What Kind of Parents WOULD STOP SEARCHING FOR THEIR CHILD'S KILLER? GUILTY ONES.

Isn't that the truth!

The Ramseys barnstormed northwestern MI, outspent their opponents five times over, set records for campaign donations, canvassed neighborhoods, held rallies, went on national TV to promote John's campaign, and maintained a web site all in an effort to win a state election.

They did NONE of that for the JonBenet Foundation. Their national CNN and Larry King interviews don't count because they weren't about JonBenet or the Foundation ... they were merely public relations exercises done to promote the idea of their innocence.

When the Ramseys really believe in something ... they put forth a tremendous effort ... whether it's winning pageants, decorating for Christmas, or running an election campaign. No sir, the Ramsey don't do anything half-arsed ... except cooperate to find JonBenet's killer, and work for her Foundation.

And that says it all.

 

That's telling it like it really is, Cherokee!

 

DocG

DocG,

I find it interesting that neither the Ramseys nor their private investigators needed testimony to determine if the basement window had been replaced in the six months between John's claim and JonBenet's murder. The glass in this window appears to be mounted in a wooden frame. All they had to do was examine the putty along the edge of the broken glass.

When a new pane of glass is installed in a wooden frame, glazing (putty) is applied along the outside edges of the glass (and normally painted) to form a weather seal between the glass and the frame. If the glass had been replaced after John broke it, the glazing (and paint) would appear new and would have no sign of weather cracking, even if repaired six months before JonBenet's death. Since there were several other older panes of glass in this basement window, comparison of the condition of the putty on the unbroken panes to the broken pane would have been simple.

If new putty were found in the frame, this would have indicated the window was broken a second time, evidence the RST would use that an intruder broke the glass after it had been repaired. However, if old putty was present, the broken window, by itself, did not prove an intruder entered the house through it.

To me, this explains why the Ramseys were so evasive when asked about the repair. The Ramseys were trying to point the investigation towards the theory that an intruder broke the repaired window and entered the house through it. At the same time, if the police knew the putty was old and cracked, thus the glass was never replaced, the Ramseys would not be caught giving false testimony.

-Catfish

 

Don't forget their paperback edition of DOI, some of us bought the book. The book stated all profits were to go to the JBR foundation....which conviently went private after the book was sold.

Sheesh, what lying phonies the Rams are. Go get 'em Fox news.

 

I have to agree with Elle on this one. Regardless of her motives, the fact remains that she is publicly expressing her disappointment with the Ramseys and their lack of follow up in many areas.

Jameson writes:

No, I am not going to twist your words. That is not my style. I understand quite well that you and others believe the Ramseys helped in the investigation whether in the beginning or since. I don't happen to share that belief, but I know you do as well as others.

I must ask you Jams: What, in your opinion is the "why" of the Ramseys failing to keep up the tip line and the other things that have disappointed you?

**BTW, forum differences aside, your granddaughter is really a stunning little baby and I wish the family nothing but joy and health with her. As we say in my neck of the woods: MAZEL TOV!

My second question: Can you look in that little baby's face and ask yourself: If she needed help for any reason, where would you stop? When would you stop? Could you possibly stop at any point? After how many years would you stop trying to help? I may be bold here, but knowing your style I do believe the answer is that you would NEVER stop (as it should be)

Why have the Ramseys stopped?

 

She is a very pretty baby and I am sure she will bring the family much joy. jameson wrote that her family had also suffered loss. I know from personal experience how much a new baby helps to heal the pain of the loss of a loved one. It makes one appreciate the value of relationships. I wonder how much of her own family life did she sacrifice for the Ramseys and if she feels it was worth it?

 

We at least know Jameson is definitely reading the feedback of her latest announcement with Barbara's post, and her retaliation to Jayelles on her bedwetting post..

I'm still very puzzled as to why she is still adamant the Ramseys weren't involved in the death of JonBenét. Hopefully something else might click in her head and she can put the pieces together, and see a complete picture. It might happen!.

Where did you see the photo of her baby granddaughter Jayelles? I would like to see it. I had problems opening Jam's web site. I received a web site from a friend and managed to open it today, but I didn't see anything about the baby's photo. Yes, it is a wonderful experience becoming a grandma for the very first time, and I do wish her happiness with this new baby.

I agree with all you had to say about the sheets being washed and put back on JonBenét's bed to the clean sheets picking up the damp urine from the plastic mattress protector.

I still believe Patsy Ramsey was in a rage on Christmas night when she found her little girl, JonBenét in a soiled bed, not just a wet bed, when she wakened her up at her uusal time MIDNIGHT to go to the bathroom. It's possible John Ramsey was wakened up with the noise which went along with Patsy hauling JB out of her bed. Also Burke!

Nedra Paugh's words come back to me, from Steve Thomas' "JonBenét" PB page 102. Steve wanted to know what JonBenét would do if wakened suddenly. "she didn't like you pulling her out of bed," her grandmother replied. "She would scream bloody murder." ... ... ... "Unless they chloroformed her or taped her mouth, she would have screamed like you wouldn't believe."

To quote Steve Thomas: So in view of one family member. it seemed unlikely that a stranger could have slipped the girl quietly out of the bedroom. I liked the idea that JonBenét was a fighter.

Unfortunately, Steve, I think this was what caused JonBenét's death, the fact that she was a fighter. I doubt that Patsy Ramsey was in a placid mood if she dragged JonBenét out of her bed at midnight, and was confronted with a screaming child. I think John Ramsey is lying when he states he was asleep with his Melatonin. It's not like a "knock - out - drop" sleeping tablet. I agree with Steve Thomas. The Ramseys were up all night.

Burke Ramsey must have heard the noise too and was chased back to bed.

 

Elle

I don't recall posting anythng about bedwetting recently (?????) so I don't know what retaliation you are referring to. I don't have any strong opinions on the bedwetting other than the fact that you cannot tell from a photo whether a multi-patterned bedsheet HAS been wet (and was dry by the time the photo was taken). If she has posted anything to me on any of her BORG threads, then I won't see it. Out of principle, I refuse to read threads which take posts from other forums out of context and which don't provide links to the sources so that readers don't see the spin! I prefer to remind readers that this is poor reporting and is what we would call a "pig in a poke". I respect posters who back up their claims with sources.

In a way, it's not only an RST thing - but is also a Ramsey thing. The Ramseys didn't want to be investigated, they wanted investigators to accept their word and the word of their friends as to the "kind of people" they are. RST would discredit those they (un)fondly call the BORG but they don't want readers to evaluate their pronouncements, so they don't post links and say it's because the BORG will substitute the links with porn (this is rubbish of course - that would NOT happen with any of the commercial bulletin boards unless the site was hacked into).

You'll find the bonny baby on the thread about "Where have I been". She has bright eyes and a cute little mouth.

 

Jameson has it all wrong when she mentioned my post concerning the Ramsey's foundation.

Personally, I don't care if the parents have a foundation or not. But they deceived the public about it, and that's what is wrong. They wrote about it in their book, as Show Me reminds us, the cover says the proceeds are going to the JonBenet Foundation. Hello? What foundation? They did NOT have to mention the foundation, they did NOT have to put it on their book cover, they did NOT have to promote it on TV. Inside the book several paragraphs are dedicated to "Shoes" and all these things they foundation is supposed to do. If this was not happening, why leave it in when the paperback came out?

This is deceitful.

Why did LiN Wood throw a hissy fit when they were asked about it in their interviews?

They not only deceived the public in what they said about it in the book, but in the media, as recent as a few months ago when they were asked about it on Larry King during John's run for office. An astute reporter picked up on the fact that Patsy's donation came way after the announcement on Larry King. And what does $1000 to a camp have to do with murdered or abused children?

The lack of interest in the foundation has NOTHING to do with money or funding. NOTHING. It has nothing to do with the public not accepting it. What makes them think the public would accept John for political office yet they could not do something for charity or start some petitions going in their daughter's name? If they shrank into the woodwork and never uttered another word to the media, then that might be valid.

BUT the Ramseys SEEKED the attention. The foundation was all for show, that's why. And it was deceitful. Anyone who picks up the book and thinks the proceeds are going to a charity to help abused children or DNA databanks are deceived.

And Jameson, it is not about a job to support themselves. Most politicians spend more on their campaign than their salary. This was a minor state position. Go look up the salary on line.

Nice try Jameson, but once again you are spinning to defend deceitful actions, and your excuses are so very lame.

 

Just went there, Jay. You and Barbara were right. This is a very beautiful baby.

Jayelles, I just read your bed-wetting post At Jameson's site shortly before I posted here earlier this afternoon. I almost copied it. I don't have time right now to check it out, but if I come across it again, I'll post it. Thanks for the baby thread. she certainly is a very bonny baby.

I second Barbara's quote:

 

Elle

It must be an old post about bed-wetting. I'm pretty sure I haven't posted anything recently and I certainly HAVEN'T posted anything which could be construed as "misinformation". My comments have always been to counter claims that the bed wasn't wet with the argument that YOU CANNOT TELL FROM A PHOTO !!!! Those who handled the sheets said they smelled of urine and there was a newspaper report which said they tested positive for creatine (is that the correct word?) - which is present in urine. I'm more inclined to listen to the latter two claims than jameson posting a generational copy of a photo and saying "Look they are dry!" LOL

If the post is on any of her BORG threads, I won't be reading it or responding to it. I have excellent willpower and I can easily refrain from looking Besides, I find these threads boring and infuriating for the above reasons. I'd rather paint a door and watch it dry....

 

Yes, Jayelles, it was along those lines. I truthfully don't have the time to read over there. I haven't been involved in this case as long as some of these posters anyway. They've been posting for over seven years compared to my three, and they may have a lot of scores to settle.

You mentioned you had worked for a Chemical company for one year in this post, which might give you a clue, not to worry... I just wanted you to know your thoughts on the bed wetting scene were exactly the same as mine. I won't look for it at all.

I must admit, Tricia's latest post about Jameson made me sit up and pay attention. Jameson is right about the Ramseys, and their lack of interest in their daughter's fund, and web site I don't think Lin Wood can stop her from posting what she wants to. No doubt there will be another appearance of the Ramseys on CNN telling us more lies.

 

A chemical company???? I've never said that I worked for a chemical company for a year or a day or a decade or even five minutes!. If anyone thinks I have, then they are seriously mistaken! If jameson is posting that I said that, then she's lying. If she or one of her members has construed that from a post I may have made elsewhere, then it just serves to underline what I said above and is why I wouldn't waste time reading these garbage BORG threads. They are jello - pure and simple.

Tabloid gossip threads

I have said that I wasn't always a teacher. I have perhaps mentioned that I had a string of jobs when I was a student which ranged from cashier in a supermarket to tour guide ... but chemicals? Nopey nope.

 

Jayelles,

Sorry, Jayelles, this is probably my fault for not being more accurate. More than likely it was along the lines of you explaining something you had learned about urine when you worked with someone for a spell. Probably as a student. This was from your own post, not Jameson herself, so the blame is entirely on me.

 

I've always thought it was the responsibility of law enforcement to find child killers, not the responsibility of the parents of the child.

Cry me a river that Susan Bennett aka jameson is disappointed in the Ramseys. Since she's overthere answering questions and all, maybe she'll tell if she's reported her business income to IRS.

 

I think it time the death via bedwetting scenario be finally put to rest. It's right up there with the stun gun. A possibility sure. But there is NO evidence to back it up. And little likelihood it ever could have happened that way. The bedwetting scenario was a huge stretch on the part of certain investigators, such as the unfortunate Steve Thomas, who felt they had no choice but to go after Patsy (since John had been "ruled out") and were desperate to come up with a motive. That's ALL it ever was, pure desperation and wishful thinking. Even if there was a smell of urine, so WHAT? There is simply no evidence to link bedwetting with the crime.

 

It is the responsibility of law enforcement to find child killers, jc, but it's also the responsibility, and desire, of most parents to try to assure that law enforcement never gives up looking for the killer of their child. In this case, it was JR's own words that make him look bad. He hired investigators who, by his own admission, were not hired to find the killer but to keep him and Patsy out of jail. Publicly, though, the spin was that they were trying to find the killer of their daughter. Ramsey also said publicly that his goal in life was to find the killer of his daughter. He didn't live up to his promise.

 

Agreed, WY. But what it all boils down to imho is that Susan Bennett aka jameson doesn't know diddly squat about a pea-picking thing that will make a difference in this case.

 

Doc,

Not a single detail can be put to rest. I wouldn't want you for my Private Eye. I think in any murder case; every single detail is important, and for sure this bedwetting scene cannot be cancelled out. You never investigated this scene like Steve Thomas did.

There are many mothers out there whose nerves are frazzled with small children who have toilet problems. According to Linda Wilcox, who worked for the Ramseys before Linda Hoffman Pugh, this was a very common scene in the Ramsey home. There are many methods out there today for training small children to stop bed wetting at night, but neither one of the Ramseys seemed to care about this scene. Patsy was too into paying for Zeigfield outfits for pageants for JonBenét.

07211998lindawilcoxon-PETER BOYLES.htm

This is an old link and may not work. I know some files have vanished from the scene. If it doesn't work and someone wants to read the whole file again, I can post it if it's okay with the Mod Squad (?).

Peter Boyles Radio Show - July 21, 1998

Linda Wilcox Interview


LINDA WILCOX: One, I keep hearing a lot of little things, misconceptions, that I wanted to clear up. The other, I personally have a very hard time with the Ramseys going on national television, blatantly lying and not having anyone speak up to contradict what they are saying.


PETER BOYLES: An example?

LINDA WILCOX: An example, when John Ramsey says to the camera, I didn't know she wet the bed, or not very much. I happen to know myself, he walked upstairs, she had wet her bed, I came in on a Monday morning and he said, "could you change her bed? She's wet it again." The thing that strikes me as odd, I knew her between 2 1/2 and 4. During that time, she did wet the bed but it wasn't chronic. It was every now and then. Early on, I mean 2 1/2 year olds always do, I mean it seems like they always have accidents. But, it got progressively worse. I would think that a 6 year old would wet the bed less than a 4 year old or a 2 year old. It actually got worse, it was moderate, she didn't have rubber sheets at that point, a pull-up would hold it. But her and Burke both wet the bed. Burke was 7 years old and he also wet the bed. I didn't think it was odd at the time, because it sometimes runs in families and it's more common in boys. And, their parents were lazy.

PETER BOYLES: Is it true you have knowledge of her bedwetting, prior to her death?

LINDA WILCOX: Prior to her death? Well, she did it for the 2 1/2 years I was there.

PETER BOYLES: Do you have any knowledge of her bedwetting just prior to her death, perhaps the weekend before her death?

LINDA WILCOX: No.

PETER BOYLES: You told me in another conversation, I dont' want to put words in your mouth, that JonBenet took a bottle really late in life.

LINDA WILCOX: She was in Nursery School. She was about 3 1/2 or 4. Suzanne, the nanny, was trying to break her from the bottle. It was, she turned 4 that august and that summer she pretty much broken from it. But, she was 3 years old, she was going to nursery school and she... Suzanne used to threaten that she was going to tell her nursery school friends that she was still using a bottlle to get her to stop because she was way too old to be using one. Um, she wasn't a good sleeper. She didn't sleep well and John, in particular, would get frustrated with her trying to get her to bed and he would put her to bed with a bottle and a video.

PETER BOYLES: You told me a story about John Ramsey coming over and turning off the vacuum while you were cleaning the house. Tell the audience that story. LINDA WILCOX: Okay, first and foremost, the major...Patsy's major job was to make sure nobody annoyed John. One of the things that really annoyed him was lots of noises, you know, (couldn't understand) noises, things like that. One day, I was there, it was during the summer, so Patsy and the kids were in Michigan, it was the summer of '95, probably June or July, I was in the master bedroom, upstairs, on the 3rd floor, vacuuming the floor, which was my job. I was finishing up. John Ramsey had come in during that time, probably through the garage, went up the stairs, turned off the vacuum, turned around and walked away.

 

The beginning of the interview

I think I'll fill you in with the beginning of this interview with Peter Boyles.

Peter Boyles Radio Show - July 21, 1998

Linda Wilcox Interview



PETER BOYLES: How would people know that you're legitimate in terms of what you are telling us?

LINDA WILCOX: I have been interviewed by the Boulder Police, they know who I am. My name also appears on the tour guide for the tour of homes put out by the Boulder Historical Society during the Christmas of '94, under honorable mention, my name is there. Otherwise, you don't.

PETER BOYLES: You got palm printed?

LINDA WILCOX: Yes. The Boulder Police have my palm print. I had a key to the house for over two years and they called anyone who ever had a key.

PETER BOYLES: Did you give hair and do all that stuff?

LINDA WILCOX: No. I was not asked for hair or handwriting, although I would have willingly given it.

PETER BOYLES: Who spoke to you from the Boulder PD?

LINDA WILCOX: Detective Jane Harmer

PETER BOYLES: You've talked to us on who you are in terms of legitimacy about what you're saying. And, again, we have to be cautious, we aren't going to use your name. When did you first meet John and Patsy Ramsey?

LINDA WILCOX: I actually met Patsy before I met John. I don't have it in my records exactly, it was somewhere around March of 93. I was hired by the housekeeper, her name was Suzanne, she was a friend of mine who (illegible) she couldn't keep up. The person they had, had left for some reason or another. One, she wouldn't pick up toys which was a big part of that job. So she asked me, as a friend, if I'd come in and help her out because I was doing housekeeping part time and I had a part time job at K-Mart. I also had a small business on the side. She asked me to come in and help her out. Patsy was out of town at the time and I didn't actually meet her until almost a month later. I met Nedra before I met Patsy. And then I met John, I don't remember the exact moment I met John, he came foraying through the kitchen at one point and we introduced ourselves to each other.

PETER BOYLES: Why did you leave your employ?

LINDA WILCOX: (pause) A lot of work...uh...I wasn't paid for a good part of it. My schedule...I could make more money working for two other people than I could just for them. It was 6 hours, bare minimum, I was usually paid $50, if that. I could earn more money working for two people, regular schedule, regular pay.

PETER BOYLES: How long did you work for John and Patsy Ramsey?

LINDA WILCOX: Approximately 2 1/2 years. I left September 4, 1995. PETER BOYLES: You contacted me after the Boulder Police contacted you. You've spoken with them, now it's been 20 months. Why did you call me and why did you want to have this meeting?