The Case of JonBenet Ramsey-CBS Sept. 18 # 2

[FrankieB]

FrankieB, can you elaborate on the 'Patsy gasping at the Christmas morning pictures' bit? Sounds interesting.

Hi Zoriah

Of course

She was being shown the roll of film of the last christmas morning. Remember that picture of JB smiling with Burke next to her opening gifts? that's one of the few we have been shown, but there are more. When Patsy is shown one of the pictures, she reacts saying "Oh god"

the interrogator replies with: "well, this is your roll of film in your camera, and this picture shows...it basically shows...."

Patsy continues with: "I have no idea why anybody would take a picture like that"

then they discuss pictures of what appears to be a scarf and the note pad, the location of the items is what probably alerted LE to something shady going on, Patsy discards the photographs saying John was probably snapping random things to finish the roll.

But if you analyze the questioning about the first picture she's shown, it sounds like something ominous

 

[Brendon]

I think he would have left a scent trail that even I could follow.

Rule him out in a second. Too absurd.

 

[ZoriahNZ]

Wow, how intriguing. I wonder what the picture was of. Clearly there is a lot of evidence/testimony that hasn't been and perhaps never will be released to the public - for various reasons.

I haven't seen the special yet, it hasn't aired here in NZ. I do find it very odd that the investigators quickly glossed over the sexual assault evidence on the show, but maybe they were just playing it safe with regard to the impending lawsuit from the R's lawyer. The whole redressing and wiping up of JonBenet's lower region just has always screamed out to me to be a clue it was an inside job, not that of an intruder intent on ransom or sexual deviance.

How much attention did they give to the swiss army knife, cigar box, doll and pictures supposedly left near/in the crime scene?

 

[ThinkHard]

No, of course not with regard to abuse, physical injury and other criminal behaviors. I was specifically speaking about civil matters such as defamation.

Still if someone wrongs you and you try to let it go, does that mean your not allowed to confront said wrongs at a later point if you feel they continue?

 

[FrankieB]

The transcripts are so redacted, some of the exchanges barely make any sense. The most frustrating part is sometimes just one word being left out, but one word which could say a lot. When the cigar boxes and the pictures are brought up, both Patsy and John distance themselves as far as they can from the items. Pretty telling huh

 

[ThinkHard]

Just on that, the autopsy said nothing about prior sexual abuse.

Other medical experts offered opinions second hand after reading the report. And other medical experts disputed that opinion. Jonbenet's pediatrician, said that he had examined her in the past and found no sexual abuse evidence there. So, the only two places that she had been examined first hand have not reported 'chronic' sexual abuse. So, unless there is something else, I'll go with that.

But the autopsy report stated some sexual abuse in the time of her attack and killing.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence of Prior Sexual Abuse

Normal female pediatric exams do not involve looking for signs of sexual abuse or inspecting the genitals......so I'm curious why would her pediatrician have had cause to examine her for this previously?

 

[PositiveLight]

Hi PositiveLight

thanks! love your dog picture as well

To see the Coke cans go to part 2 and the video footage of the bathroom starts at around the minute mark 53

I do recall the knife and it's very telling he mentioned it during his interview even though it was not a public fact yet. I find very peculiar the special went to great detail replicating the house, even including that Elephant painting in the train room, one would assume they wanted to show everything as it truly was. Except they didn't.

The crime scene appeared to be just the blanket that covered JB on the floor, but we know the knife was also there, the barbie night gown and mostly, although they are not discussed very frequently: the doll and the pictures

"cutesy" pictures of JB as they have been described, which Patsy claimed shouldn't have been down there. Kolar was also pretty evasive about the doll being there, but we can see it in the pictures.

Why all of this was ignored and not discussed bewilders me.

Thanks!! I'm wondering if the missing items discussion was in the 2 hours they cut. Maybe they are holding on to that part in case they are sued. Then they can play it in court and in the process get Burke and John's reactions. I think it would be very telling. The one thing this family has never been able to master is the
ability to hide their body reactions when under extreme stress. Even good actors/actresses have weak points. I think that is their Achilles's heel. JMOO

 

[ThinkHard]

Yes and it is a big issue in my opinion

Dr. Seuss book plus semen stained blanket? red flag.

Andrew's room was a mess that night and it was full of items Patsy avoided discussing at all cost during interrogation. Dr. Phil mentioned the bed being disturbed to promote the IDI nonsense, but The Case special didn't even recreate the room or mention it at all for that matter.

The bed was disturbed not because somebody emerged from it, but because somebody took something from under it

then take a look at all the pictures thrown down in the basement, the fact Patsy doens't want to identify objects in Andrew's room and things start to NOT add up big time.

I do not believe Andrew killed her, but I do think he should have been investigated a lot more deeply.

Could Andrew have taught BR how to tie a garrot I wonder? Could he have exposed him to sexual material?

 

[Advocate4]

In many cases, no you can't. The court will say you had plenty of chances to stop or minimize your "damages" (emotional, financial, etc.) before "now" and that will be that.

For example, a parent who is supposed to be receiving child support from the other parent ... there is a child support order on file via court ... but if the other parent stops paying, and the custodial parent doesn't go back to court about that but lets the non-paying parent continue to not pay, and then after the child turns 18 (usually the age when child support stops) the custodial parent tries to get the court to award him/her ALL that back-due child support that was never paid, the court can decide that this parent does not deserve a financial "windfall" now that the child is over 18. The child support was for the child during those growing years, and the custodial parent had a duty to do all within his/her means to get the child support during that time.

Similarly, if you and Joe Blo have a written agreement/contract that you owe him such and such and the debt will be paid off by XX, and you need to make a change to your end of it -- you hit a point where you can't pay as much every month as you originally agreed to do. You alert Joe Blo to this and he is okay with it at the time. Your circumstance of lower payments continues, which means the matter won't be paid off by the original XX date. If he takes you to court because it was not paid off by XX, he can't expect to win. Obviously he allowed the change, which would automatically mean it would not be paid off by XX date, so he can't raise a court fuss if it's not paid off by then.

Obviously not all judges will decide in these ways described above, but those examples represent 2 cases I personally know about where someone allowed a negative civil situation to go on and on and then later tried to get compensated for it when they contributed to the problem themselves by allowing it to continue and did not exercise their own due diligence.

 

[PositiveLight]

Yes and it is a big issue in my opinion

Dr. Seuss book plus semen stained blanket? red flag.

Andrew's room was a mess that night and it was full of items Patsy avoided discussing at all cost during interrogation. Dr. Phil mentioned the bed being disturbed to promote the IDI nonsense, but The Case special didn't even recreate the room or mention it at all for that matter.

The bed was disturbed not because somebody emerged from it, but because somebody took something from under it

then take a look at all the pictures thrown down in the basement, the fact Patsy doens't want to identify objects in Andrew's room and things start to NOT add up big time.

I do not believe Andrew killed her, but I do think he should have been investigated a lot more deeply.

Is it possible that the suitcase was originally under JAR's bed and that is why the dust ruffle was out of place on the bed? From pulling it out?
Maybe they didn't even open the suitcase when they took it down there. Maybe they HAD planned on putting her body in the suitcase only to realize she would never fit so never opened the suitcase. Instead, using it as a prop for the IDI theory. Only later learning what the suitcase contained.
All of this is an opinion on a possible scenario. Just thinking out loud.
There is no perfect crime. I think they made a ton of mistakes but were able to muddy the waters enough to keep this case unsolved. Sadly.

 

[FrankieB]

Could Andrew have taught BR how to tie a garrot I wonder? Could he have exposed him to sexual material?

I have read about John having served in the marines and Burke being a boy scout, both could have known a fair bit about knots but I doubt the garrote was the creation of a child. As for the sexual material, somebody in that house was being groomed, Jmo

 

[PositiveLight]

Hi Zoriah

Of course

She was being shown the roll of film of the last christmas morning. Remember that picture of JB smiling with Burke next to her opening gifts? that's one of the few we have been shown, but there are more. When Patsy is shown one of the pictures, she reacts saying "Oh god"

the interrogator replies with: "well, this is your roll of film in your camera, and this picture shows...it basically shows...."

Patsy continues with: "I have no idea why anybody would take a picture like that"

then they discuss pictures of what appears to be a scarf and the note pad, the location of the items is what probably alerted LE to something shady going on, Patsy discards the photographs saying John was probably snapping random things to finish the roll.

But if you analyze the questioning about the first picture she's shown, it sounds like something ominous

Oh! I'd also love to know what the picture was of! It definitely DOES sound ominous.

 

[Whiteorchids]

To make it look like an intruder came into the home and to deflect attention of LE away from the occupants of the house.

But that didn't work. For many years PR & JR were suspects anyway so what good did that do?

 

[Deleted member 172065]

According to the ransom note, the intruders or kidnappers were long gone. So it's safe to say he was totally safe and secure in his room especially with all the folks downstairs

Only if you believed the perp was gone. But you wouldn't know unless the house was searched.

 

[fedfan4life]

BINGO.

There is still the open question of who was sexually abusing the child(ren) in the home. If, as I suspect, Burke was the individual with the 'garotte', paintbrush, etc... (basically anything other than the note and clean-up), then it stands to reason that he was being victimized (or groomed) himself.

 

[ThinkHard]

I have read about John having served in the marines and Burke being a boy scout, both could have known a fair bit about knots but I doubt the garrote was the creation of a child. As for the sexual material, somebody in that house was being groomed, Jmo

I am aware of their sailing and Boy Scouts backgrounds and agree either could have accounted for the ability to tie the garrot. It looks to be very simple hitch knots, knots you would learn in sailing, and knots designed to tie line to a pole. As a life long sailor, I was obsessed with knots as a kid. I would to knots on everything, and try to teach myself tricky one, or practice doing them with my eyes close, or my toes, or behind my back.....so I can easily see a kid exposed to those activities picking up an affinity for knot tying....and perhaps even leaving "contraptions" around the house. Boys, in my xperience always seem to be the ones trying to turn everything into a weapon....so I can se BR having a habit of rigging up contraptions.....

but wonder if his older brother could be another explanation for his knowledge of a garrot. And if so could he have also been exposing Burke to other in appropriate materials....

 

[PositiveLight]

Normal female pediatric exams do not involve looking for signs of sexual abuse or inspecting the genitals......so I'm surrounded why would her pediatrician have had cause to examine her for this previously?

I feel the same way. A 6 year old child would have no reason to have a gynecological exam period. UNLESS there was evidence or testimony that abuse has occurred. With all of their doctors records sealed, there would be no way we could find out if there indeed was such a claim. Maybe THAT is why PR had to keep taking her to the doctor. Because it was mandated. Maybe even PR herself was concerned some kid of abuse HAD occurred and wanted to confirm it. Just speculation mind you but that would be an excellent reason to have them sealed. MOO

 

[PositiveLight]

I have read about John having served in the marines and Burke being a boy scout, both could have known a fair bit about knots but I doubt the garrote was the creation of a child. As for the sexual material, somebody in that house was being groomed, Jmo

I thought he was in the Navy? I definitely agree someone was being groomed in that house, if not both children.

 

[PositiveLight]

But that didn't work. For many years PR & JR were suspects anyway so what good did that do?

In my humble opinion, I think that the Ramsey's were far more effective than they originally expected to be. I think they muddied the waters just enough to cast a little doubt. With the crime scene also being contaminated, this case has barely stood a decent chance at being solved. UNLESS the LE are holding very pointed evidence waiting for them to screw up enough to bring it to light. MOO

 

[ThinkHard]

But that didn't work. For many years PR & JR were suspects anyway so what good did that do?

They didn't lose their son.