Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 39
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default 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.”

    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.”

    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.”--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?

  2. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default 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. ”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 bullshit, that is where you need to be.”

    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?

  3. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default 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.”

    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.

  4. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default 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 bullshit, 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.”

    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 by Sylvia; May 17, 2005, 6:49 pm at Tue May 17 18:49:45 UTC 2005.

  5. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default 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 by Sylvia; May 24, 2005, 3:41 am at Tue May 24 3:41:04 UTC 2005.

  6. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default 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!

  7. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default 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?

  8. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default 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?

  9. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default Chapter 5 part 3

    And yes, here we go again, P. Ramsey starts writing, and guess what she starts with? Of course with struggling to focus; with most of the time being too anesthetized to contribute much. Hey, what else is new?

    Let us see, she knew who would do the church service. She suddenly remembered an inspiring song for the funeral that she heard during the Thanksgiving holidays, and even where she heard it. In addition, she remembered the name of the choir that sang the song. What else? Oh, she remembered that the Atlanta Constitution ran a story with the headline: “Georgia says goodbye to JonBenét.” Most likely another PR stunt of the Ramseys--oh no, of their public relations manager of course! Beside that, she also remembers a couple, who said during the visitation, that they had lost two daughters. That is quite a bit of remembering done by someone who is so anesthetized. I love the word 'anesthetized' that she uses all the time! Which, in this case, it just means she was under the influence of some tranquilizers.

    Then follows the story about the burial gifts being placed in the coffin. And guess what? Thanks to “super detective Smit,” we now know where that scarf is, and whom it belonged to. In Steve Thomas' book on page 195, we read: “He [J. Ramsey] also put a dent in the part of the latest Intruder Theory, in which the DA’s investigator Lou Smit claimed the killer left a scarf behind. Ramsey identified the scarf as a gift from one of his kids. Patsy had said the same.” Does that also mean we know whom the murderer(s) is/are, Smit? Her “friend” Priscilla White, (soon to be on the Ramsey’s suspect list), had found a stuffed animal, a cat called Sister Socks, so P. Ramsey placed that in the coffin.

    Now pay attention, because something does not sound right here with the story of the cat. P. Ramsey states in the book:“John is not particularly a cat person, but he and Sister Socks [the real cat] were bonded. I knew he would have taken her and her three kittens back to Boulder at the end of the summer, but I was afraid to ask him – and he wasn’t about to volunteer.” I am totally lost here, can anyone explain why she was afraid to ask? He was bonded to the cat and would have taken her plus kittens, yet didn’t volunteer? So how bonded was he with that cat? Again, it sounds so hypocritical to me. However, the cat and her kittens were dropped off at the neighbor’s house. Again, it is easier to lay the responsibility on another person than to take responsibility for them yourself! In addition, what a great way to disappoint your children again, who had become so attached to the cat.

  10. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default Chapter 6

    Chapter 6

    J. Ramsey is starting this chapter and again he is not doing so fine. Oh, he is trying so desperate to look like a good Christian, only he is not so believable. He states, “We were both deeply moved and worshiped God for the gift that JonBenét has been to us.” Take notice now of what is written in Steve Thomas book at page 363, which reports about the videotaped interrogations of J. Ramsey by Mike Kane “Kane threw Ramsey a curve on the religious aspect and asked him to recite his favorite Bible passage. John Ramsey could not do so.” Point taken! Every Christian can at the least name one favorite passage from the Bible. Those who are so deeply moved by and worship God in such a manner, as the Ramsey’s claim they do, should at least be able to recite on Bible passage, if it were only a single sentence.

    He states that their lives had been such a together experience during their time with JonBenét. Officer French and detective Arndt amongst other also that observed the opposite on the morning of December 26, 1996. A perfect example of the together experience is shown in Steve Thomas book on page 26: “Despite her obvious distress, her husband did not go to her. It was if the house was separated into two camps, His and Hers, with friends dividing their time between the two. Patsy stayed in the sunroom, and John paced in the dining room and den.” Isn’t it that when someone’s child is injured, or kidnapped the parents cling together? However, with all their togetherness Ramsey’s did the opposite! Strange behavior to say at the least.

    “Suddenly Patsy got up and went down by JonBenét’s coffin and knelt to pray. I don’t know why she did that,” he then writes. Hold it just a second, doesn’t this sound familiar? Let’s get back just one chapter, and guess what P. Ramsey wrote? “For some reason (I don’t know why; maybe it was the medication), I began walking up to the aisle towards the altar.” Coincidence? One chapter later J. Ramsey is using the same description of this event. Oh yes, we know the excuse already to medicated, anesthetized, but aren’t they overdoing it, at the least, a little?

    Yes, the vicious media was also around again. I mean what else is new, did Ramsey’s public relation manager also arrange it this time? Just wondering, as it seems most likely it happened that way. After all weren’t it the Ramsey’s themselves who sought the attention of the National media.

    Now we get a real nice example of J. Ramsey’s hypocrisy. Yes, Mr. White heard talk show host Peter Boyles say nasty things about the Ramsey’s. Mr. White had called the Boulder Police Department and the news media station(s) to stop it. In addition, Mr. White had called Mr. Westmoreland to tell him to find J.A. Ramsey so he could tell his mother (J. Ramsey’s ex-wife) to get out of her house just in case the bad, vicious, and obnoxious media would turn up at their house too. Are we now talking about the same Mr. White who had been furiously scribbling notes, who wasn’t comforting on December 26, 1996? The same Mr. White who had both duct tape and cord? Just asking, wasn’t that your statement to the BPD Ramsey, you know the one that was video taped? This man is taking it up for you Ramsey and what do you do Ramsey, make accusations regarding him to the BPD. A real Judas you are, Ramsey!

    When Mr. White arrived in Atlanta, he kept arguing that they [the Ramsey’s] did not need lawyers to defend them. A very wise statement, since innocent people who claim they have nothing to hide indeed do not need to hide behind lawyers. Innocent people with nothing to hide will do anything to help the police in finding the murderer(s) of their loved one.

  11. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default Chapter 6 part 2

    As far as what is written about Mr. White’s solution to the problem, which is described by J. Ramsey as follows: “After Fleet arrived in Atlanta, he kept arguing that we didn’t need lawyers to defend us. His solution was for Patsy and me to go on National television and tell our story, since he was convinced that the media were rapidly painting us in guilty colors.” In addition, “More-over, Fleet had convinced me that a public appearance was necessary.” However, several people stated that it was the opposite, in fact, Mr. White confronted them with their appearance on CNN, he was strongly against it. First, in PMPT on page 85 we can read: “What Patsy’s sister Polly noticed at her parents home was that Fleet White was quarreling angrily with her bother-in-law John. Patsy was standing at one side of them while Fleet hovered over John, telling him he had to go back to Boulder and help the police. It was wrong for him to hire his own investigators and criminal attorneys, said Fleet. His job was to cooperate with the police, not stonewall them. John’s face reddened. It was obvious that he was embarrassed to have this conversation in front of his wife and family. But Fleet kept at him. What was this he’d heard about John contacting CNN for an interview? His daughter had just been buried! How could Patsy and John even think about going on television? Even if they wanted to respond to rumors that were going around, a TV appearance was unthinkable. So here, we do not only have a Mr. White advising against hiring lawyers, but a Mr. White telling them to stop stonewalling the BPD. Furthermore, here there is no doubt that he was totally against any media appearance of the Ramsey’s. In addition, we learn here that it was J. Ramsey who had already contacted CNN in the first place even before the conversation with Mr. White took place. Second, Brian Cabell states in the same book on page 88: “That same evening, New Year’s Eve, I was at home with my family when the phone rang. Tom Johnson, president of CNN, told me that the Ramseys had told CNN through a friend that they wanted to appear on national TV to explain why they weren’t talking to the media and to discuss the suspicions that were being raised about their possible involvement.” In addition, Mr. White could easily confront them with this lie as well if he wished to do so. So once again, Ramsey quit lying, stop hiding behind others, and for once take responsibility for your own actions!

    P. Ramsey is taking over again with the usual statement that she was heavily sedated. How many times more are we going to hear this in this and the following chapters? If this goes on much longer I am going to need tranquilizers to stay calm while reading this ridiculous book. Moreover, what’s next of course “my concentration was gone.” Yes we know that by now after being reminded of it time after time. Nice other intermission, she decided to wear the same dress she had worn at the funeral. Get it? Wearing dresses two days in a row, sound familiar? Yeah, nice try, but alas it does not work!

    All this is followed by a lot of irrelevant nonsense about the drive to the CNN studio, the arrival at the studio and not to forget how the show started, let us forget about that part and move on.

    Now for some reason the interview does not give you the impression of someone, who is lost her concentration and who is heavily medicated, being interviewed. Have you ever seen a person who was heavily medicated and due to that not able to concentrate? I can assure you, you will not get a single sensible sentence out of them. This is in no way the situation with P. Ramsey during the CNN interview. She responds normally to questions, and in no way looks like someone who can not concentrate on the questions asked. Did you see the interview and did she look heavily medicated and without concentration to you?

    To give some examples, “It was difficult. But, you know, they [LE] need to know – I mean our handprints are all over our house, so they [LE] need to know.” Sounds clear to me, LE should have been able to eliminate the Ramsey’s as suspects so they needed their finger- and palm prints. How about this one: “America has just been hurt so deeply wit the tragic things that happened. The young woman who drove her children into the water, and we don’t know what happened with O.J. Simpson. I mean, America is suffering because we lost faith in the American family. We are Christians, God-fearing family. We love our children....” Again, does this strike you as coming from a heavily sedated, anesthetized person? Don’t think so, such a person wouldn’t have been able to say two words without getting in trouble! Beside that, don’t you notice all the examples she gives are of people who are guilty of murder? Why refer at all to those two murderers, Susan Smith and O.J. Simpson, who both specifically murdered family members?

  12. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default Chapter 6 part 3

    “As the interview ended, I sighed in relief. The time at the station had proven emotionally difficult to endure,” says P. Ramsey in their book. However what does Brian Cabell, the interviewer state in the book Perfect Murder, Perfect Town on page 92: “Soon afterwards, I ended the interview. They had spoken for almost forty minutes, and it wasn’t as if they were eager to leave. ” Rather inconsistent don’t you think?

    Then J. Ramsey starts his rant with: “I was surprised when Brian Cabell abruptly ended the interview with the caveat that ‘Ramsey had been removed from his job at Access Graphics.’” The transcript of the interview doesn’t contain “this cheap shot Cabell made.” I have been going over it several times, but it just isn’t there. Can someone shed some light on this?

    The following lie or inconsistency, whatever you want to call it, goes as follows. J. Ramsey writes: “During the CNN interview, Patsy and I stated that now that JonBenét was properly laid to rest, we wanted to return to Boulder and help with the investigation. The police had leaked false information that we were not cooperative and had refused to be interviewed. Our comments would have refute those leaks; but for what ever reason, Cabell eliminated that portion of the interview.” The transcript says the following: “Cabell: The Ramsey’s are staying here in the Atlanta area with family. They say they intend to go back to Boulder within a few days, precisely when they are not sure. They say when they go back they will sit down with the Boulder Police. They will talk. They will tell them anything they want to know.” That is lie one refuted Ramsey! Now lie number two, as far as the police leaks the transcript goes like this: “Police have not been particularly forthcoming about leads perhaps deliberately so, but they have said very little as to forced entry, anything like that we do not know. The police are keeping that to themselves at this point.” Now who do you believe, my bet is on the transcript of CNN. Even if said by the Boulder Police that the Ramsey’s had refused to be interviewed, the police would have been telling the truth. They did refuse to talk to the BPD and were already from day one hiding behind lawyers. Again note the similarity between the interview stated, “properly laid to rest” and the in the ransom note mentioned “proper burial.” A coincidence again?

    As to the statement which P. Ramsey supposed to have made in the CNN interview, which again I can not find in the transcript, that JonBenét “loved her daddy, she was daddy’s girl,” strikes me as odd. Not for the reason given by J. Ramsey in their book, being jealousy of P. Ramsey. No, my question is what was the real reason for this statement? In what context did she [P. Ramsey] say this? No reason is given in the book, which makes me wonder why say such a thing. Wasn’t she said to be at one with her mother, pageants and so on? So why “Daddy’s girl?”

    Also the statement about people focusing in J. Ramsey’s words: ”for our grief to resolve itself, we have to find out why this happened” doesn’t make any sense. The first thing that needed to be found out was “who did it” and not the why. It can be possible that someone’s murderer is found, but that the why of the murder will be for always unresolved. Even, in the slightest possibility, if meant in a religious way it still is a ridiculous remark. God works in mysterious ways and He is not coming down to tell you the why of it!

    He finishes with writing that they became more and more afraid of the press and of the ruthlessness of the press. Doesn’t that strike you as hypocritical? Who played the press all the time as if they played the violin? It wasn’t the Boulder Police Department! Who spent most of the time during the past 5 years talking to and via the press spinning their intruder stories, accusing innocent people? Right, the Ramsey’s did, they themselves or via their lawyers and PR managers. Shouldn’t they have talked to the BPD instead?

    Reaching the last paragraph of this chapter P. Ramsey takes over the writing again. Now the attack on Mayor Leslie Durgin starts. Again, it shows exactly how stupid and ignorant the Ramsey’s really are. Why? Simple, as the statement made by this Mayor of Boulder were completely correct, only the Ramsey’s are too dumb to realize they could have made the statement work in their advantage. But no, stupid as they are, they go against them.

    Let me explain! The statement made by Mayor Leslie Durgin went as follows: “People have no need to fear that there is someone on the streets of Boulder looking for someone to attack. Boulder is safe,” see page 93 Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. Patsy Ramsey’s version of the Mayor statement in DOI is: “People in Boulder have no need to fear that there is someone wandering the streets of Boulder, as has been portrayed by some people, looking for young children to attack. Boulder is safe, it’s always been a safe community. It continues to be a safe community.” Which of the two statements is the correct one, I do not know, I have not been able to find the official statement of Leslie Durgin. During the CNN interview the interviewer informed them about a statement made by the BPD, there was no murderer roaming the streets of Boulder. The Ramsey’s have stated over and over again, during at least the first year, that the murder was the result of a kidnap gone awry. Logic tells you that if that were true it would have been an act against the Ramsey’s personally. The bogus ransom note in principle confirms this. Only in the CNN interview, P. Ramsey has to play the drama queen again by stating: “I don't know who it is. I don't know if it's a he or a she. But if I were a resident of Boulder, I would tell my friends to keep -- keep your babies close to you, there's someone out there.” A very ridiculous statement if the so-called terrorist kidnappers were after the Ramsey’s. J. Ramsey already stated, “I don't know. I mean, there is a -- a note that said – your daughter has been kidnapped. We have your daughter. We want money. You give us the money; she'll be safely returned.” After that statement, the fool (P. Ramsey) even states: “It seemed like kidnapping to me.” Instead of sticking to the kidnap statement, these fools go against it, making them look even more suspicious in the eyes of the LE and the intelligent part of world. In later interviews, they repeat the kidnap gone awry theory, until it becomes the terrorist-kidnapper-intruder-pedophile, based on the statements of a dumb cop called Smit, the most unlikely scenario there ever could be. Therefore, they constantly contradicting themselves, so who would not get suspicious with all the different stories the Ramsey’s were telling. If they had stuck to the kidnap gone awry and the fact that it was a crime solely against them for extortion of money, it sure would have made them look better. Alas, the Ramsey’s were too stupid, to at least stick to one theory/story. They had staged a crime scene insinuating a kidnap took place and now they were contradicting the facts of that scene. It just proves that their theory is actually based on a lie! Now it works against them, what intelligent person is ever going to believe a word that comes out of their mouth after all these contradictions? No one!
    Last edited by Sylvia; May 22, 2005, 10:58 pm at Sun May 22 22:58:52 UTC 2005.



Similar Threads

  1. "South Park," "SNL" & "Mad TV" Ramsey Episodes
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 2, 2006, 3:54 pm, Sat Sep 2 15:54:35 UTC 2006
  2. DA: "Death won't affect JonBenet Case."
    By Greenleaf in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 28, 2006, 7:07 pm, Mon Aug 28 19:07:13 UTC 2006
  3. The "Death of Innocence"
    By momof2 in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: April 16, 2005, 9:46 pm, Sat Apr 16 21:46:12 UTC 2005

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •