Results 1 to 12 of 191

Threaded View

  1. #11


    I know I need to just let this entire case go, but it really bugs me to this day how cavalierly the Ramseys lied to LE. I can reach no other conclusion but that they knew what happened to JonBenet, who did what to whom, and the evidence Patsy wrote the note is solid.

    I mean, come on! PATSY STATES CLEARLY NUMEROUS TIMES SHE PUT THE PANTIES IN THE DRAWER. But there is jams, years later, stating the panties were found in the package SOMEWHERE ELSE, NOT IN THE DRAWER.

    Now, we know jams only knows what those limpheads Ollie and Smit tell her, but how is it that these two WORLD-CLASS DETECTIVES are telling jams that Patsy LIED to LE?

    Oh, we can sure explain that away, can't we? It had been sooooo long, she just was confused, blahblahblah.

    But what is NOT confused is that LE is sitting there telling Patsy Ramsey THE PANTIES ON JONBENET CAME FROM A PACKAGE WHICH PATSY CLEARLY REMEMBERS BUYING IN NEW YORK, and lo and behold, a pair of those panties are found on JonBenet's murdered body, AND YET, THERE ARE NONE OF THE REMAINING PANTIES FROM THAT PACKAGE FOUND IN THE HOME BY LE. Not in the panty drawer, not in any drawer, not on the counter, not in plain sight, not in with the other panties where Patsy stated numerous times SHE PUT THEM, not in the laundry, not in the dryer, not on the floor. NOWHERE IN THE HOME.


    And the kicker is that jams states that the Ram investigators FOUND the panties STILL IN THE PACKAGE, IN THE HOME, after LE's forensics teams spent 10 days there and never photographed them, never took them into evidence. Of course, in jams duplicitous and always carefully edited versions of her insider info stories, she never says WHERE this package of panties was found. Never says WHEN they were found. Never says WHO found them, by name. NO "LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY" IN THIS SERIOUS DIVERSIONARY SPIN, IS THERE?

    OK, fine. If the RST wants to spin that as LE's fault, old incompetent CBI forensics and BPD, fine. But how does that explain THIS: THE RAMS' INVESTIGATORS FIND THE PACKAGE OF PANTIES IN THE HOME...SOMEWHERE, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE...AND THEY TAKE CUSTODY OF THEM...AND THEY DON'T GIVE THEM TO LE FOR SIX YEARS?

    Now, consider that the RST KNOWS how important these panties are ALL ALONG. This interview took place in 2000. Patsy was asked about the panties in 1998, as well. Schiller wrote about them. Thomas wrote about them. Patsy herself STATES she's READ SOMEWHERE about the fact that they were too big. She has obviously THOUGHT about this. Her lawyers have THOUGHT about this. She has obviously been DRILLED on this, as her FIRST clear and concise answer demonstrates. Yet even in 2000, with Kane and Beckner and other DA and BPD LE making it CLEAR that this is a BIG ISSUE...EVEN THEN, neither Wood nor Patsy nor the Ramsey investigators say WORD ONE about the very PANTIES IN QUESTION BEING IN THEIR POSSESSION!

    They also KNOW there is an issue with the DNA. They KNOW the BPD has said publicly that it may come from the manufacturer, which having the other panties tested could help prove or disprove. Do the Ramseys want IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE cleared up so LE can move on to other important evidence to track down that intruder? OR NOT?

    I say NOT! How could they KEEP SILENT about such evidence IN THEIR POSSESSION for 6 years? THIS is that infamous "cooperation"? HA! BS!

    Jams tried to spin that they didn't trust LE to process it. That's BS. Who is going to process it? The Border Patrol? Then GIVE IT TO THEM!

    But no. The Ramseys and their investigators and lawyers CONSPIRED FOR SIX YEARS TO WITHHOLD EVIDENCE IN A CHILD MURDER CASE!


    I'm sorry for all the screaming. Most times I'm using caps to emphasize points, like bullet points, because my posts are so long, but now, I'M SHOUTING!


    How that ends up with Keenan and Judge Carnes and Smit and every damn sorry excuse for a person sworn to seek justice for victims in this country weeping and fawning over the Ramseys is truly diabolical!

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
    Last edited by Cherokee; June 2, 2012, 10:15 pm at Sat Jun 2 22:15:20 UTC 2012.

    "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.

Similar Threads

  1. Book Proposal for "Prostitution of Justice" by Thomas C. "Doc" Miller
    By Tricia in forum ***Sneek Preview*** - Tom Miller's Book
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 4, 2007, 9:15 pm, Sat Aug 4 21:15:02 UTC 2007
  2. John Ramsey's '98 Interview...Things That Were "Strange" or "Out Of Place"
    By AMES in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: June 19, 2007, 11:51 am, Tue Jun 19 11:51:40 UTC 2007
  3. "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
  4. The Ramseys and "lynchings" and "lynch mobs"
    By JustinCase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 20, 2004, 1:25 pm, Sun Jun 20 13:25:02 UTC 2004
  5. Debunking the Seven Pieces of "Evidence" That "Prove" the Intruder Theory.
    By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 10, 2002, 7:34 pm, Tue Sep 10 19:34:10 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

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