Happenings of December 26

[UKGuy]

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.

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.

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.


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

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

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

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.

There's something we can agree on.

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.

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

Chrishope,

We know that the police would never believe there was a kidnapping once the body was found.

Agreed.

Therefore the plan had to include dumping the body.

No. Because: 1. you cannot demonstrate that was any plan; 2. or that said plan would fail.

We know that the killer, and any possibly co-conspirators would not have wanted to destroy the plausibility of the kidnap scenario.

Everyone and their dog knows that the War and Peace Ransom Note fooled nobody.

So we know PR made the call without JR's ascent.

Not quite. This is an assumption. Which is contradicted by Patsy stating JR told her to dial 911. JR could have stopped Patsy from dialling 911, he never, so I reckon Patsy's version of events is the more credible.

You fail to distinguish between a plan that never reached completion and a staged crime-scene where discovery of the victim was assumed to be inevitable.

The plan was never to stage a crime-scene that distances the Ramsey's from it, but to remove as much forensic evidence from the primary crime-scene!

If I understand you, you're saying the purpose of the note is to mask the fact that she'd been relocated.

Yes, since nobody can prove she was not sexually assaulted or asphyxiated upstairs, ergo it all happened in the basement.

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

Well just LS and millions around the world. Thats what the purpose of the staging was and always is, it allows for plausible deniability. Consider the case of Marilyn Sheppard, AKA The Fugitive, TV series, movie, and numerous documentaries. Many think this was a staged crime-scene with the same motive as the R's.

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.

You could be correct. Are you aware that the R's had used the Wine-Cellar in an Easter Egg Hunt?

Possibly. I can see them being for the purpose of hiding bleeding but then when I ask -from who?

Potential bleeding destroys the illusion the staging is seeking to promote. I think the size-12's are there for Patsy's benefit. Postmortem at any autopsy the clothing does not matter.

What specifically do you think indicates BR did the "ameteur" staging?

I'll address this whenever I post my BDI to the Members Theory section.

What "mistake" is there in the sexual assault?

1. Location.

2. Time.

3. Method.

Then we have the splinter left inside JonBenet. Now Werner Spitz considered it was inserted about the time of death, as a part of the staging!

Patently what was being staged was a sexual assault, and as per Coroner Meyer's remarks, i.e. Digital Penetration we can assume the missing piece of the paintbrush may have been used to assault JonBenet to mask any prior Digital Penetration.

The reason for this assumption is temporal since I assume the paintbrush was employed long after JonBenet had been sexually assaulted and whacked on the head.

I also assume Werner Spitz and Coroner Meyer are privy to information redacted from the Autopsy Report.

So the mistake lies in the amateurish staging that allows for plausible deniability and has many claiming there was no staged sexual assault.


.

 

[UKGuy]

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?

Darlene733510,
Absolutely.

Perfect Murder/Perfect Town

Judith knew that the Ramseys had been making derogatory comments about some of their friends—particularly Priscilla and Fleet White—and had also been told by their mutual friend Roxy Walker that the Whites were questioning whether the Ramseys were involved in JonBenét’s death.

Judith was a friend of Priscilla White’s and knew that the situation had been devastating for everyone. Susan Stine had called Judith and said, “Either you’re on the Whites’ side or you’re on our side,” as if this were a divorce. Susan Stine and Roxy Walker were “Patsy’s pit bulls.”

There is some connection between the Stines and the Ramsey's. One that goes beyond mere friendship.

Yes DS could have been present that night. It does seem far-fetched but would explain a lot.

Then again maybe it was payback time for Susan Stine after the events of Dec. 23rd?

.

 

[midwest mama]

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.

BBM: I agree that the RN was intended to fool PR, but I also agree that it was the intent of the killer to dump the body, so the RN was constructed that once everything was achieved, the police would also be fooled. As soon as the ransom money was 'delivered', if there was no intent for JR to get the body back for the 'proper burial', then the police would have initiated an all out search. I am leaning towards JR being able to have an 'earlier pick-up' of the body, since that was a correction made in the RN from a 'delivery' of the body. I do think that having JB's body back for the ensuing histrionics and scenarios that would have put the R's in the sympathetic limelight forever if the plan had succeeded, was the grand finale of the plan. I am not sure, though, that JR would have done the actual 'pick-up' of her body. I think it possible that he would have made a call immediately to police or Patsy telling them where they could find the body as soon as the ransom delivery would have appeared complete, and I also think it possible he would have been a good distance away from Boulder, since he was advised to be 'rested - the delivery would be exhausting'.

A response re: the Stines - JR tried to say they were not close friends in one of his interviews, though Patsy having them on her gift list and Doug being a playmate of Burke's made them more than friendly acquaintances, IMO. They were at the Ramsey party on the 23rd, but not invited to the White's party on the 25th. Fleet and Susan handled the 911 police response on the 23rd, and I think otg's observations and speculations about the Stine's and White's knowing something more about JB due to FW3 spilling to his parents sounds more than possible. Along with all the Stine hospitality and allegiance after the murder, there is information that the STINES made a trip with the Ramseys to NYC during the pre-holiday season of 1996. Without their children. JB and Burke were home being tended by Gpa and Gma Paugh, but I wonder who was caring for Doug? Seem to recall the Stines talking about a young male nanny, who was part of the investigation after the murder, but can't recall a reference for that info. There is no doubt in my mind that JR intentionally downplayed their friendship, and I can only speculate it is because there is some reason why he wanted them distanced from anything that might have been connected to the crime details.

I fully agree that JB's vaginal injuries were as a result of molestation the night of the crime, probably just prior to the head bash. I do not believe they were done as a cover-up. If they were, I believe they would have been much more vicious and intrusive, in an attempt to hide former internal invasions that the perpetrator would have suspected would have been seen during an autopsy, especially if the body was meant to come back to the family. IMO, the reason this homicide has been tagged a "sex game gone awry" by some, is because other professionals also felt the vaginal injuries were part of the sexual molestation, not part of an attempt to cover up old intrusions.

I also speculate that the vaginal injuries were done as part of the molestation because of the clean-up involved. If anyone was expected to see the wounds as an out and out sexual attack, and be mislead from looking for any other earlier damage, why bother to try to clean her up and hide the evidence? I would think the more assaulted she appeared to have been, the easier to assume a pervert pedo had killed her. IMHO, JB's killer wanted her to be found off premises, a victim of a kidnapper who used a device that simulated 'beheading' as closely as possible, all because JR would have been 'monitored' leaking JB's kidnapping to someone who he was swearing to secrecy until the ransom delivery was over - probably his banker, RW, even if Patsy had not called 911 and the plan could have been fully executed. And, as horrible as the whole crime is, I would ask you to remember that there was "knotted wire" taken into evidence from the WC. If JB could have been removed from the house, is it possible the killer would have removed the white ligature and replaced it with the wire to make it look even more believable?

Ozazure: Thanks you for your excellent post with information about the psyche and mentality of abuse perpetrators. After reading through the Ramsey books, I agree with you totally that Patsy would have been an enabler to any of the males in her family that might have abused JB. And I believe JB was abused by more than one of the family males as well as outside of the family. If JB had not been killed when she was, I believe she might have led a life of servitude that Patsy thought was OK for her, since I believe Patsy was trained the same way. It's MY OPINION ONLY, that while Patsy knew the whole world did not subscribe to the Ramsey sexual lifestyle, it was a viable choice for some, and one that was acceptable for her family, but it could not be openly shared. Quite the same way as swinger couples practice their lifestyle in some cases. Family incest and abuse goes way back, and there is no reason to think the Ramsey family should be exempt. But, Patsy was very well seasoned, and made it clear during testimony that their family was loving and good and Christian, so they should not be suspected. Very common responsive behavior from an incest enabler. The best defense is often a good offense.

Questfortrue: Thanks for the reminder from Kolar's book about redacted information about the crime. There would have to be details about the killing itself that could only be confirmed by the killer if they are holding out for a "beyond a reasonable doubt" conviction, which it seems they are. Karr got off on a combination of bad crime details and no DNA matches. If this case ever goes to trial without being able to use DNA evidence, it would be good to have a couple of details other than circumstantial evidence.
One thing, though, about the thoughts regarding JB not having sleepovers. I wondered about Burke and his pals getting too aggressive with JB and her friends too, but realistically, JB had just turned 6 in August of 1996. At age 5, summer break time, or even weekends prior to her death, she might have been a bit young for sleepovers. I can't recall myself, sisters, or granddaughters having sleepovers with friends at the age of 5 - 6 with pals. Maybe at a relative's house, but for just a party type thing, no. Boys 7 - 10, yes, and the same for girls, hoping no one has to call their mom or dad to come get them in the middle of the night because their too scared of being away from home.

otg, you posted: "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." More than once in the Ramsey interviews, Patsy was made out to be a non-book reader, except for an occasional romance novel - more of a magazine reader; even JR said this. Also, more than once there were references made to JR and BR being the movie selectors and watchers, with Patsy drifting off to sleep and JB watching kiddie movies in her room. JR's book pile also included several well-known books by other crime/mystery writers, and housekeeper testimony verified that.

Chrishope, ITA with your reasoning on Patsy's non-collusive blurt about the housekeeper. If she had colluded with the note and the scenario, I would think would have said something that was in keeping with a business-related, SFF, who was out to get John.

A thought about Patsy not putting JB into the size 12's and possibly not the longjohns. I wonder if the longjohns actually were something that Patsy had put on her. Since we know she was awake enough to eat pineapple, maybe after eating pineapple, she did get hurriedly readied for bed just as Patsy said - putting on the red turtleneck (which Patsy first said JB was wearing) and putting on the longjohns - with Patsy leaving a pull-up with a pair of size 12's over them in place that JB had worn to the White's party, and then would be still in place to keep everything dry during the night before flying out in the morning.

But the longjohns had to come off to enable the molestation - and maybe the red turtleneck got soiled during the attack (blood from abrasions on her body?), which would account for it being balled up and on the bathroom counter - taken there after JB was cleaned up and redressed in her room. If there was a size 12 panty on over a pull-up the 12's would have gone back on, minus the pull-up if it had been wet, which wouldn't be surprising, the longjohn's could have been put back on, and the white shirt would have been handy with the other clothing items lying right on the bed next to JB's bed, as were seen in crime photos. Could Burke have now come upon the scene and got the nightgown out for JB thinking she would like to wear it because it was her favorite - if he was told JB was sick or hurt?? Was he sent back to his room and told to stay there, but didn't and instead saw just what he said he saw - someone carry her downstairs and strike her on the head?? Then, Burke might have run back upstairs, sitting in the hallway outside JB's room (leaving the butt prints that were reported) until he was 'dealt with'? Maybe someone should have checked to see if he had been drugged and put in his room.

:moo:

 

[Chrishope]

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

Thank you for the reply.

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.

There is no disagreement. I'm fine with seeing it your way. It makes no difference to my theory of the case, and it's refreshingly different. It also simplifies things - it it "is what it is" then we don't have to speculate on questions that we can't really answer.

That said, I remain open to the idea that the acute masks the chronic.

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.

It doesn't seem to me that it matters that much whether she was alive or not - more precisely whether the abuser knew it or not. Something can be done to a body, dead or alive, in the present in order to mask something done in the past.

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.

I can take it either way. It seems to me that the idea that the acute masks the chronic is a reasonable one. It seems that the idea that the acute is more in tune with a crazed sex killer is a reasonable one (but the idea that a crazed sex murder is what was being staged is not, IMO, reasonable) I'm fine with your theory - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

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.

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 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.



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.



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&#8221, 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.

[/quote]

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.

Well I don't think they assumed they'd get away with it, but my reason is that I don't think they ever planned for the body and RN to be found together on the premises. But we've been over that enough.

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.

That's probably part of it. But the other part is I don't think the scene that police find on the morning of the 26th was the scene they were meant to see. I don't believe it's credible that they attempted to stage a kidnapping then allowed the body to be found.

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.

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)?

In short, yes. I have little knowledge of medical matters, but reading posts from others who seem to, it appears that she was not strangled previously as some speculate.

From Kolar we learn that there could have been as long as 90 minutes between the head bash and the garrotting. It appears the blow to the head came first.

I mentioned earlier it's not possible to accidentally garrotte someone. Strictly speaking, that's not true. Some have accidentally hung themselves in EA related activity, and it could be possible to use the garrote for EA and cause death w/o intending to. I've never really believed much in the EA angle. For one thing my (limited) understanding is that EA benefits the person who is being choked by causing arousal. I'd assume the perp is more interested in his own arousal. I've seen it said that oxygen restriction might make a young girl mimic orgasim, but I still tend not to put much stock in EA.

Sorry for the digression on a pervy subject. Basically the garrotte has a "finality" about it - it's meant to kill, and leaves no doubt whether or not it was effective. If I have to get off the fence I jump off on the side that says the garrotte was applied after the bash to the head, and the killer knew she was still alive.

I also tend towards the idea that the blow to the head was an "accident". If it was meant to kill her, and failed to be effective, why not just whack her again?

But of course none of this can be proven with current evidence. As you say above, we just have to speculate going with what makes most sense to us.

 

[Chrishope]

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.

I agree, parents can be in denial. But JR/PR stood a very good chance of being indicted. I just do not believe they didn't consider the risk, nor do I believe they chose to run that risk. When one's life, or at least freedom, is on the line, it tends to bring clarity to the thought process.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Agreed.

No. Because: 1. you cannot demonstrate that was any plan; 2. or that said plan would fail.


Everyone and their dog knows that the War and Peace Ransom Note fooled nobody.


Not quite. This is an assumption. Which is contradicted by Patsy stating JR told her to dial 911. JR could have stopped Patsy from dialling 911, he never, so I reckon Patsy's version of events is the more credible.

You fail to distinguish between a plan that never reached completion and a staged crime-scene where discovery of the victim was assumed to be inevitable.

The plan was never to stage a crime-scene that distances the Ramsey's from it, but to remove as much forensic evidence from the primary crime-scene!


Yes, since nobody can prove she was not sexually assaulted or asphyxiated upstairs, ergo it all happened in the basement.



Well just LS and millions around the world. Thats what the purpose of the staging was and always is, it allows for plausible deniability. Consider the case of Marilyn Sheppard, AKA The Fugitive, TV series, movie, and numerous documentaries. Many think this was a staged crime-scene with the same motive as the R's.


You could be correct. Are you aware that the R's had used the Wine-Cellar in an Easter Egg Hunt?


Potential bleeding destroys the illusion the staging is seeking to promote. I think the size-12's are there for Patsy's benefit. Postmortem at any autopsy the clothing does not matter.


I'll address this whenever I post my BDI to the Members Theory section.


1. Location.

2. Time.

3. Method.

Then we have the splinter left inside JonBenet. Now Werner Spitz considered it was inserted about the time of death, as a part of the staging!

Patently what was being staged was a sexual assault, and as per Coroner Meyer's remarks, i.e. Digital Penetration we can assume the missing piece of the paintbrush may have been used to assault JonBenet to mask any prior Digital Penetration.

The reason for this assumption is temporal since I assume the paintbrush was employed long after JonBenet had been sexually assaulted and whacked on the head.

I also assume Werner Spitz and Coroner Meyer are privy to information redacted from the Autopsy Report.

So the mistake lies in the amateurish staging that allows for plausible deniability and has many claiming there was no staged sexual assault.


.

You don't see writing War and Peace and staging a crime scene as evidence of planning?

 

[UKGuy]

You don't see writing War and Peace and staging a crime scene as evidence of planning?

Chrishope,
Oh yes, but which one? Your version which failed, or the R's version which did not fail because they were all free to walk the streets?



.

 

[ozazure]

I agree, parents can be in denial. But JR/PR stood a very good chance of being indicted. I just do not believe they didn't consider the risk, nor do I believe they chose to run that risk. When one's life, or at least freedom, is on the line, it tends to bring clarity to the thought process.

They may well have considered the risk that night and on many instances since, and so far, so good - they maintained their freedom.

 

[WhereAreTheyNow]

I am a new poster to this thread, so be gentle. I’m sure this theory has been laid out in the past but here goes.

An excerpt from DEATH OF AN INNOCENT, by Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, Chapter 1.

“While working for the Ramsey family as a housekeeper, I was able to see the interaction between John and Patsy. In the fourteen months I was there, they never once showed the slightest affection for one another. I never once saw them embrace. I never once saw them hold hands, I never once saw them a kiss, or hug, or use words or terms of endearment, or speak to one another with any warmth or tenderness. Not once. Not ever! In fact, I don't think I've ever been around a married couple who looked so uncomfortable together. Or a couple who were as cold to one another, as these two.
There were times when I would not have been surprised to come to work and find that John and Patsy Ramsey had filed for divorce. On one occasion, while I was working around the Ramsey house, a conversation Patsy Ramsey had with me only confirmed my suspicions that there was "trouble in paradise" in the Ramsey marriage. Patsy confided to me that she did not enjoy having sexual relations (especially oral sex) with John. After beating around the bush, Patsy finally asked me for help. Did I have any suggestions? She wanted to enjoy sex with John, but she just couldn't bring herself to do it. Especially not oral sex. Was there anything Patsy could do to keep her from thinking about his penis in her mouth and gagging on it? Well, was there? Patsy appeared desperate. Was there anything she could do about the salty sour taste of John's penis, and the pubic hair that would stick in her teeth? I was astonished. As a mother of six children, I had never run into that problem. Quite the contrary.

Before answering Patsy, I took a deep breath, stunned by the completely unexpected nature of Patsy's confession, thought for a minute, and then offered her the only advice a grandmother of ten children could give. Patsy, I told her, keep thinking about how much you love John and how this is just another way of showing him your love. Make love to his penis as if you were making love to the man. What else could I say. Either you love the guy or you don't. But Patsy's unhappiness and fear of John's penis did not end there. Sometime after Patsy's confession, I came upon her sobbing in the kitchen. When I asked her what was wrong, she explained that she had just spent the night crying her eyes out because John had yelled at her the day before about her being a lousy homemaker and cook. Clearly, there was more to John's anger than an uncooked meal or an unmade bed.

I suspected that the real reason behind John's outburst probably had more to do with his unsucked penis than his uncooked pot roast. Remarkably, Patsy seemed genuinely upset by his criticism and she was more emotional than I think I have ever seen her. Later, when appearing before the Boulder grand jury investigating the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, I spoke at length about the trouble I thought the Ramsey marriage was experiencing. I told the grand jury that in my opinion, based on my personal observations while working for the them, I could honestly say that the Ramseys did not appear to be a happily married couple. On the contrary, they seemed held together, like lots of other unhappy marriages, by their children. Without their son Burke, and their daughter JonBenet, it is my belief that John and Patsy would have divorced many years ago.”

http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&om=512&forum=DCForumID37

From a relationship, especially marriage, I believe most women need warmth, closeness, affection and satisfying sex (although maybe not in that order. Otherwise one or both may wander off the farm.

Who does PR visit AT LEAST 27 times over 3 years?

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) So what's next? Can a murderer ever be found, since many observers think police let people contaminate the evidence that first day. Eight months later, the Ramsey house is empty. The only reminder that children once lived here, a swingset in the backyard. JonBenet Ramsey is a constant presence on TV, in these photos and that autopsy report, which will certainly be debated for years. Death, it says, from strangulation and a blow to the head. An abrasion on her hymen, which was otherwise intact, some vaginal area blood, some bruising. Some experts believe that sexual assault was staged to confuse police about the motive. Others have speculated something more.

(on camera) As you know, there are people in this country who simply believe that John Ramsey sexually abused his daughter.

MICHAEL BYNUM: This family has been investigated. They have been loving, caring parents. All of the medical records, all of the school records, anyone who's ever been around the family has confirmed it. There is no indication. There is no evidence.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) But what about those reports that JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr. Beuf, saw JonBenet 30 times in three years?

(From taped telephone conversation)

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Before your call, I sat down with her chart and counted. It was 27 times.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) This is the first time Dr. Beuf has gone over his records publicly.

(From taped telephone conversation) And is that unusual to see a child that many times?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of them were for sinus infections and for colds.

DIANE SAWYER: And by majority you mean?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep throats, sinus infections.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.

(From taped telephone conversation) How many times did you give her a vaginal examination?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Well, it was five or six times in that three-year period.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) We asked him to specifically review all notes that might pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.

September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.

October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr. Beuf says 20 percent to 25 percent of children that age wet the bed.

March 1995 -- abdominal pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem.

August 1996 -- another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this number of complaints?

(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have four-year-old kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age.

DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.

DIANE SAWYER: Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual abuse?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are very acutely aware of.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm

Whose medical records disappeared?

Who admitted at least 5 or 6 vaginal exams from AGE 3? Really?

Who found no evidence of sexual abuse?

Who showed up to tranquilize PR of 12/26?

Who is the only male that has mommy’s permission to explore her vagina digitally (with fingers)?

TRIP DeMUTH: One more question. If JonBenet was bothered by someone, do you think she would communicate that to you, or was she a little more stoic about it, would keep it to herself?

PATSY RAMSEY: I think she would have told because we had talked about all the areas covered by your swim suit belong to JonBenet. Not to anybody else. Mom can touch
those areas because, you know, and different things, and Dr. Buff with mommy in the room, those were the ground rules. Not daddy, not Burke, not grampa, not anybody else but JonBenet's, you know.

TRIP DeMUTH: Did she have any difficulty approaching you and talking to you about maybe other children at school she was having difficulty with, would she share those kind of points?

PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

TRIP DeMUTH: Which one is it, she would share?

PATSY RAMSEY: She did not have difficulty. She will tell me everything.

http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

This statement has always bothered me. I can’t imagine my wife telling my daughter as a child (now 25) that only she and one certain doctor could touch her bathing suit areas. How could I give her a bath? Help her dress? Or help her after she used the bathroom? What if she needs to see a Gyn? Or goes to the emergency room?
So, did Dr. Beuf deliver the ‘special gift’ that JB spoke of?

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Oh yes, but which one? Your version which failed, or the R's version which did not fail because they were all free to walk the streets?



.

What you think of as the Rs version is no plan at all.

 

[otg]

(respectfully snipped, and rearranged for clarity)

Patently what was being staged was a sexual assault, and as per Coroner Meyer's remarks, i.e. Digital Penetration we can assume the missing piece of the paintbrush may have been used to assault JonBenet to mask any prior Digital Penetration.

The sexual assault was not staged. An attempt was made to cover up the sexual assault.

Meyer never said she was "digitally penetrated". He said (according to accounts, because he didn't write it in the AR) that she had been assaulted in a way "consistent with digital penetration". While it doesn't mean she couldn't have been, it does not mean that there were two assaults with two different objects. The paintbrush being used alone would cause injuries "consistent with digital penetration".

And as far as anything Spitz has to say, you should just learn to ignore. He's a publicity hound and an idiot. He claimed to have special insight in this case because of information that had been shared with him. Yet since he claimed that and made statements publicly that have since been proven to be flat-out falsehoods (due to information that has been leaked since he made the statements), you can absolutely ignore this idiot.

(Did I leave any doubt about how low an opinion I have of Spitz? Do I really have to go into what he did in a few recent high-profile murder cases as an "expert witness"?)

The reason for this assumption is temporal since I assume the paintbrush was employed long after JonBenet had been sexually assaulted and whacked on the head.

That's too much of an assumption, UKG.

Then we have the splinter left inside JonBenet. Now Werner Spitz considered it was inserted about the time of death, as a part of the staging!

(See above reference to Spitz.)

I also assume Werner Spitz and Coroner Meyer are privy to information redacted from the Autopsy Report.

There is nothing redacted from the AR. Originally there was when it was first released, but a judge long ago ordered that the original AR be released without the portions that had been redacted from the public at first. You can even see a scanned copy of the actual report at Smoking Gun, so you can see for yourself that there is nothing redacted.

(Again you refer to Spitz! See above reference to Spitz, and take a look at my avatar.)

 

[otg]

(snipped for clarity, because this conversation was just getting too darn confusing with all the wrapped quotes)

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)?

In short, yes. I have little knowledge of medical matters, but reading posts from others who seem to, it appears that she was not strangled previously as some speculate.

Okay, ignoring (for the time being) the medical aspects and what others have said, think about exactly what was found around her neck when the coroner first saw her (since this is the first documentation we have of it). How do you think it was used to strangle her? Was it simply pulled, was it somehow twisted, or was it used like a tourniquet (as some have suggested) with the stick placed under the cord and turned to tighten it?

I see there being too many problems with each of these methods for any of them to be possible.

From Kolar we learn that there could have been as long as 90 minutes between the head bash and the garrotting. It appears the blow to the head came first.

Actually (and this is important to note), what we learned from Kolar was that one doctor (Dr. Lucy Rorke-Adams) expressed her opinion that it could have been that long. Of all the doctors’ opinions I have read, she is the only one who felt that it could have been that long, and she based her opinion on the pictures and the brain sections she was provided. So her opinion was based on her knowledge and the quality of the specimens she was provided. Since you’ve said you’re not inclined toward studying the medical aspects, I won’t go into the details (and actually it’s too complicated to try and address here), but keep your mind open to the fact that she may have been wrong on the length of time between the two injuries.

I mentioned earlier it's not possible to accidentally garrotte someone. Strictly speaking, that's not true. Some have accidentally hung themselves in EA related activity, and it could be possible to use the garrote for EA and cause death w/o intending to. I've never really believed much in the EA angle. For one thing my (limited) understanding is that EA benefits the person who is being choked by causing arousal. I'd assume the perp is more interested in his own arousal. I've seen it said that oxygen restriction might make a young girl mimic orgasim, but I still tend not to put much stock in EA.

I agree on that. This was not a case of EA -- for the enjoyment of anyone.

Sorry for the digression on a pervy subject. Basically the garrotte has a "finality" about it - it's meant to kill, and leaves no doubt whether or not it was effective. If I have to get off the fence I jump off on the side that says the garrotte was applied after the bash to the head, and the killer knew she was still alive.

There are more than two sides on which to jump from this fence, and you don’t have to jump until you feel you know what’s on each side.

I also tend towards the idea that the blow to the head was an "accident". If it was meant to kill her, and failed to be effective, why not just whack her again?

Agreed. So why do you think someone would, as you suggest, wrap a cord around her neck to strangle her after having struck the head blow? She was already unconscious at that point. If the intent was to kill her, why not some other more effective method, or as you say, just whack her again? The knife was there. She was already unconscious, so why not just pinch her nose and hold her mouth, or stab her? Why this freaky, never-before-seen “garrote”?

But of course none of this can be proven with current evidence. As you say above, we just have to speculate going with what makes most sense to us.

Sadly, yes. Sooner or later, hopefully, someone who lives in Colorado will file for FOI status, and maybe we'll have more evidence and insight into what happened.

 

[otg]

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.

Very insightful post, ozazure. Bravo.

 

[Charterhouse]

I just wanted to thank everyone for all the wonderful posts recently. Lots of different views, as we normally have.

I know this is a little older post but I will have granddaughter on Monday. She is the same age as JB (she will be 6 1/2 on Monday), weight 46 pounds, and is 46 1/2 inches tall.

She does wear size 6 underwear and they are not tight.


I was going to measure the size of her wrists with a piece of string and see how little I could make it so that she could still get her hand in and just the size of her wrist. This is just for my information. But I will let you all know.

I know this does not allow for a garment on her wrist nor for the fact that rigor would make JB hand less able to be manipulated with the binding on her wrist. Also the size of the rope would have to be factored in. But I just thought it might be interesting.

Poor kid I don't want to freak her out.

Is there anything else you want me to measure or test on her without being too obvious. (lol) I know her wrists are really small but I have no idea the size without measuring.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

And she thought she was just coming to swim and a BQ.

To my knowledge, FW’s testimony has never been released or leaked. My guess as to what he saw is this:

JR distracted him at the window with the broken glass. While FW was looking at it, JR made a beeline to the WC and began his “discovery” before FW made it there. When he did make it there, JR’s body would have been at least partially blocking FW’s view of what he was doing. So all we have is JR’s version of what he did, along with the evidence.

JR said that he pulled the tape off her mouth and then tried to loosen and remove the binding from one of her wrists before picking her body up to bring it upstairs. FW (according to written accounts) felt her feet for temperature (realizing she was dead) while JR was doing this. Of course, it is also written that he picked up the tape and looked at it after JR left the room.

The coroner wrote the following:

“Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double loop knot. This end of the cord is also frayed.”
​

If you look at the picture of this ligature, you can see what Meyer was describing. The “double loop knot” is what would have been attached to JonBenet’s left wrist. It appears to me that the two loops were created from JR’s attempt to loosen and remove this binding. IIRC, JR said he tried to loosen it, but couldn’t because it was too tight (yeah, right); but when Meyer arrived on the scene, he stated, “A brief examination of the body disclosed a ligature around the neck and a ligature around the right wrist.” (Notice there is no mention of the ligature attachment to the left wrist.) I took the picture above and reoriented it by 26° (to square it up with the scale). I extended the scale marks (ABFO No. 2), approximately) with grey delineations. Then I drew black lines from certain points so you can estimate the sizes (indicated with green). (The name of the forensic scale being used by Meyer is shown better in this photo.)

My question here is about the size of JonBenet’s hand. The binding from her right hand looks to be ~5-cm in diameter (2&#8221. Would a 6yo girl’s wrist be so small as to allow a 2” loop over the sweater on her wrist? (Not important, but it seems awfully small to me.) Did Meyer have to loosen it to remove it, and then reposition it incorrectly? And then the other loop (which JR supposedly removed) appears to be even smaller.

But to your question, mwmm, if JR handled or manipulated the ligature on her left wrist (which I believe he did), then yes, his DNA should have been detected. Do we know about any of the DNA that was found on any of the ligatures?

 

[otg]

(respectfully snipped)

I am a new poster to this thread, so be gentle. I’m sure this theory has been laid out in the past but here goes.

An excerpt from DEATH OF AN INNOCENT, by Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, Chapter 1.

Ya know... I had never read any of this stuff that was supposed to be in LHP’s book, so it all comes as somewhat of a surprise (although not really that much, as to the content). But after following the link to it and reading through it, I have to comment on some things Jammie had to say about it.

From the thread where it was originally posted, hir said:

She doesn't know anything. This woman, from all I have been told, has been fed so much garbage by the likes of Steve Thomas and his friends Frank Coffman and Jeff Shapiro that she knows nothing for sure. She wanted to believe the garbage told to her by the BORG because she enjoyed the attention and money (very lucrative for LHP - yes indeed).

...and even more lucrative for Jammie -- who sold to the tabs information obtained from the R's that would end up becoming a book. I wonder if royalties on book sales were included in the deal, in addition to the flat-fee that was paid (I doubt it.). But then Jammie even wrote a play about it with hirself as the main character. (Talk about enjoying the attention.)

And the Ramseys - well, they may have been her employers but they were not her friends - especially not after December 25th, 1996.

...no, especially not after December 25th, 1996, when they tried to implicate her in the murder of their child.

-------------------------------------------------
​

On another note, as to the things you posted, WhereAreTheyNow (BTW, who are "They"?), I have a couple of random comments:

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) An abrasion on her hymen, which was otherwise intact, some vaginal area blood, some bruising.

“An abrasion on her hymen, which was otherwise intact...”? Hello? This is what the AR says:

“A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1x1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen.”

Propriety prevents me from posting anything more than a link here, so view the illustration I give you only with a sense of what to expect. Assuming that the hymen was typical to begin with (there are many possible types that are less common), it would be what is called an “annular hymen”. Or put quite simply, it is donut-shaped. The illustration linked below shows a normal, intact annular hymen. I have shown with green what would be remaining if the portion from 2 o’clock to 10 o’clock is missing. I also indicated with red where the noted area of abrasion would be at the 7 o’clock position.

You’ve been duly warned, so view this illustration only after knowing what to expect, and then decide for yourself if you think the statement by Sawyer is correct that other than “an abrasion on her hymen, it “was otherwise intact”.

MICHAEL BYNUM: This family has been investigated. They have been loving, caring parents. All of the medical records, all of the school records, anyone who's ever been around the family has confirmed it. There is no indication. There is no evidence

Those medical records and the school records were all suppressed. They were not looked at by investigators.



As to your suspicions about the good doctor, I have to tell you I’ve always suspected something going on there that has never been adequately explained. There has been a good bit of speculation in the past about the close relationship between PR and him. But I don’t recall anything along the lines of what you are implying. I have to say though that my first reaction is to say it is unlikely, but so much of this entire thing is exactly that -- unlikely.

Also, when PR related this story about her telling JonBenet the areas that are off-limits for anyone else, I think she was just plain making it up to cover her own sorry :behind:, and maybe to provide a small amount of insulation to the people she specifically named (“Not daddy, not Burke, not grampa,...&#8221. I don’t believe this conversation ever actually happened. I'll give her three inocchio: inocchio: inocchio: for that.

 

[otg]

(respectfully snipped)

I was going to measure the size of her wrists with a piece of string and see how little I could make it so that she could still get her hand in and just the size of her wrist. This is just for my information. But I will let you all know.

I know this does not allow for a garment on her wrist nor for the fact that rigor would make JB hand less able to be manipulated with the binding on her wrist. Also the size of the rope would have to be factored in. But I just thought it might be interesting.

Poor kid I don't want to freak her out.

Is there anything else you want me to measure or test on her without being too obvious. (lol) I know her wrists are really small but I have no idea the size without measuring.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Might I suggest the following to try and simulate the same circumstances:

Try putting the top part of a sock over her wrist (to equate to the sweater JonBenet wore), and then wrap a shoelace around her wrist (somewhat loosely as in the autopsy picture) while placing your thumbs at the points where the two ends overlap. Then with the shoelace off of her wrist, put those two points together again and measure the diameter of the loop.

And she thought she was just coming to swim and a BQ.

Ya know... When I first posted about this, I started to mention that I didn't have access to a child around that age. But it somehow just sounded kind of creepy to say it like that, so I left it out. But if you could do this without causing too much suspicion, Charterhouse, I (for one at least) would certainly appreciate it.

What I would really like to know (but I don't know how to measure it) is the exact curvature of a child's skull where we believe the head blow landed. The average diameters that I can find don't really tell me the exact curvature, which is why on that last thread I started, I bought the toy skull. Which reminds me that I need to get busy on it again -- I have new information that I haven't posted.

 

[Charterhouse]

Sorry everyone! I just changed my mind about what I was going to post.

Otg I see you saw my post. I thought it to creepy too and then decided I would change my post.

I was going to do it anyway but didn't know if I would tell it was my gd.

I did read your skull simulation stuff awhile ago. Didn't you use a Halloween item?

I might try that but it does kind of creep me out that she is the same age. I just can't imagine having anything happen to her.

 

[otg]

Sorry everyone! I just changed my mind about what I was going to post.

Otg I see you saw my post. I thought it to creepy too and then decided I would change my post.

I was going to do it anyway but didn't know if I would tell it was my gd.

I did read your skull simulation stuff awhile ago. Didn't you use a Halloween item?

I might try that but it does kind of creep me out that she is the same age. I just can't imagine having anything happen to her.

And, of course, you're right, Ch. The wrist is not too creepy, but if anyone sees you measuring her skull, or her neck, or much of anything else, it just wouldn't be worth the hassle of trying to explain. Forget it -- just stick with measuring her wrist (if it's not too much trouble).

And thanks much.

 

[UKGuy]

What you think of as the Rs version is no plan at all.

Chrishope,
Thank you for auditing my thinking. There are times when it exceeds my capabilities.

No plan at all may result from accumulative staging?


.

 

[midwest mama]

Charterhouse- Another pertinent measurement would be from the midpoint of the back of her neck (where the knot of the ligature was found) and 17.5 inches in length (where the stick was tied) down her backside, and also from the knot spot around over her shoulder and down her front side. Kind of like a measurement a tailor would make from the neck to the waist to get a torso length of measurement. There has been speculation that the stick could have been inserted into JB's body (I'm sorry for how gross this may sound) so being able to confirm or dispell this by checking where the 17.5 inches would end might be helpful. Of course, feel free to decline. And my apologies if I have overstepped boundaries in requesting this.