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

[Advocate4]

With regard to the dog -- If I recall correctly from reading about it on acandyrose a couple of days ago, JBR wanted a dog, so they got one from the pet store. It was sick and they returned it in a few days, and then got another dog from somewhere that was the Bichon Frise they named "Jacques". They had trouble housebreaking it, and because they were gone a lot (in and out, back and forth) they asked the cross-the-street neighbors (the Barnhills) to keep the dog for them over at their place. JonBenet would go over to the Barnhill home to play with Jacques several times a week. After her death and the Ramseys not returning to live in that house, I think the Barnhills pretty much inherited Jacques lock-stock-and-barrel and kept him as their own dog for the rest of his life.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

 

[ZoriahNZ]

You've done a wonderful transcription job, PositiveLight! And sick, to boot!

Thank you for your painstaking work. :tyou:

I mentioned it before, but this time will include a screencap for my query. Can any of the members who've previously gone over the crime scene photos and discussed it in depth identify what this is? It was in the recreation of the WC on CBS, not actual crime footage.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

The Ramsey lawyer interviewed Fleet before the police even.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Well, technically, they TRIED to interview Fleet before he talked to the police, but it didn't happen. On the 27th Fleet talked to the police and then he talked to the Ramsey lawyers and PI, who of course grilled him on everything he told the police. One of the more valuable portions of Kolar's book imo was his analysis of the Ramseys' lawyering up timeline (see: Red Flags and Behavioral Clues). Because they and Bynum always claimed that it wasn't until Eller was threatening to "ransom the body" (which couldn't have been until the 28th at least) that they formally lawyered up with Haddon, and that Bynum just HAPPENED to show up at the Fernies' house with food on the evening of the 27th when detectives were trying to set up formal interviews with the Ramseys. And Bynum just happened to find something hinky in the detectives' request or whatever and stepped in to say that no way would the Ramseys be interviewed. Isn't it convenient how nothing the Ramseys do is ever their fault? They didn't refuse, their friend and Dr. Beuf (calling himself Patsy's doctor and claiming she was too drugged up to participate, which was probably accurate) did!

JR told Smit in 98 that it was that evening, the 27th, that Bynum took him aside and asked if it was okay for him to do some legally necessary things, ie call Haddon. So: it was all Bynum's idea, it never even occurred to him he'd need a lawyer.

And then in The Other Side of Suffering he says that he received a call from an employee on the 27th (aka the day the autopsy was being done and possible sexual abuse to JB was discovered) saying that a source within the police department had warned them the BPD was out to get JR and he needed to get a good defense attorney stat. So, it wasn't all Bynum's idea after all?

And yet there's Fleet White getting called BY MIKE BYNUM (lol, I thought he was supposed to be off skiing somewhere? Swear I read that.) just hours after the body was found on the 26th asking for him to talk. And then the next morning (the 27th) after talking to the cops he is asked by Bynum to meet with lawyers from Haddon and the PI later that afternoon. So all that crap the Ramseys fed the press about "needing" to lawyer up after the BPD was supposedly refusing to release the body because THAT'S when they realized the BPD was out to get them is a total crock.

Also, PositiveLight, thank you so much for your recaps of the CBS special and your continuing effort to improve the transcript. I've found what you've done already to be incredibly useful and can't wait to add the rest of your work to my files. I really appreciate what you're doing!

 

[PositiveLight]

You've done a wonderful transcription job, PositiveLight! And sick, to boot!

Thank you for your painstaking work. :tyou:

I mentioned it before, but this time will include a screencap for my query. Can any of the members who've previously gone over the crime scene photos and discussed it in depth identify what this is? It was in the recreation of the WC on CBS, not actual crime footage.

You're welcome! Regarding the picture... HMM! I know cigars were mentioned to be in the basement? That is very curious. Considering it was the rebuilt crime scene, it must have
been important! Great find! I wonder if it is one of those things that "was left unsaid but put in the show to get attention to something important." Like a hidden clue.

 

[PositiveLight]

Well, technically, they TRIED to interview Fleet before he talked to the police, but it didn't happen. On the 27th Fleet talked to the police and then he talked to the Ramsey lawyers and PI, who of course grilled him on everything he told the police. One of the more valuable portions of Kolar's book imo was his analysis of the Ramseys' lawyering up timeline (see: Red Flags and Behavioral Clues). Because they and Bynum always claimed that it wasn't until Eller was threatening to "ransom the body" (which couldn't have been until the 28th at least) that they formally lawyered up with Haddon, and that Bynum just HAPPENED to show up at the Fernies' house with food on the evening of the 27th when detectives were trying to set up formal interviews with the Ramseys. And Bynum just happened to find something hinky in the detectives' request or whatever and stepped in to say that no way would the Ramseys be interviewed. Isn't it convenient how nothing the Ramseys do is ever their fault? They didn't refuse, their friend and Dr. Beuf (calling himself Patsy's doctor and claiming she was too drugged up to participate, which was probably accurate) did!

JR told Smit in 98 that it was that evening, the 27th, that Bynum took him aside and asked if it was okay for him to do some legally necessary things, ie call Haddon. So: it was all Bynum's idea, it never even occurred to him he'd need a lawyer.

And then in The Other Side of Suffering he says that he received a call from an employee on the 27th (aka the day the autopsy was being done and possible sexual abuse to JB was discovered) saying that a source within the police department had warned them the BPD was out to get JR and he needed to get a good defense attorney stat. So, it wasn't all Bynum's idea after all?

And yet there's Fleet White getting called BY MIKE BYNUM (lol, I thought he was supposed to be off skiing somewhere? Swear I read that.) just hours after the body was found on the 26th asking for him to talk. And then the next morning (the 27th) after talking to the cops he is asked by Bynum to meet with lawyers from Haddon and the PI later that afternoon. So all that crap the Ramseys fed the press about "needing" to lawyer up after the BPD was supposedly refusing to release the body because THAT'S when they realized the BPD was out to get them is a total crock.

Also, PositiveLight, thank you so much for your recaps of the CBS special and your continuing effort to improve the transcript. I've found what you've done already to be incredibly useful and can't wait to add the rest of your work to my files. I really appreciate what you're doing!

I'm so happy it is useful for you!! I totally agree with all the lawyer lies. I have always felt that they forgot that it was actually their daughter, the beautiful JonBenet, that was the true victim. Not them. It would be fine to get a lawyer, but they should have been helping the LE every step of the way. Unless they are guilty (which I believe all three are) they
shouldn't have any worries if LE thinks they did it. If they were innocent the evidence would prove it. But it hasn't. So in my opinion, that tells me that they did in fact kill her. (Burke did it and parents covered is my theory).

 

[Brendon]

:welcome::greetings: Howdy! Trolls suck! I have no problem with other theories, however, when they are aggressive like some have been... it makes me want to scream lol

same here

 

[ZoriahNZ]

To me it looks like a cigar too, possibly one that's been lit but not smoked much. Strangely enough, when I happened to stumble upon some autopsy photos of the poor girl (it creeps me out and I wish I hadn't seen them), my first thought on seeing the larger abrasion on her cheek was that it looked like a cigar burn. However, I do think the two marks on her back are consistent with a penetrative and probing jab from a piece of toy train track. Presumably the coroner can tell the difference between a burn and an abrasion, so I trust that assessment, just...this crime scene detail intrigues me. Probably it's documented somewhere as to what it is, just haven't come upon the answer yet.

 

[carolinea]

Going back to the lawyers, is it strange to anyone else that PR and JR had different legal teams?

 

[ZoriahNZ]

Wouldn't that be standard? In case there's a conflict of interest, e.g. if JR was charged due to PR testimony. If something like that arose, a lawyer couldn't represent them both.

 

[ThinkHard]

To me it looks like a cigar too, possibly one that's been lit but not smoked much. Strangely enough, when I happened to stumble upon some autopsy photos of the poor girl (it creeps me out and I wish I hadn't seen them), my first thought on seeing the larger abrasion on her cheek was that it looked like a cigar burn. However, I do think the two marks on her back are consistent with a penetrative and probing jab from a piece of toy train track. Presumably the coroner can tell the difference between a burn and an abrasion, so I trust that assessment, just...this crime scene detail intrigues me. Probably it's documented somewhere as to what it is, just haven't come upon the answer yet.

In my head I see the kids downstairs in the basement playing some weird games in which BR has JBRs hands are tied, and Burke is doing innapropriate things, and he ends up getting so aggressive he forces something btw her legs and she screams and tries to get away. Upon doing so Burke trips her or she falls....this getting the abrasion on her face.

Then Burke with garrot still in hand from their game (I've wondered if this could be the very same wood paint brush that he may have shoved inside JBR).

Sits on top of her as she's face down, having her pinned. And begins to garrot her to quiet her.....but instead of quieting her, body is squirming around because she can't get air. So BR grabs the flashlight, perhaps still within arms reach and whacks her across the head with it.

When she stops moving and then soils herself. later poking her with the tracks and dragging her body into the wine cellar.

 

[Tortoise]

To me it looks like a cigar too, possibly one that's been lit but not smoked much. Strangely enough, when I happened to stumble upon some autopsy photos of the poor girl (it creeps me out and I wish I hadn't seen them), my first thought on seeing the larger abrasion on her cheek was that it looked like a cigar burn. However, I do think the two marks on her back are consistent with a penetrative and probing jab from a piece of toy train track. Presumably the coroner can tell the difference between a burn and an abrasion, so I trust that assessment, just...this crime scene detail intrigues me. Probably it's documented somewhere as to what it is, just haven't come upon the answer yet.

That was my first thought too regarding the mark on her face.

I'd googled pictures of cigar/cigarette burns on skin and they all turned up as pictures of red sores and blisters, nothing black.

And then I thought ah, but what would happen if you placed a burning cigar on the skin of someone who is already dead. No blood circulation, the body having no living skin cell defence/blistering ability.

I do think now that that is what it is. It was done to look like a kind of torture but she was already dead.

The marks on her back though are something completely different in appearance and cause.

 

[PositiveLight]

That was my first thought too regarding the mark on her face.

I'd googled pictures of cigar/cigarette burns on skin and they all turned up as pictures of red sores and blisters, nothing black.

And then I thought ah, but what would happen if you placed a burning cigar on the skin of someone who is already dead. No blood circulation, the body having no living skin cell defence/blistering ability.

I do think now that that is what it is. It was done to look like a kind of torture but she was already dead.

The marks on her back though are something completely different in appearance and cause.

Agreed! I also thought the two wounds were from different causes. I feel he wanted to take her beauty away so I can totally see him burning her with a cigar on her face. Moo of course!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[ThinkHard]

Wait....sorry I know this is known info but I just had a laugh when I realized PR grew up as Patsy Paugh (Patsy pooh).....what a terrible name! It sounds more like a doll from the 50's that would wet itself.

 

[PositiveLight]

Wait....sorry I know this is known info but I just had a laugh when I realized PR grew up as Patsy Paugh (Patsy pooh).....what a terrible name! It sounds more like a doll from the 50's that would wet itself.

Hahahaha! 😂

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[ThinkHard]

Agreed! I also thought the two wounds were from different causes. I feel he wanted to take her beauty away so I can totally see him burning her with a cigar on her face. Moo of course!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

The autopsy report specifically states it's an abrasion. I'd think the ME could tell the difference btw an burn mark and an abrasion.

 

[johnjay]

I thought the same thing. That's so sad. Plus how in the hell does a family not recognize their own doggie? Even if he did spend a lot of time at the neighbors. "Just sweep it under the rug and no one will notice..." :notgood:

When did JacquesX start living at the neighbors? Was it Jacques1 who moved next door or Jacques2?

 

[johnjay]

With regard to the dog -- If I recall correctly from reading about it on acandyrose a couple of days ago, JBR wanted a dog, so they got one from the pet store. It was sick and they returned it in a few days, and then got another dog from somewhere that was the Bichon Frise they named "Jacques". They had trouble housebreaking it, and because they were gone a lot (in and out, back and forth) they asked the cross-the-street neighbors (the Barnhills) to keep the dog for them over at their place. JonBenet would go over to the Barnhill home to play with Jacques several times a week. After her death and the Ramseys not returning to live in that house, I think the Barnhills pretty much inherited Jacques lock-stock-and-barrel and kept him as their own dog for the rest of his life.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

I originally found the JacquesX story at acandyrose too. But what I read didn't say anything about them returning it in a few days. Surely no one would expect Jacques1 to get the potty training thing down in "a few days".

From http://www.acandyrose.com/s-linda-wilcox.htm

LINDA WILCOX: Well, first of all, Patsy didn't want a dog. And, she didn't want JonBenet to have a dog. This particular dog didn't get the potty training thing down very well, he tended to leave puddles. He was pretty much relegated to the wood floor at the bottom of the spiral staircase and out the side door off the patio. However, they had, John told Patsy to get JonBenet a dog. It was John's decision to get a dog and Patsy chose a Bichon. She got it from a pet store, and I came there one day, his name was Jacques, a little guy, cute little furball. Well, one day the dog went to the vet and came back. But the dog that went to the vet was smaller than the dog that left. I had said something to Patsy, the next week I walked in and I asked Patsy what happened to Jacques. She's like, "What?" And I said, this isn't Jacques. And she's like, SHHHH, don't tell anyone, no one else knows. Turns out the first dog had something wrong like some kind of liver disease or something and it was dying. It was a bad dog, so she called the pet store and made a switch before anyone knew.

Is there more about Jacques on acandyrose?

 

[Tortoise]

The autopsy report specifically states it's an abrasion. I'd think the ME could tell the difference btw an burn mark and an abrasion.

I think a pathologist might use the term abrasion to encompass all different types of injuries to the surface of the skin.

 

[jslk]

Wait....sorry I know this is known info but I just had a laugh when I realized PR grew up as Patsy Paugh (Patsy pooh).....what a terrible name! It sounds more like a doll from the 50's that would wet itself.

Is that how you pronounce it in the States? I would say 'Paw/Poor' 😱 (we have a surname Pugh which is pronounced Pew...)

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[ThinkHard]

I think a pathologist might use the term abrasion to encompass all different types of injuries to the surface of the skin.

Respectfully I disagree. I don't see an ME writing abrasion if he felt it was a burn, at least not without specify abrasion from burn. the skin being scraped vs being burned would have distinguishing characteristics that I don't think an ME would miss. I'm sure he had to be familiar with cigarette burns on abused children given his line of work, and would have recognized it as such, and thus it would be noted.

Looking at photos though, to my eye it looks more like a bruise then an abrasion, like someone poked her there really hard. But if the ME write abrasion then there must have been some broken skin. Other wise I think he would have written contusion.

It doesn't look like a burn though, as it would show more blistering type injury.

Btw burn ps usually don't bleed even when someone is still alive, because burns have a cotarizing effect.