Review of John Ramsey's new book
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#269 Mar 8, 2014
candy wrote:
All that stuff about the laundry chute being used by John Ramsey for his EXPENSIVE wool sweaters is laughable. In spite of him whining that he was going to end up in a trailer he was so broke, John Ramsey wore one of his favorite cashmere sweaters during the interview with Lucinda Franks in 2008. In spite of temperatures in the 70's all day when he gave a power point presentation in Charlevoix in 2012, Ramsey still showed up in yet another cashmere sweater of his. Just about all of these type of garments say "DRY CLEAN ONLY". Ramsey wasn't about to throw his garment down the laundry chute to be mixed in with God knows what in a washing machine. Even washing by hand such a garment in cold water can already fade the the color.
What do you mean "laughable"? Levin has to ask the question. He's not going to assume that Ramsey gives a fig about washing instructions. Women are the ones who worry about stuff like that. Usually.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#270 Mar 8, 2014
It defeats the purpose of buying an expensive garment if you ruined it during the laundrying process. You can't wear it then and you wasted your money. Ramsey has enough of these sweaters and they are all in good shape, so he knows how to care for them. He mentioned in his book he bought Patsy the blue SILK dress she wore at their speech in Hawaii in 2006. He likes fine fabrics and part of liking them is knowing how to launder them (or not), so you can wear them for a long time.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#271 Mar 8, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
Possibly, but if you don't think John was involved in the murder and staging then he might not have known about Psalm 35 at this point. Many folks were reporting that the Bible was open to Psalm 118. I don't think that Foster had given his presentation at the time of John's interview. I would expect that John's moles in the DA's office would have said something, though. Kane would have known about Psalm 35 at this point.
If John were really trying to conceal something, why say anything about the Bible at all? Patsy in her interview acts like she's never even seen that Bible. It was John's according to her and she didn't know what he got up to with it.
Because John was endeavoring to tie the $118,000 asked for in the ransom note to something other than the amount of his bonus.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#272 Mar 8, 2014
candy wrote:
It defeats the purpose of buying an expensive garment if you ruined it during the laundrying process. You can't wear it then and you wasted your money. Ramsey has enough of these sweaters and they are all in good shape, so he knows how to care for them. He mentioned in his book he bought Patsy the blue SILK dress she wore at their speech in Hawaii in 2006. He likes fine fabrics and part of liking them is knowing how to launder them (or not), so you can wear them for a long time.
I don't know why you couldn't separate out clothes that need dry cleaning after they've gone down a laundry chute. They don't go directly into the washing machine, you know. But somehow I doubt that John was in the habit of worrying much about that sort of thing. It's beside the point: Levin needed to ask the question.

For the record, Ramsey indicated that if he was going to wear something again, he hung it up otherwise he threw it on the floor.

The underlying point is that Patsy could have gotten her hands on it whether it was on the third or one of the other floors.

John would no doubt be smart enough to know that he might have left trace evidence from that shirt. He would have taken it with him when he left.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#273 Mar 8, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
Examples? I'm not saying you're wrong; I just like examples.
Am in the middle of reading two novels and trying to read through the Bible in a year, so I don't have the time to reread the transcripts at the present. When I do, I will post the two incidents in which I felt John was subtly pointing the finger of guilt at Patsy. I was actually surprised. I wish I had made highlighted them at the time. Didn't know I would be posting about it.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#274 Mar 8, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
Because John was endeavoring to tie the $118,000 asked for in the ransom note to something other than the amount of his bonus.
By tying it to his Bible? Can't see how that would help him much. And he and Kane were discussing SBTC at that point. Looking back at it, Ramsey isn't explicitly saying that the Bible was open to Ps. 118 (which it wasn't), but saying that he had heard that verses of that psalm had been circled.(I'm fairly sure they weren't.)
real Topaz

AOL

#275 Mar 9, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Am in the middle of reading two novels and trying to read through the Bible in a year, so I don't have the time to reread the transcripts at the present. When I do, I will post the two incidents in which I felt John was subtly pointing the finger of guilt at Patsy. I was actually surprised. I wish I had made highlighted them at the time. Didn't know I would be posting about it.
I can't name specifics at this time either JW, but I thought the same thing about him pointing at his wife. He made her look suspicious from day one just by leaving out her movements of that night while he described dealing with the kids, playing with toys, reading to JB then to himself, brushing his teeth and taking a melatonin (couldn't recall how many) and going to bed. Nothing in his testimony pins Patsy down and what she was doing. I felt like he was leaving those facts out deliberately, like there was a mystery there.
Their first interview on CNN seemed like he was eyeing her as tho to say to the interviewer that 'she's the nut here' but I 'can't let on'. All very subtle but maybe not if we both picked up on him.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#276 Mar 14, 2014
real Topaz wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't name specifics at this time either JW, but I thought the same thing about him pointing at his wife. He made her look suspicious from day one just by leaving out her movements of that night while he described dealing with the kids, playing with toys, reading to JB then to himself, brushing his teeth and taking a melatonin (couldn't recall how many) and going to bed. Nothing in his testimony pins Patsy down and what she was doing. I felt like he was leaving those facts out deliberately, like there was a mystery there.
Their first interview on CNN seemed like he was eyeing her as tho to say to the interviewer that 'she's the nut here' but I 'can't let on'. All very subtle but maybe not if we both picked up on him.
I skimmed over some of the transcript and remembered that my interest was piqued when John was asked about the ransom note. Twice during the questioning, he alluded to the fact that Patsy had not been excluded and made a half-hearted attempt at explaining why she had not. But it was as if he felt the need to deflect attention from himself. And there was another incident in addition to the ransom note that made me feel he was trying to incriminate his wife. I will attempt to locate that incident as well. Do wish I had highlighted it, but at the time I was only interested in how everything related to the BDI theory.

.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#277 Mar 16, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
I skimmed over some of the transcript and remembered that my interest was piqued when John was asked about the ransom note. Twice during the questioning, he alluded to the fact that Patsy had not been excluded and made a half-hearted attempt at explaining why she had not. But it was as if he felt the need to deflect attention from himself. And there was another incident in addition to the ransom note that made me feel he was trying to incriminate his wife. I will attempt to locate that incident as well. Do wish I had highlighted it, but at the time I was only interested in how everything related to the BDI theory.
.
OK, but in the instances you mention John was being asked about the ransom note and it was already well known to his interrogators that Patsy hadn't been excluded. Wasn't John's explanation that the writing might resemble Patsy's if it was written by some other woman? If memory serves, this was the same explanation that Patsy gave herself.

In my example, Patsy is offering the police information they didn't know, ie, she puts John Ramsey at the desk reading the Bible that contains "SBTC." This was something the police couldn't know; it makes him seem very guilty; she excludes herself as someone whoever sat at the desk and read that Bible.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#278 Mar 16, 2014
That should be: "excluded herself as someone who ever sat at the desk and read that Bible."
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#279 Mar 16, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
That should be: "excluded herself as someone who ever sat at the desk and read that Bible."
Yes, she did put John at that desk, reading that Bible. True.

The interrogators were asking "John" about the ransom note. Yet, he had to insinuate Patsy into the conversation.

Perhaps, that was their plan. They had had ample time to come up with a strategy and answers. Perhaps, their intent was to so muddy the waters that the BPD could not get a definite fix on the guilty party. Either charge both or neither. That was the true dilemma that the police faced. It was the resolution that the Grand Jury ultimately surmised. To no avail.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#280 Mar 16, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
Yes, she did put John at that desk, reading that Bible. True.
The interrogators were asking "John" about the ransom note. Yet, he had to insinuate Patsy into the conversation.
Perhaps, that was their plan. They had had ample time to come up with a strategy and answers. Perhaps, their intent was to so muddy the waters that the BPD could not get a definite fix on the guilty party. Either charge both or neither. That was the true dilemma that the police faced. It was the resolution that the Grand Jury ultimately surmised. To no avail.
Well, at that point everybody in the room knew that Patsy was the only person not excluded as author so it's not like she wasn't already present as a subtext in the conversation. If the police are talking about the ransom note, they're talking about Patsy. John refers to the perception that the author is a woman and suggests that the guilty party is--Priscilla White.

But Patsy actually gave the police new information pointing directly at her husband and clearly was aware of what she was doing. If the police weren't sure before that she knew about "SBTC" coming from that Bible, they were sure after. Kind of an unintended consequence for her.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#281 Mar 17, 2014
I think at that point, John had been made aware of Burke's actions if he didn't know prior to that time. Their one and only concern was to preserve their son's reputation and future, and if confusing the police by pointing to one another would help, then that is what they intended to do.

If both knew of the crime, then Burke was the guilty party. Neither husband or wife would cover up the murder of their child for the sake of one another. At least, I wouldn't. My husband would be off to jail and if the situation were reversed, he would do the same where I am concerned. Of course, we are not wealthy so money isn't really a consideration on our part as it would have been for the Ramseys.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#282 Mar 17, 2014
On second thought, John would probably lose his high paid position with his company due to the scandal and what 25-40 "cute" blond would want an older, washed up executive who has lost everything. I see FB's point. But I hope that there was never a need to give this consideration. I would rather think the parents were covering up out of love for their one remaining offspring than for their wealth and position.
real Topaz

AOL

#283 Mar 17, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
On second thought, John would probably lose his high paid position with his company due to the scandal and what 25-40 "cute" blond would want an older, washed up executive who has lost everything. I see FB's point. But I hope that there was never a need to give this consideration. I would rather think the parents were covering up out of love for their one remaining offspring than for their wealth and position.
they had more than that night to think about staying together since they had to know their little girl was suffering 'someone's' sexual advances given her injuries were older than 24 hours when she was found dead. It is my opinion Patsy would stay with a husband that did that in exchange for remaining queen of the manor and all that glorious money that went with that crown. IMO JR would dump a killer wife HAPPILY if she were the lone culprit. The parents would have been told by Bynum that Burke was too young to prosecute and all the favors called in would be granted and the matter quietly resolved behind closed doors. It would have been a bleep on the news, no names given since BR was under age.
IOW, IMO JRDI.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#285 Mar 18, 2014
Real Slanderer wrote:
they had more than that night to think about staying together since they had to know their little girl was suffering 'someone's' sexual advances given her injuries were older than 24 hours when she was found dead. It is my opinion Patsy would stay with a husband that did that in exchange for remaining queen of the manor and all that glorious money that went with that crown. IMO JR would dump a killer wife HAPPILY if she were the lone culprit. The parents would have been told by Bynum that Burke was too young to prosecute and all the favors called in would be granted and the matter quietly resolved behind closed doors. It would have been a bleep on the news, no names given since BR was under age.
Maybe, had the national press not been so heavily invested in this case. But under those circumstances, could this case have been swept under the rug.

How old would Jonbenet be now? And here we are still debating the case and evidence. Grand jury indictments were released RECENTLY due to a reporter.

Too many family friends, acquaintances and enemies had their names drug through the mud (including the Ramseys if they are innocent) to let this case disappear from the radar. And would the Ramseys have been aware that Burke was not prosecutable? Would they dare ask that question? Could they depend upon anyone they would let into their circle of knowledge? Money talks--both ways--in your favor but also against.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
jameson re simons (Jan '08) 1 hr Jolamom 64
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 11 hr icu2 453
InTouch and Enquirer this week 19 hr stoned luck aka ... 14
News Clooney's restraining order 19 hr stoned luck aka ... 26
The state of JonBenet's bed the night of the mu... (Jul '15) 20 hr candy 22
Sig Mon Just Wondering 65
Radaronline FOIA - JonBenet Ramsey case Sun stoned luck aka ... 29
More from around the web