Posted on 06/24/2006 7:35:36 AM PDT by Brytani
According to Fox News, Patsy Ramsey, mother of Jonbenet Ramsey has passed away from ovarian cancer.
Not only did the kidnapper forget to call, the kidnapper forgot to take the child.
This is sad but still weird after all this time.
"So, the Ramsey supporters would have us believe that the Ramsey's not only adopted the word "hence" they also adopted the phrase "and hence" and they also adopted the killer's writing style! Possible but not probable".
That note was written by Patsy, and you don't have to be a handwriting analyst to see the incredible similarity in penmanship.
I prefer my murders of the fictional variety, Miss Marple-like, if possible. No blood, no autopsy reports. Just the dead vicar in the garden sans blood.
I will dare to say anything to you...chill. You missed the whole point of my post. You are not being coherent. You did not respond to even one point.
You just don not make any sense with your words or sentences.
:)
Notice, too, that's it's almost entirely straight printing, with a few cursive flourishes and connectors thrown in every now and then. However, none of the letters that go below the baseline, like g or y or p, ever have a loop on them.
There is one "q" in the note and it has a backwards loop below the baseline.
In the last tax return available publicly for the JonBenet Ramsey Foundation, whoever filled it out (and we don't know who that is - some think Patsy because most of it is her more rounded and more legible penmanship than John's) mixed printing and cursive writing throughout. It's mostly numbers, not much text to compare.
However, there are no loops on any letters below the baseline, except for the one "q" in it. It has a backwards loop, below the baseline.
Yeah. Steve Thomas called them on it one time - maybe in their confrontation on LKL or maybe in a police interview, I've forgotten which now.
John was vouching for Patsy being asleep all night - and Steve said, "How would you know? You were asleep."
Every post I wrote on this thread has been more coherent than ANY response I got. I have made points when others have called names. Please, give me an example of how I did not respond to any point. I'll be waiting.
Well Thank you.(((Hugs))))
Well we still have who knew the money.
I think you have it backwards. "We" haven't sexualized young girls so much that we think teased hair, heavy makeup and provocative poses for six year olds is merely "cute".
In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Little girls shouldn't be sexualized by teased hair, heavy makeup and provocative poses. "We" support THAT position by our disgust at parents who dress their children up and encourage them to behave like this. We hate to see these little ones sexualized by their own parents.
I agree completely with you on one thing. They don't know they are being sexy. They are completely innocent. That's what makes it even more sick. It's the adults who are foisting this on them.
Nobody's minimizing what you think. They are merely posting what THEY think. Fancy that!
Jacquelyn Dowaliby. I remember thinking I was the only one in the world who'd made that connection. Me and the Ramsey's attorney, that is.
In the late nineties when the press was pronouncing guilt on the Ramsey's, if I'd heard it once, I heard it a hundred times: "If the Ramsey's are SO innocent, why aren't they cooperating with the investigation??? Hmmm?"
Duh. Two words, folks: "David Dowaliby." David Dowaliby is an example of what happens when you DO cooperate fully, only to realize too late that someone on the case has already decided your guilt and all they're interested in is more reasons to fry you.
The Ramseys' attorney obviously knew of this case when he advised them to cease cooperating and STFU. Such a no brainer, but I think I shouted at the radio (stupid talk-show callers) dozens of times. The brilliant Chicago press though, avoided the parallels.
RIP Patsy. You deserve it.
(I'm actually surprised she lasted THIS long).
Yep, she was so guilty she was able to leave DNA in her daughters underwear that isn't her, isn't anyone else in the homes and to this day, can not be matched to anyone.
DNA doesn't lie.
Last I checked that wasn't a crime.
Don't care. Still freaks me out!!!
I think it's wrong.
Right. That's your opinion, and one I disagree with.
They called the police before their lawyer. The Boulder PD bothched this case badly, no doubt about it. But now there may be a break, at least an eventual break.
At the time of JonBenet's autopsy DNA extraction technolgy was unable to get a full genetic profile from the genetic evidence at the scene. Now, a decade later, from two small blood stains left at the scene, investigators have a profile of someone not associated with the home.
Great article on the case here...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
This profile is run through CODIS and eventually will come up with a hit. The person/people who murdered JonBenet will eventually screw up, murder again and this DNA profile will show up. Cases that go back 20+ years have been solved this way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.