The Grand Jury indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by cynic, Oct 25, 2013.

  1. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    What YOU said, times two! Excellent post, and I agree with EVERY WORD!

    The Ramseys covered up what really happened that night out of shock and fear and wanting to protect their "perfect family" image. After that, they had to stick with their story, no matter the evidence otherwise, or who it hurt. Their goal became self-preservation. That's why they were never interested in finding JonBenet's killer or helping the investigation. They KNEW where the truth led.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2013
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Don't forget that the ultimate motive for that ligature and sexual abuse by a PAINTBRUSH was to cover up the prior sexual abuse found at autopsy.

    Even if Patsy and John might have been willing to deal with the fallout from Burke being the abuser, I imagine they didn't want to deal with the fact that some people would always believe it was John sexually abusing her.

    Of course, we have no way of knowing it wasn't John. Or another male family member. Or even Patsy, as some believe.

    Welcome to FFJ, by the way. Glad to see you joining in the discussion.
  3. Niner

    Niner Active Member

    Sure wish there were "THANKS" buttons on this forum like Websleuths!! I would have THANKed everyone of y'all posts!! :thumbsup:

    I don't watch them anymore either, Koldkase!! If I do - all I can think is :wtf:

    :yes: :floor:

    snipped for space...
    That's what I don't understand - Mr. Lin Wood & others keep saying there was no evidence, but then Mr. Kolar says, if there was NO evidence the Grand jury would NOT have indicted them...


    :rst: with :wood: leading the way. He keeps repeating it, and repeating it, and repeating it :beat:

    Great posts everyone! :hiya:
  4. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    The ONE Time Patsy did not lie ~ there IS a killer on the loose ~ STILL.
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you for posting this KK. I too, have never read this information before. So Charlie Brennan was one of the reporters on hand when little JonBenét's body was removed from the house? I never knew this before.
  6. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Only on Page 4 but this is so how I am feeling this ~ John has removed anything to do with Burke in MY eyes Now ~ that includes the sexual abuse.
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    KoldKase wrote:

    If a paintbrush had been used to cover up previous sexual abuse, it's hard to think that young Burke himself would have known what measures to take here; therefore Patsy, or both Ramseys went to his rescue. Plus, I have trouble with the fact if previous abuse was present, Patsy Ramsey had to have known this from bathing her young daughter. Surely JonBenét must have suffered extreme pain in her vagina more than a few times (?). I am absolutely baffled by this.
  8. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Nice Try...

    Lin Wood, an attorney for John Ramsey, said the released indictment means "absolutely zero" in terms of the investigation into JonBenet's death.

    "The documents today are a mere historical footnote, a small glimpse into the grand jury proceedings," Wood said. "It's four pages of what would have likely been hundreds of volumes of testimony and exhibit."

    NOT just any four pages but the most important four pages of the hundreds of volumes of testimony and exhibits ~ The Summary. Dang...poor guy hasn't got much to work with right now, does he?!

    Feeling totally Validated right now with my PATSY DID IT Mantra ~ I never had the first doubt about being off on that one. Thank you, Charlie!!! Even if this goes no further, it's more confirmation of my beliefs than I expected to have at THIS point ~ got lulled into thinking we would have to wait it out another decade or so before something of this magnitude presented itself!
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2013
  9. heymom

    heymom Member

    Elle, what you are assuming is that the paintbrush stabbing was part of the cover-up. Maybe most people think it was. My mind goes in a different direction. I don't think Patsy would have used her own paintbrush to do such a thing, too close, too incriminating. But I can see a young boy experimenting on an unconscious body in front of him, that perhaps he had not had that kind of access to before. Maybe he thought that would wake her up, if nothing else did?

    We've said for YEARS about how amateurish the cord around her neck was. It was, and I also don't believe Patsy or John would have done things that way. I think they worked with what they found, and added the ransom note, and maybe cleaned and redressed her. Maybe. Still not sure that the perpetrator didn't do most of it himself. It's true that Patsy's coat fibers were found in the cord, but maybe that was accidental. Just things we will never, ever know.

    Dang, I sure wish Chief Kolar could speak about what he knows.
  10. LI_Mom

    LI_Mom Member

    Thanks, koldcase. I've been a member here for ages, I just drifted off after a while.

    I don't remember more things than I do remember about this case...

    In particular, I don't know if I was 100% convinced Jonbenet was sexually abused in the past. I seem to remember there were conflicting reports on that topic. And suggestions that her vaginal irritation could have been due to too many bubble baths?

    In any event, I do believe her brother was angry with the attention she got & by looks he appeared to be a very well behaved/repressed boy but those are the kinds of kids that lash out when nobody is watching.

    Why is the favorite nightgown downstairs? Is he forcing her to dress up & give him a private talent show? Or could he possibly have been experimenting with cross dressing & that's why the too large underpants were even downstairs & eventually put on the dead Jonbenet?

    Did Jonbenet walk in and find him with her clothes & threaten to tell? Did he flip out & attack her?

    The whole family just seemed too anxious to NOT solve the case... I can only imagine the truth was pretty embarrassing & awful.
  11. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    The coroner and many forensic specialists who studied the autopsy ALL found evidence of PRIOR sexual abuse. Prior also described as "chronic" In the medical sense "chronic" also means prior and it could have been as recent as a DAY before. It need not have been a long time before and it need not have been on more than ONE other occasion. There should be NO one following this case who is still unsure of this. The evidence was there, and it was found and documented. Not being able to accept it is denial and nothing more.
    There was NO cross dressing. The panties on her were already in the basement, wrapped with other gifts for JB's cousin, for whom they had been bought. The parents dressed her in them.
    Bubble baths do not cause bleeding, bruising, erosion of the hymen or widening of the vaginal canal or bruising of the labia. ALL were found in JB. The pink nightgown was found stuck on the white blanket that JB was wrapped in. It may have come out of the dryer stuck to the blanket, or she may have been wearing it when the abuse took place- BR and Patsy's DNA were found on it, as were droplets of JB's blood.
    BR wouldn't have fit in her clothes. He was nearly 4 years older and larger.
  12. heymom

    heymom Member

    Maybe the prior abuse happened on December 17th, when 4 separate phone calls were made after office hours to the pediatrician.
  13. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Good points.

    And I will always believe Patsy knew who was doing this to the child, as well.
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Or at least that's when Patsy found out, or found out it was continuing?
  15. heymom

    heymom Member

    At least on December 17th, she must have.
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Hey, DeeDee. Every the logical one with the impeccable memory for details that elucidate the issues.

    In LI_Mom's defense, I must point out that what we now know of the plethora of evidence of prior sexual abuse was obscured, if not outright buried, for more years than we've know the truth.

    It's a hard won knowledge for some of us who have spent many years and countless hours of research putting all of this together. We didn't have those LE transcripts of the Ramseys being questioned until after the NE published their book of them--edited, as well.So much of what I take for granted now came from those, and they seemed to just appear one day on this forum. I've asked and it's still fuzzy as to who put them online first. Same with "The Bonita Papers." We went YEARS trying to get ONE DOCTOR online to explain that autopsy report, but the only one who ever did--briefly--was adamant we NEVER EVER speak her name or copy her professional opinion anywhere.

    We didn't have podcasts and radio shows published online, youtube videos, etc., in the abundance we now do. That's really only been available to many of us for maybe five years or so because lots of the stuff we now have wasn't even posted to those sites until the recent past.

    I can imagine that anyone who hasn't been keeping up for the last six or seven years missed a lot of important stuff we learned. Lots of that was buried under the ubiquitous Karr circus and then the additional Lacy scam of "touch" DNA "discovered" on the long johns, then the following and the fake "exoneration" of the Ramseys--which was only Lacy's OPINION, as even she calls it, if we actually read her letter.

    A couple of years back I heard none other than MOUTHPIECE Nancy Grace tell a guest on her show who brought up the prior molestation, I NEVER HEARD THAT, are you sure? At which point the guest BACKED OFF, confused!

    Like cynic said, all we get from news anchors and TV lawyers now are DISINFORMATION, MORE CONFUSION, and TEAM RAMSEY SPIN.

    Even JEFFRY TOOBIN was spouting the smoke screen about the DNA and the NON-EXISTENT "exoneration" letter today! This man is one I always thought knew the law...and turns out today he demonstrated he doesn't know the legal definition of "exoneration" OTG dug up for us!

    It is discouraging, but thank you so much for keeping the record straight. No one can argue the details of the autopsy report like you. :clap:
  17. heymom

    heymom Member

    The news clip my hubby caught about an hour ago ended with the "DNA exoneration" - at least HE understands that the parents were NEVER cleared!'s all so depressing.
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Here's the Pearl in the Oyster

    Mark Beckner finally gets to speak the Truth. This pretty much says it all, regardless of the Media Rubes shilling for John Ramsey now:

    [Thanks, Tadpole at Websleuths, for finding this.]
  19. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Now thinking I don't know what to think about Who Patsy was in Cahoots with ~ still Loving the Validation that she indeed penned the Ransom Not(e) & all that phony acting from her was indeed just that ~ All a Lie!!!

    Many things are pointing to Burke ~ I cannot deny this ~ Insert drugged out Patsy here ~ Keep Your Babies Close ~ was she really losing it during that sound byte because she knew she kept her Babies too far away all alone on the 2nd floor?!?! Watch it again ~ that's is what my gut told me for the first time so now I have to figure out whether to listen to it or not...
  20. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    It's obvious he thinks RDI cause if IDI there are pretty good chances there will be a DNA match someday,no? :rolleyes:
  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