Open basement window??????

Details. Details. Call Patsy. She can hook you up with blonde if you're interested.

 

Could you explain the relevance of this post? Having a problem or something?

 

I think

it was meant to be a joke. Patsy Ramsey apparently had a problem with a blonde B* who was after her husband. One of the case "asides" - possibly published by the NE.

 

Thanks Jayelles, I am totally in the dark when it comes to NE articles. No NE in the Netherlands. Only thing I have her are the police files based on the true report. And even there I am missing parts important parts of those files.

Again it doesn't make any sense to me, she was dying JonBenet's hair blond. Once again proves the strange stories that come up in the NE.

 

She's right Syl. Miss Patsy had her kittly claws bared over some blonde haired vixen who lived down the street (Tricia maybe?) and Patsy even claimed to get over cancer just to keep her beady-eyed little troll of a husband out of blondie's clutches. She should have let her have him

 

Oh my, Bob, she even more crazier than I thought if that is true. And where was this suppose to have taken place? Futher more was that a blind blonde haired? I can not imagine anyone wanting that creep. And let me get this straight she got over her cancer because of that blonde haired whatever?

 

I understand where you're coming from Bob. Like the rest of us, you're fed up with the BS which comes from all of those named above. The evidence is in the Ramsey home and glued to the Ramseys. This is what I believe. Plus, D.A. Hunter is the man who should be charged with obstruction of justice.

 

Grasshopper brain

Just a thought - anyone else noticed a resemblance between John Ramsey and Jack Klugman (Quincy)?

(Except for the possibility that Jack Klugman has more manly eyebrows)

 

ROFL :rolling: :rolling:

 

Heavens above, are they showing "Quincy" in Scotland? It's ancient Chinese history over here in Canada, Jay!? Quincy like John Ramsey!!! ??? Are you serious? NO!

 

Elle

I love Quincy

 

Syl--I think Patsy was just joking when she made that remark. A friend of hers told that story to police--saying that Patsy said she'd recovered just to keep John out of the blonde down the street's clutches. She was obviouly kidding--I thought that was funny too.

And Elle you are exactly right. Discussing stun guns and windows that were broken months prior to the murder is playing the Ramsey game. They are liars, always have been.

I mean just coming to a kidnapping without bothering to write a ransom note beforehand is PROOF ENOUGH that the focus should be, and still is, on the Ramseys. No buts. I am sorry, but anyone stupid enough to even entertain the idea that anybody would plot a major terrorist kidnapping, without bringing a ransom note, should not be discussing crime scene investigation, they should be scrubbing toilets in some roach-bait hotel on off some particularly sleazty expressway.

You listen to daddy now

 

Bob, I don’t think it is funny to joke over a disease like cancer. Not funny at all. Seen too many good people die of it, nothing to joke about.

Elle, do you actually feel it is useless to talk about evidence brought in, no matter from which side it comes?

If there isn’t any discussion left, well I think the case is closed and solved then. No need to go over anything anymore. Sorry, but no matter what anyone thinks, this crime still need solving and have to be able to hold up in a court of law. I think my neighbor committed murder….don’t think it will hold up in a court of law.

 

Jayelles

I like Jack Klugman too, Jay, aka Quincy! Watched that show for years. Now we have CSI "Crime Scene Investigators" with William Petersen. Also "CSI Miami." I love all the forensic gadgets which turn up in these shows, based on true cases.

 

My interpretation of this is that no one is joking over cancer, but rather referring to how a victim of the same made light of their own situation within the midst of it, with a kitty bite enclosed in the humor. Touche', BobC

 

I think it's good to see false evidence squashed, Sylvia, but I think all this concocted evidence about an invisible intruder sidetracks us from the actual evidence found at the scene. With help from Delmar England, I like to concentrate on the evidence found at the scene of the crime.

I did read one of your recent posts, and I can see you are thinking along the lines of strangulation being the cause of her death, but I personally think she was already dead when this staged ligature was put around her neck. I arrived at this conclusion through reading Delmar England's garrote analysis.

http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis2.htm

Now for a look at the handle which has been prominent in internet photos and "identified" as "professional and complex." (What profession?) As part of the refutation of this nonsensical characterization is clear evidence of ignorant amateur by the 17 inch distance of the handle from the slip point and the neck.

Pulling the handle without holding down the victim would result in energy going into lifting the body and not in decreasing size of he loop for strangulation. To hold down the body with one hand and pull via handle 17 inches away with the other places the elbow at an acute angle with a consequent substantial decrease in pulling power as well as decrease in control. This elbow angle is more suitable for eating than applying pressure in a strangulation.

We now come to the many turns of cord around the handle? Why? What "professional" quality does this provide? None. The opposite is true.

All the material was found in the house. There's no need for me to go any further, Sylvia, Having read all your work on LPN, you know this case like the back of your hand. You may have read Delmar's analysis
and made up your own mind, but this man had never read a book on JonBenét, when first he came across this murder. He didn't need to know. He knew from his expertise in working with animals and using knots, that this half a-s-s-e-d effort of a garotte was created by someone covering up the scene of the crime. I am greatly influenced by this knowledge alone.

jmo Sylvia.

 

Elle, of course you have the right to having your own opinion, based on whatever you like. But I thought I had the same rights. I base my opinion on forensic scientist. Like a famous forensic pathologist, who was consulted by the BDP, and who gave an explanation of what had happened. But, no worry, I will no longer bother anyone with my view opinion or findings that are based on pro’s and con’s. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

Sure you, do, Sylvia, you've lost me here. Why wouldn't you continue? We all have different opinions. Are you reading anything the wrong way? I'm just letting you know how I arrived at my conclusion. That's all.

Your friend, my friend Thor thinks it may have been Burke or a Ramsey male. We still discuss other theories. No harm done! We all learn from each other.

If I need to clarify my post better, please let me know. I have always enjoyed reading your posts.

 

Elle, I think you misunderstood me partly, and that was partly my fault as well. Since it was merely to ask your opinion on something and wondered if you could do that what was asked.

First let me try to explain that it is impossible for me to forget about a Steve Thomas, a Lou Smit, a Hunter, a Keenan, and a Fleet White as they are part of this case. And whether some people don’t like it, it is still a fact that all the intruder stuff (open windows, stun guns stc), Krebbs nonsense, the flaming of Fleet White and Steve Thomas are things that are getting the overhand. Yes, there is evidence in that house, but I am afraid that open window was also in that same house, therefore part of the crime scene. And I am not talking yet about staged or not staged. Stun gun theory is spread by so many, not only a Smit, but by a judge, by Keenan and Tracey so now it has become part of this case. So we can do two things, leave it or go against it. Same count for the bashing of Steve Thomas and Fleet White. It was my opinion that these things should indeed be handled and proven to be wrong. Not once, but each time they come up with it.

How do I look at this case? From the side of the prosecutor and by that I do not mean a corrupt one. A prosecutor will have to prove the relevance and correctness, plus the irrelevance and incorrectness of certain statements or certain evidence. They have to prove it was or a part of the case or part of staging.

I should however have split the last part post as that was not directed towards you. I will no longer talk about or dispute any evidence coming from the other side broken windows, stun guns or whatever, nor will defend Steve Thomas and Fleet White any longer. And that is what I meant. It seems to upset people.

I only want to make clear as well that in no way am I going to judge only on facts as, house, ransom note, death child in basement so……….did it. (Fill in the blank as you like)

So sorry for not being clear enough.

 

None of us know what happened that night of the 26 December, Sylvia, and it just helps all of us to discuss it "every which way." I often wonder if Patsy Ramsey had the game "cluedo" in her hand as the staging progressed.

Anyway, Sylvia, don't be offended by what anyone has to say to you here. I don't think they mean it personally. They're just weary and tired of having to go over the "same old" data that crops up from "time-to-time" from anyone.

Sylvia, I'll be happy to help confirm anything you want confirmed, if I can, at any time, but not right now!. I'm visiting the youngest and oldest grandchildren today. Have a nice weekend.

Once again, I was in awe of all the JonBenét information you provided on your own site :"Le Passage Nouveau" and I know you have spent many hours researching this case.