Evidence against the Ramseys

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Little_Angel_1990, Apr 26, 2006.

  1. Pope

    Pope New Member

    PMPT the Movie

    I can still hear that statement ringing in my ears also. It's a line from the movie PMPT uttered by Ann-Margaret, playing Nedra. In that somewhat boozy drawl that Ann Margaret used to play Nedra, she leans forward, bathrobe askew, and says, "She had heard that JonBenet had been 'somewhat molested". To my knowledge that quote is not in print.

    Hope this helps.

  2. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you, Pope. This puts a completely different light on this matter. Nedra was stating that she had heard that JonBenét had been "somewhat molested" - big difference! Thank you very much! I do have a DVD, and truthfully, I don't remember hearing her character Anne Margaret saying this. It has been sometime since I viewed it, but I'll take your word for it, and later might check it out.

    This is exactly what I thought it might be; something misconstrued. Then when it is written down it can be become another story.

    Thank you again, Pope.
  3. Elle

    Elle Member

    This is the way information changes KK and I for one have always done my best to name the source in my posts whenever necessary. A statement like that coming from Nedra Paugh herself would not have passed Steve Thomas' scrutiny, and he interviewed her thoroughly in Atlanta.
  4. Little

    Little Member

    I did some searches. Thor might be right about it being something from Geraldo. When that site comes up it says you can purchase transcripts for, I think, $8, but it did have two separate shows, one with Patsy & one with Nedra.

  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    I'm not talking about the "actual molestation of JonBenét" KK. I know this molestation of JB has been discussed for years. I am talking about Nedra Paugh making this statement of JonBenét being "a little abused" which rashomon said she had seen somewhere. Quite a difference!
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I understood you to be talking about the "little bit abused" statement, Elle, which is why I wrote "Gosh, Elle, this is one statement that has been discussed for years."

    Sorry if I wasn't clear.
  7. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Thank you too Pope, and Koldkase for clearing it up by giving the source in PMPT (p. 512). I just bought the book but haven't read it yet.
    I still can't remember where I read what Nedra said, but seeing it put in context, the picture is of course totally different:
    PMPT paperb, p. 512:

    When Nedra mentioned the crime, it was in a string of half-completed thoughts and seeming nonsequiturs: "I didn't know that she had been mole ... molested to some extent and hit on the head. I didn't know that."

    And you are absolutely right, Elle, without the direct source available to put them in context, quotes can develop a life of their own which may distort the original meaning.

    But still, one of the key question in the JB case remains if JB had been molested before. Most of the medical experts who had been asked for their opinion agreed that the injuries to JB's vagina were old injuries. And today I read something in Steve Thomas' book which made me shudder: ST, JonBenét, 2000 hardback ed. p. 305:
    So even laypersons could notice a remarkable difference. Combining this with what the majority of the doctors said, among them Dr. McCann, a world-renowned expert, I'm now fully convinced that JB had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse.
    Which could of course put the rage attack on her in a totally different light, the cause of that rage possibly being something far more sinister than bedwetting.
  8. Elle

    Elle Member

    I was thinking, rashomon. that the actual statement itself coming from Patsy's mother would have caused quite a stir, and wondered why there was no more information on this (?).

    We can't have Jammy Sue accusing us of "wrongful information." :)
  9. Elle

    Elle Member

    No problem KK. :)
  10. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    My interpretation of what Nedra said would have been that she was referring to the fact that Jonbenet hadn't been violently sexually attacked (i.e. with injuries). Some sex attackers injure their victims terribly - via several orifices. There was one case in England where the victim had a large piece of wood rammed inside her. If Nedra were aware of the extent to which some victims suffer, then she may have considered that Jonbenet were only "a little bit abused". I don't think she would have been referring to sexual abuse whilst she was alive. Remember PMPT where Nedra asked the investigators to leave when they started asking about sexual abuse?
  11. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    EDITED TO ADD - If we knew what was actually "evidence" and what was not, then we might make some headway with this case. So much of the "evidence" cannot be dated and may not in fact be "evidence" at all.

    Angel, you can read any of the resources available to us and you will see a muddle of evidence which neither incriminates the Ramseys nor clears them.

    This muddle is what we know as the Ramsey case and is why we are all here ten years on arguing about the case. Several different investigation teams have tried to solve the case and none of them have succeeded. The Ramseys remain on the list of potential suspects because there exists the possibility that the DNA may not be the killer's. This is a vital point - and it is important enough for Tom Bennett to have broken their two year rule of silence to make a public statement about it at the time when TeamRamsey were stating that the DNA was the killers (as though it were an absolute fact).

    What I think will happen is that sometime in the future, DNA testing will become more sophisticated and the means of storing it (CODIS) will also become more sophisticated. I think different countries will link up their DNA databases and I think that sometime in the future, a Ramsey case investigator might ask the CODIS people to run some different kinds of searches for him/her to produce a list of people on the databae who might be related to the person whose DNA was found on jonBenet. That investigator might then do some digging around those possible family members.

    This is already happening in the UK. Killers might be careful to avoid detection, but they can be tracked via their relatives. The owner of the DNA might be found and incriminated - or eliminated.

    About 30 years ago, 13 women were murdered in England. Part way through the investigation, police received tapes and letters from the supposed killer which took the investigation off at a tangent. Specifically, the voice on the tape had a very distinct accent and police investigating the murders focused on suspects who had that accent. Three more women were killed before the real perp was captured and found NOT to have this accent. The tapes and letters were a hoax. The person who sent them became known as "Wearside Jack" and it was generally felt that he was partly responsible for the deaths of three women through his antics.

    Earlier this year, a man was arrested on a minor offence and his DNA was taken as standard to be run through the police database. It was found to match DNA extracted from an envelope in the Wearside Jack case and he eventually admitted that he had been responsible for the hoax. His prison sentence reflected the fact that three women had almost certainly died as a result of his "joke".

    Another case - Hanratty. This young man was executed 40+ years ago for the murder of a man and attemted murder of his lover. Hanratty had always denied it and his last words to his father were to campaign to clear his name. His father and the rest of his family together with a group of others spend decades campaigning to clear his name and have him formally pardoned. Then a few years ago, when DNA testing became a possibility the campagners pushed to have him exhumed for a DNA test against semen which had been found on the victim's hankerchief (which he had used to clean himself and then thrown on her). Eventually, police agreed to do this - but they decided that they would first test DNA from Hanratty's brother and mother. The test showed a strong match to the killer's. Suddenly, the police were keen to exhume - but hanratty''s supporters weren't! They started protesting against it (weren't really keen for the chips to fall where they may). nevertheless, his body was exhumed and tested and the DNA was found to be an exact match to the killer's. The victim who survived had identified Hanratty at a line-up and it had been her evidence which got him sentenced to death - and she had been right all along. That woman had suffered abuse for 40 years from supporters of Hanratty. I also felt sorry for the family of this evil man who were duped into spending so many years campaigning for the innocence of a guilty liar.
    Last edited: May 10, 2006
  12. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    On another forum someone posted that the beaver hair found on JB might have come from one of the paintbrushes in the basement. Very plausible explanation, but I suppose the investigators had the paintbrush hairs compared to the hair on JB. Does anyone know if this was done?
  13. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Beaver hair does not normally get used for paintbrushes due to its water-resistant properties. However, there are some brands of paintbrush which use beaver i.e. chinese calligraphy brushes. There has been no suggestion that Patsy owned such a brush.
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    jameson started a thread to attack this thread. Margoo made a post on it which basically sums up everything I've ever said about the RST - i.e. that they are view the case through Ramsey-tinted spectacles. She basically admits that she" just knows" the Ramseys are innocent - in her first sentence she says - "the most conclusive evidence of an intruder is that Jonbenet was murdered" ?????? What kind of objective, rational, commonsensical comment is that?

    The following post was made by DocG in response to Margoo's post... but typically, it got deleted. DocG's responses in bold.


  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Those are interesting cases you wrote about, Jayelles. Yeah, mistakes do happen. It's the single most compelling argument against the death penalty here. DNA is a godsend to the justice system, no question.

    But there you have it--the many who are guilty but hang onto their lies and facade like a dog with a bone. Jeffry Macdonald murdered his wife and two little daughters over 30 years ago, but he's still on TV every so often flogging his "hippies with candles and a floppy hat" BS, with some new bimbo wife singing his praises. For years they fought to have DNA tests on hair and other evidence found on the bodies of the victims...and so finally won. Guess what? The sample from hair in his wife's hand was...his. Surprise. Does he say, oh, fooled you, didn't I? hahaha? Nope. Now the party line is "Oh, well, THAT'S TO BE EXPECTED!" Yeah. Right. Murderer.


    As for jams saying we don't have a "list," she's full of it. I posted a list for her on another forum years ago, and all she did was run off to her forum and address about two things on it. She knows there is plenty of evidence against the Rams. But she sticks with HER little bogus list of intruder evidence that isn't intruder evidence at all. That "list" has been debunked for years, but they still flog it as if IT'S the Holy Grail. Well, some people who simply don't have the knowledge or ability to discern between spin and truth are just dazzled with it:

    The Hi-Tec print could have come from Burke's own Hi-Tec shoes, as has been reported and we can read in Patsy's Atlanta depo; the fact that the Rams lied about Burke having such shoes is consistent with how they've deliberately obstructed justice in this case all along, as well. Why would they do that? Since JAR also owned Hi-Tecs when he was younger, it's not like a rational person wouldn't be able to at least THINK ABOUT how that MIGHT mean the print in the basement isn't related to the crime. Not to mention, footprints can't be dated unless they're in blood or some other material that CAN date them. Concrete fungus won't do it. But don't expect the forum of disinformation to tell the truth about any of this. They just keep repeating the mantra, convincing themselves because the RST says it, it's true!

    The DNA hasn't matched ONE of the many suspects they accuse of being murderers at the swamp every day. Doesn't deter them. They just create A FOREIGN FACTION. Yeah, that's the ticket!

    John broke the basement window himself, but didn't bother to mention it to LE for 4 months...after his defense team had gotten enough of the evidence results from the BDA so he knew what he had to say to keep that old intruder in the house. He's the one who said he found it open and closed it, as well. How can anyone who knows the rest of the story not find that even a little suspicious? Oh, right, the Rams JUST AREN'T CAPABLE OF DOING THIS, so the evidence has to be explained in such a way as to absolve them. That's NOT following the evidence, by the way, that's following THE RAMSPIN.

    And on and on and on. Some of them don't even know that the palm print on the basement door was long ago identified as Melinda's. They actually believe that Hunter really didn't need to get a search warrant for the phone records because the Rams had them and simply gave them to the BPD...A YEAR LATER AND INCOMPLETE...but oh, well, it's' only a child murder, why bother to follow simple investigative and legal protocol? No big deal to them....

    And they won't even touch the ransom note except to say Patsy scored 4.5 out of 5 as not the author...which was a number Hunter JUST CAME UP WITH OFF THE TOP OF HIS HEAD ON THE LKL SHOW, a number which isn't on any actual scale used in handwriting analysis. Since most of us are no longer gullible enough to believe that Hunter was himself credible as a DA by that point, we see Hunter's spin for what it was: wrong, misleading, and unprofessional. Just like Keenan. DA's don't go on TV and destroy their own murder case unless there's something rotten in Denmark. The Boulder DA's office smells to high heavens.

    So DocG posted a long list of such stuff as I have addressed...which is not even the tip of the iceberg, as we all know, and the swampsters ignore him or delete him. Why he bothers, I have no idea. They don't want the truth there. They want the image of their holy idols to remain intact. They're a cult and cults don't allow anyone to DISABUSE THEM of their farfetched beliefs. (hahahaha Just for you, Elle.)

    The thing is that it's not our job to jump when some troll comes by. We suspected LAngel was a troll when she started this thread, as Moab's laughing icon illustrates. I only addressed the request at all just in case LAngel was sincere. Since she hasn't bothered to respond or even show up, it's clear to see she either is just here as a troll, or she's just too lazy to click and read herself.

    Either way, we don't work for LAngel. She can look it up herself quite easily, but she didn't. Presented with a link to a source where all she has to do is spend some time reading to get her answer, very little, in fact, compared to the years we've all spent, she spend 20 mintues tops and then came back and said be more specific. So I was. Her response...she disappeared.

    She's a swampster, I believe. But I provided more info, just in case. The ransom note IS pretty much the Holy Grail of this case, and Chero's analysis, plus the analysis of an expert easily seen at the OTHER link I provided to the NE samples, are quite sufficient to at LEAST illustrate why Patsy is the PRIME SUSPECT.

    But jams, again demostrating what a dissembler she really is, starts a thread claiming we "FAILED" because there is no evidence against the Rams. I spent hours on my responses, providing real evidence and analysis for LAngel to ponder. I told LAngel to do her own research and make up her own mind. Jams spent her usual 3 minutes repeating the swamp spin of non-existent evidence of an intruder and declaring us failures and the Rams innocent.

    DENYDENYDENY. That's all they have.
    Last edited: May 12, 2006
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    Feel free KK. What the hell do I know? :) I would have chosen "They're a cult and cults don't allow anyone to go against their beliefs."
  17. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    People don't just 'snap' out of the blue. Even if they have never shown violent behavior before, this doesn't mean too much. People often put their best foot forward in public and hide their darker side. And stressful events can be the trigger which unleashes what has been brewing in them.
    Patsy Ramsey for example has always been presented as a very indulgent and patient parent of whom her supporters could not imagine to have snapped just because JB had wet the bed just one more time.
    But there is an interesting passage in Thomas' book (p. 326/327) where Patsy becomes aggressive during the interview with Tom Haney (bold type mine):

    Haney said they were not ready to show her evidence and challenged her further. "Pal, you don't want to go there, " she warned, adding that she was a good Christian woman who did not lie. She pushed back against the couch and exhaled in disgust. "Criminy", she explained.
    Haney continued to be inhospitable and probed about whether the death could have been an accident resulting from bed-wetting. Patsy held up a hand, like a stop sign. "You're going down the wrong path, buddy!"
    Later she said, "If John Ramsey were involved, honey, we wouldn't be sitting here. I'd have knocked his block off. Read my lips! This was not done by a family member. Didn't happen. Period. End of statement."
    Still Haney came on, polite but insistent, inquiring about any family secrets, and she tired of him. "Cut to the chase", she barked.
    "Oh, no," Haney responded smoothly, "That would spoil the ride."
    "Then spoil my ride", Patsy said, riveting him. She didn't give an inch.
    It was a spellbinding exchange. Tom Haney, with his no-nonsense style and three days in which to ask his questions, had found something I felt had to be there somewhere not too far below that polished beauty queen surface. Patsy Ramsey had, for a few minutes, lifted her mask. Beneath it, I saw cold rage.

    Burke btw when interviewed said that JonBenet's bedwetting was a big problem. And to someone like Patsy who wanted a perfect little doll as a child, JonBenet's silent protest through bedwetting was probably a continuing insult to her mother's narcissistic personality.

    Could you native speakers help me with this: Patsy told Haney "Pal, you don't want to go there". Could this be interpreted as being a threat?
    Last edited: May 14, 2006
  18. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    It is definitely a threat.

    The threat is further enforced by Patsy "naming" Haney with the substitute word "Pal" at the beginning of her threat. Anytime someone uses a person's name at the start of a statement, it is to get their attention and to exhibit power. A person's name is powerful. It is a direct link to their identity.

    In addition, Patsy exhibits sarcasm with her anger by the choice of her euphemistic name for Haney. She calls him "Pal" but the tone of her voice and the words following are not friendly. This inverted meaning of the word "pal" adds punch to the words of the threat.
  19. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I would say that it could be interpreted in two ways. I might say this to someone as a threat - meaning that I would not be responsible for my actions if they persisted down that line. However, I might also say something like this if it was a touchy subject with me and would be liable to upset me by talking about it.

    I may not be explaining this well.

    Say for example I had a confrontation with Bill X which had upset me a lot. Then say later, someone asked me "Hey have you seen Bill X recently?". Well I might feel myself getting hot under the colar and say "Hey Pal - don't go there!" - meaning that this was not a topic I wanted to discuss.

    As I said above, I might ALSO use it as a warning to back off and in that respect it would be aggressive.
  20. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Yeah, I get what you're saying, Jayelles.

    I interpreted it to mean that if Hayes kept "going there," Patsy was going to get up and walk out of the interview.

    She did say that she would leave once when the detective was "going there" with questions about the family being involved.

    So it was a threat to leave. And the "pal" certainly was an attempt to intimidate the detective. It was disrespectful, only something someone would say to a subordinate. You don't call a person whom you respect but don't know well "pal" in a situation like this. It's inappropriate. It is sarcastic. And it worked. He didn't go there, did he? Not to any serious degree of questioning, IMO. Oh, the times I want to shout "Follow up and ask her this, or that!" when reading those transcripts. But again and again and again, they let the most important questions evaporate, over and over. Or else, they INTERRUPT the Ramseys when they're actually TRYING to ANSWER the important questions! They lead them! I sometimes wonder if they were simply making sure the questions DIDN'T get answered.

    But Patsy's inappropriate response: That's what I think we all see in the pageant stuff: lots of inappropriate behavior. Boundaries are thrown to the wind. The excuse of "it's little girls playing dress up" seems to suffice for the Ramseys to justify the fact that their little girl's playing dress up ended in her molestation and death.

    It's not just little girls playing dressup when they're intensely trained, photographed, costumed, hairdressed and made-up by professionals, and then paraded around in the public at great expense to the parents, and then given awards for it.

    Incest, child abuse...it's all about crossing boundaries and inappropriate behavior. JonBenet was old enough to be learning about those boundaries and what was inappropriate behavior at school. They teach them young now to "tell someone." Patsy had to know about JonBenet's prior vaginal injuries, IMO, no matter how she got it or who did it to her. JonBenet was bound to have blood in her panties, wasn't she?

    So I wonder about those three phone calls to Dr. Beuf's office one day earlier that month. Had Patsy found blood in JonBenet's panties? We'll never know, probably, but I don't think what happened that fateful night came on in a few minutes. I think it was long in the making...and whoever was molesting JonBenet, the Rams didn't want anyone to know about it. Ever. Especially LE. JMO
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice