdered their own daughter.

    For someone who thinks he is so enormously clever, J. Ramsey sounds pretty stupid to me. This can be established from the quotes that follow:
    1. â€A person comes up to and says he’s detective Mason. I assume he is with the FBI.†Has anyone ever heard a FBI agent introduce himself as a detective? They call themselves agent, or special agent!

    2. “Later I will learn that Mason is another Boulder PD detective and that the police, in fact, have kept the FBI at bay, not letting them inside the house.†Strange isn’t it, that detective Larry Mason was with the Boulder Police Department; and guess who was with detective Mason? Special agent Ron Walker from the FBI Denver Field office. Agent Walker and detective Mason even went down to the basement, and into the cellar room, where JonBenét's body had been hidden. Therefore, J. Ramsey, you are lying again--per usual! And guess what Special Agent Ron Walker advised the Boulder Police Department? “Look at the parents. No ********, that is where you need to be.â€

    So instead of the BPD keeping at bay, not letting FBI into your house, Ramsey, THEY (the BPD) brought them into your house. After that, that same FBI warned the BPD that you and your wife were where they needed to be looking at. In other words, the FBI was also looking at this case as a domestic murder case, and not as a kidnapping, or any other dumb theory you have come up with! Surprise Ramseys! In the eyes of the FBI--you two are suspect’s number ONE!

    Just twenty minutes after the recovery of Jonbenét’s body, J. Ramsey is calling “his pilot†to get the plane ready for take off to Atlanta. He tries to pull this action off as him thinking his family wasn’t safe in Boulder, and had decided to leave for Atlanta. In the book, he claims the following conversation took place between him and yes, the not FBI, but Boulder PD detective Mason: “Detective Mason asks me what our plans are, and I tell him we will go to Atlanta. He says stay around for a few days and I agree.†Except, on page 34 of Steve Thomas' book, he tells a different story--the truth: “At the Ramsey house a detective overheard John Ramsey on the phone at 1:40 P.M. telling his pilot to get ready his plain for a flight to Atlanta. Ramsey was soon told to cancel that flight, but the police would consider the action suspicious.†And, to be even more honest, Fleet White is the one who cancelled the flight! Ramsey, you are just a pathetic liar!

    After this we get the story that detective Mason wanted to transport, the Ramsey’s to a nearby hotel, where they could be interviewed separately--which is vital to a murder investigation. J. Ramsey writes: “The police are taking over the home. We are told to leave.†Pay extra attention to the word 'home' he uses. While trying to explain the reason for leaving to Atlanta--Boulder, according to him, wasn’t really their 'home'. Just before being asked by LE to leave the house he states: “But where will we stay? I wonder. This house is a house of horrors.†Remember the word 'home' now--the last two example sentences do not strike me as if he is, or even ever was, considering the house in Boulder as a 'home'. He only uses the word 'home' when it serves his advantage!

    One last pathetic remark in this chapter is made concerning the signing of ‘the consent to search.’ J. Ramsey wants us to believe that he thought he had signed a document in which he gave permission for an autopsy. However, even the biggest idiot knows that LE will claim the body as evidence, and will automatically perform an autopsy if foul play is suspected. They do not need any authorization from parents. Does Ramsey really think everyone believes his ridiculous and dumb stories?
     
  15. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 4

    Chapter 4

    After reading the first page of chapter 4, it becomes obvious that Burke Ramsey is the forgotten child. He is left alone to deal with the death of his sister, and there is really no one who helps him to deal with the whole situation. Whereas, J. Ramsey (in previous chapters), was bragging about staying strong for his daughter, he apparently doesn’t feel the same for his son. Instead of being there for the boy, he is more interested in the bottle. The same goes for P. Ramsey--she is never there for the child. Even a month later, she shows her concern for him in stating: “I feel so bad. Why couldn’t I have been there for Burke to make sure he was dressed properly for the funeral?†Instead of worrying about the child feelings, she only cares how he looked in a public appearance. Whether Burke needed comfort and care isn’t even an issue. Again, Burke comes last! He only needed to be dressed properly for the “proper burial.†It instantly reminds me of the ransom note sentence: “You will also be denied a proper burial.â€

    Starting at the end of page 25 and the beginning of page 26 is again a perfect example of what Ramsey is like. To me the sentence that people thought he was too emotional was laughable, if still doesn’t perceive how people see him, I would like to remind him of his nick name “the iceman.†His ranting goes on and on “What should I have acted like? Had any of these people ever lost two children? Are there guidebooks about how to act after such a loss. Who are they to judge?†You want some answers Ramsey, they expected a father doing everything in his power to cooperate with law enforcement to catch the murderer of an innocent little child. Yeah, there were probably people out there who also lost children, or other loved ones, so don’t even start with that. No, but there is such a thing a psychology, which teaches us all human beings react in a similar way to specific distressful events.

    The next thing I notice is a statement by J. Ramsey, in which he refers to his conversation with detectives Arndt and Mason. It makes me think, 'oh boy, here you are--actually debunking your own story about how you talked to the BPD for two hours on the 27th. He, in fact, writes the following in his own book: “I do remember that detective Arndt and Mason came back and forth a number of times to talk to us.†He goes on with: “The police kept asking questions and we answered the best we could.†We? Who are we Ramsey? He tries to convince the readers here that both he and P. Ramsey were being questioned by the detectives. However, we do know from Steve Thomas' book that this is a lie--page 54: “When the detectives asked to speak to Patsy, Dr. Beuf said she was too medicated to talk to anyone tonight. The two police officers insisted that early interviews were imperative. Perhaps tomorrow morning? The pediatrician hedged, saying that Patsy’s emotional state was very fragile.†Yes, P. Ramsey’s doctor at that time was a pediatrician. I guess they didn’t have a personal doctor who could examine her, and maybe prescribe the right kind of medication.

    He continues with: “I had also questions for them, wanting to know how many police officers were working on the case. Where was the FBI? The police officers answers seem vague and undefined, but I was so distraught, I could barely communicate and found it hard to focus. I found my short term memory was impaired.†Well Ramsey, that happens if you look to deep in the glass--too much whisky I guess.

    Then a “good friend†named Rod Westmoreland arrived from Atlanta and took over the questioning of the police. J. Ramsey says: “He [Rod Westmoreland] started questioning the police, hammering away at what I wanted to know.†In describing that conversation, he refers to the police as detectives. And the whole description of the conversation between Westmoreland and the unnamed detective is pathetically written down. J. Ramsey is suggesting that the detective was immediately impressed by Westmoreland, and was suddenly acting like a fool. The detective in question was Mason, and we all know Mason attended an F.B.I course. How it is known that it was Mason who talked to Westmoreland is through simple deduction. Detective Arndt and Mason were the only ones present at that time, and since one of the statements made was, "Detective Arndt and I are here"; we can conclude that it was Mason who was doing the talking to Westmoreland.
     
  16. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 4 part 2

    To the question asked about the non-involvement of the FBI, Mason answered, “We only have to call them.†This is followed by a totally ridiculous question. “They are not really on the case yet?†Detective Mason responds to this correctly by saying: “They’re available whenever we call them.†But Ramsey wants to prove something. Per usual, he's actually not making any sense, as he states: “The morning of the 26th, I had been told that the FBI was on the way. Now I learned they weren’t even on the case.†The fact is, that the FBI was at the house on the 26th, and they were initially involved. Present at the house was a supervisory agent from the Denver FBI office. In Steve Thomas' book, you can read why they left Ramsey. On page 36 it's written: “A pair of Denver FBI agents wanted a word. Things had changed, they said, since the agency had first been notified that a federal crime, kidnapping, had been committed. ‘This is now a homicide,’ said one. ‘It’s local, so it’s not our case.’ Agent Ron Walker added, ‘Look at the parents. No ********, that’s were you need to be.’ They promised future FBI assistance and left. A third agent, from Boulder, stuck around to help.†The body was found in the house and it didn’t take the FBI long to establish that the ransom note was a hoax. It was now "a staged domestic homicide," at which point the FBI no longer had jurisdiction; and only stayed available for advice, testing of evidence, and profiling. So much for the FBI not being involved, Ramsey! Actually, that is all Ramsey wanted to know. Neither he, nor anyone else, ever asked any questions about the murder, the autopsy, or how JonBenét was killed. Guess they already knew all the answers!

    Now for the real story about the two hour interview! In Steve Thomas' book we can read that indeed on the 27th, meaning the day after the discovery of the murder, detectives Arndt and Mason were at the Fernie’s house to schedule the formal interviews. (I prefer to call them interrogations though.) But J. Ramsey didn’t want to talk about the schedules. In fact, J. Ramsey even refused to talk alone to the detectives--as on page 53 Steve Thomas writes: “Also present were his brother, Jeff Ramsey; Dr. Beuf, the pediatrician; Rod Westmoreland, Ramsey’s financial adviser from Atlanta—WHO INTRODUCED HIMSELF AS AN ATTORNEY; and the influential local Lawyer Mike Bymun, who had once worked for the DA’s office.†The conversation lasted only 40 minutes and during these 40 minutes, Ramsey was already hiding behind 4 persons, two of which were lawyers! So much for the 2 hours!

    Ramsey tries to fool the readers even further, by writing: “Detective Linda Arndt returned and wanted to see me again. She said they needed to ask Patsy and me more questions and asked us to come to the police station.†Taking into consideration that the detectives arrived at 9:30 P.M. at Fernie's house, and if we may or want to believe J. Ramsey's word--the conversation (on the whole), lasted 2 hours. So that would bring the time of the detectives leaving at 11:30 P.M. But since the two hours is a Ramsey lie, the time would have been 9:30 P.M., plus 40 minutes, bringing it to 10:10 P.M. So do you actually believe the detectives asked them to come to the police station that evening, whether it was as Ramsey claims 11:30 P.M., or at the correct time of 10:10 P.M.? By the way Ramsey, Hunter provided you with copies of the police reports, so you know undoubtedly that 10:10 P.M. was the correct time! Next time, before you lie, at least do your homework. The fact is, that the detectives were there to schedule formal interviews. I hope you are not that stupid that I have to explain to you what 'scheduling' means. And you know what? If my child was murdered, and I had nothing to do with it; I would be sitting at the police station day and night. I wouldn’t need a lawyer--just detectives who would be willing to find my child’s murderer--and I never would give up!

    If it wasn’t for the murder of a helpless 6 year-old child, the next paragraph J. Ramsey writes is almost comical! First he is praising the police and being grateful that they are under police protection. Then he starts complaining about the police, making notes in relation to them. Here, a few questions pop up again. How did they know the police were making notes on THEM? Did someone tell them? Did one of the officers tell them or show them the notes? Or, is he just, as usual, being pompous and assuming this? Right after this he starts complaining about the “horde†of reporters walking outside and states: “Patsy and I were terrified for our safety. We had no idea why this hideous crime had been committed.†And now he’s happy again, for the fact that they are under police protection. The man doesn’t seem to be able to make up his mind here.

    He's happy with the police protection because outside, on the streets, there was a murderer lurking, ready to strike the Ramsey’s again. This, while on the outside there were hordes of reporters walking around. This vicious murderer would walk right through this horde of reporters, knock on the door and ask: “Would you mind letting me in, I have come to murder the rest of the Ramsey’s? I forgot that last time I was in their home. Do you perhaps have some rope for me, as I seem to have forgotten to bring everything I need for the murders with me? I am so forgetful lately! Last time I also forgot to bring everything with me--even the ransom note.â€

    And last, but certainly not least, there are some ridiculous statements about retaining attorneys; and how bad it was of the BPD to consider them as possible suspects in the homicide of their daughter. Let's start with the attorney story, and the 'why' of retaining them. But remember--during the 40 minute conversation with detectives Arndt and Mason, he already had two attorneys present--which is what makes the premise even more ridiculous.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2005
  17. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 4 part 3

    The first reason given for retaining attorneys was that Gary Merriman, one of the directors of Access Graphics, had received a call from SOMEONE INSIDE THE SYSTEM--someone who shouldn’t have leaked important information to possible suspects--but apparently did anyhow. That "inside the system informer" told Merriman to tell the Ramseys to hire the best CRIMINAL DEFENSE attorney. Why, is beyond comprehension, as no reason was given. The second reason was because M. Bynum told him to. Again, no real reason was given, but Ramsey starts speculating that they are suspects. Now, even if you were considered a suspect in your daughter’s murder, wouldn’t you do anything to make those detectives understand you had nothing to do with it? Again, wouldn’t you be sitting in the police station day and night demanding them to find your child’s murderer? But no, the Ramseys had no interest in talking to the BPD--in fact they did their best to avoid them. Makes you wonder doesn’t it? To me-- that is a sign of guilt.

    At the end of the paragraph, J. Ramsey writes: “Any suspicion of us simply didn’t make sense. I wondered how these detectives could think, we could possibly have done this.†Now, where shall be begin with giving the reasons that the detectives had valid reasons to see you Ramseys as suspects number one. Let’s just make a little list to begin with:

    * The body was found inside your own house, in a basement that was a maze, and all windows and doors were closed.
    * One of the murder weapons consisted, among other things, of your wife’s paintbrush.
    * The ransom note found was an obvious hoax, also named the letters under the ransom notes.
    * The ransom note was written on paper from a notebook belonging to P. Ramsey, your own felt-tip pen was used. Meaning it was written inside your home.
    * Although the ransom note said if you were to talk to 'as much as a stray dog' your daughter would be beheaded; besides LE, you invited 5 personal friends to your house that morning. This proves that you didn’t take the ransom note seriously from the beginning.
    * There were no fingerprints on the ransom note, even though you Ramseys claimed to have run all through the house with it. The one partial print that was found on the note was of the lab examiner who handled the note.
    * Failing to mention to LE, that you had been in the basement and found the “so-called†open basement window. Remember? The one YOU claimed to have broken to get into the house.
    * Lawyering-up from day one. Each having their own lawyer, in case things went wrong.
    * Refusing to cooperate or even talk with the BPD, without your precious lawyers present.
    * Telling detectives lies and inconsistencies--in other words, you couldn’t get your stories straight.
    * Both you Ramseys were not willing to take an FBI polygraph.
    * Trying to leave the state less then forty minutes after the body of your daughter’s body was found.

    And that is just for starters! So, to me, it seems quite normal that the BPD put you Ramseys on top of their list of suspects. These are not the actions of innocent people--but of people who have something to hide.

    The next paragraph starts as follows: “Mike later learned a distressing bit of information that he choose to keep from me. Pete Hoffstrom of the district attorney’s office had informed Mike that the police were refusing to release JonBenét’s body for burial in Atlanta unless we submitted to a police interrogation, under their terms.†This confirms Steve Thomas' accusations that the DA’s office was indeed leaking information to possible suspects, and even false information. Now let’s tell the true story!

    On page 51 of Steve Thomas' book, the following is written: “By midafternoon, after studying the autopsy results, Eller still had unanswered questions about the body. What about the massive skull fracture? What and where was the murder weapon? What about the vaginal trauma? Lots of points needed to be covered. Chief Koby pointed out to him that the body itself had become evidence and to release it at this point could affect the investigation. Eller and the coroner agreed.†Except, Ramsey had already called the DA’s office asking about the burial; and, s a matter of fact, he had already made arrangements for the burial to take place on the 31st in Atlanta. Those arrangements were made on the 27th, one day after the discovery of the body and he had informed detective Arndt and Mason about it on that same day. So you see, the Ramseys were a bit in a hurry to get rid of the evidence. After that Hoffstrom, apparently oblivious of the importance of the body as evidence, started the screaming about ransoming the body. Maybe Ramsey or at least Hoffstrom should have read Vernon J. Geberth's book: “PRACTICAL HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, Tactics, Procedures and Forensic Techniques" in which he writes the following: "Release of the body. This decision is critical." and "It is important to note that an autopsy must be complete if is to be accurate. The basic principle of homicide investigation is 'doing it right the first time; you only get one chance.' Theoretically the body can be exhumed for further investigation. However, exhumation is costly and usually unnecessary if the examination was complete the first time." Examining and performing more tests on the body would most likely have given additional information, for one, the stun gun theory would have been blown out of the water immediately. Also other expert pathologists could have been called in to examine the body and get a more information from it. But then again, the Ramseys were not that interested in finding additional evidence; they were in a hurry to bury the evidence--in another state even! You just have to wonder--why? It also implies that they were not even interested in finding their daughter’s murderer(s), but then again they probably already knew who that was.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2005
  18. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 4 part 4

    There is also a ranting about the police questioning Burke at the White's house. According to Ramsey, Burke was quite extensively interrogated on the morning of December 26, 1996, at the White's house. Sure, the police intensely interrogated a 9-year-old child, as if they were dealing with a merciless criminal! Give me a break! All they did was ask the boy some questions as a possible witness to the crime committed. Would you have minded if you had nothing to hide, that the police asked your child whether he had heard or maybe seen something out of the ordinary? I wouldn’t have minded if it were done professionally! And believe me, the police have enough experience to work with minors. To me it looks you more worried about something else?

    Then he starts blaming Commander Eller for keeping the FBI out, something that is already established above as being untrue. The FBI no longer had jurisdiction over this case--as it was a “staged domestic homicide.†But Ramsey never learns, or is too arrogant and thinks the FBI will jump through hoops just for them. Sorry to tell you, but they won’t, as you are not that important to them. He also accuses Eller of not accepting extra help. Now look who’s talking! A father whose child is murdered and who refuses to cooperate with LE in any form, buries the evidence as soon as possible, and doesn’t even want to talk to LE. No, they were in no condition to talk to the police, however they didn’t seem to have a problem to give an exclusive interview to CNN. So what is more important? Seeing your pitiful self on national television; or talking to and working together with LE in order to try to catch the murderer of your daughter? Ah, of course we already know the answer to that question.

    The last paragraph of chapter 4 again starts with the 'not remembering thing', and being numb. I wonder how many times they had to repeat that in order to convince the reader of the book, (or are they trying to convince themselves)? See, a lot of parents go through the same thing Ramsey, when a child of theirs is murdered! However, they usually cooperate with the police and do everything possible to convince the police they can be ruled out as suspects. In that way the police can fully concentrate on other possible suspects. That means those parents do not waste the valuable time of the police by playing hide and seek!

    It gets to the point where it gets so pathetically stupid, when they are talking about their trip to Atlanta. They start with the obtaining “a few things†from the house (which they needed for their trip to Atlanta). It is decided that P. Ramsey’s younger sister gets the task of obtaining those “few things.†We then get a list of the “few things†they needed so badly from the crime scene. The police cataloged the items removed from the house. On page 57 of Steve Thomas' book, you can read the following: “Everett kept only a general inventory of what was removed, and even that abbreviated list was astonishing. Stuffed animals, tiaras, three dresses for Jonbenét, pageant photo portfolios, toys and clothes for Burke, John Ramsey’s Daytimer, the desk bible, and clothing. For Patsy, there were black pants, dress suits, boots, and the contents of a curio cabinet. Bills, credit cards, a black cashmere coat, jewelry that included her grandmother’s ring and an emerald necklace, bathrobes, a cell phone, personal papers, bank records, Christmas stockings, her Nordstrom’s credit card, and even their passports! The patrol car was loaded with zipped bags, boxes, sacks and luggage, the true contents unknown.†DOI fills in some additional items like; the contents of the curio cabinet consisted of, both children’s first shoes, the Christening gowns of both children, baby teeth, JonBenét’s first baby locks, Patsy’s baby shoes, and J. Ramsey’s baby rattler. Additionally taken were, the My Twin Doll, pictures of both children kept on the sink of P. Ramsey’s bathroom, and from JonBenét’s room a golden pageant medallion she had won. We can also read in Steve Thomas' book that the two golf bags J. Ramsey had asked for, were also missing as of that day, and they were not in the possession of the police--for sure. So, those golf bags can safely be added to the list of “the few things they needed†from the house. Just a question, do all these items strike you as what they needed for their trip to Atlanta? By the way Ramsey, were you planning to golf in Atlanta, maybe after the funeral? Or was there another more sinister reason you were so keen on getting those golf bags out of the house?

    Lastly, I would like to add that it is absolutely outrageous that anything was taken out of that house! It was a crime scene, and nothing should have been disturbed, let alone taken out!
     
  19. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 5

    Chapter 5

    Here we go again! Chapter 5 starts, of course with: “John and I spent three days at the Fernie's, but I remember little of what happened.†The only problem with this statement is that the rest of the paragraph is contradicting it. For someone who remembers little about what happened, P. Ramsey sure talks about many events that took place. At one point, she claims that she became so disabled that someone had to feed her, actually holding the spoon to her mouth. Yeah, sure of course everyone buys that story, come on, isn't this a little too dramatic? Are you trying to tell us that every mother that loses a child, murdered or not, has to be spoon-fed? On the other hand, is this just a way for P. Ramsey to get pity and attention….or is there perhaps another reason? She also knew about the three dresses for JonBenét brought to her by her sister, and how she picked out the white chiffon dress for JonBenét. With that, she does not only prove she was capable of acting, but also of choosing, plus mentioning (therefore remembering) the fabric of the dress. In the Foreword it is said that the book is based on their own recollections, you might wonder just how much of all that is written down is purely show.

    Following the principal nonsense of this paragraph, is a very ridiculous statement, or more to it than actually meets the eye. The statement goes like this: “On December 28, a department store in Denver sent some clothing to the Fernie's, so I could pick out something to wear at the funeral, since all our clothes were still in the house.†This is absolutely a lie! Her sister empties half the crime scene on the morning of the 28th; and according to the police report, among those items were: “For P. Ramsey black pants, dress suits, boots.†Proof again of their constant lying and manipulating. It makes you wonder; if she did not need those clothes for the funeral, then why was it important to get them out of the house--the crime scene! By buying new clothes for the funeral, it shows they were taken out of the house for another purpose.

    The “lovely†story about her veil also doesn’t impress me one bit. Why not? “Overshadowing your face and closing out the world.†Simply, it can serve two ways--one as a covering and protecting yourself from the world, or, is it hiding your true feelings (among other things) from the world--facial expressions, such as faked grief, faked crying, faking being overwhelmed, lying, or even a guilty conscience. A normal person does not need to hide grief and tears from the world at a funeral, it is the most natural reaction one can have. No one will take it as strange; but then again, the drama queen needed extra attention.

    We now come to the Memorial Service held on December 29, in Boulder’s St. John’s Episcopal Church. Father Rol says: “Welcome to JonBenét’s Church,†which sounds somewhat unbelievable and very wrong. This was followed by the dumb statement of P. Ramsey: “I thought St. John’s was, indeed, JonBenét’s church.†Now that does not sound very Christian to me, P. Ramsey. Didn’t they tell you, as they told me, that a church belongs to God and is referred to as His house? She goes on claiming what a spiritual person JonBenét was, and that she understood God. Quite a bit for a 6-year-old child, and, might I add, that she would be the first person on earth that understood God. Up until now, I have not been able to do so, and I doubt any fellow Christian can claim to understand God. God and religion consists more of believing in, instead of understanding. That is why so many people ask at times: “Why God, why did this have to happen?†My question is why can’t the Ramsey’s just refrain from talking about JonBenét as extraordinary, rather than a normal 6-year-old child, like any child of that age?
     
  20. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Chapter 5 part 2

    This is followed by more remarks made about the poor child, which makes her sound more like an adult than what she should have been--a 6 year-old little girl. The only natural thing said about her is that JonBenét announced something in a very loud way during a mass, now that sounds more like the child she should have been allowed to be all the time. No worries, burden free, playful, young, and most of all--innocent. But, look at what you made of her, at how you displayed her--as a 20-year-old seductive vamp. Aren’t you Ramseys ashamed of yourselves?

    What comes out of the arrogant P. Ramsey next is concerning the speech Mr. McReynolds made. No, of course you did not understand it for one second what the man was doing, that he was saying goodbye to a little girl he had grown to love. However, you sure kept track of the time the man was talking, didn’t you? After all, you are declaring Mr. McReynolds spoke for over four minutes. So do not give me this nonsense: “I don’t recall many of the other comments made that Sunday,†as you were obviously keeping track of the time. You do not fool me with that pathetic story. But let's see how the same thing is remembered in Steve Thomas' book on page 66: “A surprise speaker was Bill McReynolds, an eccentric old guy with a snow-white beard who looked like and played Santa Claus at the Ramsey’s’ Christmas parties. He offered a heartfelt tribute to the little girl who once gave him some “stardust†to sprinkle in his beard. Patsy, in a black veil, stepped onto the aisle to give Santa Bill a big hug. He would soon be on the suspect list.†Hypocrisy and disloyalty are what you are extremely good at!

    The next dumb statement that follows is: “Suddenly it hit me. December 29, my fortieth birthday and I was burying my baby.†No, you were not drama queen, unless you buried her twice--once on the 29th and again on the 31st. So please keep that story for the fools you associate with. You might have buried her twice, as you already confessed here, but one of those dates was most certainly not the 29th.

    The whole story that follows about asking another young child to join you in Atlanta to support your son doesn’t sit well with me either. You should have been there to support your child, and not drag some other innocent child along! And why drag another child into it, so this young child can do what you should have done--take care of your son, and support him. That is what being a parent is about. And didn’t Burke have a half-brother and half-sister, a father maybe, or other relatives? Do you really think that the young child you hauled along could carry such a heavy burden? Oh, I forgot Burke did not really count, after all, you couldn't put dresses on him.

    After this, J. Ramsey starts writing again--a man who obviously thinks everyone is a lunatic. The statement about the media being present outside the church on the 29th in Boulder is ludicrous! Your own public relations manager had arranged that “beautiful sideshow.†Yeah, you had arranged the perfect show again to play the poor victim; but no one in his/her right mind buys a ridiculous story like that. Take responsibility for your own actions! You seem to have a lot of trouble with the taking of responsibility, you prefer to hide behind other people.

    Another pathetic story was about how hard it would have been to arrange tickets to Atlanta, and going through public departure. You claimed you had your own plane, and that Mike Archuleta was your pilot! So that says more than enough, doesn’t it? How many people don't have their own plane and in such a situation have no alternative than to go via public departure? They manage, and they handle it, even though they feel the same pain of losing a loved one. So do you think you stand above those people Ramsey, or are you adding at little more drama to 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