Undrtheradar

Hollywood, FL

#42 Aug 21, 2014
Undrtheradar wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesnt change my point,hard to believe a 10 year old can out smart cops but some people seem to think they can...but I appreciate you helping me to get that fact straight I just knew he was somewhere around that age just didnt have time to re-verify his age.
Most 10 year olds cant even outsmart their parents not sure how they can outsmart cops

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#43 Aug 21, 2014
The best way is to tell whatever story the parents told him to say and not say anything else, which is pretty much what he did, except for when he answered by making beeping noises. The only variable was him saying JBR was awake when they got home.
Undrtheradar

Hollywood, FL

#44 Aug 21, 2014
Legal__Eagle wrote:
The best way is to tell whatever story the parents told him to say and not say anything else, which is pretty much what he did, except for when he answered by making beeping noises. The only variable was him saying JBR was awake when they got home.
I know I said I wasnt going to talk to you for a while....im hoping you have calmed down by now.

But there is a fact that I must share with you my friend....

And that fact is when you are interrogating a suspect, there is one sign that the investigator looks for that is even more important than the spoken word....And that is body language!

Were talking about a 10 year old boy.....i mean come on really????

I can barely even remember what I was doing at 10....lol
Undrtheradar

Hollywood, FL

#45 Aug 21, 2014
Legal__Eagle wrote:
The best way is to tell whatever story the parents told him to say and not say anything else, which is pretty much what he did, except for when he answered by making beeping noises. The only variable was him saying JBR was awake when they got home.
If Burke Ramsey was this good at murder....this good at deceiving the police and passing interrogations ...this good at fashioning a garrotte...At 10! Trust me when I say this he woukd be the Joker by now.
Undrtheradar

Hollywood, FL

#46 Aug 21, 2014
Undrtheradar wrote:
<quoted text>
If Burke Ramsey was this good at murder....this good at deceiving the police and passing interrogations ...this good at fashioning a garrotte...At 10! Trust me when I say this he woukd be the Joker by now.
Im sorry Burke was actually 9 1/2.
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#47 Aug 21, 2014
Undrtheradar wrote:
<quoted text>
You say patsy's anger towards John was "NEVER" at the forefront....this is your statement...
If this is the case then why immediately as the note begins does it address Mr.Ramsey only....again pointing the finger at John Ramsey at the very beginning????? And again narrowing the suspect list down, as oppposed to Mr and Mrs Ramsey which provides a much bigger pool of suspects????
And also your notion that calling in a kidnapping as opposed to calling in a murder is less likely to bring greater attention is just a false notion completely....I must remind you that when a kidnapping occurs not only is the police called in but also the FBI is also called in because they know the importance of a six year old girl who was kidnapped because on many occasions kidnapped children end up murdered....so u may want to rethink your narrative because thats not even factually true....you will be questioned just as hard for a kidnapping than you will for a murder because the FBI willl be questioning you and we all know they dont play.
It was a reported kidnapping and thus explains why the home was not thoroughly searched; why friends and a reverend were allowed to enter the home; why victim advocates were allowed to follow behind the forensic techs and sweep away the fingerprint dust along with any evidence that may have been contained in that dirt; why Burke was allowed to leave the home. And, apparently, all this was done BEFORE the FBI arrived on the scene. The body was found by John around one in the afternoon. The FBI arrived in time to be sent home by the BPD because it was no longer a kidnapping but a murder with the body found inside the home. Hmmm.

With a reported murder, there would have been no need for the FBI. The body would have been there with all the evidence in tact. The parents would have been aggressively questioned from the beginning and I doubt that Burke would have been allowed to leave the home unless in the company of CPS personnel. No doubt, then HE WOULD HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED AGGRESSIVELY. Don't even suggest that it wouldn't have made any difference. I think your logic is skewed.
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#48 Aug 21, 2014
When deciding to use a "small foreign faction" as the culprit, one would naturally conclude that the target would be John, not Patsy. He is the business person with the money and the business with which the kidnappers supposedly were taking exception. In 'Ransom", it was the father that was the target of the kidnapper's antics. Thus, true to imitation, they addressed the note with all the crazy, na´ve directives to John.
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#49 Aug 21, 2014
Undrtheradar wrote:
<quoted text>
If Burke Ramsey was this good at murder....this good at deceiving the police and passing interrogations ...this good at fashioning a garrotte...At 10! Trust me when I say this he woukd be the Joker by now.
No one has contended that he fashioned the garrote. He was interviewed briefly by the police the afternoon of the murder/kidnapping. He then was interviewed by a psychologist. I am sorry, but I think most children can keep a secret when they are the ones who have misbehaved. He told the police when they asked if he had any secrets, "It wouldn't be a secret anymore if I told you, would it?"

Again, why did the Ramseys feel the need to seek legal representation for Burke if there was nothing for him to hide? If he was indeed asleep and saw or heard nothing?
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#50 Aug 21, 2014
Undrtheradar wrote:
<quoted text>
I know I said I wasnt going to talk to you for a while....im hoping you have calmed down by now.
But there is a fact that I must share with you my friend....
And that fact is when you are interrogating a suspect, there is one sign that the investigator looks for that is even more important than the spoken word....And that is body language!
Were talking about a 10 year old boy.....i mean come on really????
I can barely even remember what I was doing at 10....lol
Thanks for bringing this up. Whenever sexuality was mentioned Burke started fidgeting. When he was asked what he thought happened to Jonbenet he made a downward motion with his hands as if to suggest that she was struck in the head. Have you read the reports? I think you should.

When he was asked to draw a picture of his family after Jonbenet's death, he drew a picture of himself and his parents--his dad was in the distance in an airplane.(Not surprisingly.) Jonbenet was missing from the picture. The children at their school were not ready to omit Jonbenet from their drawings, but Burke had already progressed to that point. When asked if he was afraid or felt threatened, he said "no", even though his sister was found dead inside their home. The children at school had to have lights left on at night while they slept. At the funeral, you see Burke walking from the funeral service smiling while everyone else is somber or in tears.

I didn't give much thought to the fear question until I heard a young woman questioned in an interview about the kidnapping/death of her sister. She admitted she was terrified for years after her sister's death. Afraid the same thing might happen to her. It was only then that I realized the implication of Burke's answer. It inferred that he knew who killed his sister, and he felt he had nothing to fear.
Undrtheradar

Hollywood, FL

#51 Aug 21, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for bringing this up. Whenever sexuality was mentioned Burke started fidgeting. When he was asked what he thought happened to Jonbenet he made a downward motion with his hands as if to suggest that she was struck in the head. Have you read the reports? I think you should.
When he was asked to draw a picture of his family after Jonbenet's death, he drew a picture of himself and his parents--his dad was in the distance in an airplane.(Not surprisingly.) Jonbenet was missing from the picture. The children at their school were not ready to omit Jonbenet from their drawings, but Burke had already progressed to that point. When asked if he was afraid or felt threatened, he said "no", even though his sister was found dead inside their home. The children at school had to have lights left on at night while they slept. At the funeral, you see Burke walking from the funeral service smiling while everyone else is somber or in tears.
I didn't give much thought to the fear question until I heard a young woman questioned in an interview about the kidnapping/death of her sister. She admitted she was terrified for years after her sister's death. Afraid the same thing might happen to her. It was only then that I realized the implication of Burke's answer. It inferred that he knew who killed his sister, and he felt he had nothing to fear.
"Whenever sexuality was brought up to a 9 1/2 year old little boy he began to fidget"....I have to admit I never read that in the report and I wont even ask you to source it...I will take your word for it...But I think we should use our common sense and ask ourselves what would any 9 1/2 year old little boy do when the topic of sexuality is brought up to them??? Especially by strangers???? They could very well fidget....dont mean guilt there.

"He made a downward motion with his hands to show she had been struck in the head"...well I would like to see him make that downward motion myself to determine what it meant....let me ask you why didnt he make any motions with his hands to show she was strangled???

So basically what your trying to say is that Burke wasnt composed while being interviewd by police that his body language did show guilt...but the police didnt pick up on it????

Let me just say ..if u put the Police up against a 9 1/2 year old little boy im picking the police to pick up on it....apparently what they saw as far as body language goes wasnt guilt.
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#52 Aug 22, 2014
Undrtheradar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Whenever sexuality was brought up to a 9 1/2 year old little boy he began to fidget"....I have to admit I never read that in the report and I wont even ask you to source it...I will take your word for it...But I think we should use our common sense and ask ourselves what would any 9 1/2 year old little boy do when the topic of sexuality is brought up to them??? Especially by strangers???? They could very well fidget....dont mean guilt there.
"He made a downward motion with his hands to show she had been struck in the head"...well I would like to see him make that downward motion myself to determine what it meant....let me ask you why didnt he make any motions with his hands to show she was strangled???
So basically what your trying to say is that Burke wasnt composed while being interviewd by police that his body language did show guilt...but the police didnt pick up on it????
Let me just say ..if u put the Police up against a 9 1/2 year old little boy im picking the police to pick up on it....apparently what they saw as far as body language goes wasnt guilt.
I think originally the police were focusing on Patsy and John. They were more concerned on getting info from Burke that would have incriminated one or both of his parents--so, no, they weren't focused on him as a suspect.

Steve Thomas was focused on Patsy as the killer. Linda Arndt suspected John. Lou Smit was convinced of an intruder. They had no reason to suspect Burke.

Years later, James Kolar came into the case with a completely open mind and perused 60,000 pages of documents and testimony. Including the interviews with Burke by the child psychologist and with the police. He went into it with an open mind, and this was more or less his conclusion. I have thought this from the first days I heard about the crime. I became even more convinced when I read that Burke had hit Jonbenet in the face with a golf club when she was three years old.

If you would read Kolar's book, you would know that a friend of the family was concerned because she had heard her son and Burke discussing the cause of Jonbenet's death, and Burke did mention strangulation then and in a very nonchalant manner. That was actually before the media had received info about the cause of death. Of course, he could have heard it from family members. However, I do believe the knock on the head episode was mimed before anyone knew the results of the autopsy. I might be wrong about that. Would have to research to be sure.

I do not enjoy suspecting a child just one month from his tenth birthday as a molester and/or murderer of his sister. At that age, children see many things on television and fail to realize the results of those actions if played out in real life. A ball bat hits a ball and sends it flying through the air. But a ball bat hits a head and the person's skull cracks and unlike cartoons or super hero movies, the person does not get up again. I think it began as moreof a struggle between them with him grabbing her by the collar of her shirt, twisting it, and then pushing her against a piece of furniture. Thus the strangulation marks and the skull fracture.

I am spending too much time on this site. Lol. Nothing I say will convince you of my theory, and to be honest, it would take a revelation of great magnitude to convince me of an intruder. Hopefully, someday this will be solved and we can be embarrassed of or feel disgusted at our judgments. But I hope it is God's Will that justice will be done for Jonbenet on this earth as well as on judgment day.
Undrtheradar

Hollywood, FL

#53 Aug 22, 2014
Just Wondering
I know at the end of the day all you want is justice for Jonbenet....And I know you have strong feelings for your theory...you will never hear me attack you personally about your theory...im only attacking your theory because I have plenty of questions that need to be anwered by the RDI's...
I want you to keep in mind that from 1996 to 2001 I to was a RDI....I believe Patsy did it....until I saw the light..."The Forgotten Suspect"...
So my point is try to keep an open mind...its ok to be wrong...your life doesnt depend on whether your right or wrong....
But, back to those serious questions I have for RDI....me and you were having a serious conversation...and you have suddenly went off on some other topics when I asked my coup de gras question to you....I was waiting on the edge of my seat for your answer but u went off subject....
Ill ask you again....you say Patsy wrote the ransom note....you say she begins the note by pretending to be a small foriegn faction to try and trick the police....you say that the reason Patsy changed characters in the middle of the ransom note from A small foreign faction to a close intimate friend of Johns was because In the middle of the note Patsy becomes angry with John and now wants to point the finger at John....
And my question to you was well if what you say is true then why did Patsy from the beginning of the note point the finger at Mr. Ramsey only which reduces the suspect pool and not Mr and Mrs Ramsey???
You cant have it both ways because you already stated that Patsy NEVER had John at the forefront of the note....and its ok for you to say "undr you have a good point"...instead of taking a stand just because you are dug into your theory....I know these questions arent easy to answer for RDI and I have plenty more like them that tells me the Ranseys couldnt have done it?
Thanks again atleast you are the only one who tried.
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#54 Aug 22, 2014
Undrtheradar wrote:
Just Wondering
I know at the end of the day all you want is justice for Jonbenet....And I know you have strong feelings for your theory...you will never hear me attack you personally about your theory...im only attacking your theory because I have plenty of questions that need to be anwered by the RDI's...
I want you to keep in mind that from 1996 to 2001 I to was a RDI....I believe Patsy did it....until I saw the light..."The Forgotten Suspect"...
So my point is try to keep an open mind...its ok to be wrong...your life doesnt depend on whether your right or wrong....
But, back to those serious questions I have for RDI....me and you were having a serious conversation...and you have suddenly went off on some other topics when I asked my coup de gras question to you....I was waiting on the edge of my seat for your answer but u went off subject....
Ill ask you again....you say Patsy wrote the ransom note....you say she begins the note by pretending to be a small foriegn faction to try and trick the police....you say that the reason Patsy changed characters in the middle of the ransom note from A small foreign faction to a close intimate friend of Johns was because In the middle of the note Patsy becomes angry with John and now wants to point the finger at John....
And my question to you was well if what you say is true then why did Patsy from the beginning of the note point the finger at Mr. Ramsey only which reduces the suspect pool and not Mr and Mrs Ramsey???
You cant have it both ways because you already stated that Patsy NEVER had John at the forefront of the note....and its ok for you to say "undr you have a good point"...instead of taking a stand just because you are dug into your theory....I know these questions arent easy to answer for RDI and I have plenty more like them that tells me the Ranseys couldnt have done it?
Thanks again atleast you are the only one who tried.
U, truthfully, I think Patsy struggled with how to write a ransom note, since I am sure there were no Ransom Note 101 classes at WVU (...maybe on how to burn couches--or perhaps that just comes naturally to us, WVU Mountaineer fans).

She and Burke were na´ve and inexperienced. Would you not agree? That is why you see a heavy reliance on Hollywood films. And as I stated earlier, in Ransom, where the kidnapper had Mel Gibson running everywhere like a madman, the person targeted for the ransom delivery was the father. So it only came natural that the father would be targeted in the note Patsy and Burke concocted. Therefore, a small foreign faction who disliked the business John was in would not think to name Mrs. Ramsey in the note. Thus, the reason it was changed from Mr. & Mrs. to just Mr.

I will reiterate: Patsy never INTENDED to point a finger at John. It was not personal at the start. Her effort was to divert attention from the family and buy time. To cover for Burke. However, as she started writing the note, she became more and more resentful that she was having to be put through this agony because of John's inaction to Burke's behavioral problem to which she had alerted him. Thereby, spewing her venom in a way that only John would comprehend. And I think he did but he did not want to admit it to himself.

Now, let me ask you. Who do you believe the intruder was and what was his objective in penning and leaving a ransom note? Obviously, it wasn't because he actually intended to kidnap Jonbenet. Also, did he start out with the intent to molest her; to murder her; or both? Was he a crazed enemy of John's turned pedophile just for this particular crime, or was he truly a pedophile who happened to develop a dislike for John at some point in his life? And, I will remind you, that it is okay to be wrong. Your life doesn't depend upon whether you're right or wrong. Because, in all honesty, how important is either of our opinions on this matter?
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#55 Aug 22, 2014
U, truthfully, I think Patsy struggled with how to write a ransom note, since I am sure there were no Ransom Note 101 classes at WVU (...maybe on how to burn couches--or perhaps that just comes naturally to us, WVU Mountaineer fans).

She and Burke were na´ve and inexperienced. Would you not agree? That is why you see a heavy reliance on Hollywood films. And as I stated earlier, in Ransom, where the kidnapper had Mel Gibson running everywhere like a madman, the person targeted for the ransom delivery was the father. So it only came natural that the father would be targeted in the note Patsy and Burke concocted. Therefore, a small foreign faction who disliked the business John was in would not think to name Mrs. Ramsey in the note. Thus, the reason it was changed from Mr. & Mrs. to just Mr.

I will reiterate: Patsy never INTENDED to point a finger at John. It was not personal at the start. Her effort was to divert attention from the family and buy time. To cover for Burke. However, as she started writing the note, she became more and more resentful that she was having to be put through this agony because of John's inaction to Burke's behavioral problem to which she had alerted him. Thereby, spewing her venom in a way that only John would comprehend. And I think he did but he did not want to admit it to himself.

Now, let me ask you. Who do you believe the intruder was and what was his objective in penning and leaving a ransom note? Obviously, it wasn't because he actually intended to kidnap Jonbenet. Also, did he start out with the intent to molest her; to murder her; or both? Was he a crazed enemy of John's turned pedophile just for this particular crime, or was he truly a pedophile who happened to develop a dislike for John at some point in his life? And, I will remind you, that it is okay to be wrong. Your life doesn't depend upon whether you're right or wrong. Because, in all honesty, how important is either of our opinions on this matter?

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#56 Aug 22, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
U, truthfully, I think Patsy struggled with how to write a ransom note, since I am sure there were no Ransom Note 101 classes at WVU (...maybe on how to burn couches--or perhaps that just comes naturally to us, WVU Mountaineer fans).

She and Burke were naïve and inexperienced. Would you not agree? That is why you see a heavy reliance on Hollywood films. And as I stated earlier, in Ransom, where the kidnapper had Mel Gibson running everywhere like a madman, the person targeted for the ransom delivery was the father. So it only came natural that the father would be targeted in the note Patsy and Burke concocted. Therefore, a small foreign faction who disliked the business John was in would not think to name Mrs. Ramsey in the note. Thus, the reason it was changed from Mr. & Mrs. to just Mr.

I will reiterate: Patsy never INTENDED to point a finger at John. It was not personal at the start. Her effort was to divert attention from the family and buy time. To cover for Burke. However, as she started writing the note, she became more and more resentful that she was having to be put through this agony because of John's inaction to Burke's behavioral problem to which she had alerted him. Thereby, spewing her venom in a way that only John would comprehend. And I think he did but he did not want to admit it to himself.

Now, let me ask you. Who do you believe the intruder was and what was his objective in penning and leaving a ransom note? Obviously, it wasn't because he actually intended to kidnap Jonbenet. Also, did he start out with the intent to molest her; to murder her; or both? Was he a crazed enemy of John's turned pedophile just for this particular crime, or was he truly a pedophile who happened to develop a dislike for John at some point in his life? And, I will remind you, that it is okay to be wrong. Your life doesn't depend upon whether you're right or wrong. Because, in all honesty, how important is either of our opinions on this matter?
the author of the ransom note has not been identifies. the 6 experts that analyzed the original note do not believe a ramsey wrote it
Note

Flint, MI

#57 Aug 22, 2014
Our train lab's official lab report show us the family did not print the ransom note.

The lab.
Undrtheradar

Hollywood, FL

#58 Aug 23, 2014
JW
I see, so you believe Patsy struggled with the Ransom note...to that I say well then dont write a Ransom note if your struggling...your life is on the line....let me ask u a hypothetical question...if u killed your child and wanted it to make it look like a kidnapping, would you take the body and put it in the middle of the living room floor....write a kidnapping note, then place the kidnapping note directly on top of the body..then call 911? Yea I know thats not what happened in this case but its almost the same scenerio the body and the note were in two different rooms but police will still find them nonethe less.
And on top of this...Patsy, who is determined to prove to police that she is some small foriegn faction suddenly in the middle of the note gets angry with John and changes character to a close intimate friend....do you see the many questions that arise with your theory? Theories are suppose to answer questions not cause more questions...
You are correct....the person targeted in the movie Ransom was the father...it was natural to target the father....but not by Patsy and Burke because they are all involved in this crime together...If they point the finger at John they are pointing the finger at themself because they are the ones who committed the crime.
You say Patsy never intended to point the finger at John in the beginning of the Ransom note....
I say you are making a big mistake by assuming what Patsy "intended" to do instead of just following the clues and let them lead you where they may...let me show you an example...
So again, you say Patsy never intended to point the finger at John...
Now let me show you this partial quote from the ransom note
"Mr. Ramsey, we have your daughter", you say that Patsy wrote this....Jonbenet is also Patsys daughter. This means that the author of the ransom note had John Ramsey as his target from the very beginning. This is an important clue because this means from the very beginning the writer was narrowing down the suspect list unlike what Patsy would have done...but it should be left right there....you should not now start saying what the writer "intended" because you have no clue what the writer "intended" to do it only muddys things up....just take the clue as it is and if u keep doing this the clues will keep leading you to the same place...
Who do I believe the intruder was and why do I believe he penned the Ransom note....Give me a minute to lay that out for you but I will start by saying that, once again im just following the clues and not assuming anything...and if the clues tell me that the writer of the ransom note for some strange reason changed characters from a small foreign faction to a close intimate friend...then thats who im rolling with, the close intimate friend did it until I see otherwise.
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#59 Aug 23, 2014
I feel the fact that Patsy referred to Jonbenet as "your" daughter simply proves my interpretation of her state of mind while writing the note. This was HIS daughter that he failed to protect from this senseless tragedy. Even after all the requests from Patsy for his input into the situation.

Patsy also felt guilty over her failure as a parent--as we are all apt to do in any situation where our children fail. In her mind, she was as guilty as if she had dealt the death blow herself to her daughter. As she is going through the agony of writing a ransom note to insure her son's freedom, she begins transferring that guilt to John.'Had he been around more...had he listened to my fears and concerns...had he cared as much for us as he did his job...' many complaints probably went through her mind. That is when she let her true feelings seep through and her resentment towards John's failures as a husband influence the content of the note. She should have kept the note short and impersonal.

The ransom note was not meant to point a finger at John--it was suppose to reflect the kidnapper addressing his demands to the patriarch of the family. It was her agony, grief, anger, and feeling of personal failure that made the note turn personal in tone. That was a natural occurrence and, not being criminally sophisticated, she did not catch her mistake.

Like all the posters here, I struggled with this note for sometime. What was the purpose? Why the obvious movie references? Why the personal nature? It is childlike in it's demands but adult in it's composition. And I can quite understand why the experts tend to think it was written by a well-educated female. I think Patsy was that female. But it was written out of expediency and out of love for her son. It was not written to be vindictive. It was a cover-up but it turned personal and therein was her failing.
Undrtheradar

Hollywood, FL

#60 Aug 24, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
I feel the fact that Patsy referred to Jonbenet as "your" daughter simply proves my interpretation of her state of mind while writing the note. This was HIS daughter that he failed to protect from this senseless tragedy. Even after all the requests from Patsy for his input into the situation.
Patsy also felt guilty over her failure as a parent--as we are all apt to do in any situation where our children fail. In her mind, she was as guilty as if she had dealt the death blow herself to her daughter. As she is going through the agony of writing a ransom note to insure her son's freedom, she begins transferring that guilt to John.'Had he been around more...had he listened to my fears and concerns...had he cared as much for us as he did his job...' many complaints probably went through her mind. That is when she let her true feelings seep through and her resentment towards John's failures as a husband influence the content of the note. She should have kept the note short and impersonal.
The ransom note was not meant to point a finger at John--it was suppose to reflect the kidnapper addressing his demands to the patriarch of the family. It was her agony, grief, anger, and feeling of personal failure that made the note turn personal in tone. That was a natural occurrence and, not being criminally sophisticated, she did not catch her mistake.
Like all the posters here, I struggled with this note for sometime. What was the purpose? Why the obvious movie references? Why the personal nature? It is childlike in it's demands but adult in it's composition. And I can quite understand why the experts tend to think it was written by a well-educated female. I think Patsy was that female. But it was written out of expediency and out of love for her son. It was not written to be vindictive. It was a cover-up but it turned personal and therein was her failing.
Question...If Patsy Ramsey wrote the note which would be a crime punishable by prison, to cover up for the murder her son committed...so they are both getting arrested if caught....wouldnt be advantageuos to Patsy and Burke if the lettet begins with Mr. and Mrs Ramsey so it atleast looks like Patsy is just as much a victim of this crime as Mr. Ramsey?
Undrtheradar

Hollywood, FL

#61 Aug 24, 2014
Undrtheradar wrote:
<quoted text>
Question...If Patsy Ramsey wrote the note which would be a crime punishable by prison, to cover up for the murder her son committed...so they are both getting arrested if caught....wouldnt be advantageuos to Patsy and Burke if the lettet begins with Mr. and Mrs Ramsey so it atleast looks like Patsy is just as much a victim of this crime as Mr. Ramsey?
Sorry about the typos...i hope u understood the question...pleAse let me know if u didnt I will type it again.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
John Ramsey Role 13 min Legal__Eagle 45
News GLOBE: JonBenet Ramsey Murder Was Inside Job - ... 1 hr Legal__Eagle 14
Karr's Christmas Message 1 hr Legal__Eagle 25
SBTC--Victory 1 hr Legal__Eagle 21
Chief Kolar's AMA on Reddit 1 hr Legal__Eagle 165
ICU2 's Child Trafficking Sun ICU2 158
The TV Room and the Blanket Apr 18 mud honey 28
More from around the web