JB's picture in the laundry room

[UKGuy]

BR told police he did own a pair of Hi-Tecs, though his parents said that he did not. One of BR's friends also told police that BR owned a pair. BR's were said to be sneaker-type shoes with a compass that attached to the laces. They likely had the same design on the sole that was found in the basement. Not too much can really be made of that shoe-print unless it can actually be matched to a specific shoe, not just a specific TYPE of shoe. This brand of shoe is also favored by many police, construction workers, repairmen, etc.
While it is very possible the shoe could have been matched to BR's had they been provided, they never turned up. We'll never know.

As far as the beaver hairs- beaver hair is used for some artist brushes. The hair could have come from the tote, transferred to the tape by the same hand that broke the paintbrush. The hair need not have come from the exact brush that was used to make the garrote "handle", but could have come from a different brush stored in that tote, even if the brush itself was no longer there. Patsy was untidy - I don't think she'd wash out the paint tote periodically when she never cleaned her kitchen counters off or put dirty launder in a hamper. Those of you who have ever had pets know that the fur can linger in and on objects long after the pets are gone.
Patsy was said to have fur-trimmed boots (that disappeared) and was said to own a few fur coats (do not know whether LE ever tried to match the beaver hair to any coats she may have owned. I doubt it.

DeeDee249,
From memory did James Kolar not say in one of Tricia's interviews or his book that BR had visited the wine-cellar earlier on Christmas Day and was responsible for the partially opened gifts?

If so then do we have an explanation for his alleged footprint?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
From memory did James Kolar not say in one of Tricia's interviews or his book that BR had visited the wine-cellar earlier on Christmas Day and was responsible for the partially opened gifts?

If so then do we have an explanation for his alleged footprint?


.

BR supposedly had said that he was the one who "peeked" into the gifts in the winecellar. But I am not sure I believe that. It is also not certain when this happened, if it happened at all. Was it before they went to the White's? Was it before Christmas morning? Obviously the kids opened their presents Christmas morning, so there was no need to "peek" at Christmas presents. However, as we know, BR's birthday was a few weeks later. Patsy said that she kept out some gifts to be given to BR on his birthday. If he peeked, he likely peeked at those.
I feel that he did not open those boxes. I firmly believe that Patsy opened them looking for the panty gift set she was going to mail to her niece after she returned from their trip.
If it WAS BR we have an explanation for the print POSSIBLY. Without the actual shoe, we will never be able to say conclusively that the print was his.

 

[DeDee]

[Respectfully snipped re BR shoes]

As far as the beaver hairs- beaver hair is used for some artist brushes. The hair could have come from the tote, transferred to the tape by the same hand that broke the paintbrush. The hair need not have come from the exact brush that was used to make the garrote "handle", but could have come from a different brush stored in that tote, even if the brush itself was no longer there. Patsy was untidy - I don't think she'd wash out the paint tote periodically when she never cleaned her kitchen counters off or put dirty launder in a hamper. Those of you who have ever had pets know that the fur can linger in and on objects long after the pets are gone.
Patsy was said to have fur-trimmed boots (that disappeared) and was said to own a few fur coats (do not know whether LE ever tried to match the beaver hair to any coats she may have owned. I doubt it.

LE went over PR's closet carefully with a vacuum and wide tape looking for traces of beaver. Test results were negative. She gave them several fur coats to test. Test results were negative for beaver.

The beaver hair was on the tape so any fiber, even one on the basement carpet, could have found itself on the sticky side of the tape. If the animal hair was attached to JonBenet's small hand, then, most likely, it was from fur trim on her momma's boots that were never recovered.

 

[questfortrue]

RSBM

Has it been determined if the stack of pictures next to PR's paint tote could be the pictures located in the basement that is mentioned during Patsy's interview? Didn't PR enter the interview one morning, and without provocation, volunteered for clarity, that she cropped photos for portfolio purposes and kept paper cutter equipment in the basement?

SMO

Noone's ever answered whether the photos mentioned are ones near the paint tote. To refresh everyone's memory - PR says this in her interview (from ACR):
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Fine, great. I
8 think, a couple of things that I thought about,
9 that I wanted to clarify maybe. You were asking
10 about -- particularly about the pictures of
11 JonBenet in the basement, and I remember that I
12 had taken some Xerox copies of her portfolio
13 pictures, you know, studio head shots. And
14 there was a paper cutter down there, and that I
15 used, and that --
16 TRIP DeMUTH: That could be it?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: That could be it.
18 TRIP DeMUTH: I haven't seen the
19 pictures.
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay, I wasn't clear
21 whether you were talking about picture of her in
22 the laundry room, or pictures of her located in
23 the laundry room.

Note that she calls them "studio head shots". Turn the photo 90 degrees to the right and look at the photo spilling out near the cardboard box. To me, it does look like a child in the photo, I see a leg, something perhaps held on a lap (a pillow?) and a hand on the item on a lap. I dunno if others make it out in the same fashion, but if it is a person (child), it is not a studio head shot. JMHO

Great find, btw, on the adult Seuss book!

 

[Nom de plume]

This is a close up of that pic. It's a chaise lounge. Appears to be a magazine or catalog picture. (I flipped the picture upside down.)

 

[Mama2JML]

This is a close up of that pic. It's a chaise lounge. Appears to be a magazine or catalog picture. (I flipped the picture upside down.)

I agree. Southern Living, maybe...

 

[questfortrue]

This is a close up of that pic. It's a chaise lounge. Appears to be a magazine or catalog picture. (I flipped the picture upside down.)

Yep, I see that upside down. They are not likely the photos referred to then.

 

[Nom de plume]

I agree. Southern Living, maybe...

LOL Quite likely.

 

[DeDee]

This is a close up of that pic. It's a chaise lounge. Appears to be a magazine or catalog picture. (I flipped the picture upside down.)

Suddenly, I am reminded of a painting of Rose posed on the divan while aboard the Titanic. Now that the R picture has been flipped upside right, it appears this may be a divan from inside the Ramsey home.

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy liked to paint. She may have kept a selection of photos from magazines that she liked and might copy, and it looks like there might even be a china plate in that pile (can't say for sure)- which could also have been used in a still life.

 

[singularity]

If you read further in the transcript, you can see that Patsy backpedals like mad about the pictures. Combined with how she brings up out of nowhere the heart on the hand, it is as if she went home, described to John and/or her lawyer what she said in the interview, and got scolded about how problematic her recorded testimony was, thus causing her to backpedal on it and go further on the record as saying that what she said was not what she meant, she meant something completely different.

Absolutely. This is one of the keys to deciphering those interviews. When John(and especially Patsy) start taking the conversation in a different direction, its a red flag that needs to be planted on that subject. Patsy does this quite often and repeatedly. She'll veer off topic, take it in another direction, then when something uncomfortable gets mentioned again, take it back to the original issue that she avoided which in itself is off topic now as well, causing the original issue to lose its impact during the interview(s) and they never picked up on this tactic.

Excluding the various slip ups by Patsy like "I dont see any blood there, do you?"There are several issues besides these "cutesy" photos that Patsy likes to avoid....

JAR's bedroom- It evolves from her room to JAR's room then back to her room throughout the interview and sometimes even in the same sentence. No one wants to 'own' whatever went on this room. It's a red flag.

There are also pictures taken by LE of this room and some never released seem to defy description. Patsy distances herself from these items without even being able to properly describe them and we know she had been in that very room that night. Another red flag.

PATSY RAMSEY: That looks like a drawer. That is the drawer in the guest -- in John Andrew's
room.

TRIP DEMUTH: What is the red and black item?

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I can't tell. I don't know.

TOM HANEY: Go ahead.

PATSY RAMSEY: I was going to say, do you have a picture of it blown up?

TOM HANEY: No, we don't.

PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.

TOM HANEY: Can you tell us, identify the other items that are in there.

PATSY RAMSEY: I can't. This (inaudible). John Andrew did (inaudible), that he would hang up.
Looks like just clothes in there. Can't tell.

TOM HANEY: Okay. How about 280, and we can probably skip that one quickly.

PATSY RAMSEY: No. I don't know what that is.

TOM HANEY: Is that the next sequence. Yeah. Some of these are going to be gone over quickly, and we will skip over to 281. There is none. So we go to 282, which is a photo 283.

PATSY RAMSEY: That is a drawer with some markers in it. I don't know what drawer it is

JAR's bathroom- She flip flops like crazy on the contents of those drawers. They know it was a mistake to leave those open. Another red flag.

The issue of videos in JAR's room- There's no denying someone in that house went through videotapes in his room at some point and she tries to shoo this issue away by a lame comment about the kids liking Barney videos. I don't buy it.....its another red flag.

The camera- Another thing they distance themselves from and don't want to 'own'. When being asked about the camera in one of the exchanges, she asks them did they want to see her in the photos being taken....a good point and Patsy was heading them off at the pass because she knew it was going to be the next logical question. If she's not taking the pictures, they want to know why she's not appearing in them....its because she was the one likely taking the pictures. Some sleuths like to say that the photos on this camera are much ado about nothing. I strongly disagree. If they were much ado about nothing, they wouldn't wish to distance themselves from nothing....they'd embrace it.

Jonbenet pics in general- This is potentially a huge issue and handled terribly starting with....

TRIP DeMUTH: I haven't seen the pictures..

Demuth should not have even been participating in the questioning and probably should have been fired for even admitting this in front of Patsy. Any leverage they may or may not have had on the issue was sunk by Demuth's statement.

The family's clothing- THis is a huge issue for obvious reasons and they are asked about it periodically throughout the interviews. They aim most of these questions at Patsy. She doesn't like these questions. Some of the questions on the surface sound absurd(Patsy, were you wearing socks at the Whites party?) but they are not absurd....they keep coming back to them maybe in the hopes she will stumble....she doesn't. In most murder cases, what the victim is wearing is usually the only potential relevancy clothing has. That's not the case here. Yes JOnbenet's clothing that night is certainly relevant but they are wondering what each of them wore....down to their socks. THis is odd and an ignored red flag in the case. One of the reasons I would like the Whites Christmas party pics to surface. THings aren't adding up on these rolls of film. If you're asking Patsy if she was wearing socks, is she photographed on one roll wearing them but she's wearing something else in other photographs? That line of questioning insinuates something that appears innocent on the surface may actually be a can of worms begging to be opened.

An example:

TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recall that night what footwear you had on?

PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't. I really don't know.

TRIP DeMUTH: Could you guess what you would have been wearing with that outfit? Was it the same -- you were going to wear the same outfit the next day on the plane, is that --

PATSY RAMSEY: Well, probably these little black boots kind of things that were kind of ankle boots.

TRIP DeMUTH: Were those the furry ones?

PATSY RAMSEY: Furry? No, no, they were the leather like shoe boots, kind of more like shoes than boots, but I can't say for sure.

TRIP DeMUTH: And what brand were those?

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I got them at Lundstrum's, I think.

TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible.) Or were they tennis shoes? I'll look again.

TRIP DeMUTH: Did you have a pair of white socks on?

PATSY RAMSEY: I was trying to think. Looks like that was attached to me or attached to the rug or something. Kind of looks like that. I could have had white socks on underneath the --

TRIP DeMUTH: Uh-huh (yes).

PATSY RAMSEY: -- shoes.

1 TRIP DeMUTH: Shoes. Does that help refresh your recollection about what shoes you were wearing?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

Take into account that they are looking at photos of Patsy at the White's while this exchange is going on.

Jonbenet and parties- Patsy and JOhn do not like to talk about these two subjects together. THis is a major red flag waving all over the case but few acknowledge it. I'm not just talking about the Christmas party, 23rd party, but also the party in their house on the 13th. Here is an odd exhange on this party....

TRIP DeMUTH: Do you remember what your children did during that party, during the dinner (snip) "were they being baby-sat somewhere else?" (snip)

PATSY RAMSEY: I think they were around. I don't know if they came down and kind of left me their bowls and went back to play." (snip) "I do remember once we didn't have enough food and I had to call Treiling (phonetic) and order every piece of chicken wing and roll they had. Could have been you know -- everybody brought alcohol but not food, you know, everybody was supposed to bring something. There wasn't enough food." [Patsy 6/98 BPD Interview]

She thinks they were around.....and then immediately removes JOnbenet out of the story and starts talking about chicken wings and rolls. That party is a subject she does not wish to discuss. Its a red flag.

Here's JOhn on that same party....

LOU SMIT: Was JonBenet visible at that time in the house?

JOHN RAMSEY: "I am sure she was, yeah. She -- but I can't visually remember her being there, but I am sure she was. Had to be." [John 6/98 BPD Interview)

Unreal. He's "sure she was" but "cant visually remember her being there". Immediate distancing.

What happened at this party?

The molestation/sexual assault issue- If there was a moment and topic to get Patsy to crack, this was the issue.

Here's this exchange....

TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are you aware that there had been prior vaginal intrusion on JonBenet?

PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not. Prior to the night she was killed?

TOM HANEY: Correct.

PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.

TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?

PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.

TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?

PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.

TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?

PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.

TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?

PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.

TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have been violated like that?

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This is the absolute first time I ever heard that.

TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?

PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely did not.

She doesn't sound shocked to me. A mother truly unaware of her just recently murdered six year old daughter being sexually abused would be outraged and her responses would be a LOT more emotional and heated than that. A genuine surprised reaction would include a lot more than three word sentence responses.

and here's the moment they came awfully damn close to breaking her....

ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom, that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper whether or not she represented what is true as a fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too much here about whether or not it's absolutely a fact. I just think that should be mentioned to be fair to my client.

TOM HANEY: And based on the reliable medical information that we have at this point, that is a fact.

PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say violated, what are you -- what are you telling me here?

TOM HANEY: That there was some prior vaginal intrusion that something --something was inserted?

PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night that she was assaulted?

TOM HANEY: That's the--

PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I want to see, I want to see what you're talking about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am shocked.

TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the things that's been bothering us about the case.

PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.

TOM HANEY: What does that tell you?

PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --

TOM HANEY: Okay, for a second --

PATSY RAMSEY: Did you know about this?

ELLIS ARMISTEAD: I tried to stay out of the making of the record and inserting myself into the tape-recording of this interview. The newspapers have talked about this. Whether or not--

PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they talk about a lot of things that are not true.

THis exchange is an outrage. Haney interrupts her allowing her to regain her composure and for Armistead to intervene and resue her. She was being painted into a corner and about to reveal what she knew but Haney handed her a bottle of paint remover and saved her from potentially hanging herself.

Here's an exchange on the mysterious scarf that seems to bounce from room to room depending on the photograph. Patsy doesn't like this discussion either and even she asks if its the same in other photos. She's trying(and succeeding) in staying one step ahead of them....

TRIP DeMUTH: It's a red object under the table?

PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

PATSY RAMSEY: There's -- looks like that scarf that we've seen previously.

TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. Black and red scarf on the bar.

PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

TRIP DeMUTH: Looks like it -- where does it look like it is in this photo?

PATSY RAMSEY: What, the scarf?

TRIP DeMUTH: Uh-huh (yes).

PATSY RAMSEY: Hanging on, hanging on the little ledge there by the bar. Is that where it
was on the other one?

TRIP DeMUTH: The other photo we looked at it was on the bar itself.

PATSY RAMSEY: It was on the bar. This just looks strange to me.

Notice she avoids discussing the "red object" in JAR's room and zooms in on the scarf. She's using the strategy I mentioned above....trying to nullify both issues with her cunning.



The plastic bags- another potentially crucial issue. Read this exchange.

TRIP DeMUTH: Now, what about the bag, the plastic bag?

PATSY RAMSEY: This one?

TRIP DeMUTH: No.

PATSY RAMSEY: This one?

TRIP DeMUTH: Uh-huh (yes).

PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I don't know, I can't
tell what's in there, what it is.

TOM HANEY: Try, I don't know if that helps?

PATSY RAMSEY: Do you remember what was in that one?

TRIP DeMUTH: Remember we talked about a plastic bag in photo 52.

PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I mean, I had plastic bags getting some things ready to go to the
lake.

TRIP DeMUTH: Right.

PATSY RAMSEY: You know, I was packing it kind of on the landing up there.

TRIP DeMUTH: Right.

PATSY RAMSEY: And then we saw one down at the bottom of the stairs.

TRIP DeMUTH: Right.

PATSY RAMSEY: And you said that picture was taken early that morning.

TRIP DeMUTH: Right.

PATSY RAMSEY: So that could have -- that could have been the bag with the clothes going
to the lake and I could have brought it down and saw the note, dropped the bag. But if this was
taken before that, then I don't know what's in that bag. I don't know what that is. I can't tell. I don't know.

TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know what was in that one, either. I can't tell what that is. It looks like there's writing on that, red.

Did you notice that neither side brings up how the bags have moved depending on when the photographs were taken that morning/afternoon and neither side even bothers to question why the bags have been moved and disappeared....which is the million dollar question on this issue? Patsy is the one who brings up photo discrepancies and she's the damn suspect!! She brings it up to minimize the issue....it works.

 

[singularity]

Could that tape have recorded an angry, jealous scene between brother and sister over presents maybe?

Or a heated domestic dispute between John and Patsy? He sure got the hell out of dodge and spent a lot of time at the airport handling his plane. Maybe he didn't want to go back home until he had to?

 

[k-mac]

singularity
omg i get so angry when reading PR transcripts.:gaah:
thank you for this effort im sure it was time consuming!
i learn so much from you guys and it is very appreciated to us newbies all that comes to the threads :great:

her responses to the supposed newly acquired info that her young murdered daughter was previously interfered with is disgusting and suspect at best.
every word uttered from her is defensive apprehensive and abhorrent to me.
it makes me desperately sad as a parent to absorb it. so obvious where her head is at. more to the point where it isn't.....
the devastating realization that your baby girl has endured far more than you could imagine should have broken her at that very moment.....
if you had no previous knowledge that is. ....:maddening::maddening:

 

[Tortoise]

Or a heated domestic dispute between John and Patsy? He sure got the hell out of dodge and spent a lot of time at the airport handling his plane. Maybe he didn't want to go back home until he had to?

Another thing that surprises me is that Burke didn't go with his dad to the hangar. I know it's Christmas Day and he's got a Nintendo, and neighbour kids are around playing, but this is a boy who is mad about planes to the point of being a fanatic, he watches pilot instruction videos. I think an interruption of a few hours to go check out the plane and get it ready for the flight, checking over the landing gear and all that, would have been something he would have dropped everything for. It sounds to me, as you say, as if John's trip was to get out of the way. He said he loaded presents on the plane but Patsy apparently hadn't even finished wrapping them. At some point in his story he also was wrapping presents in the basement. Then there were more presents loaded into the Jeep, according to Patsy, and still more bags of presents being stacked up by Patsy ready for the morning after they got home from the White's. You'd think they were wrapping presents for the whole of America. And none of them wrapped before Christmas Day. Something isn't right about all those gift wrappings going on, it is used to fill every gap of 'what were you doing at such and such a time?' .

The bottom line is I think there was distance and trouble between them that day, and this wasn't new either. I don't know how maternal Patsy felt towards John Andrew and Melinda, but they lived with their mum and they weren't biologically her children, and I imagine this was, in her eyes, all done for John and them, (why couldn't they travel to Boulder and have it there?) yet who had to do all the work for it?

Patsy's 1997 interview :- "I remember just being really tired.. I was tired and I was anxious to get to bed." "I wasn't real crazy about going cause I just thought it was cramming a lot of stuff in there, you know. I told John I didn't really want to go. It just seemed like a lot, but then we decided as a family to go." (it doesn't sound like Patsy liked the idea so who is this 'we' who decided exactly?)

John went out and Patsy was more angry than usual, with him not pulling his weight around this really busy time, leaving her with a house full, having to pack for two trips, and this being a common mid-life crisis point for a lot of people let alone for a woman who'd battled cancer, was prematurely menopausal, and facing the big 4-0. No big deal for some, a big deal for someone whose identity was wrapped up in her looks.

John was in the dog house and had to make up for it at the White's by getting down on the floor with Fleet and making paper bracelets with the girls. He hadn't even played outside with JonBenet on her new bike.

By most accounts from people who saw them in their daily lives, not putting on a show, this was a marriage in trouble, a business partnership without affection, held together for appearances and money.

Christmas 1996 newsletter:- "John is always on the go travelling hither and yon. Access recently celebrated its one billion $$ mark in sales, so he's pretty happy! He and his crew were underway in the Port Huron to Mackinac Island yacht race in July, but had to pull out mid way due to lack of wind. (Can you believe that?) But, his real love is the new 'old looking' boat, Grand Season, which he spent months designing."

Police thought this was a divorced couple. Patsy was so angry with John, it's in the letter and she addressed it to him, not both of them. There is a reason she changed that, and IMO it wasn't because she thought the 'kidnapper/killer' must have a grudge against John, she's removed that possibility straight away by saying 'we respect your business' and it's a disrespect for America behind it; it was to vent her personal rage and place responsibility on him for what had happened and what would happen (JonBenet would be found dead).

 

[Meara]

Several months back when I discovered the interrogation questions regarding the laundry room photos of Jonbenet, I was pretty stunned. Since that time, I have read and re-read those interviews several times, and it DOES seem to me that Haney and Demuth are trying to get at 2 different things in their questioning of photographs in the laundry room. TD is clearly asking about photographs of Jonbenet physically located in the basement laundry room. TH appears to be asking PR about photographs taken of Jonbenet IN the laundry room. But upon further reading, I think what TH is getting at is the location of a camera in the laundry room, not so much a photo of Jonbenet shot in the laundry room and later located in the laundry room. At this moment (and lord knows my thoughts might change tomorrow), I think TH's question about whether Patsy would run and get a camera if Jonbenet did something cutesy in the laundry room, was meant to focus on why a camera would be down there. JMO

Moving on, several things of interest struck me this morning regarding cameras and video.

1. No video taken of Christmas morning. John claimed he forgot to charge the batteries. I find a few things interesting about this. It was unusual for this family NOT to take video of Christmas morning, and John seems to offer up this piece of information out of the clear blue.

2. The still camera was used in place of the video camera to visually record Christmas morning. Were there many pictures taken of the event, or just a few? I don't know...I've only seen a few. One would assume there were many, since this is a recording of an event in the life of your children that is a pretty big deal, right? On this same camera, we find odd random shots of a cluttered hallway, note pad on a table, etc. Both PR and JR claim they didn't take those shots. Okay, then who did?

3. Video tapes scattered on playroom floor. I suppose this isn't a completely odd thing to discover in a home that wasn't very well kept to begin with, but when you look at that in light of the other odd occurrences regarding the still camera and the video camera, it stands out.

4. Another interesting tidbit...the binoculars located on the top of the armoire in JAR's room ending up on the floor. JR offers up a strange explanation for that if you recall. He used them to watch for unknown cars in the neighborhood when he thought his daughter was missing? Okay. But why were these binoculars stored in this particular location to begin with? Is someone an avid birdwatcher or something? One thing I noticed about this location is that this particular window is sort of catty cornered to Jonbenet's bedroom balcony. I can't help but wonder if one could see into her room from this particular location.

Just some random morning thoughts to ponder.

Kat, some floor plans are mislabeled, but if it is JAR's room you're thinking of, then no view of JBR's room or balcony was possible from there. The wall you see below to the left of the balcony is the south side of JBR's bathroom, and JAR's bathroom was on the other (north) side of hers. Windows in both bathroom faced west. HTH.

 

[singularity]

Another thing that surprises me is that Burke didn't go with his dad to the hangar. I know it's Christmas Day and he's got a Nintendo, and neighbour kids are around playing, but this is a boy who is mad about planes to the point of being a fanatic, he watches pilot instruction videos. I think an interruption of a few hours to go check out the plane and get it ready for the flight, checking over the landing gear and all that, would have been something he would have dropped everything for. It sounds to me, as you say, as if John's trip was to get out of the way. .

Great observation. I hadn't even thought of it from that angle. You're right...its a common interest/hobby the two shared. It would be like if my dad had decided to go fishing on Christmas morning, I would've wanted to go to and he most likely would've asked me.....unless there was a reason he didn't want me there.

I have always thought JOhn going 'off the grid' for such a lengthy period of time on Christmas of all days was bizarre. There has to be a reason for that. He comes home just in time for them to go to the Whites party. After that, a couple pit stops to deliver gifts and once getting back home(which he had avoided for hours earlier), all hell winds up breaking loose.

Police thought this was a divorced couple. Patsy was so angry with John, it's in the letter and she addressed it to him, not both of them. There is a reason she changed that, and IMO it wasn't because she thought the 'kidnapper/killer' must have a grudge against John, she's removed that possibility straight away by saying 'we respect your business' and it's a disrespect for America behind it; it was to vent her personal rage and place responsibility on him for what had happened and what would happen (JonBenet would be found dead).

Absolutely. Yes the note on its surface is a paradox within a paradox but underneath its surface is a pissed off wife venting rage at her husband and mocking him in a power play..... and coldness towards her now dead daughter.

 

[Tortoise]

I've often wondered if the videos pulled out on the floor (I thought it was in JAR's room but the post above says it was in the playroom) were to do with the movie where the quotes for the ransom note came from.

Did Patsy take a break and fast forward through the film to take notes of these lines? Was it Speed or Dirty Harry, or both?

 

[kanzz]

Absolutely. This is one of the keys to deciphering those interviews. When John (and especially Patsy) start taking the conversation in a different direction, its a red flag that needs to be planted on that subject. Patsy does this quite often and repeatedly. She'll veer off topic, take it in another direction, then when something uncomfortable gets mentioned again, take it back to the original issue that she avoided which in itself is off topic now as well, causing the original issue to lose its impact during the interview(s) and they never picked up on this tactic.

Excluding the various slip ups by Patsy like "I dont see any blood there, do you?"There are several issues besides these "cutesy" photos that Patsy likes to avoid....

JAR's bedroom- It evolves from her room to JAR's room then back to her room throughout the interview and sometimes even in the same sentence. No one wants to 'own' whatever went on this room. It's a red flag.

There are also pictures taken by LE of this room and some never released seem to defy description. Patsy distances herself from these items without even being able to properly describe them and we know she had been in that very room that night. Another red flag.

JAR's bathroom- She flip flops like crazy on the contents of those drawers. They know it was a mistake to leave those open. Another red flag.

The issue of videos in JAR's room- There's no denying someone in that house went through videotapes in his room at some point and she tries to shoo this issue away by a lame comment about the kids liking Barney videos. I don't buy it.....its another red flag.

The camera- Another thing they distance themselves from and don't want to 'own'. When being asked about the camera in one of the exchanges, she asks them did they want to see her in the photos being taken....a good point and Patsy was heading them off at the pass because she knew it was going to be the next logical question. If she's not taking the pictures, they want to know why she's not appearing in them....its because she was the one likely taking the pictures. Some sleuths like to say that the photos on this camera are much ado about nothing. I strongly disagree. If they were much ado about nothing, they wouldn't wish to distance themselves from nothing....they'd embrace it.

Jonbenet pics in general- This is potentially a huge issue and handled terribly starting with....

Demuth should not have even been participating in the questioning and probably should have been fired for even admitting this in front of Patsy. Any leverage they may or may not have had on the issue was sunk by Demuth's statement.

The family's clothing- THis is a huge issue for obvious reasons and they are asked about it periodically throughout the interviews. They aim most of these questions at Patsy. She doesn't like these questions. Some of the questions on the surface sound absurd(Patsy, were you wearing socks at the Whites party?) but they are not absurd....they keep coming back to them maybe in the hopes she will stumble....she doesn't. In most murder cases, what the victim is wearing is usually the only potential relevancy clothing has. That's not the case here. Yes JOnbenet's clothing that night is certainly relevant but they are wondering what each of them wore....down to their socks. THis is odd and an ignored red flag in the case. One of the reasons I would like the Whites Christmas party pics to surface. THings aren't adding up on these rolls of film. If you're asking Patsy if she was wearing socks, is she photographed on one roll wearing them but she's wearing something else in other photographs? That line of questioning insinuates something that appears innocent on the surface may actually be a can of worms begging to be opened.

An example:

Take into account that they are looking at photos of Patsy at the White's while this exchange is going on.

Jonbenet and parties- Patsy and JOhn do not like to talk about these two subjects together. THis is a major red flag waving all over the case but few acknowledge it. I'm not just talking about the Christmas party, 23rd party, but also the party in their house on the 13th. Here is an odd exhange on this party....

She thinks they were around.....and then immediately removes JOnbenet out of the story and starts talking about chicken wings and rolls. That party is a subject she does not wish to discuss. Its a red flag.

Here's JOhn on that same party....

Unreal. He's "sure she was" but "cant visually remember her being there". Immediate distancing.

What happened at this party?

The molestation/sexual assault issue- If there was a moment and topic to get Patsy to crack, this was the issue.

Here's this exchange....

She doesn't sound shocked to me. A mother truly unaware of her just recently murdered six year old daughter being sexually abused would be outraged and her responses would be a LOT more emotional and heated than that. A genuine surprised reaction would include a lot more than three word sentence responses.

and here's the moment they came awfully damn close to breaking her....

THis exchange is an outrage. Haney interrupts her allowing her to regain her composure and for Armistead to intervene and resue her. She was being painted into a corner and about to reveal what she knew but Haney handed her a bottle of paint remover and saved her from potentially hanging herself.

Here's an exchange on the mysterious scarf that seems to bounce from room to room depending on the photograph. Patsy doesn't like this discussion either and even she asks if its the same in other photos. She's trying(and succeeding) in staying one step ahead of them....

Notice she avoids discussing the "red object" in JAR's room and zooms in on the scarf. She's using the strategy I mentioned above....trying to nullify both issues with her cunning.

The plastic bags- another potentially crucial issue. Read this exchange.

Did you notice that neither side brings up how the bags have moved depending on when the photographs were taken that morning/afternoon and neither side even bothers to question why the bags have been moved and disappeared....which is the million dollar question on this issue? Patsy is the one who brings up photo discrepancies and she's the damn suspect!! She brings it up to minimize the issue....it works.

BBM

In this case, there was some of the absolute worst questioning ever. It's hard for me to even call it "interrogation" when the suspects and their attorneys were allowed to lead it all. I get so irritated when I read some of the transcripts. None of the detectives were worth a damn at interrogation. Even those who were doing the questioning often interrupted the R's when they were answering, even offering explanations for them. Grr

 

[singularity]

I agree Kanzz and even though Thomas was a huge advocate of getting justice for Jonbenet(and he was in the minority sadly), his interview with Patsy was not handled well either. He needed some highly experienced individuals assisting him in his preparation of the interview.

I've said this before but the John-Kane-Smit interview has to be the worst in history. I hope the FBI teaches this at the academy on how NOT to approach suspects. Smit was practically interviewing himself and I'd love to see the videos of this interview. It comes across like a couple buddies chatting and is deplorable beyond comprehension. For those who believe in this case being mired in corruption and the DA was in on it, the John-Smit interview is bordering on a smoking gun in that regard.


Tortoise....

There were also videos on the floor in JAR's room. Their location is not where you'd normally keep a stack of videos so they had went through them looking for something,. I always assumed the hunt for videos had more to do with looking for any that might be videos with Jonbenet in them(NOT *advertiser censored*). I had never thought they might be looking for videos of movies to look for lines to put in the raqnsom note. IMO that would've been a huge waste of time. The movie lines used in the ransom note are all from very mainstream films with catchphrases.

 

[Tortoise]

I agree Kanzz and even though Thomas was a huge advocate of getting justice for Jonbenet(and he was in the minority sadly), his interview with Patsy was not handled well either. He needed some highly experienced individuals assisting him in his preparation of the interview.

I've said this before but the John-Kane-Smit interview has to be the worst in history. I hope the FBI teaches this at the academy on how NOT to approach suspects. Smit was practically interviewing himself and I'd love to see the videos of this interview. It comes across like a couple buddies chatting and is deplorable beyond comprehension. For those who believe in this case being mired in corruption and the DA was in on it, the John-Smit interview is bordering on a smoking gun in that regard.


Tortoise....

There were also videos on the floor in JAR's room. Their location is not where you'd normally keep a stack of videos so they had went through them looking for something,. I always assumed the hunt for videos had more to do with looking for any that might be videos with Jonbenet in them(NOT *advertiser censored*). I had never thought they might be looking for videos of movies to look for lines to put in the raqnsom note. IMO that would've been a huge waste of time. The movie lines used in the ransom note are all from very mainstream films with catchphrases.

Unless the person who liked and watched those films was John, and Patsy hadn't watched them with him. So he might have said 'like that movie' so that she didn't leave out anything strategic to it.

I have a theory for exactly what happened, I'm confident it's what happened, it's all finally made sense to me, and it accounts for every single piece of evidence, every bit, from the baseball bat outside to explaining the ransom note so it no longer looks bizarre at all in context of the end result. I'm not ready to post it yet, firstly because it might be too long for a forum post (think booklet) and secondly, because I've written it by hand in a large notebook and I'm still researching the various sources to link to it. It's quite massive and very detailed and it's going to take a few more months at least to do all the work, including statement analysis of parts of the interviews.

I started out this case looking in depth at the ransom note, it was my first point of interest, and I thought Patsy might have run quickly through a movie to get lines before I discovered there were films left scattered on the floor, because there is a place in the note where her writing style changes. It's quite subtle but it's there, and I think it was after a break away from the writing. Patsy fast-forwarding through a movie isn't something I'm at all sure about, but I thought if she hadn't actually seen it, it would make sense that she did watch it, unless John was dictating it to her, and I don't think he did. I think the note was 100% Patsy.