JBR, PR and UMI

[DeeDee249]

Let's draw that picture.

Patsy enters the room. She sees a lump of coverings on the floor under the Christmas tree.

She approaches the lump.

How did she know to fall down on that lump and begin crying?

The lump is motionless. She had not seen it anywhere before, never near the Christmas tree. The sunlight was streaking cold into the room. A sickening feeling made her queasy and lightheaded. Is that Joni? she wonders. It can't be. She was taken. Why isn't she moving? That can't be my baby. Why doesn't it move?

Then what?

Patsy heard FW's calls for an ambulance. She remained in the room with her friends (I think it was the sunroom). No one at that point said anything about JB being dead. If your kidnapped daughter was suddenly found in her own home, wouldn't you come racing out of that room screaming "Where is she?" At that point, Patsy shouldn't have known she was dead- unless she KNEW she was dead.

 

[WHITEFANG]

He didn't "answer" it. He merely said it was ridiculous and he didn't believe it. That's not an answer.
It parallels Patsy answer when told her daughter had been sexually molested. Instead of being horrified, she became defensive and said "You show me where it says that".

1. Your response would have gone something like this....
fill in the blank


.


2. BTW, Where is the proof they murdered Joni?

 

[DeeDee249]

1. Your response would have gone something like this....
fill in the blank


.


2. BTW, Where is the proof they murdered Joni?

If there was PROOF we wouldn't be here. All we have is a collection of evidence which many believe point to the parents.

 

[MurriFlower]

He didn't "answer" it. He merely said it was ridiculous and he didn't believe it. That's not an answer.

No, he didn't need to answer it IMO. Should he have said "no sir, I never did that" which makes him sound as if he did.

It parallels Patsy answer when told her daughter had been sexually molested. Instead of being horrified, she became defensive and said "You show me where it says that".

I think this was referring to a previous history of abuse, not that which occurred during her murder. They were implying that this was something that PR should have/would have known about. This was in the autopsy report, so she asked them to show her where it said that. I'm not sure you can read emotion into those interviews.

 

[WHITEFANG]

"If there was PROOF we wouldn't be here. All we have is a collection of evidence which many believe point to the parents."

Let me see if I've got this. I don't want to put words into your mouth.

Of course Patsy knew the lump of coverings was her daughter. "Are you kidding? 'That lump' was her daughter and she knew it."

"Her hair may have been showing. Body and hands were covered." "Her hands weren't visible. Body was covered with an afghan and sweatshirt- like I said."

"Since none of us were there, we don't know it the top of JB's hair was visible or if her feet were sticking out. We know her at least her face and torso, including arms, would have fit under the average afghan"

"Obviously Patsy's statement about the heart was troubling later,"

"and if Patsy never saw her body in the basement, and her body was already covered with an afghan and sweatshirt when Patsy came into the room and supposedly saw her daughter for the first time since putting her to bed the night before, then...when could Patsy have seen that heart."

Can you tell us what else Patsy did after she realized this was her daughter. Allegedly she said she dropped down on to the body and asked God to raise her from the dead. Are you aware of anything else?

 

[WHITEFANG]

No, he didn't need to answer it IMO. Should he have said "no sir, I never did that" which makes him sound as if he did.



Hey WHITEFANG, did you date BLACKTOOTH way back when? I heard you two used to be pretty hot and heavy. Yep. That's what one of your canine pals told me.

That's ridiculous. I don't believe it. Where did you hear that?

 

[MurriFlower]

No, he didn't need to answer it IMO. Should he have said "no sir, I never did that" which makes him sound as if he did.



Hey WHITEFANG, did you date BLACKTOOTH way back when? I heard you two used to be pretty hot and heavy. Yep. That's what one of your canine pals told me.

That's ridiculous. I don't believe it. Where did you hear that?

Say what you like Whitefang, we know the truth!

 

[WHITEFANG]

Patsy heard FW's calls for an ambulance. She remained in the room with her friends (I think it was the sunroom). No one at that point said anything about JB being dead. If your kidnapped daughter was suddenly found in her own home, wouldn't you come racing out of that room screaming "Where is she?" At that point, Patsy shouldn't have known she was dead- unless she KNEW she was dead.

No. I don't think so. Not after waiting for hours for news. I'd leave that room struggling to stay balanced. I'd might have to crawl. I would be completely, totally, thoroughly (getting the idea?) exhausted from sobbing and screaming uncontrollably, and smashing tables, mirrors, doors, the floor, the car, the walls, until I was bloody.

I would dread the possibility she might be dead. I couldn't bare the thought. I'd be sick as a dog.

 

[MurriFlower]

He didn't "answer" it. He merely said it was ridiculous and he didn't believe it. That's not an answer.
It parallels Patsy answer when told her daughter had been sexually molested. Instead of being horrified, she became defensive and said "You show me where it says that".

A bit late with this, but I think this is the interview where she was first told there may have been some previous sexual contact.

"25 TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
0581
1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
2 intrusion on JonBenet?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
4 Prior to the night she was killed?
5 TOM HANEY: Correct.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.
9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.
11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.
13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.
15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have
16 been violated like that?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This
18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.
19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you
20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't
21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely
23 did not.
24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--
25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to
0582
1 see where it says that and who reported that.
2 TOM HANEY: Okay.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?
4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it
5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot
6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the
7 photos, but--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find
9 that?
10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think
11 it's pretty significant?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn
13 significant. You know, I am shocked.
14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,
15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper
16 whether or not she represented what is true as a
17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too
18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a
19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to
20 be fair to my client.
21 TOM HANEY: And based on the
22 reliable medical information that we have at
23 this point, that is a fact.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say
25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling
0583
1 me here?
2 TOM HANEY: That there was some
3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --
4 something was inserted?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night
6 that she was assaulted?
7 TOM HANEY: That's the--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I
9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
11 shocked.
12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the
13 things that's been bothering us about the case.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.
15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell
16 you?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me
18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --
19 TOM HANEY: Okay, for a second --
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Did you know about
21 this?
22 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: I tried to stay
23 out of the making of the record and inserting
24 myself into the tape-recording of this
25 interview. The newspapers have talked about
0584
1 this. Whether or not--
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they talk
3 about a lot of things that are not true.
4 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: And there has
5 been a debate among the people who talked about
6 the findings in the autopsy report as to whether
7 there was a prior vaginal intrusion or not. So
8 when you ask, either Tom or me or Trip or
9 Jennifer, did we know that, there has been a
10 debate about that. Even in the newspaper.
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I do not know
12 of anything and I am very distressed about this.
13 TOM HANEY: Who could have done
14 such a thing?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I do not know. I
16 don't have any idea.
17 TOM HANEY: What is your best
18 guess?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: I couldn't begin to
20 guess. I am shocked. I don't have any idea. I
21 am just -- I can't believe, I just can't believe
22 this.
23 TOM HANEY: Would that knowledge
24 change your answer to any question that you have
25 been asked?
0585
1 PATSY RAMSEY: No, sir. I have
2 answered every question you or anyone else has
3 asked me to the best of my ability.
4 TOM HANEY: Would that answer or
5 would that statement, that information, would
6 that lead you in any particular direction?
7 Would you think about a particular person being
8 involved or doing something, with JonBenet?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't -- I
10 don't -- I just am shocked is all I can say. I
11 don't -- I don't know what I think. You know, I
12 just want to see where it says that.
13 TOM HANEY: And prior to today, had
14 you heard or read or seen anything about--
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I had heard that
16 the night she was killed that she may have
17 had -- have been sexually assaulted. But not
18 prior to that. Absolutely."

Again, a partial sentence. "I would like to see where it says that and who reported that." They did not show her any report but apparently they were referring to the autopsy. As you can see, PR did not confine her comments to just 9 words as was suggested by DD, but the conversation went on for some time, PR asking for further information, but receiving none. Quotes like I think it's damn
13 significant. You know, I am shocked. and What report as -- I
9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
11 shocked. and Well, I do not know
12 of anything and I am very distressed about this. and I couldn't begin to
20 guess. I am shocked. I don't have any idea. I
21 am just -- I can't believe, I just can't believe
22 this. and I don't -- I
10 don't -- I just am shocked is all I can say. I
11 don't -- I don't know what I think. You know, I
12 just want to see where it says that.,
so PLEASE don't try to tell me that her only words when told that her daughter may have been sexually abused at some time prior to her death was ""You show me where it says that". That's just simple misrepresentation of the facts.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I was agreeing with you.

 

[BBB167893]

No it wouldn't,I am not sure you guys are really interested and I doubt that you can look at this from another point of view.

Leaving aside that I DID look at it from a different point of view at one time, I'll examine anything if I think it can add some insight.

I can't put myself in the mind of the killer because I have NO idea who it is,people were cleared recklessly because LE already "knew" who they want the killer to be

madeleine, that's just the Ramseys' own self-serving propaganda. I eventually came to see it for just what it is: the OJ defense. And I came to see it as that because I came to see the broader canvas, specifically that when you compare the uncooperativeness of the Ramseys with the uncompromising crusading fervor of Marc Klaas, Brenda Van Dam, Erin Runnion, ad nauseam, it is truly the difference between night and day. A difference which Mr. Klaas and Norm Early (among MANY) have pointed out. And those parents had FAR less werewithal than the Ramseys did!

 

[BBB167893]

Re the fibers.
You say that parental fibers (so-called parental fibers) at the crime scene are proof that the parents are involved.

Yep.

What about ALL the OTHER fibers found at the crime scene/body that haven't been sourced?Let me guess,those probably ended up there by innocent transfer right? Why aren't we interested in all the fibers found at the crime scene,no we just pick the ones that seem to fit our theory.

it's because there's no proof that those fibers are connected to that night. There's no way to know how long they were there. Contrast that with the fibers from the Rs. Not only do we know that they wore those clothes that night, but their own statements trap them.

You have to see the broader canvas, madeleine. Now, as for this idea that we only "pick what fits our theory," it helps to remember that solving a crime in real life is a lot different from how crimes are solved in popular fiction. In those stories, every single piece of evidence clicks together completely seamlessly to trap a killer. It just requires a "genius" investogator like Poirot or Columbo or the "CSI" team or whatever the flavor of the month is. That's not how it works in reality. I have yet to find a case where every single thing fit together all kosher like a movie. That's not just me saying that, either. Tom Haney said pretty much the same thing.

 

[BBB167893]

It's more like I wouldn't exclude X or Y from the list.I don't have enough to say I suspect X and only X because I would be lying.Here's my problem,I am not satisfied with how FW,Santa&his family,CW and JMK were investigated.
You probably think that if LE would have done a better job there would have been more evidence against the R's.Fair.I say the same thing re my suspects(maybe suspects is too much,people I have questions about).But the difference is,the R's WERE investigated,the others not.IMO.Not enough at least and it's admitted by the investigators.

Now THAT's something I can get my head around.

 

[BBB167893]

Only important fibers in whose opinion.We don't know whether the unsourced ones are related to the crime or not,maybe they are.We don't even know how many fibers were found on the body or on the tape.We only know about the parental ones because that's what LE chose to talk about.

Maybe they had good reason.

 

[BBB167893]

Let's draw that picture.

Patsy enters the room. She sees a lump of coverings on the floor under the Christmas tree.

She approaches the lump.

How did she know to fall down on that lump and begin crying?

Because in her mind, that's what was "supposed" to happen.

 

[BBB167893]

Sorry, I have to disagree. Someone like you describe would not have left her covered with her blanket hidden away. They'd have left her in plain sight, and she would have been much more physically ravaged. The pedophile sadist would not do this while the parents were home, but he'd have taken her from the house, unconscious or not. A sexual sadist, especially a pedophile, would rape his victim. JB was not raped. I don't think she was tortured either. She wasn't moving when the garrote and tape were applied. There was no evidence of a struggle.

I agree completely. :clap: (So did the FBI, if anyone cares.) We know these things because we have actual killings by psycho pedophiles to compare it to.

 

[BBB167893]

The supposed 'panty' fibers were discussed in an interview with JR, suggesting they came from his shirt, but despite his lawyer's advice, he replied

" 8 THE WITNESS: If the question is

9 how did fibers of your shirt get into your

10 daughter's underwear, I say that is not

11 possible. I don't believe it. That is

12 ridiculous."

So he was asked and answered the question. They showed no proof that they actually had such evidence, so he wasn't obliged to answer at all really was he?

I wouldn't be so confident, MurriFlower. Let's see what Boston sex crimes prosecutor Wendy Murphy said about it:

Ramsey did not answer the question directly. He and his lawyer did what lawyers do when backed into a corner by tough questions: they filibustered and used profanity. Suffice it to say that if they had a legitimate explanation for such damning evidence, there would have been no yelling and no blather.

From a personal standpoint, MurriFlower, if you've never seen John's videotaped reaction, you're really missing out. He almost pooped his pants. They say a hit dog barks...

It's been stated (and I have no reason to disbelieve this) that proof of this type of evidence is not usually provided to defence counsel until charges have been laid.

Right.

I think the fact that charges were not laid speaks for itself (unless you're RDI of course!)

Well, I'll tell you, MurriFlower: if it had been ANY other prosecutor in the country, your argument (and cheap shot) might have some merit. But when you're talking about a prosecutor who hadn't even brought a case to trial in TEN YEARS, the only thing a lack of charges speaks to is the lousy environment that this occured in, wouldn't you say?

This is probably RDI's main 'evidence' together with the RN 'expert analysis'

I find it a very effective one-two punch, yes.

 

[BBB167893]

He didn't "answer" it. He merely said it was ridiculous and he didn't believe it. That's not an answer.
It parallels Patsy answer when told her daughter had been sexually molested. Instead of being horrified, she became defensive and said "You show me where it says that".

An excellent illustration.

 

[BBB167893]

I think this was referring to a previous history of abuse, not that which occurred during her murder.

Right.

They were implying that this was something that PR should have/would have known about.

It helps to remember, MurriFlower that, many times, the other spouse DOES know about it. That said, they may not have implied that at all. They may have thought that it would have been worse to hide it from her.

I'm not sure you can read emotion into those interviews.

Maybe you can. Everyone bear with me here. I'm glad this issue came up. It's a big part of why I started this thread to begin with.

Okay, here goes. My purpose in starting this thread was not to suggest that anyone suffering from mental illness is a dangerous maniac. It was instead an attempt to illustrate the danger of ignoring warning signs and to encourage deeper understanding of those poor souls who are afflicted. We all have stereotyped images of what a so-called "nut" or "psycho" is like: how they look, how they act, etc. The big problem is, most of the time they seem quite ordinary. It's only after something goes wrong that the problem is seen for what it is. The classic case would be Andrea Yates. We all know how that ended up. Her case illustrates the problem of willful denial as well.

I think I had best come clean about something. I wouldn't have started a thread involving Patsy and mental illness if I didn't think that she had issues. But that does NOT mean that I'm not sympathetic. As anyone who reads the original post can see, I did it with the very noblest of intentions. There's a big difference between seeing someone as disturbed and saying that someone is an "evil psycho."

I make no bones about the fact that I believe that Patsy Ramsey was a deeply troubled woman. This thread and "Loved to Death" are my attempts to illustrate that belief. BUT I am NOT trying to paint her as some kind of monster. I'm doing everything I possibly can to convey how much deep sympathy I have for her, even if she is guilty. Far as I go, this case is a tragedy right across the board.

I've stated just now that I believe Patsy was disturbed. There are several reasons for that belief. I don't think that she had a very nurturing childhood. From what I know of her mother, Nedra, she seems like a very controlling, dominating woman, possibly cold. Judging from her adamant statement that JB would do the pageants, it's clear she wasn't leaving any room for argument. Nedra struck me as the kind of mother who demanded nothing but the best from her daughters and would not tolerate anything less.

It's possible Patsy's parents were abusive, maybe physically (although back then the definition of abuse was far less elastic than it is today), more likely emotionally. There is also the chance that PR was sexually abused herself. I admit, I have no concrete proof of that, but I've learned to trust my gut feelings. If you observe her in that interview with Tom Haney, when he asks her if she or her sisters were abused, her demeanor changes dramatically. She becomes small and quiet, like a child in fear of punishment. Her voice is barely audible. She appears to be frightened. You really have to ask: when she said "no" to that question, was she trying to convince Haney or herself? There's also the issue of Patsy's sister Pam. As my own mother pointed out in her own matter-of-fact way, "I'll bet they were. Why do you think Pam let her body go so much, never got married and never had kids?" I have to admit, that got my mind going. Moreover, the idea that Patsy was sexually abused is NOT exclusive to RDI; not by a DAMN sight. I've spoken to many IDIs in my time and there are some (how many exactly I don't know) that think the exact same thing.

If my idea about Nedra is true, it puts a whole new light on JB's pageant participation. I know that RDI takes a lot of heat for using the pageants as a jump-off point for anything in this case. Fang has cetainly hammered me because of it. But when I look at the broader canvas that has been painted here, I can't NOT see it as a factor. Let's face it: we've all heard the stories about pageant moms. We've all seen the TV shows. Anyone who watches them will notice some pretty extreme behavior on the part of the parents, many of whom are trying to capture some personal glory through their children. But what you have to remember is that Patsy took it to a whole other level. Some of the veterans of the child-pageant circuit were troubled by how far she took it. Patsy tried to claim that JB wanted to do this, and that it didn't take up much time. "Just a few Sunday afternoons," she said. Really? Think about how much went into these performances: singing lessons, dancing lessons, modeling lessons, costume fittings and designs, making appearance dates...we're talking dozens of hours and thousands of dollars here. Does anyone here actually think that a parent would put that much time and money and effort into this purely so a child can play "dress-up?" No way. That kind of investment has a lot more behind it. Imagine the kind of pressure that puts on these little girls. We all know they're going to grow up to be "high-maintenance." The best example I can think of is Lynn Spears, mother of Britney and Jaime-Lynn Spears. Go read up on that sometime, then compare it to how those two turned out!

Was Patsy using JB to succeed where she supposedly "failed" and somehow redeem herself in her mother's eyes? I don't know. Maybe. But when a parent puts that much of an investment into their child and something happens that turns those dreams to ashes, people are capable of anything. When your whole world is built on pillars, all if takes is for one to give way and bring your whole world crashing in around you.

Then there's the issue of her disease and treatments. This is one area I have all too much firsthand knowledge about. I watched it kill both of my parents, good people who I loved more than anything. I watched it as it ate away at their minds as well as their bodies, turning them into emotional wrecks. I hardly KNEW my parents after a while. They were like these creatures that I couldn't relate to anymore. When you get cancer, there's two ways it plays out: if either kills you or you beat it. Either way, the damage to the soul is permanent. And there's the issue of Patsy's treatments and medications. We've talked alot lately about the potentially devastating side-effects of the meds she was known to take. If I could be allowed a slight "soapbox" moment here, I think that it's another sign of our overly-medicated society. Drugs are given as a quick fix with little understanding about the long-term damage that may be done. If the medications (whether or not coupled with any of the other issues I've brought up here) are dangerous, then we owe it to both JB AND Patsy to find out more about them and do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

There you have it. Anyone of these problems could lead to horrific ends. It's a lousy, rotten nest of vipers no matter what side you're on.

I've said my piece. And the worst part is, I know it won't do any good. No one will make any attempt to understand it. I honestly don't know what good I'm doing anymore. I don't know why I care anymore. May the gods save my soul, but sometimes I wish I didn't care!

 

[BBB167893]

A bit late with this, but I think this is the interview where she was first told there may have been some previous sexual contact.

That's the one all right! And a key exchange, in my view.

so PLEASE don't try to tell me that her only words when told that her daughter may have been sexually abused at some time prior to her death was ""You show me where it says that". That's just simple misrepresentation of the facts.

Speaking for myself, I've never contended that those were her only words. The problem is that she SAYS she's shocked, but it had all the emotion of a toothpaste advertisement.