Yes, Jameson, it IS too bad the internet doesn't have an eraser!

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Moab, Aug 31, 2005.

  1. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Geez KK, you have been here less than a full day, and you have your OWN thread at the Swamp...they just can't seem to get OUTSIDE of :box: in their thinking.
    I think Jams has spent too many years in front of a computer... :pcguru: ...too many lickings to be still ticking!:takeabow:

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" bgColor=#000099 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#e7e7de><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=left width="50%" rowSpan=2>jameson[​IMG]

    Member since 5-8-02

    </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right width="50%">08-31-05, 09:18 PM (EST)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#e7e7de><TD align=right>[​IMG] [​IMG][​IMG] </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD width="100%" colSpan=2>"BORG KK"


    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top noWrap width=50></TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">KK is a BORG who can be held up as a poster child for the group - - she is set in her ways, totally, and will be for life no matter WHAT the evidence is.


    I want to respond to some of her words and will do so here.

    KK in normal print - - My words in bold


    The evidence not only supports this conclusion, but demands it: JonBenet was murdered to keep her molester safe from discovery.

    Demands it? Let's see.

    She had been sexually abused before that night, probably more than once, and possibly many times. Her hymen was damaged, worn away, her vaginal tissue samples taken at autopsy from INSIDE her vagina showed damage three or more days old.

    There was NO evidence of sexual abuse except for the assault that took place on the night she died. There was no evidence of stretching of the vagina before thatnight - no scars or healing wounds - - just the one wound that she suffered just before she died. Yes, there was evidence of some irritation in the area, but that was not evidence of ABUSE. It could have been the result of poor hygene, not wiping correctly or associated with her problem with occasional bedwetting. Her hymen was nottorn away but is described as a hymen that is normal, a formation found in some females naturally.

    This also explains exactly why the object was jammed up JonBenet's vagina the night she was murdered. It was not for sexual pleasure, it was to hide the prior vaginal injuries by making it appear her vaginal injuries were inflicted by "the intruder" that night.

    You can't hide an old injury by inflicting a new one. Old bruises and scars would still remain. There weren't any.

    Sadly enough, for those who refuse to accept the facts of the evidence, too horrible to believe for some, it worked.

    I am looking at the FACTS. The fact is that someone sexually assaulted her that night - and they bashed in her head, and they choked the life outof her. There is no evidence that anyone had sexually abused that child before the night she was killed. (If there had been evidence of that, someone would have been asked about that, possibly arrested for that - - - but we have the interview tapes - - - that was NOT an area the investigators went for. The BORG should understand THAT.

    But it is the only explanation I have ever seen that accounts for the true evidence and the actions of the killer(s) that night. You cannot ignore those prior vaginal injuries. The Ramseys and their supporters will not even consider them, though if they truly wanted to find this "intruder" they'd be all over this evidence.

    It would lead them straight to the killer, who HAD to have access to JonBenet before the night she was murdered. Access that allowed privacy to molest her. Access that took place over time. Access that means the killer knew the family well...and the family knows the killer well.


    The investigators considered the facts - and never sought someone who would have abused JonBenét before the night she was murdered.



    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

    </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD vAlign=top align=left>Alert | IP </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right>Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" bgColor=#000099 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#e7e7de><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=left width="50%" rowSpan=2>jameson[​IMG]

    Member since 5-8-02

    </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right width="50%">08-31-05, 09:36 PM (EST)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#e7e7de><TD align=right>[​IMG] [​IMG][​IMG] </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD width="100%" colSpan=2>1. "more"

    In response to message #0

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top noWrap width=50></TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">f you want to know when the Ramseys are lying, simply look at what they run from the hardest in the case. John said it in their first TV appearance: the allegations of molestation "are the most hurtful" to their family. Patsy spent all of 2 minutes feigning surprise in her interview with the DA detective in '98, when "told for the first time" that there was prior molestation of JonBenet. Then she "moved on." Think about it. Your child is molested and murdered, nobody is even close to being caught 18 months later, and your response to being told by LE that it's a fact someone molested your child before the night she was murdered is...ho hum?


    She knew JonBenét had not been abused by anyone before the murder- - the line of questioning was "fishing" and failed because patsy knew better.

    Look at how they act at the swamp if anyone even brings up this white elephant in the middle of the room. They go rabid. They refuse to let anyone even talk about the biggest clue, the most telling evidence in the case.

    If there was any evidence of incest there, John Andrew, Melinda and others would have spoken up long ago.

    If the Ramseys truly thought someone else did this to JonBenet, why would they play hide and seek from LE rather than storm the precinct to find out who did it, to make the killer pay and clear their names from this "most hurtful" suspicion?

    They called 911, they answered all questions. They pushed for a full investigation and refused to be bullied into a confession. The BORG should consider the Stephanie Crow and Riley Fox cases before they continue this assault on the Ramseys.

    I have not always agreed with things the Ramseys have done. I have publicly complained at times about their decisions. But I will never accuse them of trying to block a real investigation - - I know they never did that.

    Because they know who did it, IMO. Yeah, it's hurtful to have others know "what" was done, but they have done all in their power, including murdering JonBenet, to make sure no one ever knows "who." .

    And there is your motive. There is the "why," which leads to "who," according to ex-expert John Douglas.

    And if Patsy Ramsey thinks that she's not going down in crime history as the prime suspect in her child's horrible murder, she is sadly mistaken. She better hang on to what little life she has left, because where she's going, she can't hide the truth any more.

    There is nothing but truth after death.... and just rewards... and I truly believe the BORG needs to be afraid... very, very afraid. Patsy, she has no fear and needs none. She is innocent. The evidence proves it.

    She had a chance to do the right thing. She had a chance at forgiveness. She had a chance to lift this heavy burden from her son, from John's children. She had a chance to do the right thing by JonBenet, to witness for her, to give her death its due, to pay that debt to society and to JonBenet.

    Patsy did whatshe could to give Burke a normal life. By doing that, she did honor her daughter.

    Patsy has spit on JonBenet's memory, defiled her body, then covered her actions with lies, abandoning an innocent child in her hour of greatest need. Patsy Ramsey is going to her grave thinking she did the right thing, hiding the hideous truth. But she's wrong. JonBenet died a terrible death, and nothing but the truth will bring the light of redemption to all of them.

    What a horrible attack. If we all get back what we give, KK has a lot of nastiness waiting for her. I am glad the Ramseys were strong enough to ignore people like her.

    Somebody better help Patsy think about this. Because her opportunity to tell the truth is passing quickly now. Once she's gone from this life, her offspring will pay and pay and pay and pay, for many generations.

    The evidence says a man killed JonBenét - - and left his DNA. The BORG never could accept that they had it wrong.

    Only if Patsy tells the truth can she die with a peaceful heart. But she has to tell it to everyone, so all the people she's hurt so deeply, the strangers and friends and society, all can begin to heal, to forgive, and JonBenet's life and death can be cleansed in the truth, rather than buried in the darkness of lies that won't end...will never end...until her story is finally told.

    Patsy is at peace with her life. That is a blessing. The BORG, as far as I can tell, only wishes they had that.

    When that happens, JonBenet can become the light of truth for all the little girls that suffer as she did.

    It's up to Patsy now.

    JonBenét can be considered the poster child for abducted and missing children who are victims of SickPuppies who continue to walk the streets, posing a threat to all our children.
    Patsy had nothing to do with that horrible act, she wishes her daughter was alive and well and attending school now instead of lying in her grave. But nothing Patsy did,could do or could do in the future will bring JonBenét back or enlighten the BORG.



    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

    </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD vAlign=top align=left><SCRIPT> var power_cookie_name = 'DCPowerUserCheck'; if (check_cookie(power_cookie_name)) { document.write(' Remove | '); } </SCRIPT>Alert | IP </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right>Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=18>[​IMG]</TD><TD width="100%"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" bgColor=#000099 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#e7e7de><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=left width="50%" rowSpan=2>jameson[​IMG]

    Member since 5-8-02

    </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right width="50%">08-31-05, 09:47 PM (EST)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#e7e7de><TD align=right>[​IMG] [​IMG][​IMG] </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD width="100%" colSpan=2>2. "RE: more"

    In response to message #1

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top noWrap width=50></TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">


    Well, of course I can't know, but statistics are overwhelmingly that males are the abusers. Brothers are much more likely to be offenders, speaking of statistics. Agewise, teens to twenties. The average age of the victims' first abuse is about JonBenet's age, as well, if I remember correctly.

    In this case, for me, it's a toss-up between all the family males with intimate access to JonBenet before that night. But I have to wonder about some odd timing that we all have talked about, the sudden exodus of Grandpa Paugh and John Andrew that Christmas.

    Oh, good grief! The DNA doesn't point to the brothers or grandfather. They have all been cleared,long ago.

    We still do not know where John Andrew was from the time he supposedly left Boulder and when he arrived in Atlanta, a week later. I believe, but please, correct me if I'm wrong as I'm now memory-challenged, the original date given as JAR's Boulder departure was Dec. 19th, and then he is said to have arrived in Atlanta on Christmas Eve. John Douglas, according to the swamp's own FANatic, Rainsong, clearly stated THIS YEAR that JAR was at the Ramsey's home in Boulder on Christmas Night, didn't he? OH, how I want to hear him/them backtrack on that statement! But surprise, surprise. Nobody at the swamp even "noticed" that change of story, did they? 10 posts a day on the whole forum, tops, and they don't even notice someone like John Douglas changing the long accepted facts of the case involving an ORIGINAL PRIME SUSPECT? Yeah, right. Another topic they don't allow to be discussed there: anything that might shake up a Ramsey alibi.

    JAR spent Christmas Day in Atlanta with his mother and friends. His alibi is airtight.

    Now throw in the strange circumstances of the much talked about JAR suitcase in the basement, featured in the crime scene under the "escape" window, containing a child's book and JAR's semen stained duvet, from which fibers on JonBenet's murdered body are believed by some to originate--Lou Smit, for one. Take away JAR's alibi of being in Atlanta, and he's the best prime suspect you got.

    Ignore the facts,and he is a good suspect. Typical BORG logic.


    John Douglas either misspoke or accidently let out highly guarded info he didn't mean to disclose. Either way, someone needs to explain this if they really care about finding a child murderer. But it won't be the RST, will it?

    Then there is Grandpa Paugh. I mean, I know many excuses can be made, but he was living in Boulder, alone, without Nedra, and he was JonBenet's grandfather and working for her father at AG. He was Patsy's dad, but you never, ever hear anything about him being at the Ramseys, do you? Nothing about his grandfatherly activities with his only two grandchildren living nearby. How close they were? How he spent time with them? Or not? And there he is, on a short notice standby at the airport flying to Atlanta on Christmas Eve of 1996!

    He was cleared long ago. Not one investigator holds any suspicion about him. This is actually a strange argument for a BORG to make.

    It's strange: don't people who fly a lot and know certain times they will need to do so, like CHRISTMAS EVE, usually make reservations well in advance? But here is this old grandfather, sitting in an airport on Christmas Eve in Denver, HOPING somebody won't show up so he can get to Atlanta to be with...his wife? I mean, she's been his wife a long time. Was this something he just happily and coincidentally decided to do at the very, very last minute, going home to his wife? (Nedra stated herself, thank god he was in Atlanta the night JonBenet was murdered.) Sorry, it's just one more strange thing in a long list of strange things that happened in the Ramsey's inner circle those Christmas holidays, isn't it? Yet another seemingly sudden change of plans, like flying to Charlevoix at the last minute to be with John's big kids for one day, the trip on the Big Red Boat in Florida looming large a couple of days later....

    I spoketo the Ramseys about travel plans and planes and schedules. Nothing strange there, not at all. Just in the BORG interpretation.

    Then there is John. No point in rehashing his bathroom pictures of his beloved Beth, his strange writings about her in his book, minimizing any courtships by males as if they meant little to her, all but dismissing the life of the young man who died with her in that terrible accident.... Just deep love for his first born? Sure, why not? But think about this: he made no bones about publicly stating she was his favorite child, and the feelings of his living children on the topic...not important, obviously. How cold is that?

    I have met and spoke to the Ramseys. They are a very close family, a normal family, not at all what KK would suggest.

    And then along comes JonBenet. Prancing around in those Las Vegas costumes, made up like a grown woman, a loving, cuddly child, one those close to her would naturally hug and kiss and play games with.... And Burke...how many siblings play doctor? I'm not accusing Burke of anything. I'm just saying, it happens, parents have to deal with it. It's possible.

    I expect the kids did notice the difference between boys and girls as they grew up- - most kids do. So what? There is NO reason to believe Burke went further, none at all. He was cleared, officially, as was JAR.
    The BORG can't read or simply chooses to ignore those facts.

    If the Ramseys don't like this kind of speculation, then they should tell the truth about what happened to JonBenet and clear Burke the only way he will ever be really cleared--if they can. They are the reason Burke is now and always will be considered in this murder, not us. Maybe one day Burke will get tired of it, if and when he realizes his parents put the onus of this murder on his head, too. My guess is he's crippled for life. It would take an extraordinary man to overcome this and finally, alone among JonBenet's entire family, tell the truth.

    Burke had to grow up under this cloud- - and he has done it well. He is a good boy, will be a good man. one day he willtell his story - - and the BORG won't accept it because they can't handle the truth.




    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

    </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD vAlign=top align=left><SCRIPT> var power_cookie_name = 'DCPowerUserCheck'; if (check_cookie(power_cookie_name)) { document.write(' Remove | '); } </SCRIPT>Alert | IP </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right>Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=36>[​IMG]</TD><TD width="100%"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" bgColor=#000099 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#e7e7de><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=left width="50%" rowSpan=2>jameson[​IMG]

    Member since 5-8-02

    </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right width="50%">08-31-05, 09:50 PM (EST)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#e7e7de><TD align=right>[​IMG] [​IMG][​IMG] </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD width="100%" colSpan=2>3. "RE: more"

    In response to message #2

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top noWrap width=50></TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">But the question remains--Who? Did Patsy and John over-react to an accident because of the sexual abuse issues? Was it Patsy who was, for some reason, abusing JonBenet, resulting in damage to her cervix and vagina, maybe because of issues of her own? That happens, as well. Everyday. Sadly. But if that is the case, I do not buy that it was accidental from "toileting" issues. You don't "accidently" penetrate a child's vagina repeatedly, IMO. JonBenet had been penetrated before that night.


    That opinion is not supported by the evidence. But enough. KK made her post, and I made my points.

    It is a shame that the Internet has no "eraser" - - - the BORG attacks really are horrible.



    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

    </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD vAlign=top align=left><SCRIPT> var power_cookie_name = 'DCPowerUserCheck'; if (check_cookie(power_cookie_name)) { document.write(' Remove | '); } </SCRIPT>Alert | IP </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right>Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>If the internet DID have an eraser, we wouldn't see as much misinformation from the only 2 posters left at the Swamp!



    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
     
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, great, now I gotta' bring my posts over here!

    Alrighty, then!

    But I only addressed a few of the issues, as most of her arguments are just too lame to spend any more time on this.

    Wait...why AM I spending more time on this? :eek:
     
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, there are many theories, and in the end, I doubt we'll ever know the truth.

    Jams took my posts to the swamp for one of her hyped up break downs, and it's based totally in "what the Ramseys told her...what they said...I believe...I don't believe...." and nothing more substantial than "they're good, loving, normal people." The swampsters just can't get a handle on the concept that suspects often...usually...lie...when they have something to hide. Just because the Ramseys said it doesn't make it FACT. Yet they still hang desperately onto broken strands of DNA artifact, unable to fathom that they're hanging their "intruder" with something no court in the land would even use to issue a warrant.

    And as for me being nasty to Patsy, maybe Jams should go back and read some of her history of attacking entirely innocent people she liked to offer up as sacrifices to the Ramsey god she so worships, like the maid's family and minor daughter, before she goes all holier-than-anyone. I believe Patsy and John Ramsey at the very least abandoned JonBenet when no one else on earth could speak for her, all to save themselves. It's an unconscionable thing for a parent to do, and to say that is excusable, in spite of the most powerful lawyers in Colorado standing with them, that they should have turned tail and ran like the cowards they are because the mean old LE wasn't nice enough to them when their daughter was found murdered in their home with only 3 of them known to be present and only hokey staging to prove an intruder...a bit disingenuous, to say the least. That argument won't hold water and has spawned as much ridicule as OJ's search for the killers on golf courses across the land.

    But nobody is forgetting that Jams makes no apologies for posting pictures online of an abuse victim and put a real child's name to her that Jams didn't even know was the actual child. Pot...kettle.

    I wrote about the males closest to JonBenet in this context of prior molestation, not the murder on the 25th/26th. As any objective analyst would, I discussed problems and possibilities with who could have molested JonBenet before that night, focusing on the obvious--those males close to JonBenet--as, of course, did LE, because that's the inner circle. For this discussion, I'm looking at the PRIOR MOLESTATION, before the 25th, so alibis shift with this timeline, don't they? What works for Dec. 24th or 25th doesn't necessarily work for the 22nd or 23rd, does it?

    If you're going to start out refusing to even look at the evidence without bias and then work from the premise it couldn't have been anyone but an intruder because...well...you don't want it to be a family member, so just declare it's not and it's instant fact--not my problem. Dream on. I'm not going to waste my time arguing every point with someone whose basis for calling something "fact" is "because I know it."

    But there is one example of Jam's brand of fact I'll refute, because she must have lost a few memory cells herself--she's about my age, so that I understand. Regarding my statement that there is clear evidence in the autopsy proving that JonBenet's vaginal injuries were inflicted by sexual abuse before the night she was murdered, as stated by ALL BUT ONE forensic expert that I've ever seen through the years, (rather than "bubble bath did it"--one of the stranger RST ideas when JonBenet ended up murdered and sexually abused with those chronic vaginal injuries):

    Jams stated:

    I am looking at the FACTS. The fact is that someone sexually assaulted her that night - and they bashed in her head, and they choked the life outof her. There is no evidence that anyone had sexually abused that child before the night she was killed. (If there had been evidence of that, someone would have been asked about that, possibly arrested for that - - - but we have the interview tapes - - - that was NOT an area the investigators went for. The BORG should understand THAT.

    Really? As the very person who sold the 1998 interview tapes to the National Enquirer for some nice cash, I believe RST should understand THIS: numerous forensic and medical examiners consulted by LE all concluded that the prior vaginal injuries were sexual molestation, but one, who said he couldn't say it was molestation, but it was prior injuries. Those findings have been reported numerous times by various credible sources, and the RST chooses to dispute the findings by clinging to the one who concluded it could have been done under circumstances not molestation, like she did it to herself. Always grasping at the most extreme interpretation, because only those fit the theory that the Ramseys are just TOO GOOD to have done this, so it HAD to be an intruder. Rubbish. That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking.

    As for NOT being QUESTIONED about prior molestation, huh? It's in the book jams spawned with her filched tapes. Patsy Ramsey was asked by LE about JonBenet's prior molestation, and in spite of her pit bulls interrupting and spinning and cueing her exactly how to wiggle out of this tight spot, she clearly is not credible in her responses, especially if you watch her on the videotape. A year and a half after Patsy's child is molested and murdered in her home, Patsy has not heard WORD ONE about the one element of the autopsy--that the evidence supports JonBenet being molested before that night--that could narrow the suspect list down by about 50 Lou Smit pages. Why, WORLD CLASS DETECTIVES might have even questioned Patsy in depth as to WHO MIGHT HAVE DONE THAT, HAD ACCESS TO THE CHILD? Can a reasonable person really dispute that even a small CHANCE that this is true merits intense scrutiny when you consider the stakes? And this is 5 out of 6 experts that LE consulted saying there was prior sexual molestation. Not to mention all those who later concurred when the autopsy was released.

    This is exactly why the RST has no credibility, certainly not with legitimate LE, and exactly why anyone looking at the FACTS of this case for the TRUTH can see the enormous holes in the Ramseys' stories. You cannot claim to truly investigate a murder while tiptoeing around the only people who can answer the hard questions. Not if you really want the truth and not just some "reasonable doubt" defense. But of course, John told us in his deposition with Darnay in the Wolf suit that in fact, after all those years of lying about it, their lawyers and investigators really WERE only working on THEIR DEFENSE, not on finding any intruder. Oh. Yet another lie they spun for years exposed, and without even batting an eye, too. The truth only came out because John got cornered and needed to explain why, after all these years, not one viable suspect had ever been found in this case by these detecting giants working for him. Unless you count dead or homeless people, WHO ALSO DO NOT MATCH THE MAGIC DNA, and one SketchMan, compliments of a psychic drawing. Yeah, really nice, normal, loving family "that child" had looking out for her.

    (Continued in next post with transcript excerpt of '98 interview when Patsy learns about the FACT of prior molestation of JonBenet.)
     
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    The detective goes "that way"

    From those very 1998 DA interview tapes of Patsy with Tom Haney (thanks to ACR for transcription): notice, 3 times Patsy calls the detective's statement of fact into question, though she's never heard this before and has no reason not to believe Haney other than the same one jams has: it narrows that evidence list from 50 plus pages to a few very real people.

    (Patsy wants to see the evidence awfully bad, though, doesn't she? Armistead has a looooooooong wish list himself at the end of this interview. Obviously, another interview for info deal. Yeah, great parents.)

    25 TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are

    0581

    1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal

    2 intrusion on JonBenet?

    3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.

    4 Prior to the night she was killed?

    5 TOM HANEY: Correct.

    6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.

    7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?

    8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.


    9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?

    10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.

    11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?

    12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.

    13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?

    14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.

    15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have

    16 been violated like that?

    17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This

    18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.

    19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you

    20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't

    21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?

    22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely

    23 did not.

    24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--

    25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to

    0582

    1 see where it says that and who reported that.


    2 TOM HANEY: Okay.

    3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?

    4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it

    5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot

    6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the

    7 photos, but--

    8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find

    9 that?

    10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think

    11 it's pretty significant?

    12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn

    13 significant. You know, I am shocked.

    14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,

    15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper

    16 whether or not she represented what is true as a

    17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too

    18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a

    19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to

    20 be fair to my client.

    21 TOM HANEY: And based on the

    22 reliable medical information that we have at

    23 this point, that is a fact.

    24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say

    25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling

    0583

    1 me here?

    2 TOM HANEY: That there was some

    3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --

    4 something was inserted?

    5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night

    6 that she was assaulted?

    7 TOM HANEY: That's the--

    8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I

    9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking

    10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am

    11 shocked.

    12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the

    13 things that's been bothering us about the case.


    14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.

    15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell

    16 you?

    17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me

    18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --

    19 TOM HANEY: Okay, for a second --

    20 PATSY RAMSEY: Did you know about

    21 this?

    22 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: I tried to stay

    23 out of the making of the record and inserting

    24 myself into the tape-recording of this

    25 interview. The newspapers have talked about

    0584

    1 this. Whether or not--

    2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they talk

    3 about a lot of things that are not true.

    4 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: And there has

    5 been a debate among the people who talked about

    6 the findings in the autopsy report as to whether

    7 there was a prior vaginal intrusion or not. So

    8 when you ask, either Tom or me or Trip or

    9 Jennifer, did we know that, there has been a

    10 debate about that. Even in the newspaper.

    11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I do not know

    12 of anything and I am very distressed about this.

    13 TOM HANEY: Who could have done

    14 such a thing?

    15 PATSY RAMSEY: I do not know. I

    16 don't have any idea.

    17 TOM HANEY: What is your best

    18 guess?

    19 PATSY RAMSEY: I couldn't begin to

    20 guess. I am shocked. I don't have any idea. I

    21 am just -- I can't believe, I just can't believe

    22 this.

    23 TOM HANEY: Would that knowledge

    24 change your answer to any question that you have

    25 been asked?

    0585

    1 PATSY RAMSEY: No, sir. I have

    2 answered every question you or anyone else has

    3 asked me to the best of my ability.

    4 TOM HANEY: Would that answer or

    5 would that statement, that information, would

    6 that lead you in any particular direction?

    7 Would you think about a particular person being

    8 involved or doing something, with JonBenet?

    9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't -- I

    10 don't -- I just am shocked is all I can say. I

    11 don't -- I don't know what I think. You know, I

    12 just want to see where it says that.


    13 TOM HANEY: And prior to today, had

    14 you heard or read or seen anything about--

    15 PATSY RAMSEY: I had heard that

    16 the night she was killed that she may have

    17 had -- have been sexually assaulted. But not

    18 prior to that. Absolutely.

    19 TOM HANEY: Have you ever suffered

    20 any physical abuse?

    21 PATSY RAMSEY: Absolutely not.

    22 TOM HANEY: In childhood, you know,

    23 dating, your adult life?

    24 PATSY RAMSEY: (NO AUDIBLE

    25 RESPONSE).

    0586

    1 TOM HANEY: How about sexual abuse?

    2 PATSY RAMSEY: (NO AUDIBLE

    3 RESPONSE).

    4 TOM HANEY: How about anybody in

    5 your family ever suffered any physical abuse?

    6 PATSY RAMSEY: Not to my

    7 knowledge.

    8 TOM HANEY: Your sisters?

    9 PATSY RAMSEY: Not to my

    10 knowledge.

    11 TOM HANEY: Sexual abuse, have they

    12 ever confided in you that--

    13 PATSY RAMSEY: No. No. What's

    14 this got to do with JonBenet?

    15 TOM HANEY: What it has to do with

    16 first of all, is, whether or not you have ever

    17 really discussed things like this with people or

    18 somebody has confided in you?

    19 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

    20 TOM HANEY: A friend . And I

    21 mentioned your sisters, you have two, correct?

    22 What was your relationship with them growing up?

    23 PATSY RAMSEY: Very close.

    24 TOM HANEY: How -- what are your

    25 ages, how close are you?

    0587

    1 PATSY RAMSEY: I am two and a half

    2 years older than my next sister and --

    3 TOM HANEY: Which is?

    4 PATSY RAMSEY: Pam.

    5 TOM HANEY: And--

    6 PATSY RAMSEY: Seven years older

    7 than Paulette.

    8 TOM HANEY: Okay. But you guys

    9 were all raised together?

    10 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.

    11 TOM HANEY: Spend a lot of time

    12 together?

    13 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.

    14 TOM HANEY: Were all of you

    15 involved in pageants at an early age?

    16 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

    17 TOM HANEY: Okay. Were the other

    18 two?

    19 PATSY RAMSEY: Pam was, Ms. West

    20 Virginia two years after I was, or three.

    21 Paulette was not.

    22 TOM HANEY: Did Paulette have any

    23 problem with pageants or object to 'em or just--

    24 PATSY RAMSEY: She was a swimmer.

    25 TOM HANEY: Okay, so that just

    0588

    1 wasn't her thing?

    2 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

    3 TOM HANEY: In growing up, were all

    4 of you treated pretty much the same?

    5 PATSY RAMSEY: As far as I could

    6 tell.

    7 TOM HANEY: No favorite? Youngest,

    8 oldest?

    9 PATSY RAMSEY: Not from my

    10 perspective, no.

    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm
     
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I swear, if Jams is so gullible that she believes that the Ramseys would have just spilled their guts about murdering JonBenet to her because she had coffee with them...and since they DIDN'T, they MUST have been telling the truth...what's the use of even responding? I first thought I wanted to address a few points...but now that you've made me look at it again, Moab, it was silly of me, wasn't it?

    Well, let me put it this way, then. I am not looking for approval of my opinions in this case, not from anyone. I'm not cutting Patsy Ramsey any slack until her minions face that for every time they criticize us for coming down on the Ramseys, with all the evidence against them, the RST is naming some innocent person as "intruder." It can't be all of them. And they NEVER name anyone with money or power to defend themselves. Hell, they even go after the dead!

    When they ERASE THAT, maybe their complaints won't seem quite so hypocritical.
     
  6. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    God I am glad you're back KoldKase. You were so missed.

    Your posts are like an encyclopedia of knowledge on the case.
     
  7. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    The entire RST case is built on a microspeck of degraded foreign DNA which isn't Ramsey. Nevermind the fact that the only OFFICIAL statement about this DNA is that it may NOT be the killer's.

    They get themselves in a twist though because none of the other viable suspects match the DNA either. So the RST spin on .... frustrated that no suspect matches the DNA but frightened to stop repeating the mantra that it IS the killer's because to admit otherwise, puts their beloved Ramseys right back in the frame.

    And while we're on the subject, jameson is certainly NOT Jonbenet's "hero" - quite the contrary. Jonbenet's hero would remain unbiased till the killer was caught. JonBenet's hero would not dismiss ANY interpretation of the evidence until the killer was caught. JOnBenet's hero would not lie and spin to present the evidence in one light. JonBenet's hero would not suck up to the prime suspects. jamewson may have been the RAMSEY's hero for a very short period of time (before she sold them out to the tabs) but she has certainly never been JonBenet's hero.
     
  8. Elle

    Elle Member

    I think the saddest part of reading the name "Jameson" in any of the posts relating to the JonBenét case just detracts from the true investigation of the "death of little JonBenét Ramsey." Time and energy is wasted with the amount of retaliation against Jameson, but I'm thinking this is in the Ramsey's favour. When everyone is arguing the toss about Jameson, the true investigation is pushed aside. I personally have never seen any sense in this.
     
  9. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    jameson used to have some freak appeal in that she has been so bizarre in her reasoning, she attracts attention, albeit most of it negative attention. She has done and said outrageous things to gain that all-needed attention to feed her enormous ego. Outside of her machinations to gain control through her attrocious actions, what has she really done for this case except to convolute every piece of evidence in order to help get the Ramseys off.

    The sheen has been off that freak appeal for years - she is what she is - her pathology is clear for anyone to see who will see. Anyone who thinks jameson gives one whit about any of her posters or that she won't cut anyone's throat who gets in her way is setting himself up for a huge disappointment, to say the least. She cut the Ramseys' throats by selling their interviews to the tabs; yet, she calls herself their friend. It's all about jameson - always has been, always will be.

    In the big picture of this case, jameson is small change. If this case ever comes out of that dark hole Boulder officials have relegated it to and truth comes to light, she will find out just how small change she and her files and ideas really are.
     
  10. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the

    13 things that's been bothering us about the case.

    14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.

    15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell

    16 you?

    17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me

    18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --

    19 TOM HANEY: Okay, for a second --


    I wish she hadn't been interrupted. She knew something, and she'll go to her grave with whatever it was. It was probably an ugly truth, just like this is:

    "Anyone who thinks jameson gives one whit about any of her posters or that she won't cut anyone's throat who gets in her way is setting himself up for a huge disappointment, to say the least. "

    It's ugly and it's true.
     
  11. she wounded

    she wounded Member

    To All!

    Jameson is a person that takes atvantage of victims and their families. It is for the money and to top the money thing she is a :skank: and makes her living off of the dead and their families. Hey Jameson you :skank: Post this on woundeds thread you old money monger! :rs:
     
  12. Elle

    Elle Member

    I agree with all you have to say, WY.

    I just get so fed up to the teeth with this woman's interference.
     
  13. Elle

    Elle Member

    Now I feel better, thank you, Wounded! :)
     
  14. she wounded

    she wounded Member

    Elle 1

    Just nice to know I can help, :)!
     
  15. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    You got all my frustrations out with Skank and your wonderful post wounded.

    My thanks as well.

    PS. A very well respected and high profile doctor who knows of Jameson told me to always call her by her real name of Susan Bennet. The good doctor knows that Susan Bennet hides behind her hat.

    Susan Bennet is a sick loser. Susan Bennet created "Jameson" so she could be somebody. Let's not let Susan Bennet hide anymore.

    If you can remember to always refer to her as Susan Bennet it will prevent her from hiding and take away the power she feels she has.
     
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    Good thinking, Tricia!
     
  17. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    "The evidence says a man killed JonBenét - - and left his DNA. The BORG never could accept that they had it wrong."

    Typical Susan Bennett, take an insignificant issue and whip it into guilt. :nuts: The only thing this speck of unidentified, degraded DNA on JB's underpants SAYS is that some male stained a size 12 panty with unidentifiable body fluid. It could be blood, spit, tears, snot, whatever. It does NOT prove that unknown depositor KILLED anybody, much less JB. His only "guilt" is leaving a portion on some underpants, and not necessarily while they were being worn, and not necessarily or specifically while JB was wearing them. Underpants straight out of the package, brand spanking new no less, and obviously not JB's.

    Typical Susan Bennett to ignore the hard evidence of Patsy Ramsey's sweater fibers entwined in the phoney garotte, and John Ramsey's sweater fibers in JB's crotch. Never once have the RST ever addressed that evidence; better just to sweep it, along with all the culpable rest, under a tacky rag rug or coonskin cap.

    The internet may not have an eraser, but it does have a toilet. I thought we flushed this turd years ago, right after she publicly wiped her :(:(:( on JB's autopsy report. :rs:
     
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well...that's special....

    Oh, Tricia, I figured I'd just made y'all wince with my throw down on Patsy. I know the woman gets lots of cancer sympathy, so I try to refrain. But I hadn't posted on this case in awhile, and so.... :cold:

    The sad thing about what I know about this case is, I've forgotten more than I remember at this point.

    hehehe Jayelles, you soooooo get it done!

    Elle, I used to feel the same way about jams, but you know, this whole story is what it is, and if you noticed, the Ramseys have a lawyer who has managed to run right over our Constitutional rights to free speech, resulting in almost complete media censorship of anyone but Ramsey supporters. They spin their version of lies, misinformation, and outright malicious slander in their media blitz to convince people the Ramseys aren't who they are, while causing irreparable damage to the reputation of people who have no resources to defend THEMSELVES. So what can WE do? Ignore them?

    No, I choose to speak out. It's not much, I know, it's not going to matter, ever, most likely, but it's all I can do: never let the facts be forgotten, never let the truth be buried with JonBenet by those whose only agenda in this case is self-promotion and deception.

    JonBenet is dead. She suffered. She had her head bashed in, a paintbrush shoved up her vagina, and was strangled with a cord pulled by a makeshift handle from the same paintbrush. She was 6 years old. Her own parents refused to simply go to the police dept and talk to LE. She died horribly, has lain in a grave alone for 9 years now, but her parents did not even have the guts to walk into the BPD flanked by the most powerful attornies in Colorado and answer questions.

    So Susan Bennett, jams, whomever she is/they are--I don't care. Nobody is speaking for JonBenet. Nobody is walking in HER shoes, in spite of the self-promoting PR Lou BSmit shovels on TV for the Ramseys.

    And I'm right here as long as I can be to let them know...they ain't fooling anyone but themselves. FOR ALL THEIR HIGH OPINIONS OF THEMSELVES, THERE IS NO JUSTICE FOR JONBENET IN THEIR LEGAL COURTS, IN THEIR FAKE OATHS AND SHIRKED DUTIES, AND THEY OWE HER THAT, DAMMIT! THEY TOOK THE MONEY AND RAN, AND I FOR ONE WILL NOT EVER FORGET THAT THEY ARE THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THIS WORLD SAFE FOR CHILD KILLERS AND DANGEROUS FOR CHILDREN.

    Not that I think they care. They don't have the heart to care. But that's OK, because I care, and many others here care, and elsewhere, as well. And that care will one day bring justice, not in court, but somewhere. Nobody gets away with it forever.
     
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    I hear you loud and clear KK. I do understand how you feel. I just go through these spells every now and then where I get tired of reading about Susan Bennett, when nothing concrete is appearing about the investigation.

    It just irritates the hell out of me to see Susan Bennett take over the job as spokesman for the Ramseys. However, now we have another investigator. I wonder how long he's going to keep us waiting like Tom Bennett did, with not one single word of his report printed for the public. Something wrong with this picture.

    A friend suggested it could be the Disrict Attorney, Keenan Lacy, who doesn't want his report published. That's worth a thought. She could be right; especially if Mary is
    catering to the Ramseys and Lin Wood (?).
     
  20. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    IF? LOL My dear Elle, you are so kind to give Keenan the benefit of the doubt, but there is no "IF." Keenan is not only catering to Lin Wood and the Ramseys, she is in CAHOOTS with them.

    Part of the reason is because the Boulder DA's office is scared spitless of a Woody lawsuit, and the other part is because Keenan couldn't find her rear end with detailed instructions. And believe me, she's been trying because CYA (pardon my French) is all she's done in the DA's office since she got there.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2005
  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