Idea

[pageantmom]

I posted an excerpt of that interview up-thread. To me, it sounds as if Haney is implying that LE found pictures of JB in the basement laundry room, and that those photos were taken of her in that room as well.

I don't think they're clear about whether they were photos taken in the laundry or just photos found there. One line from the interview makes it sound one way and another line makes it sound the other way.
Just one more thing to be confused by. :facepalm:

 

[Anyhoo]

I just snapped to the significance of JB being photographed with that rope: it represents bondage, without JB actually being tied up (at least in that photo; who knows what other, more suggestive photos exist). The thing is to a pedophile mind, just having her in the same picture as the rope is very suggestive and provocative and implies she might be tied up in that rope. This was not an innocent picture.

 

[DeeDee249]

That may be the one I saw. I was amazed to see a picture of her with the rope especially in light of so many people wondering what the rope was doing there. To me the rope was symbolic of something of a dark nature, not an innocent prop.

I disagree. Not everything in this case has a nefarious meaning. I have seen that photos many times, and it is not suggestive to me at all. JB is depicted as a cute little "country girl", wearing jeans, checkered top and bare feet. The rope is part of that image. I do not think it represented bondage.

 

[pageantmom]

I just snapped to the significance of JB being photographed with that rope: it represents bondage, without JB actually being tied up (at least in that photo; who knows what other, more suggestive photos exist). The thing is to a pedophile mind, just having her in the same picture as the rope is very suggestive and provocative and implies she might be tied up in that rope. This was not an innocent picture.

I think the rope is....odd.
My daughter did a whole farm theme one time for her portfolio. This was about a year ago and she's had other ones done since then but back when we did these, everyone else was doing girly themes like "tea party", stuff like that, so I wanted her to have something that was cute, but not so "girly", you know? So...she had pictures playing in a hayloft..pictures holding cute fluffy ducklings....pictures sitting on a fence petting a cow that was on the other side of the fence...pictures pretending like she was painting the barn, stuff like that.
It never occurred to me to have her laying in ropes or have ropes around her. I think it was just an odd choice...to me, it does not look child friendly...in fact, the ropes don't really even make that good of a portfolio shot to be honest.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think they're clear about whether they were photos taken in the laundry or just photos found there. One line from the interview makes it sound one way and another line makes it sound the other way.
Just one more thing to be confused by. :facepalm:

I agree. It was never clearly defined as to whether there were photos of her TAKEN in the laundry room, or photos of her (taken elsewhere) that were simply FOUND in the laundry room.
There was also a little-discussed interview where the roll of film was removed by police from the R's camera and developed, and some photos that LE deemed "odd" were found on the roll. The Rs (I don't recall who was actually asked about it, Patsy or JR) were asked if they could explain why "someone would take a photo like that?". There was no description of the photo, no explanation forthcoming, and so, like so much LE discussed with the Rs in those interviews, simply left to fade away.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think the rope is....odd.
My daughter did a whole farm theme one time for her portfolio. This was about a year ago and she's had other ones done since then but back when we did these, everyone else was doing girly themes like "tea party", stuff like that, so I wanted her to have something that was cute, but not so "girly", you know? So...she had pictures playing in a hayloft..pictures holding cute fluffy ducklings....pictures sitting on a fence petting a cow that was on the other side of the fence...pictures pretending like she was painting the barn, stuff like that.
It never occurred to me to have her laying in ropes or have ropes around her. I think it was just an odd choice...to me, it does not look child friendly...in fact, the ropes don't really even make that good of a portfolio shot to be honest.

It was actually a cute shot- try to find it if you can. The rope does not look "inappropriate". It looks like what it was intended to be- a prop to enhance the "country" theme.

 

[pageantmom]

I agree. It was never clearly defined as to whether there were photos of her TAKEN in the laundry room, or photos of her (taken elsewhere) that were simply FOUND in the laundry room.
There was also a little-discussed interview where the roll of film was removed by police from the R's camera and developed, and some photos that LE deemed "odd" were found on the roll. The Rs (I don't recall who was actually asked about it, Patsy or JR) were asked if they could explain why "someone would take a photo like that?". There was no description of the photo, no explanation forthcoming, and so, like so much LE discussed with the Rs in those interviews, simply left to fade away.

THIS DRIVES ME NUTS. I read the interviews, and there are so many places where I want to stop and go "wait, what?" WHY didn't they follow up more on these things? And if they did, why don't we get to see it?

 

[pageantmom]

It was actually a cute shot- try to find it if you can. The rope does not look "inappropriate". It looks like what it was intended to be- a prop to enhance the "country" theme.

Oh I've seen the pictures. I don't think they're cute though,I just think they look strange.
JonBenet looks adorable in them, as always, and I like a lot of her other portfolio pictures.
But I don't like these. I think the ropes look odd. I never liked her sitting in the ropes.
I think it's true that not everything is nefarious and I'm not saying there WAS any actual bad motive behind the rope pictures, but I just don't think they look right. Moo

 

[dodie20]

I agree. It was never clearly defined as to whether there were photos of her TAKEN in the laundry room, or photos of her (taken elsewhere) that were simply FOUND in the laundry room.
There was also a little-discussed interview where the roll of film was removed by police from the R's camera and developed, and some photos that LE deemed "odd" were found on the roll. The Rs (I don't recall who was actually asked about it, Patsy or JR) were asked if they could explain why "someone would take a photo like that?". There was no description of the photo, no explanation forthcoming, and so, like so much LE discussed with the Rs in those interviews, simply left to fade away.

That part of the interview was a mess. At 1st I was pretty sure some pictures were left in the laundry room, but then I got the impression that the pics were also taken in there. It seemed like the interviewer didn't really want to clear up the confusion. Maybe the killer took the pics from their normal storage place and took them down there that night for some reason...because I don't think they were left down there for a kid or the housekeeper to see. One of BR's friends could have told his parents. I'm guessing there was something suspicious about them, or LE wouldn't have asked about them, kwim? Also I think JR was the one who was asked about the roll of film. Was this when he said something about him maybe taking random shots to finish up the roll so they could get it developed? moo

 

[txsvicki]

Oh I've seen the pictures. I don't think they're cute though,I just think they look strange.
JonBenet looks adorable in them, as always, and I like a lot of her other portfolio pictures.
But I don't like these. I think the ropes look odd. I never liked her sitting in the ropes.
I think it's true that not everything is nefarious and I'm not saying there WAS any actual bad motive behind the rope pictures, but I just don't think they look right. Moo

After looking at the pics again, they don't look very well done. Maybe rushed. JonBenet did look cute, but her bangs weren't fixed very well, the ends of the braids very stiff, and the blouse not laying right at the neck. And, there was so much of that rope. Was it supposed to be a lasso or what.

 

[pageantmom]

After looking at the pics again, they don't look very well done. Maybe rushed. JonBenet did look cute, but her bangs weren't fixed very well, the ends of the braids very stiff, and the blouse not laying right at the neck. And, there was so much of that rope. Was it supposed to be a lasso or what.

Maybe that's it. I just don't think they look "right". They do look rushed, and JB does NOT look happy.
I don't get the rope.. really, NONE of her "farm theme" photos look appropriate to me: In some of them she's laying down, some she's with ropes, and one they have her posing with her mouth wide open which doesn't even look childlike because she's got a ton of lipstick on- why would you have only a touch of lip gloss on for some pictures, but then full red lips for the photo where her mouth is open like that.
No not everything is nefarious but some things just rub you the wrong way.

MOO of course, her best port shot was the one that kind of made you think of Alice in Wonderland.
Her tire swing picture are pretty good too.

IMO the worst portfolio shot ever is this:
I mean my god what were they thinking. :banghead:

 

[dodie20]

http://www.newsweek.com/strange-world-jonbenet-171868 Here's a pretty good article titled, "The Strange World of JonBenet", describing how people looked at the kiddie pageant stuff back in 1997. What a lot of people saw, was this rich family abusing their daughter for all to see, and they got away with it. And then she wound up murdered. Even then, we heard about children being murdered, but this one was different, because there seemed to be so many red flags and warning signs. Weird though, because the other children they mentioned seemed to live normal lives compared to JB. moo

 

[pageantmom]

http://www.newsweek.com/strange-world-jonbenet-171868 Here's a pretty good article titled, "The Strange World of JonBenet", describing how people looked at the kiddie pageant stuff back in 1997. What a lot of people saw, was this rich family abusing their daughter for all to see, and they got away with it. And then she wound up murdered. Even then, we heard about children being murdered, but this one was different, because there seemed to be so many red flags and warning signs. Weird though, because the other children they mentioned seemed to live normal lives compared to JB. moo

I hope it is ok that I copied and pasted a paragraph out of that article. I typed in bold, the regular type is from the article. Just some things that stood out to me:

'A natural': And JonBenet was a standout in that world, winner of the Colorado State All-Star Kids Cover Girl, America's Little Royal Miss and Tiny Miss Beauty, among a long list of other honors.
JB was not a natural, and she was not tough competition. When she did proam, she was very stiff and rehearsed, it did not come naturally to her...and she almost never looked happy onstage...She was VERY, very beautiful, and had a better singing voice than a lot of pageant kids, but, she never won high titles, I can't even think of even a time she got mini supreme, and she was not well known...well, she was a little well known but she was only well known for her strange costumes, yes her costumes were strange even by pageant standards. Personally I like most of her costumes but many of them just weren't right for pageants.
With her swirls of blond hair, she possessed what Colorado pageant promoter Eleanor Von Duyke calls "that great Southern look that pageants really like.
Not long before she was killed, she was chosen for the cover of the spring issue of Babette's Pageant and Talent Gazette, one of the several bibles of the pageant world.
Most people don't know this, but pageant magazines are referred to as "vanity magazines". Covers are bought and paid for. JonBenet wasn't put on the cover of vanity magazines because she was up and coming or famous, it was because either Patsy or a director paid for her to be on the cover. My daughter has been on the cover of two vanity magazines too, because the director of some pageants she did wanted to promote her queens...set the director back $2,500 but that's how vanity magazines work. The only ones you don't pay to get on the cover are Pageantry Magazine (which has been around forever) and Supermodels Unlimited (although you pay to do the photo shoots) and also Child Model Magazine (though you again pay to enter "contests") But pretty much all vanity magazines offer up their spots to the first parents who will pay to have their child's face put on the cover. They also charge somewhat lesser prices for inside cover, back cover, and full Centerfold spread.
Publisher Buffie Davenport described her as "a natural, a real dynamo . . . she was one of the up-and-coming 100 who could win the cars and the cash." The picture will appear, as scheduled, next month.
every director will describe every child as a natural and as up-and-coming. Seriously. New parents get very, very flattered...until they realize that directors are telling all the parents the same thing!

Anyway..that's all I'm quoting from the article.....pageants don't have anything to do with her murder. But they do give us a glimpse into her home life.
This isn't to knock JB. The general public doesn't know a lot about pageants, and talking about magazine covers and beauty titles makes you seem a lot more well known than you actually are.
JonBenet was seriously beautiful..and I think she very well could have been a contender for miss America, if she so chose...but I don't get the idea that she really even liked being in pageants.

And I feel sorry for children who are made to invest so much time, energy, and stress over pageants if it's not what they really want to do.

I also have to say Dodie...That was what you said, is absolutely true.....there weren't any other pageant kids with lives like JonBenets. Her life to me seems so different than what any others pageant kid experienced. Other girls do pageants but also have normal lives, or at least they are able to kind of able to balance two lives- the normal, school and family life on one side, and the other more glamorous life on the other side...I don't envy JB one bit, she led a life of privilege but I don't think she led a very happy life.
:no:

 

[txsvicki]

I don't really understand why the little girls even need photo shoots and portfolios. They aren't models or child actors. The full makeup, hair, and why they are made to look exactly like mini grown women is also baffling. Maybe that's just the way it all evolved, but it seems unnecessary, and I can see why there is concern that the photos and videos could end up in the wrong hands.

 

[borndem]

I agree. It was never clearly defined as to whether there were photos of her TAKEN in the laundry room, or photos of her (taken elsewhere) that were simply FOUND in the laundry room.
There was also a little-discussed interview where the roll of film was removed by police from the R's camera and developed, and some photos that LE deemed "odd" were found on the roll. The Rs (I don't recall who was actually asked about it, Patsy or JR) were asked if they could explain why "someone would take a photo like that?". There was no description of the photo, no explanation forthcoming, and so, like so much LE discussed with the Rs in those interviews, simply left to fade away.

My impression of the discussion, FWIW, is that photos were found in the laundry room.

 

[pageantmom]

:truce:

I don't really understand why the little girls even need photo shoots and portfolios. They aren't models or child actors. The full makeup, hair, and why they are made to look exactly like mini grown women is also baffling. Maybe that's just the way it all evolved, but it seems unnecessary, and I can see why there is concern that the photos and videos could end up in the wrong hands.

I don't worry about the photos falling into the wrong hands any more than parents who post their kids photos on their Facebook page to share with their family...Portfolio shots are almost always natural, not glitz. (There are sometimes glitz ones, but it's not common), the most unnatural thing about them is that they'll be retouched to fix blemishes, scrapes etc and things like that. And they look harmless, like the same pics you would have a regular photographer take of your kids....the difference is that unlike regular kids, pageant kids have like hundreds of photos of themselves. They wouldn't be needed except that when you're going for Supreme, and everyone is, photogenic is almost always included in the breakdown...and portfolio is a substitute for a low score, which can save you.

Things are SO different now than in 1997.

Pageant girls more and more now are also doing modeling and acting, due to the advancement of online video auditions. Two of my daughters friends fly out to LA every few months because they've gotten a tv commercial or guest spot on a cable show from submitting online auditions.

Pageant magazines are on the decline, because we go online to find out news, results, etc. This also means that more people follow pageants- back in the day, regular wouldn't have any way of knowing about the pageants...nowadays anyone can google anything, and anyone make their own website.
TONS of the girls have fan pages, like, multiple fan pages..and they have "official websites" and their own twitters where they talk to fans and stuff like that. (Well obviously these things are run but their mothers!) I've never seen anyone creepy as a "fan", fans are generally young girls who find pageants glamorous but aren't allowed to do them themselves..Of course you just never know. We don't really play that game although I do google my daughters name every couple weeks to make sure there's nothing creepy anywhere.

Also, pageant girls do a lot of publicity type stuff. Several have publicists. (We don't.) a lot of pageant girls do not use their actual names anymore but instead have a stage name.

Many, many pageant girls have their own songs written by songwriters and recorded in a studio and they are on iTunes that you can buy....my daughter did that but just for fun, we don't try to market it.....several girls have their own clothing lines, like Jazzy Wear....they have product placement like jewelry and dolls and magnets....they have business cards...they...oh my. It's a whole different world than it was in 1997.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

:truce:

I don't worry about the photos falling into the wrong hands any more than parents who post their kids photos on their Facebook page to share with their family...Portfolio shots are almost always natural, not glitz. (There are sometimes glitz ones, but it's not common), the most unnatural thing about them is that they'll be retouched to fix blemishes, scrapes etc and things like that. And they look harmless, like the same pics you would have a regular photographer take of your kids....the difference is that unlike regular kids, pageant kids have like hundreds of photos of themselves. They wouldn't be needed except that when you're going for Supreme, and everyone is, photogenic is almost always included in the breakdown...and portfolio is a substitute for a low score, which can save you.

Things are SO different now than in 1997.

Pageant girls more and more now are also doing modeling and acting, due to the advancement of online video auditions. Two of my daughters friends fly out to LA every few months because they've gotten a tv commercial or guest spot on a cable show from submitting online auditions.

Pageant magazines are on the decline, because we go online to find out news, results, etc. This also means that more people follow pageants- back in the day, regular wouldn't have any way of knowing about the pageants...nowadays anyone can google anything, and anyone make their own website.
TONS of the girls have fan pages, like, multiple fan pages..and they have "official websites" and their own twitters where they talk to fans and stuff like that. (Well obviously these things are run but their mothers!) I've never seen anyone creepy as a "fan", fans are generally young girls who find pageants glamorous but aren't allowed to do them themselves..Of course you just never know. We don't really play that game although I do google my daughters name every couple weeks to make sure there's nothing creepy anywhere.

Also, pageant girls do a lot of publicity type stuff. Several have publicists. (We don't.) a lot of pageant girls do not use their actual names anymore but instead have a stage name.

Many, many pageant girls have their own songs written by songwriters and recorded in a studio and they are on iTunes that you can buy....my daughter did that but just for fun, we don't try to market it.....several girls have their own clothing lines, like Jazzy Wear....they have product placement like jewelry and dolls and magnets....they have business cards...they...oh my. It's a whole different world than it was in 1997.

How are shows like "Toddlers and Tiaras" viewed in the pageant world? Is it considered the ultimate "prize" if your child gets featured on it? Would it make a difference if it was a reality show v. documentary in terms of prestige? I suppose T&T is probably one of the best shots a pageant girl has to get more mainstream famous.

 

[Mama2JML]

Maybe that's it. I just don't think they look "right". They do look rushed, and JB does NOT look happy.
I don't get the rope.. really, NONE of her "farm theme" photos look appropriate to me: In some of them she's laying down, some she's with ropes, and one they have her posing with her mouth wide open which doesn't even look childlike because she's got a ton of lipstick on- why would you have only a touch of lip gloss on for some pictures, but then full red lips for the photo where her mouth is open like that.
No not everything is nefarious but some things just rub you the wrong way.

MOO of course, her best port shot was the one that kind of made you think of Alice in Wonderland.
Her tire swing picture are pretty good too.

IMO the worst portfolio shot ever is this: View attachment 39511
I mean my god what were they thinking. :banghead:

I can't imagine anyone choosing that photo for a portfolio. Could this be a shot provided to the tabs, by the photographer who snapped it? Lots of photos are taken during photo shoots, but the majority aren't reprinted.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I can't imagine anyone choosing that photo for a portfolio. Could this be a shot provided to the tabs, by the photographer who snapped it? Lots of photos are taken during photo shoots, but the majority aren't reprinted.

The photoshoot happened on September 4, 1995. I know the date because it was the last day Linda Wilcox worked for the R's, and she mentioned it in an interview. JonBenet's hair was dyed during the Summer of 1995. Now am I mistaken or does it look like JonBenet's hair is different from her natural color and from the blonde shade we normally see on her in pictures? It's more of a strawberry blonde. I guess Patsy was trying out different shades on her? Or maybe it wasn't possible for JonBenet to go from her natural shade to the blonde Patsy wanted in one dye job?

 

[pageantmom]

How are shows like "Toddlers and Tiaras" viewed in the pageant world? Is it considered the ultimate "prize" if your child gets featured on it? Would it make a difference if it was a reality show v. documentary in terms of prestige? I suppose T&T is probably one of the best shots a pageant girl has to get more mainstream famous.

No, to pageant people T&T is something to stay away from.
There have been a FEW serious pageant girls who have been on it (more toward the beginning of the show) but they regretted it, and now for the most part, the only girls you see on there are just hoping for a tv spot but aren't actually big name pageant girls. For example this honey boo boo girl isn't even a pageant girl at all, they only began doing a few pageants because her mom just wanted to do something to try to get on tv.
Also, if you notice, T&T keeps visiting the SAME pageants over and over, just changing the names of the pageant so it won't look like the same thing! They've gone to more Universal Royalty pageants than I can count. The other 2 they repeat are Gold Coast and Southern Celebrity. They just use different names but the reason they keep going to the same ones are that the GOOD pageants won't let them in anymore!!
One reason the good pageants don't allow them, is that they report inaccurate results on the show (they actually film a fake crowning after the real crowning) and also they try to spread rumors to get people arguing, fighting etc and basically just try to stir up drama for their show.
The show just isn't respected, mainly because of how much they ALTER stuff. It's reality tv.
We have been in the background of the show, and have seen them feed kids lines to say (lines mean to make them or their moms look bad), they try to get the kids away from their moms so that the mom won't know the kid is being fed lines.
They film your family anywhere from 3-5 days and if you have a two year old at some point they'll probably have a tantrum over something, well, of course the show has one hour to tell a story, so they will use every piece of bad footage they have and leave out anything good. My daughter is older than that but I mean I have a little girl, not a toddler, but I wouldn't why take the risk, you never know how little kids will act with cameras following their every move...but I think you'd have to be stupid to put an actual toddler on their toddlers are prone to meltdowns anyway.
Now I will say that of course you can't film something that didn't happen- some families really are that crazy! But, they portray that as the "usual thing to expect at pageants" when in actuality, we DONT see that kind of behavior as a regular thing. It's just not how it is.
Back when we were first realizing all this, we and other families would find out T&T will be there, and we would just decide to stay home rather than go to the pageant and be involved in that mess. Drop in entry numbers may be why T&T isn't welcomed to film at the big nationals.

I will say girls who are on T&T have a lot more fans that girls who haven't been. Because young girls watch T&T, young girls who think pageants are neat but either aren't allowed to do them or whatever- just like that show Dance Moms..a lot of young girls watch these things.
But, if it's fans you're wanting, plenty of pageant girls who've never been on these shows have hundreds of fans and so it really isn't necessary.

On the other hand, a few girls we know had been on Little Miss Perfect, a pageant show that isn't on anymore. On that show, everyone reported having a wonderful time, being treated mostly fairly, etc.