Wednesday, 2 March 2016



UDATE  04.03.16 

I see the rabid McCann 'pros' are equally rabid in their support of the parents of Jonbenet Ramsey.  BB1, in full pillar of the community righteous mode claims I am accusing cancer victimS of killing their children, making it plural for extra impact.  She is completely ignoring the fact that Steve Thomas and the other officers were completely vindicated by the revelation that the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramseys. 

But worse, in her defence of the cancer victim (singular) Patsy, she is also completely disregarding the fate of the murder victim, the 6 year old Jonbenet, a little girl who's short life was horrifically ended by the cancer victim.  She prefers to believe the myth of the intruder in the Jonbenet case, just as she prefers the myth of the abductor in the case of Madeleine.  Because in her world, nice successful people like the Ramseys and the McCanns should be above suspicion.  And the only reason people suspect them is because they are jealous of their success. 

Unfortunately, that primitive, Amish mentality permeates every level of society and includes celebrity television presenters, newspaper columnists, supposed criminologists and even high ranking police chiefs.  They simply cannot get past the fact that people who do not fit the 'usual suspect' criteria are capable of committing heinous crimes.  They prefer to believe in the bogeyman, because, heck, that's what they were taught when they were 5, and it kinda works. 

We have to accept that people like BB1 are incapable of thinking outside the box, because they form part of the masses soothed by the gospel like words of those in authority and those they look up to for care and guidance.  They accept that those 'above them' on the evolutionary scale know what's best for them and they are happy to pass responsibility for their lives onto someone else.  There is no point in trying to get through to these people, they have a mental block the size of China's Wall and you could chip away until Doomsday without making a dent.

Others however, face the very real danger of looking like absolute eejits, those high ranking policemen who aligned themselves so closely to the former suspects, those expert criminologists who said the parents couldn't have done it, and who have put forward their own detailed theories on how Madeleine disappeared and the lying expert who said they were 100% truthful.  And what of those major charities?  Where is the morality in using a non missing child to front their campaigns, when real missing children could really use their help.    

As has been said many times, if the McCanns had been unemployed Council house dwellers, this crime would have been solved 8+ years ago, because no-one would have protested at the parents coming under scrutiny and huge questions would have been asked as to why they needed a multimillion pound fund. 

This dominant ideology that the well educated and the well heeled are incapable of law breaking, protected the Ramseys and protects the McCanns.  Whilst it is mostly harmless in dimwits like BB1, it is petrifying in those responsible for upholding and administering justice.  What I admire mostly in Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, is the level to which they are educated - far higher it would appear than the 'you're nicked' old thieftaker mentality of their UK counterparts.  Goncalo Amaral for example, has an indepth knowledge of human behaviour, ably demonstrated in his book The Truth of the Lie and the dignified way in which he has faced his accusers. 

What we may be seeing, at the moment, is the saving of lots of beacon red faces. A lot of people are going to look very silly, and a lot of people are going to look far more than silly, they are going to look downright corrupt.  The huge errors made in Whitehall may eventually result in a secretary or a filing clerk getting their marching orders.  The lawyers can simply say, that's what they do, morality has no place in litigation fees.  The police agencies and the secret services however, should be squirming.  Especially all those who rushed out to PDL to assist the British citizens who were being interrogated by the Portuguese police.  Those particular red faces should glow for miles, because they included seasoned, high ranking coppers who were hoodwinked by a group of doctors who considered them, their intellectual inferiors.  And if someone lies to you, and you believe them, that's exactly what they think.  

I think we are all still here 9 years on, because those blinded by their own little Englander, middle class prejudices are too embarrassed to admit they got it so wrong.  The Portuguese police were far from the untrained, third world fascist thugs the UK media portrayed them as.  The McCanns were not being brutalised by vicious, uniformed interrogators, they were, quite rightly, being asked perfectly reasonable questions about their daughter's disappearance.  The worse Kate could say about the Portuguese police, was that they were shabbily dressed (understandable, they were sleeping in the office), they were smoking and they didn't offer herself and her husband light refreshments.  

We can debate the differences between UK and Portuguese culture ad infinitum, but in my opinion it was the 'little Englander' approach that fucked it all up. The UK tabloids carried sensational front pages of tired and hungry officers from the PJ taking lunch breaks with wine.  Shock, horror, how dare they, Maddie is still missing, the headlines screamed, completely disregarding the fact that those officers were working 24/7 to find the missing English child, and many didn't go to their own homes for days.  

The Portuguese police, like the British police, is made up of Officers who are parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts etc.  That is human beings who empathise with the plight of a vulnerable child.  They, more than any of us, want to discover what happened to the victim.  For the majority of them, it is why they joined the police in the first place.  They want to 'protect'.  Those who accuse the Portuguese police are not taking into account, that the PJ and their families actually lived in the danger zone.  Why on earth would they leave a child predator on the loose?

But this is a 'class' rant.  The world I think is mostly bemused by the old British class system, in fact they have created class systems of their own, loosely based on the ideals of the Domesday book - though the US I believe, still claims to be a meritocracy.  But in favour of the US, they are not afraid to challenge wrong doers at or near the top of their own hierarchy.  There are no taboos, their fearless reporters will ask the great and the good outright, 'did you do it'. 

The UK less so.  Probably because it still hangs onto those outdated libel laws that make London the capital for get rich quick chancers and vexatious litigants.  The McCanns of course are pushing for stricter libel laws, and if I'm reading them correctly, prison for those journalists who dare to say anything nasty about them.  They have placed themselves at the top of the Mail readers and outraged middle classes pile, by turning themselves into eternal victims of irresponsible free speech.  The libel laws that exist in this country have protected the suspects in the case of missing Madeleine McCann for almost 9 years, if ever a case were needed to illustrate how harmful these restrictive UK laws have been, then it is this one. 


The tragic case of Jonbenet Ramsey has far more in common with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann than the heartbreaking case of little April Jones.  In the mother of April Jones, we saw real pain and we empathised.  We understood her agony because she couldn't hide it, that is, she reacted as we knew we would if it happened to us.  

The mothers of Jonbenet and Madeleine however, are entirely different.  They both seem devoid of that gut wrenching 'I would lay down my life for my child' maternal instinct that grips the rest of us when our newborn is first placed in our arms.  The fact that both their daughters disappeared in highly suspicious circumstances, (Jonbenet was discovered dead soon after) and their ferocious self preservation instincts link them further.

Both married Alpha males - sound hunter gatherers who would provide the lifestyle they desired.  But it's not all about the women, Gerry has much in common with John Ramsey - when being interviewed they both take 'control' - theirs' is the voice of authority, they take the higher ground by patronising those they consider beneath (almost everyone, maybe not Paxman).  When it is a female presenter, I suspect they have to fight back the paternal urge to pat them on the heads. Both struggle to be likeable, it's not in their nature.  

But the similarities between the Ramseys and the McCanns, don't stop there.  Kate, like Patsy, was approaching her 40th birthday and also frazzled.  Patsy was preparing for a flight the next morning that she didn't want to go on.  Kate was struggling to cope with 3 toddlers and a macho husband who appeared to do little of his share.  He distanced himself from his family on the bus journey, and swore in front of all the mothers and kids as he growled that he wasn't there to enjoy himself.  It wasn't exactly an auspicious start to the holiday. 

The strange behaviour of the Ramseys set off alarm bells with the first officers on the scene.  Ditto, the McCanns.  This strange behaviour included inviting over all their friends, relatives, the pastor etc, while they waited for the arrival of a full police task force.  Like Apartment 5A, the crimescene was not sealed off, trashed some might say, but in any event key evidence was lost or tampered with.   

The Ramseys, like the McCanns, immediately called lawyers and set in motion a campaign to establish their innocence, they had wealth and connections, and they used them.  They also stopped co-operating with the police and set up their own investigations that always concluded Jonbenet was murdered by an intruder.  30 years on, no-one has ever been charged.

The Jonbenet case like Madeleine case, had hundreds, if not thousands of armchair detectives and conspiracy theorists working their socks off to find answers that would incriminate their enemies and people they don't like, and a section of the moral majority who believe that deviant sex lies at the heart of all society's ills.  Child pornography and paedophile rings forming the basis of their whacky claims. Happily, they have a very limited audience, most who are still here are appalled at the injustice shown to these children and the murky cover ups behind them. 

I have long believed that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter.  There is no doubt in my mind that she wrote the 'ransom note' found at the scene.  When the police arrived, she was still wearing the same clothes and makeup - she hadn't been to bed.  How do I know this?  Because Jonbenet, like Madeleine had an 'Avenger' too.  Steve Thomas was the Boulder police detective who never gave up on the victim, just as Goncalo Amaral has never given up on Madeleine.  He too fell out with his superiors, wrote a book and was sued by the parents. 

Steve Thomas was 'Guided by a police axiom that "murders are usually what they seem"'* he reaches a conclusion that is based on logic, understanding of the circumstances and evidence and one that is devoid of paedophile rings, child pornography, swingers or prowlers.  It is remarkable in its' simplicity, it explains in terms that could not be plainer, the most likely series of events that led to Jonebenet's death and the discovery of her body in the basement. 

For those who study human behaviour and the fine art of lying, I urge you to watch this video I have only just discovered on Youtube.  It is a recording of the evidence given to the Grand Jury in 1999, that led to their decision to indict the Ramseys.  A decision that was overturned by the District Attorney Alex Hunter because he felt there wasn't enough evidence to get a conviction. If they had prosecuted and lost, they would not get the opportunity again.  As it transpired, the Ramseys were never prosecuted.

In October 2013, Steve Thomas, Jonbenet's Avenger, was vindicated as details of the 1999's Grand Jury's findings were released (see link below).  This short 33 minute documentary is a little gem for those of us looking at the Madeleine case from a psychological perspective, the interviews with the Ramseys are very intensive, they give much away!  Patsy is wearing a small crucifix at her throat, and robes she may have pinched from passing Archbishop. John Ramsey is the angry Patriarch defending his wife and family, not even bothering to disguise the contempt he has for those who question him.  A chilling trait shared by you know who. 

I don't know what has become of Steve Thomas, but I hope that life is treating him well.  Like Goncalo Amaral, he never forgot the victim of the crime he was investigating and he wouldn't kowtow to the intruder myth that was being sold by the massive Ramsey publicity machine.  He would not be gagged, just as Goncalo will not be gagged. 

I am glad that nearly 30 years later Steve Thomas was finally vindicated, but I am sad for little Jonbenet and even for all those who had to live with the cover up for the rest of their lives.  And I am sad that wealth and power enables some people to get away with the most heinous of crimes and indeed, profit from them.  They would prefer to smother and silence the good policemen and women who speak out, rather than disrupt the paradigm. 

The officers working for Operation Grange already have their futures mapped out for them on that whiteboard.  This case could make or break careers and it is highly unlikely that 30 lemmings existed amongst Scotland Yard's finest, officers willing to sacrifice their futures to protect two, not very likeable, doctors from the midlands.  Operation Grange are dealing with extremely litigious former suspects, and who may still have someone in the thick of it with the ability to pull strings.  The officer in charge of the original investigation is desperately trying to hang on to his few remaining possessions before they are seized by the grieving parents.  

It is my feeling that Operation Grange face the same predicament as that faced by Alex Hunter.  Perhaps they do not feel confident that they have enough evidence to get a conviction, and given the huge legal resources the McCanns have at their fingertips (as did the Ramseys), do they dare try?  Team McCann have had 9 years and the 'best' legal minds available to prepare their Defence, all they have to do is create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, and they walk.  

But I am not making excuses for Operation Grange because I am hoarse from shouting 'Behind You!'.  In the words of Steve Thomas 'murders are usually what they seem', so what is the hold up?  Killer revealed 'Who killed Jonbenet Ramsey


Steve Thomas :


  1. As well as the similarities, there are differences. There was no worldwide publicity from day one. The first I heard of this case was in 1999 and of course the poor child's body was quickly found.

    By the way, it happened in December 1996 so it's nowhere near 30 years ago yet.

  2. This is all re-cycled trash.

    You know nothing about Jonbenet Ramsey or Madeleine McCaan's murder except what you have chosen to read or watch on television. Have you ever spoken to anyone who was actually there or involved in either of these cases?

    You know nothing about the Ramsey family or Madeleine McCaan's family except what you have chosen to read or watch on tv. Have you ever spoken to any of the family members of either family?

    1. So only those who actually have spoken to the family members are allowed to write their opinions?

    2. Recycled trash? Who else has pointed out the similarities between the Ramseys and the McCanns?

      It is not necessary for me to speak personally to members of either family - there is enough information available in both cases for me to have an opinion.

    3. I can't see how anyone could know about either case except from what they've read or seen on the television. It seems a bit odd to criticise Ros for writing about something just because she wasn't "there". I'm presuming you weren't "there" in either of these cases? But you still have an opinion, and an obvious interest in both cases; otherwise you wouldn't bother to read this blog and Ros's comments at all. I suggest you stick to what you've actually seen in a day, if you really want to come across as authentic - to yourself, or others...

  3. Oh For God's Sake - you are now an expert in the JonBenét Ramsey case? (note the correct spelling of the name)

    Your blog posts get worse and more irrelevant to the facts - your opinion is rubbish and quite frankly you have become a laughing stock (as most anti's have pointed out)

  4. Oh do calm down 19:58, you will bust a blood vessel. If my blog posts are irrelevant and my opinions are rubbish, why have you got yourself all worked up into such a tizzy?

    I can give my opinion on anything I like, and you 19:38 can stamp your feet or throw yourself bodily onto the ground, but I will continue to write exactly what I like about any subject I choose.

    1. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 March 2016 at 20:44

      Continue to do so and I will continue to comment - block my comments if you want - it is you that is making a fool of yourself.

      No tizzy, no stamping of feet, no throwing myself on the ground - just comment at the unproven rubbish that you write. Believe me - it is easy and not at all stressful.

    2. If you think she is making a fool of herself, then what is that of your business? If you don't like what she writes, then why do you keep on reading? Just stop and go eslwhere. So easy... Or start writing a blog yourself. Or do you have already one? Then stay there and keep on delighting your readers with your charming and expert opinion.

    3. Btw, it is you, who is making a fool of yourself, you sound like a childish grown up: "Continue to do so and I will continue to comment"...

    4. Ah, tis fear of making a fool of oneself that stops most people from doing most things. I actually don't give two hoots.

      And why should you 21:20 be concerned if I make a fool of myself? From your perspective, I would have thought that was a good thing, lol.

  5. Anonymous 18:16

    Is there anything you might be able to tell us about Madeleine McCann's murder?

    1. @ Anonymous2 March 2016 at 20:48

      "But I am not making excuses for Operation Grange because I am hoarse from shouting 'Behind You!'. In the words of Steve Thomas 'murders are usually what they seem', so what is the hold up?"

      I believe it is Ros that should tell us about the murder.

    2. "Is there anything you might be able to tell us about Madeleine McCann's murder?"

      No. I don't know or have never met anyone actually involved in the case. The same for Jonbenet Ramsey. That's probably why I don't spend my time reading through published witness reports and translations of reports to come up with scenario after scenario trying desperately to punish someone that I have never met for a crime that I, an amateur investigator, have determined her to be guilty of based on the fact that she wore earrings and lipstick in a television interview weeks after the disappearance of her daughter.

    3. Ah, I think a couple of you would very much like me to go down the murder line so you can scream libel and get my blog shut down. The secret of my success (lol)lies in my ability to plant seeds, I'm a wordsmith, 20:48, my aim is to get the readers thinking for themselves. It works splendidly btw, my regular readers understand my subtext - people like yourself are irritated by it, but here is the beauty, I haven't said anything you can sue me for. I'm quite a few rungs up from Mr. Bennett.

  6. Great article Ros. I cannot believe what I have just watched. It was a jaw-dropper throughout, but when Patsy denied recognising her own handwriting, I was speechless. And then him!

    1. It was a jaw-dropper throughout for me too Himself. It explained so much and for me and removed any small nagging doubts I had about Jonbenet's demise. I think once you accept that Patsy was the author of the ransom note, the intruder theory is busted.

      I think Steve Thomas's theory throws a human light on the events that led to Jonbenet's death in a way that the viewer can understand. There is no sensationalism, no cunning plans, no Dr. Evil masterminds, just a moment of fury that led to consequences that were devastating. All covered up by a domineering father determined to preserve the integrity of his family.

      Both cases I think illustrate that justice, and innocence carry a price tag, that the super rich can pick up off a shelf. People like the Ramseys and the McCanns can buy the opinion of 'experts' of any discipline, criminal profilers and documentary makers are a commodity like any other. People who are prepared to follow one line of investigation and no other.

      What saddens me is that the public, as a whole, tend to believe these 'experts', because they are unaware that expertise can be tailored to fit any cloth. For any court case you will have experts for the prosecution and experts for the defence - clearly they do not agree with each other. Unless of course they are 'respected' experts, except of course, 'respect' is now also a commodity. You can purchase 'likes' in large quantities, as a quick glance at the Official Find Madeleine page demonstrates - seriously, they get more 'likes' than Justin Bieber!

      Steve Thomas cuts away all the crap and clutter and gets directly to the heart of the Jonbenet mystery. The case did not need to be embellished, it was a tragedy that could have happened in thousands of homes. Patsy Ramsey did not strike me as the kind of mother who would have much patience for bedwetting, particularly as she was tired and stressed.

      The evil lay in the fact that she did not call for help for Jonbenet, she put her own need for survival above that of medical assistance for her daughter or the right of her daughter to be respected in death. More chillingly, she was hanging onto everything she had worked so hard for.

      The evil lay in the cover up that followed and the myths created by Team Ramsey and the more psychotic members of those purporting to be fighting for justice for Jonbenet. For them, there HAS to be more to it.

  7. You can't even get the basic fact right. It is not quite 29 years yet let alone 30.

    As for the abuse aspect. Shows your complete lack of research. Jo Benet showed history of repeated sexual abuse ans injuries confirming same.

    Your delusions grow Roz. Do you really believe you are the FIRST person to ever compare the cases? #fail

    1. As I posted yesterday, the crime happened in December 1996 so it isn't 29 years either.

    2. Nearly 3 decades in the case of Jonbenet Ramsey, and coming up to one decade with Madeleine. Those being pedantic are missing the point.

    3. Ros, it will be 20 years in December. You know how any factual errors you make are pounced on by your critics from a great height!

    4. I seem to have added a decade, Oops, thanks for clearing that up Caroline :)

    5. You are entirely mistaken about the proven sexual abuse claims. There were some experts who believed that prior sexual abuse was indicated, but the overwhelming majority of experts stated that there was no evidence for prior sexual abuse. So stop telling Ros to get her facts right and do her research. Do some more of it yourself.

  8. My God Ros, you do have some very twisted readers that throw hissy fits because you have an opinion.

    Are you demanding the police read your work and waste time following up your research and sending in dozens of FOI demands to know the state of the investigation?

    I hope not, so why do people have a problem with you?

    On the other hand, we have a motley gang of idiots bombarding the authorities with ill founded 'research', FOI requests, petitions and other nonsense.

    Among this throng is:

    Tony Bennett
    R D Hall
    Peter Mac
    Hi-de Ho

    All of RDH's latest crap is based on weather data crap,apparently produced by an ex wooden top. You couldn't make it up, but unfortunately they do,all the time.

    They have the audacity to set themselves up as 'expert researchers',and have given themselves the authority to harass witnesses, which is fine for their gullible followers but is seriously wasting police time and resources in the hunt for what happened to a child.

    This is disgusting, so the people needling Cristobell should really probe the motives and 'research' of these idiots interfering with an active police investigation. It would be so much more worthwhile.

    1. No, I don't do any of those things JJ, because I don't want to interfere with any future trial and I think it is morally wrong to 'investigate' people who had the misfortune to be named in the police files. Who the hell do these 'researchers' think they are?

  9. In slating me for not knowing about the Jonbenet case, you claim there was a history of sexual abuse. The experts did not agree on the history of sexual abuse - the crime scene was staged to look as though Jonbenet had been murdered by a sexual predator. The forensics don't support your claim, so that would be, yes, a fail.

  10. Sex abuse claims were dubious, although I personally tend towards abuse. Burt as Arthur C Clarke once uttered: For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.

  11. Oh, and troll, must try harder.

    You can't even get the basic fact right. It is not quite 29 years yet let alone 30.

    1. I'll give you that, however it proves a point that Roz and her supporters can and will dismiss any evidence that doesn't suit, age of case being a basic piece of information.
      Ironic that chief troll himself accuses others.

      The medical history proved previous abuse.

    2. The medical history proved no such thing 16:52, if it had they would have been prosecuted. The medical evidence was one of the points of contention.

    3. Prosecute who? Proving abuse and proving the perpetrator(s) are two different creatures.

      Have you read the evidence of, coincidently Dr McCann? I am not stating there was evidence in her medical history (although persistent bedwetting and chronic infections should be a clue) but to the evidence gleaned, by experts from the autopsy report.

    4. The autopsy report was far from clean cut 23:02. I believe in the very rational explanation given by Detective Steve Thomas. The murder was made to look like a sex crime, because if you remove the sex element, what other motive would an intruder/ murderer have?

    5. I'm not going to repeat the autopsy findings here out of respect for the child but have you read it?
      Contention comes from those wishing to prove the Ramsey's had no part in her death.

      If you can show an innocent reason a child of her age had the chronic injuries she had then I would be very interested to hear them.

      It Seems Roz that once again you've latched onto one part/theory of a case ( the detective) and decided that has to be the right path.

    6. I'm gonna chuck that right back at ya 00:12. It seems you have latched onto one part/theory of this case - the sexual element - and decided that has to be the right path to the exclusion of all others.

      The detective Steve Thomas, who's life was dramatically altered by this case and who I am sure understands the autopsy findings far more than you do, explains quite clearly how this case was not sexually motivated. I don't want to be graphic either, but the crime had been staged to look as though a paedophile had raped and murdered her. What other reason could there be for her being found dead in the basement?

      And you might care to note that Steve Thomas is quite clearly stating that Patsy murdered Jonbenet and John Ramsey took control after. He is not trying to prove they played no part in her death, he is trying to prove the opposite!

  12. The YouTube film is very interesting, Ros. One of the things I noticed while watching it was the way Patsy shook her head throughout her statements about JonBenet. It's a really odd juxtaposition, as people more usually nod to reaffirm what they're saying. In fact, the only other time I've particularly noticed this quirk before was in the McCann-approved documentary, when Jane Tanner was talking about the abductor she said she saw.

    1. It is a strange quirk indeed, and there is an even more glaring example of it, in the McCanns faux police conference where Dave Edgar's mouth says yes while his head was clearly saying no. (or was it the other way round, lol).

      For those studying, or even just intrigued by the subject of body language and lying, there are mountains of resources just with these two cases alone. There is also a psychotic look in the eye captured by Patsy, one other and Jack Nicholson in 'The Shining'!


  14. Publish or not Ros, but this is so far off the mark it's naive at best, laughable in the norm. You might consider a re-work. The USA is a moneytocracy, by the by. And the MSM is far more subservient to power than even our own lickspittles.

    though the US I believe, still claims to be a meritocracy. But in favour of the US, they are not afraid to challenge wrong doers at or near the top of their own hierarchy. There are no taboos, their fearless reporters will ask the great and the good outright, 'did you do it'.

  15. I have no problems with you disagreeing with me Himself, though I should point out the key words were 'claims to be' a meritocracy.

    Where the cases of Jonbeet and Madeleine differ, is the direct questioning from those who interviewed them. Those 'did you do it' questions have been notable by their absence in the case of the McCanns. They are not only presumed innocent, they are given standing ovations and awards!

  16. well educated and well heeled.....the Mcc`s.....REALLY !!!!! LOL

  17. Christobell have you watched the interview with Linda Arndt from 1999? She was in the house when Jon Benet was found.

    1. Yes I have, a couple of times 19:47. She is a very believable witness, though her eyes look a bit mad at times! Her account is quite bizarre, as is the response of Boulder police, she was managing the situation on her own for several hours. It was of course Christmas, but it was strange anyway, and the crime scene wasn't sealed off.

  18. Roz, 00.31- 4 March.

    I certainly have not latched onto the abuse aspect to the exclusion of other scenarios and you should start to comprehend comments instead of skimming what you think you can criticise. The post mortem clearly showed signs of chronic abuse as did the child's medical records.

    Now, your 'update'.

    You need to stop trying to appear so very knowledgeable about this case when it is clear you have latched onto Thomas as defender of all things good and will not budge.

    Yes we are told the grand jury voted to indict in '99 but you omit to mention that a full and frank apology was given to the Ramsey's in '08 clearing them of any involvement in their daughter's death!

    Has it crossed your mind there might be good reason for this?

    Before you label me a 'halfwit' like others who dare disagree with you, I am very cynical even after the apology and struggle to get past the note aspect, nevertheless innocence has been decreed and I am forced to presume, on more evidence than we are privy to.

    A word of advice. Stop trying to be so clever. Where did you pluck the Amish comment from? If ever there was a community less influenced by class and culture I'd like you to point me in its direction. Then the comment about the USA. More rot. As loathe as I am to agree with your recently acquired mutual fan club,the US is more press/ financially lead via corruption than any nation in the world or have I missed something you haven't.... Again?

    Finally, your favourite comparison to everything, the Mccanns. I personally believe they are complicit in the disappearance of Madeleine but until proof positive is provided who are you to insult those who choose to believe in Kate & Gerry's innocence? And btw, there was plenty of media criticism of them in the early days, just like the unfettered, free US media (snigger)

    Finally, enough of the interminable cod psychology. Watching a few videos and reading a couple of books does not make you an expert in the nuances of human language and movement via a TV screen. Likewise your denigrating comments about UK police. Again, I'm not a fan but make no mistake, degree or not no senior officer reaches high rank without being wiley, political and a good 'thief taker'. If you seriously believe any senior officers have been 'hoodwinked' by the Mccanns and their middleclass status then you need to re 'hone' those fabulous psychology skills you brag about.

    Oh, one last thing. You try to mock the conspiracy theorists for holding onto one aspect then castigate the ' Little Britain' bb1 for having total faith in all authority. So firstly you are contradicting yourself and secondly your spidey skills seem to have failed you. I don't share the same beliefs as those who inhabit the forum with bb1 however even a cursory peek will tell you they certainly are not enamoured of the establishment or its ability to get everything 100% right.

    In trying to appear cleverer than you are you are looking more ridiculous.

    1. @ Anonymous6 March 2016 at 05:01

      Good accurate comments.

    2. OK, to the point 05:01, on what basis were the Ramseys given the apology in 2008? What 'cleared' them? - though you still claim there was a history of sexual abuse? Are you saying the Ramseys were responsible for the 'history' of sexual abuse, but not the murder? Stop telling me what I shouldn't do and make yourself clear.

    3. I have no idea in what basis ( lack of clear evidence of their involvement if I take a wild guess).

      I am not saying anything as I have not been privy to the full facts. What I am saying is, the autopsy and the child's previous & numerous medical history points to abuse. As stated before, without an admission or clear forensic evidence it is impossible to prove who the abuser of any child is.

      Again, as above I base my belief in the Ramsey's guilt in Patsy's ridiculous response regarding the provenance of the ransom note.

    4. Roz 10.56

      How is acknowledging the medical history/autopsy contradicting the public 2008 apology!?

      Are you understanding what I have written? I do believe the parents are responsible however without proof positive it has to be acknowledged that a public statement of exoneration was issued.

      Your second point and demeaning 'do keep up'. You realise your statement makes no sense? So what if the 'revelation' that the grand jury wanted to indict in '99 was made public in 2013?

      Do you think that the legal agency which issued the exoneration were not aware of this? Do you think it's a case of ''Aww shucks, if we'd known this was going to be made public we would have ignored all evidence subsequent to '99 & had the buggers locked up''?

      Para 3, nice cop out. Your style of writing makes any incorrect statements a comprehension problem for the readers not the writer. Hmm.

      Next, I hardly think the inhabitants of a forum ate 'running the show'. Someone is but I doubt JATYK2 are anynore privy to the protection mechanism ( if there is one) than you or I are.

      Police: I mentioned nothing about a reward system nor do I recall did you. The thrust of your piece was that they are stupid uneducated plods. Whilst the majority of the foot soldiers are just that ( I seem to recall a case, can't remember which authority, where the police were refusing to recruit anyone with an IQ above a certain level!), those in command are not. To state law enforcement dance to the piper's tune is Roz, stating the bleeding obvious.

      Don't turn round Roz, you never know who's watching!I made no comment on your education but do find it amusing how you think you can 'suss' anyone from their actions/words via a YouTube vid.

      A thirst for knowledge is an admirable trait, one I have myself however as I have learnt over the years, forming a considered opinion about a subject is very difficult given the subject matter available on most things these days. Invariably we are swayed by the first impressions we glean from early research and normally will not budge, that 'biased' opinion being ingrained. I am guilty of this, I think most of us are. JoBenet & Madeleine cases are prime examples. As a manic depressive I'm sure you flit from obsession to obsession ( obvious from your blog with the exception of McCann), making it difficult to study anything in real depth.

      Not sure about taken in as influenced by initial media then taken over by apathy. See also above. Initial reactions and opinions are hard to change and remember most people have neither the interest of inclination to follow a case further than the first weeks headlines.

      Exasperating as some opinions within JATYK2 are, they are as much entitled as we are to ours. I think you generalise a little too much.

      Yes you carry on Roz. I admire your self believe. Carry on!

    5. The 2008 'exoneration' was clearly political, where is the EVIDENCE that categorically ruled the parents out? The idea that there is evidence we are not privy to is ludicrous. If you have the time there are hours and hours of testimonies given to the Grand Jury. In a nutshell, what was discovered between 1999 and 2008 that exonerated the parents? It's a straightforward question.

      You cannot understand why those in high office would exonerate a rich and powerful man like John Ramsey and his deceased wife. Seriously?

      Bravo at your amateur effort to psychoanalyse me, lol, yes I do indeed become over enthusiastic and enthralled by new subjects that interest me, but make no mistake 00:27, I am a finisher. I was determined to take the nuns to Court, tick. I was determined to get a Degree, tick. I was determined to teach English literature, tick. I was determined to write and get published a book about my experience in the convent, tick. I am determined to follow this case through to the very end, tick pending.

      How dare you say I am incapable of studying anything in depth! I would slap you with a glove if you were in front of me! My ability to speed read and cut to the chase is not a flaw you eejit. Read Einstein's quote, if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'.

      Wherever you got the idea that I think the inhabitants of the JATKY2 are the 'rulers' is hilarious? Even a one legged hobbit with half a brain can see that JATKY2 is a gathering of the village idiots.

      And where did you get the idea that I want to shut them up? I believe in freedom of speech for everyone, they have the right to look as stupid as anyone else, though it must be said, they often abuse it.

    6. Was actually thinking, your theory that 'they' have evidence that we are not privy too really is silly. It would be like Operation Grange stating the McCanns are innocent but they can't tell us why. That is, the big old cloud of suspicion would remain.

    7. And Bravo! to you Roz for completely ignoring/misinterpreting everything I wrote.
      I do not recall stating I did not understand why the rich & powerful would exonerate the Ramsey's.

      I did not try to psychoanalysis you in my 'amateur' way. You are the one who insists on purporting to be able to 'read' every little tic & word you come across.

      BTW, I didn't say YOU were incapable of in depth study. I said it was impossible to become an expert on Every subject we take an interest in merely by sheer volume of available opinion these days.

      So now we add speeding reading & cutting comprehension to your ever growing list of self proclaimed skills. As for your Einstein quote, look at some of the responses to your blogs. Must try harder.

      Again, where did I state YOU want to 'shut JATYK2 up'? I merely Saud they are entitled to an opinion.

      So this 'eejit' is out if here.

      You misrepresent, insult and either purposely or because you are unable to respond accurately, lie about what has been written by people.

      Remember Roz, readers only have to scroll bback to see what you have done.

      One last thing. Since when did law enforcement make proclamations regarding the reasons someone is not a suspect?

    8. I really don't understand why you torment yourself by reading my blog, it clearly causes you much distress.

      I can't (and won't) change what I write and the way in which in which I write it, to cater specifically for you, or indeed any of my critics. The idea that you dictate the content of my blogs is ludicrous and it is never going to happen.

      As for your final 'one last thing', the Ramseys, like the McCanns, were living under a bleddy great big cloud of suspicion. You could say it blighted their lives and if no reason is given as to why they are not suspects, the cloud remains and the exoneration statement is worthless. Most people are not as accepting of the word of 'law enforcement' as yourself and 'because we said so' is not an adequate answer. Not for the Ramseys and not for the public.

      Kate and Gerry are caught in that same hellish limbo, their lives will never be the same again.
      The McCann family suffer and will continue to suffer as long as that cloud of suspicion remains.

      If Operation Grange closes by declaring Kate and Gerry innocent, they will have to show why, or the McCann media wars will continue and probably escalate. The whole 4.5 years of work carried out by OG will have been completely pointless if there is no result. They will have done nothing for the family because they will remain under suspicion, and they will have failed to discover what happened to Madeleine. Do governments invest £10m+ in an investigation that can't achieve anything?

    9. There are conflicting reports about the "chronic" sexual abuse of JonBenet Ramsey. Some expert saw evidence of prior sexual abuse, but more experts stated that there was no evidence whatsoever of prolonged or prior sexual abuse. So, you're wrong on that front. You're also wrong in placing any accuracy on the DNA in terms of the innocence of the Ramsey family. Recent information has found that the DNA came from several people; not from one individual male as was stated by the DA that cleared the family. The DNA could have many innocent reasons for being on JonBenet. It was not the same DNA in every spot of her clothing; the DNA came from more than one person and it could have been anyone that JonBenet innocently came in touch with during that week. It could have come from any source, and therefore the whole DNA clearance of the family was a sham. The DA even had this in evidence, but hid it from the public. There are now several videos and articles that explain why the DNA proves nothing in the JonBenet Ramsey case: It is not evidence of guilt or innocence. It's meaningless.

  19. 05;01. But you have grabbed onto one aspect, you still insist there was history of chronic sexual abuse. Which is then contradicted by your later statement that you accept the 2008 'apology' cleared them!

    The 2008 'political' apology was superseded by the 2013 revelation that in 1999, the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramseys. Do keep up.

    My writing style would probably be described as 'stream of consciousness' 05:01, basically, anything that pops into my head may appear! I used the word 'Amish' because they represent 'this is the way it is and always will be' mentality that I was trying to demonstrate. I had wandered slightly from 'class', so I see why you misunderstood.

    Who am I to insult those who believe the McCanns? Err, the reason we are all here 9 years on, is because those who believe the McCanns have been running the show. And they haven't exactly been very fair and just rulers. (saw Gods of Egypt , so expect a bit of mythology over the next few days, lol - great film!).

    I could get into a whole debate with you on the levels of education in the UK police hierarchy, but for now, suffice to say the police operate in much the same way as any capitalist industry, they are rewarded for results and if their results tally with the ideology of the incumbent government, they are rewarded even more.

    As for the interminable 'cod psychology', I am quite amused at your assessment of my knowledge and education, it's almost as if you have been there alongside me this past 58 years (feck me, I hope not, lol).

    I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder 05:01, I read and write constantly - it dates back to early childhood, my thirst for knowledge is unquenchable, and it torments me, because the more I learn, the more aware I am of how little I know. It is probably a cycle that is all too familiar to manic depressives everywhere.

    It is all to obvious btw, that the public and the establishment were taken in by the Church going, middle class professionals - some even said 'I've met them, there is no way they could be involved'. I would call that the definition of hoodwinked.

    As for your final points and the inhabitants of JATKY2. They believe the internet and freedom of speech will bring about the downfall of humanity. They believe in CEOP, Missing People and that the Muslims are trying to take over the western world. They are model citizens who would vote to imprison investigative journalists and libertarian bloggers in a nanosecond.

    Now, you have given me a long list of things I should not do 05:01, but I fear if I followed your advice, I wouldn't be half as informative and entertaining :)

  20. I feel I must comment on the question of the USA. Tis true to say I love the Americans because my Dad did! He was much influenced by the Second World War, when as a schoolboy with a big brother fighting in Europe, he charted the campaigns as they happened. He also had a lifelong love of the movies.

    Not only do I love the movies, I love the genius of their humour. To me, Jerry Seinfeld is a God (did warn about the Deity references, lol). There is an honesty, almost a bluntness in all the Americans that I know and admire, that is lacking in their British contemporaries.

    The female TV presenters for example, without losing any of their femininity are straight talking, kick ass gals who are proud of their ambitions. In the UK you can't say 'I want to be rich and famous', you have to want that wealth and fame for a good cause. That is what I like about the US contestants on Celebrity Big Brother - they are there to win, no false modesty from them.

    I am probably sounding very naïve and I suppose I am. It's quite likely that I don't know enough Americans to make such sweeping statements, but I would rather be stuck in a lift with a sassy New Yorker than a po-faced Londoner. It is on my bucket list to tour the US and write a journal/ travelogue, along with partying the night away in a bar in New Orleans, hopefully with Jack Nicholson but a similar hedonist may do, depending on the quality of the bourbon!

    As a 13 year old schoolgirl, I was mortified when our Headmistress read out to the entire school assembly, part of an essay I had written about the French Colonists in New Orleans(to howls of laughter). For some reason (still unknown), I had stated 'the French were savages, just like the Red Indians and that's probably why they all got along'. I'm not entirely sure who I offended more, the French or the Native Americans. Not only did it teach me to pay more attention in class it gave me a lifelong interest in the American 'deep' South and the French Revolution. I had to 'fix' a wrong. See my twitter avatar. It also left me with a lot of unresolved issues (and manuscripts), lol.

    I still remain of the opinion that the Freedom of Speech lobby in the US is more powerful than in the UK, or it could be that some of their reporters are more courageous. Wendy Murphy, for example. Our own Sonia Poulton has that courage but our networks do not. Lest we forget, criticism of the McCanns led to the hounding to death of an innocent woman by the UK mainstream media. Not only are they protected by the UK's out dated libel laws, they have establishment 'enforcers' to suppress anyone who questions them.

    As for my schoolgirl error, it was probably because:

    a) I was secretly an imperialist little madam
    b) I was besotted by the boy who worked in the butchers and was constantly thinking of reasons to go into his shop without having to purchase meat! My most damning school report from that time states 'Linda has discovered boys!'. Yes, there was even explanation mark, lol.

  21. LOL thanks a lot Cristobell. As if I don't spend enough of my life reading about the MMC case you now have me hooked on the JR case. Sort of knocks on the head the argument that a conviction of the MCCs would have been possible had they have found the body

  22. Good point 10:50, in fact if the body had been left in situ, the tapas group may even have had a more believable story. Selling the idea that a burglar took the body of a child (and nothing else)will prove a major point of contention if this ever goes to a trial.

    They may even have wanted the body found initially, the 'walking' abductor could not have got very far on foot and if it was Gerry, he was back in time for the alarm to be raised. Things may have changed when they realised just how lucrative it would be if the world believed Madeleine was still alive. Once you have crossed the line of committing a major crime, further deception becomes easier.

    I first became interested in the Jonbenet case after seeing a documentary by the Ramseys' detective Lou Smitt - long before the Madeleine case btw. I hadn't realised at that time that Lou Smitt was employed by the Ramseys and was trying to prove the parents were not involved. I was kind of naïve in those days, but I found Lou Smitt far from convincing. I didn't accept for example, that Patsy would have been incapable of writing the ransom note. It is far less believing that an intruder cowering in fear of being caught by sleeping family, would sit and write over 2 pages giving a specific sum for the ransom that tallied with a work bonus. Imo, the author may have wanted to point the finger at a disgruntled ex employee, but in doing so, she excluded stranger danger. Sexual tourists and predators would not have known the detail included in the ransom note.

    For me, that short video gave a 'satisfying conclusion' to the mystery of Jonbenet's murder, especially the testimony of Steve Thomas. It is patently clear that his only agenda is justice for the murder victim.

    When I first saw the Lou Smitt documentary, we didn't have the kind of information that we have now and the case lay dormant in the back of my mind until the Madeleine case came along.

    I hasten to add that I bent over backwards to believe the parents of Madeleine McCann, like everyone else I didn't want my faith in human nature knocked to that extent. I approached my research into this case from the parents' perspective, I even toyed with the idea that the corner location of their apartment made them especially vulnerable.

    One of my worst, or best, character traits is my inability to lie. And yes, it has got me into trouble all my life. I can put a soft coating on the truth, but I can't ignore it. In the case of Madeleine's parents, they are not lying for the good of humanity, or to improve the lives of children, or indeed anyone. They are 'stealing' the attention that should be given to genuinely grieving parents and genuine philanthropic causes. They used money so generously donated by the public to keep themselves on the newspaper front pages. £500k that would have made a vast difference to children in need.

    It is probably the lying that irks me the most, I'm a tad touchy about having my intelligence insulted as regular readers are probably aware, lol. But I am also affronted on behalf of others, and the unworldly who have been taken in by the lies. Con artists prey on the weak and gullible, and it's the general public I am concerned with here, not the W&G politicians, celebrities and senior police officers, but those ordinary citizens who are being urged to give generously to the Search for Madeleine and of course the search for other children that we know very little about because they haven't received a fraction of the publicity 'missing' Madeleine has.

    But I have wandered, perhaps I should do a blog about the Madeleine Fund!

    You are right though 10:50, these cases are for whatever reasons, gripping. In the case of the McCanns, they have only themselves to blame. They put on a spectacular show, with Clarence Mitchell still shouting 'roll up, roll up' nearly 9 years on. They desperately want an audience, but only one that agrees with them. I can see their dilemma!

  23. Thanks Cristobell I'm glad you told me that Lou Smitt was working for the Ramsey's before I watched the documentary. I tried to watch it last night but fell asleep. I did watch the interview with the first response detective and while I don't know what was going on with her eyes and it was probably used to discredit her I like yourself found her very believable. Her description of the look he gave her when they both bent down over the body which had her mentally checking her gun was quite chilling. What it has made me realise is that we should not get annoyed with people who are don't have the same passion as ourselves for the truth about the McCs. I remember the news of the JR death in 1996 and while I have heard it mentioned a few times I never took much notice of what was going on. I suppose a lot of people who did take an interest could have been annoyed about my attitude to it.

    Anyway love your work....loved all your WTF blogs and would really look forward to a blog on the Madeleine fund. It really is one of the saddest part of this case of how so many good people where dubbed. My mum who died in 2012 made such a big donation to it that she wouldn't divulge how much. She was persuaded by another family member (you know the good Catholic of the family) and it will forever haunt me.

    1. You have got me working on a WTF blog on the Fund 15:36, watch this space!

      It is sad how many people have been duped by this case. My dear old dad died in 2004, but I know sure as eggs is eggs he would have made a large donation, the plight of the child would have touched his heart. It is indeed awful to see kind people taken advantage of.

  24. I watched the interview with Linda Arndt (first response detective) aswell, very very interesting. The whole chain of events is so chilling. The look she talks about seemed to be the kind of look that says " I know that You know". Somehow she felt threatened being on her own with the person responsible for JonBenets death.
    How could they get exonerated? A forensic pathologist wrote a book (Cyril his first name) and said the DNA could have come from contamination and NOT proof of an intruder. What changed from that??

    1. I have no doubts that the exoneration was a political decision 20:33. Everything has a price, here in the UK they were selling lunches with the PM for £250k. Large donations to political campaigns can turn much around, both in the US and in the UK.

      Regarding the DNA - nothing can be proved 100% because the crime scene wasn't sealed off. The clothing of the people present wasn't seized (ditto the McCanns and Tapas group).

      The Ramseys were very wealthy and powerful people, they had they their own private jet, they had a lot to lose. The simple fact of life is that people with wealth and power can and do influence legislation.

      The McCanns' wealth and power was short lived, it was dependent on the support of the public, they frittered away the millions, because they were confident the donations would continue. They did it once, they could do it again. It is why they must so fiercely guard the myth that Madeleine is alive.

      The clever lawyers who drew up the terms and conditions of the private Fund, didn't put in any provision for the Fund to continue in any other form. It is for the benefit of ONE child only, or more accurately to support the family of one child only. They desperately need a new cause, something to rouse the faithful and tug at the nation's heartstrings. The whole troll issue went belly up when the dangerous and threatening troll turned out to be a harmless middle aged lady with a pretty cottage in the Shires. I think they are washed up now with the trolls, they have cried 'Woolf' (troll) once too often. Poor Brenda Leyland the lady highlighted on Sky rolling news clearly wasn't a threat to anyone.

      The revelation of the Grand Jury's 1999 decision to indict the Ramseys, blew the 'exoneration' out of the water - it showed it up for what it was.

  25. I see you have blocked all negative comments about you - way to go girl - enjoy the silence.

    Oh should have said - love you work and your words - they have changed my life.

  26. I haven't blocked anything 20:46, my critics are as free to challenge my opinions as they have ever been, that they haven't been able to rebut my words, is their problem.

    I don't fear words 20:46, but I won't lower the tone of my blog by publishing senseless rants and name calling, you can read plenty of that on the pro McCann sites and in the cesspit.

  27. Thanks for sparing us the rants and childish name calling. It is nice to get away from all that here.

    1. Your welcome Sandra, I haven't got the patience for them, they are charmless, repetitive and totally lacking in imagination. Have they never heard of a thesaurus?

  28. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 March 2016 at 21:33

    you are false - I made a comment yesterday that said you that you provide no information and just pass your opinion on other peoples information. I also said that you finding entertainment about the cases of two missing child cases is wrong.

    You didn't publish my comment.

  29. This is blog 00:25, not wikipedia. It states quite clearly in the right hand column, I 'muse', there are Accreditations for reading my work, athough that is not strictly true, I know of one class at least who studied a book of mine for HND. So there you go.

    You refer to other people's information, as if it is theirs' and theirs' alone. Good heavens, I have had the same access to information that they have, I have merely interpreted it in a different way. EVERY text is open to individual interpretation, no-one has ownership, lol, not even the author.

    It amuses me that the members of the cesspit 'guard' their 'research' as if it had any value. Most people, including myself, the MSM and the police, regard their theories as nonsense. They lost any trace of credibility long, long ago.

    As for the entertainment element, if I to stuck to nothing but the cold, grim facts and the tragedy at the heart of these two cases, all my readers would desert me. Heck, I would even desert myself.

    No, I didn't publish your comment. It was crass. I'm glad you decided to put a bit more effort into this one.

    1. That should of course read there are NO accreditations for reading my work. I write the kind of stuff I like to read, stuff that gets the brain cells going and makes you laugh. If I can achieve that, then I am happy.

  30. The McCanns middle class? Ha ha, pull the other one. Middle class with those accents? They're very definitely a middle working class pair who have stepped up the ladder by virtue of being reasonably intelligent and prepared to study for professional status. Good on them for that but their working class origins are obvious in everything they say and do. You just can't buy real class. It's genetic.

    1. I'm not sure class is genetic 17:01, some people from the humblest of homes ooze charm and good manners whilst some aristocrats behave as if they were raised in a pig barn. See Princes Charles, Andrew, Edward and the members of the Bullingdon Club.

      People who grow up in homes where they are taught to respect themselves and others will always outclass those who grow up without being taught any social skills. And of course, those who are taught to demand respect without having earned it. Bolshy parents who think they are impressing their kids by bullying a waiter, should not be surprised when those adult kids do the same thing, and probably to them.

      I agree Kate and Gerry have moved up the social ladder, but they have behaved like the embarrassing nouveau riche. They assumed their temporary elevation was lifelong membership of the elite, but without any discernible charm or talents, it was always going to have a limited shelf life. As 'victims' they were never going to cross over into the very lucrative world of reality TV. They are Madeleine's parents, they are not'personalities' in their own right. They have nothing significant to say about anything, and apart from a few lobotomised Mail readers,they represent no-one.

      And they are not working class heroes either. They have patronised those daft enough to support them, not even bothering to thank people personally, they use an anonymous 'Webmaster' and a paid spokesman. They have blamed everyone for their loss, including the hard working men and women from the Portuguese and British police, and the workers at Warners resort. And I doubt the people of Liverpool will forgive Kate that 'Couldn't make love to Gerry' Sun headline.

      Do the McCanns have class? Unfortunately for them, none whatsoever. Watching them has been a little like watching Hyacinth Bucket in full flow, at some cringing points you have to watch through gaps of your fingers. Whilst they have got some things astonishingly right, they have got other things so spectacularly wrong. The elite, and the innocent, don't give two hoots what people say about them. The elite have an inbuilt confidence that may be a result of breeding, or more likely being aware of their self worth from the moment they were born. The innocent are of course, protected by the truth.

      Neither of the parents have that inbuilt self confidence, there is no easy going charm about them. They are as submissive in the presence of their perceived superiors as their forefathers and mothers. Gerry pretended to be on the same intellectual level as Jeremy Paxman, but he failed miserably. He wasn't the sharp suited consultant, he was the stuttering barrow boy.

  31. I'm glad you have written about the JonBenet case (horrible as it is) because the parallels between the cases are quite marked, imo of course! It seems to me that both these little girls were 'objectified' by their parents. In the JonRamsay case the poor child was trussed up like a china doll and paraded in 'beauty pageants'. I just can't imagine the mindsets behind any parents who would allow their child to take part in what is effectively a 'cattle market' for young girls. Poor child being paraded around in front of adults who then reward children for looking 'perfect'. No wonder there was an issue with bed-wetting. Unlike china dolls, real live children have emotions and need empathy and nurturing.

    I believe that Madeleine McCann was also objectified by her parents. There is the "almost" perfect comment from Gerry. There are those photos released by the family after her disappearance. In one she is wearing makeup and in others she is posing in a very unnatural way.

    Rather like the Ramseys, neither Kate and Gerry appear to have any idea of what is age-appropriate for their children. As is demonstrated by their belief that leaving three children alone in a holiday apartment night after night and checking every now and then was, according to Kate, without any risk whatsoever (as she writes in her book). The biggest risk was that the children would wake up and be distraught, of course which would be quite likely to lead to an avoidable accident. Not to mention the psychological trauma of knowing that they were being left alone every night without adult supervision. What a horrible position to put a nearly four year old in, in the event that one of the twins woke up distraught - what was Madeleine supposed to do? They clearly left her with no method of contacting them...

    I think there are strong indications that (sexual) abuse is a strong feature in both these cases. There are a great many red flags in both cases.

    What is striking, imo, is that in both cases the parents themselves claim that the motive for the disappearance of their children was sexual. While both sets of parents would have us believe that 'the abductor/kidnapper' was (likely to be) a pedophile, I suspect that - as is so often the case - the perpetrator/s were well known to the child. I suspect that in both cases the mothers lashed out. The reason being, imo, their anger and frustration. Primarily over their choice of husband, I suspect.

    1. I don't know about sexual abuse, but I tend to think Patsy was a narcissistic mother and probably Kate too. I can't help thinking that Patsy was jealous of Jonbenet and the attention she received from her father. John Ramsey's older daughter died tragically in 1992 - and he may have transferred his affection to Jonbenet, she would undoubtedly have become more precious to him.

      The way in which Kate hangs onto Gerry is unnatural - even toddlers don't hang onto their parents the way that she does. She is very needy and territorial, I expect her life was a nightmare even before May 2007.

      I agree on their choice of husbands too. Both very domineering men and both the kind of men who would 'take control' of any situation. I suspect that even though both women were attracted to the 'control' aspects, they too would fall under that control and whatever rules and regulations that came with it. Their position is not so much trophy wife as elevated minion.

      Kate doesn't seem to have the confidence and self esteem of other doctors - she never reveals her real personality. In every interview she has the whiney voice of an eternal victim. With the number of interviews she has done, the nervousness and long sighs are bizarre, she is now a seasoned veteran but she has none of the self confidence of other experienced campaigners. It is as though she has no faith in the product she is selling.

      Even Gerry lacks the self assuredness of those who interview him. He may act grandiose when showing Kate how to do it, but he is equally as vulnerable. I am going to put a couple of clips on my 'Fund' blog to demonstrate.

      Anyway, Many thanks for your interesting reply.

  32. I don't know about sexual abuse, but I tend to think Patsy was a narcissistic mother and probably Kate too. I can't help thinking that Patsy was jealous of Jonbenet and the attention she received from her father. John Ramsey's older daughter died tragically in 1992 - and he may have transferred his affection to Jonbenet, she would undoubtedly have become more precious to him.

    John Ramsay lost an older daughter in a tragic accident in 1992?? He lost both his daughters in tragic circumstances? Okay, I just read up on this and she apparently died in a car accident. Police when looking at the JonBennet case did look into this other death - it was a daughter - Elizabeth - by a previous marriage and police also interviewed some of her friends. Presumably to explore whether there might have been any suspicious circumstances and/or to get an idea of the family relationships.

    Agree about the narcissistic traits. I think Kate was probably very jealous by nature and GM I suspect had a roving eye. Think this is what triggered a major row that week at Ocean Club - the busty quiz mistress. GM probably found Kate's clinging unbearable. I'd be quite surprised if the pair are still an item. I think that as the twins reach their teens the whole family dynamic will become extremely difficult as there is so much controversy - still - about the circumstances surrounding their sister's disappearance. A nightmare legacy for them, imo.

    GM is conspicuous by his absence these days. He must realize the wheels have all but fallen off the wagon.

    In terms of parallels between the cases, what strikes me is that in both cases family (and friends too in the McCann case) flag up how 'pretty' or 'beautiful' the girls were. GM allegedly admires Madeleine as she sleeps - the last time he saw her alive supposedly - on Thursday evening at 9pm and notices how beautiful she looks. Even the McCanns friends such as David Payne, Jon Carpenter and others remark on Madeleine's looks. JonBenet is dolled up to the nines by her parents and takes part in beauty parades with hair styled and make-up on. Both girls objectified. Therein partly explains their fate, imo. Narcissistic parents will project their own stuff onto their children.

  33. GM is indeed conspicuous by his absence, perhaps he has woken to the fact that no-one actually likes him. Kate as the mother is seen as the more sympathetic of the two (debateable), but in any event, while she is at the forefront, responsibility for what they have done is shared equally. With the number of single gigs Kate has done, she can't claim that she was forced or coerced into doing something against her will.

    On a separate note, I can't imagine this debacle has done Gerry's medical career much good. Anyone who promotes him will come under scrutiny, but worse, could you imagine being a patient and seeing the infamous Gerry McCann approach your bed?

  34. Their pride has been their downfall, imo. GM has at last cottoned onto the fact that when you are in a pickle it's best to keep your head down. KM has yet to grasp this quite simple concept. They're not the brightest. I just think that they have both wrapped themselves up so tightly in a web of deceit they are rather like flies caught in a web.

    If they had disappeared into obscurity when the case was shelved (a 'get out of jail' free card I think was offered to them) I think they might have got away with it.

    As it is, their hubris hurtled them along, and while the money was pouring in they attracted all sorts of vultures who wanted a slice of the action.

    The expression 'pride comes before a fall' springs to mind. I think it is all on the verge of collapsing. Did I read that Kate in no longer listed as an 'ambassador' for Missing People? And I suspect Gerry had all sorts of lofty ambitions - possibly even political - but, as you say, this has not ended up being a good career move. The stench of BS must permeate from the lot of them. Goodness only knows what their offspring will make of all this. The older ones must now look back on that fateful week and ask questions...

  35. My own opinion is that John Ramsey murdered JonBenet and that Patsy knew nothing about it. Now, why might I think that? I think that it's imminently possible that John Ramsey wrote the ransom note by copying font from a computer. (ie: He wrote it on a computer and printed it out. He then copied over the writing that came from whatever font he used; changing certain aspects as he went). It happened to be a font that shared some of Patsy's hand writing traits.

    In one of the Youtube videos that you posted a link to, I found it extremely bizarre that Patsy Ramsey denied any knowledge of the writing in the "family album". However, I did some research on this, and it turns out that the handwriting in the "family album" is that of Burke Ramsey. It makes a great deal of sense, because the pasted together "family album" looks like an album that a child would make. It's certainly not the kind of album that someone like Patsy would put together. So, I think she's telling the truth when she says (something like) "I might have written it, but I don't recall". I think she's genuinely bemused, because the writing does sit side by side with photographs of JonBenet, but she doesn't recognise it as her handwriting. It's very messy handwriting for an adult, and I think that Burke made the album without Patsy necessarily knowing about it.

    I just find it much easier to accept that John Ramsey is capable of this crime than his wife. It's not because of her class or money or anything else. I just don't see a woman shoving a paintbrush up her daughter's vagina and garrotting her in the way that JonBenet was "staged". I don't think Patsy could muster the ability to compartmentalise herself and her emotions in that way, even if it was to cover up an earlier crime. I can see John Ramsey compartmentalising just about every aspect of his life. I think he'd be more than capable of "the end justifies the means" kind of thinking.

    Also, John has given more conflicting stories about that night. He said that JonBenet was asleep and that Patsy put her to bed. Another time, he said that he read JonBenet a bedtime story that night. I think that Patsy did put her to sleep, but she woke up and John read her a story. Then, something went wrong. She wouldn't sleep. He got overly annoyed and accidentally hit her, threw her against something, thumped her with a torch. (He might have been downstairs giving her pineapple too). I think he staged the whole thing. I think Patsy was asleep. I do buy that she put on the same clothes the next day. After all, she was going to see family who had never seen her in that outfit. She wasn't going to see someone "important". It was a trip that she didn't relish, and she could easily have thrown on the same clothes as the night before. (I do it all the time. Admittedly I'm nothing like Patsy Ramsey, but come on... lots of women wear the same clothes two days in a row).

    I hear genuine terror in Patsy's voice in the 911 call. I also see a great deal of emotional attachment to JonBenet from Patsy. I don't see anything emotional at all from John Ramsey. These are just my thoughts. I think John knew how to tie the knots from his navy days, and that he was more than capable of writing the bizarre ransom notes.

    Just my thoughts... Of course, I don't know. I wasn't there, but these are my instincts.

    1. 06:56. Interesting theory! Whilst I agree with you John Ramsey seems to be the more cold and calculated of the two, I still lean more towards the theory of Steve Thomas.

      As for the clothes, I just can't see a woman with a mansion and a private jet wearing the same clothes two days running. Especially as they were due to fly off in that jet that morning. Patsy Ramsey was a high maintenance woman, not the type to be seen unkempt or in jogging bottoms. I doubt she even wore them indoors.

      As for emotion in Patsy, I'm not so sure. There is an article on McCann files about Kate being poker faced when she gave the pre-announced interview where she was going too cry. Watching her trying to squeeze a tear out was pretty excruciating for the viewer, but she managed a sniffle in the end.

      The 'expert' pointed out that when we break down with emotion, our entire face crumples. Dabbing your cheek gently with a handkerchief, just doesn't cut. We have seen often enough, genuine mothers of missing and murdered children, the pain is literally etched into their faces.

      That is not the case either with Patsy or Kate, both remained smart, coordinated and fragrant throughout.

  36. I don't always agree with everything Ros writes here, but I completely disagree with those of you who bring up Ros's mental health as a way of criticising her. It just so happens that loads of people with "manic depression" (We call it bi-polar disorder where I come from; has the term not also changed in the UK?) are extremely bright, high achieving and able to focus for long periods of time.

    Indeed, some of the world's greatest minds have been proven to be "manic depressive", as well as some of our most gifted artists and writers. People should be ashamed of themselves in targeting someone's mental health issues in this way. It shows a staggering ignorance of the illness and how it effects people. "Manic depression" doesn't define a person.

    People with all different personalities and capabilities suffer from this illness; I'm not suggesting that all of them are brilliant, but a hell of a lot of them are. So, perhaps people should educate themselves before throwing stones at Ros and using her "mental illness" as a means to attack her. By the way, I happen to disagree with a lot of what she writes, but I admire the way she writes it, and the fact that she writes well and intelligently. Most of all, she's entertaining. After all, at the end of the day, I think we all know that none of us are going to solve these cases; therefore, a bit of laughter goes a long way.

    So, to all you unintelligible nutters who think having "manic depressive disorder" somehow diminishes a person's ability to decipher fact from fiction, or a lie from the truth; look up how many of our world's brilliant minds suffered and still suffer from this torturous illness. Maybe it's because it leaves some of the doors of perception wide open?