Happenings of December 26

[Anyhoo]

The same reason he said he didn't think the person intended to kill her, because she was wrapped up like a papoose. He knew the doors were locked, he knew there was no intruder. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A man as devious as JR does not just blurt out a statement like that in front of LE without thinking about what he was saying IMO. That would make JR an honest innocent man and I think he is far from that. That statement would point to only one person as the murderer (PR) and he would know this. Don't be deceived by this very clever man's seemingly innocent honest statement. He said that on purpose. It was calculated, as so many other things he said and did were calculated. He was involved in the murder and staging up to his neck. Believe it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

A man as devious as JR does not just blurt out a statement like that in front of LE without thinking about what he was saying IMO. That would make JR an honest innocent man and I think he is far from that. That statement would point to only one person as the murderer (PR) and he would know this. Don't be deceived by this very clever man's seemingly innocent honest statement. He said that on purpose. It was calculated, as so many other things he said and did were calculated. He was involved in the murder and staging up to his neck. Believe it.

What makes him a devious man? Has he been arrested for some fraud charges? Has he been caught in some huge underhanded business deal? What makes him devious?
I'm sure he did not want to believe some one could murder his baby girl. I watched Katie yesterday and watched the families express their incredulity that someone could look into their babies eyes and still WANT to kill them. It's just not feasible to a normal person. But to a child killer it's a means to an end.

It is a normal statement for someone to make about the death of their child. Based on statements by the parents of other murdered children. IMO.



Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[bettybaby00]

See, that's the biggest red flag for me (and there are many concerning the Ramseys and their behavior)- while I may be out of my mind because of the events of that morning- the evening before and the events leading up to the "finding of, but not reading, the note" would.be.seared.in.my.memory. for life. My story wouldn't change from such simple things like was your child awake or asleep when you got home? If she was asleep who changed her and put her to bed? Did she eat pineapple the night before? Where was your son and husband? Was your son awakened in the morning (who could mistake the answer to THAT one)? EVERY GOSH DARN MOMENT WOULD BE EMBLAZENED IN MY DNA FOR ETERNITY. My story wouldn't change.

I'll repeat myself :lol:

3 seemingly simple "misspoken" statements are critical for distancing them from knowing anything after 10:30ish.

1) "she was asleep, we carried her into the house,"

2) what pineapple?

3) BR was asleep during the ENTIRE event...we didn't wake him b/c he was asleep, and so he doesn't know anything...we know he doesn't know anything b/c he was asleep, no, no...never woke him up to ask if he heard, saw, did anything during the night/morning, b/c he was asleep....:scared::scared:

 

[Anyhoo]

What makes him a devious man? Has he been arrested for some fraud charges? Has he been caught in some huge underhanded business deal? What makes him devious?
I'm sure he did not want to believe some one could murder his baby girl. I watched Katie yesterday and watched the families express their incredulity that someone could look into their babies eyes and still WANT to kill them. It's just not feasible to a normal person. But to a child killer it's a means to an end.

It is a normal statement for someone to make about the death of their child. Based on statements by the parents of other murdered children. IMO.



Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

What is a normal statement for someone to make about the death of their child? "It's an inside Job"?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What is a normal statement for someone to make about the death of their child? "It's an inside Job"?

That quote to me just means that it had to be someone they knew. That he felt that it was someone who knew them and had access in some capacity.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

See, that's the biggest red flag for me (and there are many concerning the Ramseys and their behavior)- while I may be out of my mind because of the events of that morning- the evening before and the events leading up to the "finding of, but not reading, the note" would.be.seared.in.my.memory. for life. My story wouldn't change from such simple things like was your child awake or asleep when you got home? If she was asleep who changed her and put her to bed? Did she eat pineapple the night before? Where was your son and husband? Was your son awakened in the morning (who could mistake the answer to THAT one)? EVERY GOSH DARN MOMENT WOULD BE EMBLAZENED IN MY DNA FOR ETERNITY. My story wouldn't change.

That is just not always the case. Many people have the most horrible things happen to them and then can not remember details. AND you are talking about two different things. In the moments, days, after the event, Pulling facts together could be hard. Your brain is just not working the same way because it is now under complete duress.

It is just not the way it works.

 

[Linda7NJ]

A man as devious as JR does not just blurt out a statement like that in front of LE without thinking about what he was saying IMO. That would make JR an honest innocent man and I think he is far from that. That statement would point to only one person as the murderer (PR) and he would know this. Don't be deceived by this very clever man's seemingly innocent honest statement. He said that on purpose. It was calculated, as so many other things he said and did were calculated. He was involved in the murder and staging up to his neck. Believe it.

What do you base that on?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tawny]

What is a normal statement for someone to make about the death of their child? "It's an inside Job"?

"We should forgive" the killer. Yeah I'd totally say that about the murderer of my child if it were some stranger/intruder *rolls eyes so hard they fall out of my head*

 

[chlban]

Do you all think we will ever get to see much more information?
I never even expected the GJ pages but at least it was something.

I think if we ever do get more information it will likely come from Burke. I don't think it will be that he directly addresses the press, but he could talk to someone. Much like Michael Skakel is alleged to have confessed to people that he killed Martha Moxley, not that I think the witnesses in his case are all that beleivable. However, had they never come forward he would almost certainly never have been charged.

Burke could tell a close friend, girlfriend or eventually he will probably have a wife. While I don't think that Burke was a party to all of the staging, I certainly think he knows the basic truth we all really want to know. Who hit her and were both parents part of the initial staging or, as some of us beieve was John clueless when he first woke up and only caught on when he saw the Ransom Book. Then relationships break up and people talk about what they have been told.

That's one reason I am not big on conspiracy theories. Too many people know things, somene eventrually spills it. In this case there are only two people still alive that at least know the basic truth of that night, but that may well be one too many to keep the secret forever.

 

[Tawny]

I don't believe BR remembers precisely what happened. If your parents have been telling you something from the time you were 9, you probably wouldn't remember the true events because you trust in and believe your parents. His memory would be compromised at this point, IMHO. Everything he ''remembers'' probably had a "logical" (using that loosely lol) explanation attached to it by his parents.

 

[DeeDee249]

As I do. Assuming that he actually said it, what do you think JR meant when he said "this is an inside job"? That's not something you would say about an intruder sneaking in off the street. An inside job to me implies someone from inside the family, but I don't understand why JR would say this (if he did).

I think the Rs had in mind to try to point blame in as many directions as they could without actually naming just one person. The note bears this out, as it mentions a SFF, a disgruntled employee -JM-(by asking for a ransom in the amount of JR's Christmas bonus that year) and someone familiar with the family that would be in need of money (the housekeeper LHP).
Had they come right out and said .....did it, they'd have been sued for libel and because it wasn't true, they'd have lost- in addition to things coming out that they would not have wanted.
When JR made this specific comment, the person that I feel he intended to blame was LHP, their housekeeper. She needed money, having recently asked Patsy for a $2000 loan (which Patsy agreed to) she had a key, she was familiar with the family. They also felt LHP did not have the educational, social or financial means to fight back very well. She was a perfect "patsy" (no pun intended). She was the first name given to police, I believe, and the investigated her that same night, taking saliva and writing samples from her and her husband. He had helped carry up the artificial trees that were stored in the winecellar.

 

[DeeDee249]

I have always believed PR fingerprints were on that notepad and still do.
It was PR notepad and her fingerprints should be on it.

Both parents DNA should be on the waistband of the longjohns and panties, too. JR was SEEN to be holding JB around the waist as he carried her up and Patsy claimed to have dressed her in the longjohns herself. Yet we have not seen any official statement about it.
It is also important to note that no "intruder" DNA, or touch DNA, was found on the note or pad. The first place I'd test to see if it matched the tDNA on the body.

 

[DeeDee249]

The case will never be officially closed as long as it remains officially unsolved. Whether JR dies or not has no bearing on it. Unsolved murder cases are never closed. However, they are considered "cold cases" in situations like this.
I happen to believe that this case was "solved" in 1997, but was considered by the DA then to be un-prosecutable. (as it is now). To me, unless one of the two surviving family members who were in the house that night decides to talk, it will be forever a "cold case". The charges that had statues of limitations have long expired, making the parts of the crime that COULD have been charged (obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence) forever un-prosecutable as well.
Sometimes cases like this move forward when one of the witnesses is given immunity. But in this case, that does not apply, as BR has permanent immunity because of his age and JR has immunity because the charges applicable to him had statutes of limitations that expired, and the only other person present (that could have been blamed by the other two for the actual killing) is dead.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think if we ever do get more information it will likely come from Burke. I don't think it will be that he directly addresses the press, but he could talk to someone. Much like Michael Skakel is alleged to have confessed to people that he killed Martha Moxley, not that I think the witnesses in his case are all that beleivable. However, had they never come forward he would almost certainly never have been charged.

Burke could tell a close friend, girlfriend or eventually he will probably have a wife. While I don't think that Burke was a party to all of the staging, I certainly think he knows the basic truth we all really want to know. Who hit her and were both parents part of the initial staging or, as some of us beieve was John clueless when he first woke up and only caught on when he saw the Ransom Book. Then relationships break up and people talk about what they have been told.

That's one reason I am not big on conspiracy theories. Too many people know things, somene eventrually spills it. In this case there are only two people still alive that at least know the basic truth of that night, but that may well be one too many to keep the secret forever.

I agree with this. BR may not talk publicly, but he'll tell someone someday. And that person may talk. As for his memory, kids tend to remember things the way they are TOLD they happened and not necessarily the way they actually happened, that is true. But in this case, BR was old enough to remember. I also think he was involved and there is no way you forget that. Ever. You can try to talk yourself out of it and rely on false memories all you like, but IMO, you do not block out something like that. You KNOW what you did. Period.
As for Patsy's "amnesia" - I agree with the previous post that a mother does not EVER forget the day her child died, especially like this. You remember everything- what you ate for breakfast, what you wore, what they wore, what their last words were, their last activities. And like the old saying- if you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. The truth never changes, and neither should your story- if it is the truth.

 

[THE BUNK]

I agree with this. BR may not talk publicly, but he'll tell someone someday. And that person may talk. As for his memory, kids tend to remember things the way they are TOLD they happened and not necessarily the way they actually happened, that is true. But in this case, BR was old enough to remember. I also think he was involved and there is no way you forget that. Ever. You can try to talk yourself out of it and rely on false memories all you like, but IMO, you do not block out something like that. You KNOW what you did. Period.

I have to think a wife or a girlfriend would have noticed something via pillow talk. Question is would they have incentive enough to talk to authorities? I wonder if an ex-girlfriend would know?

 

[otg]

I think the Rs had in mind to try to point blame in as many directions as they could without actually naming just one person. The note bears this out, as it mentions a SFF, a disgruntled employee -JM-(by asking for a ransom in the amount of JR's Christmas bonus that year) and someone familiar with the family that would be in need of money (the housekeeper LHP).
Had they come right out and said .....did it, they'd have been sued for libel and because it wasn't true, they'd have lost- in addition to things coming out that they would not have wanted.
When JR made this specific comment, the person that I feel he intended to blame was LHP, their housekeeper. She needed money, having recently asked Patsy for a $2000 loan (which Patsy agreed to) she had a key, she was familiar with the family. They also felt LHP did not have the educational, social or financial means to fight back very well. She was a perfect "patsy" (no pun intended). She was the first name given to police, I believe, and the investigated her that same night, taking saliva and writing samples from her and her husband. He had helped carry up the artificial trees that were stored in the winecellar.

I think the RN was written to throw as much as possible in different directions in hopes that something would “stick”. Several “clues” provided by the Ramseys after JonBenet’s body was found seem to point more to the Pughs than anyone else. The “inside job” comment is odd that it would otherwise seem to point to a family member. But even the words chosen sound like something a consumer of crime books/movies/shows would think to be said (somewhat like the terms used in the RN) rather than simply saying, “I think it was someone close to us,” or, “I think it was someone who knew a lot about us.” It seems that at that point at least, John was trying to cast suspicion on the Pughs. And then Patsy’s early disclosure about LHP’s request for a $2,000 loan adds even more to the suspicions leading in that direction. I wonder if the $118,000 was intended to be another clue directed at the Pughs that no one ever caught. The “odd” amount of 118,000 added to 2,000 comes up with an amount of 120,000 -- not quite as odd. But maybe that is what investigators should have been looking at instead of some religious connotation or John’s Christmas bonus. What I’m suggesting is that whoever wrote the RN (coughPatsycough) chose that amount because of some knowledge that the Pughs had a need of $120,000 -- maybe the debt on their home mortgage, an amount to get them out of debt, something that the writer of the RN (coughPatsycough) hoped would lead investigators to suspect the Pughs.

 

[Frigga]

I agree with this. BR may not talk publicly, but he'll tell someone someday. And that person may talk. As for his memory, kids tend to remember things the way they are TOLD they happened and not necessarily the way they actually happened, that is true. But in this case, BR was old enough to remember. I also think he was involved and there is no way you forget that. Ever. You can try to talk yourself out of it and rely on false memories all you like, but IMO, you do not block out something like that. You KNOW what you did. Period.
As for Patsy's "amnesia" - I agree with the previous post that a mother does not EVER forget the day her child died, especially like this. You remember everything- what you ate for breakfast, what you wore, what they wore, what their last words were, their last activities. And like the old saying- if you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. The truth never changes, and neither should your story- if it is the truth.

Exactly!

This... unbelievable... not believeable to me- at all:

"Patsy was the last person to see JonBenet alive, sleeping in her bed -- "zonked," as she put it.

"She said she kissed her daughter and recited the prayer, "Now I lay me down to sleep." But she can't remember if there was a blanket on the bed, or if it was the one JonBenet was wrapped in when her body was found in a windowless basement room the next day."

from the article of a TALK INTERVIEW WITH JOHN AND PATSEY RAMSEY- these are exact quotes, published.


And this- wow- this is just insane:

"Asked what goes through her mind when she recalls the events of JonBenet's death, Patsy gave a bizarre childlike answer.

"It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child."

http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

 

[Frigga]

Behavior is important- it tells us how people think and act. Detectives look to evidence and behavior.

There will never be a logical explanation to me for the way John and Patsey talked, the things they thought and said or the way they behaved after the kidnap note was found or JonBenet was found- EVER!

 

[DeeDee249]

I tend to look at the ransom amount of $118,000 the same way the police did. It was the amount of JR's bonus that year, and that was a way to point some suspicion at one of Access Graphic's employees. JR gave a name right away- JM. Of course, he was quickly ruled out and I believe may have sued or threatened to sue for it.
I don't tie the bonus or ransom amount to any bible verse or psalm nor do I think it has any religious connotation. I look at it at face value- the near-exact amount (rounded off) of his bonus that year. Patsy claimed not to know what it was. Right. Patsy (and Nedra) were the types to have that bonus amount seared into their minds- they probably already had it spent! Like Nedra said-"we LOVE spending JR's money!"

 

[MyBelle]

As I do. Assuming that he actually said it, what do you think JR meant when he said "this is an inside job"? That's not something you would say about an intruder sneaking in off the street. An inside job to me implies someone from inside the family, but I don't understand why JR would say this (if he did).

It supports the charade of kidnapping. I've always taken his comment to be a reference to his employment and that whomever kidnapped his daughter and wrote the ransom note was an insider to his business.

And he's right. He was an insider to his business.

all, jmo.