The "Death of Innocence"

Thanks, momof2.

Elle, no, I don't have the NE book.

When our kids were small, they slept in the same room, different beds. By the time older daughter was in the second grade, they had separate bedrooms. They never even napped in the same bed. Older stepson visited ever so often; my Mom alerted me to keep an open eye on the three younguns if you catch my drift. I did my best to do that.

 

It has been a long time since I posted, but had other things on my mind.

As for DOI, I struggled through it and actually got to chapter 25. By then I was so sick of the book, that I couldn't take it any longer and threw it away.

Even now thinking about the contents still makes me nauseous.

 

Sylvia,

I remember your wonderful web site on JonBenét, through the courtesy of Thor. It was a wonderful place to go. Like Tricia and ACandyRose you worked very hard to keep up a high standard.

Nice to see you back.

Elle

 

Nice to see you back too!

I'll attach the last chapter I wrote on DOI.

 

It's my understanding that that book is what turned folks in this neck of the woods on to Susan Bennett aka jameson. That book produced a profit for jameson. And a loss for others.

It took me two years to find my way out. Poorer and wiser, JC.

 

Justice? Punishment!

I'm with Tez all the way.

 

Sylvia,

I've tried to open your last chapter but cannot do so. Is there another way to get htere than what is presented on screen? I wanted to read what you have written.

 

Sorry Zoomama, I tried to copy the whole thing in a post but it didn't get through and I got an error message. I will try to copy it divided in several posts.

Beside that chapter I still have some other chapters left. If anyone is interested in them. Chapter 2, 9, 11 and 15

 

Charter 25 Part 1 (1)

Oh, this is going to be a very special chapter! The subtitle itself is hilarious--"Cooperating With the Police". Now, do we have tot take this seriously or not? It only brings a sarcastic grin on my face. When ARE they going to START 'cooperating'? Because up until now, I haven't seen anything that even begins to look like cooperation to find the murderer(s) of JonBenét! The first two sentences have some truth in them. In the first: "A common theme energizing the media was that Patsy and I were not cooperating with the BP and were doing everything possible to avoid being interrogated." I don't think anyone could have said that better--as it's a perfect description of the facts! In the second sentence: "…that we were hiding behind slick attorneys and stonewalled the police." After reading twenty-four chapters of this book, you can only come to the conclusion that the theme of the media makes perfect sense! I haven't read ONE THING in any of the chapters that proves that theme wrong.

J. Ramsey then describes himself as being an actor in the television series "Colombo", with Peter Falk. He says this in such a pathetic way, that he was "being set-up as a character in a Colombo murder episode, where the killer is always a smooth male that's fully in control. Colombo eventually brings the powerful tycoon to justice, but not before the audience is convinced he will get away with it". Ramsey then dares to say that the Boulder Police had watched, or 'might have' watched too much television. I have never heard the BPD refer to any television series. So, I can only assume that J. Ramsey is watching too much television! Can he explain what a Colombo episode, and a rich, smooth male, fully in control, powerful tycoon have got to do with JonBenét's murder? He gives the answer himself, that: "None of this could have been further from the truth." In other words, it had nothing to do with JonBenét's murder. So, can anyone tell me then why this story is here in this book? I can't come up with any reason, other than it's a nice page filler--and totally irrelevant to the whole case.

The next thing he wants, or expects, is for the reader to believe that they had TRIED to cooperate with the police. Yet, they never succeeded in doing so--they had only TRIED to do so! That is what J. Ramsey is saying, that they "tried to cooperate". Now what could be so difficult about cooperating with the police that are trying to find your child's murderer? Since they (in my opinion) have never cooperated or even tried to, one can come to the obvious conclusion that they are indeed, not cooperating with the police. There seems to be a complete list in the Appendix as to how they cooperated--which we will get to later!

 

Chapter 25 part 1 (2)

According to Ramsey, the police [meaning Linda Arndt and other police who are unnamed], he and P. Ramsey were interviewed for several hours. I'd like to make a little correction here--from 5:52 until 1:00 it was being handled by the police as a kidnapping--as there was a ransom note and the child was missing. When it had become a murder, a second police officer had arrived at 1:20 p.m., and at 1:40 p.m. Ramsey was overheard telling his pilot to get his plane ready for a flight to Atlanta. By 2:05 p.m. the Ramseys had already left their house, and this accounts for their hours with the police on the 26th of December.

On the 27th, Detectives Arndt and Mason arrived at Tin Cup Circle at 9:30 p.m., and they stayed for 40 minutes. So, what does he mean when he says they were interrogated about the murder for several hours on the 26th and 27th??? We ARE still talking about the murder of JonBenét aren't we? Because, there is quite a difference in the police treating the case like a kidnapping and later a murder--where the victim was found in her own house!

The way he describes the interview on December 27th is totally false! P. Ramsey wasn't present, and the cops [as she calls them], took him into a small bedroom. Sure, the 'cops' were the 'bosses' in the house--so they could just 'take him' to a small bedroom. Isn't it more logical to assume that it was J. Ramsey who escorted the police to the small bedroom to talk, rather than the other way around? The fact is, however, that Ramsey REFUSED to talk to the detectives unless it was in the presence of his brother, Dr. Beuf [the pediatrician], and two lawyers. Those 'cops' were not suggesting both Ramseys had to go down to the police station the afternoon of the 27th. The detectives arrived at the house where they were staying--at 9:30 p.m. To me, that is the EVENING of the 27th. The detectives were there to schedule formal interviews. Except that, according to the pediatrician, P. Ramsey wasn't FIT for an interview the morning of the 28th. When the detectives asked if it would be possible, Dr. Beuf stated only that P. Ramsey's emotional state was very fragile. Is he a psychiatrist as well? Any parent whose child has been brutally murdered is going to be in a fragile condition, but, they do whatever they have to--whatever it takes--to try to help find the murderer of their child. But, no, the Drama Queen couldn't go to the police station, but was perfectly capable of appearing on international television on January 1st, 1977--just four days after the murder. Now, isn't that somewhat strange? Instead of talking to the media, shouldn't they have been talking to the police?

Ramsey, it's time for you to get your priorities straight! Your focus should be to do everything possible to catch the killer(s). This means you don't whine or scream after one day that: "The police are ransoming the body." Instead of "laying her to rest", you would have let the police and coroner do every test possible on her body. An experienced forensic pathologist should have been called in to assist or perform a second autopsy. In fact, before making burial arrangements, Ramsey should have asked the police WHEN they would be able to release the body. The police release the body after each and every possible piece of information and evidence is obtained--which could lead to the murderer.

 

Chapter 25 part 1 (3)

In reading the autopsy report, a sloppy piece of work from a local coroner, it shows me that indeed, further testing on JonBenét was necessary. It proves to me, that a forensic pathologist should have been called in on this case. It also means that the Ramseys should have been available for interviews with the police on December 28th, instead of going on international television three days later. Therefore, I don't believe it when Ramsey says that burying your murdered child is ALL one can and wants to do. Why is it then, that so many parents of murdered children have quite different priorities than burial? Most of them cooperate with authorities fully--in order to find their child's murderer.

Now, where did I read: "The last thing we were about was struggling over any form of privilege or immunity"? Oh, yes, the previous chapter--at the top of page 252! He's now stating that they were available for joint interviews, and they had asked to be interviewed together [with a doctor present], in their attorney's office. And, they wanted to decide WHICH detectives would be ALLOWED to interview them. [No privileges, huh?] Guess what happened--the police blew the whole thing off. The ungrateful cops, who were granted audience, and after hearing who, where, what and how--they declined. By the way, who are the "they" in this statement: "They chose January 18, 1997 at 10 a.m."? I'm asking this, as the Ramseys seem to have trouble in distinguishing the difference between members of the DA's office and police personnel. The police cancelled the meeting: "The police cancelled our meeting and said in writing to our attorneys that 'the time for interviewing John and Patsy as witnesses who could provide critical information that would be helpful in the initial stages of our investigation has passed'", Ramsey states. I just wonder what the police wrote before and after this sentence! According to Ramsey, it means that the police were no longer interested in talking to them, and he states that they granted the police the privilege of posing questions to them 'in writing'. Now, why would the police want to ask them anything if they weren't interested in talking to them? In other words, why on earth did they tell the police to pose their questions in writing, if they actually had no questions to ask? Therefore, it's obvious to me, that NOT HAVING QUESTIONS was NOT the issue here--it had more to do with the special privileges that were being asked for. And, among them, was the demand to see all the police files, including their previous statements, the statements of others to the police, the ransom note, and the autopsy report. Of course, the police would NEVER agree to such terms. They are not going to violate the rights of other persons that were questioned or looked into, or who gave statements that could include relevant and/or incriminating evidence in the case.

The FBI agents from the CASKU [Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit] advised the BPD NOT to grant those privileges. They named the conditions as being ridiculous. I can assure you that CASKU agents do know what they are talking about!

The fact is that Ramsey himself names these conditions when talking with the friend of his lawyer. The conversation took place on April 11, 1997. During that conversation he said: "they put no conditions on how interviews were conducted." We know indeed, that CASKU gave that information to the police. Steve Thomas references this on page 161 in his book. Also, we can be sure that CASKU would scream their denial of this--which they have not. In fact, during the meeting with Wickman and Hoffstrom, an apology was given on behalf of the BPD. Ramsey then states that they would "put no conditions on how future interviews could be conducted." New interviews would take place on the 23rd, backed this time by the CASKU calling the requested conditions ridiculous. So, there were conditions set. Wasn't it a fact that the lawyers had already assessed the police evidence before the CASKU agents came in to advise the police to cancel the interview? Part of the conditions were already met--over and done with. They obtained privileges and demanded immunity from the get-go!

Signing release forms? Throughout the course of three years more than one hundred releases for confidential information? Credit card records, bank account records, and medical records--does that mean that the police or media didn't steal JonBenét's medical records? And, I don't want to get too far into details, but aren't we still talking about what happened in April of 1997? So, what on earth is this guy talking about? This is irrelevant to the first interviews.

Let's be fair--don't be so easily mislead by this foolish statement--that they voluntarily provided fingerprint, blood, and handwriting samples. Voluntary? Don't make me laugh! They were obliged by law to give these samples, so there's nothing voluntary about that! Does Ramsey think he's got morons reading this book? He'd better come up with more than this nonsense! Why don't they publish a LIST of these "over one hundred releases they signed? Maybe they could have included THESE in the Appendix!

Why did they set new conditions after the police canceled the meeting on April 22, 1997--wasn't it a challenge any more? Because he states that before that date: "…just getting to the interview would be a challenge." I fail to see what the challenge would be, but Ramsey claims it was: "…because they were surrounded by reporters and photographers twenty-four hours a day." But apparently, on April 30th, that was no longer a challenge. Calling this a 'challenge' doesn't seem appropriate. And doesn't it sound a little bit strange, considering that he had made the statement that: "…he agreed to make himself available for audio-taped interrogations at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, and Patsy would be interview at 1:30 p.m. that same day at a Boulder office building." A Boulder office building doesn't sound like the Boulder Police Department, or even the DA's office! No conditions, wasn't it? And, audiotaped? We ALL know that the police prefer videotaped interrogations. And, let's not forget that before the canceling took place, their lawyers had already seen all the evidence! And, the interrogations were to take place in their lawyers' presence, correct? Again I ask: No conditions? What about the 'no time limits' statement? Isn't 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. a four-hour time limit? If there were 'no conditions', exactly what do we have here? Exactly--CONDITIONS!

The Boulder police did not set conditions for the April 1997 interrogations; they did not have to do so. They merely had to follow the normal police procedures and were trying to stick to them. Once confronted with the conditions the Ramseys had set, they merely had to state that these weren't normal police procedures in a homicide case. But in fact, the Boulder police actually gave in to some of those ridiculous demands. Stupid, yes, that is certain, but I think it had something to do with an incompetent DA's office. The DA should assist the police, but in this case, the DA was just another obstacle. Why on earth would the police have to threat the Ramseys differently? Because they had money? So what? How do you think they obtained that money? Yes, from you, the community of buyers and/or workers! If you, the community hadn't been there, they wouldn't have one penny to spend. So you think they ought to be treated differently than you, the ones who paid them? Should there be different laws, depending on what your wealth status is? And what should be the price tag on every privilege that one gets?

 

Chapter 25 part 1 (4)

P. Ramsey starts with an extensive description of the interrogation room. The room was small, table long and narrow, extra chairs were stacked around the walls, "lovely large conference table shoved to one side with chairs stacked on top of it" Now just how small was that room? Seems to me it was not so small after all, seeing the list of furniture in it! Yeah, but you know the table was too narrow, causing her sit too close to the police officers. Her royal highness preferred the "lovely" large conference table, but didn't get it! What an ignorant fool, what did she expect? A tea party at the ladies' county club? This was a police interrogation, concerning a brutal crime committed against a little girl--a homicide case. Again, this was normal standard police procedure. Apparently P. Ramsey had a problem with facing the police--I wonder why? Something to hide perhaps? Also, it is normally considered polite to face the persons you are talking to. Steve Thomas [who looked so young to her]: "He resembled a Boy Scout." Give me a break, please. How old was she, 40 and Steve Thomas 36--which is an age difference of merely 4 years. Now that surely would have made a difference. Oh, but Tom Trujillo also looked young--but he was "stockier." Now isn't that all important information, very relevant to the murder case? After talking for a while it became clear to her that the closeness had been intentional, just to make her feel uncomfortable to be so close to police officers. Huh? I do not see the discomfort in being close to police officer. I've never had that problem whenever I had the chance to talk to them. Actually, it gave me quite a feeling of safety, and it was very comfortable to feel so safe. But then again, I had nothing to hide from the police, could that be the difference? The police officers were even nose-to-nose, how cozy that must have been. Exaggerating is also an art, which she seems to master to perfection.

Gee, most of what the detective asked her about was December 26, 1996--meaning the date of the murder. Now, can you understand that? Couldn't they at least have talked a bit longer about the "lovely large conference table", or about how she was doing? Little new information was sought according to P. Ramsey. But from what I understand from Steve Thomas, a lot of new information was uncovered. Is this what they call, conflict of interest? She tried to give them all the details the detectives were interested in. So let's have a look at what Steve Thomas had to say about that. From page 166 of Steve Thomas' book:

S. Thomas: "Who moved the note?"
P. Ramsey: "I think he did, I don't think I did."
S. Thomas: "Did you touch the note?"
P. Ramsey: "I don't recall doing that, but I may have."
S. Thomas: "Did you take the note upstairs with you?"
P. Ramsey: "I don't remember exactly"
S. Thomas: "Do you recall moving the note from the stairs?"
P. Ramsey: "I don't recall."
S. Thomas: "Did you read the note?"
P. Ramsey: "I think I glanced at it."
S. Thomas: " Do you remember touching the note?"
P. Ramsey: "Not specifically, but I may have."
S. Thomas: "Did you check on JonBenét that night?"
P. Ramsey: "I don't believe I did."


Gave them details? This sounds more like evasion to me. Make sure you do not nail yourself to an answer! Even so, the detectives learned quite a bit; they heard a great deal of what is called inconsistencies. Different stories for the same event, or as said before, inconsistencies! So they [the detectives] were seeking new information, but P. Ramsey wasn't willing to give much new information. However without knowing it, she did anyhow, no matter how evasive she tried to be--she just couldn't keep her story straight! Ah, and when she started to cry, according to P. Ramsey, Steve Thomas was glad to see her "emotionally broken." And was Steve Thomas really glad? Not from what I read. He said: "She dissolved into weeping, and although it was touching...." Does that strike you as his [Steve Thomas] being glad about it? I don't think so--he was just trying to do his job and did the best he could. However, I seriously doubt he was glad to do this. Let's be fair, he isn't faultless, as he only a human being. However, he is most certainly not a monster and that is what she is trying to make out to be here. Well surprise, I am not buying her story. Yes, he and the other detectives were trying to lynch the mother. Nice fairytale! Steve Thomas and the other detectives were following the evidence, and guess where that evidence lead to--right to the Ramseys!

 

Chapter 25 part ! (last)

Later she heard a rumor that ST claimed she was trying to 'flirt with him'. Did anyone see LKL? Even there, she couldn't keep her hands to herself! I noticed him desperately trying to keep some distance between himself and her. So how disgusted was she, about 'coming on to him?' And do you remember the following part of LKL?

P. Ramsey: "No, it's not all Steve Thomas' fault. You, it is not all this young man's fault. He did not have good leadership in his department to lead him down a path of experience. You know, you can't fault the man for that, truly. I can understand that."
Larry King: "You can understand, Patsy, why you were suspects?"
P. Ramsey: "I can understand because there was no leading this man with any leadership capability to investigate the homicide of the young child. I understand that. I know the first time that I interviewed with detective, then-detective Thomas, I saw the passion in the man's eyes. He wants to find the killer of this child. It's just that he's going down the wrong path. Now what I do..."

May I remind you this took place not only after their book came out, but also even after Steve Thomas' book came out? So what happened to the Steve Thomas who was glad she "emotionally" broke down and the detectives who were trying to lynch a mother? Believe me, Steve Thomas' lawyers must be having the best time of their lives with those statements! In their dumb book she is stating [about the 'interview'': After the interview was over, I realized what Thomas was really trying to do. His passionate pledge to get the killer was his way of telling me that he thought I did it" I don't know what you think, but to me, this is definitely an inconsistency.

Now J. Ramsey comes with the utterly stupid remark that they had insisted that someone from the DA's office be present, so that the police couldn't lie about what was said. The whole interrogation was taped--what more do you want? Are they dumb or aren't they? By all means everyone knows why interrogations are taped, because with that tape they can pin you to your own words. Those tapes exist, so you had better make sure you remember what you said during this interrogation, as they will use it. One mistake, all it takes is one mistake! Normally, that is! But here, money talks! So here we need more mistakes, obviously. So keep talking, by all means keep talking, as mistake after mistake is made. I only wonder how many mistakes are needed in this case before someone finally takes the necessary actions.

This case sure reminds me of the Simpson trial, where a police officer was taking the fall, instead of the real killer, Simpson. Here again, the same thing is happening--who is really on trial? The police officer and the key witness--not the murderer(s). Ramsey wasn't satisfied with the way in which the interrogations were conducted, but you know what? No one cares about what Ramsey says or thinks about it, as long as the police were satisfied that the interrogations were a success--and the police seemed to be satisfied. And here we go again the subject of polygraphs again, as already explained in the "Lies and Inconsistency" pages. Let's repeat it, apparently Ramsey still doesn't understand.

Now let's see what is going on here. P. Ramsey told the police: “I don’t know how those work, but if they tell the truth, I’m telling the truth. I’ve never given anybody a reason to think otherwise.†And, “Yes, I would pass it. I’ll take ten of them. Do whatever you want.â€
So if I am correct, she offered to take ten lie detector tests, while she was not even asked to take one? What happened after she offered to take those tests, the police wouldn’t let her take a test? So can you tell me what went wrong, P. Ramsey? Not being asked doesn’t seem to be the issue here, as she volunteered to take a test, they had no need to ask her to take one.

Then, during that same April 30, 1997 interview with J. Ramsey, J. Ramsey grew angry, showing a remarkable attitude change with just one question. “I would be insulted if you asked me to take a polygraph test.†It was a non-issue for J. Ramsey, not for the police. Now, he told the police he would be offended if they were to ask him to take a lie detector test. That tells me the question was asked, one way or another. You do not just come out of the blue, with such a statement in answer to a question that wasn’t actually asked. Conclusion: It wasn't the not asking, that stopped Ramsey from taking a lie detector test. So what is the real problem here? Not that he hadn’t been asked--no, he would have been offended and uninterested in taking such a test if asked. Therefore, asking would have been useless. Meaning, the problem is the Ramseys--not the question!

Ramseys didn’t agree with the police about the interrogations. What else would you expect? Too many lies and inconsistencies were found--lies after lies were uncovered, and now the police had it all on tape--there was no return. Just one day of interrogation and that was it. It took them four months to talk to the police, yet they were talking on national TV six days after the murder--a matter of priorities, I guess. And, that my friends, is what the Ramseys dare to call "cooperating with the police".

Meanwhile, the Ramseys were relaxing, enjoying themselves with picnics and vacations. On January 23, 1998, their lawyers wrote Commander Beckner--nine months after the first interrogation. One sentence jumps out and astonishes me: "Contrary to your letter, they [Ramseys] have frequently met with and provided information to, law enforcement agents, including Detective Smit, who has apparently been banished from active participation in 'the investigation' because of disgraceful internal politics." First of all, Smit was never supposed to be actively participating in the murder investigation. Retired means 'no active duty'. Secondly, this fool polluted the police files with his wild stun gun, intruder, and pedophile theories. And, let's not forget the scarf left behind by the murder--you know, the scarf that actually belonged to J. Ramsey. The delusional fool was right about that one though!

The lawyers also wrote: "The Ramseys are desperate to participate in an honest, objective, and professional investigation." However, the lawyers forget to mention that it meant NOT looking into the lies of the Ramseys--in other words, they were demanding immunity.

They would no longer deal with the BPD, except to honor their previous commitments. Previous commitments? What previous commitments? I think I'm lost again, because I can't think of any!

 

Sylvia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How are you! Didn't know what happened to you, and I haven't been posting much.


I love your DOI critiques....gonna read them again. Been keeping track of the Jackson trial...waiting for the King of Porn to get his and go to jail. Took what 13 years for some of Jackson's victims to get justice, maybe John and Patsy will pay for what they did to their daughter.

 

Hi Show, I haven't been posting for a long time as well, just was/am having some personal problems. How are you doing? Fine I hope.

Am posting on Websleuths on the Jackson case. So you can see me there too.

Will try to post the DOI critiques I have left. Isn't much left of them though, just a few chapters.

 

Chapter 2 (1)

Chapter II starts reasonably, yet after only a few lines, yes we already have a quite remarkable fact that somehow doesn’t seem to fit. Here we find the following: “Take a shower, get dressed, get going. I swing out of bed and abruptly remember that my shower is still broken. Don’t need one this morning.†Again, a totally insignificant remark. A detail that most likely any parent who’s child was murdered would forget, or at least, not think of first.

But, there is more. You see in Chapter One, on the first page, J. Ramsey states: “Patsy got up and moved towards her bathroom at the other end of the master suite.†Doesn’t make you wonder why she went into her bathroom? If we may believe them, the shower was broken? Now don’t tell me you [Patsy] never leave the house without makeup, however, you do not shower for two days. A little bit unhygienic. No don’t tell me you went to put on makeup, because one normally washes before putting on makeup! So, that can’t be it. Or, was the shower, on the 25th of December, still in perfect working condition? Just a question?

Then it goes on as follows :“Just put my clothes on. And of course, my makeup†a little further it continues with, “I reach for my clothes and start dressing. Minutes later I hurry down the back stairs.†No mentioning of putting on makeup anymore. Only the sentence: “Minutes later I hurry down the back stairs.†Now ask yourself, getting dressed and putting on makeup in just a few minutes, which woman can do that? Can you? I certainly can’t. Doesn’t this all sound at least a little suspicious? And there is no indication, or even the slightest remark, on washing up. Washing? No, that isn’t so important, as long as you have got your makeup on. Doesn’t that make you think of the foreign DNA? Now, here we have a pretty good reason for foreign DNA to show up--hygiene didn’t exactly run in the family.

The next stupid mistake starts at the bottom of the same page. “I hurried down the spiral staircase to the bottom floor and stop. What is this? I wonder. I turn around to look at the three pieces of paper on a step near the bottom. I bent over.†Now doesn’t this give you the impression that she descended that staircase completely? It is in the words, “to the bottom floor and stop.†Anyhow you should try it sometime, to stop on the steps of a spiral staircase, turn around and bend over to read something that is on the steps below you. Bet you, you can’t!

Next, she says, “Must be a note from the cleaning lady, Linda†Sure of course, Mrs. L. Hoffman-Pugh drove over to the house in the middle of the night to put a three page note on the bottom of the staircase. As we know, it wasn’t there the evening before, when she went up that staircase. Further would Mrs. Hoffman-Pugh have needed at three piece note to remind her employer about a loan of $2.500? Isn’t it more likely that Mrs. Hoffman-Pugh would have left that note at a more appropriate place--like on the kitchen counter or table? Again, I've only got one word for this statement: RIDICULOUS.

 

Chapter 2 (2)

After this, there are some more dumb statements on that same page. However, as they were already commented upon in the Lies & Inconsistency pages, I'd better leave them alone, or I will find myself rewriting the whole book!

On the following page, under the text of the ransom note, is an even more ridiculous statement, used as an excuse for calling the White family and the Fernies’. “Standing next to the wall phone, I instantly dial 911, and try to make the voice on the other end of the line understand. It is as if she doesn’t believe what I am saying.†After that follows a lot of nonsense about getting help, therefore, calling the White family and the Fernies.

Now, let's have a look at the transcript of the 911 call, made on the morning of the 26th :

P. Ramsey: (inaudible) police.
Police dispatcher: (inaudible)
P. Ramsey: 755 Fifteenth Street
Police dispatcher: What is going on there ma’am?
P. Ramsey: We have a kidnapping...Hurry, please.
Police dispatcher: Explain to me what is going on, ok?
P. Ramsey: We have a ...There’s a note left and our daughter is gone.
Police dispatcher: A note was left and your daughter is gone?
P. Ramsey: Yes.
Police dispatcher: How old is you daughter?
P. Ramsey: She is six years old…she is blond...six years old.
Police dispatcher: How long ago was this?
P. Ramsey: I don’t know. Just found a note a note and my daughter is missing.
Police dispatcher: Does it say who took her?
P. Ramsey: What?
Police dispatcher: Does it say who took her?
P. Ramsey: No…I don’t know it’s there...there is a ransom note here.
Police dispatcher: It’s a ransom note.
P. Ramsey: It says S.B.T.C. Victory...please.
Police dispatcher: Ok, what’s your name? Are you...
P. Ramsey: Patsy Ramsey...I am the mother. Oh my God. Please.
Police dispatcher: I’m...Ok, I’m sending an officer over, ok?
P. Ramsey: Please.
Police dispatcher: Do you know how long she’s been gone?
P. Ramsey: No, I don’t, please, we just got up and she’s not here. O my God Please.
Police dispatcher: Ok.
P. Ramsey: Please send somebody.
Police dispatcher: I am, honey.
P. Ramsey: Please.
Police dispatcher: Take a deep breath (inaudible).
P. Ramsey: Hurry, hurry, hurry (inaudible).
Police dispatcher: Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?

Now, does it sound to you like the voice on the other end of the line, the police dispatcher, doesn’t understand her? She is saying twice, that she is sending someone over, an officer. Now to me, that sounds like she [police dispatcher] understood exactly what was going on. There's no doubt in my mind. Is there in yours? Oh, I can already hear it coming! They're going to say: 'Yes, but P. Ramsey was in a panic and didn’t understand that the police dispatcher understood her.' Well, for someone who was in a panic and didn’t understand the police dispatcher, she [P. Ramsey] gave some answers, which indicated that she understood the dispatcher very well. When asked for age, she didn’t only give JonBenét’s age, but also her hair color. Also, she clearly stated when asked, who signed the ransom note. Also, most of the other questions are answered correctly. So, no doubt about it--she understood all too well what the police dispatcher was saying. Don’t you think so too?

After finally arriving already at page 13, it’s apparent that J. Ramsey takes over the writing from here. Well, I can already tell you he isn’t doing such a great job either. After two sentences, he's already slipping-up, and it's even a double slip-up. After declaring he had been running around in underwear and going upstairs to dress, he's on his way back down! Yes, a big double slip-up. He writes, “I stop in JonBenét’s bedroom and look under the bed to make sure she isn’t there.†The first part of the slip up is obvious--do you expect to find your kidnapped child hiding under her bed? You have a ransom note, so you aren’t taking that seriously? Even if by any remote chance the child would have been able to hide from the kidnapper, wouldn’t she have sought the immediate safety of the parents upon hearing them? According to J. Ramsey, this happening took place upon the arrival of Officer R. French at their house.

Let's go to Steve Thomas’s book, where we find the following quote on page 19: “Reichenbach and John Ramsey went to the second floor to look into the missing child’s bedroom.†And, half-way down the same page he writes: “The father lifted the dust ruffle to peer beneath his daughter's bed and was told not to touch anything else.†We all know that Sergeant Reichenbach arrived at the house after officer R. French had been shown the ransom note, and had already talked to the parents. So, what is going on here now? Are we to believe here, that J. Ramsey, after already having verified himself that JonBenét wasn’t under her bed, looked under the bed for a second time? If he already knew she wasn’t there, then what is the reason for repeating this ceremony in front of Sergeant Reichenbach? What reason? Something like--contaminating the crime scene even more?

 

You're right, Sylvia there is quite a difference in the police treating the case like a kidnapping and later a murder. The Ramseys never separated the two, when it came to their time with the police.

I'm reading over your chapters, and it will take me some time. I remember reading quite a lot of what you wrote on your site, before, and was very impressed. For sure, you can see right through the Ramseys and know how they tick. Do they really think we are all that stupid and can't see through them?

Going over this again just makes me all the more irritated as to why on earth the Ramsey got away with this.

 

Chapter 2 (last)

Back to DOI, at the bottom of the same page is the second blunder. Here he states the following: “I meet Patsy and Officer Rick French in the hallway near the front door. I tell him my daughter has been kidnapped. The uniformed officer walks us in and asks us to repeat our problem. He keeps asking questions, and seems to grasp the situation quickly. He insists we move into the corner sunroom.â€

However, in Steve Thomas’s book at page 16, Officer R. French has given a totally different police report statement, as follows here: “He noted that although it was still before dawn her hair was already done and her makeup was in place. They were joined at the door by a man in a long-sleeved blue-and-white-stripped shirt and khaki slacks. Patsy and John Ramsey told the officer that their daughter, JonBenét, was missing and their nine-year-old son was asleep upstairs. They escorted Officer French though a foyer and kitchen area to a back hallway, where pieces of legal white paper covered with blocky handwriting were spread out on the wooden floor.â€

We can be absolutely sure that the events that took place, as described in Steve Thomas’s book, are the correct ones, since there will be a police report statement from Officer R. French that will confirm it. And, if we were to believe J. Ramsey, Officer French knew his way around the house very well. So well, that he insisted they should move to the corner sunroom.

But there are even two more lies in that statement by J. Ramsey. The first is that in the book he states that the uniformed officer seems to gasp the situation quickly. That brings us back to the Larry King Live show aired on March 27, 2000. Take notice that this interview is after the book was already written. J. Ramsey states the following about Officer French: “They - a uniformed officer arrived relatively quickly, and I said - I handed him the note. I said; ‘my daughter ‘s been taken.’ He said: ‘Gee, don’t you think she just ran away.’†Now, it is no longer an Officer French who seems to grasp the situation quickly. And now, he is suddenly handed over the ransom note--can you still follow it? Talk about lying to get attention and saying 'look how pitiful we are'. Thereby showing us once again how deceitful they are, and can not be trusted in any way.

The following mistake is one page further, which was also handled and proven to be a lie in the statement of Officer French [in Steve Thomas’s book as already quoted above]. Here J. Ramsey writes: “Another officer, Officer Veight, I believe, comes in after he moves the squad car to the next block. He is shown the ransom note.â€Did you notice, there is no mentioning of Officer French being shown the ransom note? Yet, it is stated that another officer that came in was shown the ransom note, thereby implying it wasn’t shown to Officer French. This while Officer French stated he was led immediately to the back hallway and shown the note that was there on the floor. And, on the Larry King Live show, J. Ramsey even dares to state that he handed over the ransom note to Officer French.

Them we get the perfect 'good parent' remark, that all friends had arrived, including Father Hoverstock, “I remember Burke, asleep in his roomâ€. Although Ramsey is declaring that Father Hoverstock had arrived before the victim advocates, it is known through police reports that it was the other way around. Also, these police reports and most likely also the reports made by the victim advocates, state that they [the victim advocates] had already arrived by 6:45 A.M., and Father Hovenstock had arrived after 6:45 A.M. Implying therefore that he, 'the perfect father', J. Ramsey, just happened to have forgotten his son, while his daughter was “kidnappedâ€, for at least 45 minutes. Can you imagine forgetting the safety of your other child? Wouldn’t that be your first concern, getting the other child to safety? But no, perfect J. Ramsey forgets for 45 minutes that he also has a son, as the last person to whom his son was mentioned, was Officer French when he came in the morning before 6:00 A.M.

And what does this perfect Ramsey decide, after the fact that he finally realized he also had a son still upstairs? He makes sure that this child is being transported, away from his parents. And more importantly, away from the safety of the police's presence, to an unsafe place. Does that make any sense to you?

Following that decision, J. Ramsey writes on page 14: “I wake Burke up and as gentle as possible tell him that JonBenét is missing and he is going to his friend Fleet’s house for a while. Burke looks distressed and begins to cry, so I know he understands the gravity of our predicament. I help him get dressed, and momentarily he and Fleet are leaving the house, Burke carrying his new Nintendo 64 game under his arm.†First of all, he didn’t have to wake up Burke, as Burke stated later to the police that he had already been awake earlier that morning. The enhanced 911 call tape confirms his [Burke's] statement. Although gently told that his sister is missing, [which could also mean she ran off or was hiding somewhere, as I do not think a 9 year old child immediately thinks of a kidnapping], he [Burke] looks distressed and starts crying? Did Burke know more--to understand the gravity of the situation? Did Burke hear or see anything? If so, what? Officer French didn’t report a distressed and crying Burke, when he tried to ask the child some questions, before he left the house. Apparently Burke isn’t so distressed and crying that it prevents him from taking his new Nintendo 64 game with him. Strange situation--to say at least!

J. Ramsey goes on, with another stupid remark on the top of the following page: “I suddenly remember our large walk-in refrigerator, could JonBenét have been put inside, trapped there?†Now, is he honestly trying to make us believe a kidnapper would be so stupid to leave the “kidnapped†child in the house, risking that the child would be found either dead or alive--meaning he wouldn’t get the money he is after? Please, give us a break! Just thinking however it could be a very useful tip for the police (determination of time of death for instance)!

On to the next and last error we will address in this chapter. He, J. Ramsey now writes about how he comes to the conclusion that if the kidnappers are watching the house, he might catch them watching the house. So, he goes upstairs to the second floor, takes his binoculars, and spots a ‘strange vehicle’ in the alley behind the house of the Barnhill family, who live across the street. According to himself: “After several minutes of watching the vehicle, nothing happens, so I finally go back downstairs.†It makes you wonder what should have happened, or better, what did he [J. Ramsey] expect would happen? It apparently took him several minutes to find out. Exactly what does he think should have happened? And what is making him so sure that it is safe after watching the ‘strange vehicle’ for several minutes, so that it doesn’t seem to worry him anymore? Also, he doesn't even feel it is important enough to inform the police about the ‘strange vehicle.’ According to him, this took place after Detective Arndt arrived at the house, and she never mentioned that she lost sight of him twice. Please explain, then, how on earth he could have gone upstairs at that time? It just doesn’t fit.

 

Chapter 9 (1)

Like Chapter 8, Chapter 9 is also totally irrelevant to what happened to JonBenét and the events thereafter. However, irrelevant chapters can give a great amount of details concerning the person(s) involved. This chapter has some great information of the person(s) we are dealing with.

For multi-millionaires, they seem to do a lot of shopping at K-Mart. I wonder why it is so important to mention shopping at K-Mart? It was also again used in the “burglary†that took place in January 2001--the stolen K-Mart jewelry. Has it got something to do with the Ramseys trying to say: “We are a normal, loving American family� As in something ignorant people think--try to relate to them, and you win their support. Get realistic, that doesn’t work with most people.

And of course, what words do we find all over the chapter? Divine, God, intervention, divine from God, (what else), bible, and signs. What is new? Cancer--stage IV ovarian cancer. Why? Most people get a feeling of sympathy toward a person who has, or had cancer. A lot of people have had, or maybe still have the disease; and many people have lost dear ones to this horrible disease. They know what cancer is, and they would never, even for a second, think someone could use such a disease to gain sympathy. I am sorry to wake those people up, because there are indeed persons who would do such a thing. Hard? Yes, but also very
Let's go back to the religious side again, which is also meant as a way to stand above any suspicion. As good Christians don’t do things like committing murder. However, again realistically, if that were so, then there would be a lot of innocent people in prison. So, let's not be hypocritical, as being a good Christian doesn’t exclude one from committing a crime, not even a crime like murder. Murder is a human occupancy.

According to P. Ramsey it was ‘divine intervention’ that brought her to Atlanta. “God knew I had a problem and that I needed to be in Atlanta to take care of it†How come that divine intervention left P. Ramsey when her daughter was murdered? Was anything done against the rules? Or did the divine intervention only count for P. Ramsey?

More divine intervention: “Another intervention from God†made sure a certain Dr. G. Kloster was at home when they called him. They needed him, a plastic surgeon by the way, to make P. Ramsey understand what it meant that she might possibly have cancer. Strangely this divine intervention doctor doesn’t open his mouth at all when the news is brought. Let's be honest. Asking a plastic surgeon about cancer would be about the same as asking an orthopedist to perform brain surgery. His presence at that particular moment was rather useless in my opinion. So I see no divine intervention here, as divine intervention is not supposed to be useless.

It is also remarkable that P. Ramsey has knowledge concerning medical expressions. She understood very well what was going on, everyone would have understood. So, what the plastic surgeon was doing there remains a question, but he wasn’t there to explain medical expressions, or the situation. Further, wouldn’t you prefer that your partner be called in such a situation? Wouldn’t you need the moral support the most from your partner?

Also the following remarks made by P. Ramsey are questionable: “Most of all, I was horrified to confront John with this condition. He certainly didn’t need me being sick; he was still reeling from Beth’s death.†Beth Ramsey died in a car crash on January 8, 1992, while the Atlanta hospital event took place on July 2, 1993. So after 1.5 years, P. Ramsey was horrified to confront J. Ramsey with the possibility that she might have cancer. Pay extra attention to the word horrified--and couldn’t she count on his support? Her next statement is that she kept crying: “My poor husband. My poor husband doesn’t need this.†Up until now, there's not a word about her children. Doesn’t that sound, to say the least, odd? Wouldn’t a loving mother, as she claims to be that, have thought of her children by now? That should at least give you some idea about who and what the “we are a loving family†Ramseys are. A little later in the book, P. Ramsey is suddenly telling about a loving J. Ramsey: “the one she was horrified to confrontâ€, who was trying to calm her down after she heard the she had stage IV, instead of stage III ovarian cancer. Now doesn’t that sound at least like a contradiction?

Let's have a look at some facts concerning ovarian cancer. This information comes from the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry located at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, and was published by them on 05/09/98.