Boulder police take back Ramsey case

[Motherof5]

I was wondering if BR would be questioned again? I was hoping that now that he's older he "might" have something more to say? Although JR is still paying for his education so maybe not. I was just hoping that if does know more than he offered before,maybe we'll get lucky and he'll talk now that he's older. Probably just wishful thinking.

 

[JMO8778]

Actually, Egoslayer, I'm glad you asked that. I actually talk about that at some length in the book. The simple answer is that PEDOPHILE child abusers repeat their offenses. But a SITUATIONAL molester can stop with just one.

I think I'd better elaborate on that:

In the 1800s, an Austrian psychologist named Richard von Krafft-Ebing determined that there were three kinds of people who victimized children sexually. The first kind are pedophiles. In the true sense, this applies to people who have recurring sexual attractions and urges toward children; no one really knows why they do this. I think it's just cross-wiring of the brain. The second kind are situational or surrogate molesters. These are people who are not sexually attracted to children per se, but see a child as a substitute for an adult object of attraction. For example, a woman who molests her son because her husband walked out on her. The third kind are sadistic molesters. These ungodly specimens get a sexual thrill from inflicting pain on their victims, physical and emotional. A sadistic child molester, like a situational molester, does not have any specific attraction to children, but selects them for victimization only because children are easier to terrify and control. The thrill is intensified through this factor.



That's a much more succint way of saying it!

BTW, a special thanks to Tadpole12 for those very interesting numbers!



Feh. I'm not afraid of that creep, OR the killer gerbil on his head!

gerbils are nice.LW is the creep,indeed ;D
yes,thanks,tadpole.that was interesting.I'm guessing the effects of aging..things like lower hormone levels..lead to lower numbers of offenders as they get older.I'd like to think they 'grow up',but I just don't think it is so.

 

[JMO8778]

I was wondering if BR would be questioned again? I was hoping that now that he's older he "might" have something more to say? Although JR is still paying for his education so maybe not. I was just hoping that if does know more than he offered before,maybe we'll get lucky and he'll talk now that he's older. Probably just wishful thinking.

my guess is it's going to take age and life experience..things like kids of his own...to open his eyes.and I don't think he'll talk as long as his dad is still alive.

 

[DeeDee249]

I doubt BR will be interviewed again. If he is, he'll just say he doesn't remember. He may NOT have accurate memories anyway. Kids tend t remember things the way they are TOLD they happened, not necessarily as they actually did happen. He's had 12 years to ask questions (assuming he did- he was pretty distant at the time, to the point of it being abnormal) and be told the answers his parents wanted him to have.

As far as the Christmas am photos/videos- these were people who chronicled EVERY holiday, and yet that day they claimed various excuses (dead batteries, etc) for why they could produce no family photos for Christmas morning.

 

[JMO8778]

yes, they sure were hiding something there,weren't they?!!!! IMO part of it was Patsy's behavior twds JB that morning,and who knows what else..maybe someone else was there.

 

[wandering]

I know I should be happy about this turn of events, and I guess I am, but it just seems to me that most of the evidence points to Patsy not John (by John's design, I believe). For example, the fibers entwined in the knot and under the duct tape, the handwriting, paper and pen. The only physical evidence that I am aware of pointing to John is the shirt fiber found in JB's underwear.

So, can you really see any charges being brought against John? At worst, he could claim that Patsy did it and he knew nothing until later, and then made a split second decision to protect her and Burke - (very sorry Mr Prosecutor, I know it was wrong but they were the only family I had left, surely you can understand......).

It seems to me that the shirt fiber could have been in the dryer when the underwear was dried. I think they need more. There certainly was a botched investigation. I wish the FBI had been allowed from the first moment.
Letting all those people wander the house was pretty bad.

 

[JMO8778]

the underwear was new,right out of the package though.major blunder on their part.I think they were possibly trying to match the underwear to what JB had on earlier,and or it was important to them she had on a Wed. pair.Possibly they were trying to eliminate the chance of any Ramsey dna on them as well...and a brand new pair provided just that opportunity.

 

[Mendara]

the underwear was new,right out of the package though.major blunder on their part.I think they were possibly trying to match the underwear to what JB had on earlier,and or it was important to them she had on a Wed. pair.Possibly they were trying to eliminate the chance of any Ramsey dna on them as well...and a brand new pair provided just that opportunity.

So not only did PR wear the same clothes the next day without showering and tell the police that was not strange as she often wore the same clothes over several days, but she puts underwear on her little girl right from the package without washing them???

I don't know maybe I am a clean freak, but I must shower everyday, put on clean clothes and I wash all new underwear before wearing it or putting it on my children.

 

[BBB167893]

So not only did PR wear the same clothes the next day without showering and tell the police that was not strange as she often wore the same clothes over several days, but she puts underwear on her little girl right from the package without washing them???

I don't know maybe I am a clean freak, but I must shower everyday, put on clean clothes and I wash all new underwear before wearing it or putting it on my children.

That's about the size of it. (Size! The underwear was many times too big for her! I made a funny!)

 

[DeeDee249]

So not only did PR wear the same clothes the next day without showering and tell the police that was not strange as she often wore the same clothes over several days, but she puts underwear on her little girl right from the package without washing them???

I don't know maybe I am a clean freak, but I must shower everyday, put on clean clothes and I wash all new underwear before wearing it or putting it on my children.

People who knew Patsy said she NEVER wore the same clothes two days in a row. That was done for the benefit of LE, who knew she wore the same clothes when they arrived that morning as she had worn Christmas Day. They suspected she had never gone to bed that night (true, IMHO) and from that day, she made a point of wearing the same clothes two days running.

As far as the new (and unlaundered) undies- first, they were put on a DEAD little girl (so no chance of irritation from chemical fabric treatment) and second, they were taken from a wrapped Christmas gift meant for JBR's cousin, who was several years older. That's why they were so big.

 

[JaneInOz]

I posted in this thread ! it hasnt been merged so I will post my thoughts here what i posted the other day !

ITS DONE its REOPENED

WOOHOO

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rder-case.html

Quote:
QUOTING

Police reopen child beauty pageant murder case

On Monday, newly-elected Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett announced that the case will once again be led by police, who will apply new technology and expertise to the investigation.

UNQUOTING

WOOHOO JUSTICE For JON BENET At Long Last I pray and hope...



So Keep in mind I posted that the other day

 

[JMO8778]

So not only did PR wear the same clothes the next day without showering and tell the police that was not strange as she often wore the same clothes over several days, but she puts underwear on her little girl right from the package without washing them???

I don't know maybe I am a clean freak, but I must shower everyday, put on clean clothes and I wash all new underwear before wearing it or putting it on my children.

at that point,JB was thought to be already dead when the new pair was put on her.they were for staging purposes only.so far,it appears whatever underwear JB did have on earlier,went missing that night.It could have been concealed on one of the R's when they left that day(they weren't searched),it could have been removed before LE was called,or it could have been taken on PP's raid of the house...JR did ask specifically for his golf bag,even though Patsy said he did not play golf much (esp not in the winter!).

 

[JMO8778]

So not only did PR wear the same clothes the next day without showering and tell the police that was not strange as she often wore the same clothes over several days, but she puts underwear on her little girl right from the package without washing them???

it's not just that.Patsy had on the same clothes from the night before,yes,but also...JB had on the same shirt from the night before as well.The same clothes they wore to the White's house.And the White's were called over that morning.Patsy clearly wasn't thinking (or was she??).
In retrospect,that had to be one of the things that struck the White's as being odd..two of them were dressed in the very same clothes they had on the night before.
Sometimes I wonder if JR did it,and they both set it up for Patsy to take the fall,if necessary (since she'd had cancer and would likely be shown some mercy for that).He was the only one who took a shower and changed clothes,and there is evidence of his involvement before the 911 call.

 

[Tadpole12]

it's not just that.Patsy had on the same clothes from the night before,yes,but also...JB had on the same shirt from the night before as well.The same clothes they wore to the White's house.And the White's were called over that morning.Patsy clearly wasn't thinking (or was she??).
In retrospect,that had to be one of the things that struck the White's as being odd..two of them were dressed in the very same clothes they had on the night before.
Sometimes I wonder if JR did it,and they both set it up for Patsy to take the fall,if necessary (since she'd had cancer and would likely be shown some mercy for that).He was the only one who took a shower and changed clothes,and there is evidence of his involvement before the 911 call.

"In retrospect,that had to be one of the things that struck the White's as being odd..two of them were dressed in the very same clothes they had on the night before." - JMO8778

Hi JMO, That's such a good point! Knowing those who never wear the same thing twice .... yes ...

 

[suzet]

Hi, Not sure where to post a few comments/questions. I've been over on the Caylee board since August, need a break from there, but now that the Jonbenet case has been reopened, I would like to find out more. I am new to this case. I heard about it, of course, back in the 90s, but never knew the particulars.

A few days ago I came into this case with an open mind. I remember hearing way back when Patsy was exonerated and in my ignorance to the case, I thought that must be good news.

So reading some of the threads here and looking around over at the candy rose site, I feel in my heart that the Ramsey's know exactly what happened to their daughter and were involved in a cover up. In the past three days I went from the following suspects: starting with Burke, going to Patsy, then to John, back to Burke, then back to Patsy. Now? I just don't know which one.

Question: My library has the book: Death of Innocence. Is this worth reading? I wouldn't read anything published by Cindy A., so just wondering if this book is just a bunch of bull or is it beneficial to studying the case?

The Candy Rose site is overwhelming. I wish I knew where to start. I read the autopsy. I would like to read the book written by the detective.

I guess reading the little of this case that I have, it reminds me a bit of the Martha Moxley case where LE may have been intimidated by the wealthy family and the neighbors clammed up. But, like I said, I'm very new to this case, so I could be very wrong.

I appreciate all the info here.

 

[BBB167893]

Howdy, suzet. Welcome aboard.

 

[Jay78]

Hi, Not sure where to post a few comments/questions. I've been over on the Caylee board since August, need a break from there, but now that the Jonbenet case has been reopened, I would like to find out more. I am new to this case. I heard about it, of course, back in the 90s, but never knew the particulars.

A few days ago I came into this case with an open mind. I remember hearing way back when Patsy was exonerated and in my ignorance to the case, I thought that must be good news.

So reading some of the threads here and looking around over at the candy rose site, I feel in my heart that the Ramsey's know exactly what happened to their daughter and were involved in a cover up. In the past three days I went from the following suspects: starting with Burke, going to Patsy, then to John, back to Burke, then back to Patsy. Now? I just don't know which one.

Question: My library has the book: Death of Innocence. Is this worth reading? I wouldn't read anything published by Cindy A., so just wondering if this book is just a bunch of bull or is it beneficial to studying the case?

The Candy Rose site is overwhelming. I wish I knew where to start. I read the autopsy. I would like to read the book written by the detective.

I guess reading the little of this case that I have, it reminds me a bit of the Martha Moxley case where LE may have been intimidated by the wealthy family and the neighbors clammed up. But, like I said, I'm very new to this case, so I could be very wrong.

I appreciate all the info here.

Suzet,
Death of Innocence was written from John and Patsy's perspective. I find it very frustrating because much of what they say does not fit with the police evidence so I had a hard time reading it. As you said, the book by Steve Thomas is a great resource, giving you a first hand look at the frustrations of a man giving everything to get justice for Jonbenet. Another good book to find is Perfect Murder Perfect Town by Schillner (Sp?). If you look through the posts on this site and also on forumsforjustice.org, you will find a wealth of facts that were released to the public. If you have any questions im sure all the great posters here on this board can help!

 

[suzet]

Suzet,
Death of Innocence was written from John and Patsy's perspective. I find it very frustrating because much of what they say does not fit with the police evidence so I had a hard time reading it. As you said, the book by Steve Thomas is a great resource, giving you a first hand look at the frustrations of a man giving everything to get justice for Jonbenet. Another good book to find is Perfect Murder Perfect Town by Schillner (Sp?). If you look through the posts on this site and also on forumsforjustice.org, you will find a wealth of facts that were released to the public. If you have any questions im sure all the great posters here on this board can help!

Thank you for the welcome, SuperDave and Jay78.
After reading your post, Jay78, I think I will not read Death of Innocence. I have a feeling I would find it frustrating as well. I will definitely read the other books, though.

 

[RiverRat]

Thank you for the welcome, SuperDave and Jay78.
After reading your post, Jay78, I think I will not read Death of Innocence. I have a feeling I would find it frustrating as well. I will definitely read the other books, though.

Welcome to The Club! Please do read as many books as possible, but also go back through the archives of the news/media. You have started in the right spport at ACandyRose's site though! It never ceases to amaze me how she has been able to maintain a grip on this insanity called Ramsey for years now!

 

[DeeDee249]

Welcome, suzet. ACandyRose can be overwhelming but take your time. It took me months and months to read it all- a little bit each day. But it is an outstanding resource site, and you can learn much about the case from there. Det. Steve Thomas' book is well worth the read. He had no personal agenda against anyone, and simply followed the evidence. Unfortunately, the evidence led to the parents, and they were wealthy parents who hired defense attorneys with political and personal ties to the DA's office. So that was pretty much the end of that.
I also read PMPT, as well as renting the DVD movie based on the book. The movie I felt actually is worth a look. It, as well as the book PMPT, stays fairly neutral, but is not 100% factually accurate. Still, it is a quick primer on the crime. If anything, it portrays the Ramseys more favorably than it should, especially JR.
I cannot read DOI, as it is mostly fiction, but ST's book and PMPT should be the 2 books to read. If you only read one, read ST's.