The Ramsey's own words

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by rashomon, May 22, 2006.

  1. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    The Ramsey lawyer P. Burke asks to take a break (the obvious reason being that Patsy was going to be backed into a corner), and Haney, instead of driving her into it more and keeping her there, agrees to the request.
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2008
  2. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Patsy knew where the flashlight was kept!

    So there was an open drawer from which the flashlight obviously had been taken. Pasty does not even deny this. Now how likely is it that an intruder, in search of a flashlight, would just happen to open the drawer where it was kept in that huge home?
    I have a question: where exactly was that "wet bar by the spiral staircase" In the kitchen?
    Fo rif yes and the flashlight was taken out from there, it looks like the Ramseys used it because they did not want to put the full lights on when staging the scene and writing the note.
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2008
  3. Elle

    Elle Member

    I have no problem with this KK. we're all into this for the same reason. :justice:
  4. rashomon

    rashomon Member

  5. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    sounds like

    It sounds like the rope that was found in JAR's room had the ends "whipped".
    I am familiar with sealing the ends of nylon cord by melting it. Braided type ropes also fray at the ends and can be secured by using string and wrapping the end of the rope with it - I learned that when I was a den mother years ago. This is something that is or was a requirement to learn for the knot tying merit badge.
  6. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    John Ramsey in DOI (HB) Page 8:
    "On the way home, JonBenet had fallen fast asleep in the back seat. I got her out of the car and carried her upstairs to her room, laid her on the bed, and took off her coat and shoes."

    Let's hear Patsy's version some time before they concocted DOI: together.

    16 PATSY RAMSEY:(Inaudible). Yeah, I'm almost

    17 sure. Yeah, I think it is. And there is JonBenet's

    18 coat back there.

    19 TRIP DEMUTH: Is that the coat she wore that

    20 night?

    21 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I think so.

    A Topix poster wrote:
    If this poster is correct and Patsy identified the shoes downstairs as those JonBenet had worn to the party, then John Rameys LIED again, for he couldn't have taken them off in her room if they were downstairs.
    Unless he carried them downstairs after removing them, but the possibility he did this is very slim. He himself said they were not very tidy people, and the look of the rooms confirm this testimony.
    Also, he never mentioned he put them back downwstairs.

    So the photographic shows the coat left in the car and the shoes downstairs near the door. Couple this with the pineapple evidence and Burke claiming JonBenet had been awake, John and Patsy's story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

    I can't understand why LE never used the trump card of confronting the Ramseys with the Burke video in the official interviews.
  7. WVSleuth

    WVSleuth Member

    Hey Rash,
    Yes, I pointed it out, but part of that quote is from an earlier post where Limaes noted it too...
    There are far to many inconsistencies to not think that John wasn't lying here..
  8. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Hi WVSleuth, nice to see you over here. Welcome to FFJ! :)

    John about the wrist ties:
    John could not have seen any skin swollen around one ligature since it was tied on top of sleeve, and loosely at that.
    As for the other one, it had probably not even been on the wrist.
    Also, had the skin been swollen around tightly tied wrist ligatures, the wrists would have shown furrows. But this was not the case.
    I think John did notice some general swelling of the body though. Around the neck ligature for example, which had been left on the neck for at least twelve hours. Also, one can see JonBenet's fingers were swollen when one looks at the ring on one finger.
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2008
  9. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Discrepancies between transcripts and NE book

    From Patsy's 1998 interview withTom Haney.
    Source: JonBenet index guide, ACR site

    I don't have the NE book "The Police Files" - is it true that the book does not contain the complete transcripts we can read at the ACR site?

    I would interest me whether this section where Patsy makes the strange comment about the blood is in the book too.

    There are some discrepancies in the NE book and the trasnscripts.

    According to the transcripts at Patsy had flashbacks of hearing JonBenet scream....

    Whereas according to the transcripts printed in the book "JonBenét The Police Files" PB page 209: (the source is from aposter on another forum who has the book), Patsy said she had flashbacks of hearing John scream, not JonBenet.

    Last edited: Dec 11, 2008
  10. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    PR's comment about the blood has always been suspicious to me. Blood was found to be wiped off JBR and the autopsy, there was no blood visible externally. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until the ultraviolet (black light) test was done by the coroner that they saw evidence of the blood in the first place. And even then, until it was tested, there was thought that it could be something other than blood (semen).
    There was no blood on her face, though the "tan mucous" from her mouth and nostrils indicated that there HAD been blood. (as we know, dried blood is kind of brownish, and dried blood mixed with mucous, vomit, etc, would probably look tan.
    So here we have NO visible evidence of blood as far as the crime is concerned, yet PR mentions blood to LE. This tells me there was blood (as we know) and SHE saw it. She saw it when it happened. She knows her daughter bled- from the nose and mouth from the head bash and from the vagina by God knows what caused it there.
  11. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Don Paugh

    I didn't know that the grandfather had been around so much as a babysitter. If JonBenet was the victim of chronic sexual abuse, he can't be ruled out imo.
  12. rashomon

    rashomon Member


    She "WENT" to bed??
    Is it normal language usage to say of a child who was carried to bed fast asleep - that she "went" to bed? Was this a slip-up on Patsy's part?

    How could Patsy have seen the heart on the morning of Dec 26th, when per her own story, JonBenet had already been misssing from her bed? Why did Haney not push her further into the corner after such a bombshell statement?
  13. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    That had always frustrated me as well. JBR's body was covered with an afghan and a sweatshirt when PR supposedly first saw her body. When she slipped and said she saw that heart, she saw it when they were staging the body, or she was the one who drew it. Later, I understand she backpeddled and said she never saw the heart, she only READ about it. But then how could she have made her comment about "That was a pretty good little heart, you know?"
    Yet no one ever called her out on this particular discrepancy- one of many.
  14. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    It was most definitely a slip-up, imo. For Patsy to say JonBenet went to bed would indicate that she was awake and capable of doing this on her own.

  15. Elle

    Elle Member

    I think it was a slip-up too, rashomon and IT. Hello there! Nice to see you again!
  16. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    So true, DeeDee.

    Instead of pushing her into a corner, what does DeMuth sheepishly reply? He says "OKAY". :banghead:

    Imagine what he or Haney could have said instead:

    "Patsy, you saw the heart the next morning, and saw it well enough to come to the conclusion "that it was a pretty good little heart, pretty well drawn."
    Where were you when you saw the heart on her hand?"
  17. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Another slip-up

    From Patsy' 1998 interview with Tom Haney (NE book, pb. p. 268)

    PR: I have always thought that while we were gone, that the person or persons came int the house and were there when we got back.

    TH: what makes you think that?

    PR: because we were gone several hours, and they could have had their way with the house, have know where the flashlights were, where the pads of paper were, where Bibles were ... you know. If we are gone three or four hours. No one knows for sure.
    (end quote)

    "Where BIBLES were"???!!!
    Now what on earth would an intruder want to do with a Bible?
    Hmm, consult it to get ideas for his ransom note maybe? :D
    Again, Patsy offers her guilt to Haney on a platter without realizing it.
    Haney should have picked up on that, by asking her why she thought the intruder was interested in their Bibles ...

    As for the finding the flashlight in a drawer of the wet bar section of the Ramsey home (Patsy admitted it was kept there when Haney showed her the crime scene picture of the empty drawer) - well, the intruder must have had near-psychic quality to find it in that huge maze of a house.As for the finding the flashlight in a drawer of the wet bar section of the Ramsey home (Patsy admitted it was kept there when Haney showed her the crime scene picture of the empty drawer)- well, the intruder must have had near-psychic quality to find it in that huge maze of a house.

    And which intruder with half a brain would not have brought a flashlight along with him, but have expected instead to find one in the victim's home?
    I sometimes can't even find our own flashlight in our home because we often mislay things. :)
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2009
  18. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Haney points out to Patsy several unusual things in the ransom note (NE book, p. 273/274):

    TH: "The delivery will be exhausting", they are preparing somebody for all this. And again, unlike any of the other ransnom notes I have ever seen.

    PR: "I have never seen a ransom note."
    (end qute)

    Now that is quote obvious, Patsy. For if you had ever seen a ransom note, you would have done a far better job in concocting one. :D
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2009
  19. Elle

    Elle Member


    Reading over the police files is very frustrating for all of us, coming across many questions to Patsy Ramsey which were not followed through. I found them very frustrating. I hope the new investigation will check them all out. Without Patsy, I wonder how they'll deal with them (?).
  20. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Simple. They won't. The "new" investigation will really be a rehash of the "old" investigation...namely, looking for suspects other than the family. They'll be looking at Karr, Santa Bill, LPH and husband and their list of people under the bus. I think we already know that the DA solved this case years ago, maybe by 1997. They were NEVER going to go after the family, even with PR still alive. I bet there was a time when the DA (even gutless Hunter) would have brokered a deal to keep the charges at tampering with evidence if they had simply just told the truth about what happened and who did what.
  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