The December 23 party

[FrankieB]

Hi Singularity. I still go through the Transcripts and The Bonita papers from time to time at random, it's quite a task isn't it. I really look forward to your curated version for easy topic access in the future.

I think even the dog-eared dictionary, strange as it was could have multiple explanations. The most compelling one I've read here is a third person with inside knowledge of the family dysfunction whishing to leave an anonymous "tip" to LE.

But the heart picture...as you say, if it was staged....why? what is it supposed to convey?

"YES" to what? yes as to John is the abuser? the killer? "YES" as to I love John and don't care about the others? no scenario regarding this photograph makes sense. But I doubt it is something that should be disregarded. Just as there's a feces theme running through the case, there appears to be a heart theme too.

I also don't understand why this particular photograph has never been released, what possible harm to the case could it do?

 

[singularity]

If a third party in the house that day actually did that with the dictionary, that is a pretty bold thing to do in a house full of people....including cops. Doesn't mean its impossible.....just unlikely. Its definitely a hard clue to explain away. I have difficulties imagining a scene where it is brought out and used in such a manner. REally the only thing I can imagine is during an argument over someone in the family abusing or doing inappropriate things with JOnbenet(or a particular member collecting photographs), one of them(likely Patsy) pulls out the dictionary in dramatic effect and looks up incest and shoves it in the face of someone, I assume John....unless this incident happened before Christmas and it was in an argument with JAR.

If the dictionary is nothing but staging, hard to imagine why you would stage such a thing as it points to some serious dysfunction in the family and there was already enough in the house to point that out.

Its also something that could have happened at this 23rd party. 911 call, cops shooed away, JOnbenet pouting and not feeling pretty, told about a secret, special visit from Santa and even an early gift....

DOI (HB) Page 344:

"I had given her a tiny gold bracelet on the evening of December 23, 1996, placing it on her wrist in much the same way Mike was doing now. It was the evening of our family Christmas party, and since she was all dressed up, I had decided to let her open the gift early so she could wear it during the holiday. The bracelet was inscribed with her name on the front and on the back with the date she was actually supposed to receive it: 12-25-96. I hope I can someday get that bracelet back. It's part of the vast number of items still in police custody."

--------

Even though the Dec 23rd pics are not high quality, it does appear she is wearing it. I'd like to know the exact time that evening she was given the bracelet. The 911 call was made at 6:48.


Yes we definitely need access to more photographs of the crime scene. As I mentioned before, our only hope is new evidence being shown on that upcoming series later this year.
DOI (HB) Page 344:

hope I can someday get that bracelet back. It's part of the vast number of items still in police custody

 

[B00kw0rm]

Thanks.
The fact he asks no questions at this point pretty much proves he knew what was going on, at least in a general sense and also gives us a glimpse into the family dysfunction. Those on the scene should have noticed this.

I have to say that I don't agree with that. Some kids just ... don't ask questions. When I was eight years old, my (also eight years old) male best friend's parents adopted two toddlers. They didn't tell him until very shortly before they actually completed the adoption. He had never questioned his parents buying clothes and toys for smaller children, or even clearing out his father's office and turning it into a little girl's room. I was told before he was because I questioned that stuff, and I had to be sworn to secrecy. I've also dealt with a lot of autistic children, and I can't help but wonder if Burke might have been mildly autistic, which could also explain some of the odd behavior noted with him.

 

[FrankieB]

I didn't know LHP had written a book, thank you Tad for the link. This stuck out:

"If I were speaking to Patsy Ramsey right now, this is what I would say to her: You were spent and exhausted, weren't you? The holidays do that to people. At the party on December twenty-third you appeared a little out of sorts"

 

[andreww]

Wow. Actually...double wow. I have read PMPT twice(once when it was released, once a few months ago during my "refresher course") and I do NOT remember this info. I'll chalk it up to late night reading and being half asleep so it didn't stick out. Even though this info is sixteen years old, I consider it a new clue in the case.

I agree it could be either/or on which roll of film he went to retrieve, but that's almost beside the point. Why in the midst of this chaos is Fleet going home to retrieve film of any kind? 30 minutes? What else is going on in that time frame? In event of a kidnapping, the police want a photo of the victim but there were plenty of photos of JB in the house and even if there weren't, they'd simply look for one and not ask a family friend to bring a roll of film that hasn't even been developed yet. The Ramseys had their own undeveloped roll of film on their camera.

This means Fleet left the Ramsey house twice that day....once to drive Burke to his house, the other to get this roll of film.

Something isn't kosher in this sequence of events.

One other thing, Fleet(or anyone) never should have been allowed to leave the house during the kidnapping phase without a police escort.

What is the importance of this roll of film this early in the timeline? Fleet was the first person to open the WC(apparently seeing nothing), then Fleet and John have a little chat and Burke is sent to Fleet's house, after that another trip is made to his house to retrieve a roll of film(why is it relevant at that moment?), and of course Fleet is down there with John when the body is discovered and he himself makes another trip down there and focuses on the tape and the second cigar box.

As you know, I have always thought Fleet is a key piece of the puzzle and if its ever solved, either comments from him or someone putting it all together will finally lead to us knowing what really happened.

The Fleet-John basement sequence is crucial and even more so now that I realize he actually left the home again to retrieve film.

I also always believed that the pictures in this case will tell the story. I feel even stronger about that now.

I've always wondered what John and Fleet talked about after Fleet went into the WC the first time which led to Burke leaving the house. Now I'd like to know what was said to cause him to make this special trip for film.

Did Fleet bring anything else back from this trip? Did he take anything with him when leaving?

Before anyone says something, no I do not believe Fleet killed Jonbenet. He most definitely knows things, was neck deep in events that day, and is probably holding back info.

Thanks for posting that.

The fact that they are continually asked about the photos makes more sense now. Its crystal clear there is something on these rolls of film and the fact one of them was retrieved before her body was even found adds an extra layer of suspicion.

I don't see much of a mystery here. Cops would have been aware of the 911 call on the 23rd and would definitely be curious about that party. Fleet was eager to help and offered up the film.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[singularity]

I didn't know LHP had written a book, thank you Tad for the link. This stuck out:

"If I were speaking to Patsy Ramsey right now, this is what I would say to her: You were spent and exhausted, weren't you? The holidays do that to people. At the party on December twenty-third you appeared a little out of sorts"

Now that's interesting to say the least. I had never read her book as I doubted it had any actual info. I guess I was wrong. I may have to pick this up on amazon.

I don't see much of a mystery here.

THe mystery is that pics taken at these parties factor in to the case. We had always assumed there was one set of photographs taken at the 23rd party but it was actually two.

Cops would have been aware of the 911 call on the 23rd and would definitely be curious about that party. Fleet was eager to help and offered up the film.

Yeah I know, which is why I said....

I can imagine them going over the few facts of the case, knowing about the 911 call on the 23rd, and wanting all photographic evidence of that party retrieved immediately.

Did Fleet simply offer up the film after hearing the Ramseys were turning over theirs? Was he asked specifically if he had film of the 23rd?

I have to say that I don't agree with that. Some kids just ... don't ask questions. When I was eight years old, my (also eight years old) male best friend's parents adopted two toddlers. They didn't tell him until very shortly before they actually completed the adoption. He had never questioned his parents buying clothes and toys for smaller children, or even clearing out his father's office and turning it into a little girl's room. I was told before he was because I questioned that stuff, and I had to be sworn to secrecy. I've also dealt with a lot of autistic children, and I can't help but wonder if Burke might have been mildly autistic, which could also explain some of the odd behavior noted with him.

Yeah....some kids don't ask questions. When your young sister has just been "kidnapped" and winds up brutally murdered and assaulted, I'd assume even a mildly autistic 9 year old boy would wonder what is going on in his house full of cops and friends at 6 am. That is not a normal way to kick off the morning.....especially since he knew the family was taking a trip that day.

He doesn't bat an eye....doesn't ask a question...etc. Just grabs his Nintendo and heads on over to Fleet's like its sunshine and lollipops.

 

[FrankieB]

Singularity

Is the title of the article 300 new words from being off her or is this something that was written on it by hand? If this is the actual title, how does it relate AT ALL to John receiving an award?? And what is so revealing about the last word that we are not allowed to hear it?

 

[reintarnation]

Singularity , otg, could you please tell me what you think about the photograph of John which had a red heart with little flowers drawn on it along with the caption "Yes" ??

Singularity, thanks for your in-depth post responding to this.

Based on my own children who are at that age, IMO it would be obvious whether a child if JBR's age had written and doodled on the picture.

Has anyone considered that this was done by a women with whom JR was having an affair? Not sure if that has been posited or explored yet. It could explain why PR denies knowledge (it may truly have been unknown to her), JR denies knowledge (would expose his affair), and JR was pretty insistent on this photograph being evidence of an intruder. What's the point of them denying it unless telling the truth would reveal a secret?

I've never seen the photograph (has it ever been released?), but based on the interviews about it I have gathered that it was written in a feminine hand. Again, I think it would be obvious if a young kid just learning to write had written the words. That leaves adult women with access to private areas of their home or JR receiving it elsewhere and bringing it home. I have no reason to believe the housekeeper, PR, or female friends or family were responsible, which leads me to wonder if it was a love note of sorts from an extramarital affair. I don't know of any evidence suggesting that JR was cheating, only that he had a history of doing so.

This along with the heart on JBR'S hand continue to perplex me, and I wonder if it's because they aren't directly related to the crime. Same goes for the 12/23 party and all the oddities that go with it. Not that there aren't aspects of the party that are relevant to the crime, but the further away you get from the murder the more we are guessing whether or not specific details have some impact on the motive and/or cover up. JMO!

 

[CorallaroC]

this is a quick note to "reintarnation" post above: at one time there was a photograph of the heart/yes/no written on the pamphlet for JR's award ceremony/event program. I remember seeing it somewhere. But I certainly do not recall seeing anything else written. And yes, it appeared to me to be written by a child. All I have is my own recollection, sorry.

My opinion about it has always been "influenced" by the references made to it in official interviews of the Ramseys, but also by the family stating their feelings of being perplexed by what they called "funny little clues". I do believe they included the markings on that documents as one of the funny little clues. So all these years I have asked myself, WHY would the family of a murdered child refer to pieces of evidence as "funny little clues" ????

My own opinion is that one of the kids scribbled on that award ceremony program, and it has nothing to do with the murder. JMHO.

Maybe with these new documentaries coming out, some of the old evidence photos that got lost in the course of internet history will resurface. I'm just stating what I recall seeing. Might still be out there to find for someone who has the patience to dig for it.

 

[reintarnation]

...at one time there was a photograph of the heart/yes/no written on the pamphlet for JR's award ceremony/event program. I remember seeing it somewhere. But I certainly do not recall seeing anything else written. And yes, it appeared to me to be written by a child...

...My own opinion is that one of the kids scribbled on that award ceremony program, and it has nothing to do with the murder. JMHO...

...Maybe with these new documentaries coming out, some of the old evidence photos that got lost in the course of internet history will resurface.

Thank you for these insights! That is really helpful to know and saves me time from wandering down fruitless paths.

I would love to see it if someone could scrounge it up. That is also what I'm hoping for in the docs, and really for any new info.

Those 'funny little clues'...it always seemed to me like that was their cutesy way to tie benign evidence to an intruder. JMO.

 

[FrankieB]

Has anyone considered that this was done by a women with whom JR was having an affair? Not sure if that has been posited or explored yet. It could explain why PR denies knowledge (it may truly have been unknown to her), JR denies knowledge (would expose his affair), and JR was pretty insistent on this photograph being evidence of an intruder. What's the point of them denying it unless telling the truth would reveal a secret?

I've never seen the photograph (has it ever been released?), but based on the interviews about it I have gathered that it was written in a feminine hand. Again, I think it would be obvious if a young kid just learning to write had written the words. That leaves adult women with access to private areas of their home or JR receiving it elsewhere and bringing it home. I have no reason to believe the housekeeper, PR, or female friends or family were responsible, which leads me to wonder if it was a love note of sorts from an extramarital affair. I don't know of any evidence suggesting that JR was cheating, only that he had a history of doing so.

Hi. To answer your question, no, it has never been released. Your theory is interesting, I had never considered that angle. Still, if it were done by a lover it remains a puzzling and sick item. I doubt he would bring it into the house, it most likely was left there by somebody else or altered if it was already inside. Patsy's reaction is odd, she says "I don't like that" what doesn't she like? The picture? The scribbling? The suggestion one of the kids did it? Bizarre to say the least. I do think the hearts are a theme on the murder, just like the feces, the dolls and other things. As Singularity said, it completely stands out: if a child did it, why? If an adult did it, why? If it's staging, for what porpouse?

 

[FrankieB]

this is a quick note to "reintarnation" post above: at one time there was a photograph of the heart/yes/no written on the pamphlet for JR's award ceremony/event program. I remember seeing it somewhere. But I certainly do not recall seeing anything else written. And yes, it appeared to me to be written by a child. All I have is my own recollection, sorry.



My own opinion is that one of the kids scribbled on that award ceremony program, and it has nothing to do with the murder. JMHO.

Maybe with these new documentaries coming out, some of the old evidence photos that got lost in the course of internet history will resurface. I'm just stating what I recall seeing. Might still be out there to find for someone who has the patience to dig for it.

Respectfully addressing you, it is highly unlikely you have seen the photograph. Do you notice the redacted portion of the title? The photograph also had this written on it: "300 new words from being off her ----" we have never found out how the sentence ends, if you recall seeing the picture, did you see the complete phrase? If the item and the phrase for that matter were completely innocent, either it would have been released or the phrase would not have been redacted. It really makes me lose my mind, trying to figure out how the phrase ends. It also seems to have the phrase "heart two hearts" or something along those lines written on it, but the interviews are hard to make heads or tails from. I would love to be proven wrong, if the picture is out there and has always been it would put an end to this mystery. Thank you for your recollection CorallaroC

 

[CorallaroC]

Respectfully addressing you, it is highly unlikely you have seen the photograph. Do you notice the redacted portion of the title? The photograph also had this written on it: "300 new words from being off her ----" we have never found out how the sentence ends, if you recall seeing the picture, did you see the complete phrase? If the item and the phrase for that matter were completely innocent, either it would have been released or the phrase would not have been redacted. It really makes me lose my mind, trying to figure out how the phrase ends. It also seems to have the phrase "heart two hearts" or something along those lines written on it, but the interviews are hard to make heads or tails from. I would love to be proven wrong, if the picture is out there and has always been it would put an end to this mystery. Thank you for your recollection CorallaroC

FrankieB thank you for your thoughtful reply.

your Question was: "Do you notice the redacted portion of the title?"
A: I am not sure what you mean, Which "title?

next Question: "The photograph also had this written on it: "300 new words from being off her ----" we have never found out how the sentence ends."
A: Frankie, I do not recall seeing a pic of the "300 words" thing. What I do recall, now after putting more thought to it, is that the photos originated in one of the lesser-tabloids. Someone had taken a photo of the printed tabloid page which purportedly had a "photo" of the brochure found in the home! And who knows if in the fine print, the whole thing was just a "recreation" based on some un-named reliable source!

The overall page was very grainy, and 2 or 3 other "zoomed in" photos accompanied it. The brochure had black and white grainy pics of JR and at least two other contenders for the award (although their names and faces were obscured by photo-cropping). The markings appeared to be in red marker, a heart drawn around the pic of JR, the word "YES" written clumsily near it. And the word "NO" written near one of the competitors.

No, I do not recall seeing the "300 words" thing written out in the same red ink, or depicted in the alleged photo..

I guess I can be considered an told-timer here, and I will be the first to admit that after nearly 20 yrs my memories could be fading or mixed up. Perhaps I should not have chimed-in unless I had some link or a .jpg to back it up. Because really, one of the biggest problems nowdays is that many of the old reference-links are long gone. For many years certain "rare" info could still be found, but the problem was that info was on "freebie" websites which were eventually corrupted by viruses etc, or disappeared altogether (like Geocities).

Yet, I do still recall mention of the "300 word" thing. FWIW, my impression was that it was PR doodling along with the kids. The 300 words meaning IMO was about school goals for JBR, she may have been somewhat lagging behind in her vocabulary skills. JMO based on speculation of course.

It makes sense to me about a PR/child doodling based on other things we know or suspect. fopr example:
1)Scrapbook photo of BR, notations on the polaroid which PR claims she had no idea who wrote it
2)discussions in official interviews regarding BR science project
3) a photo allegedly depicting JBR's "first cursive" signature - it is obvious someone else was coaching or holding the hand of JBR.
4) just an opinion of mine, but PR tended to help the kids do things then pretend they did it on their own.

One final thought... has anyone thought to contact AmandaReconwith to ask if he/she happens to have an old archive of old pics from the JBR case? Especially during the days when the R's were suing the Globe and others - those old tabloid magazines had a lot of info(or MIS-info) that seemed to disappear.

 

[reintarnation]

I think I speak for everyone when I say that recollections from "old timers" like CorallaroC is critical and most appreciated.

I'm going to attempt some digging to see if this photo turns up. My interest is piqued, even though I still have doubts about its relevance to the case.

FrankieB, I too find PR's "I don't like that" comment to be confusing...those interviews are as insightful as they are confounding!

 

[singularity]

While I know I never saw that pic, Corallaro is correct that tons of info from those days is long gone. It's a shame. We're lucky we have as much archived material to work with as we do. Some people think they can just google something or go to the net archive and if its not there, it never existed. There are tons of sites/pics not in the net archives.

Its why many things(like the JAR-JB "infatuation") can never be traced back to its original source.

Its possible that pic surfaced in a tabloid at some point. They were all giving this case weekly coverage in those days....each one needing a little scoop to grab peoples attention.

An example....WS member bookworm says she has 15 pics of Jonbenet's last photoshoot on her old pc. If you google those pics, you'll see a few.

 

[WhoKnowsWhat]

Once when I was working a male dropped a motel add cut from the newspaper with "say yes" written on it on my desk. I guess it's how some people communicate. No, I didn't say yes.

 

[reintarnation]

Once when I was working a male dropped a motel add cut from the newspaper with "say yes" written on it on my desk. I guess it's how some people communicate. No, I didn't say yes.

Eww! I'm sorry you had to deal with that grossness. I'm assuming it was a co-worker?

That insight makes me wonder a little more about that photo being tied to an affair.

 

[FrankieB]

FrankieB thank you for your thoughtful reply.

your Question was: "Do you notice the redacted portion of the title?"
A: I am not sure what you mean, Which "title?

for some odd reason, the title "300 words" is only mentioned in Patsy's interrogation and not John's, I lean towards it being scribbled on the photograph rather than being the actual title for the article, it would be too weird given the subject matter (the award given to John)

A: Frankie, I do not recall seeing a pic of the "300 words" thing. What I do recall, now after putting more thought to it, is that the photos originated in one of the lesser-tabloids. Someone had taken a photo of the printed tabloid page which purportedly had a "photo" of the brochure found in the home! And who knows if in the fine print, the whole thing was just a "recreation" based on some un-named reliable source!

That's plausible! I'd kill to see it either way. The other stand out fact is that the page was inside a folder. I'd like to know A) What else was in the folder B) where in the house was this folder found

The overall page was very grainy, and 2 or 3 other "zoomed in" photos accompanied it. The brochure had black and white grainy pics of JR and at least two other contenders for the award (although their names and faces were obscured by photo-cropping). The markings appeared to be in red marker, a heart drawn around the pic of JR, the word "YES" written clumsily near it. And the word "NO" written near one of the competitors.

No, I do not recall seeing the "300 words" thing written out in the same red ink, or depicted in the alleged photo..

Your recollection seems spot on, it makes 300 words more of an enduring mystery though, I just can't wrap my head around what the detective meant and what he was showing to Patsy exactly. I also recall reading it was red ink, that was probably revealed by John in DOI if I recall correctly.

I guess I can be considered an told-timer here, and I will be the first to admit that after nearly 20 yrs my memories could be fading or mixed up.

Old timers are the experts

Perhaps I should not have chimed-in unless I had some link or a .jpg to back it up. Because really, one of the biggest problems nowdays is that many of the old reference-links are long gone. For many years certain "rare" info could still be found, but the problem was that info was on "freebie" websites which were eventually corrupted by viruses etc, or disappeared altogether (like Geocities).

Yet, I do still recall mention of the "300 word" thing. FWIW, my impression was that it was PR doodling along with the kids. The 300 words meaning IMO was about school goals for JBR, she may have been somewhat lagging behind in her vocabulary skills. JMO based on speculation of course.

No, thank you very much for your input, I highly appreciate it. I understand things tend to disappear with time, the early internet had stuff I've never seen again. This specific item (the scribbled photograph) is RARELY discussed here or elsewhere at all, I wager people just can't make any sense out of it and/or disregard it as staging/unrelated miscellanea. For some reason it spooks me and fascinates me, I feel it has something to do with everything to some degree. I don't mean it was done the night of the crime, I bet it was not even intended to be found. What I feel is that it provides some insight into the level of dysfunction going on in that house.

It makes sense to me about a PR/child doodling based on other things we know or suspect. fopr example:
1)Scrapbook photo of BR, notations on the polaroid which PR claims she had no idea who wrote it
2)discussions in official interviews regarding BR science project
3) a photo allegedly depicting JBR's "first cursive" signature - it is obvious someone else was coaching or holding the hand of JBR.

1. is of extreme interest, both parents denied ever seeing the captions if I recall correctly, and perhaps my mind is biased but the writing looks very "Ransome Note-esque" I recall one caption about the rainbow children (Patsy claimed she had never seen the kids in the photo) and another one that read "that's me, my mom and the doctor" or something along those lines, with what I recall is a picture of Burke when he was born. I've read two theories about it, it was either written by Patsy herself or it was written by Burke as dictated by Patsy. I can't see the boy doing it on his own.

I'm not aware of 2 and 3, sounds very interesting, do you have more info?

if you are ever able to dig up the photograph please share! thanks for your great input CorallaroC

 

[FrankieB]

I think I speak for everyone when I say that recollections from "old timers" like CorallaroC is critical and most appreciated.

I'm going to attempt some digging to see if this photo turns up. My interest is piqued, even though I still have doubts about its relevance to the case.

FrankieB, I too find PR's "I don't like that" comment to be confusing...those interviews are as insightful as they are confounding!

Welcome to the club! I've been wondering about it ever since I first read of its existence. It might not be directly related in the way other items of bigger exposure are, but I think it provides insight into a high level of dysfunction in the household. Another forgotten item of interest is the dog-eared dictionary, "funny little clues" indeed.

If you look at John's exchange, he just disregards it as something bizarre and seems genuinely surprised it was found in the house. When asked if a family member could've done it he denies. Apparently none of the kids nad writing looked like it in his opinion. Patsy's exchange is very different, for starters the whole "300 words" which both sides (Patsy and interrogator) fail to explain, then when asked if Jonbenét could have written it, she gives a long winded explanation (with several portions redacted) and when asked if Burke could have written it we are greeted with a dry and direct "NO"

After the iterrogations I wonder (if they even spoke about it) what the Ramseys made of the picture. If Patsy had truly never seen it before I wonder if she asked John what the hell it was (and vice versa) as pointed out here it could be linked to an outside relationship. Although the fact the other men are a NO and John is a YES it makes one ponder, a yes to what? if all we knew is John was a cheated I guess the answer would be easy but considering there was sexual abuse in this case, it leaves the question out in the open.

 

[B00kw0rm]

While I know I never saw that pic, Corallaro is correct that tons of info from those days is long gone. It's a shame. We're lucky we have as much archived material to work with as we do. Some people think they can just google something or go to the net archive and if its not there, it never existed. There are tons of sites/pics not in the net archives.

Its why many things(like the JAR-JB "infatuation") can never be traced back to its original source.

Its possible that pic surfaced in a tabloid at some point. They were all giving this case weekly coverage in those days....each one needing a little scoop to grab peoples attention.

An example....WS member bookworm says she has 15 pics of Jonbenet's last photoshoot on her old pc. If you google those pics, you'll see a few.

I actually have twelve that I've recovered onto my new laptop. But that's from an older archived version of what I had that I backed up a few years ago, I know I have more old the old one if I can just find a charger that works on it long enough to transfer the folder. But, point is, if anybody wants to see those, I don't mind sharing.