The "Death of Innocence"

Chapter 9 (last)

There are four stages, namely:
Stage I Cancer is limited to the ovary.
Stage II Cancer has spread beyond the ovary, but is still limited to the pelvis, meaning below the navel.
Stage III Cancer has spread beyond the ovary, but is still limited to the pelvis and the abdominal cavity, excluding the liver.
Stage IV Cancer has spread beyond the ovary and abdomen or to the liver.

The chance of survival decreases as the stage increases. Chances of survival of the disease are, for women who have the cancer diagnosed before it has spread beyond the ovary (stage I), is 85% to 90%. However, for the majority of women in whom the disease has spread beyond the ovary, meaning stages II, III, and IV; the chance of living for five years after the diagnosis is between the 20% and 25%.

And do you know what? P. Ramsey is constantly slipping up when it comes to the ovarian stage IV cancer. In the 700 Club interview, that took place in July 2000, with S. Ross, P. Ramsey stated she was diagnosed with cancer in July 1992. However on Larry King Live, aired in November 2000, she stated: “I will celebrate my sixth year since my diagnosis.†Now I believe we all can count year 2000 minus 6 years would bring us to the year 1994. The book was published on March 17, 2000, and stated the cancer was diagnosed in July 1993. Now, don’t we have a problem here? Something that might, at least, make you suspicious? I sure think so!

Next, ‘divine intervention’ takes place at a hotel in Annapolis, Maryland. While P. Ramsey is staring at the ceiling of the hotel room she thinks Burke and JonBenét: “didn’t deserve to have a mother with cancer!†Odd choice of words, don’t you agree? Wouldn’t “what will happen to my children, should I die", not be a more natural thought? She then takes the Gidion Bible off the nightstand, opens it randomly, and reads a verse. Psalm 57 and she reads: “In the shadow of Your wings I will make my refuge, Until these calamities have passed by.†Conveniently, she forgets the first part of the psalm: “Be gracious to me, O God, be gracious to me, For my soul takes refuge in You.†David wrote this particular psalm when he fled for Saul, into a cave. However, P. Ramsey explains it as, it was a direct message from God to her and it meant: “Now I realized that the words were telling me that the calamities would some day pass by†and “a sense of strength and presence of the ‘divine’ settled around me. I went to sleep, knowing that my problem was in the right hands after all, the hands of my Heavenly Father.†It may be a surprise to P. Ramsey, but your destiny is always in the hands of God, He gave you a free will. And one does get the strange feeling P. Ramsey doesn’t understand much about religion, let alone the bible. She explains all that is written to her advantage--but it doesn’t work that way.

Next she is comparing herself with Job--unbelievably! Would you dare to do so? Yes, God is talking to her again! And this time He is saying, according to her: “those ‘babies’ are your reason to live. Get up and get with it.†That is how God told her to get up and live--just as he had told Job. After that she thought: “You’re right. We’re going to beat this together. God and me and the chemo.†Something doesn’t quite fit here. It sounds like--hey, let's throw in the chemo treatments as well--you never know. And again wouldn’t someone more likely think: God and I together are going to beat this?

Also God is making sure that, although the flight back to Denver is fully booked, there is always something happening that makes the seat next to her empty so she can lay down. Somehow all of this sounds rather strange! To be more precise, it sounds arrogant and presumptuous. Religion asks for being humble, not for arrogance. Never overestimate yourself!

As for the healing session, it is absolutely ridiculous! Nice for a novel, but in this case it is just used as an excuse--'look how good I am, even God heals me'.... Again, it doesn’t work like that. Just look at what she says: “The warmth of the Holy Spirit’s presence settled over me. I felt the healing touch of Jesus Christ working in my body.†Looks pretty nice, doesn’t it? Only it doesn’t convince me of anything divine taking place here. Why? Two days later she was taking the CT scan in the Boulder hospital. She asked the doctor about the tumor that had remained in her pelvic area, and she wanted to know whether it had shrunk, as the doctors in Bethesda and she had hoped for. Now wouldn’t you say it’s gone, I mean she ‘felt the healing touch of Jesus Christ working in her body,’-- so why even think it was still there? It just doesn’t make sense…doubts after all? Then miraculously the tumor (the size of a golf ball) is gone. However, the chemo treatments have to continue according to the doctors in Bethesda, at the NIH, so she had to go for the third treatment.

After the fourth treatment, and just before the fifth treatment, the cancer had spread. It was stated that it had metastasized, which means: “the transfer of disease from one organ or part to another not directly connected with it. It may be due to either to the transfer of pathogenic microorganisms (tubercle bacilli) or to transfer of cells, as in malignant tumors. The capacity to metastasize is a characteristic of all malignant tumors.†So, this means that in order to be able to spread--the disease must already be there. This leaves me with a kind of puzzle. It would have been normal to have said the disease had returned. But to have spread...no, that doesn’t make sense, you do not say such a thing if and when you are convinced that God cured you from the disease. And that is what she stated, she told the doctors at the NIH in Bethesda that she no longer needed the treatments, as God had healed her. Again, this gives you something to think about.

Then on the plane trip to Bethesda, she tells God this: “God, I don’t know how you are going to do this, but I know you are going to change what that film says. I have total faith that you can do it.†Here she is demanding from God, that He change the CT scan. She is actually telling Him what to do. Not asking 'please'--but, telling Him what to do! This is unbelievable! In the meantime she had already declared herself a missionary, and finds it necessary to state that two people had declared her an angel. Now how was that saying about modesty?

Then reading the last paragraph, at least for a moment it flashes to your head--the motive, talking about the motive. Indeed a scary thought. Being the center of attention, known by people all over the world, because of JonBenét’s murder--that is why she can act at as tool for Christ, she claims. She is a sort of living miracle, cured from cancer by God. Coupled with being known because of what happened to JonBenét, it makes her known to people all over the world. So, can that be a motive as well? Scary, isn’t it?

 

Chapter 11 (1)

This chapter begins with J. Ramsey stating that they returned to Boulder, Colorado from Atlanta on January 3, 1997. They had, according to J. Ramsey, only one reason to return to Boulder, and that was to find JonBenét’s murderer. So why weren’t they on the doorstep of the Boulder Police Department at 9:00 A.M. the next morning? That is what they had told CNN reporter B. Cabell. He (Cabell) stated right after the interview of January 1, 1997 on National Television: “They say they intend to go back to Boulder, within a few days, precisely when they’re not sure. They say that when they will go back they will sit down with the Boulder Police. They will talk. They will tell them anything they want to know.†I can tell you for sure that they were not at the Boulder Police Department on January 4 at 9:00 A.M. With that Atlanta burglary they were at the APD they next morning at, yes 9:00 a.m.! I guess they think catching a burglar is more important than catching a murderer. In fact, the Boulder Police Department had already been at their doorstep in Atlanta, asking for a formal meeting right after the funeral and the CNN interview. Only to find that the next morning the Ramseys were no where to be found in Atlanta. This while the Ramseys were informed that the Boulder Police had come to Atlanta to meet them, that sounds more like avoiding than talking!

Next J. Ramsey is nagging again about the photographs from JonBenét’s pageant portfolio showing up in the National press. They themselves brought the story to the National media in the first place, though a J. Ramsey, CEO, wasn’t aware of the consequences of such an action. Every well thinking human being understands that the next day the National newspapers will take over the story and those newspapers would make sure that they'd have photographs of the victim. As they and we know, their readers need to connect the story to a face--as only then the victim becomes a person they can relate to in some way. And by keeping on nagging about them, he confirms only how disgusting those photo’s really are. Why make such a fuss about them? He is telling everyone time after time how proud he was of her pageant performances, so what is the big deal? Why should those photos be such a secret...only bad things can’t bear the light, and need to stay hidden!

He is also trying to make the reader believe that he is too stupid to understand that the police needed search warrants in order to search the house in Charlevoix, Michigan. Worse yet, he thinks the readers are too stupid to understand why the police needed the search warrants, and could not have accepted the keys to the house just like that. There is always the possibility, and the police need to consider, that incriminating material could be found within the house to be searched. If such a thing would have happened, it would have been easy for J. Ramsey to state that he wasn’t told why they needed the keys to the house, and that he would have never given them permission to search the house. In which case, the found incriminating evidence would have been useless or at the least disputable in a court of law. I know that, you know that. However, J. Ramsey makes it sound as if the bad, bad, conspiratorial Boulder Police Department refused the keys that the totally cooperating J. Ramsey offered them. No, instead those bad cops got a search warrant, (which seems to me to be a wise decision). May I remind you that in chapter 3, the same J. Ramsey stated he thought he signed a permission for an autopsy instead of a consent to search the house at 755 Fifteenth street!

 

Chapter 11 (2)

And what is he trying next? Trying to convince the readers that the police had already made up their minds by then, that it was “the parents did it†by stating: “The police gave us a receipt for everything they took. From the list, which included Patsy’s daily planner and our address books, it was obvious they were searching for handwriting samples.†Let's have a look at the search warrant itself and see what it tells us. First of all, it tells us that the date given by J. Ramsey is incorrect. The search warrant denotes the date 01/05/97--therefore, no Detectives Harmer and Gossage searched any home in Charlevoix on January 3, 1997. Furthermore, if you read the reason for the search warrant, you will see that the police weren’t after handwriting samples. This is a false accusation toward the police. The search warrant reads as follows:

“The PROPERTY to be searched for and seized, if found, is specifically described as: Any and all tapes from any and all answering machines in the home, any and all caller identification devices or other forms if telecommunication recording type devices, any and all mail, correspondence or other documentation from any person, group or faction containing or eluding treats to any member of the Ramsey family and any and all physical evidence indicating that a breaking and entering or unlawful entry, illegal entry or surveillance has occurred in the home.â€

To me, this all sounds like they were still searching for evidence supporting the kidnap and/or revenge theory--the text of the warrant is very clear about this. So, the reference that the BPD was obviously searching for handwriting samples holds no grounds. The Ramseys and/or their attorneys have copies of this search warrant, and were aware and familiar with it’s contents. As it is stated in the warrant itself by Judge Richard W. May, he ordered:

“Leave a copy of this warrant with affidavit attached and a tabulation (a written inventory) of all property taken with the person form whom the property was taken or at the premises.â€

Now, if they were so serious about writing a book about the events that took place surrounding their daughter's murder, they should have at least done some thorough research. Wouldn’t they want to get their facts straight? If they are sincere they would!

The story goes on with the giving of additional handwriting samples after the Boulder Police discovered that the ransom note came from P. Ramsey's note pad. J. Ramsey is trying to play a simple trick on everyone here, only it is too transparent. He thinks he can do it by stating: “Why would I have given them the note pad if either of us had actually written the note?†Sorry it's not working, and I'll tell you why. He knew very well that the house would be searched, and if the police had found that note pad during a search, it would have been more suspicious looking than him giving them the note pad. That enabled him to say: “why would I give the pad, etc.†So, turning the note pad over to the police has absolutely no meaning as far as being innocent--it could have been a trick to confuse the police. It is also common knowledge that criminals make mistakes, which is why the police are able to apprehend them. As to the reason of giving the pads.... Probably the first reason counts--the police would have found them anyhow. Therefore, it proves absolutely no form of innocence whatsoever.

As to the additional handwriting samples being allowed to be given at the Hofstrom's home, he [J. Ramsey] is complaining that it was seen as receiving special treatment. He even dares to state: “I wonder how these people would have felt walking in our shoes, with their lives crushed and the police suspecting them of this horrible atrocity?†Let me return that question to those selfish Ramseys, by asking: “How do you think all those people, who went through the same ordeal felt when they saw you Ramseys receiving special treatment, while they didn’t? Ever thought of that Ramsey? No, of course not! Why should you--as long as it doesn’t happen to you, right?†But then again, those people were cleared soon! They cooperated and could therefore be cleared, so that the investigation could move on.

He then writes that he was sure (how isn’t explained) that the Boulder Police Department expected to solve the case quickly as, according to him: “After all, the police knew it was one of the parents. They just weren’t sure which one. As soon as they could get one to confess, this would be all over.†Is he confessing here? As far as I know, the Boulder Police Department was investigating and clearing a lot of people (as those people cooperated), which made it possible for the police to clear them quickly. They, the Ramseys themselves, did not cooperate; therefore the BPD has not been able to clear them. The Ramseys choose not to cooperate, and with that they, themselves, choose to remain suspects up until today. It makes you wonder why someone doesn’t want to be cleared. Perhaps because they couldn’t get cleared? Because maybe they are guilty and the BPD was, and is, on the right track after all? I can not think of any other reason not to cooperate in order to eliminate yourselves as possible suspects, so that the police can proceed with the investigation.

According to J. Ramsey, their attorneys told the police that the Ramseys would grant interviews/interrogations under one condition--that someone from the DA’s office would be present in the room to observe them. He conveniently forgets the demand of receiving copies of the police reports. Guess they never heard of video/audio taping of interrogations. Oops, I forgot that was also on the demand list--no video/audio taping allowed. I'm guessing that was to be tricky--as then the police could pin them to statements made. So, if I can still count, we're are now at three conditions instead of one.

I even fail to see what the DA’s office had to do with the interrogation of suspects or witnesses. I always thought that during an ongoing investigation the DA’s office was only there to assist they police--but apparently, I am wrong. From what I always understood, the DA’s office would take over the case as soon as the police presented the case to them. However, it seems to be different with this DA’s office. Since they were there to assist possible suspects, rather than the police. I wonder how legal those actions were, and whether it was criminal, and therefore can be prosecuted?
The story goes on with the giving of additional handwriting samples after the Boulder Police discovered that the ransom note came from P. Ramsey's note pad. J. Ramsey is trying to play a simple trick on everyone here, only it is too transparent. He thinks he can do it by stating: “Why would I have given them the note pad if either of us had actually written the note?†Sorry it's not working, and I'll tell you why. He knew very well that the house would be searched, and if the police had found that note pad during a search, it would have been more suspicious looking than him giving them the note pad. That enabled him to say: “why would I give the pad, etc.†So, turning the note pad over to the police has absolutely no meaning as far as being innocent--it could have been a trick to confuse the police. It is also common knowledge that criminals make mistakes, which is why the police are able to apprehend them. As to the reason of giving the pads.... Probably the first reason counts--the police would have found them anyhow. Therefore, it proves absolutely no form of innocence whatsoever.

 

Chapter 11 (3)

As to the additional handwriting samples being allowed to be given at the Hofstrom's home, he [J. Ramsey] is complaining that it was seen as receiving special treatment. He even dares to state: “I wonder how these people would have felt walking in our shoes, with their lives crushed and the police suspecting them of this horrible atrocity?†Let me return that question to those selfish Ramseys, by asking: “How do you think all those people, who went through the same ordeal felt when they saw you Ramseys receiving special treatment, while they didn’t? Ever thought of that Ramsey? No, of course not! Why should you--as long as it doesn’t happen to you, right?†But then again, those people were cleared soon! They cooperated and could therefore be cleared, so that the investigation could move on.

He then writes that he was sure (how isn’t explained) that the Boulder Police Department expected to solve the case quickly as, according to him: “After all, the police knew it was one of the parents. They just weren’t sure which one. As soon as they could get one to confess, this would be all over.†Is he confessing here? As far as I know, the Boulder Police Department was investigating and clearing a lot of people (as those people cooperated), which made it possible for the police to clear them quickly. They, the Ramseys themselves, did not cooperate; therefore the BPD has not been able to clear them. The Ramseys choose not to cooperate, and with that they, themselves, choose to remain suspects up until today. It makes you wonder why someone doesn’t want to be cleared. Perhaps because they couldn’t get cleared? Because maybe they are guilty and the BPD was, and is, on the right track after all? I can not think of any other reason not to cooperate in order to eliminate yourselves as possible suspects, so that the police can proceed with the investigation.

According to J. Ramsey, their attorneys told the police that the Ramseys would grant interviews/interrogations under one condition--that someone from the DA’s office would be present in the room to observe them. He conveniently forgets the demand of receiving copies of the police reports. Guess they never heard of video/audio taping of interrogations. Oops, I forgot that was also on the demand list--no video/audio taping allowed. I'm guessing that was to be tricky--as then the police could pin them to statements made. So, if I can still count, we're are now at three conditions instead of one.

I even fail to see what the DA’s office had to do with the interrogation of suspects or witnesses. I always thought that during an ongoing investigation the DA’s office was only there to assist they police--but apparently, I am wrong. From what I always understood, the DA’s office would take over the case as soon as the police presented the case to them. However, it seems to be different with this DA’s office. Since they were there to assist possible suspects, rather than the police. I wonder how legal those actions were, and whether it was criminal, and therefore can be prosecuted?

“We responded fully to all their written questions.†J. Ramsey states. This concerns the sixteen questions faxed by Detective Arndt, as ordered by P.Hofstrom from the DA’s office. Because, yes, the Ramseys had told the police that they (during the negotiations about interrogations), would answer “thoughtfully†to any written questions the BPD would put to them. To the Ramseys, that was their way of ‘cooperating’ with the police. They even expect that we take them seriously about this thoughtful form of ‘cooperation’. Notice that the word thoughtful, which should have been truthful! However, cooperation and truthful are words which the Ramseys do not know the meaning of. As for the fully responding to the questions--let's take a look at an example:

Question: What was JonBenét wearing when she went to bed on Christmas night?
Answer: The best recollection is that she was wearing long underwear pants and a polo shirt when she went to bed.


Thoughtfully, the answer--yes, truthfully--no, cooperative--also no! 'The best recollection'? Please--what a thoughtful answer! It looks
like they are asking them about something that took place, years ago...we are talking about a murder that took place in December 1996,
and answers were given beginning 1997. Don’t you wonder how long it took them to think out this answer? Anyhow, this is not
cooperating; this is what we call dodging questions! It’s a totally useless answer, and can mean anything that you want it to. No details
are given--as usual. So the statement in the Boulder Daily Camera “The Ramseys are not cooperating with the police†is therefore a
truthful statement!

As last J. Ramsey states that they moved to J. Elowsky’s place: “Jay's a good friend,†after staying at the Bynum house for a while. Are we now talking about the same J. Elowsky, of whom J. Ramsey stated during the June 1998 interrogations: “possibly owned a stungun� Watch out! Here comes the Ramsey bus again! It must be great being friends with the Ramseys--they are such loyal and reliable friends. I can say I'm glad to have another kind of friends--friends who do not drive busses; meaning real friends...not using friends.

Here P. Ramsey takes over the writing again. She awoke on the morning of January 5, 1997 and felt like being unable to get out of bed. Yeah, her entire body felt like lead. She didn’t want to move, but was encouraged by J. Ramsey with a cup of hot, black coffee. What one cup of hot, black coffee can do! So, if you are ever not feeling able to get out of bed and your body feels like lead...take one cup of hot, black coffee; guaranteed to work, the special recipe of J. Ramsey! Now, this sounds a bit strange to me at the least. Have you ever tried it? Did it work? I guess almost everyone knows for sure that it doesn’t work!

 

Chapter 11 (4)

The above is the foreword to the description of the publicity stunt at the St. John's Church in Boulder on January 5, 1997. The church was used, simply, and plainly used. The whole thing was set up--the PR manager, P. Korten, made a deal with the press. Only, they conveniently forgot that they also made that deal with the people inside that church. The Ramseys used those people as well. They were made to believe that the vicious media was haunting the poor Ramseys, and that they had to protect the poor Ramseys against the media. However, they were unaware of the fact that the Ramseys had invited the press to be present at the church; that it was all a well-planned publicity stunt. Ever thought about what those big grins on their faces were all about?

She even has the guts to suggest that a writer for the Boulder Daily Camera lied when she wrote: “the whole event at the church was a well-staged public relations stuntâ€. Although we all know who wrote that, and we all know that what was written was true. That same writer, N. Hayden, was also among the people who felt used. I surely can’t blame her for that. Her description of what happened was accurate: “the church had been used.â€

This is followed by a ‘heartbreaking story’ of how Burke, still in shock from the events, was being questioned concerning his sister's murder. Here is a quotation from the book that Steve Thomas wrote, just as an example:
Question: “What do you think happened to your sister?â€
Answer: “I know what happened to my sister. She was killed.â€
Question: “But what happened?â€
Answer: “I know what happenedâ€
Question: “How was she killed? Have you talked to your parents about it?
Answer: “I asked my dad. Where did you find her body? He said: in the basement. I think someone took her down in the basement...took a knife out (making a throat slashing gesture) or hit her on the head.â€

Now to me that doesn't sound much like a shocked child to me. This event took place on January 8th 1997. And yet, up until today, they
are trying to convince us that they never talked to Burke about the murder. Then, what do they call this?

Isn’t there something else you notice, something else that bugs you? Would a nine-year-old child associate a blow to the head as a means of murder? Don’t children hit each other or get hit by others, including on the head? So it is almost certain that he must have seen or heard something. A child, even an adult, easily associates murder with being shot, knifed, or strangled; but not easily with a blow to the head. So how come Burke uses the blow to the head here? What does Burke know? What is hidden inside him....maybe in his unconscious mind? Don’t you want to know? At the time Burke made this statement, the autopsy report was not released yet. Actually, the head trauma was only revealed during the autopsy--no signs were visible on the outside. If you were innocent, and had nothing to do with your child’s murder--wouldn't you try to learn if your other child might know something? Wouldn’t you want the police to schedule more interviews with the help of a specialist in child psychiatry? It might be a chance to catch your child’s murderer, and at the same time it would be therapeutic for the other child. Doesn't it make sense to help the child deal with the murder, before “he explodes emotionally on the age of 40"? Unless.........

While Burke was being interviewed (for two whole hours), according to P. Ramsey, Detective Linda Arndt would come into the room P. Ramsey was in every so often. She [P. Ramsey] states that at that time, she would begin to cry and shake uncontrollably. She also claims that Detective Arndt promised her that she would stay with the case until the killer was found. How odd! In Steve Thomas’s book we get quite a different story..... Detective Arndt reports the events that took place as follows: 'Every so often' becomes "during the full hour (not two hours) of the interview Detective Arndt was in P. Ramsey's presence". The discussion was not about JonBenét’s murder. More important things were talked about--like ovarian cancer! She laughed while telling Detective Arndt that she was the black sheep of the family. That she was no longer able to have children--and THAT was what she cried about! And by all means, let's not forget the statement she made that she loved Burke, but really missed JonBenét. Why? Because Burke did not like to wear make up or bake cookies! That should give you some idea of how she [P. Ramsey] thought about JonBenét and Burke. At last she stated that it was good that Detective Arndt was on the case, and urged her to find the killer. Now. I think we have two quite different stories of what took place. And who do you think is telling the truth here? May I remind you that Detective Arndt submitted a report concerning this conversation...so her report is in the police files!

Back to a whining J. Ramsey, claiming that there were leaks at the Boulder Police Department. I suggest he take a good long look at the DA’s office and/or their own lawyers or other employees, when it comes to leaks. He states that their private investigators E. Armistead. and D. Williams, could prove their importance, as the BPD was losing valuable time in finding the killer(s). Supposedly, the BPD was preoccupied with investigating the Ramseys. Now, if they had cooperated with the police from day one, they police wouldn’t have lost any time in finding the murderer(s). And would the Ramseys now tell us whom these so very important detectives caught as the murderer(s)? Guess they are about as far, or maybe even further away, from catching the murderer(s) than the Boulder Police Department is!

It is just unbelievable what pathetic whiners they are! How many times more do we have to read the same nonsense: semi shock, medicated, impossible to concentrate? But oh how well they are on insignificant details--as long as it got nothing to do with the murder. Remembering the slightest details becomes no problem to them then!

We now come to the J. Douglas part, and again it doesn’t fit. “Our attorneys contacted John Douglas.†Aren’t you forgetting something here? A certain top profiler named McCrary perhaps? And what about the 18 members of “The Academyâ€? So in fact, after 19 formal FBI agents turned them down for obvious reasons, as stated many times by Greg McCrary, they finally came to choose number 20, J. Douglas; who, according to one of the world’s best profilers, Robert Ressler, “is more into entertainment.â€

J. Ramsey then describes the conversation they had with J. Douglas after he had spoken with two Boulder detectives, namely Steve Thomas and Tom Trujillo. According to J. Ramsey, J Douglas has said that the meeting was: “what he would have expected to encounter in a small southern Mississippi town in the 1960s. He said the Boulder police were cold, arrogant cops, who challenged the credentials of the big-city outsiders.†Now they are making fools out of themselves, as it is known that J. Ramsey read (or tried to read) Mindhunter. Or, perhaps Douglas is making a fool out of himself. Let's have a look at a passage out of Mindhunter where Douglas writes about his Airforce training, which took place in 1966: “The drill instructor was always on the northerners' asses, and most of the time I thought it was justified. I tended to hang out with the southerners, whom I found more likable and far lss obnoxious then my fellow New Yorkers.†I think these words, Douglas’ own, speak for themselves. So much for Douglas here...

 

Chapter 11 (5)

Then J. Ramsey follows with the story that they heard that Steve Thomas, who was heading the investigation, had only been a detective for six months. They were shocked! Now, I assume he is talking about the same Steve Thomas who received more than one hundred commendations and awards during his thirteen-year police career, including the Award of Excellence and the Medal for Live-saving, for assignments that ranged from recruit training and SWAT, to special investigations and undercover narcotics. Who worked prior to the case on a multi-state task force investigating racketeering and organized crime? Who has been a guest lecturer on criminal justice topics, and instructed intensively on law enforcement issues? I assume they are talking about the same Steve Thomas, of whom their ‘super detective’ L. Smit said: “One detective stood out in his mind (Smit’s). Steve Thomas was a professional. He was dedicated and wanted only justice for the victim. Thomas knew the case from every angle, and he was in the field, where detectives should be.†Since there was only one Steve Thomas assigned to the case, that must be him. Wouldn’t you want such a dedicated detective on your child’s murder case?

By now, friends began telling the Ramseys that the BPD told them that they were named as suspects by those same Ramseys. Let's see, that must have been Mr. McReynolds, Mr. White, Mrs. Hoffman-Pugh--just to name a few. However, I doubt the police told them the Ramseys were calling them suspects. I guess these people were clever enough to figure that one out themselves--it shouldn't have been difficult to see what side the accusations were coming from. Also, the police had told people: “The Ramseys refuse to talk to us. Will you help us?†Now there is nothing misstated here--the police were just telling the simple and plain truth. Guess the Boulder Police Department was more eager to solve the murder than the parents!

J. Douglas was also looking more deeply into the facts. What facts? Where from? The autopsy report was not yet released. Crime scene photo’s, all police statements and reports were in possession off the Boulder Police Department, and they were most certainly not going to share that information with anyone. The ransom note was all he had access to. No other information would have been given to anyone who was paid by possible suspects, who were not even cooperating with the police. And what was the conclusion of this top profiler? “It was someone who had a grudge against J. Ramsey or who was jealous of him.â€

Now let’s have a look at what two top profilers (who “are not so much in entertainmentâ€), have to say about this case. Let's begin with former FBI agent Greg McCrary, the one who turned down their offer to join their team. In Dr. Wecht's book we can read the following profile given by Greg McCrary.

According to Greg McCrary the description of the scene suggested strongly that the ransom note and the appearance of an abduction attempt had been staged. The note seemed fake, and there was little to suggest there had ever been a genuine kidnapping attempt. All of the accounts had made him very suspicious about what the police had seen and heard in the Ramsey house. In his experience, intruders rarely go into houses and kidnap children. They do not leave phony-sounding ransom notes. But those elements often show up when someone in the family, or close to the family, commits a murder and tries to cover up. He was convinced that the answer to the Ramsey case would be found in the family or very close to it. The facts as he knew them were consistent with what he called “a staged domestic homicide!†These were common in murders among family members; someone close to the victim would try to make it look like something it wasn’t, to deflect suspicion away from the family. A husband who murdered his wife would want the police looking outside, perhaps towards a burglar. The problem with those schemes was that the killers rarely knew what a genuine crime scene looked like. They thought they did, using their misdirected perceptions from movies and books. All of that was make-believe, not what the police find in real crimes. A detective who had seen sexual homicides, especially an agent like McCrary, who had studied hundreds of them, would know they did not look what was found in the Ramsey house. If JonBenét had been killed attending one of those troubling beauty pageants, McCrary would have been willing to consider the possibility that a homicidal pedophile was at work. Pedophiles are drawn to those pageants, McCrary had learned, and that would be a logical scenario for the murder of a popular contestant. There would home on Christmas night--not a logical scenario for an intruder pedophile.

At the same time Greg McCrary says the following about not being able to have access to all the information he would need to develop a accurate, credible profile; which the cold, arrogant police refused to give Douglas. He assumed Douglas would not have access to that information, such as all police reports and all of their other investigative information to completely understand the crime, because he almost certainly knew that police would not give such information to someone who worked for people who had not been charged with anything. And because of what he as a law enforcement officer, he certainly would never have done such a thing himself, while the case was still under investigation. There were no legal grounds for the authorities, according to Greg McCrary, to turn over reports and information to the Ramseys. In fact there were perfect reasons to absolutely make sure such information would NOT be available to them, or anyone working for them.

Robert Ressler, who has been to Boulder to study the case and took part in a news magazine show concerning the case, came to a similar conclusion as Greg McCrary; a stranger, a kidnapper, or a pedophile murderer had not killed JonBenét. He said that the ransom note and the kidnapping were staged to cover up the identity and the true motive of the killer, who was, according to him, someone in the “immediate circle†of people surrounding JonBenét.

Concerning the publication of the autopsy photos by the Globe, J. Ramsey states that the dignity of JonBenét was violated, and an innocent child turned into a spectacle. What a sick hypocrite!! Those autopsy photos of JonBenét’s little hands are not even close to the gruesome and nauseating pageant photos. Those repulsive photos truly violated the dignity of that innocent little girl! That innocent child was turned into a spectacle at those sickening child pageants by her own parents, and of that he is so proud! The pageant photos are repulsive to me; the autopsy photo of her little hands only calls a feeling of compassion to me--for a child that had no life of her own, and was too young to die.

He ends by saying that he, J. Ramsey and P. Ramsey could not, and will not ever look at the autopsy photos. Want to bet? You and she will have to!! You are taking Steve Thomas to court! You have accused him of slander by writing about your involvement in the murder of your daughter. He is going to use everything he can to prove he is right. And those photos will prove, J. Ramsey, that you were lying about her hands being tightly bound!

 

Chapter 15 (1)

This chapter has a perfect start, which shows what the Ramseys are all about--the Ramseys themselves. Who better than P. Ramsey is capable of showing their true nature? J. Ramsey is very, very good at it, although nothing compared to P. Ramsey. Just read the first four sentences and you'll know enough.

She starts with: "When John and I descended on the Stine's home in middle February, we inadvertently began a period that problably saved our sanity." To say the least, this seems a little overdone; but then again that is P. Ramsey's trademark--overdoing everything. To me, this sentence sounds incredibly insulting towards Elowsky. What was the difference between Elowsky's house and the Stine's house? Was it the silverware, the coffeepot, more chairs and more than one sofa? Or was it a baseball bat, a 40 caliber pistol, and the criminal record Elowsky now had? Where were the Stines, when Elowsky took them in, on January 3, 1997? No where! Also, on this photo of Elowsky, taken in February 1997, they sure look quite sane to me. That doesn't look like a chaotic, insane grin to me. Something was quite funny, that is for sure! I wonder what it was?

Before I go to the next sentence, I have to say something else about the photo, that is bothering me and makes me think hmmmm......strange. Do you still remember how important it was to P. Ramsey that she and JonBenét dressed alike? Here on this photo she and Burke are suddenly dressed alike. Strange, isn't it?

For the first part of the sentence: "Our lives had become so chaotic and shrouded in grief, we couldn't help feeling that the whole world had turned against us." I can only refer to the above photo again, and it isn't the only photo that can be used--there are more photos in which they look pretty satisfied with themselves. As for the second part, she's playing the ultimate victim again. The whole world had turned against them...again a way to seek pitiful attention?

"Why that happened, we will never know." Well let me explain why the media turned against them. Seeking the attention of the media to use it to your advantage [CNN interview]; and once you have their attention, turning against them isn't exactly a clever thing to do. And by seeking the media's attention, you seek the public's attention. Now, people do not like to be used, and that is exactly what they did. When people heard at the same time [via that same media] that they, the Ramseys, used to portray themselves as the ultimate victims, that they were not cooperating with the police to find the murderer of their own daughter, JonBenét. In fact, people learned that they were even hostile toward the police. When those same people were told via the media, they were not wanted anymore, and in fact, they were even an annoyance for asking why the Ramseys were acting out toward the police in such a manner. That is when people started to feel used, as instead of being victims, they were hiding from the police, avoiding them all the time, derailing them in whatever way they could. Now that isn't something you do when your child is murdered--unless you have something to hide.

As for "Our child was murdered and now the world hates us…" makes me think hmmmm...or low self-esteem. Gee, they must hate themselves pretty badly to think such a thing. Hate is something evil and I am not evil. All I want is for them to take the consequences of their actions, and take full responsibility for what they did. That is not hate, that is asking for justice. I don't like them at all, but I do not hate them.

Now we have come from St. Elowsky to the St. Stines. Yes, the St. Stines are familiar with the internet, as if we didn't know that already. The internet, and telling childish jokes was the solution to the whole problem.

The hounding, lurking media was always outside because the police were constantly spreading rumors that they were soon going to be arrested. That way, P. Ramsey states, the police were trying to solve the case, by keeping the pressure on them so that they would soon break.

Just think about it, even for a second. Doesn’t such a statement strike you as silly and pathetic? Doesn’t it show you how dumb and ignorant they really are? Doesn’t it strike you as foolish and childish to think like that, or to think they can actually make someone believe that is what was happening? It is just [in a sick way] playing the ultimate victim again, nothing else!

Sure we are going to believe right away, that the Boulder Police Department decided, without any good fundamental reason, and without any further proof and/or evidence, that the Ramseys did it. They just need one or more murderer(s), and for some dark obscure reason they decided it had to be the parents. And just in order to press them into a confession, so that they could get a conviction in a court of law, they were feeding rumors to the media on a regular basis that the parents were going to be arrested at the end of the week. That makes sense, please grow up! Can you imagine that such a confession would stick in a courtroom? Can you imagine any jury would convict someone, whom they knew was being pressed into a confession by the police, without any further evidence pointing in that person’s direction? I seriously doubt such a thing could ever take place in a democracy!

She contradicts herself again when she is describing how and which movies they watched to shift their mind for a moment away from their grief and problems with the media and police. A few lines later she is stating that most of the time she couldn’t watch those same movies because of the grief. Now, something sure doesn’t fit here.

This is followed by the sick joke of how the card with all the Tabloid manager's telephone numbers, including home numbers, were put on the internet by them. Again, this shows you their true nature--sick and pathetic. What is there to gain from doing this? In my opinion--nothing, nothing at all. Telephone numbers can be easily changed, so what is the big deal, other than pitiful revenge? Also, the story how a friend, who is to remain nameless, pathetically thinks she would be funny in by letting a total stranger, who had absolutely nothing to do with the case, think her husband was having an affair, with a ridiculous kind of hang up call. You probably all can come up with that person's name, the only one dumb enough to believe she could get away with such a pathetic thing as described in the book.

And, yes of course, the Stines were the only ones that understood them so well--no one else but the Stines did. Huh, it is almost true, as no one would be able to understand your only wanting to know why something happened, and not who did it. By knowing who did it, you might get closer to why it happened, but they are to dumb to see that. Or are they beyond the stage of knowing the who and only need to know the why? If not, why keep avoiding the police?

Somehow then, they seem to be waiting for a written invitation, or something like that, from the same police they are trying to avoid in the first place. First you say you do not want to talk to the police, constantly hiding behind lawyers; and then you start complaining that the police aren’t talking to you? Unbelievable--there are no other words for it! They hungered for some insight, some answers to what was going on downtown at police headquarters. Hey what is the problem here? Police headquarters downtown was, and is still open 24 hours a day. It is a public building, meaning that you can stop in there any time you want to. I am sure the police would be delighted if you stopped in. They would go to an extreme length to get someone there to talk to you in no time, no matter what time of day or night. All you had, and still have to do, is just step inside and cooperate with the police. You might even solve a murder that way!

Around the middle of March, Hunter hired a very experienced homicide detective to look at the police investigation. Don’t you want to know now who got hired? Now let's see, P. Ramsey states: “Alex Hunter called Lou Smit out of retirement from the El Paso County Sheriff’s Department and pressed him into service on our case.†What? Did Hunter put a gun to Smit’s head, pressing him into service? Sounds pretty ridiculous--"pressed into service". She goes on by stating: “Smit had earned a reputation in Colorado Springs as a methodical, ethical and very effective detective who solved 90 percent of some two hundred homicides he investigated during his thirty-year career.â€

Now let me or even better, let retired Lieutenant Commander of the New York City Police Department, Vernon J. Geberth, who has personally investigated, supervised, assessed and consulted on 8,000 homicide investigations, explain how a homicide investigation is conducted, with some excerpts from his well-known and professional book “Practical Homicide Investigation:â€

Quote
The professional homicide investigator must learn to deal with death in a clinical manner. Detectives should afford themselves with an emotional insulation by not projecting a personality into the body. Personally speaking, if you begin to look upon that body as your wife, daughter, son, mother or father you are going to lose that professional objectivity which is so necessary in the murder inquiry. My way of dealing with the reality of sudden and violent death is a strong belief in God and a belief in a higher existence. My theology informs me that there is afterlife and I belief that the soul of the murder victim has left the body. In order to function effectively, it is imperative that the detectives have a strong ego defense mechanism, which allow them to engage in isolation of affect through intellectualization. This is not meant to suggest that homicide practitioners can avoid personal feelings about the tragedy. Instead, it allows a professional investigator focus and concentration on the dynamics of the event and not become emotionally involved in the crime.
Unquote

To me, he is saying here, do not get emotionally involved in the case; meaning also--do not get emotionally involved with possible suspects. And, in cases of child homicide, eleven out of twelve children are murdered by family members or someone very close to the family. There was, and still is, a lot of evidence and there are enough leads pointing towards the Ramseys. On top of that, the Ramseys were [are] avoiding the police, being uncooperative, hiding behind lawyers, and derailing the investigation. This makes it impossible for the Boulder Police Department to clear them as suspects. Smit allowed himself to get emotionally involved with the Ramseys...that does not sound very professional to me. Giving evidence to those who are considered suspects sounds rather unethical to me.

 

Chapter 15 (2)

Quote
Another component in homicide investigations are human behavior factors which present themselves during course of the inquiry. The interpersonal relationship among and between professionals involved in death investigation are varied. The professional homicide detective must be willing to work as a team player who engenders cooperation by his or her own conduct and behavior. The ability to communicate with different types of personalities and effectively interview and interrogate murder suspects is paramount to a professional homicide investigation. A professional homicide investigator is someone who is a “truth seeker.†Someone who is not opinionated, tainted with prejudice, or prone to prejudgment. There is a need for patience and flexibility in homicide investigation. Part of the inquiry is directed towards the elimination of suspects, as well as the inclusion. A professional homicide practitioner can not be an individual with a “lock-and-loadâ€mentality.
Unquote

So, first of all, Smit did not solve 90 percent of some 200 homicides, he merely participated in them. Solving a murder is teamwork! Something Smith is unaware of. Secondly, he immediately concluded it could not be the Ramseys and was not even willing to consider that fact, even though they were uncooperative and refused to be cleared. Doesn’t that sound like a “lock-and-load†mentality? Not even considering the fact that they might be suspects is a lack of professionalism and an inability to work as a team player. Solving murders is not playing the Lone Ranger, and stealing the show--it is all about teamwork!

Suddenly the story takes course towards what P. Ramsey calls the “Judas Syndrome.†Something the Ramseys are well acquainted with, according to herself. Yes, I'm sure a lot of people have found out about them being so well acquainted with it by now. A former acquaintance, namely J. Phillips, started to try to visit P. Ramsey at the Stine's. A former acquaintance--since when? Since she wasn’t going to turn against the White family, maybe? Because this former acquaintance was invited to the early surprise birthday party of P. Ramsey in Denver, at the beginning of November 1996. And wasn’t Mr. R. Phillips, J. Ramsey's estate attorney? Didn’t J. Ramsey even have a business meeting with Mr. J. Philips after JonBenét was murdered? So this “former†gives the reader a completely wrong impression. By stating: “Several years passed and then JonBenét’s death became news. Now Judith came to see me at the Stine's house,†it gives the reader the impression that they didn’t meet in years, which is absolutely not true.

Then she slips up badly, when she states: “Yet a few months later Judith apparently sold the pictures to the National Enquirer. She always had her subjects sign an agreement, saying that she could do whatever she wanted with the photographs, and apparently I had signed such a document years earlier, never dreaming she would do anything further with the photos, let alone sell them to a supermarket tabloid.†The magic word is 'apparently', which means, in this case, she or I did, but it seems likely that is what happened, therefore it's not necessary the truth!

She also is putting herself down again in a horrible way by calling herself a subject, not a someone. She is also trying to put J. Phillips in a bad light. However, instead of doing so, she is actually putting herself down. As they are her words, not J. Phillips’s words, she also could have described it as: “she always had the person, who was photographed, sign an agreement.†She describes herself as a subject, now that shows a pretty low self-esteem! To make things even worse, she: “never dreamed of the fact that someone would sell those photos to a supermarket tabloid, such as the National Enquirer.†Now, guess who granted the National Enquirer an interview in April 2001?

J. Ramsey takes over now, showing off their tremendous stupidity. He starts with the story about the Spring holiday in March 1997, stating: “The morning we were to leave, Saturday, March 29, the media were everywhere. They knew it was Spring break and they expected we might be going somewhere--so they were going to catch the big ‘getaway’ on film!†They could have left the evening before the morning of the 29th, as darkness always provides more shelter than broad daylight. And by naming it “the big getawayâ€, it just looks like another PR stunt.

While he, J. Ramsey, is describing the avoiding of the press as a game again, it makes one wonder, do these people take anything seriously, or is everything just a game to them? Ah, there are the golf bags again; he so desperately needed before going to Atlanta before the funeral. That and the: “we laughed hysterically and gave high fives all around,†leaves you the impression of: Oh great, that sure sounds like a bunch of grief stricken, heavily medicated people!

Again while making that game of avoiding the media into a sport, they are trying to make the reader believe they were still afraid that they were being followed by the killer of JonBenét, and not a photographer. Now I don’t know about you, but I for one, sure wouldn’t take the risk of playing games with a murderer! To be honest, I do not believe anyone would! So am not taking the fear of being followed by the killer very seriously. Do you? One doesn't play with what one is afraid of!

 

Yes, there was a difference, the case was first treated as a kidnapping, yet they only refer to it as murder interrogations. So something is wrong there.

Oh, believe me they still irritate me as well. I even wonder if the case will ever be solved and the murderer(s) will be convicted.

 

Hotcha!

Way to go, Sylvia! Keep it coming!

Here's something I have to add: somewhere in the book (I can't remember because I burned it) John mentions the Big Lie: tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. But the question is, do the Ramseys believe what they're dishing out?

 

Well, I what I was wondering about was them sleeping in the same bed.

I'm thinking when they did go to Burke's room, it was to make sure he was there, nothing else, if they even went there at all.

Sylvia made this timeline:

"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, ..."

That in itself just stinks. I'm just wondering whose innocence died. For me, it was Burke's. He was the only child left; and when his younger sister died, so did his innocence. Somehow. Burke has it in black and white the story his parents told.

 

I no longer have the book, I would have to try to find that quote somewhere on amazon, if possible. Will check it.

 

My feeling was the innocence of Patsy and John died, as Burke is almost not mentioned in the book. It is all about Patsy and John and how bad the LE treated them.

 

It's on pg 228

....people will believe any lie, if it is big enough and told often enough, and loud enough.

Looks like Patsy was the one referencing this quote....She felt her and John had been Borked alot.

 

You are right.... They mention this in the book, however I am not able to find the page right now. They are not talking about the innocence of their precious daughter being taken away. They are more concerned that their innocence in the public eye is dying because of the media.

 

And they just accomplished the opposite with this book, it made them look more and more suspicious, to my opinion.

 

Fright

Can you even imagine what it must be like for Burke, living with people who may have killed your sister? :sick:

 

The title of the book "Death of Innocence in the Ramsey's eyes was the death of their six year old daughter, as we all know, but did Patsy Ramsey ever give a thought to her little innocent six year old when she had her dressed in the gawdy costumes similar to the glittering costumes worn by Show Girls? I think not!

http://p216.ezboard.com/fcrimeandjustice13552frm78.showMessage?topicID=186.topic

Kit Andre: I’ve looked at that pageant video several times. They make JonBenet look like a clown. Someone else taught her those pseudo-adult movements, the provocative walk, the poses, all of it.The pageants were Patsy’s gig. JonBenet was her alter ego. Patsy had the money, she had the costumes, and she had the kid. She could relive her own pageant thing. You got the picture right there. Patsy didn’t have a sense of proportion about how this should fit into her child’s life. What I saw on the pageant video…you don’t do that to a six-year-old. – Kit Andre.

Thank you Little for all the hard work you have done for the "justice for JonBenét."

 

Oh, I guess I see. The Death of Innocence, ie JonBenet.

Poor Burke, all he wanted to do was learn to fly. But was that allowed? Noooooo. Pre-kindergarten is ok to learn to be a beauty queen, but nine years old is too young to receive lessons on how to fly. I guess that is supposed to make some sort of sense, just doesn't to me.

 

I don't think the title of DOI was about JonBenet's innocence at all. It was about John and Patsy all the way - i.e., the death of their innocence, as in, they innocently believed in the system and the goodness of the media but that faith died with what they perceived happened to them after JB's murder.

The whole book was about them and their whining about how they were treated. Po thangs.