Evidence against the Ramseys

If you remember, in the PMPT movie, Cherokee, Marg Helgenberger as Patsy, has her arm outstretched and her hand almost in the detective's face, when she tells him not go there. at the mention of Burke's name. I wish he had stuck to his guns and kept bombarding her, he might have found out more.

In the police files, when Tom Haney is back questioning her about Burke, and asks her if Burke could have pushed JonBenét down the stairs. She replies:
Burke Ramsey did not do this, okay? He did not do this. Get off it. Page 176.

To me, she is so damn sure of who did it, she can confidently say it wasn't Burke.

 

rashomon, could you please provide a source/link as to this statement from Burke? Thanks!

-Tea

 

It's in Steve Thomas' book (hardcover ed., 2000) p. 316/317, where he referred to Burke being interviewed in early June 1998:

When asked how he thought JonBenet had been killed, he [Burke] replied, "I have no idea." In his first interview he had been explicit in describing what happened to her. He confirmed that her bedwetting had been a big problem.

 

I was thinking exactly the same thing when reading this passage (p. 326 in ST's book):

Haney continued to be inhospitable and probed about whether the death could have been an accident resulting from bed-wetting. Patsy held up a hand, like a stop sign. "You're going down the wrong path, buddy!"

If I tell a person he's going down the wrong path with his speculations as to what happened, I must be sure what actually happened (something far more sinister than bedwetting maybe?).

The other possibilty is of course that Patsy flat-out lied and quickly said Haney was going down the wrong path, while in fact he was going up the right path and had hit the nail on the head with his speculation.

 

She behaved like a mother lion protecting her cub, rashomon, ready to almost kill the attacker. I quite believe, had it not been Detective Haney doing the questioning, she would have powed him one. He was the police, and he had the right to go wherever he wanted with his questions. Something far wrong with this scene, isn't there?

 

Thanks, rashomon. It would be nice to know exactly what Burke said, but that's pretty doubtful.

-Tea

 

Yes, koldkase, and I suspect that if there were such a thing going on, its roots were not in sexual gratification but rather in lending comfort. There are those who will say, "What about Melinda and John Andrew? They say their father never molested them, therefore he couldn't have been doing it to JonBenet." And their point is...? Lucinda and Patsy are two different people, and John did not experience the same things in his marriage to Lucinda as he did with Patsy. I mean, it's like Marquita Simpson (O.J.'s first wife) saying, "O.J. never stabbed me, therefore he couldn't have stabbed Nicole."

Here's where this is brought up in the June 1998 interview (bolding mine)-

25 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, if Suzanne

0579

1 were there, she might or my mother would, or you

2 know.

3 TOM HANEY: Did JonBenet ever

4 complain about any inappropriate touching by

5 anybody?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

7 TOM HANEY: Absolutely sure?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE).

9 TRIP DeMUTH: Tom, just so I am

10 clear, the Desitin or any ointment or cream you

11 ever did apply was topical?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: Topical.

13 TRIP DeMUTH: So there was never

14 any internal ointment?

15 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

16 TRIP DeMUTH: Or cream that you

17 applied on JonBenet?

18 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

19 TOM HANEY: You made three calls to

20 Dr. Buff 's office on December 7. Okay. Just--

21 PATSY RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE).

22 TOM HANEY: Correct? Three in one

23 day. One at 6:28 p.m., one at 6:50 p.m., and

24 one at 6:59 p.m. Do you recall that day?

25 PATSY RAMSEY: To the office or

0580

1 his home?

2 TOM HANEY: To the office.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't

4 remember.

5 TOM HANEY: Would that have been

6 for something like this, to remember?

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Seems like I would

8 have remembered, you know.

9 TOM HANEY: Three times in less

10 than an hour?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I just

12 don't --

13 TOM HANEY: Seems like you call--

14 PATSY RAMSEY: Did I have, is

15 there, you know, a check-up report after that,

16 as to what that was?

17 TOM HANEY: Um, sure -- well, I

18 would assume that his office made some sort of

19 at a minimum a notation?

20 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

21 TOM HANEY: And or a chart entry, I

22 don't know. I haven't seen that. That's one of

23 the reasons I was asking you.

24 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.


Makes you wonder the need to make three phone calls to Dr. Beuf's office all in a 30 minute or so time span. Maybe it was because JonBenet sneezed or something.

-Tea

 

Actually, FYI, I DO appreciate your hard work, thank you. I got an A on my paper. Yes, I have been busy. But I don't appreciate members taking a simple question as a joke, whether it's about the Ramseys innocence or guilt.

Thanks,
-LA

 

An "A"

Wow - would you mind sharing your homework with us? After all of this, I would love to see your final effort!

RR

 

Little Angel 90, why don't you use the search option at the top of the page to delve into the various aspects of this case?

-Tea

 

Why would I be considered arrogant? Because I'm honest?

I asked a simple question and immediately it's like I don't know anything an treated as a joke. It's not arrogant to express my thoughts. No, I don't expect anyone to do my work for me, as I did a lot of research myself for my report. I never said anyone owed me anything, what's that supposed to mean? Some saw through me? Don't know what that means but, okay.

Sorry that I didn't know it was "mandatory" to thank someone right away the minute they posted the information I needed. Maybe I don't come here as often as I have a busy life with other things. I already looked on A candy rose and this forum, I could not find anything specific, so I chose another perspective of the case and used that. But it's over now and the report was worth working on. This report was not at all focused on the Ramsey's guilt.

Iced Tea, thanks for your suggestion. I will keep it in mind.

LA 90

 

What was the focus of the report? If it wasn't focused on the Ramseys' guilt, was it focused on their innocence?

 

What's arrogant? Coming to a forum where you are quite new and criticizing those who have been here and worked for years on the forum and the subject because they didn't say how high when you said jump. That is arrogant. If you don't know that, maybe you should do some research and write a paper on it.

As for honesty, you're not being honest even now and you know it. You came here with an agenda, and I doubt very seriously that it had anything to do with a "paper" or a "grade." But even if it did, show me where you once said you were writing a paper and would appreciate any help we could give you on the topic. We know exactly how much work it takes to find any specific topic on the internet on this case, because we've spent almost a decade "doing the work" you "couldn't find." I have a life, as well, and believe me, had I known you were just another troll looking for a forum to target in your "innocent Ramseys" search, I'd not have wasted my time.

And you are simply lying when you say you couldn't find anything "specific" here or at ACR's. We know what is here and at ACR's, as again, we have been studying this case for many years online and in every other media. You simply were looking for a quick summary of what you wanted to hear. You could have done research for a paper without us. I have a very good idea what that "paper" is about, and you're still lying about it, IMO. How Ramsey of you.

I bet you didn't write about Ramsey guilt. That was why you got a laugh with your initial question. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but the chance was slim you were looking for more than an opportunity to attack posters here who have studied the actual case evidence and concluded the Ramseys are guilty. Your "announcement" that you didn't write about "Ramsey guilt" is confirmation of that. Use us, then abuse us? The RST strikes again, in all the dishonesty and lies they so embrace for their Ramsey cause. With the Ramseys, it's always about lies and deception. So on that, you sure do score an "A". KMG

Your agenda is quite clear. You should take your arrogance to another forum where it will be appreciated.

 

Honest? Did you reveal you were writing a report and needed help on it? I posted a link for you, as well as we told you to look here on the forum, and you then asked me to be specific, saying you couldn't "find" the info you needed on your own. But go ahead, convince me you didn't know how to use the search feature here or on google until Tea told you.

Otherwise, don't complain that you are "treated" as if you don't know anything. Either you do or you don't, and since your own opening question implies you don't, that's why you got the response you did. Since you didn't bother to explain why you would ask such a question on a topic you implied yourself you don't know much about, we had only two conclusions we could draw: you had another agenda, or you really don't know the subject. What else can one think when the topic is one of the most analyzed, debated, and written about criminal cases of the last decade? But then you jump up and get offended because you are perceived as lacking knowledge, insulting us. Or baiting us. I'm leaning toward the latter at this point.

What's arrogant? Coming to a forum where you are quite new, criticizing those who have been here and worked for years on the forum and the subject, because they didn't say how high when you said jump. That is arrogant. The knowledge we have on this case has taken us and about a million others many years to acquire. You breeze in and demand it in a "list" you're not even willing to do a decent search function to find for yourself in any of about a hundred places on the net. Yeah, it takes time. But you'd rather WE TAKE OUR TIME to hand it to you. And lo and behold...we did. Our thanks: you're busy and you don't appreciate our questions and responses. That's arrogance.

You think we don't have lives and aren't busy? I don't require a "thank you," but it is common courtesy. When I "helped," it took me a lot of my "busy" time. I was willing to do it, in case you were sincere and not just a troll. We have a lot of knowledge about this case and sharing it--when we have time--is the point of why we're here. Since you're NEW here and asked for information twice, benefited from it, whether by elimination or use of the information itself, you could have spent one minute to say "Thank you for the information, this will help in my report." Why would that have been a good idea? Forget good will, which you obviously have. The bottom line is we really don't know who you are nor why you are at this forum, and we have had many people through the years who come here to cause problems. Your attitude raises questions: it took you three weeks to respond regarding the information YOU ASKED FOR, and that came with another insult. With all the indignant retorts you so readily hurl, one has to wonder what your agenda actually is, or if you are just the victim of ill upbringing.

Use us, then abuse us? I hope that "'90" is your birthdate, as that's about your only acceptable excuse for such poor interpersonal skills. For my part, I erred, as well. It's foolish to help someone who seems to believe s/he is entitled, and who has no humility or grace when asking for help nor when what is asked for is freely given. For your part, what you've done is nothing less than create ill will all the way around.

Perhaps your next paper should be one in sociology. We're a community that has been a decade in the making. You're totally unknown. That means the effort to successfully join lies with you.

And that's the last lesson I'm giving you.

 

Methinks you're right, KK. This little angel is a lot older than she is making herself out to be, don't you think? At least this is the way it appears to me. There are so many of this type out there,it becomes very tiring. I see the other Patsy clone has vanished. How long will it take her to come back?

 

Yeah, I think a lot of things at this point about LA.

Well, the good news about trolls is, it takes longer to come back than it takes to be banned.

 

Easy, KK. There's no need for that.

 

KoldKase,

I really don't see the what the problem is here... Little_Angel just asked a simple question, and as "educated" as you claim to be on this case answering that question should have been a piece of cake. So why be rude? To me this makes little sense...What did Little_Angel do to be labled as "not honest?"

Elle_1,
Why should it matter how old she is or what her intentions are? She is apparently writing a paper and wants to present both sides of the issues surrounding this case. Also, what's with the Patsy thing? I haven't been watching these forums very closely so I am just curious as to what you meant by that.

No hard feelings anyone... I just don't get what the issue is here!

 

Actually, I had to change a few things around. As the intruder perspective was too broad of a topic to cover, I had decided to focus my paper on how the media circus totally bungled the case and used samples to back up my claims. No doubt the media ruined the family, the case and JonBenet's innocence. FYI, Elle, I'm 22, not "a lot older than she is making herself out to be." Thanks for taking interest!

LA

 

I didn't know doctors kept office hours that late in the day, 6:30 to 7 pm.