accident?

[Eagle1]

That's just it: I don't think she knew until too late.(Re her jacket fibers, or fibers consistent with her jacket?) .................................................

When I really think about it, though, I no longer buy that story that she knew about the fibers, and that's why she did all this, yadda yadda. If that HAD been the case, she wouldn't have been taken so aback when Levin told her about them. (Don't believe me? Watch the video of the 2000 interview when he tells her. She nearly faints.) Moreover, she would have had an answer right then, not TWO YEARS later (no doubt after a great deal of practice).

Nobody can think of everything!

I'll read the preceding posts again to make sure I know what you're talking about, but already started this so I'll finish it. You're saying she did so and so because she knew her fibers might be at the crime scene? I missed it, didn't I? Never mind. I'll read again.

One big thing, though, just for the record, I really don't think any of the Ramseys would have been thinking about BEHEADING when writing the RN.
Someone wrote it who knew about the Adam Walsh case and the (satanic according to a web search yesterday) 7 week training camp Bin Laden allegedly attended, possibly meaning the typically Muslim habit of beheading, which only started about this time (?) may have come from America, spread among Muslims by OBL???

You don't hear of too many beheadings in this nation. Is Adam Walsh the only one? And he was a shy little 6-yr old. How cowardly. Lucas and Toole were also at that camp and Toole I believe confessed, bragging, but evidence was "lost". Where have we heard that expression before in this case? This camp was or is evidently near Atlanta. PD's shy away from confrontations with satanism? I hear some infiltrate PD's. That might account for all the bungling and not opening the wine cellar door, etc., their seeming to all know in advance. (The 666 we're to be watching for in the tech age brags a lot and everyone says "Who can fight the beast?" for a time. A series of "kings" enable him, one of them wounded but survived, possibly Reagan, just a theory. Some church leaders are either figuratively or literally "beheaded for the Word" eventually. Things may get worse before they get better.

This about beheading which someone evidently couldn't resist mentioning, bragging again imo, would put the fiber evidence into perspective, because everything, even DNA, can be planted these days.

Who first pointed out that Patsy was still wearing the same clothes she'd worn at the Whites??? Seems to me that would show who had fibers on the brain and just may have obtained some "consistent" ones with PR's new jacket and something of JR's, not necessarily the black shirt. JAR's blanket in the suitcase I believe was a college one, black and gold, don't know if there was some dark blue in it.

There was also the hate-propaganda, that we only know about in two out-of-state locations, but it may have been covertly done all over the country before the murder for all we know. That'd be another partial reason for the bungling. PD's knew something big was coming down? Possibly. We can't say for sure. In some murder cases fibers might be all-important but all these other factors in this case make that evidence doubtful.

I'm not a criticizing older person, but so we don't get too far out with that distraction do have to ask, has Occam's Razor ever solved any case?

The word "beheaded" is definitely connected with this particular case.

 

[rashomon]

Now this assumption cannot be correct since Patsy was upstairs, and JonBenet's corpse was down in the basement, certainly not in the same room. JonBenet was also wrapped in blankets, those blankets are important in this case, so Patsy flings herself onto the blankets?

UKGuy: Patsy did in fact throw herself on the body: after it had been carried upstairs and placed in front of the Christmas tree, and after John had thrown a blanket taken from the living room on JB's body.
But I don't think Patsy did this to contaminate any possible fiber evidence (I don't believe the Ramseys were that familiar with the role which fibers play when it comes to forensic evidence), I think she did it in preparation for her following dramatic stage performance when she told Jesus to raise JB from the dead just as he had raised Lazarus from the dead.

 

[Solace]

UKGuy: Patsy did in fact throw herself on the body: after it had been carried upstairs and placed in front of the Christmas tree, and after John had thrown a blanket taken from the living room on JB's body.
But I don't think Patsy did this to contaminate any possible fiber evidence (I don't believe the Ramseys were that familiar with the role which fibers play when it comes to forensic evidence), I think she did it in preparation for her following dramatic stage performance when she told Jesus to raise JB from the dead just as he had raised Lazarus from the dead.

I agree with you Rash. But I read an interview with Patsy re fibers and she does say (paraphrasing here) She hugged JonBenet when she was brought up and the fibers could have gotten on Jon Benet that way. Of course the interviewer let it slide and does NOT bring up the fact that the tape, still downstairs, had her fibers on it. She either became savvy after the murder or she was savvy enough to do that. She certainly was putting on an act. What is this "Lord, you raised Lazarus, raise my baby).

I have yet to see one interviewer who really nails them. Barbara Walters let them slide on the polygraphs; John absolutely lied on TV, saying he was NEVER ASKED. When he most certainly was and it is in the interviews 1997 and 1998 by ST and T. Haney). Why Barbara did not ask that question makes me think that she did not want to push it or her researchers were extremely sloppy. Either way, the Ramseys constantly get off in their interviews.

Although I recently saw an A&E with Bill Kurtis and the first thing he says is "The Ramseys say the FBI was not on the scene" and he cuts to John, who is sweating profusely and he says no FBI were there. And then he cuts to Ron Wood, the FBI agent who WAS there. He does not speak with the Ramseys about it on TV, just shows the truth about that statement.

 

[rashomon]

I ask you, would PR have worn the jacket the next morning if she'd known fibers from it would be "found" in these places?

[SuperDave]That's just it: I don't think she knew until too late.

I'll read the preceding posts again to make sure I know what you're talking about, but already started this so I'll finish it. You're saying she did so and so because she knew her fibers might be at the crime scene? I missed it, didn't I? Never mind. I'll read again.

Eagle1, I interpret SuperDave's post that he meant Patsy had no idea that she would be leaving (or had left) behind fibers from her jacket in incriminating locations until it was too late, i. e. until she was confronted with the fiber evidence against her.
I personally believe that Patsy in her panic simply did not think about changing her clothes. I don't think Patsy never went to bed on that night and neither did JB.
And when asked about it later, all Patsy could offer was the lame explanation that she had worn her Christmas party clothes the next day too, for the flight to Michigan. Very implausible.

One big thing, though, just for the record, I really don't think any of the Ramseys would have been thinking about BEHEADING when writing the RN.

And that's exactly why they wrote it: that no one should think the parents were involved, but some saber-swinging foreign faction terrrorists. It sticks out like a sore thumb what the Ramseys were up to here.

Occam's razor applied - John and Patsy's fibers are there because they did this, not because there was an elaborate plan by someone else to make it look like they did

[Eagle1]I'm not a criticizing older person, but so we don't get too far out with that distraction do have to ask, has Occam's Razor ever solved any case?

You bet! For the vast majority of criminal cases are solved by applying Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor simply means that one should cut off all improbable explanations first and look at the most likely explanation. The simplest explanation. So if fibers from Patsy's clothes were found in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tray, according to the Occam's Razor 'Keep it Simple' principle, Patsy was involved in the staging of the scnee.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy: Patsy did in fact throw herself on the body: after it had been carried upstairs and placed in front of the Christmas tree, and after John had thrown a blanket taken from the living room on JB's body.
But I don't think Patsy did this to contaminate any possible fiber evidence (I don't believe the Ramseys were that familiar with the role which fibers play when it comes to forensic evidence), I think she did it in preparation for her following dramatic stage performance when she told Jesus to raise JB from the dead just as he had raised Lazarus from the dead.

rashomon,

Sure she did, but how was she to know in advance she would ever get that opportunity?

She could have been taken directly to the local police station for questioning, while the crime-scene was secured?

The idea that it was preplanned cannot be correct, a better theory would allow Patsy to find JonBenet then hug her directly etc.

Faced with her dead daughter I dont doubt that there was some element of grief in her hugging JonBenet's corpse.

John and Patsy are both involved in JonBenet's death and cover up e.g. Patsy has left a fiber trail down oin the basement and John goes directly to JonBenet's corpse in the wine-cellar. How does that work if a lone parent killed JonBenet?



.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Sure she did, but how was she to know in advance she would ever get that opportunity?

She could have been taken directly to the local police station for questioning, while the crime-scene was secured?

The idea that it was preplanned cannot be correct, a better theory would allow Patsy to find JonBenet then hug her directly etc.

Faced with her dead daughter I dont doubt that there was some element of grief in her hugging JonBenet's corpse.

John and Patsy are both involved in JonBenet's death and cover up e.g. Patsy has left a fiber trail down oin the basement and John goes directly to JonBenet's corpse in the wine-cellar. How does that work if a lone parent killed JonBenet?

As I posted before, I don't think Patsy gave a thought about leaving possible fiber evidence.
And it was only afterwards, when confronted with this evidence, that she tried to wiggle herself out of her predicament, explaining that she had touched JB's body. But since she had not been in the wine cellar, she can't explain the fibers away which were found there.
I too think the Ramseys were in this together. Not only did Patsy leave a fiber trail, John left fibers too: from his shirt, in the crotch area of JB's panties.
Imo one was the perp and the other helped in the cover-up, and the abettor must have had good reasons to help the perp.

 

[UKGuy]

As I posted before, I don't think Patsy gave a thought about leaving possible fiber evidence.
And it was only afterwards, when confronted with this evidence, that she tried to wiggle herself out of her predicament, explaining that she had touched JB's body. But since she had not been in the wine cellar, she can't explain the fibers away which were found there.
I too think the Ramseys were in this together. Not only did Patsy leave a fiber trail, John left fibers too: from his shirt, in the crotch area of JB's panties.
Imo one was the perp and the other helped in the cover-up, and the abettor must have had good reasons to help the perp.

rashomon,

Most likely because both are complicit in the abuse of JonBenet, they either stood or fell together?

Why should John wake up one day and decide to involve himself in a hypothetical accident and decide it has to become a homicide with some sexual trimmings?


.

 

[BBB167893]

I'll read the preceding posts again to make sure I know what you're talking about, but already started this so I'll finish it. You're saying she did so and so because she knew her fibers might be at the crime scene? I missed it, didn't I? Never mind. I'll read again.

To wit:

Eagle1, I interpret SuperDave's post that he meant Patsy had no idea that she would be leaving (or had left) behind fibers from her jacket in incriminating locations until it was too late, i. e. until she was confronted with the fiber evidence against her.

You got it!

A series of "kings" enable him, one of them wounded but survived, possibly Reagan, just a theory.

That's not funny. Ronald Reagan is a personal hero of mine.

I'm not a criticizing older person, but so we don't get too far out with that distraction do have to ask, has Occam's Razor ever solved any case?

To wit:

You bet! For the vast majority of criminal cases are solved by applying Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor simply means that one should cut off all improbable explanations first and look at the most likely explanation. The simplest explanation. So if fibers from Patsy's clothes were found in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tray, according to the Occam's Razor 'Keep it Simple' principle, Patsy was involved in the staging of the scnee.

That's where I was going to end up.

I have yet to see one interviewer who really nails them. Barbara Walters let them slide on the polygraphs; John absolutely lied on TV, saying he was NEVER ASKED. When he most certainly was and it is in the interviews 1997 and 1998 by ST and T. Haney). Why Barbara did not ask that question makes me think that she did not want to push it or her researchers were extremely sloppy. Either way, the Ramseys constantly get off in their interviews.

Well, that other marshmallow-head, Katie Couric, didn't let them off clean with that one. Oh, did Patsy get mad when Katie reminded her that the polugraph was bought and paid for!

Although I recently saw an A&E with Bill Kurtis and the first thing he says is "The Ramseys say the FBI was not on the scene" and he cuts to John, who is sweating profusely and he says no FBI were there. And then he cuts to Ron Walker, the FBI agent who WAS there. He does not speak with the Ramseys about it on TV, just shows the truth about that statement.

Tying in:

And that's exactly why they wrote it: that no one should think the parents were involved, but some saber-swinging foreign faction terrrorists. It sticks out like a sore thumb what the Ramseys were up to here.

Eagle1, in response to your claim that a parent wouldn't think of beheading a child, Ron Walker, same said FBI man, claims that he has worked cases where a parent has done EXACTLY that.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Most likely because both are complicit in the abuse of JonBenet, they either stood or fell together?

Why should John wake up one day and decide to involve himself in a hypothetical accident and decide it has to become a homicide with some sexual trimmings?

UKGuy,

I'm not sure if they were complicit in the abuse of JB, but for some reason they must have had the feeeling that they stood or fell together, otherwise one wouldn't have covered up for the other.

Just a few possible RDI scenarios:

1) Patsy could have surprised John abusing his daughter and directed her rage against JonBenet, yanking her away from him and smashing her head against the bathtub.
In that case it would be common guilt which tied them together. They inflict the paintbrush injury to JB's vagina to hide the signs of chronic abuse. JB is wiped because they want to see if the injury looks convincing enough.

2) Patsy snapped and lost it because of other issues (toileting issues for example, or JB provoked Patsy in some other way). After delivering the head blow to JB in a rage, Patsy desperately tells John what happened. And it is John who suggests to Patsy that they will have to stage a bizarre sexual predator scene (garrote, vaginal injury) because he (without Patsy's knowing about it) had been abusing JB and is afraid that an autopsy will detect the chronic abuse.

3) Or maybe JB told John she was going to tell her mother what he had been doing to her all along, and it was John who bashed JB's head in to silence her? In that case it would even have been murder, for a witness had to be silenced.
But I find it hard to believe that in such a case Patsy would have covered up for John and stay married to the man who had both abused and killed her daughter. I believe in that case Patsy would have suffered a total nervous breakdown.

4) Both could have covered up for Burke (the least likely scenario imo, for fibers from John's shirt found in the crotch area of JB's underwear point to John being the abuser, not Burke).

But the fact that the Ramseys had another child left to be cared for certainly was a strong motive for them to cover up for each other, whatever happened. Not because Burke had anything to do with JB's death, but because they wanted to spare him the nightmare of having one of his parents been sent to prison for the killing of his little sister.

 

[Solace]

To wit:



Well, that other marshmallow-head, Katie Couric, didn't let them off clean with that one. Oh, did Patsy get mad when Katie reminded her that the polugraph was bought and paid for!



How could I have missed the Couric one. I am now going to try and track down the interview and maybe I will find it. Thanks SD.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

I'm not sure if they were complicit in the abuse of JB, but for some reason they must have had the feeeling that they stood or fell together, otherwise one wouldn't have covered up for the other.

Just a few possible RDI scenarios:

1) Patsy could have surprised John abusing his daughter and directed her rage against JonBenet, yanking her away from him and smashing her head against the bathtub.
In that case it would be common guilt which tied them together. They inflict the paintbrush injury to JB's vagina to hide the signs of chronic abuse. JB is wiped because they want to see if the injury looks convincing enough.

2) Patsy snapped and lost it because of other issues (toileting issues for example, or JB provoked Patsy in some other way). After delivering the head blow to JB in a rage, Patsy desperately tells John what happened. And it is John who suggests to Patsy that they will have to stage a bizarre sexual predator scene (garrote, vaginal injury) because he (without Patsy's knowing about it) had been abusing JB and is afraid that an autopsy will detect the chronic abuse.

3) Or maybe JB told John she was going to tell her mother what he had been doing to her all along, and it was John who bashed JB's head in to silence her? In that case it would even have been murder, for a witness had to be silenced.
But I find it hard to believe that in such a case Patsy would have covered up for John and stay married to the man who had both abused and killed her daughter. I believe in that case Patsy would have suffered a total nervous breakdown.

4) Both could have covered up for Burke (the least likely scenario imo, for fibers from John's shirt found in the crotch area of JB's underwear point to John being the abuser, not Burke).

But the fact that the Ramseys had another child left to be cared for certainly was a strong motive for them to cover up for each other, whatever happened. Not because Burke had anything to do with JB's death, but because they wanted to spare him the nightmare of having one of his parents been sent to prison for the killing of his little sister.

rashomon,

I guess any theory consistent with the evidence must be plausible.

1.) Is a popular theory which conveniently falls into the accident category.

2.) Is a generalisation of the Toilet Rage theory and variation on 1.) but with only one parent culpable.

3.) Is similar to that of the BPD e.g. pedophile scenario.

4.) Is another popular theory, but the scale and complexity of the homicide seems inconsistent with the profile of a 9-year old boy, but imo it is a more rational explanation that either of the previous three.

imo you do not stage a homicide to hide an accident, many stagings are the converse with vehicle, arson, and suicide popular methods to staging an accident.

With JonBenet dead, she can no longer be witness against her abuser, possibly a motive, but not a reason to draw attention to this by injuring her with the paintbrush.

2.) Seems the most psychologically satisfying theory, since it separates the diffferent aspects of JonBenet's death according to gender. Something along these lines may be what occurred? But just why should John back up Patsy, and risk a jail sentence if he was not involved, bear in mind the witness to prior abuse is now dead?

I suspect what actually happened is none of the above and is something we have yet to figure out. There are holes in the evidence, questions that have not been asked e.g. they follow naturally from the forensic evidence. Historically the focus has been on theories promoted by BPD ex-detectives, with additional information inserted by the media and the Ramsey's. So the traditional theories may be biased?


.

 

[BBB167893]

Anyone ever consider the "Snow White" idea?

 

[T-Rex]

What--she used to be pure but then she drifted?

 

[JMO8778]

Anyone ever consider the "Snow White" idea?

As in,"who's the fairest of them all",and PR wasn't anymore,JB was so....
...???

 

[BBB167893]

What--she used to be pure but then she drifted?

I needed that! In a way, I suppose you could say that.

As in,"who's the fairest of them all",and PR wasn't anymore,JB was so....
...???

You just nailed it.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

About the Snow White theory - if PR needed to be the fairest of them all, does that mean the attack on JonBenet was intentional and meant to destroy her?

 

[BBB167893]

About the Snow White theory - if PR needed to be the fairest of them all, does that mean the attack on JonBenet was intentional and meant to destroy her?

Maybe, NP. It gets complicated.

Time to spitball!

1) Let's say it was intentional. The supposed brutality could be explained as being done by someone who doesn't know how to kill. (That may sound ridiculous, but Norm Early said basically the same thing.)

2) Let's say it just happened. Denial's not just a river in Egypt anymore, you know? That "Snow White" mentality may have been under the surface. If JB were to say something like, "Daddy says I'm prettier than you," whether meant with malice or not, then it becomes real, you see. It collapses in on you. Who knows what a person in that spot might do?

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Ah, the spitball -

I tend to buy into number two. My thinking is that Patsy had been bottling up things for a while - turning forty, Christmas and all that goes with it, the trip to Michigan, being the only parent that's in charge of the kids on a regular basis, all the events and committees and things she was involved in, perhaps even her cancer and chemo from years before played into it.

I think she hit a breaking point and just lost her hold on it all. And once she lost it, she lost it all the way, and there was no holding back the flood of pent-up emotion and frustration. Patsy's mini me JonBenet wasn't turning like Patsy wanted, was in fact eclipsing her and *gasp* starting to pull away from her, so she was the recipient of the flood.

 

[JMO8778]

Maybe, NP. It gets complicated.

Time to spitball!

1) Let's say it was intentional. The supposed brutality could be explained as being done by someone who doesn't know how to kill. (That may sound ridiculous, but Norm Early said basically the same thing.)

2) Let's say it just happened. Denial's not just a river in Egypt anymore, you know? That "Snow White" mentality may have been under the surface. If JB were to say something like, "Daddy says I'm prettier than you," whether meant with malice or not, then it becomes real, you see. It collapses in on you. Who knows what a person in that spot might do?

Suppose that *did happen..maybe it ties in with JB's comment that she 'didn't feel pretty'?

 

[rashomon]

[SuperDave]2) Let's say it just happened. Denial's not just a river in Egypt anymore, you know? That "Snow White" mentality may have been under the surface. If JB were to say something like, "Daddy says I'm prettier than you," whether meant with malice or not, then it becomes real, you see. It collapses in on you. Who knows what a person in that spot might do?

I tend to buy into number two. My thinking is that Patsy had been bottling up things for a while - turning forty, Christmas and all that goes with it, the trip to Michigan, being the only parent that's in charge of the kids on a regular basis, all the events and committees and things she was involved in, perhaps even her cancer and chemo from years before played into it.

I think she hit a breaking point and just lost her hold on it all. And once she lost it, she lost it all the way, and there was no holding back the flood of pent-up emotion and frustration. Patsy's mini me JonBenet wasn't turning like Patsy wanted, was in fact eclipsing her and *gasp* starting to pull away from her, so she was the recipient of the flood.

NP: I tend to buy into number two also. The Snow White syndrome makes sense. Not that Pasty actually planned a first degree murder (like the wicked queen in the fairy tale who wanted Snow White out of the way), but she may have had feelings of bitter jealousy when looking at JB's budding beauty, while at the same time having to realize that she herself would never be the beautiful Miss West Virginia again.
I suppose tings had been brewing for quite some time and it reached a boiling point. There were a lot of stress factors in Patsy's life, as you have pointed out in your above post. People under extreme stress don't always need a specific motive, all it takes is often only a trigger to unleash their pent-up anger and frustration.