For years we have been pointing out that the BORG damns the Ramseys for anything and everything - - - sometimes they even have two versions of a story and find fault with the Ramseys for both - - and they don't know if either is the truth!

Elsewhere we have spoken about the red jumpsuit that was in the hall outside JonBenét's bedroom. As Patsy was getting ready for the trip, she saw the jumpsuit, remembered there had been a spot on it and she laid it out so she would remember to bring it to the cleaners when time allowed.

From that, the BORG has her washing it, rinsing it, soaking it - they even have some poeters who think it was actually the red turtleneck that was found in JonBenét's bathroom.

We have patiently tried to clear up their errors - the facts are here but they still confuse things on the BORG forums -

and this morning there is a post suggesting that ... well - -

Figment(I might suggest a better name might be figment of the BORG mindset) posted that "... Patsy's claims as to rinsing the "jumpsuit" that morning always bothered me..." (Rinsing? Patsy didn't say that.) Then Figment went on to tell why this act reflects bad on Patsy.

Figment posted, "The inconsistent behavior pertaining to the morning's time constraints, as well as cleaning-up being so un-patsy! Not to mention the connection and support this lends to the possibility that this had something to do with JB's bedwetting."

Good Grief!

I can't imagine it took Patsy more than 30 seconds to notice the jumpsuit there, to pick it up and lay it out in the open. As for "cleaning-up being so un-patsy" - where has this poster been? Patsy usually did the laundry and was packing for a couple events - - how is this uncharacteristic?

The poster went on - "The Ramsey's and their endless stream of inconsistencies and obvious lies is really unbelievable"

I think the BORG attacks at this ppint is what is amazing - - how can they go on after seeing the documentaries and reading the depositions, the Carnes decision and DA Keenan's statement?

Whatever - they can and do.

Figment had a question - hir seems to recall - "...reading somewhere that in the police report, JB was described as being found in a light-colored turtleneck. Is this just a misprint? Everything else I've read says crewneck. Just curious."

We have photos and reports and statements and.... the BORG goes on and on in ignorance - - - and nothing they discuss is helping identify the killer or get justice.

The poster signed hir post - *Figment333* - maybe the number 666 would be more appropriate.

Why_Nut has pointed out that Detective Jim Byfield wrote this in one of the search warrants:

The girl's lips were blue; she appeared to have livor mortis on her back side of her body; she had rigor mortis; she was not breathing. JonBenet was dressed in a light colored long-sleeved turtleneck and light-colored pants (similar to pajama bottoms).

Since then we have learned that it was not a turtleneck.

Time to move on.

The neckline of her shirt isn't going to tell us who killed JonBenét.

What I would point out is that some BORG said they thought Patsy choked JonBenét with her shirt - grabbed the neck and tightened it to kill her daughter and later made the garotte to cover up what REALLY happened.

That theory was discredited early on. There is no evidence supporting that - - the neck of the sweater was not twisted or stretched and the marks on JonBenét's neck are consistant with the cord being used to kill her - - only the cord. There was no other weapon, no hands were used either.

>Time to move on.

Once something become politicized, it is virtually impossible for the opposing camps to move on. Intransigence is their only virtue.

Consider not just the world of murder but also such things as bootcamps, vaccines, breast cancer, the Middle East. These are really waring camps wedded to a particular viewpoint. "One in Eight" is really considered to be, at best, meaningless propaganda, yet once there is a 'political faction' there is no longer any meaningful investigation of the issues. There is no middle ground. There is no consideration of the evidence. There is simply a barrage of words sent up by opposing sides whose only goal is to silence the other side.

This is the only real forum for sleuths or would-be sleuths rather than flame throwing fanatics.

We can look back and see that mistakes were made early in the case and a dis-information campaign was initiated. I wish those who waged such a campaign could abandon it and reconsider the evidence, not the emotions, but, as in any war, emotions run too high for anyone to worry about evidence.

And that is why we will probably continue to hear about red turtlenecks and no footprints and pageant-mothers.

This is the relevant section of the 1997 transcript....

Transcript of Patsy Ramsey 's 1997 BOULDER POLICE INTERVIEW:
. . .
Tom Trujillo : Patsy , let’s go ahead and um, start out on December 26th when you first woke up in the morning . . .

PR: Um hum.

Tom Trujillo : . . .and again as you (inaudible) on the 25th, kind of give us a, almost a play by play, minute by minute, what did you do when you got out of bed? Where was John at? That sort of thing. All the way through the morning to the afternoon. Let’s kind of take it, we’ll take it in little chunks.

PR: Okay. Um, we got up at about 5:30, I think. I think John got up first and I got up just right behind him and he went to his bathroom and shower. I went to my bathroom. I did not shower that morning and I just put my clothes on and uh, did my hair and makeup and uh and then I started down the stairs, John was still in the bathroom and went uh, I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area um, and I remember the ironing board was up I think and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenet’s cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area and uh, um then I started down the spiral staircase there. I came, I had come back down, I’d come down the back bedroom stairs there. . .

Much has been made of such things as 'same clothes' or 'makeup'. I see nothing at all wrong. The stuff about the ironing board being up and the garment being there, I think it was simply a spontaneously undertaken task that was perfectly sensible. How many women would remove a coffee stain promptly from a garment rather than going on a cruise and returning ten days later? Yet people see something wrong with taking the time in the early morning to attend to a task like that.

Note: Did Patsy observe a knife at that time, the one at the side of the laundry room countertop that didn't really show too well in the police photograph? I think she would have mentioned it. I'm sure the intruder had left the house by then.

I was so angry when I realized they had only shown photographs to the Ramseys and not the actual evidence.

>I was so angry when I realized they had only shown
>photographs to the Ramseys and not the actual evidence.

Yes, particularly when they knew in advance that the photograph was, too say the least, not of good quality in its depiction of that item. After all, they could have simply signed it out of the evidence room. Its only a matter of filling out a simple form and signing the logbook. A few minutes at the most.

We are often faced with risk evaluation situations and usually act in ignorance.

There are zillions of 'walkathons for aids' but none for 'death by lightening' or 'drowning in a bathtub'. Yet a middle aged heterosexual has a greater risk of those two events than he has of contracting aids. Male breast cancer is very rare but more males are diagnosed with it each year than males who contracted aids since the threat began.

When our information is so skewed as to have deceptive advertising and blatant propaganda, it is no wonder we have an absurd set of priorities.

Now I can understand that a woman might be intellectually interested to learn that that the chances of contracting aids after one condomless act with a partner who is not in a high risk group is 1 in 5million. She might even be interested in knowing that she could have one anonymous partner a day for almost an entire year and still have a better chance of winning first prize in the lottery than of contracting aids. However, she would NOT want her teenage daughter to know these statistics.

But in truth we simply react to slogans and headlines and no one really wants to analyze data and act in a sensible manner.

We keep hearing about 4 went to sleep and 3 woke up, you do the math.
We keep hearing about 'inlaws before outlaws'.

These are blatant obsessions that have no place in a legitimate investigation.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good BORG post.

"We keep hearing about 4 went to sleep and 3 woke up, you do the math.
We keep hearing about 'inlaws before outlaws'."

This is usually right, am I right? Over 50% of the time? (I am perceiving those statements to mean look at the family first.) Maybe well over 50%? But I read you to say get past it; there are too many times when it is different. Anyway, there are too many times when it is different even if that's not what you are saying. Yet, imho, no one is right and no one is wrong and no one will know until the killer is identified.

Clem, how long should the focus remain on the family with no results? WHEN is it time to look past the family?

Yes, no one disputes the family is the first place to look, but should the case get shelved when it doesn't pan out with the family as the first suspects to be looked at thoroughly? This case sat dormant for a few years because they just could not make a case against either of the "3". Is that how an investigation should work? Stop when your 'favorite' suspects don't slip nicely and easily into THE guilty slot?

>Yes, no one disputes the family is the first place to look,
The cops still went through the motions in the Susan Smith case even though they knew she did not have any scuffed shoes and that a woman whose children were being driven away would have grabbed a door handle and been dragged. When she changed the location that this all took place in, they knew who was responsible.

One city's police dept. issued fliers and had searches, even though they knew the store's surveillance tape showed the woman entering the store alone and engaging in abolutely no 'searching behavior' prior to suddenly running up to a store clerk and saying she can't find her daughter.