Forensic evidence

[JMO8778]

AMES,since you're good at reviewing the interviews,wasn't there somewhere (or maybe it was to a friend of hers?),where Patsy made the comment 'since JonBenet had to go...'. HAD to go??? That sounds like she was killed in order to keep her quiet about something.I may be wrong,but I think I recall reading it somewhere.

 

[Ames]

D ? I think she was too onto saving her own skin to care if the investigator was hot...then again I did not see the investigator:crazy:

LOL...That's so funny. I meant to put D, but I put C by mistake....I noticed my mistake right away, and went back to change it, but it obviously didn't edit. So, I just went back to it, and edited it again. Thanks for drawing that to my attention....I DEFINATELY believe that she was trying to see if he was buying her little act!!!!!

 

[Solace]

AMES,since you're good at reviewing the interviews,wasn't there somewhere (or maybe it was to a friend of hers?),where Patsy made the comment 'since JonBenet had to go...'. HAD to go??? That sounds like she was killed in order to keep her quiet about something.I may be wrong,but I think I recall reading it somewhere.

JMO, yes there is. It is when she is asked how she is handling life now after the death of JB. And she says "since she had to go".

 

[JMO8778]

JMO, yes there is. It is when she is asked how she is handling life now after the death of JB. And she says "since she had to go".

ok,thank you,I thought I remembered that from somewhere.

 

[Albert18]

I think she was just appalled when LE returned from the basement without a peep about finding JB.She must have thought they were going to play her a bit,to see if she knew the body was there.

That's a good thought. I wonder what she was thinking.

Why was that question never asked in the police interviews.

"What were you thinking when the police first returned from the basement and didn't find the body?"

That would have been a great question. Instead we get the mindless drivel in those interviews that reminds me of a kid writing an essay for school that has a 300 word minimum. The only coherent thought is the 300 word minimum.

 

[JMO8778]

That's a good thought. I wonder what she was thinking.

Why was that question never asked in the police interviews.

"What were you thinking when the police first returned from the basement and didn't find the body?"

That would have been a great question. Instead we get the mindless drivel in those interviews that reminds me of a kid writing an essay for school that has a 300 word minimum. The only coherent thought is the 300 word minimum.

wow,that would have been a great question!! all they had to do was get her talking fast enough,long enough,and I think they could have tripped her up and gotten the truth out of her..which might have led to a confession, if she felt she'd let too much out she had no choice but to do so at that point.

 

[icedtea4me]

AMES,since you're good at reviewing the interviews,wasn't there somewhere (or maybe it was to a friend of hers?),where Patsy made the comment 'since JonBenet had to go...'. HAD to go??? That sounds like she was killed in order to keep her quiet about something.I may be wrong,but I think I recall reading it somewhere.

25 THOMAS HANEY: What changes have

0157

1 you seen in yourself since the death, outside of

2 taking away the TV and the newspaper?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: I think the biggest

4 change that I have had personally, um, when I

5 had cancer, I was afraid to die because I had

6 two children and a husband and I didn't want to

7 leave them. And now, I am not afraid, because

8 JonBenet had to go there. If I get cancer

9 again, and you know, I can see her on that side.

10 And then God willing, if I stay healthy, I have

11 my son to enjoy here. And (INAUDIBLE).

12 So I am not -- I am just not afraid

13 anymore.



-Tea

 

[JMO8778]

25 THOMAS HANEY: What changes have

0157

1 you seen in yourself since the death, outside of

2 taking away the TV and the newspaper?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: I think the biggest

4 change that I have had personally, um, when I

5 had cancer, I was afraid to die because I had

6 two children and a husband and I didn't want to

7 leave them. And now, I am not afraid, because

8 JonBenet had to go there. If I get cancer

9 again, and you know, I can see her on that side.

10 And then God willing, if I stay healthy, I have

11 my son to enjoy here. And (INAUDIBLE).

12 So I am not -- I am just not afraid

13 anymore.



-Tea

thank you,I'm not understanding why they weren't interrogated and pressed harder on some of their answers,esp. Patsy's.Most of these appear to be nothing more than polite interviews,and for the most part,other than Thomas,most of us lay ppl here seem to know more than the questioners did and could have gotten more out of them,at least Patsy anyway,her being the emotional one.

 

[DeeDee249]

Let's face it-they were let off softly in all the interviews. No one pushed these people. They were never even made to feel stressed. They were evasive and defensive each and every time- and that was that.
Not that I blame the interviewers for all of it. I've read so-called interviews where R lawyers stymied every single question. The interview sounded like a dialogue of non-sequitors and evasive answers.

 

[JMO8778]

Let's face it-they were let off softly in all the interviews. No one pushed these people. They were never even made to feel stressed. They were evasive and defensive each and every time- and that was that.
Not that I blame the interviewers for all of it. I've read so-called interviews where R lawyers stymied every single question. The interview sounded like a dialogue of non-sequitors and evasive answers.

I agree,with those lawyers around,they were basically allowed to run the whole show !

 

[Ames]

AMES,since you're good at reviewing the interviews,wasn't there somewhere (or maybe it was to a friend of hers?),where Patsy made the comment 'since JonBenet had to go ...'. HAD to go??? That sounds like she was killed in order to keep her quiet about something.I may be wrong,but I think I recall reading it somewhere.

Hi JMO...sorry that I just got around to reading your post. Thanks for the compliment about me reviewing the interviews. Solace beat me to the answer, and you are both correct...Patsy did say that..."since JonBenet had to go there". Very suspicious....HAD to go??? Thanks to Tea for posting that portion of the interview....

 

[Ames]

thank you,I'm not understanding why they weren't interrogated and pressed harder on some of their answers,esp. Patsy's.Most of these appear to be nothing more than polite interviews,and for the most part,other than Thomas,most of us lay ppl here seem to know more than the questioners did and could have gotten more out of them,at least Patsy anyway,her being the emotional one.

The interviewers missed tons of golden opportunities....imo....they would have both been thrown behind bars, if the right questions were asked.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

But why weren't the right questions asked? That's what I can't understand.

 

[coloradokares]

But why weren't the right questions asked? That's what I can't understand.

In a word IMHO Political Empowerment

 

[Ames]

In a word IMHO Political Empowerment

Exactly!!!

 

[Albert18]

But why weren't the right questions asked? That's what I can't understand.

I realize the questioning wasn't done in the heat of the moment and so the questioners were at a disadvantage but that still doesn't excuse their performance.

They had to have understood that for some questions, Patsy and John, particularly Patsy, would have to answer based on a created story and not actual memory. That can be very difficult to do because when you create a story you don't fill in all the details. That can be exposed in questioning but the right questions have to be asked to find this out.

Plus I don't understand why the questions plodded along on a single theme. It allowed John and Patsy to gather their thoughts about that and only that subject.

Wasn't it on Larry King Live where Steve Thomas posed the question, "It was an accident, wasn't it?" That is a great question. I believe John said no, she had her head bashed in or something like that.

If that question had been posed to Patsy in 1997, without smiling John, it would have been a very difficult question for her to answer. My guess is she would have answered with an "I don't know".

If she answered with a "No, it couldn't have been an accident.", which is the answer you would want, then you have an opening. They could have sat back in amazed astonishment, paused for a long, long time, and said "You mean you are telling me this wasn't an accident?" "Holy Cow Patsy, what went wrong?" "You mean it was meant for JonBenet to die that night?" "Was this decided before the party of after you got home?" "Whose decision was this?" "Are you saying it was meant for JonBenet to die before the head injury?" "Was Burke ever in danger?" "Do you think you have strong hands Patsy?"

Open the pores on her face that even Oil of Olay couldn't plug.

 

[JMO8778]

Hi JMO...sorry that I just got around to reading your post. Thanks for the compliment about me reviewing the interviews. Solace beat me to the answer, and you are both correct...Patsy did say that..."since JonBenet had to go there". Very suspicious....HAD to go??? Thanks to Tea for posting that portion of the interview....

no problem,I thought I recalled that from somewhere,and thx Solace,for posting it.

 

[JMO8778]

I realize the questioning wasn't done in the heat of the moment and so the questioners were at a disadvantage but that still doesn't excuse their performance.

I agree,they could have looked back thru the day's answers and probed for more the next day..like 'and what did you do when John screamed for you from the basement?',kind of questions,catch her off guard.

They had to have understood that for some questions, Patsy and John, particularly Patsy, would have to answer based on a created story and not actual memory. That can be very difficult to do because when you create a story you don't fill in all the details. That can be exposed in questioning but the right questions have to be asked to find this out.

absolutely.the truth is easy to remember.plus they could have elaborated on the discrepancies bet. PR and JR.

Plus I don't understand why the questions plodded along on a single theme. It allowed John and Patsy to gather their thoughts about that and only that subject.

yes,that was pretty Kindergartenish,IMO.Unless they thought they both had ADD or something(joking).You'd think the 2 of them were considered mentally slow from reading those interviews.

Wasn't it on Larry King Live where Steve Thomas posed the question, "It was an accident, wasn't it?" That is a great question. I believe John said no, she had her head bashed in or something like that.

If that question had been posed to Patsy in 1997, without smiling John, it would have been a very difficult question for her to answer. My guess is she would have answered with an "I don't know".

If she answered with a "No, it couldn't have been an accident.", which is the answer you would want, then you have an opening. They could have sat back in amazed astonishment, paused for a long, long time, and said "You mean you are telling me this wasn't an accident?" "Holy Cow Patsy, what went wrong?" "You mean it was meant for JonBenet to die that night?" "Was this decided before the party of after you got home?" "Whose decision was this?" "Are you saying it was meant for JonBenet to die before the head injury?" "Was Burke ever in danger?" "Do you think you have strong hands Patsy?"

good ones.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

You'd think the 2 of them were considered mentally slow from reading those interviews.

You really would.

 

[DeeDee249]

I recently re-read an interview with the Rs that took place many months (maybe it was a few years, I don't recall) with R attorney LW present. The condition of the interview was that NO SUBJECT that had already been discussed could be brought up again. Only "new" information. Each and every time the interviewer asked a meaningful question, LW broke in with a forceful comment about his clients will not answer because that subject had been previously known information. When he was accused by the interviewer of hindering the investigation he vigorously denied it. The interview was such a farce. This is what happens when allies in the DA's office give out copies of previous interviews to the suspects lawyers.
I said this at the time- you can tell more about a suspect's guilt by the questions their attorney will NOT let them answer than by all the evasive answers in the world.