Nedra & Patsy's sisters

[JMO8778]

Thanks!

I do agree that PR, in a manner of speaking, "lit herself up" like a giant neon sign saying, "Look at me!" And she was so good at it that even after her death, we still do!

But my explanation for why she did this is twofold: one, because she would have been involved in some (most?) of the p.m. staging and therefore would feel 'guilty.'

And two, because I think she showed classic signs of Histrionic Personality Disorder, described as follows:

"Histrionic Personality Disorder:


A pervasive pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention
2. interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior
3. displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions
4. consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self
5. has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail
6. shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion
7. is suggestible, i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances
8. considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are"

IMO, PR's personality was the type that couldn't help trying to be the center of attention, even if that ended up making her, in the public's eye anyway, chief suspect in the death of her daughter!

that does sound like her,doesn't it? I wonder if that's why she got into pageants? she seems like she had such a hollywood-wannabe personality..right down to the way she dressed for the funeral,and kneeling at JB's casket.

 

[JMO8778]

I'd like to chime in on a couple of points raised in this thread.

One, I seriously doubt JBR had any black or dark colored underwear. Though there's a trend to put younger and younger girls into 'sexy' clothes, a disturbing fashion trend I think of as 'pedophile chic,' most children's underwear manufacturers still stay away from dark colored underwear in size 4-6, since it's the second smallest size for girls and lots of girls wearing that size are still having 'accidents', which can be hard to see in dark underwear.

true,is it possible she had on black tights under the pantsuit? I don't recall rightoffhand what it was said she wore underneath.

Two, in my theory I don't see the BR staging as being designed to fool anyone but PR; it's never meant to be seen by anyone else, since JR, if he were the one responsible, would be counting on her cooperation in hiding the truth and 'saving' their son. But it's very important that any evidence that looks like a sexual assault be removed, as PR won't accept such a scenario with BR as the main actor, which is why the wiping down/replacing of underwear takes place.

is it possible he just forgot about the knife then?

Interesting idea about the pocket knife and LHP. But I think this is where some of the "split staging" can be seen.

PR tries to implicate LHP early on, mentioning the money that LHP has asked to borrow among other things. Yet aside from the knife, which is not actually next to the body but in a section of the basement not too far removed from the crime scene, there isn't any suggestion that LHP is responsible in any of the other staging.

true,other than PR talking about her,and suggesting she wrote the note.

Consider the RN, for example. It seems to suggest that the person or persons responsible a) have some kind of grudge against JR, and b) have access to the information about the $118,000 bonus. LHP doesn't fit a) at all, and even if she had snooped and knew about the bonus, it would be an extremely odd amount for her to ask. In fact, it's an extremely odd amount for anyone to ask, which is my point: I think JR told PR to write this amount in the RN so he could suggest that someone tied to Access Graphics, some present or past employee, was responsible--which is exactly what he did do at first! In the first CNN interview days after the murder JR said something about not knowing whether this was an attack on him or on his company, and he soon suggested both Jeff Merrick and Mike Glynn as possible suspects with a grudge against Access Graphics.

I've always considered maybe JR dicated parts of it to her.And in JM's interview,he talks about the fact he thinks they were trying to frame him and the '2 gentlemen' comment was 2 other ppl he knew.
I'm pretty sure $118,000 was an amount JM had an affiliation with at AG,as part of a complaint or settlement of some sort? I don't recall nor have any books close by.So yes,that does make sense.

Later JR seems to have backed away from such specific suggestions, but only, I think, when he realized how impossible it would be to find someone who was both angry with him/Access Graphics and absent from home on Christmas night. At that point he seems to have faded into the background, allowing PR to take the lead in the 'throwing people under the R bus' operation. No matter how ridiculous PR's suggestions or accusations were, JR doesn't seem to have ever said something like, Oh, no, we know that X is a good friend and couldn't possibly have been involved. He seems perfectly willing to let PR speak for him on the subject, once it's clear that there are no Access Graphics employees unaccounted for on Christmas night--something which I think seriously upset his original plans.

If JR really was responsible, and yes, this is just my opinion, but if he was, then PR was exactly what he needed. I think she confused the case beyond repair.

good points,all of them,and I hope JR comes to justice,if that's what happened ! b/c I do think each of them were involved,to some degree,even though one them is likely just covering for another,but not guilty of the murder itself.(IMO).

The only thing about that is,it seems everyone close to the case who is a RDI theorist thinks PR did it.So I wonder if there could be some hidden evidence we don't know about?

 

[Dru]

good points,all of them,and I hope JR comes to justice,if that's what happened ! b/c I do think each of them were involved,to some degree,even though one them is likely just covering for another,but not guilty of the murder itself.(IMO).

The only thing about that is,it seems everyone close to the case who is a RDI theorist thinks PR did it.So I wonder if there could be some hidden evidence we don't know about?

True, everyone close to the case who's RDI thinks PR did it, and that's something I do try to bear in mind. But it seems to me that unless PR's alleged 'rage attack' involved throwing JBR head-first over the side of the spiral staircase, the injuries JBR suffered were just too severe to be any kind of 'accident.'

I just can't make PR's motive (i.e. tired, worn out, struggling to deal with a recalcitrant child before an exhausting trip the next day etc.) fit the actual condition of JBR's body (head split open, extensive skull fissure, marks of strangulation, bruises and lacerations, and that bizarre sexual wound inflicted before death). Just as the RN doesn't point to LHP but back to the R's, JR in particular, so does the condition of JBR's body point back to someone who, once the initial blow had been struck, actually wanted her dead and would go to any lengths to make that a reality.

It's still possible that that person was PR. But I think JBR's killer had some intense hatred for his/her little victim, and if PR was that person then we still don't know the 'real' motive, IMO.

 

[BlueCrab]

I *think it's that we can't name anyone who's been cleared(and BR was),or hasn't ever been a suspect.

JMO8778,

Burke Ramsey has never been "cleared" in the death of JonBenet.

And he was never called a "suspect" because Boulder authorities never named ANYONE officially as a suspect. But never being a suspect and never being cleared are two entirely different matters. It's been a fraudulent play on words for years now to hide Burke's involvement in this crime.

It now appears Websleuths, probably by way of intimidation, has been sucked into this coverup re' Burke. The coverup is centered in the DA's office and extends into the Boulder government and its courts and beyond.

Here's how former district attorney Alex Hunter, playing on words, added to an October 12, 2000 affidavit, drafted by attorney Lin Wood but signed by Hunter, fraudulently made it appear that Burke had been cleared without admitting he was NOT cleared:

" ... no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect."

Hunter fails to mention that NO ONE has ever been elevated to that of "suspect", not even John or Patsy Ramsey (they were considered under an umbrella of suspicion).

The affidavit does not clear Burke, and the word "cleared" does not even appear anywhere in the document, but a naive press falsely interpreted the affidavit as clearing Burke. Hunter's and Wood's play on words worked.

However, to this day, no one of authority in Boulder will put in writing that Burke has been cleared, even though they put in writing that John Andrew and Melinda, Burke's siblings, had been cleared.

IMO Burke did not kill JonBenet, even though he was likely somehow involved or else the numerous lies and huge coverup that shields Burke wouldn't be needed. Neither John nor Patsy killed JonBenet either, even though they were deeply involved in the coverup. But IMO the Burke coverup is hiding one or two other big names that would be bombshells if uncovered, but unfortunately no one is digging.

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

BlueCrab,

With no trial, no named suspects, no evidence left by any intruder, then the only way one of the residents of the Ramsey household can ever be cleared is if someone is found guilty or party to the death of JonBenet.


.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

With no trial, no named suspects, no evidence left by any intruder, then the only way one of the residents of the Ramsey household can ever be cleared is if someone is found guilty or party to the death of JonBenet.


.

UKGuy,

Correct, but as we all know, there was no intruder. Therefore, one of the three Ramseys left alive in the house that night is either the killer or let the killer into the house.

IMO the authorities know exactly who killed JonBenet, but a government conspiracy in Boulder is covering it up.

There's more than enough evidence in the Ramsey case to solve it (and I think the grand jury did solve it in 1999), but the powerful conspiratorial coverup, which includes even the courts, and has now apparently reached into the internet forums discussing the case, is blocking the naming of that killer.

Why else would we be denied the freedom in this forum to discuss a known suspect (or "witness" if Alex Hunter and Lin Wood would have their way) in a famous world-wide known murder case, unless outside pressure has been put on Websleuths?

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

UKGuy,

Correct, but as we all know, there was no intruder. Therefore, one of the three Ramseys left alive in the house that night is either the killer or let the killer into the house.

IMO the authorities know exactly who killed JonBenet, but a government conspiracy in Boulder is covering it up.

There's more than enough evidence in the Ramsey case to solve it (and I think the grand jury did solve it in 1999), but the powerful conspiratorial coverup, which includes even the courts, and has now apparently reached into the internet forums discussing the case, is blocking the naming of that killer.

Why else would we be denied the freedom in this forum to discuss a known suspect (or "witness" if Alex Hunter and Lin Wood would have their way) in a famous world-wide known murder case, unless outside pressure has been put on Websleuths?

BlueCrab

Once again, you have another conspiracy theory going. The Grand Jury did not feel that the parents would commit a crime like this. No 2 they did not hear anything from Steve Thomas. You are being denied the freedom to accuse someone other than the known suspects because it is slander and not only one of the Ramsey family. You cannot name outside people either; it is slandering their name. Why do you always have to have a conspiracy?

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

Correct, but as we all know, there was no intruder. Therefore, one of the three Ramseys left alive in the house that night is either the killer or let the killer into the house.

IMO the authorities know exactly who killed JonBenet, but a government conspiracy in Boulder is covering it up.

There's more than enough evidence in the Ramsey case to solve it (and I think the grand jury did solve it in 1999), but the powerful conspiratorial coverup, which includes even the courts, and has now apparently reached into the internet forums discussing the case, is blocking the naming of that killer.

Why else would we be denied the freedom in this forum to discuss a known suspect (or "witness" if Alex Hunter and Lin Wood would have their way) in a famous world-wide known murder case, unless outside pressure has been put on Websleuths?

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,
Sure looks like there is a conspiracy of sorts, its precise nature I am not certain of.

Since Conrad Black goes on trial this week then sleuthers can have an insight into the methods used by the rich and famous to gain access to capital. Donald Trump will take the stand for the defense, along with other notable industrialists.

The Ramsey's dont come anywhere close to the wealth generated by Conrad Black's media empire, but his fall from grace is allegedly due to him and his wife wanting to hang out with billionaires in New York, yet they were mere millionaires!


.

 

[Solace]

BlueCrab,
Sure looks like there is a conspiracy of sorts, its precise nature I am not certain of.

Since Conrad Black goes on trial this week then sleuthers can have an insight into the methods used by the rich and famous to gain access to capital. Donald Trump will take the stand for the defense, along with other notable industrialists.

The Ramsey's dont come anywhere close to the wealth generated by Conrad Black's media empire, but his fall from grace is allegedly due to him and his wife wanting to hang out with billionaires in New York, yet they were mere millionaires!


.

Actually, it looks like a complete bungling on the part of Detective Arndt and a few others in the Police Department also hampered by the weakness of the DA and the fact that he and the Ramsey lawyers were friends.

We are not talking about the Queen of England here, we are talking about a 5 year old murdered in her home in Boulder Colorado, a place known for having a weak DA who settles just about every case he can. It is what it is. There is no conspiracy to keep Blue Crab quiet. There is an out and out resolve on the part of the Ramseys and their lawyers to stop any publication they can re this case if it describes them in a bad light.

We all know this. So why does it have to be a conspiracy. It is what it is.

 

[Solace]

JMO8778,

Burke Ramsey has never been "cleared" in the death of JonBenet.

And he was never called a "suspect" because Boulder authorities never named ANYONE officially as a suspect. But never being a suspect and never being cleared are two entirely different matters. It's been a fraudulent play on words for years now to hide Burke's involvement in this crime.

It now appears Websleuths, probably by way of intimidation, has been sucked into this coverup re' Burke. The coverup is centered in the DA's office and extends into the Boulder government and its courts and beyond. With all due respect, Blue Crab, this is absurd. It is plain and simple Websleuth and any other Forum protecting themselves against a lawsuit that WE ALL KNOW the Ramseys are famous for doing. Come on.

Here's how former district attorney Alex Hunter, playing on words, added to an October 12, 2000 affidavit, drafted by attorney Lin Wood but signed by Hunter, fraudulently made it appear that Burke had been cleared without admitting he was NOT cleared:

" ... no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect."

Hunter fails to mention that NO ONE has ever been elevated to that of "suspect", not even John or Patsy Ramsey (they were considered under an umbrella of suspicion).

The affidavit does not clear Burke, and the word "cleared" does not even appear anywhere in the document, but a naive press falsely interpreted the affidavit as clearing Burke. Hunter's and Wood's play on words worked.

However, to this day, no one of authority in Boulder will put in writing that Burke has been cleared, even though they put in writing that John Andrew and Melinda, Burke's siblings, had been cleared.

IMO Burke did not kill JonBenet, even though he was likely somehow involved or else the numerous lies and huge coverup that shields Burke wouldn't be needed. Neither John nor Patsy killed JonBenet either, even though they were deeply involved in the coverup. But IMO the Burke coverup is hiding one or two other big names that would be bombshells if uncovered, but unfortunately no one is digging.

BlueCrab

Why does this case have to be related to you Blue Crab. It is not. It is about JonBenet.

 

[JMO8778]

But IMO the Burke coverup is hiding one or two other big names that would be bombshells if uncovered, but unfortunately no one is digging.

I'm still not following.It is possible you can PM me as to whom you mean? And why no one is digging?
I don't know how much he's involved,but I do think he knows something,else why was he not afraid or asking questions?

 

[Solace]

I'm still not following.It is possible you can PM me as to whom you mean? And why no one is digging?
I don't know how much he's involved,but I do think he knows something,else why was he not afraid or asking questions?

Yes, me too. I would love to know who you are speaking of. I love bombshells.

 

[UKGuy]

Actually, it looks like a complete bungling on the part of Detective Arndt and a few others in the Police Department also hampered by the weakness of the DA and the fact that he and the Ramsey lawyers were friends.

We are not talking about the Queen of England here, we are talking about a 5 year old murdered in her home in Boulder Colorado, a place known for having a weak DA who settles just about every case he can. It is what it is. There is no conspiracy to keep Blue Crab quiet. There is an out and out resolve on the part of the Ramseys and their lawyers to stop any publication they can re this case if it describes them in a bad light.

We all know this. So why does it have to be a conspiracy. It is what it is.

Solace,
Yes but what about the things for which you have no knowledge?

It has to be a conspiracy if people in positions of authority take private decisions relating to public events, particularly if these people are officers of the law.

complete bungling or an honest mistake is usually attributed to those lower in a command hierarchy by those higher up, to rationalise away how particular circumstances arose which dont follow normal operating procedure.

This happens all the time in large corporations to excuse away bad investments, poor loan decisions, and outright corruption e.g. Enron.

Similar applies at state and county level, its not difficult to find examples of corruption and criminality going all the way to the top. Billions of dollars in new USA bills were freighted by plane to Iraq, then disbursed by handouts, see if you can find any reciepts or invoices that documents this?

Even if the conspiracy is only in place to hide the ineptitude of the BPD, its still running along with a fig-leaf for an ongoing investigation!


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,
Yes but what about the things for which you have no knowledge?

It has to be a conspiracy if people in positions of authority take private decisions relating to public events, particularly if these people are officers of the law.

complete bungling or an honest mistake is usually attributed to those lower in a command hierarchy by those higher up, to rationalise away how particular circumstances arose which dont follow normal operating procedure.

This happens all the time in large corporations to excuse away bad investments, poor loan decisions, and outright corruption e.g. Enron.

Similar applies at state and county level, its not difficult to find examples of corruption and criminality going all the way to the top. Billions of dollars in new USA bills were freighted by plane to Iraq, then disbursed by handouts, see if you can find any reciepts or invoices that documents this?

Even if the conspiracy is only in place to hide the ineptitude of the BPD, its still running along with a fig-leaf for an ongoing investigation!


.

UK, this is a case that was mishandled to the point of it being laughable. The fact that Detective Arndt let John go look through the house is probably why we have no indictment today. He thoroughly destroyed the evidence. The conspiracy that Blue Crab would have me believe does not exist. Granted Lacy is intimidated by Lin Wood and his threats of suing Boulder and so she goes along. There is a lot more I could say about her, but you get the idea. This is not Watergate. It is the out and out mishandling of a case that was so badly handled from the start that the parents were able to lawyer up and keep it that way. The Grand Jury just did not believe that parents could do this to their child. They also did not hear Steve Thomas because he was not allowed to testify per Alex Hunter. So as I said, it is the weakness of the DA, the bungling of the Police Department and the fact that the DA and his assistants were "friends" with the Ramsey lawyers.

To say there is a conspiracy going on connotes people conspiring to protect a "killer". That is the impression that Blue Crab is giving and it is wrong. Alex Hunter and his assistants believed that Patsy killed JonBenet, but they felt it would not hold up in court, not the evidence they had anyway. But then again, after Arndt and several others got through with letting the Ramseys and their kin come and go and remove whatever, things were pretty much over, and Hunter was not far from wrong. But I believe if it had been handled more severely, Patsy may well have talked and broke down and admitted what happened.

Anyway, BlueCrab would like you and others believe that there is a conspiracy to protect a killer and it just takes away from the dignity of the case when that kind of a theory is thrown about. It is just not so.

 

[Toltec]

Yes, me too. I would love to know who you are speaking of. I love bombshells.

BlueCrab has posted on the other two suspects who, with Burke, commited this crime and the subsequent coverup.

He has named names but I guess it was not allowed here....or if you archive BlueCrabs posts, maybe you'll hit paydirt.

BlueCrab....since the older person you call a suspect is over 18, why did Police not bring him in for questioning? Did this older suspect give DNA samples....and since he was living with the Ramsey's friends, how could Police not notice him?

 

[Solace]

BlueCrab has posted on the other two suspects who, with Burke, commited this crime and the subsequent coverup.

He has named names but I guess it was not allowed here....or if you archive BlueCrabs posts, maybe you'll hit paydirt.

BlueCrab....since the older person you call a suspect is over 18, why did Police not bring him in for questioning? Did this older suspect give DNA samples....and since he was living with the Ramsey's friends, how could Police not notice him?

Sorry, it never happened that way. Neva!!!

 

[Toltec]

Sorry, it never happened that way. Neva!!!

Then why are you interested in the names of the other two suspects if you do not believe BlueCrab?

 

[Jay78]

I dont claim to know what happened in this case, but I doubt there is a coverup. If the authorities had all the answers, im sure that the JMK thing would have never happened. They are still spending thousands of dollars on the case...

 

[BlueCrab]

Then why are you interested in the names of the other two suspects if you do not believe BlueCrab?

Toltec,

Good question Toltec. Thanks.

I've been warned by WS to not use the names of certain possible suspects because of legal ramifications. But that's the very point I'm trying to make; the names of suspects who should be investigated are being covered up, and as a result IMO those engaged in a powerful murder conspiracy are winning and the public is losing.

For example, why are two people, whose lives were intertwined with the Ramseys on an almost daily basis, never interviewed? Most people have never heard of them. Why were their names purged at the last minute from PMPT pb before it went to press in 1999 (shortly after the Ramsey GJ adjourned after a 13-month investigation)? Why didn't the cops know the name of the older person during the Atlanta interviews in 2000, despite the fact that he drove JonBenet, Burke, and Doug to school on a regular basis? And why didn't the authorities know that this person belonged to a politically extreme 29-member small foreign faction at Colorado University?

BlueCrab

 

[IrishMist]

Toltec,

Good question Toltec. Thanks.

I've been warned by WS to not use the names of certain possible suspects because of legal ramifications. But that's the very point I'm trying to make; the names of suspects who should be investigated are being covered up, and as a result IMO those engaged in a powerful murder conspiracy are winning and the public is losing.

For example, why are two people, whose lives were intertwined with the Ramseys on an almost daily basis, never interviewed? Most people have never heard of them. Why were their names purged at the last minute from PMPT pb before it went to press in 1999 (shortly after the Ramsey GJ adjourned after a 13-month investigation)? Why didn't the cops know the name of the older person during the Atlanta interviews in 2000, despite the fact that he drove JonBenet, Burke, and Doug to school on a regular basis? And why didn't the authorities know that this person belonged to a politically extreme 29-member small foreign faction at Colorado University?

BlueCrab

But doesn't he have a solid alibi? I'm thinking he was in California at the time.