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

[Linda7NJ]

Ya I'm sure he sobbed and cried....but I'm guessing it wasn't when he was told about JB, it's when his parents were screaming at him over what he did to her.

I'd bet he never sobbed or cried unless it was to manipulate others or he was physically injured.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BBB167893]

And you think Burke wasn't mentally ill?

The thing is, what would PR have to gain from killing her daughter? Was she THAT desperate for the limelight?

That idea has been around a while, ThinkHard.

If it was an accident, why not stage it differently? Why so gruesome?

Only the most spectacular death would do for her pageant princess.

 

[BBB167893]

^^^ Just when I start to feel sorry for her I am brought back down to reality. I'm afraid you're probably right.

Even so, look how she was raised. I STILL feel sorry for her.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Many of us at the time believed that Burke could easily have grabbed a golf club and whacked JBR over the head. The flashlight was Spitz' pet theory, and I guess Chief Kolar went with that too. We also thought that Pam Paugh had successfully gotten John's golf bag out of the house during her evidence raid, but now I read here that she was never allowed into the basement (thank God!). So if one of the clubs had been used and then cleaned, hopefully LE would have found that and put it into the evidence category.

The flashlight & batteries were wiped clean & free of fingerprints. The flashlight was overlooked by Patsy & John because they were unaware of the head bash, believed she was strangled by the cord around her neck.
Perhaps they knew Burke used it to whack her, the wiped it down & left it out ready to claim it belonged to the intruder/kidnappers/pedophile/murderer.
They swore it wasn't theirs, their son, who gave it to John as a gift & I believe the housekeeper informed police it was indeed Ramsey's flashlight.
There's a good reason that flashlight caused so much controversy- IMO it was the murder weapon-

UNLESS the bat was [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] another possible weapon the Ramsey's tried to distance themselves from, had fibers from their basement carpet on it & Burke on Dr. Phil claimed to own that bat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[spitsthetruth]

After watching the CBS doc. began drilling down on BDI theory recently. I asked this question in another thread but is it fairy solid to establish without much doubt that BR would be the last (known) person to see JBR alive and that time would be approximately 10:45pm - 11: 30pm. also would appreciate best and most reliable time of death for JBR and source on this.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

The information you reference here is mostly from the Kolar book? That is considered secondary source information...since it came through Kolar. The Peter Boyles interview information, for Fleet's part is primary information...that is, from the original source, Mr. Fleet. The book was published in 2012?, yes, I have the updated e-version. The interview was done Dec. 2014.

P.S., I am reluctant to believe anything Smit says.

Again, though, Bynum showing up when detectives were trying to schedule interviews. WTF?! Detectives didn't see that as a problem? Oh, yeah, he brought food....well, that explains it. Beware Greeks bearing gifts?

I'm still catching up on the thread but thought I'd respond to this!
Yes, I was mostly getting this from Kolar's book. He sources his info in the chapter I mentioned (Red Flags and Behavioral Clues), though. First, he sources an interview Bynum and Beuf did with Diane Sawyer on Sept. 10, 1997.
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm
After re-reading, let me slightly correct myself. There are two separate issues here: when the Ramseys lawyered up, and when their lawyers advised them not to be interviewed by the police. Kolar points out that in this interview, Bynum never mentions specific dates but does bring up the "ransoming the body" thing as his main motivation for denying police an interview with the Ramseys. Technically, his story about asking JR if he can initiate legal rep on the 27th is the same as JR's first story below. Also, he mentions he was snowshoeing on the 26th in this interview, like I thought. It's also notable imo that he said he went "as their friend" feeling "they should have legal advice." So he was already in lawyer mode when he was delivering the food "as a friend"?

DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Why did they get a lawyer?
MICHAEL BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice -- nothing more, nothing less.
DIANE SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?
MICHAEL BYNUM: I'm the one.
DIANE SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?
MICHAEL BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me.
DIANE SAWYER: I'm trying to imagine, if I am in the middle of this agony and my friend says to me, "You better get a lawyer " I think I'd go, "What? What?"
MICHAEL BYNUM: Well...
DIANE SAWYER: This horrible thing has happened to my child. There's a note here. I should get a lawyer?
MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke -- he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.
DIANE SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?
MICHAEL BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.
DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) And he says that's exactly what happened. By Saturday, two days after the murder that the police were openly hostile. An assistant DA gave him some news.
MICHAEL BYNUM: He said the police are refusing to release JonBenet's body for burial unless John and Patsy give them interviews. I have never heard of anything like that. I said to the DA, "I don't know whether or not this is illegal, but I'm sure it's immoral and unethical." I just was not willing to participate and facilitate or do anything other than to say "no." Not only no, but hell, no, you're not getting an interview. And I did say that.
DIANE SAWYER: Did they authorize you to say that?
MICHAEL BYNUM: John and Patsy? No. Absolutely not. They weren't in the room. They didn't know what was going on. And I wasn't going to bring them in on it. I did it.

So, NOTE: Bynum says nothing about denying the police an interview on the 27th, just offering legal advice. It isn't until the "ransoming the body" incident that he advises the Ramseys not to speak to police.

Now, I don't believe anything out of LS's mouth either but this is from the transcript of John's official interview with Lou Smit in June 1998 on the same subject.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?9946-John-Ramsey-BDA-interview-June-23-1998

15 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, on the 27th, they said,
16 (Well, we want you to come to the police station.̃
17 We said, (We're mentally not capable.̃ Our family
18 doctor was there. He said Patsy was in no
19 condition to leave this house. They said, (Well,
20 we've got to have you come to the police station.̃
21 I said why, he said, (Well we have records there
22 we want to pull out and look at.̃
23 And we said, (We can't. If you come here we'll
24 spend as much time as you want. But we physically
25 cannot be there.̃ And that's when Mike Bynum
0020
1 stepped in and said, wait a minute, time out. And
2 he was there delivering food; he's a friend of
3 mine and he happened to be an attorney and he
4 smelled a rat, frankly.
5 LOU SMIT: Now this was while you were at
6 Fernie's?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
8 LOU SMIT: Is that the first time that you
9 contacted the lawyer, that they contacted you?
10 JOHN RAMSEY: He was there. He was bringing
11 food over from Pasta Jay's, and just happened to
12 be there when the police were trying to haul us
13 down to the police station, and he said time out.
14 He took me inside and he said, (John, there's some
15 things going here. Would you allow me to do what I
16 think is necessary?̃ and I said, (Of course.̃

So now we see, according to JR, Bynum's initial issue was with them being interviewed (at the station, presumably separately), and only after that does he offer legal assistance.

And yet then there's that story I mentioned from The Other Side Of Suffering. I do not have that book on hand (personally - don't have the stomach to read it) but he sources page 24 in the notes and specifically says this story took place on the day after JB's body was found, ie the 27th. So at the very least we have JR admitting that a serious need for legal rep was put in his mind by someone who WASN'T Bynum before Bynum ever showed up that evening, much less the cops! So did that color the desire not to go down to the station to be interviewed?

The 26th detail I plucked out of the Westword article by Alan Pendergrast posted a few pages back (How The Investigation Got Derailed - And Why It Still Matters) that interviewed FW in 2014, so I assume that's accurate. I haven't had a chance to re-listen to the Boyles interview recently but it doesn't contradict that, does it? It's also recounted in Kolar's book and Thomas's book. Thomas claims that Fleet was called by Bynum after 6pm on the 26th, though he does not mention that Bynum was asking for an interview at that point and neither does Kolar. Either way (and sorry, at this point I am a little tired and too lazy to find a good source outside Kolar or Thomas - this is from Kolar) : "According to White, he had driven to Denver on Friday morning to conduct some personal business. His wife, Priscilla, advised him upon his return early that afternoon that Ramsey attorneys had again been trying to reach him that morning, and wanted to speak with him. The interview was held later that day in the Boulder law offices of Bryan Morgan, and private investigator David Williams was present taking notes." Thomas describes Detectives Arndt and Mason arriving at the Fernies' house to talk to JR, Beuf and Bynum (and Westmoreland!) at 9:30. So: Fleet was being interviewed by one of the Ramsey's defense attorneys from Haddon before Mike Bynum even admits to asking JR if he wants legal counsel.

Sorry, my brain is fried at this point and I need to stop. I hope this was clear but if you need any clarification let me know!!

 

[Brendon]

You know it's interesting, the media has always portrayed the Ramsey's as victims, that they have been forced to live under a cloud of suspicion.

Yet they have never been cooperative with LE. I'd think if you were living under a cloud of suspicion, frustrated by it, and truly didn't know who killed your daughter, you'd want to be partners with LE, not enemies.

But if you were guilty of any if it, you would know your only hope to stay "free" was to cast dought, and deflect....in others words just keep the waters so murky, no one can see through. The cloud of suspicion just being part of the package they had to learn to accept.

I have read the majority of the media putting suspicion on the Ramseys.

As for co-operating, regardless of the Ramsey's innocence or guilt, generally speaking if you don't have a great alibi, and you are cliche suspect material (spouse, family member, neighbor, in the vicinity), you could be in big trouble. The Olympic Park bombing is a classic case. Richard Jewell couldn't have been any more accomodating to the authorities. And within a few days they were leaking to the press, and it was all over: Jewell, did it. I mean just look at the guy. He's weird. He's guilty...and so on and so forth. I'm sure the authorities have a bias to playing the percentages when looking at suspects. And once they get their hooks in, they are very determined and play hard, and they take a large proportion of the public with them. The only way they think you are co-operating is if you confess, and you can't do that if you are innocent. It destroyed Richard Jewell's life, anyway.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't think BR had ANY problem recognizing what was in this bowl - https://www.bing.com/images/search?...ba622a530ff709b9feb19fo0&mode=overlay&first=1 he was just having difficulty admitting to it... My eyesight's not that great but this is clearly pineapples.

That photo is from the CBS reconstruction, it isn't an actual crime scene photo.

There are several crime scene photos of the pineapple and we don't know which one he was shown, but none of them are really that clear.

 

[Tortoise]

Let's see. Was PR mentally ill? Hmmm. She was from Nowhere, WV, had been in beauty pageants since age 13, valedictorian of her high school class, earned a degree in journalism, had been crowned Miss West Virginia and participated in the Miss America pageant which is televised world-wide and all before her 25th birthday which occurred about 6 weeks after she married a millionaire with an ex-wife and 3 kids but who was rising like a rocket in the new, exploding tech industry and on his way to wealth.

I think she was driven, but not mentally ill.

Anyone who achieves so much so early in life has learned to compartmentalize. I assure you, no one can allow distractions or criticism to rule their lives and succeedas she did.. Apparently PR was the one who lived the meme we all see on fb - let go of anything or anyone negative in your life. She was able to cut ties with anyone at any time. Okay, no one was going to stand in her way. Of course she was a narcissist. Most high achievers are.

I have to wonder how fast her head spun when she was uprooted from gorgeous, southern, sophisticated, cultured, lead-crystal Atlanta and plopped into the uber-liberal, hippy haven of Boulder where the men do not even wear ironed shirts, much less starched ones, the women wear men's cloths and no one wears make-up. Horrifying. But, ever the trooper that she was, she would 'deal' with it.

It was a lot like Scarlett O'Hara living in Frank Kennedy's saw mill.


And, like poor Scarlett, everything she did was a means to an end and the end was money and all the comes with being wealthy. I can't imagine why a southern beauty pageant winner would or should settle for anything other than the most glamorous life they could grab. Then, cancer. A bad one. And she had little kids and her crazy mother moved in with her to raise the kids and she lost all of her estrogen at about age 37.

Her glamorous life is in her past. Her life is now her husband's business and her kids' activities but the husband is never home and the kids are using their beds as toilets. Her big bash 40th birthday party was over and her husband gave her a bicycle for Christmas. (Imagine Rhett giving Scarlett a plow) This is the same woman who wanted to wear a mink coat to appear on CNN draped in diamonds.

She lived for 10 years being suspected of cracking her child's skull open over bed wetting, refused to cooperate with LE and lied about the events of the 25th and morning of the 26th until the day she died. Her mind was strong. No mental illness.

I love that description TT. Especially the bit about the bicycle.

I just want to bring these highly interesting analyses of the ransom note, and its creator, to the thread. It's on the candyrose website. The author is the late Delmar England. It's a subjective view of course but it seems to be an educated view with sound rationale and is worth chewing over IMO.

This is the analysis of the ransom note http://www.acandyrose.com/04212000delmaranalysis1.htm
This is the analysis of the suspect behaviour http://www.acandyrose.com/06102001delmaranalysis4.htm

He also does an analysis of the garrote and its maker - http://www.acandyrose.com/delmarengland.htm

I'm not in any doubt that PR was a sociopath.

I'll quote a few lines from the link -

[COLOR=#0000000]

If you were going to write a note and try to make it appear authentic, would you not consider the probable viewpoint of those who would see and write accordingly? Do you see any indication of this in the bogus note?

Certainly, the intent was to convince others that the note is an authentic ransom note. Yet, it failed miserably. Few persons gave the note credibility. The writer did not even come close to achieving the goal. Why this horrendous failure? Why was this writer so incapable of doing a better job?

This is not just an instance of a novice making a few mistakes under extreme pressure, it reveals much about the personality and psychology of the writer that existed long before the note was written and in all probability still exists. It reveals the mode of thought, thus exposing the underlying belief and value system of said writer.

By general knowledge of other human beings, you can anticipate in large degree the probable response to something you are thinking of saying or doing. In closer interpersonal relationships with individuals, this is refined to a higher degree of anticipated reaction. This does not mean that you will correctly anticipate 100% of the time, but it does mean that you calculate the potential reaction and evaluate it in making a decision that involves these other persons. Its a mental habit.

This thought process and psychology is missing from the note. The note clearly indicates the writer made no attempt whatsoever to anticipate and write accordingly. The writer shows no empathy with the likely viewers. The note was written from a reactive personal perspective and presented from a personal viewpoint without the slightest consideration for the probable viewpoint of others. It is as if the writer's viewpoint is the only one that exists or can exist. It was presented from this psychology. The writer could not think and write from any other perspective because this is the fundamental psychology of the writer.

I do not wish to dwell on this, but just wanted to point out this absence of empathy and an isolation factor that appears to be a central element of the psychology of the note writer. The logical inferences of this are far reaching and potential explanation of related events.

What I am describing here as indicated by the note is an emotional isolation that in all probability you have never experienced. You may be accustomed to having warm, deep, loving and affectionate relationships with parents, children, friends, etc; and observing others doing the same, but the writer of the note is totally incapable of this.

It may appear differently on the surface, but its merely role playing at what the writer thinks is proper and socially acceptable. The actual emotions are non existent. There is no deep and close emotional connection to anyone and never has been. Any semblance of such a relationship is forced and temporary.
​

[/COLOR]

 

[ThinkHard]

Meet 6yo Beth Thomas. She rung the necks of newborn baby birds. She stuck pins into her pet animals b/c she wanted to kill them. She stuck pins in her younger brother. He complained of stomach ailments. Beth admits to kicking him in his stomach and private parts. She stole two knives from the kitchen b/c she wanted to kill her adoptive parents in the dark so they could not see her.

[video=youtube;H55Oz92Kh-A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aGNbl7Nx-A[/video]

I do believe that BR did terrible tortuous things to JonBenet before her death and possibly had done so for years. That would account for her not feeling pretty at the Christmas Party on Dec 23. BR was likely highly verbally abusive toward JBR. She was the apple of her daddy's eye. The housekeeper wrote that JonBenet was the only sunshine in the house. JBs performance in pageants wasn't her only accomplishment. People of all ages liked JonBenet.

There's a pic of JBR wearing the red and white sundress where her shin has red markings similar to the railroad track prong skin damage she suffered at death. Poking her with train tracks and who knows what else was something BR did to her, possibly on a continual basis. We've also seen bruises on her arms where someone hurt JonBenet with painful pinches. He put his poop on her box of chocolates which is a very odd assault-type behavior.
:cow: BR planned this horrific assault. He did not want her on the Big Red Boat Cruise. He didn't want her to win any more beauty pageants. Often, I'd thought the RN was written, in advance, due to it's length. There are missing pages from the legal pad that was used and disposed of. BR was not ruled out as the writer.

BR likely suffers from, among other conditions, disassociation disorder due to lack of bonding or sexual abuse. BR does not trust people. His mother was hysterical over her missing daughter and he gives the psychiatrist a :giggle:

JonBenet received a gold bracelet from her mother on the 23rd so she could wear it for their Christmas Party. One aunt gave her the gold chain with the cross that became matted in her hair with the paint stick. Burke likely did not receive such golden keepsakes. Maybe he was angry b/c wanted a Rolex.

Just wanted to comment on the poop thing.

Food and feces are always about control because these are the first two things very young children realize they can control, as no one can force you to eat or defecate.

It's why potty training can be so hard, or why kids can be picky eaters, or why girls turn to eating disorders later in life when they feel like they don't have control elsewhere. For what it's worth every child below the age of ten that I have worked with who's mother was diagnosed with a very serious form of cancer, has regressed either in toileting, or developed insanely picky and or weird habits around food. When they're life is spinning out of control, they grasp on to what they can, it's a coping mechanism, albeit an unhealthy one.

To me BR doing that to JBR was his way of showing his power over her. Perhaps he felt she always got more then he did, and it was his way of asserting power over that situation....like how a dog marks its territory.

as far as everything else, yes I agree, I think Burke could have, and I'm strongly starting to believe he did in fact do everything, and that he planned it out ahead of time. I proposed a theory regarding that exactly, and I was amazed how all the pieces started to fit together for me, including the parents odd ball reactions.....can't remember if it was on this thread, or another one though.

 

[ThinkHard]

That idea has been around a while, ThinkHard.



Only the most spectacular death would do for her pageant princess.

What idea? That Burkes mentally ill? No kidding!

Or the was Patsy that desperate for the limelight part?

See I don't think she would kill her daughter to get in the limelight, I see her as being crazy, just not THAT crazy.

But I do see her getting a high off finding herself in the limelight and getting hooked on that and playing that role once she found herself there. But plotting the crime for the limelight, I just don't see it.

 

[Heymom]

I THOUGHT I WAS CRAZY I thought that too!

Archuleta is not an uncommon name b/c there are many Hispanics in the Denver/Boulder area.

 

[Tortoise]

I've never seen anything in the way of proof that it was BR's feces in JB's room, and not her own. Does anyone have this?

 

[Tortoise]

This is interesting - about the duct tape -

[FONT=&quot]0290[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 1 LOU SMIT: (INAUDIBLE) the same box?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 2 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I don't remember that box.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 3 LOU SMIT: Okay. That's it?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 4 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. I don't. I don't. This --[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 5 LOU SMIT: Photograph number --[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 6 JOHN RAMSEY: -- 149, that was like[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 7 (INAUDIBLE) what looks like a big piece of duct[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 8 tape. That doesn't look like that tape I took off[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 9 JonBenet's mouth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10 LOU SMIT: Okay. And why do you say that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, because as I recall,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12 it was black. It was like a little larger than[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13 electrical tape in width. And it struck me, and as[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14 I thought about it later, as the kind of tape you[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15 might use in sailing to wrap around the stanchion[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16 or something.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17 LOU SMIT: The black tape?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19 LOU SMIT: Have you used that type of[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20 tape on (INAUDIBLE)?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I didn't recognize it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]22 But in this picture, it looks like a piece of duct[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23 tape. A big piece of duct tape. And that's not[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]24 what I remember.[/FONT]

 

[Heymom]

I've never seen anything in the way of proof that it was BR's feces in JB's room, and not her own. Does anyone have this?

Why in God's name would a child smear her own chocolates with her poop? I don't believe we have ever been told outright that it was BR's feces, but we've also never heard in any way that JBR had done that.

 

[ThinkHard]

I love that description TT. Especially the bit about the bicycle.

I just want to bring these highly interesting analyses of the ransom note, and its creator, to the thread. It's on the candyrose website. The author is the late Delmar England. It's a subjective view of course but it seems to be an educated view with sound rationale and is worth chewing over IMO.

This is the analysis of the ransom note http://www.acandyrose.com/04212000delmaranalysis1.htm
This is the analysis of the suspect behaviour http://www.acandyrose.com/06102001delmaranalysis4.htm

He also does an analysis of the garrote and its maker - http://www.acandyrose.com/delmarengland.htm

I'm not in any doubt that PR was a sociopath.

I'll quote a few lines from the link -

[COLOR=#0000000]

If you were going to write a note and try to make it appear authentic, would you not consider the probable viewpoint of those who would see and write accordingly? Do you see any indication of this in the bogus note?

Certainly, the intent was to convince others that the note is an authentic ransom note. Yet, it failed miserably. Few persons gave the note credibility. The writer did not even come close to achieving the goal. Why this horrendous failure? Why was this writer so incapable of doing a better job?

This is not just an instance of a novice making a few mistakes under extreme pressure, it reveals much about the personality and psychology of the writer that existed long before the note was written and in all probability still exists. It reveals the mode of thought, thus exposing the underlying belief and value system of said writer.

By general knowledge of other human beings, you can anticipate in large degree the probable response to something you are thinking of saying or doing. In closer interpersonal relationships with individuals, this is refined to a higher degree of anticipated reaction. This does not mean that you will correctly anticipate 100% of the time, but it does mean that you calculate the potential reaction and evaluate it in making a decision that involves these other persons. Its a mental habit.

This thought process and psychology is missing from the note. The note clearly indicates the writer made no attempt whatsoever to anticipate and write accordingly. The writer shows no empathy with the likely viewers. The note was written from a reactive personal perspective and presented from a personal viewpoint without the slightest consideration for the probable viewpoint of others. It is as if the writer's viewpoint is the only one that exists or can exist. It was presented from this psychology. The writer could not think and write from any other perspective because this is the fundamental psychology of the writer.

I do not wish to dwell on this, but just wanted to point out this absence of empathy and an isolation factor that appears to be a central element of the psychology of the note writer. The logical inferences of this are far reaching and potential explanation of related events.

What I am describing here as indicated by the note is an emotional isolation that in all probability you have never experienced. You may be accustomed to having warm, deep, loving and affectionate relationships with parents, children, friends, etc; and observing others doing the same, but the writer of the note is totally incapable of this.

It may appear differently on the surface, but its merely role playing at what the writer thinks is proper and socially acceptable. The actual emotions are non existent. There is no deep and close emotional connection to anyone and never has been. Any semblance of such a relationship is forced and temporary.
​

[/COLOR]

What he's is talking about here is something that is referred to as "Theory of Mind" aka the ability to out yourself in someone else's shoes.

However what I will disagree with him on, as I will with many experts who seem to overlap these two things when they do not always overlap......is that someone can struggle with "Theory of Mind" without lacking empathy.

You see if you do not think about things the same way as everyone else, you will not react to things the same way everyone else does, and thus it can be difficult to understand the other person perspective, or why they are so upset when it's over something you find no big deal. One example is that kids with aspergers are often so infirmation focused, it's hard for them to think of facts and feelings at the same time. So they might go on and on about a subject of interest, yet never pick up cues that the other person is board or not grasp that the person wouldn't be interested because it is simply so interesting to them, how can it not be to others.

That however does not mean the person also lacks empathy, and doesn't care when they have hurt someone, or when they hear a sad story, or see someone in pain.

So they can go hand in hand, but they do not always, and he takes a big leap saying because someone who can't interpret the world through others eyes also doesn't care about anything. I mean for the RN writer this could very well be true....but it's still a leap to assume that just because "theory of mind" is absent.

 

[ThinkHard]

This is interesting - about the duct tape -

[FONT="]0290[/FONT]
[FONT="] 1 LOU SMIT: (INAUDIBLE) the same box?[/FONT]
[FONT="] 2 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I don't remember that box.[/FONT]
[FONT="] 3 LOU SMIT: Okay. That's it?[/FONT]
[FONT="] 4 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. I don't. I don't. This --[/FONT]
[FONT="] 5 LOU SMIT: Photograph number --[/FONT]
[FONT="] 6 JOHN RAMSEY: -- 149, that was like[/FONT]
[FONT="] 7 (INAUDIBLE) what looks like a big piece of duct[/FONT]
[FONT="] 8 tape. That doesn't look like that tape I took off[/FONT]
[FONT="] 9 JonBenet's mouth.[/FONT]
[FONT="]10 LOU SMIT: Okay. And why do you say that?[/FONT]
[FONT="]11 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, because as I recall,[/FONT]
[FONT="]12 it was black. It was like a little larger than[/FONT]
[FONT="]13 electrical tape in width. And it struck me, and as[/FONT]
[FONT="][B]14 I thought about it later, as the kind of tape you[/B][/FONT]
[FONT="]15 might use in sailing to wrap around the stanchion[/FONT]
[FONT="][B]16 or something.[/B][/FONT]
[FONT="]17 LOU SMIT: The black tape?[/FONT]
[FONT="]18 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.[/FONT]
[FONT="]19 LOU SMIT: Have you used that type of[/FONT]
[FONT="]20 tape on (INAUDIBLE)?[/FONT]
[FONT="]21 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I didn't recognize it.[/FONT]
[FONT="]22 But in this picture, it looks like a piece of duct[/FONT]
[FONT="]23 tape. A big piece of duct tape. And that's not[/FONT]
[FONT="]24 what I remember.[/FONT]

When was this interview dated?

 

[ThinkHard]

I've never seen anything in the way of proof that it was BR's feces in JB's room, and not her own. Does anyone have this?

I think it was a known problem of Burkes that he had a history of, so why would they think it would be anyone else's?

 

[Tortoise]

Why in God's name would a child smear her own chocolates with her poop? I don't believe we have ever been told outright that it was BR's feces, but we've also never heard in any way that JBR had done that.

I think it was a known problem of Burkes that he had a history of, so why would they think it would be anyone else's?

I believe JB had been known to soil her bed. We also know she had wiping problems and all her underwear was stained.

I'm not saying it wasn't his but that's quite a leap to make, to say it was definitely his.

It doesn't seem to be information in the public domain concerning how much feces was on the box of chocolates. I've said before an unwashed hand after wiping could very easily contaminate another surface. If on the other hand it was a sizeable amount, then I would say it was deliberate and it's a safe bet that she would not have done that to her own chocolates.

 

[Tortoise]

When was this interview dated?

June 1998