Was BR involved? #2

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I myself never heard anything on the 911 call tape after PR hangs up even if listening carefully to several versions of it.But if so many people heard it then I have to assume they are right.

Some assumed that John being angry when replying we are not talking to you might be a sign that BR is guilty.I think it sounds more like he interrupted them?It happend during the 911 call so they must have been pretty nervous knowing that the cops will soon show up?

What did you find?So he had no clue what they were discussing/doing??If he did something to JB and told them right away why would he ask this?If he did something but left her there where it happened and they found her, wouldn't they have woken him up and confront him BEFORE dialing 911?

Something's just not right with this question but I can't figure it out clearly.

What I gather is either B is guilty, or J tried to make him look like as if responsible for her death.
I lean towards the second though..

 

[madeleine]

What I gather is either B is guilty, or J tried to make him look like as if responsible for her death.
I lean towards the second though..

Could be and he still does it??
the more I think about it the more puzzled I am as to why he decided to crawl up his cave and speak up, ahem, tell the same old, but hey we got a new IDI voice!
IF he did it it/s definitely NOT in his best interest to step in the middle of the circus and make himself look stupid by making pleas to find the intruder blah blah

if he is guilty and they protected him all these years why the f risk now???

so me rather thinks daddy talked him into it.

IIRC Fleet W never ever said anything that might be interpreted as BDI and he was the one taking him away that morning so a first hand witness and observer...

 

[otg]

I myself never heard anything on the 911 call tape after PR hangs up even if listening carefully to several versions of it.But if so many people heard it then I have to assume they are right.

Some assumed that John being angry when replying we are not talking to you might be a sign that BR is guilty.I think it sounds more like he interrupted them?It happend during the 911 call so they must have been pretty nervous knowing that the cops will soon show up?

What did you find?So he had no clue what they were discussing/doing??If he did something to JB and told them right away why would he ask this?If he did something but left her there where it happened and they found her, wouldn't they have woken him up and confront him BEFORE dialing 911?

Something's just not right with this question but I can't figure it out clearly.

Hi, maddie. Regarding the reason for Burke asking that question, consider for a moment that he is there listening to Patsy make the 911 call, knowing what happened to his sister, but not knowing all that his parents had done to cover up what actually happened. While she's on the phone, he overhears her tell the 911 operator that she "found a ransom note." Then when they all think the phone had been hung up, he asks, "What did you find?" John answers, "We're not speaking to you." Then Burke asks, "But what DID you find?" (ETA: Burke wants to know about this "ransom note" he heard his mother say she found.)

 

[CorallaroC]

As an aside, I'm thinking that we need to find a way to make Paula Woodward's initials different from FW's wife Priscilla.

Any ideas?

 

[otg]

If you recall, Dr. Lee said from the start (after seeing all the evidence) that her death was the result of an "accident." On that I agree -- although I think "unintended death" would be a better description than "accident."

Here is the quote from IRMI:

He (Dr. Henry Lee) questioned why a six-year-old girl, who could easily have been manually strangled, had been choked with a garrote. Such complicated violence did not fit the crime. Lee suggested the possibility that death had been accidental, with a cover-up, and noted distinctive elements of “staging.” He suggested that we look at the family members or someone very close to the family as suspects.
​

(Dr. Lee is talking here about the strangulation -- not the head blow.)

 

[madeleine]

Hi, maddie. Regarding the reason for Burke asking that question, consider for a moment that he is there listening to Patsy make the 911 call, knowing what happened to his sister, but not knowing all that his parents had done to cover up what actually happened. While she's on the phone, he overhears her tell the 911 operator that she "found a ransom note." Then when they all think the phone had been hung up, he asks, "What did you find?" John answers, "We're not speaking to you." Then Burke asks, "But what DID you find?" (ETA: Burke wants to know about this "ransom note" he heard his mother say she found.)

I just can\t stop being angry at the fact that they let him do this now.even if I am curious to see him for the first time talk.
if he did it they probably assured him allhis life that it/s okay cause it must have been just an accident.they kept his mouth shut and now hey you/re on you own or something?
if he didn/t do it then it/s the most horrible thing they could do to him, our spin didnt work maybe you should give it a try?disgusting no matter who did it, period
IMO

 

[otg]

I just can\t stop being angry at the fact that they let him do this now.even if I am curious to see him for the first time talk.
if he did it they probably assured him allhis life that it/s okay cause it must have been just an accident.they kept his mouth shut and now hey you/re on you own or something?
if he didn/t do it then it/s the most horrible thing they could do to him, our spin didnt work maybe you should give it a try?disgusting no matter who did it, period
IMO

I agree completely. But I do think that the reason for him speaking now is to strike a first blow against what they know is about to come out in some of the other scheduled documentaries. If they get him out now, present a sympathetic person behind the headlines, they probably think it'll contradict anything else that might be presented (and it will).

And then too, there's the big $$$ that have been suggested as a prerequisite for any interviews.

 

[madeleine]

I agree completely. But I do think that the reason for him speaking now is to strike a first blow against what they know is about to come out in some of the other scheduled documentaries. If they get him out now, present a sympathetic person behind the headlines, they probably think it'll contradict anything else that might be presented (and it will).

And then too, there's the big $$$ that have been suggested as a prerequisite for any interviews.

All the propaganda that is still going on, especially this new Burke stuff, makes me think that someone still has a lot to lose if the truth is revealed and it cant be Patsy.

Anyway,all these shows are about image and money and ratings.

Someone in charge should check the legal aspects of Lacys exoneration.Thats the point they need to go back to and make things right.Everything else has no real value.At least we know now what went on with the grand jury.

 

[Boodles]

Nothing in this case makes sense. I don't know, but I think if one of my children was missing, I would haul my butt into the other child's room to first make sure he was there and ok, and then say "do you know who took her? Did you see anything? Did you hear anything?", etc. I can't imagine why they would let him sleep or how he could sleep through screaming, crying and panic. So why did Burke say he pretended to be asleep and J & P said he was asleep? I'd be clinging on to my other child if I believed one had been kidnapped. I think this was one of the big flaws in their cover-up story line and for me shoots a hole in the IDI theory. It's just not how you'd react if you thought your child had been kidnapped.

And to believe that BDI, I'd have to think he hit her with a head blow. I can't fathom a ten year old luring his sister into the basement and fashioning a garotte to strangle her (and he couldn't have carried her downstairs). Yet her cause of death is strangulation, and it's generally believed that the blow to the skull happened second. The only thing remotely making sense is the EA theory. But it's so bizarre. On Christmas night when everyone's exhausted and there's an early morning flight scheduled?

The only thing I can tell for sure is that JR and PR are/were very smart, savvy people, very determined, and they had excellent, superb attorneys. In JR's deposition for the Wolf case, he says he has never seen investigative reports prepared by his attorneys' investigators. I believe him, and I think information was handled in a meticulous manner to protect the R's. But would you, as a parent of a murdered child, delegate the reading of investigative reports to your attorneys? I wouldn't! I'd be all over them to give me a copy. I'd be scrutinizing every word. So the R's and their attorneys did all sorts of legal manipulations to protect the R's. And I wonder if any of the attorneys have ever been told the real truth. But as Lin Wood told JR, his first priority is to defend JR. And JR being ok with that, instead of inserting himself into and managing the "investigative process" speaks volumes to me.

 

[midwest mama]

Hi, maddie. Regarding the reason for Burke asking that question, consider for a moment that he is there listening to Patsy make the 911 call, knowing what happened to his sister, but not knowing all that his parents had done to cover up what actually happened. While she's on the phone, he overhears her tell the 911 operator that she "found a ransom note." Then when they all think the phone had been hung up, he asks, "What did you find?" John answers, "We're not speaking to you." Then Burke asks, "But what DID you find?" (ETA: Burke wants to know about this "ransom note" he heard his mother say she found.)

Another validation Kolar made in the Real Crime interview article was that Burke's voice was heard on the tape, along with JR's and PR's. We might have more questions answered if only the public could hear the emphasis on words and tones that were used.

 

[Roy23]

Another validation Kolar made in the Real Crime interview article was that Burke's voice was heard on the tape, along with JR's and PR's. We might have more questions answered if only the public could hear the emphasis on words and tones that were used.

mama,

Do you still lean IDI?

 

[Tadpole12]

That chance arrow of history is in flight. I'm just as interested in who is NOT going to be coming out of the shadows on these shows as I am in who will actually be appearing.

Right on singularity.
I'm Interested to see how PW's 'new facts' play into BR's account.

 

[Boodles]

And to believe that BDI, I'd have to think he hit her with a head blow. I can't fathom a ten year old luring his sister into the basement and fashioning a garotte to strangle her (and he couldn't have carried her downstairs). Yet her cause of death is strangulation, and it's generally believed that the blow to the skull happened second. The only thing remotely making sense is the EA theory. But it's so bizarre. On Christmas night when everyone's exhausted and there's an early morning flight scheduled?

Not to quote myself, but I misspoke and want to clarify before starting confusion. My comment about a general belief the blow to the skull happened second may not be accurate. I was basing this on Cyril Wecht's assessment and other reading. However, in reading Kolar's book (which I'm doing now), I read on p. 65: "The medical experts were in agreement: the blow to JonBenet's skull had taken place some period of time prior to her death by strangulation."

If Kolar's correct (who knows?), then a BDI theory's much more plausible IMO, with parental staging after the fact. To me, the sequence of the injuries is critical.

For those who've read Thomas's book, does he agree with the Kolar sequence?

 

[singularity]

Hey Tad,
Some readers might miss the reference. The alleged report is from PW's book who received all of her info from Smit and his assistant detectives like O.G. Smit, according to Thomas, Beckner and AH, was 'redesigning' his reports to prove the innocence of the Rs. I place no credibility in that information from her book. In Smit's own questioning of JR he only points to pineapple.

Everyone pointed to the pineapple.....except the Ramseys. Its easy to see why the case rode the pineapple express....there's a bowl of it at the crime scene. All these investigators immediately went "well, I guess 1 +1=2 so lets run with that". That's fine and dandy I suppose until you start seeing the ingredients of a fruit salad in her system. I think we can all agree(including Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles) that cherries and grapes are not in that bowl. Only a handful of websleuths over the years considered the possibility that the pineapple in that bowl was not fresh and may have sat there a day or two(I'm in that group).

I'm not a fan of Smit either....he played a big role in screwing up this case and his interview with John is bordering on dark comedy with a heaping teaspoon of incompetence.

Having said that, including or excluding cherries and grapes does not prove or disprove the innocence of the Ramseys. What it does prove is a botched investigation(this being the cherry on top, pun intended) and that no one cared about the other items because there wasn't a huge bowl of cherries and grapes sitting on the table.

Alleged report? I'm not going to ignore any of the new evidence trickling out or any potentially controversial evidence just because it came from a certain side. We've been lacking in details for years which is why so many pieces of the puzzle are missing. Now we're getting more detail and puzzle pieces. The more we get, the closer we get to the truth. If she's eating various fruit, I want to know so these pineapple bludgeoning theories can be put to bed and we can narrow down what really went on.

If she indeed ate a fruit salad(or just a bit of those three fruits) at the Whites before leaving, this is a HUGE piece of info. It has a major impact on the timeline. It would essentially mean she was likely attacked just moments after getting home.....which means no pineapple snacking at midnight with Burke.

THis is why I hesitate to settle on a specific theory that focuses on only one individual. All it takes is one or two minor new pieces of evidence to bring one of them crashing down.

 

[DeDee]

WHYD

p136 "Remnants of cherries were found in the stomach/proximal area of her small intestine.
Another item besides pineapple was cherries."(BPD Report#1-1348.....

[and grapes]

Heyya sg,

playing catch up... Is there a source?

I think the source was that BR was approached by two detectives back many years ago, iirc. He refused to agree to speak with either of them by saying "No." BR spoke 3 times; twice when he was 9yo and later once again. BRs videotape was used for GJ and, in fact, was the last testimony the GJ heard before issuing the True Bills that remained undisclosed by Alex H. He is another culprit in the cover up.

This critical true GI evidence recorded on the AR should change some minds. Bear in mind, that none of the authors, ST, JK were allowed to release/discuss GJ testimony. Certain things were not allowed open to the public, including redaction in the interrogations, due to GJ secrecy. Two bewildered grand jurors finally released the truth of their signing off on the True Bills.

What we once thought was true, although juxtaposed among questions, is changing in this twentieth anniversary for Justice for JonBenet.

:cheers: Justice for JonBenet

 

[midwest mama]

mama,

Do you still lean IDI?

I lean strongly on JDI being the most culpable, to cover up more secrets than we could ever believe possible within one family. Even secrets that could have stretched to include some of those in his close inner circles.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey Tad,
Some readers might miss the reference. The alleged report is from PW's book who received all of her info from Smit and his assistant detectives like O.G. Smit, according to Thomas, Beckner and AH, was 'redesigning' his reports to prove the innocence of the Rs. I place no credibility in that information from her book. In Smit's own questioning of JR he only points to pineapple.

I agree. Who knows how old those reports are or how much time had passed between receiving information and committing it to report, or if the information was firsthand?

 

[BBB167893]

As an aside, I'm thinking that we need to find a way to make Paula Woodward's initials different from FW's wife Priscilla.

Any ideas?

Yeah, how about AC for @$$-clown?

 

[BBB167893]

Not to quote myself, but I misspoke and want to clarify before starting confusion. My comment about a general belief the blow to the skull happened second may not be accurate. I was basing this on Cyril Wecht's assessment and other reading. However, in reading Kolar's book (which I'm doing now), I read on p. 65: "The medical experts were in agreement: the blow to JonBenet's skull had taken place some period of time prior to her death by strangulation."

If Kolar's correct (who knows?), then a BDI theory's much more plausible IMO, with parental staging after the fact. To me, the sequence of the injuries is critical.

For those who've read Thomas's book, does he agree with the Kolar sequence?

Yes, he does.

 

[madeleine]

Everyone pointed to the pineapple.....except the Ramseys. Its easy to see why the case rode the pineapple express....there's a bowl of it at the crime scene. All these investigators immediately went "well, I guess 1 +1=2 so lets run with that". That's fine and dandy I suppose until you start seeing the ingredients of a fruit salad in her system. I think we can all agree(including Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles) that cherries and grapes are not in that bowl. Only a handful of websleuths over the years considered the possibility that the pineapple in that bowl was not fresh and may have sat there a day or two(I'm in that group).

I'm not a fan of Smit either....he played a big role in screwing up this case and his interview with John is bordering on dark comedy with a heaping teaspoon of incompetence.

Having said that, including or excluding cherries and grapes does not prove or disprove the innocence of the Ramseys. What it does prove is a botched investigation(this being the cherry on top, pun intended) and that no one cared about the other items because there wasn't a huge bowl of cherries and grapes sitting on the table.

Alleged report? I'm not going to ignore any of the new evidence trickling out or any potentially controversial evidence just because it came from a certain side. We've been lacking in details for years which is why so many pieces of the puzzle are missing. Now we're getting more detail and puzzle pieces. The more we get, the closer we get to the truth. If she's eating various fruit, I want to know so these pineapple bludgeoning theories can be put to bed and we can narrow down what really went on.

If she indeed ate a fruit salad(or just a bit of those three fruits) at the Whites before leaving, this is a HUGE piece of info. It has a major impact on the timeline. It would essentially mean she was likely attacked just moments after getting home.....which means no pineapple snacking at midnight with Burke.

THis is why I hesitate to settle on a specific theory that focuses on only one individual. All it takes is one or two minor new pieces of evidence to bring one of them crashing down.

ITA.
And IMO until they will be able to figure out what the murder weapon was we will never be able to tell for sure which one did it.
BUT there is always a problem.How can they check for the murder weapon if they can't even tell what came first , head blow or strangulation....it's always been a vicious circle...there aren't too many puzzle pieces,there are way too many DIFFERENT puzzles when it comes to this crime.The killer having had an accomplice or two which did the staging complicates it even more.I found Thomas to be a bit naive when stating that Patsy did it all by herself without John having a clue.Don't think that happened, at least two of the family members are involved in this ,probably.And by this I mean both the crime and cover-up.