The complicity of Patsy in coverup.

[MurriFlower]

You do seem to miscontrue me alot.

So you keep telling me.

And let it be shown that you have quoted me from yesterday.

Why is this a problem, do you change your opinions daily?

Hope you didn't exert yourself too much searching for my post.

No trouble at all.

And no-one is arguing except you.

Curious that you believe one person can argue on their own.

You seem to think you know more about my opinions/stances than I do which is rather perplexing to say the least.But let me clarify for you my opinions and views because guess what MurriFlower, I'm the authority on what I say and what comes out of my mouth and you're not.

Oh goody an answer!!

I said :
Touch dna centres around the transfer of skin cells. Thus, the owner of such dna is just that, a person's whose skin cells have rubbed off. It's always highly plausible that the touch dna came from a factory worker or indeed from anyone in contact with aforementioned items -- in general terms.

As has been explained multiple times to you.

Ok, well, I think the DNA is actually cells, oils, sweat, etc that exists on skin, and is collected by the 'touch method' by being either scraped or taped from an article. I'm pretty sure that other DNA (blood, semen, saliva) also usually touches things, (and is thus frequently adhered) so in this way there is no difference. Your theoretical factory worker also has all the other bodily fluids that could just as easily make their way onto garments, via the hands or airborne.

I have also not ruled out the possibility that the dna came from an intruder. Well done for ignoring those posts but then again, I don't suppose it fitted in with your attempt to debase my words. Now, I understand that you are a little annoyed perhaps -- several people have corrected your supposed attempt to link the touch dna to an intruder.

So you must be a little annoyed that those other folks didn't notice or ignored your posts that didn't rule out the possibility that the DNA came from an intruder?? No?? Ok, well it doesn't worry me either. I'm used to RDI having completely different opinions. I don't get annoyed with that either, however, RDI would never entertain the possibility of an intruder as it doesn't fit with the theory.

But please, in the interest of the forum integrity, this obsession you have with constantly trying to misconstrue my words when I keep on explaining them to you is just a bit strange.

Oh I think the forum integrity is still intact. The whole idea here is that people have different opinions, and by definition they will have different opinions to yours and will sometimes ask you to explain them. You of course have to option not to explain yourself, thus causing confusion (or misconstusion).

You've had them explained. Now please find some other target for your lttile forum antics because I want civil discussion.I'm glad to say that most people on this forum have been nothing short of welcoming to me and I appreciate that. Perhaps you're against new-comers -- I'm not sure?

Regards.

If you don't wish to discuss the case or your ideas with me you can put me on your ignore list or merely not respond. Either is perfectly acceptible. Your forum antics are also noted and I find them quite cute.

 

[wonderllama]

I'm glad we've sorted all that out then....now where were we?

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

So you must be a little annoyed that those other folks didn't notice or ignored your posts that didn't rule out the possibility that the DNA came from an intruder?? No?? Ok, well it doesn't worry me either. I'm used to RDI having completely different opinions. I don't get annoyed with that either, however, RDI would never entertain the possibility of an intruder as it doesn't fit with the theory.>I'm not annoyed with anyone. The people on this forum have been very welcoming and nice, with an obvious exception of course. It's a great forum. I also put effort into understanding people's posts. If I disagree with them that's fine but I won't misconstrue them.The reason people dismiss the intruder theory is usually based on how it lacks evidence.



Oh I think the forum integrity is still intact. The whole idea here is that people have different opinions, and by definition they will have different opinions to yours and will sometimes ask you to explain them. You of course have to option not to explain yourself, thus causing confusion (or misconstusion).> different opinions are indeed blessings to us all. However, as you have been exposed doing, misconstruing my words and blatantly twisting them and debasing them is not acceptable.And trying to twist quotes of mine from prior days is a tad disingenuous.You've been explained of my views -- I've been more than reasonable there.



If you don't wish to discuss the case or your ideas with me you can put me on your ignore list or merely not respond. Either is perfectly acceptible. Your forum antics are also noted and I find them quite cute.>I'll keep that information in mind if you keep on misconstruing my words.But I certainly hope your behaviour does improve so that I shall not have to resort to such measures. The ball's in your court there.

I've put my answers in red for you.

Just so we are clear, here's a summary of my points. Please reference these in future as I am telling you what I think. There's no need for you to try and twist my own views of which I am the sole-authority on:

1. I agree with the sex game gone wrong theory.
2. I agree that the garrotte & vagal reflex was the cause of death. The head-wound came after.
3. I don't agree that the new dna immediately correlates to an intruder.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I'm glad we've sorted all that out then....now where were we?

My original post was centred on why would Patsy coverup for John -- what dynamic in their relationship would allow for that?

Thoughts?

 

[wonderllama]

I've read on these boards a lot of reasons why people believe PR would cover up for JR...

I can only think that there must be something to lose on both sides.
eg: If JR was the molester and PR lashed out and killed JBR, they're both up a certain creek without a paddle...why both go to jail when with a little cooperation neither can go to jail.

Not my theory, just a possibility.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I've read on these boards a lot of reasons why people believe PR would cover up for JR...

I can only think that there must be something to lose on both sides.
eg: If JR was the molester and PR lashed out and killed JBR, they're both up a certain creek without a paddle...why both go to jail when with a little cooperation neither can go to jail.

Not my theory, just a possibility.

Yes, the obvious answer is that both have something to lose and thus both are implicated.

Due to the sexual nature of JonBenet's genital trauma, I have always thought that supported a male perpetrator. But if the ransom note was created by Patsy, she is involved too.

It's just an aspect of the case which perplexes me.

 

[MurriFlower]

I've put my answers in red for you.

Just so we are clear, here's a summary of my points. Please reference these in future as I am telling you what I think. There's no need for you to try and twist my own views of which I am the sole-authority on:

1. I agree with the sex game gone wrong theory.
2. I agree that the garrotte & vagal reflex was the cause of death. The head-wound came after.
3. I don't agree that the new dna immediately correlates to an intruder.

Gosh, well that's put me in my place hasn't it? I'm so pleased we have someone with so much authority and knowledge come onto the forum, so welcome. How could you ever think some people might not welcome an expert like yourself?

So, just to clarify and prevent my misconstruction or disingenuation, would you indulge me with the benefit of your vast knowledge on the case?

1. Who was the other party(s) involved in the sex-game?
2. Why would this person bash a dead child over the head?
3. Why would the other party (PR?) join in the cover up?

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Gosh, well that's put me in my place hasn't it? I'm so pleased we have someone with so much authority and knowledge come onto the forum, so welcome. How could you ever think some people might not welcome an expert like yourself?

So, just to clarify and prevent my misconstruction or disingenuation, would you indulge me with the benefit of your vast knowledge on the case?

1. Who was the other party(s) involved in the sex-game?> why must there be other parties? That's an assumption.
2. Why would this person bash a dead child over the head?>I've already explained that in other posts. You'll need to search them out.
3. Why would the other party (PR?) join in the cover up?> that's a complex question. If there was another party is speculation. But as for the coverup -- that's the intention of this thread. Feel free to give your opinions. I would love to hear them Murri.

My answers are in red.

I'm not sure what your issue with me is but I have answered your questions and engaged in debate with you , even when you insulted me.

I have even went out of my way to provide a succinct list of my views for you so that you don't need to keep misconstruing my posts.But apparently that's an issue for you aswell.

And I've never proclaimed to be an expert on the case. Indeed, I have dismissed such stances thus that comment of yours is way off the mark. Regards.

 

[Agatha_C]

Forever,

Trust me when I tell you, you're being antagonized. I've had to have people remind me of that and still fall into the trap. When you get to where :banghead: You're banging your head, just walk away. Save yourself the grief and spare yourself from feeling like the back end of a Donkey, which is how you will eventually feel.

Oh and welcome to the forums, now that you've been initiated...lol... I feel your frustration.

 

[wonderllama]

Murri's just grumpy cos we're losing in the cricket.

And the reality is, Murri clearly feels strongly about the position she/he's reached (sorry, i haven't paid attention to your gender) and as a result is keen to weed out every bit of information presented....completely understandable.

And the further reality is, you WANT your views to be scrutinized, it helps in refining your theory.

I wouldn't take anything personally here, after all, a bit of grumpy forum talk is nothing compared to what happened to JBR.

 

[LadyL]

I think Patsy was all about appearances and willing to sacrifice anything, including her precious daughter, to appear to be what her friends & neighbours thought she was. I think she covered up for completely shallow reasons and I think she's rotting in hell now because of her selfishness.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Great post.

The 'scream' is one of the most perplexing issues in this case. Is it possible that the neighbour made it up in order to interject into the story -- you know, the way some people lie about being involved in dramatic events?

But assuming the scream did occur at approximately midnight then the key question is what caused it? It was a harrowing scream heard across the street.A scream perhaps Burke heard too if he was asleep in his bedroom.

People usually scream through pain being inflicted onto them or in anticipation of something horrible -- in order to 'scare' off someone.

I do believe that Melody Stanton heard a scream and she was not just trying to interject herself into the story. I remember reading that after the police arrived at the Ramsey's house, but before JBR was found, they went door-to-door and asked the neighbors if they had saw/heard something suspicious last night. I don't think they even mentioned that JBR had been "kidnapped"; it was just a very general question. It was right then that Melody said that she heard the scream. This was before the media was aware of JBR's murder (since JBR was still thought to be alive at this point) so I don't think Melody was trying to get attention from pretending to hear JBR scream. Also, I am pretty sure she has never done an interview or appeared in a documentary about the case. If she appeared on the cover of The Globe two years about JBR's murder claiming to hear JBR scream, then I would very skeptical.

 

[MurriFlower]

1. Who was the other party(s) involved in the sex-game?> why must there be other parties? That's an assumption.

Was she having a sex game on her own? A six year old girl??

2. Why would this person bash a dead child over the head?>I've already explained that in other posts. You'll need to search them out.

Oh, good oh. Ta for your help.

3. Why would the other party (PR?) join in the cover up?> that's a complex question. If there was another party is speculation. But as for the coverup -- that's the intention of this thread.

I'm perplexed by your theory.

I'm not sure what your issue with me is but I have answered your questions and engaged in debate with you , even when you insulted me.

I have even went out of my way to provide a succinct list of my views for you so that you don't need to keep misconstruing my posts.But apparently that's an issue for you aswell.

And I've never proclaimed to be an expert on the case. Indeed, I have dismissed such stances thus that comment of yours is way off the mark. Regards.

This theory is a complete mystery. I get the feeling I'm never going to understand it. Don't worry about trying to explain it any more, I don't think it's worth the bother.

 

[JBean]

oh for the love of God people. Cut it out. Quit talking about each other or other members and get back to discussion.

 

[wonderllama]

I do believe that Melody Stanton heard a scream and she was not just trying to interject herself into the story. I remember reading that after the police arrived at the Ramsey's house, but before JBR was found, they went door-to-door and asked the neighbors if they had saw/heard something suspicious last night. I don't think they even mentioned that JBR had been "kidnapped"; it was just a very general question. It was right then that Melody said that she heard the scream. This was before the media was aware of JBR's murder (since JBR was still thought to be alive at this point) so I don't think Melody was trying to get attention from pretending to hear JBR scream. Also, I am pretty sure she has never done an interview or appeared in a documentary about the case. If she appeared on the cover of The Globe two years about JBR's murder claiming to hear JBR scream, then I would very skeptical.

...Feeling like a naughty schoolboy now. Haven't been told off like that for 20+ years.



However, that's a good point about Mrs Stanton.
If she's said it from the very beginning and not sought publicity then you had to have a level of confidence in her report.

 

[Tricia]

What Jean said.

We DO NOT allow this type of crap on this forum. KNOCK IT OFF.

If anyone replies again like in previous posts I will personally time them out or ban them.

The JBR forum is very near and dear to my heart. JonBenet is the whole reason I got into the forum world. I won't allow people to hijack a thread like this.

Now, carry on please.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Forever,

Trust me when I tell you, you're being antagonized. I've had to have people remind me of that and still fall into the trap. When you get to where :banghead: You're banging your head, just walk away. Save yourself the grief and spare yourself from feeling like the back end of a Donkey, which is how you will eventually feel.

Oh and welcome to the forums, now that you've been initiated...lol... I feel your frustration.

Thanks for the welcome Agatha.

I always try and be civil. This is a great forum.

Anyway, I look forward to discussing the case with you.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Was she having a sex game on her own? A six year old girl??

Oh, good oh. Ta for your help.



I'm perplexed by your theory.



This theory is a complete mystery. I get the feeling I'm never going to understand it. Don't worry about trying to explain it any more, I don't think it's worth the bother.

I've explained my theory several times. There comes a point when it is just repetition. You are free to look in the threads I have posted in and see what I have wrote.

It's essentially the "sex game gone awry" theory.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I do believe that Melody Stanton heard a scream and she was not just trying to interject herself into the story. I remember reading that after the police arrived at the Ramsey's house, but before JBR was found, they went door-to-door and asked the neighbors if they had saw/heard something suspicious last night. I don't think they even mentioned that JBR had been "kidnapped"; it was just a very general question. It was right then that Melody said that she heard the scream. This was before the media was aware of JBR's murder (since JBR was still thought to be alive at this point) so I don't think Melody was trying to get attention from pretending to hear JBR scream. Also, I am pretty sure she has never done an interview or appeared in a documentary about the case. If she appeared on the cover of The Globe two years about JBR's murder claiming to hear JBR scream, then I would very skeptical.

Thanks for the info.

The only reason I asked was just for clarity on the issue. If the neighbour heard a scream at midnight (I recall that was when she claimed to be woken up) then this obviously augments the argument that JonBenet died shortly after coming home.Indeed, the undigested pineapple in her stomach further supports this.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

The order of events that the Ramseys took on the 26th December as described in their book:

Patsy finds the note
Patsy checks JonBenet's room
John reads the note
Patsy and John look in on Burke who is "apparently still asleep." (note they did not shake him to make sure he wasn't dead or near death because the kidnapper had done something to him).
Patsy calls 911
Patsy calls a friend called Fernie
Patsy calls the Whites
Police arrive
John checks the walk-in refrigerator
John deals with setting up money for payment
John and Patsy deal with the police
FINALLY, John decides to do a check of the house with friend Fleet

As profiler Pat Brown noted, they didn't shake Burke to see if he was alive. Of course, he was awake (they lied and said he was asleep).

Why didn't they check round the house -- outside and inside?