Questions you'd like answers to...

[icedtea4me]

I agree, both kids look very much like Patsy.

Dr Hodges (Who Will Speak for JonBenet) stated that JonBenet was, to John, Patsy in a blonde wig.

REPORTER: How often does it happen that you are recognized in public? And do you Ever find yourself wearing disguises or making yourselves so you are not recognized?
JR: No, uh, we are recognized
PR: probably at least weekly, sometimes daily depends on you know the circumstances
JR: we did discuss Patsy wearing a blond wig once but thought that would be great, they'll see me with a blonde, we know where that would go

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/date.html

(I remember watching this interview and Patsy was the one who said "We know where that would go" while looking at John.)

 

[S.Callen]

Watching the video, it was interesting seeing an attaché. I wonder if Patsy, while writing the ransom novel, saw the attaché and was inspired to use it in the note?

 

[Ambitioned]

Fascinating. I'm just not seeing it though. Compare a young Patsy with some age progression of how JB *might* look today. I see a resemblance but not identical.

Now OTOH BR is definitely Patsy's mini me down to the dark hair, eyes, and smirks and giddiness. It was extremely apparent during the Dr. Phil interviews.

JMO of course.

 

[Rott Mom]

Question I have...what happened to Patsy's beaver hair boots?

 

[HarmonyE.]

i.e. the GJ did not name Burke Ramsey, which I assume had a legal basis, I might be wrong here, and it was merely PC and conspiracy factors which redacted his name?

We only have a portion of the indictment and not all of the counts were included in the Freedom of Information release. No one's name was redacted from the portion we've seen, and we have no idea what's in the rest of it. The grand jury could very well have addressed Burke in the non-released portion of the indictment. We also don't know why only a part of the indictment was unsealed. We can speculate, but unless the entire indictment is unsealed or grand jury members start talking, we'll never know what's in the rest of it.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

We only have a portion of the indictment and not all of the counts were included in the Freedom of Information release. No one's name was redacted from the portion we've seen, and we have no idea what's in the rest of it. The grand jury could very well have addressed Burke in the non-released portion of the indictment. We also don't know why only a part of the indictment was unsealed. We can speculate, but unless the entire indictment is unsealed or grand jury members start talking, we'll never know what's in the rest of it.

Aha, and a member of the Grand Jury will be on 20/20 tomorrow.
"The juror claims to have seen secret evidence during the grand jury proceedings the juror believes points to the 6-year-old beauty queen’s murderer – allegations the juror will expound on during the sit-down with ABC News’ Amy Robach."
http://people.com/crime/jonbenet-grand-jury-2020-interview/

I hope they finally clear up what those indictments mean. I can see it going one of two ways.
1. They felt compelled to speak out because they did not conclude Burke was involved and for his sake wanted to stop the rampant media speculation that they did.
2. They did conclude he was involved and, emboldened by the recent media coverage of the BDI interpretation of the indictment and outraged by his lawsuit against Spitz, decided to spill the beans.

Third option, they don't reveal anything interesting at all because they don't want to be prosecuted for violating GJ secrecy but that is boring and I don't want to believe it, haha. I mean, the DA is also appearing on the show, seems to be pretty risky unless they already know he won't pursue legal action against them.

Twilight Zone option: the juror who appeared in Schiller's documentary years and years ago who lied (I guess??) and said they didn't indict the parents because no one on the jury thought parents could be capable of such a thing comes back and assures America that the true bills are a mirage and all the jury thought the family was innocent and everyone went out for ice cream sundaes with the Ramseys after the jury disbanded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

In my experience the tops of trophies are cheap light plastic, but the bases are some kind of stone (they look like marble but I doubt cheapo trophy makers are giving out marble...?).

found this video about trophy construction. [video=youtube;ifjRBKxIkPg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifjRBKxIkPg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifjRBKxIkPg[/video]

 

[Ambitioned]

I was curious about the Pasta Jay/John Ramsey connection and came across this:

Pasta Jay won't face charges

This last line is a little confusing. Does this mean Bynum and a group of investors purchased the Ramsey home? Or does it mean JR and a group of investors?

When contacted, Elowsky deferred comment to his attorney, Stavely.Stavely is an associate in the law firm of Michael Bynum - a former Boulder County deputy district attorney and friend of John Ramsey`s, who, with a group of investors, last February purchased the Boulder home where JonBenet was killed.

 

[Tortoise]

I was curious about the Pasta Jay/John Ramsey connection and came across this:

Pasta Jay won't face charges

This last line is a little confusing. Does this mean Bynum and a group of investors purchased the Ramsey home? Or does it mean JR and a group of investors?

I read it as Bynum and a group of investors.

 

[Ambitioned]

I read it as Bynum and a group of investors.

Thanks so much. The lawyer/real estate/Ramsey connection is so interesting.

I believe I read somewhere the investors vowed to donate any proceeds from that house into the Foundation. But we all know that didn't happen.

 

[Miz Adventure]

The Foundation stopped existing as soon as the GJ disbanded.

No need for any public displays of pretending to find an intruder after that was there?

 

[Userid]

I was watching that video (awesome find!) and I saw something that caught my eye:

Does anyone who knows more about gaming than I do recognize that gaming console? It is in JBR's room. I googled around a little and didn't see one that looked like that. It might not mean much, but I found it interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I mentioned this before...it's a Nintendo; an original (NES) that came out in the 80's and was still around in the 90's, but was starting to wane (in favor of Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo), but it wasn't uncommon for kids to still have a Nintendo in 96.

http://www.retro-video-game-repair.com/images/full/nes1.jpg

 

[buggiegirl]

We also don't know why only a part of the indictment was unsealed. We can speculate, but unless the entire indictment is unsealed or grand jury members start talking, we'll never know what's in the rest of it.

I think the reasoning given was that they only released the pages that were signed by the foreperson because only signed pages constitute a legal document? Something like that.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I think the reasoning given was that they only released the pages that were signed by the foreperson because only signed pages constitute a legal document? Something like that.

I have not heard this anywhere. I'd assumed the entire document was "legal" and certain portions were excluded because they were either outside the specific request or because they may have included information about an individual who was a minor at the time of crime. The second is a common reason for incomplete FOIA releases.

 

[buggiegirl]

I have not heard this anywhere. I'd assumed the entire document was "legal" and certain portions were excluded because they were either outside the specific request or because they may have included information about an individual who was a minor at the time of crime. The second is a common reason for incomplete FOIA releases.

I was wrong on the "legal document" thing, it was an "official action" of the grand jury and the articles from that time said only official actions could be released. From http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_24381455/jonbenet-ramsey-indictment-released-john-patsy

According to the court order, the documents submitted to the court by Garnett consisted of 18 pages, nine relating to each of JonBenet's parents. Lowenbach ruled that only pages signed by the foreman of the grand jury would be considered "official actions" of the grand jury and would thus be releasable. In the end, a total of four pages -- two pages for each parent -- were released.

 

[BBB167893]

I was watching that video (awesome find!) and I saw something that caught my eye:

Does anyone who knows more about gaming than I do recognize that gaming console? It is in JBR's room. I googled around a little and didn't see one that looked like that. It might not mean much, but I found it interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's an 8-bit Nintendo system, one of the original home-gaming platforms. (Ah, memories!)

 

[BBB167893]

Dr Hodges (Who Will Speak for JonBenet) stated that JonBenet was, to John, Patsy in a blonde wig.

REPORTER: How often does it happen that you are recognized in public? And do you Ever find yourself wearing disguises or making yourselves so you are not recognized?
JR: No, uh, we are recognized
PR: probably at least weekly, sometimes daily depends on you know the circumstances
JR: we did discuss Patsy wearing a blond wig once but thought that would be great, they'll see me with a blonde, we know where that would go

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/date.html

(I remember watching this interview and Patsy was the one who said "We know where that would go" while looking at John.)

God forgive me for saying this, but I think that's where it DID go.

 

[AB1]

I just still can't get over how messy that house was.

Nor me. Especially f this was after a "clear up".

But the mess may offer timeline clues.
The R's were scheduled at the airport. If they had missed that before contacting police, questions would have been asked.
So they have to work backwards. Airport < travelling time < getting up to get ready. That's the natural "discovery" point, so they had to go with that as their deadline to contact police.
From memory, the call is 5.52am.If they couldn't finish the clear up before the deadline, they must have run out of time.
That indicates to me that the stager/s learnt what had happened after JBR's death and didn't have sufficient time to do everything.
Or took a long time deciding what to do and/or summoning up the gall to get on and do it.

 

[Cranberry]

Interestingly enough, I see some binoculars in this video. First frames.

http://radaronline.com/videos/jon-benet-ramsey-murder-crime-scene-video/

Thank you Ambitioned - on the video at around 12:03 it looks like greenery on the table by the gingerbread house and pineapple bowl. I recall reading that JonBenet had some type of greenery in her hair. This looks like pine and I believe PR was asked in the interviews about cuttings of greenery? Will need to re-read the AR for the description of the greenery found.

 

[singularity]

Seeing that NES on the floor sure is interesting. I wonder how long she had that. Was it hers already or did they just give it to her that day since Burke got the N64? Did she throw a fit and to appease her, went ahead and gave her the NES? Its not hooked up since the wires are on the floor and I don't see them leading to the TV so its certainly possible it was never hooked up. Either that or she already owned it and went back and forth between NES and watching movies on her VCR.

Why the NES to begin with? Its old news at that point. Was there a Super NES anywhere in the house or did this family skip a generation of consoles?

1. Another drinking glass and a knife on the dining room table across from the pineapple and tea glass. I've never heard of this before.

Yeah that "set up" as Patsy would say surprised me. We've been told it was one glass for 20 years and then find out there were two and its on the opposite side of the table. Almost as if an adult is sitting there waiting for a child to hurry up and finish their snack.

Besides being creepy the house is just hard on the eyes imho. Too many conflicting patterns. Furniture looks old and clunky. I guess to me the entire place looks uninviting and cold.

Indeed it does. You can see why she would go sleep in Burke's room.

This house wasn't meant for small children.

I think the point is it wasn't in the photos taken that morning, and it was there later on during the video. So it wasn't there first thing when police arrived.

If it wasn't there when police arrived but magically shows up later, it means almost nothing. One of those victims advocates could've placed it in that spot.

What is up with all the marks near the lock and the door knob on that first door you see 20 seconds into the video? As if someone was jabbing it with a sharp object from the inside of the house (but why?)?

Domestic violence...

Unfortunately there would be no way to date those marks although they could've asked family friends if they knew exactly how long those had been there. They probably weren't new.

What is the thing the officer zooms in on at the 5:46 mark on JBR's floor? It looks like some sort of plastic jar with a lid on it or something, right next to the black boots by the doorway.

I assume its the tupperware container mentioned in the transcripts.