Happenings of December 26

[Nom de plume]

I think the garrote was put on her there when they realized, that after the headbash, she was still alive.

Why? WHY "finish her off"? I'll never understand this, if true, that they realized she was still alive and then took steps to kill her. So frustrating. And heartbreaking. What was the point?

BBM

IMO it was to keep her from talking. I don't know if the head bash was intended to kill her or not but I have no doubt that her murder was intentional. I know a lot of people here believe otherwise, but that is :moo:

 

[madeleine]

another thing...if PR wrote the note...why did she point fingers at the housekeeper?doesn't make much sense if she ,by writing it,wanted to suggest it was someone hating jr and his business...JR was prepared though ...he immediately said it was an inside job and IMO he didn't mean the housekeeper but his business...

 

[UKGuy]

Are you sure?

In their CNN interview, New Years Day '97, JR says he told PR to call the police.

"RAMSEY, J: Well, no. I mean, I read it very fast. I was out of my mind. And it said "Don't call the police." You know, that type of thing. And I told Patsy, call the police immediately. And I think I ran through the house a bit. "

In Death of Innocence the Ramseys write;

"John runs down the main stairs and into the back hallway. I grasp my stomach and run after him. By the time I get to him he is down on his hands and knees, staring at the sheets of paper spread out on the floor in front of him. He is examining the ransom note, under the ceiling lights of the back hall. The note reads:

(PR states what how the note reads)

"What do I do?"I stammer.​

He shouts. "Call the police!"

"Are you sure?"

"Yes. Call them!"

Standing next to the wall phone, I instantly dial 911, and try to make the voice on the other end of the line understand. ​

So far, it looks like you're right, JR appears to have told PR to call the police. (Of course we are relying on Ramsey testimony here)

The problem is with the A&E Channel's documentary where PR states;

Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."'

We (or at least I) could dismiss the inconsistency in who decided the police needed to be called. Whether JR ordered PR to do it, or whether it was PR who stated she was going to do it and JR went along. Except that the physical location of the "actors" tells us something is wrong. It's more than not remembering exactly who's idea it was. In version one, JR is on his hands and knees reading the note on the floor, and PR is standing next to the phone. In version two, they are upstairs, and she runs down stairs to make the call while JR goes to check on BR.

PR has lied, at least once, about what happened. The two versions are not consistent. So inconsistent that they cannot be reconciled.

So which version is true? Did JR tell PR to call? Or was it PR's decision, one which JR went along with?

If JR wanted the call made, why not make it himself?

But of course, your objection, even if true, doesn't dispose of the problem. The police were called, with the body in the house. Why would JR tell PR to do that? Why would they try to stage a kidnapping, then call the police who will certainly find the body and realize there was no kidnapping?





So you believe that ex-Naval Officer and sharp business man JR allowed his wife and son to run around the house, staging at different times, and with different agendas? With all his training in strategy he just let everyone run around willy-nilly staging for their own purposes? I know you seem to dislike the word implausible, but I don't know what else to use here - Fantastic? Absurd? Ridiculous?

If all 3 were involved (and they weren't) then JR would be in charge, directing how things would be done. The scene, as staged would have told a single, clear, convincing story, meant to fool the authorities.



True, there is no rule book. JR could have left the body on the basement floor, hopped in his car, and took off for parts unkown, expecting the police would think it's a kidnapping case.

I'm sorry, but I must return to plausibility. If the Kidnapping is to be believed (and if not, why bother with it?) then there should not be both a body and a RN. Once the body is found, the kidnapping scenario is down the toilet.

If the body had been hidden in the crawl space we might be able to believe JR expected it would not be found there. But it was in the WC. Calling the police guarantees the body will be found and the kidnapping scenario goes down the drain.

Though there is no rule book, one might assume that any attempt to stage a particular scenario would have to be believable. Or to put it differently, there actually is an informal rule book - the scenario has to be plausible if it's going to convince the authorities. Once the body is discovered in the house it's no longer believable that there was a kidnapper. Suspicion immediately turns to the people who were in the house that night.




The evidence does not confirm all 3 were involved in staging. But we won't agree on that, so lets move on.

You have it right when you say on R (at least) sexually assaulted JBR, and an R, possibly not the same person, killed her. You've allowed, sensibly, for the possibility that it was the same person doing the abuse and killing.

Chrishope,

Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."'

If you consider the kidnapping scenario does not meet your high standards of plausibility. Why would JR agree to PR dialling 911 when he has a valid reason to tell her, do not dial 911 right now, since the Ransom Note contains a threat? What allows you to determine its plausible that JR should allow his masterplan to blow up in his face, courtesy of PR?

Why would they try to stage a kidnapping, then call the police who will certainly find the body and realize there was no kidnapping?

The staged kidnapping was enacted by all three Ramsey's. BR was faking being asleep, JR was kidding on he just woke up, and Patsy was acting Commander in Chief.

The why has a simple answer. The kidnapping is not intended to be a bona fide abduction, its main purpose is to act as a communication mechanism i.e. 911 call!

The R's version of events confirm this: basically they went to bed, and when they woke up the next day JonBenet was gone.

JonBenet was moved, including all the accompanying forensic evidence: barbie doll etc, from upstairs. That is a primary crime-scene was cleaned up and JonBenet was stashed away in the wine-cellar. This was the purpose behind claiming she had been kidnapped, its a ruse to mask the fact that she had been relocated down to the basement, and the responsibility was passed to some mythical kidnapper.

The R's were not concerned with the inconsistency of JonBenet being located in the wine-cellar and a Ransom Note upstairs claiming she had left the building.

No, what the R's wanted was plausible deniability, and the combination of cleaning up the prior crime-scene, dumping her along with various artifacts into the wine-cellar, along with a ransom note lets them diall 911 and profess ignorance.

I reckon JR and PR considered JonBenet's prior staging was not going to stand up to scrutiny. Their plan was not to evade justice it was to make sure little evidence of the primary crime-scene remained for police inspection, and that which did was sanitized.

The evidence does not confirm all 3 were involved in staging. But we won't agree on that, so lets move on.

I am afraid it does. It links all three R's with the wine-cellar crime-scene and we have BR on the phone talking to his parents when they all said they were lying in bed asleep. BR colluded with his parents in the staged kidnapping of JonBenet!


I think one R sexually molested JonBenet and in the process unintentionally smothered JonBenet, so to silence her prevent her signalling to the other R's that she was being abused.

This same R decided that since JonBenet was not responding, then she should be whacked on the head to offer a reason for her being comatose, except for some bizarre reason, no visible injury appeared and JonBenet continued to be comatose. JonBenet could have been whacked with the bar-bell in her bedroom or the flashlight, the latter may have been a necessity, as from memory the main light was not working in her bedroom or it was employed for another intimate motive?

This R then reports to the other R's that JonBenet has had an accident, e.g. she fell down the basement stairs?

These R's check everything over, but cannot work out all the details, but can tell the whole truth has not been told. Whatever ensues, they decide on a bedroom staging with JonBenet dressed as a victim of some pedophile intruder. Later this, for whatever reason, is restaged down to the basement.

A variation on the above which I am partial too, and which factors in JR, possibly explaining some of his obscure behaviour and answers, is that PR although eventually told that BR had accidently killed JonBenet, she was never told the full details.

That is, JR conspired with BR to stage the crime-scene, so to minimise BR's culpability and reduce what PR could ever find out?

Those size-12's were never placed on JonBenet by Patsy, she would have known they would represent a red flag in a homicide case, especially when the remaining pairs have vanished, yet she claims she gave them to JonBenet.

The same applies to the longjohns, why longjohns, why not the pink barbie nightgown or any other suitable gown etc. Yet longjohns, what function do they play? I reckon they are an incremental addition to the size-12's, its clothing for clothing sake, almost a means to hiding any further bleeding?

The amateur staging and the elementary mistakes made during JonBenet's sexual assault lead me to consider BR as the prime suspect. There is no smoking gun though and nothing but common sense by which to rule out JR and PR.


.

 

[midwest mama]

There have been some very thought provoking posts on this thread the last couple of days. I've taken a breather from posting, while finishing "The Other Side of Suffering". It's been a trying read, but I can only say that it has offered some insight into this case that explains, IMHO, somewhat of how the WHY's are so befuddling when trying to consider how lovely little JB's life ended so tragically.

JR made it quite clear that his view of life many times was that it was "unfair". His normal response was usually one of dismay or anger coupled with a desire for retribution, which he only felt possible to achieve through a sacrifice or compromise on his part - which fed back to his circle of feeling that he deserved so much more than what usually ended up being unfair.

Personal achievement and wealth were (I believe still are) at the core of his sense of adequacy. He explains it thoroughly, and without regret, even though he claims now, since healing through his faith, to realize that downsizing and simplifying his life are more appropriate for his new spiriitual focus. He wants us baited up, then reeled in, hook, line and sinker through the writing of this book.

From what I have read about this case and what I have read that has been published about the Ramseys - and it is almost everything that is out there, just because I feel being as informed as possible is the only way I deserve to have an opinion about the whole thing - I think JB was killed during a sexual encounter for which she was being groomed to believe was to become a part of their normal life, but for which JB herself in the few months prior to her death had begun to rebel against.

I think the night of her death, the encounter was planned to be a special tryst that culminated in JB fighting against the perpetrator because of a combination of fear and pain of the techniques that were being used. The remarks about JB's ethereal love of nature, animals, Santa - her endearing spirit and recognizable charm, doing so well and loving school and playmates showed she was beginning to recognize an "outside world" where probably it was becoming apparent to her that her life behind closed doors was not what it should be. Both she and Burke were already in therapy when she was killed. I think that JB struggled to demonstrate that night that she did not want to become what was expected of her.

My thought on the RN: Addressed to JR, making him the target and victim, of course, and then he would also be the one to be considered the only one who could be the "deliverer" - to right the wrong, to become the hero. "It's all up to you now, John." How about the $118,000 being another part of the staging that was meant to fool the other parent? If the note was supposed to scare Patsy, would she key into the 118 connection to "her Psalm", making it even more spooky to her? Or, was the $118,000 a snear from JR to say "I helped make a billion dollar business and I get a measly $118,000 as a bonus - it should have been more, much much more - so unfair."

To those of you who could entertain an IDI, but as in "insider", I will ask you to consider Rod Westmoreland. He was supposedly enroute from Atlanta to Missisissipi to visit his parents at the time he was contacted to help JR make arrangements for ransom money. His secretary fielded the call, which was returned to JR shortly. And within a few hours he showed up, in person, in Boulder, where he was quite aggressive with BPD in seeking information about the process of the investigation. Fishy. And if connected to her death, then I suspect one of the Fat Cats that also had pedo ring connections which would answer any question I have about this case being much more than meets the eye - as has been alluded to by more than a couple of the big investigative names in this case.

The last comment I have today with regard to feeling JR is guilty, is about the tape over JB's mouth. It's been made very clear the tape served no purpose in stifling sound from JB - rather it most likely was applied after her death to contribute to the "look" of a kidnapping/murder. Perhaps.

But I wonder if the tape was to send a message to anyone who knew anything about JR's involvement with JB. Or thought they might know about it. Like FW. JR disclosed during one of his interviews that tape like that was used on the boat that he and Fleet had sailed together. FW returned back to the basement and especially picked up and handled the tape. Would JR have made any comments to FW when removing the tape from JB about the killer using it to silence her or keep her from talking? Could it have been an unspoken signal that JB was silenced to keep her from talking? And that if anyone else who knew anything about the "tryst and grooming" being done with JB, would meet the same fate if they talked?

For those of you who are convinced Patsy wrote the RN, because of her style and language intonations, consider that since JB's death, we have learned that Mr. Ramsey has initiated and done far more journalistic writing than Patsy was credited for. It was said they co-authored holiday greetings also. John Ramsey uses quotes continually in his writings. Refers to his theological, Biblical study - especially of Psalms - in TOSOS. He demonstrates through his writing that he must have the Ramsey side of the story be known, understood, and justified. The RN is written in the same manner - with a story of who, why, listening carefully to be understood, and what will justify the results of the crime.

I'll end this post with the most confounding story JR related in his last book.
It was about his mission trip to India, during which time his group focused on a spiritual healing done at a location which trains prostitutes and is also connected to sex trafficking and child sexual slavery. JR decided the change in his life spiritually came when he spent 3 months with a group YWAM (Youth With a Mission) Organization, which trains people of all ages to go out into the mission field. Their website is very informative, and depicts their organization most closely related to youth activities and outreach and I have no doubt it is legitimate in it's intent and goals. Their program is a 3 month lecture university followed by a 2 - 3 month field experience outreach.
To me that adds up to about 6 months, not the 3 months that JR talks about, but I could be misreading his explanation. What seemed so bizarre to me was the manner in which he delivered his experience of working with the sex trade group. He got involved in telling a man his experience while on a commercial flight. The fervor of relating his experience, and the response of the man about said it all. I could find absolutely no purpose in JR relating such detailed information about his mission trip, other than to inform us that he acknowledges that evil and sexual perversion go hand in hand and that it does exist and thrive in the world today. I hope one day to sit down and just list out the things throughout the book that seem to me that JR is "telling" on himself out of a subconscious guilt he has. He has found a way to justify all the unfairness he has suffered in his life now - through claiming he knows that God intends for him to go forward with hope and joy. He has bathed himself in salvation by claiming the Lord's grace, and as a Christian, I am appalled.

 

[Darlene733510]

I am still leaning toward BR as the one who started it all, and the parents did the staging.
One reason is that right after BR testified the GJ reached their decision to charge the parents. If they had any doubt, it seems to me that they would have insisted on hearing testimony from JR and PR. Did AH have the right to not put them on the stand, or did he know BR was guilty, and he would never be charged anyway? I thought the GJ had the right to call anyone they wanted to testify.
I think BR bashed her in the head, and when she wouldn't wake up he went to the parents for help. He probably didn't know that she was unconscious, because there was no blood.
He may have told the parents she fell down the stairs and wouldn't wake up. I don't think the parents even knew about the head injury. If they had taken her to the hospital, the Drs there would know that she had been injured by BR previously, and they would be suspicious that BR had something to do with the head injury. ERs are very critical now when any child has an injury, and the first thing they want to know is if the child is being abused. The R's probably tried to wake her up, but when they couldn't, the did the staging to protect BR.

 

[Nom de plume]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Excellent post MWM! ITA with everything you had to say. I believe the reason this case is so hard to solve is because there's so much more to it than meets the eye. Things so horrible and disgusting most people cannot even consider them as possibilities.

 

[questfortrue]

MM, ITA that there's some subconscious guilt that JR has been trying to atone for and vindicate for some time.

I also agree with Maddie regarding that the parents and child may not have been totally honest with one another about what had happened. The question in my mind has always been, when, how and who discovered JB dying? Did BR go to one of his parents? Was PR awake when a scream was heard?

In reviewing some info in Kolar’s book, I reread this statement from Dr. Lucy Rorke, a neeuro-pathologist with the Philadelphia Children’s Hospital: The blow to the head, if left untreated, would have been fatal. BBM

So the first decision on the part of whoever discovered her – and possibly the other parent was engaged immediately in the decision making process - was not to seek help. It may be that they were not on the same page with obtaining help. But nonetheless, both parents had to have agreed early on to stage this as a crime and cover up for another family member. For BDI theorists, this was to spare BR from the clutches of social services, spare the R’s of shame over the sexual aspect of the crime, and keep their family intact.

Not seeking help for JB or sparing BR (or sparing the whole family?) we’ve mostly agreed that it was the sexual aspect of the crime that tipped the scales in favor of a cover-up. In that scenario (and if PR were truly in the dark about chronic sexual abuse and JR also not have known about chronic sexual abuse unless he had participated in it) this single instance convinced them not to seek help for her? Or could it also have been that the one most frightened about a single instance of abuse and very afraid of being accused himself of molestation even if totally innocent, was the one against calling for help? Sounds awful, but can’t be eliminated as an additional ‘fear’ motive not to call for help JMHO

 

[Chrishope]

Originally Posted by otg
The problem in making any sense of this mess is knowing exactly what to attribute to whom. And that is because more than one person had a hand the whole thing (as I believe most posters here will acknowledge). However likely or unlikely, and however dreadful or repugnant to consider, any one of four people who lived in the hellhole could have caused the vaginal injuries. But believing that the one person who is responsible for that has to be the same one who did everything else is IMO wrong.

We can go through the whole likelihood of one person over another, we can talk about statistics of abusers, and we can always discuss occam's razor vs the plenitude principle.

But based on what I can read in the AR and on the opinions and reasoning I’ve read from specialists who have actually seen all the evidence, I believe that the molestation had started a considerable length of time before her death. The exact amount of time cannot be reasonably estimated even by the experts. But understanding the term “chronic” as it is used by doctors tells us that it had to be a long enough period of time that any resulting injury would have time enough to partially heal but not scar over. The separate “acute” injuries had to have happened shortly before her death -- not afterwards as some have speculated, leading them to the incorrect conclusion that these injuries might have been inflicted to hide or mask the prior molestations.

This much we know because it is written by the coroner. The rest is speculation, so here's mine:

To me, this seems to have been something that had started happening within recent months prior to her death, and then escalated to the point of causing more and more physical damage (not to mention the mental damage) and eventually pain when it was being done.

So if you follow that line of reasoning, it makes more sense (to me at least) to believe this was something being done by a juvenile whose sexual curiosity had been awakened and was going to continue progressing until something happened that would stop it. And I don’t discount the possibility that more than one juvenile may have been involved in the ongoing molestation. There are indications that this may have been the case. I think PR was beginning to see signs of it, but either didn’t want to address it, or didn’t know what to do about it. I don’t think JR was even aware of it, but that’s only because I see him as being so busy with his business and detached from the family.

No, I don't subscribe to DocG's theory.

Originally Posted by Chrishope

I think it's quite possible it was all done by one person.

Okay, Chris, I suppose we’ll never agree on that one, but I appreciate your opinion and enjoy a civil discussion.


Quote:
Emphasizing the word "has", I would agree. But it could, imo, be the same person.
I understand what you’re saying.

Why couldn't the acute injuries have been inflicted prior to death with the intent to obscure chronic injuries? Not that I necessarily think the acute injures were in fact inflicted for that purpose, but I don't see why the couldn't be.

[/quote]

Too much about that supposition doesn’t make sense to me. Not that people who do stupid or vile things aren’t capable of making big mistakes in their reasoning, but I just don’t find that kind of action very plausible. But then, there’s Hanlon’s razor, which states, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Please be more specific. I think it's interesting that the acute injuries might not have been for the purpose of hiding chronic injuries. It might not occur to a 9 year old that once would cover up the other, and it might occur to an adult that it wouldn't - that the cornor would be able to tell anyway. So under any theory of the case, it might be that the inuries are just injuries, with not overriding purpose.

What indications?

Like much of what you question, I don’t necessarily think it was the case that there was more than one juvenile involved on the night JonBenet died, but I recognize the possibility. Others have pointed to the bicycle tracks in the yard, the possible phone calls in the middle of the night, and the inexplicable and sudden closeness to the Stines immediately following the incident (yet they were among the few who were not called over that morning). I do think though that there were others involved in the prior molestations that took place. There is no proof of that in any of what we know, but some of the other things we’ve heard or read about that were going on leading up to that night hint at it. (If you want, I could expand on that in another post.)

Wasn't JBR riding her new bike Christmas morning? Wouldn't that explain the bike tracks? The phone calls -or more precisely the lack of records of the phone calls, are troubling, but I don't see how they suggest juvenilles. The Stines were good friends before the murder, weren't they? Why do you think others were involved in the acute abuse?

But then we have the old problem of why the Rs felt it necessary to implicate themselves in the murder of their daughter. We seem to be falling back to the idea that the Rs didn't want ti publicly known that BR was the abuser and/or head basher. But I always have trouble believing either adult in the household figured implicating themselves in a capital crime was preferable.

To me, it's implausible that parents who were unaware or only dimly becoming aware of prior abuse would decide the best course of action, upon discovering JBR's injuries, was to stage a phoney kidnapping. It does seem a popular theory.

Yup. We always come full circle back to that. The only explanation I can give to that is that they didn’t feel they would be implicating themselves in a murder if they were able to pull it off. They were simply trying to save themselves from the loss of their only remaining child. I don’t think you would (and I know I wouldn’t) consider taking that tack in the same situation. But who’s to say they aren’t smarter than you and I -- because it worked! And every article you read that comes out about it now reminds us all that the entire Ramsey family has been cleared by the DA. So it did indeed work.

Pretty big assumption there - that they could pull it off. IMO they had to know they were running substantial risk of being implicated in murder, all the more so if they allowed the body to be found, which (IMO) completely destroys the plausibility of the kidnapping scenario. At that point -when the body is found- it looks like exactly what everyone thinks it looks like (everyone one but the Rs and LS) A murder being covered up with a phoney kidnap scenario.

It's possible they feared BR being taken from them, but if they were idicted he'd be taken anyway, plus they'd have to defend themselves on murder charges. It seems to me that trying to cover up for BR just multiplies the problems and risks, which is why I find it hard to believe.

I have to agree with you that it did work. I think it's fair to question whether it's because the Rs (one or more) were criminal masterminds, or was it because an inexperienced police dept. couldn't figure it out, aided and abetted by a prosecutor's office that was basically working for the RST?
__________________

All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech”.

 

[Chrishope]

I am thinking....it's important to whom the note is addressed....it's an important detail...no matter who wrote it I think the idea belonged to him...if this was about revenge of course it's more plausible to target John (practice note showed Mrs And Mr....then it changed to only Mr)...he again wants to make it look like HE is the victim in all this...I am not the killer,I am the victim,it was all about ME.I always thought she was the drama queen but JR is one as well...the other side of HIS suffering....it was always important to him for the world to know how much HE went through...he talks more about that than about PR's cancer or JB's injuries....the note being addressed to him makes me believe not only that it was done to mislead (JR the killer>JR the victim) but also to underline once again that HE is a victim....

why didn't the note just say we've got your child,we want money or she dies....why ALL the details re JR?....what I am asking is,one of the two R's wrote it....why did the writer focus so much on JR?because it was always about ME ME ME?

dunno how clear I made myself,sorry,I gotta run

IMO, it may well be the case that JR is an attention seeker, but I don't think that is the primary reason the note is addressed to him.

It's addressed to him, and all the details are about him, because he needs to fool PR into believing JBR has been kidnapped.

It's not meant to fool the police because when the body is found the kidnap scenario goes down the toilet. It's meant to fool PR and it's also meant to give JR all control. It will be JR making the ransom drop - which imo gives him opportunity to find a ravine to throw the body in.

PR has no role to play, as far as the RN is concerned. IMO JR would send PR and BR off to stay with friends, on the pretext of insuring BR's safety. Once PR/BR are out of the way, JR can go ditch the body.

 

[Chrishope]

BBM

IMO it was to keep her from talking. I don't know if the head bash was intended to kill her or not but I have no doubt that her murder was intentional. I know a lot of people here believe otherwise, but that is :moo:

Well certainly the garrotte was intentional. I was fooling around with some rope in my garage the other day and I didn't accidentally garrote anyone. So while the blow to the head may or may not be intentional, certainly the garrotte was. Of course we don't know that the person who garrotted her knew she was still alive.

 

[Chrishope]

another thing...if PR wrote the note...why did she point fingers at the housekeeper?doesn't make much sense if she ,by writing it,wanted to suggest it was someone hating jr and his business...JR was prepared though ...he immediately said it was an inside job and IMO he didn't mean the housekeeper but his business...

Good point. While the housekeeper is an "insider" in the sense that she has a key, she is unlikely to "hate" JR's business.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

If you consider the kidnapping scenario does not meet your high standards of plausibility. Why would JR agree to PR dialling 911 when he has a valid reason to tell her, do not dial 911 right now, since the Ransom Note contains a threat? What allows you to determine its plausible that JR should allow his masterplan to blow up in his face, courtesy of PR?

We know that the police would never believe there was a kidnapping once the body was found. Therefore the plan had to include dumping the body. We know that the killer, and any possibly co-conspirators would not have wanted to destroy the plausibility of the kidnap scenario. So we know PR made the call without JR's ascent.

Why would JR allow this? It's a very reasonable question. The answer is, how could he prevent it? It takes what, about 2 seconds to make the 911 call? Unless JR had actual physical control of PR every moment -and would that not tip her something was wrong? - he couldn't stop her.

One of the Rs had to find the note. (We don't really know who found it, we just have the Rs testimony to go on) JR could have found the note, but he'd have to let PR read it then we are right back where we started - PR "knows" JBR is kidnapped. If she wants the police, she can get to a phone and make the call. IOWs it's one thing that JR could not completely control, though he certainly tried by putting all those warnings in the note.

The staged kidnapping was enacted by all three Ramsey's. BR was faking being asleep, JR was kidding on he just woke up, and Patsy was acting Commander in Chief.

Patsy was CIC? Really? You're serious?

It strikes me that top business man and retired naval officer JR is used to assuming command, especially in his own house, with his own family. The idea that Patsy takes the tactical command function in a 3 way co-conspiracy strains credulity. John would have been in charge.

The why has a simple answer. The kidnapping is not intended to be a bona fide abduction, its main purpose is to act as a communication mechanism i.e. 911 call!

If you'll think about the note you'll realize this doesn't make a lot of sense. If the RN is intended as a reason for calling 911, then it only needs to be a short note, stating JBR has been taken, and demanding a ransom. That's sufficient for calling 911.

The note of course runs on for 2.5 pages, most of which is repeated warnings not to call the police. If it was intended as a "communication mechanism" it could not be more ill-suited for the purpose.

The R's version of events confirm this: basically they went to bed, and when they woke up the next day JonBenet was gone.

Again, a short to the point note would have sufficed. The Rs story does not confirm that the note was a "communication mechanism".

JonBenet was moved, including all the accompanying forensic evidence: barbie doll etc, from upstairs. That is a primary crime-scene was cleaned up and JonBenet was stashed away in the wine-cellar. This was the purpose behind claiming she had been kidnapped, its a ruse to mask the fact that she had been relocated down to the basement, and the responsibility was passed to some mythical kidnapper.

If I understand you, you're saying the purpose of the note is to mask the fact that she'd been relocated. If you'll consider what happened, you'll realize this doesn't make much sense. Once the body is found, the kidnapper scenario is out the window. At that point it looks just like what everyone (except LS) thinks - she was murdered by someone in the house and the kidnapping was cooked up to cover up a murder. Also, there is no need for the repeated warnings in the RN to achieve the effect you think the note was trying to achieve.

The R's were not concerned with the inconsistency of JonBenet being located in the wine-cellar and a Ransom Note upstairs claiming she had left the building.

The killer had no choice but to be concerned with the consistency of the staged crime scene. It's only believable if it's consistent.

No, what the R's wanted was plausible deniability, and the combination of cleaning up the prior crime-scene, dumping her along with various artifacts into the wine-cellar, along with a ransom note lets them diall 911 and profess ignorance.

Which no one (except possibly LS) ever believed. There was no plausible deniability - only implausible deniability.

I reckon JR and PR considered JonBenet's prior staging was not going to stand up to scrutiny. Their plan was not to evade justice it was to make sure little evidence of the primary crime-scene remained for police inspection, and that which did was sanitized.

As soon as the body is found it's a murder investigation. It doesn't matter at that point whether the murder/abuse took place upstairs or in the basement or anywhere else. Everything then points to one of the Rs killing her and staging a kidnapping. It's more important to avoid being thought the murderer than it is to be thought the murder in the basement as opposed to the murder in the bedroom.

I am afraid it does. It links all three R's with the wine-cellar crime-scene and we have BR on the phone talking to his parents when they all said they were lying in bed asleep. BR colluded with his parents in the staged kidnapping of JonBenet!


I think one R sexually molested JonBenet and in the process unintentionally smothered JonBenet, so to silence her prevent her signalling to the other R's that she was being abused.

This same R decided that since JonBenet was not responding, then she should be whacked on the head to offer a reason for her being comatose, except for some bizarre reason, no visible injury appeared and JonBenet continued to be comatose. JonBenet could have been whacked with the bar-bell in her bedroom or the flashlight, the latter may have been a necessity, as from memory the main light was not working in her bedroom or it was employed for another intimate motive?

This R then reports to the other R's that JonBenet has had an accident, e.g. she fell down the basement stairs?

These R's check everything over, but cannot work out all the details, but can tell the whole truth has not been told. Whatever ensues, they decide on a bedroom staging with JonBenet dressed as a victim of some pedophile intruder. Later this, for whatever reason, is restaged down to the basement.



A variation on the above which I am partial too, and which factors in JR, possibly explaining some of his obscure behaviour and answers, is that PR although eventually told that BR had accidently killed JonBenet, she was never told the full details.

That is, JR conspired with BR to stage the crime-scene, so to minimise BR's culpability and reduce what PR could ever find out?

Those size-12's were never placed on JonBenet by Patsy, she would have known they would represent a red flag in a homicide case, especially when the remaining pairs have vanished, yet she claims she gave them to JonBenet.

There's something we can agree on.

The same applies to the longjohns, why longjohns, why not the pink barbie nightgown or any other suitable gown etc. Yet longjohns, what function do they play? I reckon they are an incremental addition to the size-12's, its clothing for clothing sake, almost a means to hiding any further bleeding?

Possibly. I can see them being for the purpose of hiding bleeding but then when I ask -from who? - it makes little sense. Once the body is found, it's a given the coroner will take off the longjohns, so they don't hide bleeding from the corner. They might hid it from the police, but the police (if following proceedure) aren't going to touch the body anyway, so we're back to the coroner. They can't really be there to hide bleeding from other family members because if they find the body they'll know she hasn't been kidnapped - the bleeding is small potatoes in comparrison. I don't know, the longjohns never made much sense to me.

The amateur staging and the elementary mistakes made during JonBenet's sexual assault lead me to consider BR as the prime suspect. There is no smoking gun though and nothing but common sense by which to rule out JR and PR.

What specifically do you think indicates BR did the "ameteur" staging? What "mistake" is there in the sexual assault?

 

[Chrishope]

There have been some very thought provoking posts on this thread the last couple of days. I've taken a breather from posting, while finishing "The Other Side of Suffering". It's been a trying read, but I can only say that it has offered some insight into this case that explains, IMHO, somewhat of how the WHY's are so befuddling when trying to consider how lovely little JB's life ended so tragically.

JR made it quite clear that his view of life many times was that it was "unfair". His normal response was usually one of dismay or anger coupled with a desire for retribution, which he only felt possible to achieve through a sacrifice or compromise on his part - which fed back to his circle of feeling that he deserved so much more than what usually ended up being unfair.

Personal achievement and wealth were (I believe still are) at the core of his sense of adequacy. He explains it thoroughly, and without regret, even though he claims now, since healing through his faith, to realize that downsizing and simplifying his life are more appropriate for his new spiriitual focus. He wants us baited up, then reeled in, hook, line and sinker through the writing of this book.

From what I have read about this case and what I have read that has been published about the Ramseys - and it is almost everything that is out there, just because I feel being as informed as possible is the only way I deserve to have an opinion about the whole thing - I think JB was killed during a sexual encounter for which she was being groomed to believe was to become a part of their normal life, but for which JB herself in the few months prior to her death had begun to rebel against.

I think the night of her death, the encounter was planned to be a special tryst that culminated in JB fighting against the perpetrator because of a combination of fear and pain of the techniques that were being used. The remarks about JB's ethereal love of nature, animals, Santa - her endearing spirit and recognizable charm, doing so well and loving school and playmates showed she was beginning to recognize an "outside world" where probably it was becoming apparent to her that her life behind closed doors was not what it should be. Both she and Burke were already in therapy when she was killed. I think that JB struggled to demonstrate that night that she did not want to become what was expected of her.

My thought on the RN: Addressed to JR, making him the target and victim, of course, and then he would also be the one to be considered the only one who could be the "deliverer" - to right the wrong, to become the hero. "It's all up to you now, John." How about the $118,000 being another part of the staging that was meant to fool the other parent? If the note was supposed to scare Patsy, would she key into the 118 connection to "her Psalm", making it even more spooky to her? Or, was the $118,000 a snear from JR to say "I helped make a billion dollar business and I get a measly $118,000 as a bonus - it should have been more, much much more - so unfair."

The $118K certainly wasn't going to fool the police or FBI, which is another reason to suspect that the note was meant to fool PR, not LE.

IMO the 118 serves two purposes; One, it indicates an "insider" who knows the amount of JR's bonus. Two, it's an amount JR is willing to loose.

To those of you who could entertain an IDI, but as in "insider", I will ask you to consider Rod Westmoreland. He was supposedly enroute from Atlanta to Missisissipi to visit his parents at the time he was contacted to help JR make arrangements for ransom money. His secretary fielded the call, which was returned to JR shortly. And within a few hours he showed up, in person, in Boulder, where he was quite aggressive with BPD in seeking information about the process of the investigation. Fishy. And if connected to her death, then I suspect one of the Fat Cats that also had pedo ring connections which would answer any question I have about this case being much more than meets the eye - as has been alluded to by more than a couple of the big investigative names in this case.

The last comment I have today with regard to feeling JR is guilty, is about the tape over JB's mouth. It's been made very clear the tape served no purpose in stifling sound from JB - rather it most likely was applied after her death to contribute to the "look" of a kidnapping/murder. Perhaps.

But I wonder if the tape was to send a message to anyone who knew anything about JR's involvement with JB. Or thought they might know about it. Like FW. JR disclosed during one of his interviews that tape like that was used on the boat that he and Fleet had sailed together. FW returned back to the basement and especially picked up and handled the tape. Would JR have made any comments to FW when removing the tape from JB about the killer using it to silence her or keep her from talking? Could it have been an unspoken signal that JB was silenced to keep her from talking? And that if anyone else who knew anything about the "tryst and grooming" being done with JB, would meet the same fate if they talked?

For those of you who are convinced Patsy wrote the RN, because of her style and language intonations, consider that since JB's death, we have learned that Mr. Ramsey has initiated and done far more journalistic writing than Patsy was credited for. It was said they co-authored holiday greetings also. John Ramsey uses quotes continually in his writings. Refers to his theological, Biblical study - especially of Psalms - in TOSOS. He demonstrates through his writing that he must have the Ramsey side of the story be known, understood, and justified. The RN is written in the same manner - with a story of who, why, listening carefully to be understood, and what will justify the results of the crime.

I'll end this post with the most confounding story JR related in his last book.
It was about his mission trip to India, during which time his group focused on a spiritual healing done at a location which trains prostitutes and is also connected to sex trafficking and child sexual slavery. JR decided the change in his life spiritually came when he spent 3 months with a group YWAM (Youth With a Mission) Organization, which trains people of all ages to go out into the mission field. Their website is very informative, and depicts their organization most closely related to youth activities and outreach and I have no doubt it is legitimate in it's intent and goals. Their program is a 3 month lecture university followed by a 2 - 3 month field experience outreach.
To me that adds up to about 6 months, not the 3 months that JR talks about, but I could be misreading his explanation. What seemed so bizarre to me was the manner in which he delivered his experience of working with the sex trade group. He got involved in telling a man his experience while on a commercial flight. The fervor of relating his experience, and the response of the man about said it all. I could find absolutely no purpose in JR relating such detailed information about his mission trip, other than to inform us that he acknowledges that evil and sexual perversion go hand in hand and that it does exist and thrive in the world today. I hope one day to sit down and just list out the things throughout the book that seem to me that JR is "telling" on himself out of a subconscious guilt he has. He has found a way to justify all the unfairness he has suffered in his life now - through claiming he knows that God intends for him to go forward with hope and joy. He has bathed himself in salvation by claiming the Lord's grace, and as a Christian, I am appalled.

 

[Chrishope]

MM, ITA that there's some subconscious guilt that JR has been trying to atone for and vindicate for some time.

I also agree with Maddie regarding that the parents and child may not have been totally honest with one another about what had happened. The question in my mind has always been, when, how and who discovered JB dying? Did BR go to one of his parents? Was PR awake when a scream was heard?

I always wonder about this too, when I'm considering BDI theory.

In reviewing some info in Kolar’s book, I reread this statement from Dr. Lucy Rorke, a neeuro-pathologist with the Philadelphia Children’s Hospital: The blow to the head, if left untreated, would have been fatal. BBM

So the first decision on the part of whoever discovered her – and possibly the other parent was engaged immediately in the decision making process - was not to seek help.

This decision always strikes me as odd, especially in a scenario where at least one parent knows nothing about the prior abuse. I'd think it would be very difficult to convince the other parent to go along with a coverup rather than call for an ambulance. What does one say? "Honey, I've been diddling our daughter, so if we call for an ambulance I'm going to jail. Help me with a coverup". "Honey, for reasons I can't divulge, we can't seek medical assistance. Help me with a cover up". "Honey, BR did this, so let's implicate ourselves in a murder because that way we still risk loosing Burke, plus we might get a chance to stand trial for murder".

I'm being facetious but it always strikes me forcefully that parents who are not involved in the chronic abuse would have any reason to cover up rather than call an ambulance.

It may be that they were not on the same page with obtaining help. But nonetheless, both parents had to have agreed early on to stage this as a crime and cover up for another family member. For BDI theorists, this was to spare BR from the clutches of social services, spare the R’s of shame over the sexual aspect of the crime, and keep their family intact.

Except that, as noted facetiously above, they ran substantial risk of being indicted for murder, ensuring they'd loose BR if convicted, plus loosing their freedom for life, or possibly going to the chair (or gas chamber, or whatever CO uses)

Not seeking help for JB or sparing BR (or sparing the whole family?) we’ve mostly agreed that it was the sexual aspect of the crime that tipped the scales in favor of a cover-up. In that scenario (and if PR were truly in the dark about chronic sexual abuse and JR also not have known about chronic sexual abuse unless he had participated in it) this single instance convinced them not to seek help for her?

It is hard to believe, isn't it? A single instance, as far as they knew, convinced them to forgo an ambulance call?

Or could it also have been that the one most frightened about a single instance of abuse and very afraid of being accused himself of molestation even if totally innocent, was the one against calling for help? Sounds awful, but can’t be eliminated as an additional ‘fear’ motive not to call for help JMHO

No, it can't be eliminated, but if he truly wasn't involved in any prior abuse he'd actually have little to worry about. There would be no evidence linking him to the abuse (because he didn't do it) so it strikes me as a pretty weak reason not to call for medical help.

 

[Darlene733510]

If BR bashed JB in the head, and she was unconscious, and the parents did not notice the head injury, would BR tell what he did, or would he say perhaps she fell down the stairs, or something else.
If the parents knew about the head injury why would they not call for help. I have mentioned this before - JB had previously been to the ER because BR hit her in the face with a golf club. If they had taken her to the ER, the Drs would find the head injury, become suspicious, and probably be suspicious of child abuse, and they would call in CPS.
They also needed time to do the staging and concoct a story. If child abuse was suspected, they could have taken BR away while it was investigated. Drs in ER's are now trained that when a child is badly injured, they must rule out child abuse, and the prime suspects are the parents. What would have happened if BR was questioned by CPS before the parents had time to brainwash him. Maybe they would have found out the truth.

 

[otg]

First of all, thank you, Chrishope, for a very thought provoking post.

Why couldn't the acute injuries have been inflicted prior to death with the intent to obscure chronic injuries? Not that I necessarily think the acute injures were in fact inflicted for that purpose, but I don't see why the couldn't be.

I don’t think you and I disagree here on this, Chris, so there seems to be no point in spending too much time debating it at great length.

Of course, we don’t know what was in the mind of the person who did this, so we have to speculate based on what makes the most sense to each of us. The thought that the acute was intended to cover the chronic came about because of speculation that it might have happened after her death. If it had indeed happened after she was dead, then I might give more credence to the idea. But it didn’t. That much is certain from the AR. The acute vaginal injuries occurred before she died. Despite the attempt at removing obvious evidence of a sexual assault, the coroner examined her body for evidence of it anyway and then documented what he found.

If you can’t accept that as reason enough that its intent was not to hide prior injuries, then I won’t try to eliminate your last ounce of doubt. If it will make you feel better, I’ll even go further and agree with you that it is possible (however slight) that that was the intent. Let's move on.

Please be more specific. I think it's interesting that the acute injuries might not have been for the purpose of hiding chronic injuries. It might not occur to a 9 year old that once would cover up the other, and it might occur to an adult that it wouldn't - that the cornor would be able to tell anyway. So under any theory of the case, it might be that the inuries are just injuries, with not overriding purpose.

I don’t know how to be any more specific than I already have. No, I don’t think it would even occur to a 9yo to try and cover up past injuries. Nor do I think anyone else was even aware of the past injuries at the time she died. So your final conclusion that “it might be that the injuries are just injuries, with no overriding purpose” is (IMO) correct.

Wasn't JBR riding her new bike Christmas morning? Wouldn't that explain the bike tracks?

Yes, that could be one explanation. I know that over the years, there has been a lot of speculation about this. Was there a snowfall before or after her bike ride? I don’t know. I don’t even know whether there were actually bike tracks in the morning. But I don’t really think this is important, and I don’t really think it was the case that there was another juvenile present when she died. But even though I don’t subscribe to this, I recognize that it is possible, so I leave myself open to the possibility.

The phone calls -or more precisely the lack of records of the phone calls, are troubling, but I don't see how they suggest juvenilles.

The theory is (again, I don’t subscribe to this) that another juvenile was present who was expected to go with the R’s to Charlevoix. After all this happened, phone calls could have been made to parents, as well as to lawyers and the good Dr. Buff. But we just don’t know this because the phone records were suppressed.

The Stines were good friends before the murder, weren't they?

IIRC, they didn’t become close until after this happened. JR denied in one of his police interviews that he was anything more than an acquaintance of the Stines. After it happened, SS became so ardent a supporter of the R’s that she was referred to as “Patsy’s pitbull”. GS quit his job at U of C to work with JR. Eventually SS quit hers also, and they all moved to Atlanta. SS went to work at GSU in Atlanta. DS (last I heard) is still friends with BR. Keep in mind also that the Stines were the last ones known to have seen the R’s before they went home on Christmas night. The hadn’t gone to the party at the Whites’ house.

Why do you think others were involved in the acute abuse?

I don’t. I do think though that it’s a distinct possibility that others were involved in the chronic abuse. I know of no evidence of this -- simply a feeling. Perhaps that feeling is based on circumstances leading up to the night in question (earlier 911 call, JonBenet’s remark about “not feeling pretty”), as well as knowing how little boys around that age talk amongst themselves and share information.

One more thing is FW3. He was actually closer in age to JonBenet than BR or DS, but he was in the boys' group of friends because of his gender and the friendship of the parents. I don't think he would have participated in this activity, but he would have been aware of it. Remember the confrontation between PW and PR (I think in Atlanta), and how PW said she was going to tell her about what had been going on? After JonBenet was killed, and since FW2 had his suspicions, don't you think the W's would have been asking their kids about anything they might know? And at his age, and because of his innocence in it, I think FW3 probably spilled the beans and let everything out about everything he knew.

For more, click here.

Pretty big assumption there - that they could pull it off. IMO they had to know they were running substantial risk of being implicated in murder, all the more so if they allowed the body to be found, which (IMO) completely destroys the plausibility of the kidnapping scenario. At that point -when the body is found- it looks like exactly what everyone thinks it looks like (everyone one but the Rs and LS) A murder being covered up with a phoney kidnap scenario.

I don’t think it was an assumption that they would pull it off. We don’t know just how they weighed the odds against the outcomes, or how they might have decided to take that chance. If it had been planned to “find” the body while the police were there, I think JR would have suggested earlier that he search the house for anything out of place, and then find her. I don’t think he thought they would be like unwanted in-laws and just refuse to leave, so I think that this part was an unplanned alteration from whatever his plan was before that.

It's possible they feared BR being taken from them, but if they were idicted he'd be taken anyway, plus they'd have to defend themselves on murder charges. It seems to me that trying to cover up for BR just multiplies the problems and risks, which is why I find it hard to believe.

I think you find this so hard to believe because you can’t imagine doing the same thing if you were in the position they found themselves that night. Nor can I. But I believe that that is what the evidence indicates.

I have to agree with you that it did work. I think it's fair to question whether it's because the Rs (one or more) were criminal masterminds, or was it because an inexperienced police dept. couldn't figure it out, aided and abetted by a prosecutor's office that was basically working for the RST?

Criminal masterminds -- no. But someone in the family read John Douglas and watched a lot of movies about crime. And yes, everything else you note worked in their favor.

Well certainly the garrotte was intentional. I was fooling around with some rope in my garage the other day and I didn't accidentally garrote anyone. So while the blow to the head may or may not be intentional, certainly the garrotte was. Of course we don't know that the person who garrotted her knew she was still alive.

Now I have a question for you, Chris. Can I assume by this post that you think the "garrote" was actually used to strangle JonBenet as it was found, and that it was placed on her neck after she was hit over the head, but before she was dead (whether or not it was known by the person who placed it there)?

 

[ozazure]

(snipped)

I'm being facetious but it always strikes me forcefully that parents who are not involved in the chronic abuse would have any reason to cover up rather than call an ambulance.

I felt the same until a few years ago. Now I know that parents can be in a great deal of denial about their children's behavioural problems because this is a psychologically safer place for themselves. For people with a lot invested in how the world sees them and poor boundaries, their child's continued bizarre behaviour is a serious affront to their status and self-worth. If they are unable to change it, they hide it and ignore it. I don't think a cover-up sprung from a family whereby anyone was innocent about any abuses going on. To me it is equally plausible Patsy would cover-up for her husband or her son in a scenario where this was an incremental escalation versus sprung from nowhere. Because we know women do knowingly allow partners to abuse their children. And when it comes to covering for Burke, I don't think a consideration of the legalities came into it. If it was Burke they were well aware of what he was up to and perhaps in a combination of selfishness born of laziness and ego, and learned helplessness, were well practised in denial and covering up his bizarre behaviour. They likely committed to doing so time and again before that night. They had plenty of time to imagine what happens when people find out your child is sexually abusing other children, has a pre-occupation with bondage and scatalogical behaviours, and is prone to violence. They didn't want that and JonBenet is dead so the worse has happened. Pretending a stranger did it means they can continue to deny, even to themselves, how useless they were to change him.

 

[questfortrue]

I felt the same until a few years ago. Now I know that parents can be in a great deal of denial about their children's behavioural problems because this is a psychologically safer place for themselves. For people with a lot invested in how the world sees them and poor boundaries, their child's continued bizarre behaviour is a serious affront to their status and self-worth. If they are unable to change it, they hide it and ignore it. I don't think a cover-up sprung from a family whereby anyone was innocent about any abuses going on. To me it is equally plausible Patsy would cover-up for her husband or her son in a scenario where this was an incremental escalation versus sprung from nowhere. Because we know women do knowingly allow partners to abuse their children. And when it comes to covering for Burke, I don't think a consideration of the legalities came into it. If it was Burke they were well aware of what he was up to and perhaps in a combination of selfishness born of laziness and ego, and learned helplessness, were well practised in denial and covering up his bizarre behaviour. They likely committed to doing so time and again before that night. They had plenty of time to imagine what happens when people find out your child is sexually abusing other children, has a pre-occupation with bondage and scatalogical behaviours, and is prone to violence. They didn't want that and JonBenet is dead so the worse has happened. Pretending a stranger did it means they can continue to deny, even to themselves, how useless they were to change him.

A very insightful post. I can now understand “a combination of ego, laziness, denial, covering up bizarre behavior previously”, allowed them to launch a cover up; whereas regular folks would probably say, wait a minute, why didn’t at least one of them call 911 to try to help her, even if it were perhaps too late.. It has been something that I have stumbled over trying to understand, since they purportedly loved JB very much. Sacrificing one kid for another? How could a parent not call 911 for help for a child.

But then there was another item from Kolar’s book in regard to redacted information pertaining to details of JB’s death. He purposely omitted some details, indicating that it was information which should only be provided to LE. This statement about JB’s death caused me to wonder if some of the inclination to hide this crime was a result of the horrendous state they found JB in – that things had been done to her which they had to clean up and obscure.

Believe it also was in Kolar’s book that JB never had friends sleep over at the house, but BR did. It made me wonder if there were already rumors about BR out there, and that mothers of the little girls who were JB’s friends would be a little hesitant to allow them to sleep over there.

 

[UKGuy]

A very insightful post. I can now understand “a combination of ego, laziness, denial, covering up bizarre behavior previously”, allowed them to launch a cover up; whereas regular folks would probably say, wait a minute, why didn’t at least one of them call 911 to try to help her, even if it were perhaps too late.. It has been something that I have stumbled over trying to understand, since they purportedly loved JB very much. Sacrificing one kid for another? How could a parent not call 911 for help for a child.

But then there was another item from Kolar’s book in regard to redacted information pertaining to details of JB’s death. He purposely omitted some details, indicating that it was information which should only be provided to LE. This statement about JB’s death caused me to wonder if some of the inclination to hide this crime was a result of the horrendous state they found JB in – that things had been done to her which they had to clean up and obscure.

Believe it also was in Kolar’s book that JB never had friends sleep over at the house, but BR did. It made me wonder if there were already rumors about BR out there, and that mothers of the little girls who were JB’s friends would be a little hesitant to allow them to sleep over there.

questfortrue,
It could be JonBenet was judged to young for sleepovers, or that other parents decided it best not to participate?

Prior to Christmas some of Patsy's friends had intended to discuss the "Mega JonBenet Thing" with her.

During the Christmas Party on the Dec. 23rd something happened which was covered up. Susan Stine answered the R's front door to a responding officer.

Now was that Susan Stine pre-empting what might have been an embarrassing situation or had the R's told her to deal with the officer?

Either way including her later behaviour where she sides with the R's when the White's start to ask if the R's were responsible for JonBenet's death?

Again we have Susan Stine defending the R's and attempting to isolate others.

.

 

[Darlene733510]

I wonder if FW could have said something to the Stines. Perhaps something he observed at the house that day, or something in the basement? Did he know why the women wanted to talk to PR?
Could someone have heard children talking about what was going on there? I know FW's prints were on the tape, and I don't think that was of so much concern.
Whatever it was that he knew it involved the Stines. That's why the R's threw him under the bus, and the R's and the Stines became each others BFF. Very strange, when they weren't
even friends before.
I find it unusual the Stines were not called to come to the house. Could DS have been there with BR, when the tragedy happened and he was sent home? Was he part of or a witness to something BR did? Did the Stines already know what happened, and that's why they were not called? We're they at home coaching DS not to speak about what he witnessed?