The Ramsey's own words

[icedtea4me]

From the May 31, 2000 Larry King Live show-

P. RAMSEY: It was an evil, evil...

KING: What was the guy doing?

P. RAMSEY: ... man.

KING: Why did the intruder do this?

J. RAMSEY: It was an evil, evil person.


John Ramsey stated in their book that the murderer was a male pedophile, so it's rather telling that he would not agree with his wife's comment about the killer being a man, and used the gender neutral "person" instead.

-Tea

[rashomon]

From the May 31, 2000 Larry King Live show-

P. RAMSEY: It was an evil, evil...

KING: What was the guy doing?

P. RAMSEY: ... man.

KING: Why did the intruder do this?

J. RAMSEY: It was an evil, evil person.


John Ramsey stated in their book that the murderer was a male pedophile, so it's rather telling that he would not agree with his wife's comment about the killer being a man, and used the gender neutral "person" instead.

-Tea

Here we have it again: per JohnRamsey, the killer was one person, and not the foreign faction kidnapping group in the ransom note. So John too admits that he knows the ransom note was bogus.
I have question: have the Ramseys ever offered any opinion on that ransom note? Did they say for example: "this note was faked" (by a pedophile for example). And if they did, did they elaborate why a pedophile would have written such a note at all?

[rashomon]

A poster on another forum brought this up:

Her mother [Nedra] said: Patsy told me "I know in my heart I did not do this."
Now that's a very odd statement to make. For this is actually something one would say to another person, e. g. "I know in my heart you didn't do this",
But Patsy said this of herself, as if she wanted to reassure herself.

Even if Patsy had only said "I know I didn't do this", it would have been odd enough, because it adds an element of uncertainty.
"I know in my heart I didn't do this" is even more strange.
For if a person didn't do it, wouldn't she simply state: "I didn't do it."?

Why did Patsy feel the need to phrase it like that? Possible interpretation:

"My heart tells me that this could not (really) have been me who did this to my beloved daughter" - maybe these are the thoughts which keep running through Patsy's head. So there could be a defense mechanism at work here: she blocks out that part of her personality who in fact did this to JonBenet.

[JC]

The man who was arrested (and released) for the 1992 Butts triple homicide in Cass County, Texas, said as much as the same thing - he knew in his heart he didn't do it.

[icedtea4me]

A poster on another forum brought this up:

Her mother [Nedra] said: Patsy told me "I know in my heart I did not do this."

When did Nedra say this, rashomon?

-Tea

[rashomon]

When did Nedra say this, rashomon?
-Tea

The poster did not give the source, but I'll ask her about it.

[Jayelles]

The poster did not give the source, but I'll ask her about it.

Please do - jameson has devoted a thread to this - it's clearly important to the Ramsey Spin Team

RST jameson started the thread and called it "BORG Bull", then Candy joined in to attack the Guttah, then Tipper joined in to argue semantics, then Candy joined in to attack the Guttah..... and so it goes on.

Come to think of it..... it's just a typical RST thread actually. ALl we need is for E2 to join in and claim that it wasn't actually Nedra who said this, but Janet McReynolds DRESSED as Nedra, then Candy will join in to attack the Guttah. Then Dave the self-procalimed Expert of all things will start another thread called "Inadequacy of the BORG self" ... except he'll start it in the protected forum so Candy and Tipper won't be able to join in...

Edited to add:- Come to think of it - just a typical thread at yonder forum. Starts with an attack on an unnamed "BORG" poster for an unsourced "BORG" post at an unsourced "BORG" forum and then the RST all join in to attack the BORG.

[rashomon]

LS: Do you think that the head injury occurred at the same place as the other injuries, say, with the ligature?

JR: I mean, its just no reason to - to know that. I mean, I guess
- well, like I say, I just - that's very difficult to think about
and imagine, but I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill
her and after that they strangled her.

Shift from speculation to declaration and John is saying that the
cord was tied around the neck of a dead JonBenet. I assume this
applies to the wrists “ties” as well. Since the “ties” did not
and need not bind a dead child, and since the cord around the
neck need not and did not cause her death (according to John), it
is all admittedly rendered useless EXCEPT FOR STAGING! .

So true EasyWriter.
No wonder Lou Smit quickly changed the subject after John said that, lol.
For this would not have fit into Smit's intruder time line at all:
Because it doesn't make sense for killers to strangle an already dead child. It doesn't make sense to put wrist ligatures on an already dead body. It doesn't make sense to put duct tape on a dead child's mouth.

I believe that without being aware of it, JR spoke of what had indeed happened: the head injury had come first. Both Ramseys believed JB was already dead, and Patsy (helped by John who wanted to cover up for her) tied the knot around her neck and staged the rest of the scene to make it look like a sexual pervert had committed the crime.

And what you wrote in your letter to Mary Keenan is a fascinating interpretation of JR's statement:

Translation: "Please tell me that she was dead from the head injury before the strangulation. I don't want to believe there was a chance she could have survived and wasn't given the chance."

[Elle_1]

EasyWriter

Translation: "Please tell me that she was dead from the head injury before the strangulation. I don't want to believe there was a chance she could have survived and wasn't given the chance."

I think this is exactly what was in John Ramsey's head too!

You sure have great insight into John Ramsey's thoughts, Delmar.

[Jayelles]

ROSWELL, Ga. -- The media attention surrounding JonBenet Ramsey's murder has devastated the family, the 6-year-old's grandmother said in an interview at her home here Saturday.

"We've lost our little girl, and now the press is trying to destroy my son-in-law," Nedra Paugh said. "I don't know why they're doing that."

Paugh made her comments nine days after the Boulder child's body was found in the wine cellar of the Ramsey family's Chautauqua home.

"I was so thankful that her little body was left behind," said Paugh, the girl's maternal grandmother. "There is someone out there who is vicious and a monster, and if he can do this once, he can do it again."

The curtains in the Paughs' large, white home in the upscale Brookfield West subdivision remain drawn. A wreath intertwined with red and yellow flowers hangs on the Paughs' front door.

"We put up a sign telling the press we didn't want to comment," Paugh said. "This is the first time the TV cameras haven't been outside here. We want people to get on their knees and pray to the Lord that he reveals the facts so that he can stop this horrible, horrible nightmare."

The media coverage of the Ramseys' "nightmare" has infuriated several of the family's Georgia friends.

"The press has totally invaded this family's privacy," a close Georgia friend said. "They're going through a tragedy, and they have a right to be left alone to remember their sweet little girl."

Nedra Paugh recalled JonBenet as an intelligent, innocent girl.

"She never knew ugliness," Paugh said. "She was never spanked in her life, that I knew of. She was very loved."

Paugh also described JonBenet's father, John Ramsey, president of Boulder-based computer distributor Access Graphics, as a "gentle" father.

"He never raised his voice," she said. "He loves his children more than life, and he disciplines them with love."

John divorced his first wife in 1977, Paugh said. He noticed Patsy, a former Miss West Virginia, as she entered a Georgia apartment, Paugh added.

"He ran (up) a flight of steps to try to see who she was, and she disappeared," Paugh said. "But he eventually found her."

The couple recently celebrated their 14th wedding anniversary, Paugh said.

John Ramsey enjoyed reading to his daughter, Paugh said.

"He would look over her papers, too," she said. "She always had art papers for him. She wanted to be an artist sometimes, and then the next day she wanted to be a professional ice skater."

Paugh and the Ramseys will never have an opportunity to watch JonBenet achieve those dreams.

"It's so sad," Paugh said. "I've been out to (Colorado) five times since October. I don't think I'll ever go back again because ... someone there is lurking in the shadows."

SNIP

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/...7/01/05-2.html

[EasyWriter]

[QUOTE=rashomon]
And what you wrote in your letter to Mary Keenan is a fascinating interpretation of JR's statement:[QUOTE]

Mary Keenan is a portrait in pathos. I’m really not sure what all
is behind it, but that she dances to the ratatatat of the
Woodpecker’s “song” is not in doubt. Given the information she
has been furnished, another thing not in doubt is that Mary
Keenan Lacy KNOWS there is no evidence of an intruder. Am I
saying she is deliberately covering for the Ramseys. That is
EXACTLY what I’m saying. Does anyone think that she will
challenge?

I make this accusation without reservation because it is
supported by all the evidence - unless she admits to being so
mentally incompetent as to warrant immediate dismissal from
office followed by legal charges from three columns: Non
feasance, misfeasance and malfeasance.

There is a constant admonition from the DA’s office to bring to
their attention any information that may help to solve the case.
Who knows how much money has been spent following “leads” to an
“intruder.” Yet, when clear and concise information is sent
pointing to evidence that does not indicate intruder, this
information is simply ignored; not even few cents spent in a
letter of response.

Mary Keenan Lacy has had such information since May of 2003.
(Certified letter) More recently, Tom Bennett also has such
information. Although the information identifies irrefutable
evidence of an ineptly staged crime scene, it has been totally
ignored. NO ONE has even tried to refute a single word of it.
Simple reason: It points straight at the Ramseys. The totality of
their pretense and defense is to ignore. They have the gall and
audacity to talk about following the evidence when they are so
scared of the actual evidence, they ignore its existence and rely
on Looney Louie to “invent evidence” that suits the lie of Ramsey
innocence.

[icedtea4me]

The poster did not give the source, but I'll ask her about it.

Thanks, rashomon. There have been so many things said regarding this case and this statement this poster claimed was made by Nedra needs to be substantiated.

-Tea