Rams Resurrection: Easter. Be there!

I think Patsy looks thin, and as if she is wearing a wig.
And John looks at little sad to me.

 

Zotto sent me the following link to the Easter service, and if you fast forward it past the music section to between one third and halfway through the video ... you'll hear John Ramsey's "testimony."

http://www.enewhope.org/video/

Have a big bucket handy, because it will make you want to puke. I could barely watch it myself.



Among other things:

1. John said the reason for his testimony is, "I'm a sufferer." He says he and Patsy faced evil and unfairness, and that "in the eyes of the world we were convicted as killers of children."

Notice he didn't say "JonBenet" but used a plural noun substitute. He couldn't even say killers of OUR CHILD."


2. John said, "On the night of December 25th, 1996, someone in our home took our daughter from her bed, six-year-old daughter, JonBenet, and she was murdered."

What a confession ... he said "someone IN our home," not someone CAME IN or ENTERED our home.


3. John said that within two months after praying that God would raise up someone to help them, Mary Keenan called him to say she was in charge of the investigation. The Ramseys flew out to meet with her, and Keenan told them she believes in the power of prayer. John told her she was an answer to prayer.

Isn't that special ... what a heart-warming story. It seems John left out the part about them threatening to sue Boulder if the police department didn't hand the investigation over to the DA's office. Did God "raise" that up, too?


4. John said Keenan brought in competent investigators and they have "recovered strong DNA."

What a liar! He made it sound like the DNA was only found AFTER Keenan took office and that the DNA was strong and a viable link to JonBenet's killer.

 

Well, thanks so much to Zott and Chero for the link. If I can get it to load on my computer, I'll watch. If not, I'm not going to be too broke up about it. You have posted enough to illustrate it's just more lies and semantics with the Rams.

Good point, Chero. However...and I don't want to toot my own wine bottle...but...I did post above that it would be a John Ramsey confession.... (I'm psychic, I tell you, PSYCHIC!)

But...was Patsy not speaking? Did she show up? Too sick to maintain the facade?

 

It's the "Lost and Found" section KK...almost halfway through the clip.

Please...feel free to toot your own wine bottle....you'll need a carton after you see the clip LOL!

He says "the facts of the matter were that we had never even been deemed as suspects"........???????????????????????

 

OH, there go those semantics again! "Under the umbrella of suspicion"...but not "suspects."

hahaha I hope those people are as dumb as John hopes they are. Otherwise, their Easter was RUINED.... :violin: ray: = :bling:

 

Actually, the applause at the end was not overwhelming to say the least.....

 

You'd think someone would have a problem doing this kind of thing. Well, you know what they say: tell a lie enough, it becomes the truth.

 

I hate it when people choose their words so carefully. I like plain talkers.

 

Very nice work, Cherokee!

And not only that, but the "took our daughter from her bed, six-year-old daughter, JonBenet" part sounds extremely disjointed.

-Tea

 

Incredible how often the Ramseys gave themselves away by using such revealing words! Does there exist a thread here where all their self-incriminating statements have been collected?

 

Thanks, Tea.

I know what you mean about John's sentence sounding disjointed. It is. Although after reviewing the tape several times, I think I know why he came out with such a grammatically mangled sentence.

When John said someone "took our daughter from her bed" he suddenly thought he needed to clarify WHICH daughter was taken. He's had three daughters, and it wasn't Beth or Melinda, it was JonBenet ... so he felt he had to back up his sentence and put in the description "six-year-old daughter, JonBenet.

 

It IS incredible.

When I listened to the tape the first time and heard John say "in our home," I couldn't believe it. I thought, surely he didn't say that. So I wound the tape back and listened to it again. And again. And a third time. There was no mistaking it.

I'm hoping to get enough time this week to transcribe most (if not all) of John's "testimony." I think there should be a record of it posted here and at ACandyRose's website. It's just one more example of the Ramsey's self-serving tripe dressed up as sermon for the masses.

Of course, a transcription doesn't do justice to John's body language. He held the mike with his left hand and used his right hand like a hammer, nailing and punching his points down on top of the audience. His right arm was constantly in motion and held high, almost even with his shoulder; his hand was a loose fist, hammering ... hammering ... hammering ... like the driving of silent nails in a coffin of guilt.

 

In the Ramseys' interview with seven handpicked reporters, their laywers standing nearby (p. 178 in Steve Thomas' book),
"Patsy wagged a finger at the camera and said two knew who killed her daughter, the killer and someone the killer had told."

I almost dropped the book to the floor when reading that! How on earth could Patsy have known that the killer told someone else what he had done??? This statement is totally self-incriminating, for immediately one gets the picture of a shocked Patsy telling John what she had done ...

 

I think a thread of self-incriminating statements is a very good
idea. I have no doubt that such a thread will have several pages.
I have two favorites to submit at this time:

P. RAMSEY: No. I don't know. There's a-There's a ransom note
here.
911 OPERATOR: It's a ransom note?
P. RAMSEY: It says SBTC. Victory. Please.

“It says SBTC. Victory. Please.†is the last line of the note.
Patsy repeatedly claimed to have read only the first few lines
then went into panic mode. When she discovered the blunder and
found herself caught in a lie, she tried to nullify the damage by
claiming she saw the last line while making the 911 call and
looking over John who was crouched over the note on the floor in
a dimly lit hallway. Incredibly, as far as I know, no
interrogator, police nor media, ever challenged and asked for
demonstration of this totally absurd claim.

Again and again, the Ramseys and RST claim that the Ramseys have
been “targeted†and treated unfairly by the police and media when
truth is they have been (and still are) allowed to run the
“investigationâ€, including an “interview†instead of an
interrogation. This and only this is the reason they have so far
stayed out of jail.

My other favorite is John “up close and personal.â€

"John Ramsey: " 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."

Weigh John’s statement against the backdrop of the intruder
theory offered by Smit in defense of the Ramseys. Smit theorized
a “sophisticated garrote†and assault by a pedophile who in his
final act bashed JonBenet over the head. Now, John questions
Smit’s theory? Why? Why did John reach for the possibility that
JonBenet was already dead from the head trauma before the cord
was tied around her neck? Why did John care one way or another
UNLESS, thinking she was already dead, he may have by conscious
actions contributed to death in the course of carrying out the
staging??? Yes indeed, I imagine that for John, it is “very
difficult to think abot and imagine.â€

 

I think there was such a thread. Maybe that was the DOI analysis page. After a while, it all mashes together.

 

Oh me, oh my - what an incredible blunder on the part of John Ramsey! Without realizing it, he gave the interviewers a first-class insight into what exactly happened on that night: it was Patsy and him who thought that JB was (as good as) dead, which is why they staged the garroting scene.

While for an intruder it would have made sense to finally finish off JB with a bash on the head after torturing her, it does not make sense the other way round for an intruder (to tie JB up and garrote her after she was already dead from the head bash). All that in a house fulll of people where he could be detected at any minute.
But the whole garrote staging doesn't add up with a kidnapping scenario plus ransom note anyway.
I read somewhere that when people who are no professional criminals themselves try to stage a scene, they either stage to much or too little. The Ramseys staged too much: a ransom note with a political message, a sexually motivated crime and wrapping their child in a blanket. Three totally disconnected things. But the puzzle falls into place when one sees the Ramseys themselves in the center of all this, who panick-stricken, frantically sought of a way to explain their child's deadly injured body in their own home.

 

In my opinion, one of the finest flirtings with confession came with this exchange on the Christian Broadcasting Network in 2000:

SCOTT: The bottom line, below the bottom line, people will ask me, "O.K., you've come out of this, confidentially, what do you think? There is also a side not only as a journalist, but being an ordained minister in the church, to say to other pastors, if they ask me, "Would you recommend to let these people come to my church?"

JOHN: Let me ask you this? What if we were murderers? Would we be denied access to a church? I hope not.

PATSY: That's the people who need to be there. Aren't we "preaching to the choir" as they say.

SCOTT: Well, they still say that.

JOHN: That is a problem we Christians have in our churches.

PATSY: We need to welcome everyone.

I mean, really. Come on. There is not a single innocent parent on earth who has ever experienced the death of their child and then had the gumption to say, "What if I did murder my child?" That is a statement which is always meant to probe the interviewer, to push at their boundaries and soften them up to the concept that yes, the person in front of them may, in fact, have killed their own child. Innocent, upstanding, moral people, people who are repulsed by the committing of murder, DO NOT spend a moment of time idly wondering what it would like to be killers of their own children.

The interesting thing is that, if John and Patsy had had an instinctive generosity of spirit that caused them to want to preach acceptance of all, even murders, into churches, that is well and good, but it can be done by jumping right to the "We need to welcome everyone" statement. There is, in my opinion, something indeed confessional to John's and Patsy's request of a man of God that he tell them what he would do if he found out right then and there that they were confessing to having killed JonBenet.

 

You can thank Arlo for this one...

...So they sat on the pew with the mother rapers and the father stabbers...

...and will they be discussing mother raping and such, as well, with their fellow parishoners?

The judge in the famous Alice's Restaurant tale has strange resemblances to the Boulder system enforcers.

 

It looks like New Hope promised more than they could deliver, as I see the latest Connecting Point program is online, and there is not a Ramsey to be seen. Instead, the episode deals with Palestinians.