IDIs On This Forum?

[JMO8778]

I do understand what you are saying....but, is it normal course of human conversation to refer to your daughter as "that child"...and in one interview that Patsy gave..."THE child"??

my husb. hated his former job,and he would always say 'I don't even want to go to THAT PLACE today'.
Not that he emphasized those words,but nonetheless, it's a put-down of sorts,IMO.does anyone else think so?

 

[Ames]

my husb. hated his former job,and he would always say 'I don't even want to go to THAT PLACE today'.
Not that he emphasized those words,but nonetheless, it's a put-down of sorts,IMO.does anyone else think so?

And I hate to admit this, but with my first daughter...I had a c-section, and couldn't get around, or do much for her. My mother in law came to help out, and she bonded with my mother in law, instead of me. I called my mom, and was crying...and I kept referring to my daughter...as THAT baby. I said..."That baby doesn't even like me, she has bonded with my mother in law, instead of me". I referred to her more than once, as THAT baby. She had a name...I just didn't use it. I just didn't feel as close to her as I should have. My mother in law, overheard my conversation with my mom, and told me that she was going to go home...we lived in another city, so that I could bond with my daughter. She was doing EVERYTHING for her....she bathed her, and fed her...and rocked her to sleep. She cried her head off when I tried to hold her. It was quite obvious that she preferred my MIL over me. So she became..."THAT baby"....to me. Thank GOD..that all changed after my MIL left.

 

[Ames]

As I am typing this post, I am watching Court TV...theres a story about a mother that says that she woke up to find her infant son missing. She finally told one of the investigators..."I will tell you where he is, if you give me a cigarette". Well, after she has her smoke... she leads them to a lake, where her infant son's body is found, with two large rocks on top of him...weighing him down, in a foot of water. She said that she had put the baby into an infant tub, and as she was bathing him, the phone rang...so she took the phone outside to talk on the deck, and to smoke...(she said that she never smoked in front of the baby)...well she was gone 7 -10 min. and when she came back, the baby had drowned in the tub. She panicked....(sound familiar?)...and place the baby in her car, and drove him to the lake, placed him in the water, and placed the rocks on top of him. The first jury in her trial, deadlocked....11 to 1...and in the second trial, the jury found her guilty of 2nd degree murder, and she was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, it was a way of distancing themselves....from JB. Same as referring her to THAT CHILD, and in Patsy's interview about the crab that JB ate, she was asked if JB had anything other than that...and she said..."I really can't tell you what THE CHILD ate". Its a way of distancing....they never mentioned JB's name in the RN...she is referred to as your daughter. The Ramsey's walked out of their home that night, and never looked back. Even Burke, said that he wanted to get on with his life, and when asked by a Psychiatrist to draw a family picture...he drew everyone in his family, except for JB....and that was just days after the murder. The DR. thought that this was odd, saying that most children, after the death of a sibling, will FOR YEARS...include the deceased sibling in drawings. Burke, his mom and dad....just completely forgot that JB even existed. Remember the photos of JB that was found in the trash? In their minds...she never existed. I believe that they did this, to cope with what they had did.

The idea that PR distanced herself from JBR is one more in a series of claims relating to after-the-fact behavior on the part of the R's that RDI clings to.

These claims (not really established fact) also include leaving the state and country, leaving JBR too soon, sending BR off to play, etc. etc.

Unfortunately for RDI, you can't really use the after-the-fact behavior to establish guilt, making these claims almost irrelevant. There's a shortage of before-the-fact behavior that would truely be incriminating (BR draws a picture without JBR before the fact, for example). This is why all the examples of so-called odd R behavior are always after the fact.

 

[Ames]

The idea that PR distanced herself from JBR is one more in a series of claims relating to after-the-fact behavior on the part of the R's that RDI clings to.

These claims (not really established fact) also include leaving the state and country, leaving JBR too soon, sending BR off to play, etc. etc.

Unfortunately for RDI, you can't really use the after-the-fact behavior to establish guilt, making these claims almost irrelevant. There's a shortage of before-the-fact behavior that would truely be incriminating (BR draws a picture without JBR before the fact, for example). This is why all the examples of so-called odd R behavior are always after the fact.

Well, even the DR. thought that this was weird..that Burke would draw a family picture, leaving out JB...just days after her murder.

And the Ramsey's behavior is NOT the only thing that we, as RDI's cling to. We also cling to the fact that the RN was bogus, that ten experts say that Patsy wrote it, that the flashlight including the batteries were wiped down. Why would an intruder wipe down the batteries...those are on the INSIDE of the flashlight...his prints wouldn't be on them...so why wipe them off too? Because the same prints that were on the flashlight, were also on the batteries...and that would have to be the OWNER of the flashlight....the Ramsey's. How would an intruder know where to find the size 12 panties...you know what...the list goes ON AND ON AND ON AND ON....but, I am way too tired to go over all of this YET AGAIN. Maybe I will feel more like going over it again with you for the 100th time, tomorrow. Good night...

 

[lilywhite]

Unfortunately for RDI, you can't really use the after-the-fact behavior to establish guilt, making these claims almost irrelevant. There's a shortage of before-the-fact behavior that would truely be incriminating (BR draws a picture without JBR before the fact, for example). This is why all the examples of so-called odd R behavior are always after the fact.

Well, of course they are. Before they killed her, they hadn't killed her yet, for crying out loud. Why act guilty then?

 

[sister]

I don't think one can put too much credence to pronoun usage in this situation. These were interviews, so if I am answering a question that is about someone, and the question names them specifically, most people, when answering, will insert a pronoun in place of the persons name.

Example:

Q: What did JonBenet do during that day?
A: She played with her friends.

By using the pronoun "she" in place of her name, I don't see how that is distancing her from JonBenet in any way. By that example, in order to not distance herself from her she would need to answer specific questions in the following manner:

Q: What did JonBenet do during that day?
A: JonBenet played with her friends.

It is the normal course of human conversation to use pronoun verbage in place of ones name when the conversation is already established to be about a particular person.

Words can be interpreted in so many different ways. I don't think this is a sign of Patsy's guilt. My family had a hard time talking about my sister after she disappeared, therefore I unfortunately grew up that way also. It must have been very hard on Burke.

 

[Rino]

This is flatly wrong, because 'Don't think that killing will be difficult' is clearly future tense, and not necessarily referring to the killing of JBR. It would be better for your argument if the RN read "Dont think the killing was difficult." That would sound like the deed is already done, and would have referred to JBR specifically.

I disagree, it is an empty threat - she is already dead.

Who in heavens name is it referring to then? The letter is addressed to John, extorting John, lying about kidnapping Johns daughter, lying about killing her if the demands are not met, lying about beheadding her if authorities are contacted, lying about calling around 10:00, lying about pick up and delivery of the ransom. The left in was left in and written in John house.

We have a novel of a note riddles with lies, yet you choose to believe the killer would not have used improper tense?

 

[Rino]

Unfortunately for RDI, you can't really use the after-the-fact behavior to establish guilt, making these claims almost irrelevant. There's a shortage of before-the-fact behavior that would truely be incriminating (BR draws a picture without JBR before the fact, for example). This is why all the examples of so-called odd R behavior are always after the fact.

Sure you can, thats exaclty how a police sting would work. In the Edelman case it was after-the-fact behavior that got his goose cooked.

 

[Solace]

Sure you can, thats exaclty how a police sting would work. In the Edelman case it was after-the-fact behavior that got his goose cooked.

And lets not forget the lovely Scott Peterson.

 

[Solace]

Well, even the DR. thought that this was weird..that Burke would draw a family picture, leaving out JB...just days after her murder.

And the Ramsey's behavior is NOT the only thing that we, as RDI's cling to. We also cling to the fact that the RN was bogus, that ten experts say that Patsy wrote it, that the flashlight including the batteries were wiped down. Why would an intruder wipe down the batteries...those are on the INSIDE of the flashlight...his prints wouldn't be on them...so why wipe them off too? Because the same prints that were on the flashlight, were also on the batteries...and that would have to be the OWNER of the flashlight....the Ramsey's. How would an intruder know where to find the size 12 panties...you know what...the list goes ON AND ON AND ON AND ON....but, I am way too tired to go over all of this YET AGAIN. Maybe I will feel more like going over it again with you for the 100th time, tomorrow. Good night...

If ever there were a child who wanted to forget this whole thing, it is Burke Ramsey. He is going to suffer for it when he is 40. He has not addressed it and it started young with the drawing of the pictures. IMO

 

[Squishified]

If ever there were a child who wanted to forget this whole thing, it is Burke Ramsey. He is going to suffer for it when he is 40. He has not addressed it and it started young with the drawing of the pictures. IMO

I worry for Burke. I hope now that he's in college he doesn't get involved with drugs or alcohol to deal with his past.

 

[BOESP]

I disagree, it is an empty threat - she is already dead.

Who in heavens name is it referring to then? The letter is addressed to John, extorting John, lying about kidnapping Johns daughter, lying about killing her if the demands are not met, lying about beheadding her if authorities are contacted, lying about calling around 10:00, lying about pick up and delivery of the ransom. The left in was left in and written in John house.

We have a novel of a note riddles with lies, yet you choose to believe the killer would not have used improper tense?

Rino, I agree with you. Plus, no legitimate criminal is going to leave behind unnecessary evidence such as the ransom note and a body arrayed as JonBenet's was, especially one astute enough to wipe down the flashlight. It just doesn't wash.

 

[BOESP]

The idea that PR distanced herself from JBR is one more in a series of claims relating to after-the-fact behavior on the part of the R's that RDI clings to.

These claims (not really established fact) also include leaving the state and country, leaving JBR too soon, sending BR off to play, etc. etc.

Unfortunately for RDI, you can't really use the after-the-fact behavior to establish guilt, making these claims almost irrelevant. There's a shortage of before-the-fact behavior that would truely be incriminating (BR draws a picture without JBR before the fact, for example). This is why all the examples of so-called odd R behavior are always after the fact.

Holdon, I strongly disagree. Parents who act as the Ramseys acted in the weeks and months after JonBenet's death are hiding something. Weird or not, in my eyes, they acted guilty. They acted totally inappropriately compared to the behavior of most parents whose six-year-old daughter is dead from non-criminal action, let alone one killed in the home on Christmas night.

 

[JMO8778]

As I am typing this post, I am watching Court TV...theres a story about a mother that says that she woke up to find her infant son missing. She finally told one of the investigators..."I will tell you where he is, if you give me a cigarette". Well, after she has her smoke... she leads them to a lake, where her infant son's body is found, with two large rocks on top of him...weighing him down, in a foot of water. She said that she had put the baby into an infant tub, and as she was bathing him, the phone rang...so she took the phone outside to talk on the deck, and to smoke...(she said that she never smoked in front of the baby)...well she was gone 7 -10 min. and when she came back, the baby had drowned in the tub. She panicked....(sound familiar?)...and place the baby in her car, and drove him to the lake, placed him in the water, and placed the rocks on top of him. The first jury in her trial, deadlocked....11 to 1...and in the second trial, the jury found her guilty of 2nd degree murder, and she was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

I remember that story !! that happened several yrs ago,didn't it? I didn't believe her.she never tried to get the baby any help at all...then the way she disposed of his body.....wow.and didn't she even come home and take a nap after that???!! I'm so glad she went to prison ! Last I recall,she and her husb. were talking about having more kids....thk goodness she can't now !!! I suspect the baby was colicky or something and she couldn't handle it.how many moms would put their baby in the bath and walk off,even if the phone rang?? to heck w the phone ! to heck w the cig ! she could have smoked right there anyway !!

edited to add: now that I think of it,didn't she at first say the baby was abducted while she was taking a nap?

 

[JMO8778]

And I hate to admit this, but with my first daughter...I had a c-section, and couldn't get around, or do much for her. My mother in law came to help out, and she bonded with my mother in law, instead of me. I called my mom, and was crying...and I kept referring to my daughter...as THAT baby. I said..."That baby doesn't even like me, she has bonded with my mother in law, instead of me". I referred to her more than once, as THAT baby. She had a name...I just didn't use it. I just didn't feel as close to her as I should have. My mother in law, overheard my conversation with my mom, and told me that she was going to go home...we lived in another city, so that I could bond with my daughter. She was doing EVERYTHING for her....she bathed her, and fed her...and rocked her to sleep. She cried her head off when I tried to hold her. It was quite obvious that she preferred my MIL over me. So she became..."THAT baby"....to me. Thank GOD..that all changed after my MIL left.

sounds like your MIL was completely taking over instead of just being there to help out!

 

[JMO8778]

Well, even the DR. thought that this was weird..that Burke would draw a family picture, leaving out JB...just days after her murder.

And the Ramsey's behavior is NOT the only thing that we, as RDI's cling to. We also cling to the fact that the RN was bogus, that ten experts say that Patsy wrote it, that the flashlight including the batteries were wiped down. Why would an intruder wipe down the batteries...those are on the INSIDE of the flashlight...his prints wouldn't be on them...so why wipe them off too? Because the same prints that were on the flashlight, were also on the batteries...and that would have to be the OWNER of the flashlight....the Ramsey's.

right,I think they used it to get around without turning on the lights...and they thought nbors might have seen it...so they wiped it off,placed it on the counter...(they wouldn't have put it back in the drawer..they wanted to distance themselves from it).. and said it wasn't theirs.

 

[Ames]

Rino, I agree with you. Plus, no legitimate criminal is going to leave behind unnecessary evidence such as the ransom note and a body arrayed as JonBenet's was, especially one astute enough to wipe down the flashlight. It just doesn't wash.

And the BATTERIES...that's what gets me..and is a major, MAJOR red flag. I have said many, many times before....WHY would an intruder wipe down he batteries....they are on the INSIDE of the flashlight. The only prints that would be on the batteries....are of the person that put the batteries into the flashlight. WHICH WOULD BE....one of the Ramsey's. Patsy is questioned about this....and she said that inserting batteries "was not her thing". So, that would leave JOHN....afterall it was HIS flashlight. An intruder would have NO PURPOSE whatsoever for wiping prints off of the flashlight batteries.

 

[Ames]

Holdon, I strongly disagree. Parents who act as the Ramseys acted in the weeks and months after JonBenet's death are hiding something. Weird or not, in my eyes, they acted guilty. They acted totally inappropriately compared to the behavior of most parents whose six-year-old daughter is dead from non-criminal action, let alone one killed in the home on Christmas night.

John and Patsy were ...as LA put it...."distant from each other", when the friends and police were there. There was NO communication from them whatsoever....John was in one room, and Patsy in the other....being comforted by her FRIENDS.....not her husband. This ...alone in itself....is strange behavior, from parents that just had their baby girl kidnapped.

 

[Ames]

I remember that story !! that happened several yrs ago,didn't it? I didn't believe her.she never tried to get the baby any help at all...then the way she disposed of his body.....wow.and didn't she even come home and take a nap after that???!! I'm so glad she went to prison ! Last I recall,she and her husb. were talking about having more kids....thk goodness she can't now !!! I suspect the baby was colicky or something and she couldn't handle it.how many moms would put their baby in the bath and walk off,even if the phone rang?? to heck w the phone ! to heck w the cig ! she could have smoked right there anyway !!

edited to add: now that I think of it,didn't she at first say the baby was abducted while she was taking a nap?

Yes, she at first did say that the baby was abducted while she was taking a nap, but during the interogation, the investigator told her that in ALL of his years in law enforcement, he had NEVER heard of anyone coming into someone else's house..and kidnapping their child. There was water in the tub, so the bathtub scenario is probably what happened...she was an idiot for leaving it alone like that. She said that she had removed the removable foam that you place into the infant tub, to make it more comfortable, she removed it, because she said that the baby fit better, without it. Keep in mind that he was not even a month old yet. She did come home and took a nap, after she placed him in the lake...but, that was probably more of a stage...then anything. Because she was "sleeping" when her husband came home from work...and he came in and said..."Where's the baby??!?!?!" And then her acting began..."OH NOOOOO..someone must have came in while I was sleeping, and took him". Her husband is still sticking by her...the FOOL. :doh: And yes, they did say that they wanted MORE kids....(again...:doh: ). And yes, this happened a few years ago. But, it just goes to show that people...when they are panicking...and trying to save their own butts....are willing to do ANYTHING.