Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For those of you who seem to have latched onto to details (often incorrect and proven false, but initially printed in the media and circulated online) . . . please take the time to read this article.
I have a friend who to this day still believes Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, wrote that note, and that John helped cover it all up.
Why? My friend was molested by an Uncle at age five and her parents covered it up in an attempt to "keep the family together." Her father was physically abusive to her throughout her entire life, including pushing her down the stairs and kicking her her at the age of 16. So my friend cannot see past her own history. She has seized on the ridiculous, totally unfounded premise that JonBenet wet her bed and her mother went beserk and accidentally killed her daughter over it.
I have asked my friend to read articles explaining the facts of the case and exposing the lies, innuendo and downright maliciousness and bias against the Ramseys - but you know what? She refuses to do it! She says she doesn't care what anyone says, in her heart, that little girl died because her mother was a monster and her father covered it up.
I find it frightening that because of my friend's own personal history, she won't even entertain FACTS. The reason it frightens me is because juries are made up of ordinary citizens and what a thought - that ordinary people could hang on to biases simply because of their own experiences.
So take the time to read this before jumping to conclusions or relying on the skewered "tales" that so many of the people involved in this case have released to the public (and made money off those endeavors, and tried to build political careers off, as well).
If people would research WHO John Ramsey is - perhaps they would see how ridiculous it is to think he would participate in some absurd "cover up" of his daughter's death.
John Ramsey had a military career and was a naval officer. He is not a capricious man.
And did you realize he has three children by a previous marriage, and one of his children, Elizabeth, was killed in a tragic car accident in 1992. His other two children vehemently denied charges that their father was anything other than caring and kind to them, despite continued allegations in the press about his being abusive. Even his ex-wife and her family stood up for John and said he was a good man, incapable of such heinous things as the press accused him of -- from pedophilia to an obsession with pornography to child abuse.
John Ramsey has done nothing to deserve the terrible way he has been treated by people who were basically just trying to make a name for themselves.
By the way, Ramsey sued and successfully won several defamation lawsuits over the years, but sadly, that has not been reported -- yet, the stories that were proven untrue are still in circulation.
If a person is convinced the Ramseys had nothing to do with their daughter's death, it doesn't matter what scenario is put forth. John Ramsey could be on a message board posting all the reasons he or anyone in his family didn't do it. Someone very close the John Ramsey could also be interested in defending him. No matter how sophisticated the guesswork, it will not prove anything. Any theory will not be official. It is nothing but blowing in the wind. Blowing, blowing, blowing.
If a person is convinced the Ramseys had nothing to do with their daughter's death, it doesn't matter what scenario is put forth. John Ramsey could be on a message board posting all the reasons he or anyone in his family didn't do it. Someone very close the John Ramsey could also be interested in defending him. No matter how sophisticated the guesswork, it will not prove anything. Any theory will not be official. It is nothing but blowing in the wind. Blowing, blowing, blowing.
It is an evil wind that blows when the substance being blown around is based on lies.
... It is way too long to have been written by a parent under the stress of having inadvertently killed her own daughter. If Patsy had written the note it would have been no more than one or two lines....
I don't disagree that it would be strange for a parent to write such a note after killing their child. But it also seems highly unlikely that an intruder hunkered down in the house writing this note, knowing that adults are upstairs and they could be discovered at any time. If someone broke in thinking the house was empty, surely they would would to get out immediately when they discovered their error--especially if they added a potential murder charge.
The length and theatrics of the note is exactly why Patsy could not have written it. It is way too long to have been written by a parent under the stress of having inadvertently killed her own daughter. If Patsy had written the note it would have been no more than one or two lines. The note is also far too theatrical (some would say juvenile) to have been written by a mature middle-aged mother of two. The note was obviously written by a young adult female.
The fact that this is an impromptu ransom written with materials obtained from inside the house, and that the note was obviously not authored by any member of the Ramsey family for the reasons already mentioned, indicates that the intruders' original raison d'être had nothing to do with kidnapping. Kidnapping was a obviously an idea that suddenly occurred to them for some unexpected reason, most likely their having been discovered in the house by an awakened JonBenet, when they believed that the family had already left for vacation.
Correct. This is why the original motive for the intruders was not pedophilia. Now, if the original motive for the intruders was not kidnapping, nor pedophilia, what could they possibly have been doing there? (HINT: It has something to do with their mistaken belief that the family had already left for vacation.)
It is not a coincidence at all. Whoever wrote the note was obviously familiar enough with the Ramsey family to have heard about John's bonus through either the neighborhood grapevine or the Access Graphics grapevine, just as she was familiar enough with the Ramseys to know that they had moved to Boulder from the South (Atlanta). Incidentally, this is exactly what prompted at least one of the intruders to suddenly consider kidnapping: JonBenet knew the note writer, probably by name, and thus could identify her to police (as well as the note writer's accomplices by extension).
BTW: I specifically instructed you not to revisit the Ramseys as possible suspects. They are abundantly cleared by the ransom note. Kindly, pay attention. Thank you.
I don't like the tone of your last paragraph. You make it sound like I'm in school when I'm on a discussion forum. People can discuss whatever comes to their mind. I'll read the other link posted though with the Crime Library story although I've read the MacDonald case on that and it wasn't very accurate and that is a case I've read a bit more about and have more knowledge of.
Respectfully, RUBI, you may not be informed about the lies (which have been disproved but not covered well in the media) but I have researched them, so I DO know what is true and what is false about this case.
There are no facts in this case that are still in dispute.
The inferences are what are evil - as well as the continued misperceptions that have been passed around as "facts."
Respectfully, RUBI, you may not be informed about the lies (which have been disproved but not covered well in the media) but I have researched them, so I DO know what is true and what is false about this case.
There are no facts in this case that are still in dispute.
The inferences are what are evil - as well as the continued misperceptions that have been passed around as "facts."
No matter how you phrase it, what I posted is the way it is. What you pass around as facts are no more facts than what I post. What you are supported in no more facts than what anyone else says. There are still "facts" that are in dispute. You don't know anymore than what I don't know. Repeating information over and over does not change anything. Refuting information with an opinion refutes nothing. If you can repeat what has previously been posts, so can I and so can anyone else. So, repeat, repeat, repeat. It proves nothing. Nothing.
I don't like the tone of your last paragraph. You make it sound like I'm in school when I'm on a discussion forum. People can discuss whatever comes to their mind. I'll read the other link posted though with the Crime Library story although I've read the MacDonald case on that and it wasn't very accurate and that is a case I've read a bit more about and have more knowledge of.
Yes, that sounded a bit over the top to me, as well.
I agree that one source can never be enough if a person is truly researching a crime - any crime.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
