JR lies right off the bat...

[JMO8778]

I hate to laugh about such a serious subject, but that was funny. :woohoo:

it was,LOL

 

[Toltec]

I suppose you remember what John wrote in the letter. You also seem to believe that John Ramsey was totally innocent and not even involved in the cover-up (see your recent post where you alleged that lawyer Levin "lied" about the incriminating fiber evidence against John). Just my speculation, but maybe receiving a personal letter from one of the suspects confirmed your belief in this suspect's innocence?

Yes, I believed him innocent. He was such a great father to all his children. After reading that he called his older children every day...about how JonBenet cried when her Daddy was not around...

I still believe he is innocent of the crime but guilty of the cover-up.

I don't recall what all he wrote, but I do recall that he was very appreciative of my support and thanked me.

 

[JMO8778]

Yes, I believed him innocent. He was such a great father to all his children. After reading that he called his older children every day...about how JonBenet cried when her Daddy was not around...

he/sounds/like/a/good/dad/to/his/older/children/ie-his/first/family/
But/it/was/said/he/wasn't/home/much/the/second/time/around/so/I/have/to/wonder/how
/important/they/really/were/to/him/.and/then/JB/saying/'I/don't/like/that/face/dad'.
He/must/have/had/some/pretty/mean/looks/on/his/face..kids/won't/normally/lie/about/things/like/that/.
(forgive.me.my.space.bar.isn't.working).

 

[JMO8778]

thx,everyone,for all the replies.I'm not finding anything anywhere about ST slandering JR's relationship with JB.He never pointed the finger at JR for sexual abuse in his book,and JR should have been ever so grateful for it.
BTW I don't think questions amount to accusations,if that's what JR was talking about.(who knows b/c he lies so much anyway).But in view of the fiber evidence,sometimes the situation warrants the question,and if there's an innocent answer,it should be an easy one,and JR should have been happy to answer it.But he refuses to answer the questions,even when the situation warrants it.
I had an ex like that,so this one is easy to spot for me...he would always start whining 'you're accusing me.......' whenever I asked a question that needed to be asked.NO,it's just that sometimes the situation warrants the question.I'd have been a fool to ignore or deny it,just as LE would have been here,esp on a murder case,with the R's needing to answer questions to clear themselves first.

 

[DeeDee249]

thx,everyone,for all the replies.I'm not finding anything anywhere about ST slandering JR's relationship with JB.He never pointed the finger at JR for sexual abuse in his book,and JR should have been ever so grateful for it.
BTW I don't think questions amount to accusations,if that's what JR was talking about.(who knows b/c he lies so much anyway).But in view of the fiber evidence,sometimes the situation warrants the question,and if there's an innocent answer,it should be an easy one,and JR should have been happy to answer it.But he refuses to answer the questions,even when the situation warrants it.
I had an ex like that,so this one is easy to spot for me...he would always start whining 'you're accusing me.......' whenever I asked a question that needed to be asked.NO,it's just that sometimes the situation warrants the question.I'd have been a fool to ignore or deny it,just as LE would have been here,esp on a murder case,with the R's needing to answer questions to clear themselves first.

Yes, I think it was merely the question or raising the issue in an interview with JR about the fibers in JBR's panties that provoked JR's statement that he felt the interviewer was "disgracing his relationship" with his daughter. Not an actual accusation.
And many people (usually guilty people) fein outrage at being accused when they are confronted with something they have done wrong. It's a classic manipulator's way of turning the situation around so that the accuser is guilty (of accusing) and in so doing diverts attention from what they are actually being accused of.

 

[JMO8778]

Yes, I think it was merely the question or raising the issue in an interview with JR about the fibers in JBR's panties that provoked JR's statement that he felt the interviewer was "disgracing his relationship" with his daughter. Not an actual accusation.
And many people (usually guilty people) fein outrage at being accused when they are confronted with something they have done wrong. It's a classic manipulator's way of turning the situation around so that the accuser is guilty (of accusing) and in so soing diverts attention from what they are actually being accused of.

exactly ! being overly defensive is a sign of guilt,and manipulators always try to turn the situation around.

 

[Dru]

he/sounds/like/a/good/dad/to/his/older/children/ie-his/first/family/
But/it/was/said/he/wasn't/home/much/the/second/time/around/so/I/have/to/wonder/how
/important/they/really/were/to/him/.and/then/JB/saying/'I/don't/like/that/face/dad'.
He/must/have/had/some/pretty/mean/looks/on/his/face..kids/won't/normally/lie/about/things/like/that/.
(forgive.me.my.space.bar.isn't.working).

JMO8778,

Can you elaborate on the "I don't like that face, dad," quote? I've never heard that one before.

Thanks!

 

[rashomon]

Yes, I believed him innocent. He was such a great father to all his children. After reading that he called his older children every day...about how JonBenet cried when her Daddy was not around...

I still believe he is innocent of the crime but guilty of the cover-up.

I don't recall what all he wrote, but I do recall that he was very appreciative of my support and thanked me.

What do you think John's motive was in helping Patsy to cover up the crime?

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Can you elaborate on the "I don't like that face, dad," quote? I've never heard that one before.

Thanks!

JR said one of his memories about JB was that sometimes she would say to him "I don't like that face,dad!" And so he would smile,and she'd say "There,that's better".
I take it he must have had a pretty stern look on his face.

 

[Toltec]

I believed John when he said "Bulls##t!", He became angry as he should have and my gut feeling tells me he never touched JonBenet in an inappropriate manner.

Now I am leaning towards staging in the sexual aspect of the crime. I could never believe that John would harm one hair on his precious daughter. Patsy is another story. My belief is that she staged the sexual assault. I cannot picture John or Burke doing anything of that nature to JonBenet. Yes, children play Doctor but not to the extent where JonBenet's hymen is torn.

 

[JMO8778]

would Patsy have known how to stage a sexual assualt with the ligatures the way they were? B/c I think it's more likely JR would have known how to do it,from reading crime book,and surfing the net perhaps?there's all kinds of weird stuff out there.I just don't see Patsy knowing how to do that,and esp. w fiber evidence linking JR to the crime as well...plus the oversize undies..and why stage a sexual assault anyway,if JB was to be 'beheaded' by a SFF,then it seems out of place,unless it was done to cover past abuse,IMO.

 

[JMO8778]

I believed John when he said "Bulls##t!", He became angry as he should have and my gut feeling tells me he never touched JonBenet in an inappropriate manner.

it's the way he skirted around it with that answer though...refusing to answer q's,and then twisting it around to where the ones who were just asking and just doing their jobs were now accusing him of anything they asked him.being overly defensive when not necessary is a sign of guilt.he's overcompensating.it's not needed if he's innocent of what he's being questioned about.

 

[Albert18]

One of the reasons I hate to involve John too much is motive.

John had a motive to help cover and run interference for Patsy. Whether he helped or not, he was going to be out money for the lawyers, but if he didn't help her, the family had a lot to lose in her going to trial.

But to actually physically participate in the staging, he had no motive to do that. What was done, was done. I don't see where John had anything to gain by touching anything. He did move the body, but so did Linda Arndt.

 

[JMO8778]

then why are his fibers on her?and why does the RN point to former AG employees?I don't think Patsy thought it up on her own..she had help.JR seemed to be doing a lot of hiding behind her,IMO...being all to anxious to appear on CNN,to be seen at church,etc...he was overcompensating,which wasn't necessary if all he was doing was covering for Patsy.And then,as someone mentioned earlier..he was all too anxious on LKL to agree that the person who wrote the RN was also the killer...bc he knew PR did the physical writing of it,and that got him off the hook,so to speak...but why all the overcompensating if he wasn't guilty of anything? I can't beleive he would want to get out of town only 20 mins after finding her body if he was just covering for PR.

 

[DeeDee249]

I am not making any specific accusations about sexual assault of JBR by her father, as none of us were there and we are each entitled to our own opinions on the matter. I will say this- all any of us has to do is read the paper or look at the news to know that it is exactly the kind of person who inspires the words "I just can't believe he/she would do this to their child" who DOES this to a child. Yes, the "good christian", the priest, the rabbi, the "pillar if the community", the church elder, the list goes on and on. People like that can and DO abuse children. There are many little girls who are sexually abused by parents, grandparents, trusted friends or relatives. And it goes on because people that know them just can't believe they'd do something like that. So when it comes to this case, no one should be ruled out as a perpetrator just because they can't be imagined doing something like that. That's the mistake the Grand Jury made. And why we are on still discussing this case 10 years later.

 

[Albert18]

I'm just suggesting all evidence should be treated the same.

Finding unmatched DNA on JonBenet doesn't mean an intruder killed her. Shirt fiber's from John on JonBenet should be treated with the same suspicion.

 

[UKGuy]

I am not making any specific accusations about sexual assault of JBR by her father, as none of us were there and we are each entitled to our own opinions on the matter. I will say this- all any of us has to do is read the paper or look at the news to know that it is exactly the kind of person who inspires the words "I just can't believe he/she would do this to their child" who DOES this to a child. Yes, the "good christian", the priest, the rabbi, the "pillar if the community", the church elder, the list goes on and on. People like that can and DO abuse children. There are many little girls who are sexually abused by parents, grandparents, trusted friends or relatives. And it goes on because people that know them just can't believe they'd do something like that. So when it comes to this case, no one should be ruled out as a perpetrator just because they can't be imagined doing something like that. That's the mistake the Grand Jury made. And why we are on still discussing this case 10 years later.

DeeDee249,

I am not making any specific accusations about sexual assault of JBR by her father, as none of us were there and we are each entitled to our own opinions on the matter.

It appears that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse, apparently so obvious, that Coroner Meyer referred to it?

There is another scenario possible one that involves Patsy and her father but excludes John?

In this scenario John is only involved in the staging more as a damage limitation exercise, but then you have to ask why does he allow his daughter's death to go unexamined?


.
.

 

[Solace]

I'm just suggesting all evidence should be treated the same.

Finding unmatched DNA on JonBenet doesn't mean an intruder killed her. Shirt fiber's from John on JonBenet should be treated with the same suspicion.

Hi Albert,

I would like to reply to your post. I think the unmatched DNA is different from the fiber's found. The reason I feel it is different is because the dna is number one degraded. There is no match for the unsourced dna under her nails and in her underwear and neither do they match eachother. So "SCIENTIFICALLY" speaking we have to look at the DNA and when we do we find that it is older, has less markers, and is degraded. So we can make a deduction re the dna, that it probably did not originate there that night.

As to the fibers from Patsy's sweater and John's sweater being on JonBenet. One could say okay, well they were with her all day and she could have easily transferred them. SAy John was sitting with her at the White's and playing with her, he is close, his fibers cling to her - she hugs him and transfer of his sweater fibers occurs to her hands. She goes to the bathroom and transfers yet again. AND THIS IS A LOT OF TRANSFER, but maybe it is possible. ALSO, THESE ARE MICROSCOPIC FIBERS, they could be in her underwear from transfer. I know there will be disagreement on this, but it is possible.

BUT, BUT BUT, the fibers under the tape, 4 of them from Patsy's sweater, confirmed, how did that happen. I realize this is their house. Patsy hugged JonBenet when she is brought up from the basement and could transfer then. HOWEVER, the tape is still in the basement in the FARTHEST part of the house, away from it all. Here is where it gets interesting. This is a stretch to say the fibers floated down there. Or the intruders used tape handled by Patsy. But tape is rolled up until used, right. So the person using the tape has to get their fibers on the tape. I have used duct tape and when you use it, you tear it off each time.

I just think that the DNA being found NOT TO BE THAT OF AN INTRUDER is different than Fibers from John and Patsy's sweater. You might be able to convince someone about John's but I think it is very hard about Patsy's. Just mo.

 

[JMO8778]

I'm just suggesting all evidence should be treated the same.

Finding unmatched DNA on JonBenet doesn't mean an intruder killed her. Shirt fiber's from John on JonBenet should be treated with the same suspicion.

the shirt fibers came from inside the house,and from someone who had direct contact w JB.old dna was likely there bf.

 

[UKGuy]

the shirt fibers came from inside the house,and from someone who had direct contact w JB.old dna was likely there bf.

JMO8778,

There appears nothing at the crime-scene that could not have originated from inside the house, including the dna?

JonBenet's prior sexual molestation is another matter since it could have its origin from outside the house?

If this possibility can be excluded then it may be a factor in the motivation behind her death?


.