Mark Beckner’s AMA

[stmarysmead]

All of JB's clothes are evidence.

On that evidence , 5 different but tiny specks of DNA profiles are found.

Most experts believe that DNA comes from sweat or saliva.

So, if you think this important....then why isn't all of it important?

If you think some are unimportant, then why isn't it possible that ALL are unimportant?.

How do you know where the supposed intruder dropped sweat or saliva?

If one can say that four samples don't matter, than why can't it also be extrapolated that ALL five dont matter?

Please explain the selection process of just the panty speck....and the disqualification process for the other four unknown specks?

 

[andreww]

All conjecture.

The blow could have been immediately upon gathering the child to silence her. It could be that the intruder thought that he had nearly killed her. AT that point Intruder could have thought it was too late to take her out of house considering she would most likely die anyway, He goes down to the basement to find hiding place and then assaults her. Possibly more than once in the process he leaves DNA in her underwear and on her body.

The strangling comes at the end when the intruder is ready to leave. He does not want to take any chances. He leaves her instead of taking her as the note he left says and then sneaks out leaving JBR in the basement.

It is not so cut and clear. Either conjecture works.

That theory really doesn't make much sense. Who silences a child by hitting them over the head with enough force to knock a 200 LB man unconscious? Then he takes the unconscious, almost dead girl downstairs and spends a couple of hours sexually assaulting her, without leaving anything more than a tiny splinter in her vagina. But if the splinter was in there, chances are he already made the garrotte right? Then, rather than leaving, he goes hunting for a pair of size 12 panties, her favourite nighty, and a cozy blanket? None of it makes any sense whatsoever!

 

[ninaskids]

I'm always amazed, also, when intruders are so bold they walk right into a house and steal or kill a child. But, as much as I wouldn't do that, it doesn't stop folks like Shasta Groene's kidnapper, Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper, Polly Klaas' kidnapper, Jessica Lunsford's killer, Danielle Van Dam's killer, I'm getting tired of typing so I'll stop with the inexhaustable list of girls boldly kidnapped by men who just walked in and took what they wanted although many were present in the home, and unaware that it was happening.

Yes, what this killer of JB did is more - to stay in the home so long. But look at the bizarre brutality of the crime? What kind of guy would DO that? One who does that, is who. A guy who is very very into sado masochism. You don't just pick that stuff up overnight or without lots of prior evidence of having SM bondage leanings.

So to suspect that her parents whacked her over the head (or Burke, which is more unbelievable) and then to cover the crime of whacking her over the head they sexually assault her while she's alive and use a Marquis de Sade knot in the garrote used to strangle her, and then stick her in a kind of secret room in the house and call the cops. Call the cops while she is STILL IN THE HOUSE? I mean, what kind of stupid home owner/killer would do that? A stupid one, is who. The Ramseys would know, for sure, that once they reported this precious child missing they would no longer have any way to get her remains out of the house undiscovered.

And in the meanwhile, the mom handwrites the 2.5 page ransom note, leaving MORE than enough evidence of her involvement. How stupid would she be to do that? Patsy was not a stupid woman. It's as hard to fake literacy as it is to fake illiteracy, and the ransom note was not written in her handwriting or with her grasp of the language.

So you're left with a very bold, sadistic killer who got pleasure out of doing this in their very home. Anything else doesn't make sense.

You have just answered the question... an intruder would NOT do what you describe. Even the FBI said it would have to be the FIRST case ever.

Everything about what you described is not logical but it could happen that way if it was an inside job.
However, you are part of a big group of people who cannot conceive of the family doing all this just to protect a son or themselves.

So break it down to reality, use Occam's razor. "When you have eliminated the impossible or the ridiculous ---what is left is the most simple explanation." It has to be simple. that is how detectives figure it all out.

The parents, and Burke and John Andrew are the only viable suspects.
In fact, I have always thought that Burke clocked her with the flashlight either downstairs or when she was asleep in her bed. You can be 10 years old and do a lot of damage to a sleeping person with a heavy flashlight.

But after the Reddit interview, I am wondering if he is alluding to another family member, possibly the other son. Or even Patsy. Patsy is the one who is the most strange of all. The way the parents acted on that day, the way she was so annoyed at all the cops and their rules for her. She was a strange duck from the get go.
If JA had access to JB during the school year and the home at Christmas how come no one has revealed that?

Would the parents go to the wall for JA as well as Burke to protect their image? Yu bet they would. The scream you heard was not after Patsy hurt JB but after she was shown JB after the perp hit her. I figure a time frame went by before Burke or JA revealed the truth. That may be why the brain swelling was so extensive before the strangling.

I sense now that Beckner is talking about a 4th person other than the immediate 3/ JA has been mentioned but supposedly had an alibi. But who knows?

it was most likely Burke since they sealed his medical records!! But Beckner has made it seem as if that 4th person is very obvious if yu follow the bread crumbs.
Just my humble opinion. And someone said Patsy was a smart woman. no she wasn't. She did horrid things to her daughter because she wanted the limelight again.
And she wrote a novel of a ransom note that BY THE WAY, caused the police to suspect staging.

Real genius she was.

 

[ninaskids]

That theory really doesn't make much sense. Who silences a child by hitting them over the head with enough force to knock a 200 LB man unconscious? Then he takes the unconscious, almost dead girl downstairs and spends a couple of hours sexually assaulting her, without leaving anything more than a tiny splinter in her vagina. But if the splinter was in there, chances are he already made the garrotte right? Then, rather than leaving, he goes hunting for a pair of size 12 panties, her favourite nighty, and a cozy blanket? None of it makes any sense whatsoever!

And there you have it...when something doesn't make any sense, chances are your explanation is full of hot air. Because it requires an intruder to behave as if he had the run of the house. Oh wait a minute.................who might have felt they had the run of the house?
Well a parent would feel that way.

I can't see J Andrew staying around to be involved in the staging if it was him. He would be told to hot foot it to wherever and hide out until he had to appear at the airport as if he had just arrived. Back in the 90s tho, those things could be checked. So Occam's razor says he is most likely not the perp, too complicated.

But if Burke did it, as you say from an argument having nothing to do with sexual assault, the parents waited 45 mins -2 hrs trying to decide whether to report it. They could have always explained the wait to being asleep and walking in JBs room and finding her hit.

But they would have to reveal Burke did it on purpose, no accident. I cannot see PR ever wanting to do that for a whole bunch of reasons. Besides part of me thinks it was rage on BRs part but still he was a child.

I feel the explanation is/was staring everyone in law enforcement in the face from the first moment they arrived and read the ransom note. And then John just accidently finding JB in the little out of the way room?

yes, it was an inside job.

 

[Intheamadhouse]

I really don't see BR as being good for the head bash. I think that was Patsy. I do, however, see him as being responsible for the previous sexual trauma. I think the two were playing doctor and PR found out. A little boys dirty hands could be the cause of the chronic infections. Possibly BR pushed things a little too far and penetrated his sister with a finger, making her upset. She tells Mom because it hurts, and it all spirals out of control from there.

If PR never confronted her son about it, he may genuinely have no idea what happened that night, or that the innocent play between him and his sister was the catalyst for her murder. Which is why he was heard on the 911 tape asking what happened.

I do not see BR as a pervert or molester, which explains why his record has been clean since. Kids play doctor and don't grow up to be predators.

Which is my long winded way of saying that all 3 Ramsey's are involved, but in different parts of what happened. BR with the previous sexual contact, PR with the head injury, and JR with the staging. I don't know who strangled her, but I believe it was one of the parents. Because all 3 are involved (though one can not be prosecuted), the waters are muddied enough that everyone gets off.

 

[DeeDee249]

It would be interesting to learn if anyone has ever tried to repeal that law. If such an effort were successful, one would hope it would apply retroactively. I'm not holding my breath.

Unfortunately, the charges that could still apply have statues of limitations that have run out. There is no limit on murder, but if you do as Beckner says (and he agrees with Kolar on his "theory") and "follow the bread crumbs"- the person that would not be protected by a statue of limitation cannot be prosecuted.

 

[JeannaT]

You have just answered the question... an intruder would NOT do what you describe. Even the FBI said it would have to be the FIRST case ever.

Everything about what you described is not logical but it could happen that way if it was an inside job.
However, you are part of a big group of people who cannot conceive of the family doing all this just to protect a son or themselves.

So break it down to reality, use Occam's razor. "When you have eliminated the impossible or the ridiculous ---what is left is the most simple explanation." It has to be simple. that is how detectives figure it all out.

The parents, and Burke and John Andrew are the only viable suspects.
In fact, I have always thought that Burke clocked her with the flashlight either downstairs or when she was asleep in her bed. You can be 10 years old and do a lot of damage to a sleeping person with a heavy flashlight.

But after the Reddit interview, I am wondering if he is alluding to another family member, possibly the other son. Or even Patsy. Patsy is the one who is the most strange of all. The way the parents acted on that day, the way she was so annoyed at all the cops and their rules for her. She was a strange duck from the get go.
If JA had access to JB during the school year and the home at Christmas how come no one has revealed that?

Would the parents go to the wall for JA as well as Burke to protect their image? Yu bet they would. The scream you heard was not after Patsy hurt JB but after she was shown JB after the perp hit her. I figure a time frame went by before Burke or JA revealed the truth. That may be why the brain swelling was so extensive before the strangling.

I sense now that Beckner is talking about a 4th person other than the immediate 3/ JA has been mentioned but supposedly had an alibi. But who knows?

it was most likely Burke since they sealed his medical records!! But Beckner has made it seem as if that 4th person is very obvious if yu follow the bread crumbs.
Just my humble opinion. And someone said Patsy was a smart woman. no she wasn't. She did horrid things to her daughter because she wanted the limelight again.
And she wrote a novel of a ransom note that BY THE WAY, caused the police to suspect staging.

Real genius she was.

I understand what you are saying, but when you have to consider the perp was a crazy pedophile who gets off on manipulation and torture, then you have to kind of throw usual behaviors and motivations out the window. There ARE people who derive great pleasure in being incredibly bold in their assaults, and find great sexual satisfaction in doing sex acts right under the noses of the victim's family.

Patsy and John behaved oddly - but people with a great deal of money and a lot to lose (and possibly some stuff unrelated to hide) often appear to react oddly. They lawyer up quickly, because they run in circles of lawyers and think that way. Upper upper class folks have lawyers already for financial issues, and to get another lawyer is just the blink of an eye away.

I think looking for typical behaviors and motives in this horrific crime is not going to prove fruitful in solving it. IMHO.

BTW - Occam's razor is my favorite thing. And when I look at this case, it seems to me Occam would say some crazy nut came in during the party, and hid himself in the house, and committed this horrific act against this child when the family was asleep. Like, a caterer's assistant they had used in the past but wouldn't really recognize. That kind of thing.

 

[DeeDee249]

Remember that the FBI was called in very early that day- the CASKU division came, while it was still thought to be a kidnapping. After looking around, reading the ransom note, and observing the parents and others in the home, the FBI told police "You're going to be finding her body. Take a close look at the parents". Yep.
Later, when her body was found, the CASKU division was no longer appropriate, but other divisions of the FBI could have stepped in. The Eller refused all outside help. JR made much crowing about wanting the FBI to come in, but he never really asked them to, did he? Because as his lawyers knew, the FBI would come to the same conclusion they did when they first came to the house that day.

 

[rachael123]

I think this whole case rests on the sexual abuse.For the Ramsey's to cover up an accident there had to be a reason.The accident happened and they did not call 911.Why because they had to cover up the sexual abuse.If they took her to the hospital the abuse would have been found.So you have a dead child in front of you and you have to cover up the sexual abuse so you make up a story.I feel John had a hand in all of this.Tell Patsy to write the note,call someone who knows how to handle crimes ,ruin as much evidence as you can and stage it.The phone records were never recovered because he talked to the right people to make it happen.Why cover up an accident especially if it was the son.Crazy-had to be the sexually part.He sold a phony story to Patsy about how it would be better for the son if he never knew he killed his sister.

 

[Anti-K]

All of JB's clothes are evidence.

On that evidence , 5 different but tiny specks of DNA profiles are found.

Most experts believe that DNA comes from sweat or saliva.

So, if you think this important....then why isn't all of it important?

If you think some are unimportant, then why isn't it possible that ALL are unimportant?.

How do you know where the supposed intruder dropped sweat or saliva?

If one can say that four samples don't matter, than why can't it also be extrapolated that ALL five dont matter?

Please explain the selection process of just the panty speck....and the disqualification process for the other four unknown specks?

To say that either ALL or NONE of the DNA is important is to commit a logical fallacy; it is the either/or fallacy, the fallacy of the excluded middle, a false dichotomy, et. It demonstrates very poor reasoning on Kolar’s part.
All, some or none of the DNA could be “important.”

The 5 samples referred to are not all of equal evidentiary value. One of those samples is actually located in three different places on 2 separate articles of clothing. And these locations are all incriminating locations. So, that makes at least one of the samples to be of greater significance than the others.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Maybe the speck of DNA on her underwear got there the same way the other four DNA specks got on the long johns etc.

How can you rule some DNA out as not important and rule some in? I guess we can all pick and choose in our conjecture...but I'm trying to follow your logic.

Didnt most of the experts believe the DNA was from sweat or saliva? I think the "conjecture" of a majority of experts does trump that of Internet posters. So if it is all sweat or saliva...and you truly believe there is only one intruder...maybe the DNA in the underwear is from some worker in China and the DNA on the sweatpants is the perp.

Or maybe none of it matters.

How, in your conjecture, do you decide which of the 5 samples you want to choose as that of the intruder? A drop of sweat here...a drop of spit there. Five different samples. What makes that one more important? I say this in all sincerity because I'm interested in your line of reasoning.

Why do you just dismiss the other 4 samples as irrelevant. If they can be meaningless, so can the panties...

Why does only one DNA profile "matter?"

The DNA that CBI (according to Beckner, et. al) is the DNA that was found on the panties. The DNA found on the leggings, according to BODE, was probably skin cells.
...

AK

 

[questfortrue]

I think I know what he is trying to say.

If one believes that BR was experimenting sexually with his sister in the time period before the murder, there is the previous abuse. But if he struck her that night, that "crime" may or may not have had any sexual component to it. He may have hit her for all,sorts of reasons.

But knowing that any investigation would turn up sexual abuse, the Ramsey's may have staged the scene to look like a sex crime...when it could just have been a moment of intra-familial rage.

In this theory...they hoped that investigators would imagine some sex pervert entering the house to molest their child. But they also threw in a ransom for good measure. So The perp became a kidnapper/pervert. But, then it was decided to involve a small foreign faction with a grudge against Dad. So the murder becomes sexual, financial, personal, and internationally political...covering all bases.

The theory he is espousing, I believe, is that the crime was covered up by making it look like a sex crime. But the actual motivation for killing JB...the first blow...might have had nothing to do with the previous sexual abuse. A Mr. X can be regularlyabusing his daughter, but shoot her one night for mouthing off....that kind of thing.

Just an opinion.

Yes, I understood this in the same light. I interpreted that Beckner and the BPD untethered the crime from a sexual assault; however they referenced the paintbrush as staging to mask prior abuse. Staging connotes an adult. As Beckner put it there’s no way to prove who was responsible for her molestation, and it would lead nowhere in solving the crime. If this means that they don’t know for sure which family member (or anyone with access to her) had been involved in molestation or if this means the person they believe was responsible can’t be tried, I don’t know. Guess it could mean both.

Also, after listening to Kolar speak in a Podcast once he too seemed to be disconnecting a sexual event from the head strike, suggesting a violent encounter which could have occurred over the pineapple. At least he believed something happened in the kitchen/dining area and made no reference to the molestation when talking about the head strike.

To me, it’s a bit different approach on this since the sa seems to be the motive for so much – paramount for not calling an ambulance to help her and plenty of reason for disguising the crime by staging. If BR is responsible, it’s also difficult to see that PR and JR are just protecting their son from knowledge that he killed his sister. Protecting him could be a portion of the motive, but I’ve found that people frequently are conflicted and have layers of motivations. One such motivation would be to avoid jail themselves on a child abuse charge in allowing this to happen. (I’m conjecturing here, since it’s long been theorized that they may have called a lawyer friend that night.) mho

 

[Tawny]

Prior sexual abuse and the idea that this particular crime (her murder) was not sexually motivated are not mutually exclusive. She could have been abused previously (she was, fact), and, as Breckner said, the vaginal trauma present during this incident done as a cover up for that previous abuse. Plenty of abuse victims are killed at other moments that don't involve the act of sexual abuse. An abuser being angry that a victim refuses to let him/her abuse them again, resulting in violence to the victim. That's not unheard of AT ALL. It's actually fairly common in abuse victims' deaths.

Honestly, that's the basis for my theory. Maybe she resisted this time, made the abuser angry, and s/he hit her with the blunt object. Now we have to find a way to cover up that prior sexual abuse. JMO

 

[Tadpole12]

I really don't see BR as being good for the head bash. I think that was Patsy. I do, however, see him as being responsible for the previous sexual trauma. I think the two were playing doctor and PR found out. A little boys dirty hands could be the cause of the chronic infections. Possibly BR pushed things a little too far and penetrated his sister with a finger, making her upset. She tells Mom because it hurts, and it all spirals out of control from there.

If PR never confronted her son about it, he may genuinely have no idea what happened that night, or that the innocent play between him and his sister was the catalyst for her murder. Which is why he was heard on the 911 tape asking what happened.

I do not see BR as a pervert or molester, which explains why his record has been clean since. Kids play doctor and don't grow up to be predators.

Which is my long winded way of saying that all 3 Ramsey's are involved, but in different parts of what happened. BR with the previous sexual contact, PR with the head injury, and JR with the staging. I don't know who strangled her, but I believe it was one of the parents. Because all 3 are involved (though one can not be prosecuted), the waters are muddied enough that everyone gets off.

Heyya Intheamadhouse

I'm sorry, Intheamadhouse, I can't digest the phrase "or that the innocent play"
without noting that penetration with an object or digital penetration is inappropriate sexual contact between peers.

It's not play, no colloquialism can sugar coat, what it is.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://peterboyles.podbean.com/e/peter-boyles-show-feb-27-2015-hr-3/

Peter Boyles Show
February 27, 2015
Michael Roberts on Mark Beckner comments
Alan Pendergast on Jon Benet and Beckner
JBR discussion @ 6:38

RE: inhanced tape of 911 call
at 36:59

PB: They sent the kid back to bed
Now jump ahead in time.
John tells people
to go upstairs and wake up Burke.
Now he's already been awake.
So they go up to the room
and he is again feigning sleep.
They get him up,
get him dressed.
They bring him downstairs.
Now here's the house full of cops.
Rol Holverstock is there.
The Whites are there.
The Fernies are there.
Mommy's on the couch,
everything,
his sisters not there.
The place is loaded with cops
Does he say anything? No. No.
But he's taken out of the house.
He doesn't say where's my sister?
Whys Mommy crying?
I'm told this from people I don't know this to be
true but I'm pretty sure it's true.

He doesn't say whys Mommy crying?
Where's Jonbenet?
Why are the cops here?
Why is Father Hoverstock here?
Why are Fleet and Priscilla here?
He doesn't do any of that Why?


AP: In fact I think your version is pretty correct
I've talked to Fleet you've talked to Fleet
He's the one who drove Burke over to ... house
and can tell you how he was behaving.
But the most crucial thing here, for whatever reason this
This tape undermines what the Ramseys were
saying about the sequence of events that morning
I mean if Burke were up and around,
then they were telling the police
something false from the beginning.
Why are they doing that?

 

[Tadpole12]

Do MB's comments, add a sense of confirmation, an assurance that RDI 'facts' are a reality?

In the instance of the enhanced 911 tape, definitely.
It's something that I've never been able to distinguish, even with otg's enhancement, I could not make out any dialogue. At times I had doubted the existence of the enhanced tape itself, as hype.

 

[questfortrue]

Prior sexual abuse and the idea that this particular crime (her murder) was not sexually motivated are not mutually exclusive. She could have been abused previously (she was, fact), and, as Breckner said, the vaginal trauma present during this incident done as a cover up for that previous abuse. Plenty of abuse victims are killed at other moments that don't involve the act of sexual abuse. An abuser being angry that a victim refuses to let him/her abuse them again, resulting in violence to the victim. That's not unheard of AT ALL. It's actually fairly common in abuse victims' deaths.

Honestly, that's the basis for my theory. Maybe she resisted this time, made the abuser angry, and s/he hit her with the blunt object. Now we have to find a way to cover up that prior sexual abuse. JMO

You bet, that indeed could be the case. Just anger with the victim over pineapple. Maybe anger at her resisting. IDK. But for clarification as to what I was considering is info from the autopsy injuries. What the autopsy seems to show, and I’m no medical expert, is that the paintbrush was not the only reveal of acute abuse. The vaginal vault was congested, and there was circumferential reddish hyperemia, which indicated penetration with a finger. So I’m referencing the unhitching of that particular example of acute abuse which, I suppose, could have happened earlier in the day, or the night of Christmas eve. And perhaps I’m wrong about my conclusions of it being an example of acute abuse.

Along possible similar lines of thought whether JB had been abused earlier in the day or Christmas Eve was a discussion from many years ago. Poster Claudici initiated a thread pertaining to a reaction JR had in an interview. In the interview JR reacted strongly to a comment of detectives referencing a statement by a woman named Jean Fortier. Fortier claimed she had been told by her children that JB had been sick and secluded in her bedroom on Christmas afternoon. They played with BR instead. (Our longtime posters UKGuy and DeeDee249 will remember this discussion.) I’ve truly no idea if JB wasn’t feeling well, if she’d gone off with her Dad to check on the plane, or if PR didn’t want her playing with those children. But in my web cruises I found another interesting reference to Fortier. She was a psychologist and had been treating LA. When LA initiated her suit against the BPD, she could not produce all the records because both her car and her home had been burglarized and records stolen. I don’t know if there is any particular conclusion anyone can draw as to what she said to the interviewers about JB being sick, and to JR dismissing the statement as complete nonsense. But then to have her tell the court that some of her records as LA’s therapist were stolen did raise my hinky meter. moo

 

[andreww]

In that interview where John says Fortier's statement was false, he also states that there were many kids at the house all day. I wonder how he knew that because I thought he was loading the airplane for at least a few hours? Sometimes I wonder if he ever did go to that plane because why wouldn't he have taken all the crap and luggage that Patsy had lying around the house? Kind of interesting that the children say JBR was MIA at about the same time John happened to be MIA.

 

[Intheamadhouse]

I'm sorry, Intheamadhouse, I can't digest the phrase "or that the innocent play"
without noting that penetration with an object or digital penetration is inappropriate sexual contact between peers.

First time trying to quote, so hopefully I got it right. What I'm thinking of with innocent play is more of a 'playing doctor' or 'I'll show you if you'll show me'. There wasn't any predatory intent, just experimentation between kids.

Bringing in personal experience, at 6 years old, I played doctor with the 8 year old boy next door. Some looking, some touching. And, yes, he did attempt to penetrate me with a finger, after quite some time (weeks, maybe months) doing other touching of my vagina. I cried, and he never did it again. We outgrew touching each other shortly after that and never really talked about it. He moved away, and has since passed.

Was he a predator for doing that? I don't think so. I think that what we were doing went too far that day, but he had no mean intentions, and felt terrible when he hurt me.

Was it appropriate? No. We should have been keeping our hands to ourselves. But it's not that uncommon.

For what it's worth, I was not abused by anyone, and I do not believe that he was, either. Nor did either one of us grow up to be anything other then average adults.

ETA: I should probably also say that this was a little boy I had lived next door too since birth. It was not a case of a strange boy attempting to coerce me.

 

[DeeDee249]

I DO recall conflicting comments about where JB was Christmas Day before going to the White's. First it was said (I believe by JR) that she rode her new bike outside that day, and he regretted not helping her when she asked him too. (anyone else recall that?). I also recall that JB was said to be sick that day and stayed in her room. Yet- she wasn't said or noticed to be sick when they went to the White's and her "being sick" was not mentioned again. Patsy said there were kids coming in and out that day visiting (pretty common with kids on Christmas Day), and IF someone was "playing doctor" behind closed bedroom doors that day, that could explain why she was hidden in her room. There has never been a satisfactory explanation as to why JB was found crying at her home at the party on the 23rd and no explanation why JB told someone she "didn't feel pretty". In my own mind, someone molesting her and telling her how "pretty" she was, and at the same time causing her to feel uncomfortable, painful, etc. would be a reason for her to have made that comment. Even little girls know when touching makes them uncomfortable. And, no, they don't feel "pretty" when that happens to them.
Sexual play and contact between kids DOES happen sometimes, and between siblings too. That's where we get the "playing doctor" from. (because doctors look at and touch "private parts", and putting it in that context makes kids feel it is less "wrong"). But a little girl being abused by a family member or someone with repeated, private access to her can't get away. Usually with kids like that, they feel they have no escape and also have very confused feelings because the abuser is someone they know and love. People who knew JB have said they saw a kind of sadness, or distraction in her demeanor in the weeks leading up to her murder. I will never forget the look on her face in that photo of her riding in a car/float that December. There she sat, Colorado's "Little Miss Christmas", in her red cape and tiara, and the expression on her sweet little face says "I'm trapped in this life and can't get out". Patsy and JR were not there for this parade- they were in NYC for the second of the trips. (JB was there for the first one). JB's grandparents were watching her and BR. I think most of you know the picture I am thinking of. That pageant is where JB was given the "Santa Bear" that appears on the spare twin bed in JB's room - and which Patsy claimed she did not recognize. She was in that room every day, stripping wet sheets off the bed 2 feet away and NEVER noticed someone had put a stuffed animal dressed as Santa on it? The bear was sitting in a way that many kids have toys like this displayed, not just tossed there. Thankfully, the bear WAS traced to that very pageant and the pageant coordinators were able to identify it as one that was given out, not only to JB, but to all the kids who participated in that Christmas pageant.