Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[UKGuy]

I've been back and forth so much, I can't rule anybody out. I need something definitive. Actually, PR, seems like the least likely. For her to be guilty, she would have had to possess a horrible temper, a deep seeded rage, and been abusing JBR, in a systematic, and in the weirdest way immaginable. Yes, it's possible, and I can see how that all would lead to murder, (could there be any other conclusion?), but it is a hard scenario to wrap my brain around. But, she sure acted guilty at times, and accepted that she would probably be arrested, and then there's the ransom note, which by all accounts, looks and sounds like her writing. BR, IMO, also acted abnormally, after JBR's death, and his psychological interview, was disturbing, to say the least. But, was this because he was guilty of something, or because he witnessed or knew something, or because he was reacting to being abused too? ...all reasons, that would cause abnormal behavior. But, kids do abuse and kill their younger siblings. I personally know a woman who got married at 15, to get away from her brother, who was consistently raping her. Her parents refused to do a thing about it. My oldest daughter, used to spend a lot of time at her best friend's house. One day, the friend texted and said the police were looking for her sister in law's 16 year old brother, (who spent a lot of time around my daughter and friend). He had raped and then cut his 9 year old, sister's throat, and then ran away. His sister survived, and told the cops. I have no doubt that he had been abusing her, but had reached the point where he needed 'more'...so, he cut her throat. He was sent to juvie, probably because their 'loving'[ parents, refused to cooperate , and begged for mercy. There was no sense in him not being locked up forever. So, it's just plain dumb, to think siblings love each other, and are incapable of murder. But, when I really consider BR a suspect, too many questions are left unanswered. Awhile back, after PR died, I really started thinking about what was logical and most likely, and actually, the most obvious conclusion, doesn't require a lot of 'out there' speculation. I went and read docg's blog, and his theory Does make the most sense. My only problem, is the ransom note. Like I said, I need something definitive. I'd like to see documentation of who all ruled JR out, as the writer.

dodie20,
There is no smoking gun. All the R's are prime suspects. For me only Patsy is a lesser suspect, but thats probably bias on my part. The other two R's have the potential motive of sexual gratification.

I am satisfied all three R's conspired to stage the death of JonBenet. Fibers from Patsy and John are contained within the wine-cellar, and importantly, from clothing they wore that evening! So the parents can be placed at the crime-scene. Fibers from Patsy's red jacket are embedded into the ligature/*advertiser censored* garotte, and on the sticky side of the duct tape placed over JonBenet's mouth. And fibers from John's shirt were found on JonBenet genital region.

Burke was present at the 911 call, and likely long before, he also play acted at being asleep, before bailing out ASAP that morning. So he is in on the act, he knows more or less what happened that night. If he did not know then, I guarantee you he knows now. He can read the forums, and all the published books, e.g. Kolars.

The evidence suggest Patsy asphyxiated JonBenet, and depending on how you parse the evidence that she is the sole cause of the death of JonBenet.

Similarly for John, he has motive, opportunity and the means.

Burke is the odd one out, due to his age. But there is nothing to prevent Burke from being the person who initially assaulted JonBenet then in a rage of sorts whacked her on the head, and attempted a crude coverup?

PDI in evidential terms is the front runner, followed by JDI, then obviously BDI.

But if you go for PDI, and if you interpret stuff, such as the RN as being authored by Patsy etc, then how do you explain Patsy not clearing up the pineapple snack, or not knowing that JonBenet had been redressed in the size-12's?

I reckon the inconsistencies and anomalies in both JDI and PDI are forced on them as improvisations, to events and circumstances they were ignorant about. e.g. John with his intruder walking through doors and teleporting chairs, and Patsy disowning her own tableware!

So many see this as implict evidence of JDI, since Patsy is standing by her man?

Another interpretation, which is even stronger is BDI. Which allows both parents to collude in staging the death of JonBenet, both thinking its for the good of the family reputation and Burke's future?

One day we will find out if its BDI. We will not get a trial, but due to particular legal procedures, or even a release of forensic evidence, we will be able to either eliminate or include Burke.

It could be Kolar knows much more than he has published, and has a documentary in mind, where more forensic evidence might see the light of day.


.

 

[Whaleshark]

But if you go for PDI, and if you interpret stuff, such as the RN as being authored by Patsy etc, then how do you explain Patsy not clearing up the pineapple snack, or not knowing that JonBenet had been redressed in the size-12's?...

UKGuy,

We've gone over this....for reals, already.

Patsy didn't clean up any other damn thing in that house either.

You don't know if she knew that JonBenet ate the pineapple, even, so why would she care?

You don't know if it was on the table from the night before either, even if JonBenet ate some, because people in the kitchen the next morning were making sandwiches, coffee, drinks, etc., and moving things around.

Can you not let go of whether or not Patsy would clean up the pineapple as to whether or not it has to do with her involvement or not?

It doesn't matter.

It matters that JonBenet ate some as proof of her being up for the timeline when they came home, and contradicting their story of her going to bed, or of the possibility that she was up at all - if they don't know she got up later, or ate some.

Not whether Patsy would have cleaned up the damn bowl or not.

Tell me what else was cleaned up?

Nothing.

Everything else was out and a mess as well.


Not whether Patsy would have cleaned up the damn bowl or not.
Not whether Patsy would have cleaned up the damn bowl or not.
Not whether Patsy would have cleaned up the damn bowl or not.
Not whether Patsy would have cleaned up the damn bowl or not.


UKGuy.
Please.

 

[SapphireSteel]

dodie20,
There is no smoking gun. All the R's are prime suspects. For me only Patsy is a lesser suspect, but thats probably bias on my part. The other two R's have the potential motive of sexual gratification.

~rsbm~

Burke is the odd one out, due to his age. But there is nothing to prevent Burke from being the person who initially assaulted JonBenet then in a rage of sorts whacked her on the head, and attempted a crude coverup?

~rsbm~

One day we will find out if its BDI. We will not get a trial, but due to particular legal procedures, or even a release of forensic evidence, we will be able to either eliminate or include Burke.

It could be Kolar knows much more than he has published, and has a documentary in mind, where more forensic evidence might see the light of day.


.

I have got to disagree with that statement. As the mother of a 9 year old boy once upon a time, I can tell you that they aren't sexual.

Burke, by all accounts, was interested in football, computer games, and playing with his friends. Every odd or autistic seeming behaviour can easily be explained if once you understand he was having to cope with living with his sisters' MURDERER/S. No wonder the kid withdrew!

He was a completely normal, undeveloped little boy dealing with a completely abnormal situation. On top of anything else, I doubt he'd even be strong enough to hit his sister hard enough to crack her skull...those things are solid, it isn't like cracking an egg.

Even if he was possessed by inner sexual demons at the grand old age of 9, or a victim himself...hurting his sister like that implies a cruelty that is not normal, especially in one who knows how it feels and loved his sister, by ALL accounts. I would expect him to have gone on to hurt others, or torture animals, not become the seemingly normal, popular, heterosexual, successful and well balanced (if resolutely silent) young man he has become. :dunno:

Burke IS the odd one out. He was the only one who is not a psychopath. I think it is entirely likely that the adult Burke has blocked the entire incident from his mind, from beginning to end. Kids work like that. He shut it off to survive, and it worked. Kids have to believe in their parents. I strongly suspect he was NOT a victim of whatever game was going on in that house, was adored and protected by his mother. JBR was not.

I see an unhealthy mother/daughter dynamic, an unhealthy father/daughter and father/mother dynamic too. But Burke seems to have escaped relatively unscathed. If this is the case, I would expect it to rear its ugly head again in time...you can't bury something like that forever.

As always just my opinion.

:moo:

 

[ozazure]

I don't know why nearly everything is considered staging when it may not have been. If BDI, he would may well of not been as sadistic as an adult in the same circumstances, for many reasons - believing she will wake up, not wanting to get into "too much" trouble etc, or simply his actions being more exploratory, as he is inexperienced, than an adult into inflicting pain. Poking her with this and that, poorly tying her up, a head blow after a scream, a "little bit" molested, no idea that she is in so much danger until it is way too late.

I'm thinking that it is possible JonBenet was discovered by a parent closer to when the 911 call was made vs the estimated time of death, so she was obviously dead, and all that hastily occurred was the writing of the note, and the cleaning and dressing of her body. I feel Patsy sounds genuinely breathless from adrenalin/fear in the call. Perhaps the paintbrush was tied to the ligature by an adult (likely Patsy given the fibers) as per [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117975"]this thread[/ame] for some reason. The execution of the cover-up was sloppy. They had no idea what clues were left around the house, that the pineapple was relevant, what items were in odd places like the kitchen knife, and no time anyway as it was morning and JonBenet needed to be discovered missing in a timeline applicable to the plans for the day. John perhaps took the risk during the morning to improve on it somehow.

If this is what occurred, then this would have occurred after a period of failing to be able to correct, and then choosing to hide/deny/minimise disturbing behaviours in their son for their own psychological relief, not a logical decision based on legalities.

This is the scenario that makes sense to me.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

We've gone over this....for reals, already.

Patsy didn't clean up any other damn thing in that house either.

You don't know if she knew that JonBenet ate the pineapple, even, so why would she care?

You don't know if it was on the table from the night before either, even if JonBenet ate some, because people in the kitchen the next morning were making sandwiches, coffee, drinks, etc., and moving things around.

Can you not let go of whether or not Patsy would clean up the pineapple as to whether or not it has to do with her involvement or not?

It doesn't matter.

It matters that JonBenet ate some as proof of her being up for the timeline when they came home, and contradicting their story of her going to bed, or of the possibility that she was up at all - if they don't know she got up later, or ate some.

Not whether Patsy would have cleaned up the damn bowl or not.

Tell me what else was cleaned up?

Nothing.

Everything else was out and a mess as well.


Not whether Patsy would have cleaned up the damn bowl or not.
Not whether Patsy would have cleaned up the damn bowl or not.
Not whether Patsy would have cleaned up the damn bowl or not.
Not whether Patsy would have cleaned up the damn bowl or not.


UKGuy.
Please.

Whaleshark,
This is a forum for debate. I am offering my opinion, and what I understand is the current forensic evidence.

So please allow me the space to interpret the evidence as it appears to me, and not as you wish.

Tell me what else was cleaned up?

The stuff that was dumped into the wine-cellar. e.g. the Partially Opened Christmas Gifts, JonBenet's person was cleaned up. Since I'm assuming JonBenet had been located upstairs at some point, incriminating evidence had been removed from there also.

The actual particular details, whilst relevant, are not conclusive, nor are they intended to be. Its the idea that a staging was fabricated, and that some details were included, others which were critical to the staging were simply neglected. Why so?

I am asserting Patsy's lack of knowledge regarding the pineapple snack is relevant.

Everything else was out and a mess as well.

Because we are dealing with a staged crime-scene you have absolutely no knowledge about Everything else, you do not know what the R's removed, rearranged, or relocated!





.

 

[UKGuy]

I have got to disagree with that statement. As the mother of a 9 year old boy once upon a time, I can tell you that they aren't sexual.

Burke, by all accounts, was interested in football, computer games, and playing with his friends. Every odd or autistic seeming behaviour can easily be explained if once you understand he was having to cope with living with his sisters' MURDERER/S. No wonder the kid withdrew!

He was a completely normal, undeveloped little boy dealing with a completely abnormal situation. On top of anything else, I doubt he'd even be strong enough to hit his sister hard enough to crack her skull...those things are solid, it isn't like cracking an egg.

Even if he was possessed by inner sexual demons at the grand old age of 9, or a victim himself...hurting his sister like that implies a cruelty that is not normal, especially in one who knows how it feels and loved his sister, by ALL accounts. I would expect him to have gone on to hurt others, or torture animals, not become the seemingly normal, popular, heterosexual, successful and well balanced (if resolutely silent) young man he has become. :dunno:

Burke IS the odd one out. He was the only one who is not a psychopath. I think it is entirely likely that the adult Burke has blocked the entire incident from his mind, from beginning to end. Kids work like that. He shut it off to survive, and it worked. Kids have to believe in their parents. I strongly suspect he was NOT a victim of whatever game was going on in that house, was adored and protected by his mother. JBR was not.

I see an unhealthy mother/daughter dynamic, an unhealthy father/daughter and father/mother dynamic too. But Burke seems to have escaped relatively unscathed. If this is the case, I would expect it to rear its ugly head again in time...you can't bury something like that forever.

As always just my opinion.

:moo:

SapphireSteel,

Burke IS the odd one out. He was the only one who is not a psychopath. I think it is entirely likely that the adult Burke has blocked the entire incident from his mind, from beginning to end. Kids work like that. He shut it off to survive, and it worked. Kids have to believe in their parents. I strongly suspect he was NOT a victim of whatever game was going on in that house, was adored and protected by his mother. JBR was not.

This is why I suggested he was the odd one out. I am agreeing with you. I even place BDI last on my list. But I am aware that 9-year old boys have the capacity to kill, so he remains as a suspect.


.

 

[ozazure]

I have got to disagree with that statement. As the mother of a 9 year old boy once upon a time, I can tell you that they aren't sexual.

snipped for space

Yours wasn't and most aren't I'd say. The thing is, most mothers and fathers aren't murderous either ... most people aren't intruders into peoples homes killing 6 years old. Whatever happened to JonBenet was an aberration from "most".

Some 9yo boys are interested in sexuality - some in healthy age appropriate ways, and others in unhealthy ways. It is possible by 9 years old for a child to sexually abuse another child, there is plenty of evidence of that.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know why nearly everything is considered staging when it may not have been. If BDI, he would may well of not been as sadistic as an adult in the same circumstances, for many reasons - believing she will wake up, not wanting to get into "too much" trouble etc, or simply his actions being more exploratory, as he is inexperienced, than an adult into inflicting pain. Poking her with this and that, poorly tying her up, a head blow after a scream, a "little bit" molested, no idea that she is in so much danger until it is way too late.

I'm thinking that it is possible JonBenet was discovered by a parent closer to when the 911 call was made vs the estimated time of death, so she was obviously dead, and all that hastily occurred was the writing of the note, and the cleaning and dressing of her body. I feel Patsy sounds genuinely breathless from adrenalin/fear in the call. Perhaps the paintbrush was tied to the ligature by an adult (likely Patsy given the fibers) as per this thread for some reason. The execution of the cover-up was sloppy. They had no idea what clues were left around the house, that the pineapple was relevant, what items were in odd places like the kitchen knife, and no time anyway as it was morning and JonBenet needed to be discovered missing in a timeline applicable to the plans for the day. John perhaps took the risk during the morning to improve on it somehow.

If this is what occurred, then this would have occurred after a period of failing to be able to correct, and then choosing to hide/deny/minimise disturbing behaviours in their son for their own psychological relief, not a logical decision based on legalities.

This is the scenario that makes sense to me.

ozazure,

I don't know why nearly everything is considered staging when it may not have been.

The majority of the contents of the wine-cellar, did not appear there by accident, including JonBenet, and her person.

So what do you think was not staged?


.

 

[Whaleshark]

I have got to disagree with that statement. As the mother of a 9 year old boy once upon a time, I can tell you that they aren't sexual.

Sapphire, every child is not the same - you're going to have to let go of some of that innocence, your own personal beliefs and assumptions, and what you think people should be or are like --

Schoolboy, 11, raped nine-year-old disabled boy after council ignored warnings he was a danger to others:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003850/Schoolboy-11-raped-boy-9-Sunderland-City-Council-ignored-danger-signs.html

7- and 9-year-old rape suspects taken from families:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/mar/29/young-rape-suspects-taken-from-families/

Study: Many sex offenders are kids themselves:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-01-03-kid-sex-offenders_N.htm

"Juveniles are 36% of all sex offenders who victimize children. Seven out of eight are at least 12 years old, and 93% are boys, says the study by the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. "

Child-on-child sexual abuse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child-on-child_sexual_abuse

"Child-on-child sexual abuse refers to a form of child sexual abuse in which a prepubescent child is sexually abused by one or more other children or adolescent youths, and in which no adult is directly involved".

"The incidence of child-on-child sexual abuse is not known with any certainty, similar to abuse by adults. It frequently goes unreported because it is not widely known of in the public,[2] and often occurs outside of adults' supervision. Even if known by adults, it is sometimes dismissed as harmless by those who do not understand the implications.[2] In particular, intersibling abuse is under-reported relative to the reporting rates for parent-child sexual abuse,[3] and disclosure of the incest by the victim during childhood is rare".

Child-on-child sexual abuse not uncommon:
http://www.news-press.com/article/20080414/SS08/804140350/Child-child-sexual-abuse-not-uncommon

A common offense

About 4,000 children each year are referred to the Children's Advocacy Center in Fort Myers for medical evaluations by law enforcement and the Department of Children and Families.

Sally Beckett, director of the Child Protection Team at the center, said that about 47 percent of the cases there are alleged sexual abuse. Of those, 25 percent involve allegations of child-on-child sexual activity.

"You're going to have the child who is just exploring their sexuality with other children," Beckett said. "Then you're going to have the children who are experiencing abuse-reactive behaviors, and then you'll have the juvenile offenders."

She said it is typically younger children who are in the curious, exploring stage. Others are those children who are reacting to some type of abuse they have suffered by acting out against another child. And juvenile offenders are typically older and wield their power over a younger, weaker child.


The effects on victims and consequences to offenders vary.

"We do get cases where there is a 5-year-old with another 5-year-old touching body parts," Beckett said. "In those cases, we're just going to bring the kids in to make sure it's just normal play and the child wasn't victimized. But if it's an older child, say a 12-year-old and a 6-year-old, that's going to be suspicious."

Bill Boyer, director of offender services at the center, said that while children who act out sexually may have been abused themselves, that's not always the case and there is no red-flag profile.

A child offender

Boyer said 85 percent of children have had some kind of sexual experience by the time they are 13. The biggest indicator that it has crossed a line to an abusive behavior, he said, is if one child has some advantage over the other - being older, smarter, bigger or in a position of authority.

There are so many differences between adult and children sexual offenders, with adult sexual offenders most likely to have a character disorder," Boyer said. "They have sociopathic tendencies or deviant arousal. Children's brains haven't developed those patterns yet, and so most of what they're doing is abuse-reactive behaviors - not even just sexual, but physical or emotional."

He said another factor may be easy access to *advertiser censored* on the Internet, which he said is sexualizing children at a much younger age.

Peter Pollard is the public education director for Stop It Now! a national advocacy group based in Massachusetts that aims to prevent child sexual abuse. He said it would be impossible to know the full scope of the issue because it's so underreported.

"A lot of people dismiss it, and say, 'Oh, it's just boys will be boys,'" Pollard said. "People have extreme visions of who a sexual offender is. They assume it's someone who is a predator, so there's a tendency to discount their child's behavior. But early intervention is very likely to produce positive results."
___

It's time to let go of your pre-conceived notions and consider all possibilities.

 

[Whaleshark]

Because we are dealing with a staged crime-scene you have absolutely no knowledge about Everything else, you do not know what the R's removed, rearranged, or relocated!

And neither do you -- but not only because parts of the crime scene were staged, but also because the crime scene was changing.

Therefore, based on that, why put much weight in the fact that you think her not cleaning up the pineapple was relevant?

-- especially since you don't know either what was removed, rearranged, or RELOCATED, or by whom.

It could be totally irrelevant due to those things -- that we violently agree on -- whether she cleaned up the pineapple.

 

[ozazure]

ozazure,

The majority of the contents of the wine-cellar, did not appear there by accident, including JonBenet, and her person.

So what do you think was not staged?


.

I think it is likely the injuries inflicted to JonBenet were not staged. I think it is more likely that if BR is responsible that he did those things to her.

 

[UKGuy]

And neither do you -- but not only because parts of the crime scene were staged, but also because the crime scene was changing.

Therefore, based on that, why put much weight in the fact that you think her not cleaning up the pineapple was relevant?

-- especially since you don't know either what was removed, rearranged, or RELOCATED, or by whom.

It could be totally irrelevant due to those things -- that we violently agree on -- whether she cleaned up the pineapple.

Whaleshark,

Therefore, based on that, why put much weight in the fact that you think her not cleaning up the pineapple was relevant?

For the same reason she seemed to lack knowledge that JonBenet was dressed in size-12's. And so critical was this, that the R's magically discovered the remaining size-12's, that the BPD completely failed to find!

Its not simply the presence of evidence that is important but also its absence, and that includes ignorance on part of any particular witness.



.

 

[Whaleshark]

Whaleshark,

For the same reason she seemed to lack knowledge that JonBenet was dressed in size-12s. And so critical was this, that the R's magically discovered the remaining size-12's, that the BPD completely failed to find!

Its not simply the presence of evidence that is important but also its absence, and that includes ignorance on part of any particular witness.

Well, but we agree on the fact that her 'ignorance' of the size 12s and pineapple is of the utmost importance, and it has to be, in order for her to not know anything about the events of the night...

...Especially if JonBenet had some pineapple, yet was supposed to be asleep all that time. So Patsy canNOT know about it...

But whether or not she cleaned up the pineapple does not have relevance about her knowledge -- because: things were out of place all over the house anyway, and people moved stuff around in the kitchen in particular...

Drawers were left wide open in bathrooms (she was asked about this, and she said it was NORMAL); clothes were strewn everywhere, poop was in clothes on the floor, and on candy boxes, flashlight was left out on the table, things were just all over the place; things were messy in general.

The fact that she was totally ignorant about the pineapple is suspicious, yes.

The fact that she did not clean it up if she knew about it, no.

If the house was spotless, meticulous, all clothes put away, all drawers shut, all dishes washed, all items accounted for, all rooms cleaned, playrooms and train room, and other rooms NOT in disarray, and that one bowl out, then it would be significant as to whether the bowl was cleaned up by her or not...

But the evidence, condition of the house, and reported behavior habits of Patsy and the family proves otherwise.

We can still call it suspicious, though, that she was supposedly, or maybe, really, ignorant, about the pineapple, but not because she didn't clean it up.

 

[Whaleshark]

Child-on-child Sexual Abuse continued:

"Boyer said that about half of all child-on-child cases happen between family members, usually siblings. Beckett said it's the most underreported type of abuse.

"A lot of it is kept hidden because it's a tough situation for the parents," Beckett said. "You love all your children, so what do you do?"

It can cause complications for families, who may have to make different living arrangements or go through intensive counseling. But Boyer said parents should be encouraged to come forward because there are services available for both offenders and victims.

"It needs to be reported because both children should get help for what's happened," he said. "You also want to overcome whatever the catalyst so it doesn't happen again."

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

IM curious...

I am sure many of you are aware of the timeline that started once LE arrived at the scene.

Im just curious if any of you have tried to put yourself in R's shoes. NOT from a cover up stand point but from an innocent, " my child is missing and Im freaking out " POV.

To really ponder how you feel or how you think you would act?

I was thinking of something that was said in the thread about little Max.
About not presuming how people act when they grieve for their children or react when they find out they are dead or have no chance of recovery.

Just wondering..

 

[UKGuy]

Well, but we agree on the fact that her 'ignorance' of the size 12s and pineapple is of the utmost importance, and it has to be, in order for her to not know anything about the events of the night...

...Especially if JonBenet had some pineapple, yet was supposed to be asleep all that time. So Patsy canNOT know about it...

But whether or not she cleaned up the pineapple does not have relevance about her knowledge -- because: things were out of place all over the house anyway, and people moved stuff around in the kitchen in particular...

Drawers were left wide open in bathrooms (she was asked about this, and she said it was NORMAL); clothes were strewn everywhere, poop was in clothes on the floor, and on candy boxes, flashlight was left out on the table, things were just all over the place; things were messy in general.

The fact that she was totally ignorant about the pineapple is suspicious, yes.

The fact that she did not clean it up if she knew about it, no.

If the house was spotless, meticulous, all clothes put away, all drawers shut, all dishes washed, all items accounted for, all rooms cleaned, playrooms and train room, and other rooms NOT in disarray, and that one bowl out, then it would be significant as to whether the bowl was cleaned up by her or not...

But the evidence, condition of the house, and reported behavior habits of Patsy and the family proves otherwise.

We can still call it suspicious, though, that she was supposedly, or maybe, really, ignorant, about the pineapple, but not because she didn't clean it up.

Whaleshark,

But whether or not she cleaned up the pineapple does not have relevance about her knowledge -- because: things were out of place all over the house anyway, and people moved stuff around in the kitchen in particular...

Well it might do if you intend to stage your daughters death, and want it to look convincing. Particularly when Patsy's version of events includes JonBenet going straight to bed. So why does Patsy disown her own tableware if she thinks its not relevant?

We can still call it suspicious, though, that she was supposedly, or maybe, really, ignorant, about the pineapple, but not because she didn't clean it up.

Cleaning up the breakfast bar, or even just that bowl or pineapple, would not have meant nobody ever knew JonBenet snacked pineapple. But if it is PDI then its something Patsy might have done, just as she might have redressed JonBenet in those size-12's? Simply to make her version of events more consistent.

Evidence of the pineapple snack is a critical piece of forensic evidence, e.g. the bowl, not just the contents of her stomach. All the other stuff you itemize, whilst important, does not contradict the Ramsey's version of events.

The pineapple snack does, so why would Patsy leave it in plain view, then deny ownership?



.

 

[Whaleshark]

....For the same reasons they denied ownership of their own flashlight, kleenex box, placement of the suitcase, and window....

...which by the way, answers the reason that the flashlight was wiped down -- if it HAD their prints on it, for sure it was theirs... if it had NO prints on it, and was just left there, out, then they could claim it looked like theirs, but weren't sure, so could have been left by the intruder.... they couldn't put someone else's prints on the flashlight, but they could remove theirs, and add doubt -- as absurd as it is...

They had to create elements of unknown -- things out of place, no knowledge of their own crap - we wouldn't put that kleenex there, or use that spoon, or put the suitcase there, or leave the window like that -- that was not us...

The reason they had to reproduce the underwear, after her not having knowledge of it, is because it can't be missing, then, can it - if her story says she just left the underwear available for JonBenet, so JonBenet chose the large underwear herself right from her own drawer.. well, now, we can't have missing underwear, then, can we?

Yes, there are inconsistencies, for sure... Why do the stories not add up? Why does Patsy not know about certain things, and then make it worse with her answers and actions?

Sure seems like cover up for someone regarding elements not known about before, or yes, one would think their stories would be consistent....

 

[UKGuy]

....For the same reasons they denied ownership of their own flashlight, kleenex box, placement of the suitcase, and window....

...which by the way, answers the reason that the flashlight was wiped down -- if it HAD their prints on it, for sure it was theirs... if it had NO prints on it, and was just left there, out, then they could claim it looked like theirs, but weren't sure, so could have been left by the intruder.... they couldn't put someone else's prints on the flashlight, but they could remove theirs, and add doubt -- as absurd as it is...

They had to create elements of unknown -- things out of place, no knowledge of their own crap - we wouldn't put that kleenex there, or use that spoon, or put the suitcase there, or leave the window like that -- that was not us...

The reason they had to reproduce the underwear, after her not having knowledge of it, is because it can't be missing, then, can it - if her story says she just left the underwear available for JonBenet, so JonBenet chose the large underwear herself right from her own drawer.. well, now, we can't have missing underwear, then, can we?

Yes, there are inconsistencies, for sure... Why do the stories not add up? Why does Patsy not know about certain things, and then make it worse with her answers and actions?

Sure seems like cover up for someone regarding elements not known about before, or yes, one would think their stories would be consistent....

Whaleshark,

...which by the way, answers the reason that the flashlight was wiped down

...


They had to create elements of unknown -- things out of place,

...

Now you could be 100% correct here. What you suggest is consistent with the R's staging a crime-scene.

And this is my point regarding Patsy and the pineapple, that she either forgot or was ignorant about it, or alike the above items you list, if such detail was entered into, so to keep in step with the staging plan, surely she would have done something?

The reason they had to reproduce the underwear, after her not having knowledge of it, is because it can't be missing, then, can it - if her story says she just left the underwear available for JonBenet, so JonBenet chose the large underwear herself right from her own drawer.. well, now, we can't have missing underwear, then, can we?

Not unless you want to blame the intruder for stealing them, LOL.

IMO Patsy and John were covering up for someone else, possibly each other, or Burke?


.

 

[ozazure]

IM curious...

I am sure many of you are aware of the timeline that started once LE arrived at the scene.

Im just curious if any of you have tried to put yourself in R's shoes. NOT from a cover up stand point but from an innocent, " my child is missing and Im freaking out " POV.

To really ponder how you feel or how you think you would act?

I was thinking of something that was said in the thread about little Max.
About not presuming how people act when they grieve for their children or react when they find out they are dead or have no chance of recovery.

Just wondering..

I am pretty sure I would cooperate with the police to the best of my ability even if that meant I was sobbing in an interrogation room day and night nodding yes or no.

 

[UKGuy]

I think it is likely the injuries inflicted to JonBenet were not staged. I think it is more likely that if BR is responsible that he did those things to her.

ozazure,
This could be the case. Nobody is certain about the true nature of JonBenet's secondary internal injuries, e.g. did they result from the acute assault, or from some form of staging?

BPD have this information, but have never released it.

This I think is important, at least for me, since it would tip the scales one way or the other.


.