Shootin' from the Lip--Part One

[SunnieRN]

The story is interesting, to say the least. Full of drama. Molly Midyette, refused to tell her story, until after the trual.

http://www.westword.com/2011-04-07/news/molly-midyette-speaks-out/

 

[midwest mama]

Are your comments influenced by this case alone? Or have there been other crimes in Boulder against children, or adults, that recall the Jonbenet case? I do remember reading comments someone made who lived in Boulder as well, and they said pretty much the same thing. I've never been there, but...I mean, so many people have worked on this case in some way. I don't know a lot about it, however, it doesn't appear to me to be laziness. Is it? Would it be lack of guts? Are certain people paid off? There must be something that can be done. HOW can there not be anything?

Please refer to PMPT, pg 486, and read the note that Suzanne Laurion, press representative with top creditials hired by the DA's office, wrote to Bardach, who was doing an article for Vanity Fair.

This is the sentence that slapped me in the face: "Under Colorado Law, any citizen can challenge the decision of the District Attorney in a particular case by filing with a motion to compel prosecution."

Imagine if after Alex Hunter announced there would be no indictment filed as a result of the grand jury investigation, a staunch group of Coloradans had been at the ready and marched off to court to file a motion to compel prosecution in the Ramsey case. Thomas and Gosage were ready. Even though several of those attending Thomas' presentation weren't convinced, one person was: pg 670 - "Daniel Hoffman, one of the lawyers working pro bono for the police, remarked to Bill Ritter during an earlier break, "Looks like they got it". "Got what", Ritter countered. "Felony Murder," Hoffmann said confidently.

I wonder if Hoffmann, or someone with the gusto needed, would have stepped up pro bono if there would have been even one Colorado citizen willing to take on the challenge of filing a motion?

I suppose too much time has passed now since AH and ML received no challenges when they dropped the ball. But if this case ever resurrects to stand another grand jury investigation, and Garnett has to make a denial against prosecuting, maybe, just maybe someone will be ready!

 

[BBB167893]

I realize most will see me as naive, and I admit you'd probably be right. Plus, I don't know a lot about the case. But this was a 6-year-old child who, if still alive today, would be 22, and someone has taken all that life. Isn't there anything that can be done? Not just for the victim which is the main focus, but what kind of message does this send other criminals or parents who might consider hurting children.

Not a good message, that's for damn sure, Matt21. In fact, I have often wondered how many people thought they could get away with it because the Rs got away with it.

 

[Matt21]

@midwest mama I'm going to have to read up on the case. You are much farther along than me, I had to do a bit of research just to comprehend what PMPT meant. Although I did see the made-for-TV movie about a decade ago when it was first released, I'd forgotten about it somewhat since. Is PMPT the best book about the case?

I have often wondered how many people thought they could get away with it because the Rs got away with it.

Yes...same with me. Partly what motivated me to make the post because I was thinking exactly the same thing.

 

[DeeDee249]

@midwest mama I'm going to have to read up on the case. You are much farther along than me, I had to do a bit of research just to comprehend what PMPT meant. Although I did see the made-for-TV movie about a decade ago when it was first released, I'd forgotten about it somewhat since. Is PMPT the best book about the case?



Yes...same with me. Partly what motivated me to make the post because I was thinking exactly the same thing.

PMPT is a good place to start. You can still rent the DVD of the movie version, too, but the book has obviously more detail. Steve Thomas' boo is a good one, too, but the most recent book is by James Kolar and he brings out some details that were previously not known. If you want to read up on the case online, the best place is http://www.acandyrose.com

They have tons of photos, police interviews, etc. You have to scroll down to the JonBenet archives because the site features other crimes as well.

 

[midwest mama]

PMPT is a good place to start. You can still rent the DVD of the movie version, too, but the book has obviously more detail. Steve Thomas' boo is a good one, too, but the most recent book is by James Kolar and he brings out some details that were previously not known. If you want to read up on the case online, the best place is http://www.acandyrose.com

They have tons of photos, police interviews, etc. You have to scroll down to the JonBenet archives because the site features other crimes as well.

DeeDee's right, and she's a great resource herself. My favorite of the three mentioned is Kolar's - fills in all the gaps, and leads us to look carefully at the behaviors of the R's. I followed this case lightly over the years and bantered back and forth with my sleuther Dad about whodidit, now passed on, who was an RDI from the beginning.

But after JR's "Other Side...." book came out asking us to consider his suffering again, AND he tied it into his now professed rock solid Christianity, it tripped my gag reflex to the point of deciding to do what I could to keep the R family from fading into a glorious sunset as they laughed all the way to the bank with proceeds from book sales.

I am permanently convinced JR (AKA "Lizard Lips, which other posters also use as his nickname due to his interviews showing him 'lip-licking' so much = a body language indication of lies and guilt) could be prosecuted for Felony Murder in this case. I also have to believe Patsy was complicit. And at this time, I am giving consideration to Burke having some sort of participation in the events leading to the conclusion of the crime.

But I want to think Burke was also a victim of the household/family sexual behaviors to the point that he did not know WHAT the PROPER behavior of a boy his age should have been within his own family structure. I think the R family was a very sexually/emotionally/behaviorally defunct family - possibly both JR and PR bringing history of improper sexual boundaries/activities into their lives from the start.

JR was 14 years older than Patsy when he married her. He is 13 years older than his current wife. I think he might have been closer in age to his first wife, but their marriage ended due to an affair on his part. (I would bet a few bucks the gal was some years younger than him.) Also, John's Dad married his first wife's (Cindy) mother. Not illegal for sure, and they did have the grandkids in common, and I hope not to offend those who might be in a similar situation, but it just seems unusual to me. So, I see JR demonstrating a preference for "youth" all along. I know I might ruffle some feathers of those who have no problem with the May-Decembers, but multiple choices of these just kind of make me uneasy.

The evidence and facts of this case that are available to the public are all that we have to really form educated opinions, but I have to consider behaviors to understand motive. Some crimes are truly accidentally based, but IMHO, this crime was no total accident. Even if it might have started out that way, responsible Christian people with proper moral ethics and values would NEVER have taken it to the end result that caused such an injustice to a child.

I think DeeDee might have said this already, but here goes again: "I hate this case."

 

[Darlene733510]

I agree with you mm that this case stinks. I cannot imagine a Mother putting a child to bed in that room smelling of crap. There is no excuse for that. A box of candy with crap smeared on it. Was she blind or lost her sense of smell? This woman who liked to put on airs and hob nob with the elite with house tours, and an extravagent lifestyle sure put on a facade, but there was a lot of ugliness she hid from the world. No wonder the children were
dealing with "issues" no child should ever have to experience. JR, a man of great wealth really thinks he fooled the world. He's older now, but if this case were reopened he'd jump through hoops to stop it, but deep down, I bet he'd be in a lot of stress. He thinks the death of his child is long forgotten, but some of us won't forget, and we still demand justice.

 

[SunnieRN]

Please refer to PMPT, pg 486, and read the note that Suzanne Laurion, press representative with top creditials hired by the DA's office, wrote to Bardach, who was doing an article for Vanity Fair.

This is the sentence that slapped me in the face: "Under Colorado Law, any citizen can challenge the decision of the District Attorney in a particular case by filing with a motion to compel prosecution."

Imagine if after Alex Hunter announced there would be no indictment filed as a result of the grand jury investigation, a staunch group of Coloradans had been at the ready and marched off to court to file a motion to compel prosecution in the Ramsey case. Thomas and Gosage were ready. Even though several of those attending Thomas' presentation weren't convinced, one person was: pg 670 - "Daniel Hoffman, one of the lawyers working pro bono for the police, remarked to Bill Ritter during an earlier break, "Looks like they got it". "Got what", Ritter countered. "Felony Murder," Hoffmann said confidently.

I wonder if Hoffmann, or someone with the gusto needed, would have stepped up pro bono if there would have been even one Colorado citizen willing to take on the challenge of filing a motion?

I suppose too much time has passed now since AH and ML received no challenges when they dropped the ball. But if this case ever resurrects to stand another grand jury investigation, and Garnett has to make a denial against prosecuting, maybe, just maybe someone will be ready!

This makes me want to move back to Colorado. We can only pray that Garnett will, in fact, move forward.

 

[Nom de plume]

DeeDee's right, and she's a great resource herself. My favorite of the three mentioned is Kolar's - fills in all the gaps, and leads us to look carefully at the behaviors of the R's. I followed this case lightly over the years and bantered back and forth with my sleuther Dad about whodidit, now passed on, who was an RDI from the beginning.

But after JR's "Other Side...." book came out asking us to consider his suffering again, AND he tied it into his now professed rock solid Christianity, it tripped my gag reflex to the point of deciding to do what I could to keep the R family from fading into a glorious sunset as they laughed all the way to the bank with proceeds from book sales.

I am permanently convinced JR (AKA "Lizard Lips, which other posters also use as his nickname due to his interviews showing him 'lip-licking' so much = a body language indication of lies and guilt) could be prosecuted for Felony Murder in this case. I also have to believe Patsy was complicit. And at this time, I am giving consideration to Burke having some sort of participation in the events leading to the conclusion of the crime.

But I want to think Burke was also a victim of the household/family sexual behaviors to the point that he did not know WHAT the PROPER behavior of a boy his age should have been within his own family structure. I think the R family was a very sexually/emotionally/behaviorally defunct family - possibly both JR and PR bringing history of improper sexual boundaries/activities into their lives from the start.

JR was 14 years older than Patsy when he married her. He is 13 years older than his current wife. I think he might have been closer in age to his first wife, but their marriage ended due to an affair on his part. (I would bet a few bucks the gal was some years younger than him.) Also, John's Dad married his first wife's (Cindy) mother. Not illegal for sure, and they did have the grandkids in common, and I hope not to offend those who might be in a similar situation, but it just seems unusual to me. So, I see JR demonstrating a preference for "youth" all along. I know I might ruffle some feathers of those who have no problem with the May-Decembers, but multiple choices of these just kind of make me uneasy.

The evidence and facts of this case that are available to the public are all that we have to really form educated opinions, but I have to consider behaviors to understand motive. Some crimes are truly accidentally based, but IMHO, this crime was no total accident. Even if it might have started out that way, responsible Christian people with proper moral ethics and values would NEVER have taken it to the end result that caused such an injustice to a child.

I think DeeDee might have said this already, but here goes again: "I hate this case."

:great: Great post! :great:

 

[midwest mama]

This makes me want to move back to Colorado. We can only pray that Garnett will, in fact, move forward.

Let me know if you do, SunnieRN, and would be that courageous one that might have to file a motion one day - I'll drive in and give you a ride to the courthouse! :cheer:

Maybe even take take ya out to celebrate afterward.:toast:

 

[SunnieRN]

I lived in Grand Junction for a year and was so surprised when I talked to people about JonBenet and the R's. The majority of the people I spoke to, only followed main stream media and thought the case had been solved and an intruder had been arrested.

When we would talk about it, they were usually shocked, to say the least. That is also where I talked to the Medical Examiner, that worked at the same hospital, who stated emphatically that JonBenet had been molested prior to that night, as well as that night. It made me start to look at the case in a new light for sure, as he believed that it was a family crime for sure. His theory was that JAR was responsible.

 

[DeeDee249]

I lived in Grand Junction for a year and was so surprised when I talked to people about JonBenet and the R's. The majority of the people I spoke to, only followed main stream media and thought the case had been solved and an intruder had been arrested.

When we would talk about it, they were usually shocked, to say the least. That is also where I talked to the Medical Examiner, that worked at the same hospital, who stated emphatically that JonBenet had been molested prior to that night, as well as that night. It made me start to look at the case in a new light for sure, as he believed that it was a family crime for sure. His theory was that JAR was responsible.

My daughter dated a student at the U of C in Boulder. She did not attend that school herself, she was in Pennsylvania. But she went out to visit him over Christmas break in 1996. This was right after the murder, and as you can imagine, the case was all over the country, let alone Boulder. Her boyfriend didn't know JAR personally, but he did know who he was. I wasn't interested in the case the way I am now, but I do remember him talking about JAR- that everyone thought he was obsessed with JB- he talked about her a lot- much more than you'd expect from a college boy who should have other things on his mind. One thing I also remember- as soon as this case hit the news in Boulder, this kid said he (and a lot of others as well) just felt JAR had something to do with it.

 

[Nom de plume]

My daughter dated a student at the U of C in Boulder. She did not attend that school herself, she was in Pennsylvania. But she went out to visit him over Christmas break in 1996. This was right after the murder, and as you can imagine, the case was all over the country, let alone Boulder. Her boyfriend didn't know JAR personally, but he did know who he was. I wasn't interested in the case the way I am now, but I do remember him talking about JAR- that everyone thought he was obsessed with JB- he talked about her a lot- much more than you'd expect from a college boy who should have other things on his mind. One thing I also remember- as soon as this case hit the news in Boulder, this kid said he (and a lot of others as well) just felt JAR had something to do with it.

That is pretty weird for a college kid. Sounds like he inherited his daddy's attraction to beauty queens. He should have been obsessed with college girls, not his 6 yr old sister!

Wasn't it the Barnhills across the street that said they saw JAR at the house on Christmas Day? Maybe they weren't wrong after all. :waitasec:

I don't remember, did JAR live with the R's while he went to UC?

 

[SunnieRN]

From what I understand, he lived 'in the dorms'. The only plausibele reason I have considered it could be JAR, is how fast JR insisted he was visiting his Mother and got his first family lawyered up, disallowing them to be truly questioned.

Then, I think, hold on......

I am sure Patsy didn't like the fact that JR was so deeply scarred by Beths death, that he had a picture of her in his bathroom. I truly believe it was part of the reason he was detached from his present family so much of the time. (Remember Burkes drawing?). Why would PR risk everything, and I mean her freedom, for JAR?? THAT makes no sense to me.

 

[Nom de plume]

From what I understand, he lived 'in the dorms'. The only plausibele reason I have considered it could be JAR, is how fast JR insisted he was visiting his Mother and got his first family lawyered up, disallowing them to be truly questioned.

Then, I think, hold on......

I am sure Patsy didn't like the fact that JR was so deeply scarred by Beths death, that he had a picture of her in his bathroom. I truly believe it was part of the reason he was detached from his present family so much of the time. (Remember Burkes drawing?). Why would PR risk everything, and I mean her freedom, for JAR?? THAT makes no sense to me.

If JAR was involved, he sure got out of there quick, and has a good alibi. Of course it's easy to get cross country in a hurry when Daddy has two planes. I don't necessarily think he's JBR's killer, but whoever it was, their last name is Ramsey.

There'$ only one rea$on I can think of why Pat$y would cover for JAR or JR. $he wa$n't about to give up the life$tyle.

 

[SunnieRN]

Honestly, I know PR enjoyed her lifestyle and all that it entailed, but if and truly JAR killed her little pageant queen, I can't see her able to live with that fact and not having him punished,

I could see JR covering for JAR, making PR believe it was Burke and then having her cover for her own son. I believe that as soon as the R's knew what happened to Jon Benet, JR was on the phone with lawyers. They would have found out then, prior to notifying LE that Burke could not be 'tried', if he were guilty. That would also explain why the R's never 'discussed" JonBenets death with Burke.

The reason I find this scenario to be way out of the ball park is the kiss method. This would be way too hard to keep straight and cover up. How could they even know if Burke would casually mention that JAR was home that night, etc.

 

[DeeDee249]

I have always been suspicious of JAR's whereabouts Christmas day/night. You have Joe Barnhill who claimed to see him that afternoon. If it wasn't him, why would any other kid that age be going in the house (up the front walk in broad daylight) unless it was a friend of JAR's visiting HIM. While he lived in the dorms, he spend a lot of time at his dad's house, just a few minutes away.
To add to the suspicion- we have the lack of Christmas morning videos (in a family that videotaped EVERYTHING that involved JB) due to a "dead battery" (did LE verify this?) We also have the IMMEDIATE lawyering up of JAR's MOTHER, who lived in Georgia, was not there that day/night and was never a suspect in the crime. Why was it necessary for HER to have a lawyer? What could she tell LE about that night if she wasn't there? Well one thing is that a lawyer could stand between her and LE- making sure they can't talk to her and preventing her from being asked to provide photographic proof of her son's presence in Georgia with her that day.
Keep in mind that even if he WAS with his mother that day there is no reason why he couldn't have been in Boulder that night.

 

[BOESP]

I may be all wet but another reason for Patsy covering for someone else could be hospitalization insurance. If she and John divorced or he lost his job her insurance may have been kaput. There's no way to know the policy provisions but IF her insurance was through John as a spouse she probably could not afford to loose her insurance. A new policy is not likely to accept someone in remission of cancer. That seems to be a very petty consideration for me to make but based on experience I'd say Patsy needed her insurance.

 

[SunnieRN]

I have always been suspicious of JAR's whereabouts Christmas day/night. You have Joe Barnhill who claimed to see him that afternoon. If it wasn't him, why would any other kid that age be going in the house (up the front walk in broad daylight) unless it was a friend of JAR's visiting HIM. While he lived in the dorms, he spend a lot of time at his dad's house, just a few minutes away.
To add to the suspicion- we have the lack of Christmas morning videos (in a family that videotaped EVERYTHING that involved JB) due to a "dead battery" (did LE verify this?) We also have the IMMEDIATE lawyering up of JAR's MOTHER, who lived in Georgia, was not there that day/night and was never a suspect in the crime. Why was it necessary for HER to have a lawyer? What could she tell LE about that night if she wasn't there? Well one thing is that a lawyer could stand between her and LE- making sure they can't talk to her and preventing her from being asked to provide photographic proof of her son's presence in Georgia with her that day.
Keep in mind that even if he WAS with his mother that day there is no reason why he couldn't have been in Boulder that night.

You know, I have been thinking for awhile now, that when the R's, any of them, said anything, it was always way over the top.

What was stated about HAR being at his Mom's was full of drama. Movie tickets, supposed to have visited, but was too tired, yada, yada, yada.

JB had no reason to lie about seeing JAR that day. He must have seen him fairly often, so he would have been easy to recognize. Funny that he 'changed his story' after a visit from the R's goons.

As for PR's insurance, she could have made JR carry her for the amount of years they had been married. I have a feeling PR would have been able to squeeze blood from a turnip, let alone a wealthy businessman. Especially if she knew she was protecting said wealthy business mans son.

 

[BOESP]

I don't doubt that she could have squeezed John to pay for insurance but if his policy was cancelled because of divorce or jail time then Patsy would have needed a new policy. I don't think any company would have insured her for ovarian cancer on a new policy. I'm sure my thoughts on this are of no consequence but I see that need as a part of the $$$$ that Patsy had grown accustomed to. I think she would have done anything to maintain status quo. She was scared and facing something she had not prepared for or planned for.