Happenings of December 26

[midwest mama]

Pretty much agree, at least it makes a lot of sense, but you know me - I have to throw a monkey wrench into the gears. What about the nightgown? If she's in 12s at the party, and wearing them over pull ups makes sense, then do you figure she was actually put in ljs when arriving home?

Since we KNOW JB was awake enough at one time to eat pineapple, is it impossible that if she was then helped up to bed at a later time, a wet pull-up would have needed to come off before re-positioning the Weds. back up under a pair of lj's? Quite possible she did snuggle down with the 12's and lj's, only to get back out of bed and then change into the Nightgown? Maybe this time, no size 12's, and lj's also tossed aside.

If she was awake (having actually snoozed in the car but awakening to walk into the house) and hyped up from the holiday, she might have had a hard time settling down. If she had a new Barbie, it's even possible she wanted to wear the nightgown just because Barbie was with her that night, and waited until she was left alone to change. Kids will do that - especially little girls.

I feel JB was wearing the pink nightgown when she was assaulted. I also believe the size 12's and lj's were easily found by the person who redressed her, and that person would have had to know she was initially wearing them when she went to her room for bed.

What I find interesting is the bolded section below, posted earlier by madeleine:
LOU SMIT: We have heard
16 that a Barbie nightgown was one of her
17 favorite nightgowns. What can you tell us
18 about that?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: I think she had a
20 Barbie nightgown, yeah, as I recall. Pink,
21 maybe.
22 LOU SMIT: The night you put
23 her in bed, do you remember anything about
24 a Barbie nightgown?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: When I put
0686
1 her to bed she had on, when I laid her
2 down in the bed, she had on what she had
3 worn to the Whites. She had that same
4 shirt on when I found her.


"When I put her to bed she had on, when I laid her down in the bed, (he does not specify or add: upon arriving home and carrying her asleep upstairs) she had on what she had worn to the Whites". Could he have used some subterfuge here and really told us the truth - and she was awake when he "laid her down" before possibly changing her into something else - taking off the wet pull-up, adding the lj's? A guy thing, maybe? And then Patsy joined them for a quick hug and the final tuck into bed? At which time JR exited for the time being?

"She had that same shirt on when I found her". If JR then later came to check back in on JB and found her still awake and wearing the Barbie nightgown by that time..........and then he had to re-dress her - in the same things Patsy would have known she was wearing?

Now I have a headache. We should take out some stock in the Excedrin company.

 

[Chrishope]

Since we KNOW JB was awake enough at one time to eat pineapple, is it impossible that if she was then helped up to bed at a later time, a wet pull-up would have needed to come off before re-positioning the Weds. back up under a pair of lj's? Quite possible she did snuggle down with the 12's and lj's, only to get back out of bed and then change into the Nightgown? Maybe this time, no size 12's, and lj's also tossed aside.

If she was awake (having actually snoozed in the car but awakening to walk into the house) and hyped up from the holiday, she might have had a hard time settling down. If she had a new Barbie, it's even possible she wanted to wear the nightgown just because Barbie was with her that night, and waited until she was left alone to change. Kids will do that - especially little girls.

I feel JB was wearing the pink nightgown when she was assaulted. I also believe the size 12's and lj's were easily found by the person who redressed her, and that person would have had to know she was initially wearing them when she went to her room for bed.

What I find interesting is the bolded section below, posted earlier by madeleine:
LOU SMIT: We have heard
16 that a Barbie nightgown was one of her
17 favorite nightgowns. What can you tell us
18 about that?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: I think she had a
20 Barbie nightgown, yeah, as I recall. Pink,
21 maybe.
22 LOU SMIT: The night you put
23 her in bed, do you remember anything about
24 a Barbie nightgown?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: When I put
0686
1 her to bed she had on, when I laid her
2 down in the bed, she had on what she had
3 worn to the Whites. She had that same
4 shirt on when I found her.


"When I put her to bed she had on, when I laid her down in the bed, (he does not specify or add: upon arriving home and carrying her asleep upstairs) she had on what she had worn to the Whites". Could he have used some subterfuge here and really told us the truth - and she was awake when he "laid her down" before possibly changing her into something else - taking off the wet pull-up, adding the lj's? A guy thing, maybe? And then Patsy joined them for a quick hug and the final tuck into bed? At which time JR exited for the time being?

"She had that same shirt on when I found her". If JR then later came to check back in on JB and found her still awake and wearing the Barbie nightgown by that time..........and then he had to re-dress her - in the same things Patsy would have known she was wearing?

Now I have a headache. We should take out some stock in the Excedrin company.

I can see multiple possibilities. What I'm mainly trying to puzzle out is why the 12s and ljs? You have give a good reason for the 12s, they were worn over pull ups. This would mean they were in her drawer, as PR claimed? I've always thought it was unlikely PR would lie about that particular point, given she knew the question was coming and had doubtless been prepped by her lawyer. But then why do they disappear?

I think I recall PR saying something to the effect that she put the ljs on JB? And that she didn't notice anything unusual about the underwear, and would have noticed if she hadn't been wearing any? But perhaps the 12s are not "unusual" if they are worn over pull ups? Also perhaps pull ups were going to be required on a long plane trip? So she's basically ready for tomorrow?

What I'm puzzling over mostly is the fact that ljs must have been difficult to put on a dead child. They seem a poor choice -I'd bet money JB had a few more nightgowns, besides the bloodstained one. Why the ljs, if other easier choices are available? My take is that other choices were not an option.

It makes sense that the nightgown might have been worn to bed, but that would mean either removing the ljs, or that ljs were never put on her to begin with. If the ljs were not put on to begin with what are they doing in the basement, on the body?

 

[DeeDee249]

So, I think you are right, she probably wore Wed panties and ljs to bed. And the panties she wore were probably the right size. But how would anyone know she wore Wed panties? I have trouble seeing how this could be of any importance. I lean towards the idea that the importance was imagined by someone not very familiar with JBs dressing habits. IMO it is a further indication that PR is not involved - at least not with the redressing.

JB was well known to ask anyone available to help her in the bathroom. There was always the possibility that someone at the White's party had helped her wipe and may have seen the panties she was wearing. These were novelty panties and it is very possible someone would remember them BECAUSE they said "Wednesday". And so this was the reason it was so important that the replacement panties had to be the same.
I believe Patsy bought two sets of Bloomies panties in NYC- one for her niece in size 12 and one for JB in her own size 6-8. There had to be a reason she couldn't be found wearing her own panties. Bloodied or soiled.
The Rs continued to this day to maintain that she was asleep when they got home, never woke up and they put her to bed asleep and never saw her alive again. Of course, the pineapple in her digestive tract ruined that lie for them.There are two things I believe the Rs NEVER thought would become an issue or noticed at all. One is the pineapple in JB's small intestine- no way did they ever think that would show up in an autopsy report and be able to be tested against the pineapple in that bowl on the table and in the fridge.
The other is that they did not think anyone would notice that the panties she was wearing were several sizes too large for her. When they were put on her, the longjohns were put on over them, and she was lying down anyway so under the longjohns it was not apparent that they were so large. Even if they surmised that she would be undressed for an autopsy, they likely felt they'd have been removed and that was that- not that they'd be examined for size. In fact, I think the main reason for a staging-strangulation (as opposed to a strangulation for other reasons) was that they may have felt that since there was a VISIBLE, apparent cause of death (a cord around her neck) that there would not even BE an autopsy. They may not have realized that ANY dead child must be autopsied, especially an apparent murder victim, whether the cause of death is apparent or not.

 

[Chelly]

Chrishope,
Again, generalising. Not at all helpful. JonBenet according to the pineapple evidence was awake period.

What might have taken place, what might have happened the following day etc, are all matters for speculation, they do not form part of the forensic evidence, i.e. pineapple residue found in JonBenet's stomach.


.

Since I recently posted a theory that pineapple could have been delivered to JB in her bedroom by BR, I want to make it clear that I did not imply that JB was asleep while consuming the pineapple. That is silly.

I was proposing a theory that both explained the pineapple in JB's stomach and BR with a flashlight in JB's bed sexually abusing her.


KISS!

 

[Chelly]

midwest mama,
mmm, interesting backtracking here. so JonBenet in your opinion is the author of her own dressing, not really a view I can suscribe to.

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene which includes the size-12's, so stick this in your pipe and smoke on it.


.

BBM.
Rude and inappropriate response.

 

[CorallaroC]

They've all been debated, but of course different people find different things plausible/implausible. People also tend to get hung up on one thing that doesn't make sense, so they can't accept a particular theory. I'd guess that most people are fence sitters for that reason. Understandable, but the case can't be solved by sitting on the fence.
You'll drive yourself crazy trying to account for every detail.

Of course the case never will have an official resolution, and many people would reject it if there was one.

:fence: or :banghead:
For me it depends on how much sleep I've had recently.

But I have not given up hope of there being an official resolution to this case, someday.

 

[midwest mama]

I can see multiple possibilities. What I'm mainly trying to puzzle out is why the 12s and ljs? You have give a good reason for the 12s, they were worn over pull ups. This would mean they were in her drawer, as PR claimed? I've always thought it was unlikely PR would lie about that particular point, given she knew the question was coming and had doubtless been prepped by her lawyer. But then why do they disappear?

I think I recall PR saying something to the effect that she put the ljs on JB? And that she didn't notice anything unusual about the underwear, and would have noticed if she hadn't been wearing any? But perhaps the 12s are not "unusual" if they are worn over pull ups? Also perhaps pull ups were going to be required on a long plane trip? So she's basically ready for tomorrow?

What I'm puzzling over mostly is the fact that ljs must have been difficult to put on a dead child. They seem a poor choice -I'd bet money JB had a few more nightgowns, besides the bloodstained one. Why the ljs, if other easier choices are available? My take is that other choices were not an option.

It makes sense that the nightgown might have been worn to bed, but that would mean either removing the ljs, or that ljs were never put on her to begin with. If the ljs were not put on to begin with what are they doing in the basement, on the body?

Want to add another thing to think about - the lint/dust on the bottom of JB's feet that has been brought up on here before. Some people feel that since she had lint/dust on her feet, she should have at least had her feet touching the ground AFTER the longjohn's were put on, since in putting them on a dead body, the bottoms of her feet should have had lint/dust brushed off or at least disturbed.

If the lj's were the only options for redressing, could they have also been in the dryer with the blanket? Same color type. If JB was redressed in the basement, and the size 12's did come from the basement, maybe the lj's did too? Could she have been wearing the star shirt and those missing pink pj bottoms (that were not found with the matching top on her bed) at first, rather than the lj's?

Oh, heavenly days, where is my Excedrin? Too tired to think straight - off for tonight!

 

[CorallaroC]

Back on pg 15 of this thread, we discussed the "dust and lint" found on her feet and the clothes dryers.. I found mention of both in ST's book:

"Small bits of lint and dust were on her bare feet" (pg 39)

"Eller had his detectives and technicians on jobs ranging from checking the lint trap in the dryer to investigating the significance of the $118,000 ransom demand." (pg 69)
~~~
It makes sense to me that by now BPD knows which area of the house the lint came from.
And also because her feet would've had to be placed into the legs of lj's to get them on, I find it difficult to believe there was any re-dressing after the head blow. jmo, and that is where my mind is stuck right now lol.

 

[CorallaroC]

Want to add another thing to think about - the lint/dust on the bottom of JB's feet that has been brought up on here before. Some people feel that since she had lint/dust on her feet, she should have at least had her feet touching the ground AFTER the longjohn's were put on, since in putting them on a dead body, the bottoms of her feet should have had lint/dust brushed off or at least disturbed.

If the lj's were the only options for redressing, could they have also been in the dryer with the blanket? Same color type. If JB was redressed in the basement, and the size 12's did come from the basement, maybe the lj's did too? Could she have been wearing the star shirt and those missing pink pj bottoms (that were not found with the matching top on her bed) at first, rather than the lj's?

Oh, heavenly days, where is my Excedrin? Too tired to think straight - off for tonight!

Well MM, we were pondering the same thing at the same time LOL. Your thought BBM makes sense, all items together in the same clothes dryer. The re-dressing could have taken place near the dryer - to account for lint on the feet. But the pkg of size 12's - were they in the basement at the wrapping station? or upstairs in JB's bathroom cabinet drawer, wasn't that one of the contradictions in PR's statements? That's why I keep wondering which dryer. It's very important to the case imo.

 

[Chrishope]

JB was well known to ask anyone available to help her in the bathroom. There was always the possibility that someone at the White's party had helped her wipe and may have seen the panties she was wearing. These were novelty panties and it is very possible someone would remember them BECAUSE they said "Wednesday". And so this was the reason it was so important that the replacement panties had to be the same.

For several years I thought exactly the same thing. It seemed to be the reason for the "Wed" pair being specifically selected. However, I finally realized that what she was wearing at the party, and whether or not someone noticed the wed panties, is of no importance. If PR/JR were working together on the coverup, they could simply explain that JB wet herself after returning home from the party. That explains the change of panties. No need at all for them to the same as the one's worn to the party. The story line has to be altered a bit, but if JR/PR are working together, they are in complete control of the story line.

Of course if JR/PR are not working together, if it's one of them working alone, then there might not be the same freedom in dressing her and story line might have to conform to someone else's knowledge of what was true?

There is a drawer full of correct size panties, and the Wed feature can be explained away, if it even needs to be explained, in any scenario in which JR/PR are co-conspirators in the cover up. IMO whoever redressed her used the size 12 Wed panties because that's what she had on at bedtime, or because that's what was available in the basement and they could not risk going upstairs for the right underwear. If JR/PR were working together, then they had complete freedom to redress her as they wished. Someone chose 12/WED because they had no other options.

I believe Patsy bought two sets of Bloomies panties in NYC- one for her niece in size 12 and one for JB in her own size 6-8. There had to be a reason she couldn't be found wearing her own panties. Bloodied or soiled.

That's what I've always thought, but MWM suggests maybe the size 12s were worn to the party over pullups.

The Rs continued to this day to maintain that she was asleep when they got home, never woke up and they put her to bed asleep and never saw her alive again. Of course, the pineapple in her digestive tract ruined that lie for them.

Well, not really. Basically they are denying knowledge of her eating pineapple, or being out of bed after returning home. Depending on the scenario you prefer, at least one parent could be truly ignorant of JB being out of bed or eating pineapple. The other parent has to go along with the story -We put her to bed, she was asleep, we didn't give her pineapple, etc. - otherwise he/she reveals that he/she was up with JB.

Even in some BDI scenarios, if BR did all the nasty stuff, once JR/PR become aware of the situation, they know JB has been up out of bed, but they didn't know it until the grisly discovery. And they still might not know of her eating pineapple.

There are two things I believe the Rs NEVER thought would become an issue or noticed at all. One is the pineapple in JB's small intestine- no way did they ever think that would show up in an autopsy report and be able to be tested against the pineapple in that bowl on the table and in the fridge.

If they didn't know she ate pineapple, then they couldn't have anticipated it becoming an issue. If they did know about the pineapple, then I agree, they just didn't think it would be identified and compared.

The other is that they did not think anyone would notice that the panties she was wearing were several sizes too large for her.

I don't see how that's possible unless they didn't think the ljs would ever be pulled down. In scenarios where they want the police to find the body in the house, they know very well the coroner is going to pull down the ljs. Then there will be questions as to why size 12?

When they were put on her, the longjohns were put on over them, and she was lying down anyway so under the longjohns it was not apparent that they were so large. Even if they surmised that she would be undressed for an autopsy, they likely felt they'd have been removed and that was that- not that they'd be examined for size.

Again, this strikes me as nearly impossible. The panties were much too large. How could the coroner fail to notice that? No close examination of the size tag was needed. Once the ljs were pulled down/off, the panties would have practically fell off.

In fact, I think the main reason for a staging-strangulation (as opposed to a strangulation for other reasons) was that they may have felt that since there was a VISIBLE, apparent cause of death (a cord around her neck) that there would not even BE an autopsy. They may not have realized that ANY dead child must be autopsied, especially an apparent murder victim, whether the cause of death is apparent or not.

I find it very difficult to believe they thought there would be no autopsy.

 

[Chrishope]

:fence: or :banghead:
For me it depends on how much sleep I've had recently.

But I have not given up hope of there being an official resolution to this case, someday.

Well all we can do is keep hope alive.

 

[Chrishope]

Chelly,

I'll try to wrap up my critique of BDI today and tomorrow. 2 or 3 more posts.

I just want to clarify a few things before continuing.

1. You did ask. Bet you wish you hadn't Bet you won't make that mistake again

2. I'm using strong words, such as silly, or ridiculous because that's how I really feel about BDI, and also because I'm not referring to any particular poster or any particular person's case theory. In fact I don't really know the particular details of various poster's case theories -except the DocG theory. (and that's because he made a whole website to detail the theory) I know who's BDI, PDI, etc. but what they think about every little detail of the case I can't say. I have enough trouble organizing my own thoughts on the case. IOWs, I'm criticizing BDI, not any individual poster.

3. Though I make no bones about feeling BDI is nonsense, I do encourage you to look seriously at the more thoughtful BDI arguments. There are some smart people here who believe BDI, in one form or another so maybe there is more to it than I'm seeing?


I'll get back to this topic -the problems with BDI as I see them- a bit later today.

 

[Chrishope]

Since I recently posted a theory that pineapple could have been delivered to JB in her bedroom by BR, I want to make it clear that I did not imply that JB was asleep while consuming the pineapple. That is silly.

I was proposing a theory that both explained the pineapple in JB's stomach and BR with a flashlight in JB's bed sexually abusing her.


KISS!

That would explain why the parents seemed surprised about the pineapple, and why they didn't take any steps to deal with it in their story line.

 

[renah]

I just want to point out that i dont necessarily agree that dressing a dead body in long johns would be more difficult than a nightgown. Ive dressed each of my six kids when they were sleeping and were as limp and loose as i assume a freshly-deceased JB would have been, and given a choice i would MUCH prefer to dress the bottom half!

For me to dress a konked-out child in longjohns (or other similiar fitting bottoms), the process is simple: Gather right leg in one hand by scrunching the material, pull a bit to make sure the foot opening is as large as possible, & then ease the lj leg over the foot. Repeat with other leg, and then pull both up together and you're done. It takes longer to write the process out than it does to enact!
(Also please note that there is no need for the lj's to ever even touch a foot, whether dusty or clean).

With dressing the top half, you've got two limbs that can twist and bend in multiple ways due to elbows, shoulders, etc PLUS the neck, and these three parts also must be coordinated to a large degree so that you dont inadvertently injure the child.

This information probably has little or no effect on the rest of things but i thought it wise to mention since it comes at a point of bedrock in some of the theories shared here.

Oh-- i forgot to mention that the nightgown imo would be even more of a hassle to put on due to static electricity in the cold, dry air of December. Along with the problems already mentioned above, add the fact that it would most likely be sticking closed, front to back, and picking up even more static charge going over the hair! I used to really dislike those nylon nightgowns when getting my girls ready for bed!

 

[Chrishope]

I just want to point out that i dont necessarily agree that dressing a dead body in long johns would be more difficult than a nightgown. Ive dressed each of my six kids when they were sleeping and were as limp and loose as i assume a freshly-deceased JB would have been, and given a choice i would MUCH prefer to dress the bottom half!

For me to dress a konked-out child in longjohns (or other similiar fitting bottoms), the process is simple: Gather right leg in one hand by scrunching the material, pull a bit to make sure the foot opening is as large as possible, & then ease the lj leg over the foot. Repeat with other leg, and then pull both up together and you're done. It takes longer to write the process out than it does to enact!
(Also please note that there is no need for the lj's to ever even touch a foot, whether dusty or clean).

With dressing the top half, you've got two limbs that can twist and bend in multiple ways due to elbows, shoulders, etc PLUS the neck, and these three parts also must be coordinated to a large degree so that you dont inadvertently injure the child.

This information probably has little or no effect on the rest of things but i thought it wise to mention since it comes at a point of bedrock in some of the theories shared here.

Oh-- i forgot to mention that the nightgown imo would be even more of a hassle to put on due to static electricity in the cold, dry air of December. Along with the problems already mentioned above, add the fact that it would most likely be sticking closed, front to back, and picking up even more static charge going over the hair! I used to really dislike those nylon nightgowns when getting my girls ready for bed!

Thank you, that's helpful. I have little experience in dressing children, no experience at all in dressing girls. I would have thought the ljs would be quite a hassle, but I see you have a method that makes it fairly easy.

So maybe the ljs are actually preferred because they are easier.

 

[Chelly]

Chelly,

I'll try to wrap up my critique of BDI today and tomorrow. 2 or 3 more posts.

I just want to clarify a few things before continuing.

1. You did ask. Bet you wish you hadn't Bet you won't make that mistake again

2. I'm using strong words, such as silly, or ridiculous because that's how I really feel about BDI, and also because I'm not referring to any particular poster or any particular person's case theory. In fact I don't really know the particular details of various poster's case theories -except the DocG theory. (and that's because he made a whole website to detail the theory) I know who's BDI, PDI, etc. but what they think about every little detail of the case I can't say. I have enough trouble organizing my own thoughts on the case. IOWs, I'm criticizing BDI, not any individual poster.

3. Though I make no bones about feeling BDI is nonsense, I do encourage you to look seriously at the more thoughtful BDI arguments. There are some smart people here who believe BDI, in one form or another so maybe there is more to it than I'm seeing?


I'll get back to this topic -the problems with BDI as I see them- a bit later today.

BBM. Chrishope, I am not at all sorry I asked and probably will continue to make that mistake ;-). I am naturally curious, respect your view and common-sense opinions. I am grateful that you are willing to devote so much time to recreating your theory that BDI is nonsense. I continue to digest it......like the pineapple slices I ate this a.m. OT, but whenever I eat pineapple, I think of JB>

 

[DeeDee249]

Back on pg 15 of this thread, we discussed the "dust and lint" found on her feet and the clothes dryers.. I found mention of both in ST's book:

"Small bits of lint and dust were on her bare feet" (pg 39)

"Eller had his detectives and technicians on jobs ranging from checking the lint trap in the dryer to investigating the significance of the $118,000 ransom demand." (pg 69)
~~~
It makes sense to me that by now BPD knows which area of the house the lint came from.
.

Don't be so sure about the BPD knowing where the lint came from. The house was released back to the family WAY too soon considering it was such an unsecured active crime scene that was compromised from the first moments.
Although the Rs never went into the house again (as far as we know), Patsy's sister was allowed to roam the house collecting things "for the funeral" unsupervised. Police gave her a BPD jacket to wear (against rules and illegal) so she wouldn't "attract attention". (their words). Not long after, the house was bought by a group of R friends and "investors" and completely emptied of furniture and belongings-and every single surface was whitewashed. Every carpet was pulled up- every scrap of wallpaper was removed and every wall painted white. If there was ever a blood spatter, body fluid, urine etc stain to be found that might have helped determine exactly where she had been killed/molested, it was forever gone. There was so much that investigators could have done after the fact, so much that had come to light and could have been investigated further.

 

[Chrishope]

Chelly,

It will be a few days. I hurt my hand (nothing serious) and it's painful to type. I'll have to lurk for a while. We have plenty of time.

 

[CorallaroC]

I really do think that combination of:
--Kolar's book - which any seasoned sleuther can get months of re-think material from it.
--The revelation of what the GJ really determined
--The case back in the hands pf BPD for active review
--the (hoped for) possibility of BR coming forward for an interview - he is a man now, even his father publicly boasts of his ability to be self-supportive, IMO BR is much wiser now, he loved his sister, and he might turn out to be the #1 person who wants this case solved and can help get it solved once and for all.
---along with fresh thought being discussed here at WS and on other active threads/sites -
--Det Arndt might soon feel comfortable coming forward with the information she learned from PR shortly before PR passed away
---LHP might come forward with more details to help the investigation.

Yes, I expect there to be more news coming before the end of the year. strong hunch of mine

 

[Chrishope]

If BR could not be charged with a crime, why would the adult Ramseys implicate themselves in the murder of their daughter?

IMO this is a no brainer. Rational people (and the Rs were rational) don’t go to prison or get a lethal injection for a crime they did not commit. What else is there to say?

BR is not well served by having two dead parents. That thought must have occurred to both JR and PR, if they were considering covering in a BDI situation. Visiting his parents in prison doesn’t really serve BR well either.

If it’s BDI then the parents would have simply let that be known, through their lawyers. The case would go quietly away, as the perp could not be prosecuted. They had a Public Relations firm on the payroll to massage their public image - an image that is not enhanced or protected by 16 years of speculation and innuendo .


If JR and PR wanted to take the focus off Burke, they could hardly have chosen a worse way to go about it, as about half the RDI world now thinks BDI.

If BR could be charged with murder, it would still be an act of extraordinary self-sacrifice, even for a parent, to take the rap to save their child. Many men are in prison for murder, and not those men’s parents, so apparently parental self-sacrifice isn’t all that common in murder cases. It’s almost believable, but still quite extraordinary, if BR could be charged with a crime. But he couldn’t be. So the notion that the adult Ramseys were willing to face capital murder charges to save BR from – nothing, is utterly, totally ridiculous.

We know now that the GJ wanted to indict the parents, so the possibility of facing murder charges was quite real. Enormous risk, balanced against pretty much no gain. Losing one’s freedom, and possibly life, to prevent a child from having some psychiatric counseling (Which he’d obviously need if he did it) is not plausible.

I don’t know how to place enough emphasis on this. People do not implicate themselves in the murder of their child to “save” the other child who cannot be charged with a crime. This is loopier than a small foreign faction killing JB.