Amazing post Singularity
Regarding the christmas film roll, I didn't know the transcripts were redacted, I assumed we could read everything there was to read. Now knowing it isn't so, is really frustrating. I wonder just how much was left out. The scarf, note pad, etc...I guess there could be an explanation for all that. But the picture that supposedly comes right after the children opening the presents... Even if the conversation has been redacted, don't you think this reply: "oh god, I don't know why anybody would take a picture like that" can only resonate as ominous? the fact the conversation is so confusing: "well...it shows..." only adds fuel to the fire. Nothing to hide here? then speak clearly! If Patsy was holding the camera, could she have taken said strange picture? then she would have had to pretend she was surprised by it during interrogation. On the other hand, what if she was genuinely surprised by the picture? in that case...who took it? Burke? John? JAR?
I had never heard about the Hitman boat incident, can you tell me more please?
Thanks!
As UK mentioned, they did give some lame explanations for some of those items but it wasn't good enough. Just on the notepad alone she should have been up against the wall with them in her face demanding to know why that has been moved and why on earth did they take a pic of it to begin with. Patsy says she didn't do it? One of the interrogators should've said "I'll have to go ask John or Burke" and leave the room while her interview continues. Her blood would have started boiling and when Patsy gets flustered, she's more likely to say something she shouldn't say.
They made so many mistakes. LIke I said, they deserved the FBI grilling them. Patsy is on so much xanax it would down a herd of elephants and the FBI experienced enough to be able to deal with this.
don't you think this reply: "oh god, I don't know why anybody would take a picture like that" can only resonate as ominous? the fact the conversation is so confusing: "well...it shows..." only adds fuel to the fire.
Absolutely. Its one of the most shocking statements in all the transcripts. IMO the "it shows......" has a redaction at the end so the public doesn't know what it shows. What does it show? Many assume the word redacted(or if not redacted he was about to say) "everything" , "her nude", etc. What makes this exchange so controversial and disputable among sleuthers(just watch, someone will contest this very conversation we're having) is that they instantly start talking about other photographs. They NEVER should've moved on from that one until it was thoroughly explained.
Its inexcusable they gave her a free pass on this but that was a pattern throughout all the interviews. Anytime they push Patsy against the wall, they step back and give her breathing room. These people were not competent enough to be handling interviews at this level.
By the way, whatever is in that photograph, I doubt Patsy is the one who took it. Since it s on the family camera and we have no way to date the actual pic, it narrows it down to John, JAR, or Burke.
Here's the thing about the boat man incident. IMO its probably not even true but damn them for not digging deeper. You must cover ALL bases.
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-boatman-mi.htm
Also I know this is a sarcastic picture but I wonder where they got the image of Patsy from...some context would be nice, it's certainly a...strange facial expression to make?
There's actually quite a few unflattering pics of Patsy out there. God I bet she hated that.
I had also never seen the tire pics. They are disturbing. They make her look troubled, like someone who has been around evil. I think I would say that if I didn't know anything about her.
I post on music forums and on one of them, a few of us were discussing the case. When I posted those tire swing pics, the woman in the conversation thought they were "highly inappropriate' since it is not some innocent pic being taken of a child swinging.....it is a prop and the person behind the camera having her pose.
I have read references to "the cutesy pics". Do you know what they are?
These are the pics of JOnbenet found in the basement. They have never surfaced. I hope on that new crime series later this year they will finally describe them to us. I would also like to know exactly how many were found and were some of them in that second cigar box. If so, that means pics were dumped in two different locations in the basement.
What Trip DeMuth should ask is Where are all the photos and movies you took?
Yeah there are several paths he could've taken on that line of questioning. In pictures on that roll of film that do not include Patsy or John, she should've been asked exactly what she was doing in those time frames. YOu could piece together a timeline based on info such as that but they never tried.
BBM: You cannot know this, its speculation on your part, similarly for James Kolar who has voiced similar views.
JonBenet may have been sexually assaulted in her bedroom, whacked on the head, e.g. with resident barbell, then moved down to the basement to implement a staged kidnapping.
A staged kidnapping is obviously not an abduction, however you interpret the evidence.
Yeah I know its not a real kidnapping but my point was is could they use such charges as leverage against suspects, witnesses, etc. I assume they can as if you move a child from one room to another it can be classified as kidnapping even if you don't kill them. If a serious crack is ever taken at this case, such tactics should be used.
One more thing I'd like to point out on how clothing, shoes, boots, etc. are a recurrent theme in the interviews. We know they keep coming back to the clothing due to the discrepancy of Jonbenet's clothing at the crime scene but as I've said before, they have the pics in front of them when asking these questions. Neither side is budging....they can see what they are wearing. IMO at least one investigator on this case picked up on the possibility of someone in this family having a boot/shoe/sock/foot fetish. Check out this exchange with Patsy about clothing.....
-------
TOM HANEY: This photo is a large eight by ten, maybe you can describe it. It has no number.
PATSY RAMSEY: This is a picture of me and Fleet White at the White's house, in their living room.
TOM HANEY: And when would that photo have been taken?
PATSY RAMSEY: Probably on the 21st.
TOM HANEY: Okay.
PATSY RAMSEY: Evening.
TOM HANEY: And this is the sweater --
PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.
TOM HANEY: -- jacket?
PATSY RAMSEY: Fleet's jacket I bought for her.
TOM HANEY: And is that the same one that was turned over by Ellis Armistead to the police?
PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.
TOM HANEY: Let me just turn to the next one and check it out. Can you identify that, was that taken at or about the same time --
PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
TOM HANEY: -- and place?
PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.
TOM HANEY: And that's the jacket that you were wearing that you identified earlier?
PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
TOM HANEY: How about the red -- and I can't tell --
PATSY RAMSEY: No, it's a little turtleneck. I don't know.
TOM HANEY: Was that also turned over --
PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
TOM HANEY: Okay -- by you to Ellis who in turn turned it over to the police?
PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
TOM HANEY: And how about what John was wearing?
PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
TOM HANEY: And --
PATSY RAMSEY: This part I remember.
TOM HANEY: He's wearing a black long sleeve --
PATSY RAMSEY: Shirt.
TOM HANEY: -- color and I can't --
PATSY RAMSEY: Well, it's hard to tell.
TOM HANEY: Okay. Can of peanuts.
PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recall that night what footwear you had on?
PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't. I really don't know.
TRIP DeMUTH: Could you guess what you would have been wearing with that outfit? Was it the same -- you were going to wear the same outfit the next day on the plane, is that --
PATSY RAMSEY: Well, probably these little black boots kind of things that were kind of ankle boots.
TRIP DeMUTH: Were those the furry ones?
PATSY RAMSEY: Furry? No, no, they were the leather like shoe boots, kind of more like shoes than boots, but I can't say for sure.
TRIP DeMUTH: And what brand were those?
PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I got them at Lundstrum's, I think.
TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.
PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible.) Or were they tennis shoes? I'll look again.
TRIP DeMUTH: Did you have a pair of white socks on?
PATSY RAMSEY: I was trying to think. Looks like that was attached to me or attached to the rug or something. Kind of looks like that. I could have had white socks on underneath the --
TRIP DeMUTH: Uh-huh (yes).
PATSY RAMSEY: -- shoes.
1 TRIP DeMUTH: Shoes. Does that help refresh your recollection about what shoes you were wearing?
PATSY RAMSEY: No.
TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.
---------
What types of shoes Patsy is wearing on this date or if she is wearing socks is completely itrrelevant. If she were truly innocent she would have told them off for asking such mundane questions but since these questions are killing the clock so to speak, she'll let them talk about her socks til the cows come home if they wish to do so.
Hey UK(or anyone), did she make a mistake saying the 21st and either meant the 23rd or Christmas? I'm confused. I do know they had a party earlier than the one on the 23rd but don't remember the date. Its in the transcripts or maybe on candyrose. Don't have the time to dig at the moment but maybe someone here remembers the date of that specific party. I do know one thing, JAR was at that party so it likely dates it earlier in the month if we're going by his supposed timeline in and out of Boulder.
One other thing....if there were any doubters out there left about how Patsy wanted Jonbenet to dress like her, that exchange should remove doubt. The boots Patsy is describing she owns are a match to the boots Jonbenet was wearing in that photograph on the last page and was wearing on Christmas.
