Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 152122232425
Results 289 to 295 of 295

Thread: Patsy Is Dead

  1. #289

    Default

    Does anyone have the original obituary? The one which would have been done by the family, most likely in the Atlanta paper

  2. #290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabrina
    Does anyone have the original obituary? The one which would have been done by the family, most likely in the Atlanta paper
    I looked for that for a long time last night and all I could find was an "obituary article" in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. It wasn't at all like a normal obit in the paper, though. Sorry. Maybe someone else has it, if it exists.

    Oh, forgot the Ramseys issued their own PR statement though Wood:

    Press Release Source: Mr. L. Lin Wood

    Statement from the Family of Patsy Ramsey
    Sunday June 25, 2:21 pm ET

    ROSWELL, Ga., June 25 /PRNewswire/ -- "This weekend, Patsy lost a 13-year battle with ovarian cancer. As was true with every other crisis she endured during her life, she exhibited great courage and determination, never questioning her faith in God or losing one minute in demonstrating her love for her family and friends. Hopefully, Patsy's energy and enthusiasm for life will serve as an example for others who face difficult personal circumstances and challenges. Words cannot describe how much I will miss her," said John Ramsey.
    Patsy died at approximately 3:30 a.m. on Saturday, June 24, with her husband John by her side at the time of her death. She was 49 years old. Patsy's funeral will be held at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 29 at Roswell United Methodist Church, Mimosa Boulevard, Roswell, Ga.

    The family wishes to express their heartfelt thanks for the outpouring of emails and other notes of sympathy, condolence and support. In the next week leading up to the funeral service, the family would greatly appreciate the media respecting their desire for privacy during this difficult time.

    To honor Patsy Ramsey and her 13-year battle with ovarian cancer, her friends have established the Patsy P. Ramsey Ovarian Cancer Foundation. The foundation will be dedicated to early detection, research, and financial support to benefit future ovarian cancer victims. On the occasion of her death, Patsy's family has asked that in lieu of flowers, donations be made to the foundation. Donations should be sent to:


    The Patsy P. Ramsey Ovarian Cancer Foundation
    Regina Orlick, Chairman
    c/o Robert B. Hoffman
    Certified Public Accountants
    108 Michigan Avenue
    Charlevoix, MI 49720

    The family will not provide any interviews prior to the funeral service. Requests for future interviews, emails, and other notes of support can be directed to Lin Wood at the following address for delivery to the Ramsey family.


    Mr. L. Lin Wood, attorney for the Ramsey family
    Powell Goldstein LLP
    One Atlantic Center, 14th Floor
    1201 West Peachtree Street, NW
    Atlanta, GA 30309-3488
    Phone: 404.572.6633
    Email: Llwood@pogolaw.com

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #291
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default So empty.

    "Words cannot describe how much I will miss her," said John Ramsey

    That is an empty statement. The man is a liar, liar, liar. He was not missing and never will miss Patsy, because with her gone, he is FREE on this earth. He can say and do whatever he wants, because she is gone, and the case will never be prosecuted. He's much too smart to ever confess to any part of what happened that night, although if he got in a pinch in the future I am 100% certain he would pin everything on Patsy and say he was protecting Burke from consequences.

    Just like the empty statement on her gravestone. "Grace, Love, and Faithfulness through All, my lovely Irish setter Patsy..." oops, disregard the dog statement...

    May he burn in Hell.

    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  4. #292
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default Here's all I can find for an obit. Very terse.

    OBITUARIES
    Patsy Ramsey
    Patsy Ramsey, the mother of JonBenet Ramsey, died early Saturday after a lengthy battle with ovarian cancer, her family attorney said.

    Ramsey, 49, died at her father's home in Roswell, said her attorney, Lin Wood. Her husband, John, was by her side.

    Ramsey was diagnosed in 1993, Wood said. Ramsey was cancer-free for nine years, until it returned in January 2002, said Wood.

    No funeral arrangements have been made.
    Guest Book

    http://www.legacy.com/Atlanta/Obitua...sonID=18218879

    There is a guest book at that link.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  5. #293
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default I haven't seen this article anywhere else...

    If I've duplicated something, please ignore. From the Picayune Item.

    Published: August 19, 2006 07:25 pm

    Patsy Ramsey’s sister: It’s ‘wait-and-see’ over case against Karr

    Associated Press

    ROSWELL, Ga. — With questions swirling about John Mark Karr’s role in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, the slain 6-year-old’s aunt said Friday her family is cautious, yet hopeful, about the arrest.

    “We are optimistic, but it’s wait-and-see,” said mother Patsy Ramsey’s sister, Pamela Paugh, outside her family’s Roswell, Ga. home. “We’ve been patient for nine and a half years; what’s a few more months?”

    Karr remained jailed in Thailand on Friday, a days after his public proclamation there that he was with the beauty pageant princess when she was killed in Boulder, Colo., in 1996.

    Karr said Thursday that he wasn’t innocent in the case, but questions have been raised about some of his claims.

    Paugh, who has acted as her family’s spokeswoman since the arrest, said the family has its own concerns about Karr’s statements, but remains confident in the work of Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy and other investigators.

    “She would never do something (haphazardly) when she knows the world’s eyes are on her,” Paugh said about Lacy. “She’s not going to just go out there willy-nilly and pick up some nut case.”

    Paugh said she’s spoken with JonBenet’s father, John Ramsey, but did not know where he currently is. She said he’s upbeat about the arrest, but not yet ready to speak publicly.

    “It’s a very touchy thing right now,” Paugh said. “All this is bringing up some very hurtful and terrible memories, even though it’s a good thing; he just needs some alone time.”

    Meanwhile, police in the town just north of Atlanta, where Patsy Ramsey spent the final months of her life, declined to comment Friday on whether they had set up a ruse to trap e-mails or letters that Karr tried to send Ramsey.

    The family’s attorney, Lin Wood, in Atlanta said Ramsey never received the correspondence because police or someone else set up an address. “He thought that he was corresponding with Patsy, but he wasn’t,” Wood said.

    Karr’s father Wex and his brother Nate had yet to return to their Sandy Springs, Ga., home Friday afternoon, where a dozen or so media members were waiting outside on their lawn. They left the home within hours after Karr’s arrest Wednesday and hadn’t returned.

    In nearby Marietta, tributes at the gravesite of JonBenet and Patsy Ramsey continued Friday, with new teddy bears, toys, flowers and religious pamphlets placed on JonBenet’s tombstone. On Patsy’s grave, a patch of earth that still has no headstone about two months after she died of ovarian cancer, someone placed a bouquet of red and pink roses.

    A steady stream of visitors, many of whom never left their vehicles, drove through the cemetery during the day.

    Bob Estep of Delray, W.Va., said he became fascinated with JonBenet’s story shortly after her murder and has visited her grave two or three times a year since 1998.

    Estep, who has met several members of the Ramsey family at the cemetery, said he was shocked by the arrest — but now has doubts about Karr’s story.

    “I had some hopes then, but listening to the news, this guy has a lot of contradictions,” he said. “But it might work out. You can hope.”

    Paugh said the family is taking comfort in that fact that, after a decade, there is any kind of movement in the case.

    “As crazy as all of this has been, my sole stance has been that at least something has happened,” she said. “It’s moved forward. If it goes on the yes path or the no path, we’ll be satisfied with that."
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  6. #294

    Default Interesting...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabrina
    Does anyone have the original obituary? The one which would have been done by the family, most likely in the Atlanta paper
    While searching for an actual, from the funeral home obituary I came across this sort of interesting post:

    loveandgarbage (loveandgarbage) wrote,
    @ 2006-08-17 10:02:00
    The Guardian, Patsy and JonBenet Ramsey
    One of my earliest posts in this LJ related to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey and the death of Patsy Ramsey. At the time The Guardian had published an obituary of Patsy Ramsey which, in my view, was laden with innuendo that Patsy Ramsey had been complicit in her daughter's death - the link to the obituary is in the original post. At the time I wrote to the reader's editor of the Guardian and entered a correspondence.


    Dear Sir

    I am a solicitor and lecturer in law in Scotland and a regular reader of The Guardian.

    From the Guardian I expect respect for certain fundamental positions, particularly that a person is innocent until proved guilty. I do not expect the newspaper to resort to the innuendo in relation to crime found in the red top press – where a nod and a wink can suggest the guilt of someone interviewed by police but never convicted. In the week following the latest developments in the Rachel Nickell murder case and the shocking treatment of Colin Stagg I would expect this to be in the minds of all journalists and editors.

    It is a fundamental tenet of Scots and English law on defamation that one cannot defame the dead. Perhaps this tenet can explain the somewhat biased obituary of Patsy Ramsey in The Guardian on 27th June 2006 which through a series of innuendoes implies to me – as a reader - that Patsy Ramsey was guilty of the murder of her daughter JonBenet Ramsey. This obituary is, in my view, not a balanced piece of journalism and does discredit to your newspaper. To identify the innuendo I refer to: stress on the suspicion on the family; a reference to a "self-serving" biography (loaded terminology); the failure to rule out Mrs Ramsey from involvement in the ransom note in a handwriting analysis; references implying that the ransom letter was linked to the Ramseys; the hints (in the references to the "foreign faction now apparently forgotten") that the Ramseys wriggled to escape culpability; the references to her position in police interviews; and the final substantive paragraph drawn from the book by Steve Thomas which asks "Why would Patsy kill her beloved daughter?". I read these as a sustained attempt to besmirch the name of Patsy Ramsey, and infer her participation in the murder of her daughter, with little contrary information put before the reader. One passage stands out to me as a lawyer: "In March 2002, the detective and the Ramseys reached a secret settlement in a defamation case the couple brought against him." The use of the loaded word "secret" suggests that the Ramseys had something to hide ignoring the fact that virtually all legal settlements are secret and that it is common in legal cases for settlement to be reached. Without knowledge of the terms no inference can be drawn from the fact that there is a settlement.


    Mrs Ramsey was never prosecuted for murder. She was never convicted. To imply that she was her daughter’s murderer without any attempt at balance within the piece is not of the standard of journalism I would expect in the Guardian. That the police procedure and prosecution were subject to sustained criticism in the ITV and Channel 4 documentaries (one of which is referred to briefly in the obituary) and later by the local district attorney makes the lack of balance to a reader – in my view – inexcusable. In a defamation action in 2003 a district judge held that there was virtually no evidence that the Ramseys had killed their child, in 2002 the District Attorney (supporting earlier investigation by Lou Smits, a retired brought in to the investigation by the local police force) argued that the original investigation was flawed in not pursuing a theory that an intruder was involved (given various contemporaneous scene of crime photos that indicated the possible involvement of an intruder); a failure to investigate non-family DNA found on the clothes of the murdered girl.

    The UK documentaries included one from Channel 4 in 1998; Real Crime: Who Killed the Pageant Queen? (from 2001); and Who Killed the Pageant Queen? Suspects (from 2004) and were based on Smits’s investigation. I remember viewing these documentaries (hence my interest in the obituary) and remembering the persuasive nature of the evidence presented in the latter two in particular. While sympathetic to the plight of their family I did not draw to the Ramseys in their interviews within the programme. I found the Ramseys participation in child beauty pageants discussed in the programmes distasteful. However, such distaste does not in my view warrant an obituary of the nature published yesterday.

    I would be very grateful if you could look into this matter.

    The reply from The Guardian defended the obituary. I will not quote the reply in full as I am not sure of the copyright position. However, the reply said,

    "The only reason Ms Ramsey's life was remembered on the page was the suspicion that has hung over her since the murder. She had no other claim on our attention. "

    Also in their letter they suggested that the civil case I referred to in my original post had not been tested in a criminal court and suggested that evidence still pointed towards the Ramseys involvement in the crime although the case was not clear.

    I replied,

    Thank you for your reply. I note your observations.

    As you rightly note I do not allege any factual inaccuracies. This was not my point. My understanding of the function of the Reader's Editor was (as stated in the terms of reference)

    To seek to ensure the maintenance of high standards of accuracy, fairness, and balance in our reporting and writing.

    I did not prejudge the case in my e-mail but simply stated that the case was more balanced than the obituary suggested and that as the piece was in my view not balanced (and consequently unfair to the Ramseys) that this was not of the quality I would expect from The Guardian.

    I did not state that the article declared Mrs Ramsey's guilt, instead I noted that there was an implication, through innuendo (which of its nature is not an explicit statement but instead the impression given through the presentation of certain facts and the choice of language used in relation to the presentation of these facts), in the original obituary for the reasons I originally offered, and through the use of loaded language (eg "self-serving" and "secret settlement") and the lack of contrary observations, that Mrs Ramsey was responsible for the murder. I suggested that the contrary view was not given as much weight as it might have been particularly when:

    (a) there was a court action in 2003 (which you correctly indicate was not a criminal court but which applied a balance of probabilities test (a far lower test than beyond reasonable doubt) to suggest that Mrs Ramsey was not guilty of murder. I am slightly confused by your comment regarding this action. I note that from a legal perspective it would be odd for a court applying a lower standard than a criminal court to make a declaration that Mrs Ramsey did not commit the crime and then a court applying a higher standard of proof declare that on the same evidence there was sufficient evidence for guilt. While a declaration of guilt on balance of probabilities would be challengeable in a criminal court (on the basis that the prosecutor may not satsify the higher standard of proof) the converse proposition seems demonstrably to be problematic. This well-reported court case was not referred to, although the "secret settlement" (a term which I find problematic) in the other defamation case was referred to in the obituary - to me this suggests lack of balance; and

    (b) DNA evidence discovered by an investigator hired by the state that suggested that the Ramseys were not responsible for the crime.

    The omission of this material which tended to support a view of Mrs Ramsey's innocence (eg the DNA evidence) when only that material that tended to support guilt (eg the bed-wetting theory) was referred to suggested to me as a reader with a little knowledge of the case a lack of balance. That the author of the obituary revised it when publishing the obituary elsewhere (see the final paragraphs in http://www.smh.com.au/news/obituarie...174264404.html ) suggests that there may have been some merit in my original suggestion of lack of balance. I note that the SMH version of the text appears to me more balanced simply through the deletion of the paragraph you refer to in your e-mail which asks Why Mrs Ramsey would want to kill her daughter? and the insertion of one paragraph about the DNA.

    Yours

    [I should note that in subsequent correspondence I was advised by the Guardian that the paragraphs I referred to in the Sydney Morning Herald obituary had not been written by the obituary writer but added at editorial level in Sydney as the article had been syndicated and that a new statement had been made by the DA office in Boulder. (This statement was made on the death of Patsy Ramsey a couple of days prior to the Guardian publication but I did not take this point with The Guardian)]

    The Guardian replied with comments in relation to an Observer article which I referred to in my first post as to the balance of the evidence. The matter was left there with a suggestion that someone would be invited to contribute a letter responding to the first obituary.

    This morning the news is that someone has been arrested for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey in Thailand. He will be extradited to the US and face trial before a jury. The Guardian report on this matter is ten lines long. Patsy Ramsey's obituary - which I was advised by The Guardian only appeared in the newspaper because of the suspicion linking her to the case - took up half a Berliner page.

    EDITED 7.30 PM The Guardian now have a detailed report of the story on their website.
    Source: http://loveandgarbage.livejournal.com/29286.html

  7. #295

    Default

    Also in their letter they suggested that the civil case I referred to in my original post had not been tested in a criminal court and suggested that evidence still pointed towards the Ramseys involvement in the crime although the case was not clear.
    It ain't a suggestion. It's a fact. None of the police evidence was presented.
    They should all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.



Similar Threads

  1. This is why they are dead.
    By wounded in forum Butts - Triple Murder Case
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 3, 2007, 6:01 pm, Fri Aug 3 18:01:28 UTC 2007
  2. Patsy's 40th bday celebration: Did Patsy freak out about this???
    By JustinCase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 1, 2004, 9:38 am, Wed Dec 1 9:38:38 UTC 2004
  3. Police Say Laci is Dead
    By Tricia in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 22, 2003, 6:00 pm, Sat Mar 22 18:00:58 UTC 2003

Posting Permissions

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