Christmas Morning Picture of Burke and JB...

[CircuitGuy]

I believe it was the pen that was put away not the notepad. In the Charlevoix search warrant it states that JR handed the notepad to Det. Patterson. JR talks about the notepad at the end of the day in the 6/24/98 interview - which was the day before PR's interview about it on 6/25.

Thanks. Was the pad they gave the police for handwriting samples different from the one used to write the ransom note? Did the Ramseys admit at the very outset that the paper used for the RN appeared to come from their own notepad?

 

[CircuitGuy]

There is something going on here since I think the R's have next to no Christmas photos to talk about about, so why does someone point and shoot at the referenced objects in the photos?

Its as if fake evidence is being generated, i.e. pictures on a camera that might had others before the roll was removed?

That's what I think the investigators are trying to establish, i.e. fabrication of a crime-scene?

Can you spoon-feed me this? How would they have generated fake evidence in photos? What do you mean by "pictures on a camera that might had others"? Thanks!

 

[CircuitGuy]

What are the chances of John taking those few pictures to finish the roll and they just happen to have certain items in them. These were supposed to just be random shots.

Are you saying they may have claimed to be taking random shots but were actually taken to show certain items in certain places to cover up elements of the crime?

Then there's these pictures taken earlier in the roll showing the pad in such a place that even LE can pick up on it. To even entertain the idea of someone fabricating evidence to this degree requires premeditation.

We don't know for sure that the photos were taken before the crime, right?

 

[singularity]

Are you saying they may have claimed to be taking random shots but were actually taken to show certain items in certain places to cover up elements of the crime?

That's what ^ was insinuating. It's certainly possible. Doubtful but possible. If the full story on this crime ever comes out nothing would surprise me. I used to laugh when some would say we know all there is to know about the case. Please. There's a handful of bombshells yet to be revealed.

We don't know for sure that the photos were taken before the crime, right?

Well....sorta. It is implied that the pictures taken when BPD is in the house and what is on the Ramsey camera are two different things. One may be before...or during. They're not sure. The way the questions are framed is terrible and both Ramseys are not required to explain themselves

Blame incompetent detective work/interrogation techniques on that.... They had the collosal gall to ask them about photographs when they themselves don't even know the proper order on the film before doing so. Amateur hour. This is a pattern in the interviews. I'll never forget that moment when Haney is asking about the tupperware container, immediately admits they have no idea what was in it, and then asks Patsy to speculate on the matter....then THEY start speculating on Patsy packing snacks for the trip. It made me cringe. They should have been fired on the spot for incompetence.

 

[UKGuy]

Can you spoon-feed me this? How would they have generated fake evidence in photos? What do you mean by "pictures on a camera that might had others"? Thanks!

CircuitGuy,
I was just speculating out aloud, e.g. they removed the previous roll of film containing Christmas morning pictures, added a new one and started snapping away at random?

.

 

[singularity]

CircuitGuy,
I was just speculating out aloud, e.g. they removed the previous roll of film containing Christmas morning pictures, added a new one and started snapping away at random?

.

I don't think a new roll was added. There were a few pictures left on the Christmas roll and before turning over the camera to BPD, John snapped the last few photographs. This is what led to the confusion. They weren't smart enough to get the order of the photographs before interviewing them.They were asking their suspects if they knew the order. I bet John and Patsy were laughing on the inside.

 

[CircuitGuy]

I don't think a new roll was added. There were a few pictures left on the Christmas roll and before turning over the camera to BPD, John snapped the last few photographs. This is what led to the confusion. They weren't smart enough to get the order of the photographs before interviewing them.They were asking their suspects if they knew the order. I bet John and Patsy were laughing on the inside.

Normally, police will lie to suspects to see if maybe they'll confess. They may also act like they don't know something to see what kind of narrative the suspect will try to put together that's based on the idea the police don't know certain things.

So if I were the Ramsey's I would assume they're playing dumb. From what you've read, though, it sounds like they really were dumb.

 

[Cranberry]

Normally, police will lie to suspects to see if maybe they'll confess. They may also act like they don't know something to see what kind of narrative the suspect will try to put together that's based on the idea the police don't know certain things.

So if I were the Ramsey's I would assume they're playing dumb. From what you've read, though, it sounds like they really were dumb.

IMO LE knew the sequence of the photos and wanted to see JR's reaction to seeing Patsy's notepad. If they ask a question, you better tell the truth, because they know the answer. And he did, JR knew the photo was taken after the murder, not before, despite LS spin. His attorney seemed surprised by it though, and then PR the next day: they float all over, it's nothing. JMO

 

[singularity]

IMO LE knew the sequence of the photos and wanted to see JR's reaction to seeing Patsy's notepad. If they ask a question, you better tell the truth, because they know the answer. And he did, JR knew the photo was taken after the murder, not before, despite LS spin. His attorney seemed surprised by it though, and then PR the next day: they float all over, it's nothing. JMO

I disagree. It would only bolster their case to say the specific order of the photographs to John and Patsy and make them explain it. They don't because they themselves didn't know.

I know cops can(and will) play dumb under certain circumstances but you needed to play smart in this situation. They didn't and here we are in 2016 with it no closer to a resolution than it was back then.

Either way, it's amateur hour.

 

[BOESP]

I disagree. It would only bolster their case to say the specific order of the photographs to John and Patsy and make them explain it. They don't because they themselves didn't know.

I know cops can(and will) play dumb under certain circumstances but you needed to play smart in this situation. They didn't and here we are in 2016 with it no closer to a resolution than it was back then.

Either way, it's amateur hour.

BBM: with due respect, the sequence would be the order in which the photos were taken. LE knew or could easily find out the order in which the photos came off the roll of film.

 

[singularity]

BBM: with due respect, the sequence would be the order in which the photos were taken. LE knew or could easily find out the order in which the photos came off the roll of film.

Of course they could have found out. That's my point! They were so ill prepared/incompetent they wouldn't even bother doing such a small thing before finally getting the interviews they had waited so long for.

 

[BOESP]

Of course they could have found out. That's my point! They were so ill prepared/incompetent they wouldn't even bother doing such a small thing before finally getting the interviews they had waited so long for.

I'm missing the part that says LE didn't know the order of the photos. :thinking:

 

[singularity]

I'm missing the part that says LE didn't know the order of the photos. :thinking:

You have two options: Read the full transcripts where they make fools of themselves several times over the issue of photographs or the easier route which is reading the excerpt posted on the previous page in this thread that you should have already read if joining in on this discussion. I'll post it one more time. If you need even more proof you can put in the effort yourself and read the full interviews. .


BRYAN MORGAN: Could I see the photograph? Lou, is there any way to tell where in the sequence of the roll it was taken?

LOU SMIT: On the roll of John -- I am sure there is. I am sure the negatives would be available.

VOICE: (INAUDIBLE).

LOU SMIT: That would show what number, that's absolutely true. Now if you remember doing that?

JOHN RAMSEY: I do, I think I did it, because I had to finish the roll up to get it out of the camera.

LOU SMIT: Makes sense.

JOHN RAMSEY: Because it was one of those electric rewinds and all that.

MIKE KANE: What kind of camera was it?

JOHN RAMSEY: I -- it's a -- well, I am stretching if I try and remember. We got a new camera, but I think that was after -- after that.

VOICE: But it had an auto winder?

JOHN RAMSEY: Yes, I am pretty sure it did. Yeah, I am sure it rewound or -- it was one of those cartridge (INAUDIBLE).

 

[BOESP]

Thanks for the suggestions singularity but I've read the transcripts several times over. What point is it that you are trying to make?

 

[questfortrue]

Hey, Boesp, nice to see you. You may remember me, I’m a member of a different chapter of Densa. There was something I discovered today in that esteemed tabloid – the Globe – while I was waiting in line at the grocery store. They extracted material from PR’s interview with Haney and actually included the exchange about fibers and prior sexual abuse. (The author of the article also made a claim - no idea where this info was derived - that PR was seeing a psychiatrist in 1993, the year she was diagnosed with cancer.) Anyway, I don’t want to derail the conversation. Just dropping by for a sec. fftobed:

 

[singularity]

Thanks for the suggestions singularity but I've read the transcripts several times over. What point is it that you are trying to make?

No offense but I'm not going to run in circles on this issue. You know what point I was making based on your two previous posts in this thread.

I'm missing the part that says LE didn't know the order of the photos. :thinking:

BBM: with due respect, the sequence would be the order in which the photos were taken. LE knew or could easily find out the order in which the photos came off the roll of film.

I wasn't trying to make a point. I did make a point. A very simple one I might add. There's no room for confusion on the issue. They weren't well prepared during the questioning and flubbed the subject of the photographs. Period. If you've read the transcripts several times, you know this already. Even if you haven't read them, the excerpt was posted on the previous page and then again by me. I made my point, you disagreed(and that's fine), I state it again, you're missing a part, I post the excerpt(again), then you ask what my point was.

I hope this post isn't coming off too negative. Maybe english isn't your first language and something is getting lost in translation.

While I'm not directing this at you specifically, I left the JBR forums almost 10 years ago for two reasons...

Some very disturbed people were dominating the discussions across several forums/bulletin boards. I wasn't the only one who left due to this issue. The owners/moderators of these sites appear to have taken care of that element at some point and they deserve praise for doing so. An example of this type can be found in that thread that was bumped yesterday.


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...quot-personal-quot-question-about-female-part



The other thing that frustrated me was how discussions would start running in very small circles. Someone would take time to write a well thought out post, the next person asks for the source to their info(as if an opinion needs a source), they post a link to a site containing some of the issues they bring up, on the next page this same person starts asking them(again) disingenuous rhetorical questions which starts the whole song and dance over again. Repeat cycle. This tactic got old very, very quickly to me.

That may not be your intent and I apologize if taking it the wrong way. I am definitely not interested in an argument on the issue but I'm not going to repeat that same minor point again. I'd much rather we continue the discussion instead of the two of us riding this specific merry go round.

 

[Foreign Faction]

There's no need for us to argue when we all know that Burke hit her and both parents staged the coverup, with JR likely strangling her.

 

[Cranberry]

I disagree. It would only bolster their case to say the specific order of the photographs to John and Patsy and make them explain it. They don't because they themselves didn't know.

I know cops can(and will) play dumb under certain circumstances but you needed to play smart in this situation. They didn't and here we are in 2016 with it no closer to a resolution than it was back then.

Either way, it's amateur hour.

Well, you're right about LS, he was clueless and if you notice, in this exchange he seemed to be the only one who was.

 

[FrankieB]

This topic is haunting. Please read Patsy's answers carefuly, nobody would say that about a picture of a scarf. The note pad is addressed later on so they are indeed showing her different pictures. The first one isn't even described, all ws have is this frustrating sentence: "well...it shows..." it shows WHAT? these christmas pictures tell a story, and it very well could be a story we don't know or a story that confirms things we have speculated about for years. Something jumps at me in one of the released pictures though: Patsy and Jombenét are posing for a photo smiling, but Patsy appears to have a very tight grip on the child's arm. It just looks odd to me, the smiles are a little off putting as well. I can't think of another picture where Patsy is holding her so strongly but if there are then it might have been her style and there is nothing special about it.

Then there is another odd picture, it's Jonbenét and Burke opening the presents in their pajamas, she is smiling but to me the smile has always looked forced and requested rather than simply made. However a lot of people I have shown the picture to tell me I'm imagining things and she looks fine and normal. What do you think??

And finally there is that rarer picture of her with her arms up high and all the presents around her. Nothing strange about that picture, just extremely sad in light of what happened

 

[UKGuy]

This topic is haunting. Please read Patsy's answers carefuly, nobody would say that about a picture of a scarf. The note pad is addressed later on so they are indeed showing her different pictures. The first one isn't even described, all ws have is this frustrating sentence: "well...it shows..." it shows WHAT? these christmas pictures tell a story, and it very well could be a story we don't know or a story that confirms things we have speculated about for years. Something jumps at me in one of the released pictures though: Patsy and Jombenét are posing for a photo smiling, but Patsy appears to have a very tight grip on the child's arm. It just looks odd to me, the smiles are a little off putting as well. I can't think of another picture where Patsy is holding her so strongly but if there are then it might have been her style and there is nothing special about it.

Then there is another odd picture, it's Jonbenét and Burke opening the presents in their pajamas, she is smiling but to me the smile has always looked forced and requested rather than simply made. However a lot of people I have shown the picture to tell me I'm imagining things and she looks fine and normal. What do you think??

And finally there is that rarer picture of her with her arms up high and all the presents around her. Nothing strange about that picture, just extremely sad in light of what happened

FrankieB,
I reckon you a right on the money the smiles are forced, Patsy is probably choreographing everything, she thinks its an extension of her pageant duties, i.e. make JonBenet look darned good pretty?


The big Q is: did Patsy know some R abusing JonBenet, but she passed this off as normal to JonBenet, hence increasing family tension, e.g. that arm squeeze?

.