But the question is why John would admit that JB was awake that night when clearly the best strategy was to say she was asleep? Just another hint that John was not in on the conspiracy until later that morning.
John Ramsey Fabricated Open Basement Window "Evidence"
- Thread starter BlueCrab
- Start date
But the question is why John would admit that JB was awake that night when clearly the best strategy was to say she was asleep? Just another hint that John was not in on the conspiracy until later that morning.
They didn't have a butler, they had a part time maid. And according to Patsy the window was on the maid's list for things that her "handy man" husband was to fix. That is if you actually believe anything Patsy says.
andreww,
BBM: Yes, its possible, but this does not preclude him from being in on the setup from the beginning.
Why is it the best strategy to say JonBenet was asleep?
.
I never said it did.
The best strategy was to say JB was asleep the whole time because it eliminates her from any timeline and allows the remaining Ramsey's to avoid having conflicting stories about their interactions with her that night. For instance, John originally said he read to the kids. He could be asked "what story did you read?", "where did you read to them?" or "who sat where?". Now his responses need to exactly match the answers that Burke would give. What was Patsy doing while You read? What were you doing while Patsy got JB ready?
See, the story is simple with JB out of the picture from the beginning. Patsy put her to bed, John played with Burke, then everybody went to bed. Easy to remember. Timeline is short. Impossible for one story to refute another.
And again, why would John say he read to the kids, then change his mind? Because it is obviously a safer story to have JB sleeping. If he was in on it from the beginning he would have said that she was asleep from the beginning.
^ I don't see how that proves anything either way.
Whether he said it "that day" or later: there were inconsistencies. For example, isn't there one version where PR actually puts her to bed (and prayed with her immediately beforehand) and JR simply got her dressed for bed? If memory serves, he eliminated PR all together in the first version of his story (where he alone puts her to bed). Coincidence? I'd say not; I'd say that was intentional because he didn't want to put PR anywhere near JBR that night because he already knew what happened between the two; but had to after the fact. Then again, I could be wrong on his initial accounts; if so, I apologize, but like I said, that's what I recall.
Whether he said it "that day" or later: there were inconsistencies. For example, isn't there one version where PR actually puts her to bed (and prayed with her immediately beforehand) and JR simply got her dressed for bed? If memory serves, he eliminated PR all together in the first version of his story (where he alone puts her to bed). Coincidence? I'd say not; I'd say that was intentional because he didn't want to put PR anywhere near JBR that night because he already knew what happened between the two; but had to after the fact. Then again, I could be wrong on his initial accounts; if so, I apologize, but like I said, that's what I recall.
This is actually a good question and does make you wonder, especially considering BR spend considerable time down there. There had to be a draft from that window and all sorts of insects that could have entered through the opening; you would think it would have been a priority to get it fixed, but I guess you can't definitively rule out laziness.
andreww,
You said:
What you are saying is that neither John or Patsy employed their best strategy initially.
Your reasoning can be applied to Patsy when she explains away the size-12's by saying I put them all into JonBenet's underwear drawer, except there were none there.
So is this a hint she was not in on the conspiracy also, or as per Kolar, the case is really BDI All, since both parents can be shown to have an insufficient grasp of their respective roles?
.
You are talking about something Patsy said well in to the investigation. If, and its a big if, all three of them were involved from the get go, you would think that their stories from the night before would match.
"Guys, JB was asleep, we put her in bed, then we all went to bed. STICK TO THAT".
But John talks about reading. Burke says she walked in from the car. John says he checked the house was locked. Etc., etc.
John continually says or does things that fly in the face of somebody trying to sell the story that someone came in to their house. He says things that he later retracts.
You can't rule out laziness, and you can't rule out the fact that Patsy or John probably spent zero time in that room. After a few days it may have just slipped their minds.
andreww,
BBM: So what you reckon, Ramnesia or one of them or more is lying outright?
.
I don't, actually. I think details like that wouldn't have been gone over so thoroughly, in the haste of things.
Explains why they refused to be interviewed separately.
I think that after day one the Ramsey's stopped talking and took stock of what had already been said. They had four months to put together a version of events, what didn't match needed to be eliminated (reading to kids). What was missing was added (the broken window/entry point). Everything else was just put out there to see what stuck (flashlight, santa bear, Christmas card).
But at this point it doesn't matter because it is obvious that all three are now in on it. It is what was said in those early hours that is the most telling. This entire case fell apart when the BPD failed to get the Ramsey's interviewed individually in the first 48 hours. In the two interviews that they did do BPD failed to ask difficult questions. They failed to press them on a timeline that didn't match up.
andreww,
BBM: Is it ? How come when Patsy goes for her BPD interview she does not know there are no size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer?
.
Because she was caught in a lie. The package of size 12s disappeared, and Patsy didn't ever admit to buying them, just like they tried to distance themselves from the flashlight. But BPD had done their homework and knew that the size 12s were purchased on the NY trip, so she had to say something. But she still was non committed as to whether she even bought them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10 Q. So if I understand you correctly,
11 you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your
12 niece, and one for JonBenet?
13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or
14 two.
15 Q. Do you remember what size they
16 were?
17 A. Not exactly.
18 Q. JonBenet was found wearing the
19 Wednesday Bloomi's underpants, and your
20 understanding is correct, that is a fact, you
21 can accept that as a fact, when she was
22 found murdered. Those underpants do not fit
23 her. Were you aware of that?
24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
25 as a matter of fact --
0082
1 MR. LEVIN: I'm stating that as a
2 matter --
3 MR. WOOD: - for a six-year-old
4 child?
5 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as
6 a matter of fact.
7 MR. WOOD: Don't fit her
8 according to whose standard?
9 MR. LEVIN: By --
10 MR. WOOD: I mean, I have got an
11 11-year-old boy, and he wears underwear that
12 potentially hangs down to his knees, Bruce.
13 I mean, I don't know how you can come up
14 with that as a fact. That sounds to me
15 like more of an opinion. Who states that as
16 fact?
17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, your
18 daughter weighed, I believe, 45 pounds;
19 correct?
20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
21 Q. She was six years old?
22 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.
0083
1 Q. Ms. Ramsey, would you say that it
2 would, it is safe to assume that, if she is
3 wearing underpants designed for someone who
4 weighs 85 pounds, who is 10 to 12 years old,
5 that those would not fit her?
6 A. Those -- I mean, I am sure she
7 could wear them, yes, but they wouldn't fit
8 as well as a smaller pair.
9 Q. And as a mother, you would know
10 that someone who is 85 pounds is
11 significantly larger than your little
12 six-year-old?
13 MR. WOOD: Can't we assume that
14 as a matter of 85 is more than 45 without
15 her having to document a mathematical fact,
16 Bruce?
17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) 40 pounds is the
18 wrong size pair of underpants, would you
19 agree?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. What we are trying to
22 understand is whether -- we are trying to
23 understand why she is wearing such a large
24 pair of underpants. We are hoping you can
25 help us if you have a recollection of it.
0084
1 A. I am sure that I put the package
2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened
3 them and put them on.
4 Q. Do you know if -- you bought
5 these sometime in mid to early December, is
6 that correct, as far as -- no, I am sorry,
7 you bought them in November?
8 A. Right.
12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically
13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?
14 And I am not saying --
15 THE WITNESS: They were just in
16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I
17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all
18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can
19 help herself to whatever is in there.
20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not
21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to
22 Jenny.
23 THE WITNESS: Right.
24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in
25 JonBenet's bathroom?
0087
1 A. Right.
2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm
3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then
4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet
5 express an interest in them; therefore, you
6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --
7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I
8 think I bought them with the intention of
9 sending them in a package of Christmas things
10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that
11 together, so I just put them in her, her
12 panty drawer. So they were free game
Here it seems like Patsy is scrambling to come up with an explanation. I don't think she was aware of the size 12s when asked so it caught her a bit off guard. But this is years after the crime so maybe she had just forgotten this detail?
andreww,
Patsy states quite clearly she purchased a set of size-12 underwear. What she cannot recall is if she purchased underwear for JonBenet. e.g. A. I am not sure if I bought one or 14 two..
By deduction, if Patsy had in addition purchased a set of size-12's for JonBenet, then there should have been 14 pairs of size-12 underwear in the Ramsey house!
The real point of the interview is to lock Patsy into saying she purchased size-6 Bloomingdale's for JonBenet, something you note, she avoids.
BPD will know there were only five pairs of size-6 Bloomingdale's found in JonBenet's underwear drawer, with the Wednesday pair likely missing?
The big Q here is, if the case is PDI whatever, how come she has no answers on a subject she allegedly engineered?
.
CircuitGuy
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 405
- Reaction score
- 165
Why does their attorney spend time disputing the issue of the underwear being too big for her. Is that just an attorney avoiding conceding any facts in case they should somehow become relevant to his client's case? Or is this a sign a the attorney had reason to believe PR characterizing the underwear as "too big" might be relevant?
I suspect it's just attorney thinking. I'm still surprised they spent that much time on something trivial. They key question is did she know she was found in size 12 underwear. Whether that's "too big" seems like a waste of time. All the discussion in the excerpt above is on this issue.
If there's something to it, what's the scenario where PR knowing the underwear were too big matters?
BoldBear
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 181
What I find amusing here is that Wood's caught off-guard. This is a man who chooses his words very carefully and can make the Pope look like a prostitute. You see him slip off message and then recovers his authority by changing his position. He concedes his argument but doesn't acknowledge it. It's very slick. I'd fail miserably if I ever went up against someone like this.