JBR, PR and UMI

[OneLove]

So sorry for the long post! I made it as short as I could.
Becky

Thank you very much for taking the time to type your theory. Since I am open to all reasonable scenarios, even ones that "take imagination", haha, I like to read as many different ones as possible.

Your scenario fits with why the two of them would continue to protect each other to the end, since they would BOTH have committed serious offenses.

I have always been struck by the RN author taking the time to state that "they", as in foreign faction, respect JR's business but not our country. What kind of foreign faction would take the time to go out of their way to pay honor to JR's good business acumen when the man's dead daughter "they" just killed is in the basement? It just seemed to be a special note from one narcissist to another.

So, JKB, in your theory, what do you think the primary motivation was behind JR choosing to "finish off" JB himself rather than calling 911, dating back to when you felt JR knew she was still alive? Financial? Afraid of what medical exams would find elsewhere on her body? Not wanting to go through the hassle of waiting to be declared brain-dead? Just curious. It's pretty darn callous to CHOOSE this way of ending things rather than calling 911 and saying it was an accident. I can't help but feel that he might have been afraid of what JonBenet could say as pertains to HIM rather than saviing Patsy's skin, in this theoretical scenario.

 

[DeeDee249]

In your theory, JBK, how do you feel Patsy's jacket fibers got entwined in the knot of the cord and on the inside of the tape. To me, her fibers in those 2 places put her there when the garrote and tape were applied. If JR did this alone, how could Patsy's fibers in those places have transferred from JR's clothing and not any from JR's clothing? His shirt fibers were found inside the panty crotch, we know, but I haven't seen them noted as having been found anywhere else.
As odious as it is, I feel PR had to be there at the time.

 

[OneLove]

In your theory, JBK, how do you feel Patsy's jacket fibers got entwined in the knot of the cord and on the inside of the tape. To me, her fibers in those 2 places put her there when the garrote and tape were applied. If JR did this alone, how could Patsy's fibers in those places have transferred from JR's clothing and not any from JR's clothing? His shirt fibers were found inside the panty crotch, we know, but I haven't seen them noted as having been found anywhere else.
As odious as it is, I feel PR had to be there at the time.[/QUOTE]

Good point!

Some people, especially 2 who post here, just cannot fathom how a mother who otherwise showed love, compassion, and nurturing behaviors could do such a thing.

It reminds me of several decades ago when I worked for a social service agency advocating for at-risk youth. You simply cannot imagine the horrors I saw, the things that 'loving' family can do to family members. When I ran an emergency shelter for teenage girls, many of them were sexually abused by fathers who were in esteemed positions, such as pastors or civic leaders and who knew that their daughters would never be believed over them. I sometimes had to have police escorts to get these girls to the courthouse safely for their hearings when the "perpetrators" realized the gig really was up and it was about to "go public". Talk about homicidal anger and panic!

I had eventually had two children myself and had to give up this work because it wasn't healthy for my own children. I will say that I learned something unexpected: I once took a popular over-the-counter diet aid. ONCE. It made me so short-tempered that in those few hours alone I was afraid if one of my kids aggravated me, Icould hurt him. It thankfully passed, and I never took one again. But after that, in my social work, I always looked for possibility of diet-pill use, along with the illegal drugs that were so rampant.

Certain drugs AND stress can affect adrenaline. Anger also causes a flush of adrenaline. People with adrenaline flowing can often lift a car or heavy tree branch off a person who is pinned, etc. It is the same way with a person in a fit of anger. A push or shove in anger or a swing of he flashlight IN ANGER can be something entirely different than under other circumstances. People are OFTEN horrified at the things they did IN ANGER or UNDER THE INFLUENCE of drugs that they would never have done otherwise.

I don't find it too hard to believe that either PR or JR did something that night that they would never have done if not in anger, panic, or stress

 

[joeskidbeck]

In your theory, JBK, how do you feel Patsy's jacket fibers got entwined in the knot of the cord and on the inside of the tape. To me, her fibers in those 2 places put her there when the garrote and tape were applied. If JR did this alone, how could Patsy's fibers in those places have transferred from JR's clothing and not any from JR's clothing? His shirt fibers were found inside the panty crotch, we know, but I haven't seen them noted as having been found anywhere else.
As odious as it is, I feel PR had to be there at the time.

Wow, DeeDee. Admittedly, that fact just wasn't in my head, but you are right. Honestly, I guess I haven't wanted to believe that Patsy could have been that person. At one time I thought she could have done every bit of it by herself, but I just didn't think John would have been so loyal to her in that scenario. I have also considered that the big 'ole Maglite was used to hit JB in the head, but I really don't believe it was taken out of the drawer until time to go to the basement, where they would need the light. Honestly, I have tried to stay away from thinking that JB may have been molested by an adult before that night. If she and Burke had played doctor or boyfriend/girlfriend, that I could believe, but would that have left evidence for the dr's to say there was previous abuse? Everytime I hear other people's thoughts on these things, I have to re-think my theory. It might be time for me to go read yours!

 

[joeskidbeck]

Thank you very much for taking the time to type your theory. Since I am open to all reasonable scenarios, even ones that "take imagination", haha, I like to read as many different ones as possible.

Your scenario fits with why the two of them would continue to protect each other to the end, since they would BOTH have committed serious offenses.

I have always been struck by the RN author taking the time to state that "they", as in foreign faction, respect JR's business but not our country. What kind of foreign faction would take the time to go out of their way to pay honor to JR's good business acumen when the man's dead daughter "they" just killed is in the basement? It just seemed to be a special note from one narcissist to another.

So, JKB, in your theory, what do you think the primary motivation was behind JR choosing to "finish off" JB himself rather than calling 911, dating back to when you felt JR knew she was still alive? Financial? Afraid of what medical exams would find elsewhere on her body? Not wanting to go through the hassle of waiting to be declared brain-dead? Just curious. It's pretty darn callous to CHOOSE this way of ending things rather than calling 911 and saying it was an accident. I can't help but feel that he might have been afraid of what JonBenet could say as pertains to HIM rather than saviing Patsy's skin, in this theoretical scenario.

OL, it was the callousness that made me re-think him knowing she was alive. My uncle was decared brain dead and when I went to say goodbye before they turned off the machines, I knew that I would be ok with them stopping life support. His eyes were open and fixed and I knew that he was not in there anymore. It was exactly as if he were already dead even though his body was breathing (of course from the life support). If JonBenet looked anything like that, they had to know she was gone for good. No way she was ever coming back from that. After giving some thought to DeeDee's post about Patsy's fibers being in the garrotte, I believe I may have to tweek my theory. I really don't enjoy doing that.
Oh yeah, the ransom note. I believe it was one narcissist to another. It was John Ramsey to John Ramsey as he totally authored that note. Everyone talks about how Patsy would not have said those things. They are right, she didn't, she only took John's dictation.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

In your theory, JBK, how do you feel Patsy's jacket fibers got entwined in the knot of the cord and on the inside of the tape. To me, her fibers in those 2 places put her there when the garrote and tape were applied. If JR did this alone, how could Patsy's fibers in those places have transferred from JR's clothing and not any from JR's clothing? His shirt fibers were found inside the panty crotch, we know, but I haven't seen them noted as having been found anywhere else.
As odious as it is, I feel PR had to be there at the time.[/QUOTE]

Good point!

Some people, especially 2 who post here, just cannot fathom how a mother who otherwise showed love, compassion, and nurturing behaviors could do such a thing.

It reminds me of several decades ago when I worked for a social service agency advocating for at-risk youth. You simply cannot imagine the horrors I saw, the things that 'loving' family can do to family members. When I ran an emergency shelter for teenage girls, many of them were sexually abused by fathers who were in esteemed positions, such as pastors or civic leaders and who knew that their daughters would never be believed over them. I sometimes had to have police escorts to get these girls to the courthouse safely for their hearings when the "perpetrators" realized the gig really was up and it was about to "go public". Talk about homicidal anger and panic!

I had eventually had two children myself and had to give up this work because it wasn't healthy for my own children. I will say that I learned something unexpected: I once took a popular over-the-counter diet aid. ONCE. It made me so short-tempered that in those few hours alone I was afraid if one of my kids aggravated me, Icould hurt him. It thankfully passed, and I never took one again. But after that, in my social work, I always looked for possibility of diet-pill use, along with the illegal drugs that were so rampant.

Certain drugs AND stress can affect adrenaline. Anger also causes a flush of adrenaline. People with adrenaline flowing can often lift a car or heavy tree branch off a person who is pinned, etc. It is the same way with a person in a fit of anger. A push or shove in anger or a swing of he flashlight IN ANGER can be something entirely different than under other circumstances. People are OFTEN horrified at the things they did IN ANGER or UNDER THE INFLUENCE of drugs that they would never have done otherwise.

I don't find it too hard to believe that either PR or JR did something that night that they would never have done if not in anger, panic, or stress

This argument is necessary because neither PR nor JR had prior conviction, arrest, or even harsh word.

Had PR or JR been suspect BEFORE the murder, the argument would be 'where there's smoke..." and thats probably an understatement. I would pay more attention to that argument for sure.

 

[joeskidbeck]

In your theory, JBK, how do you feel Patsy's jacket fibers got entwined in the knot of the cord and on the inside of the tape. To me, her fibers in those 2 places put her there when the garrote and tape were applied. If JR did this alone, how could Patsy's fibers in those places have transferred from JR's clothing and not any from JR's clothing? His shirt fibers were found inside the panty crotch, we know, but I haven't seen them noted as having been found anywhere else.
As odious as it is, I feel PR had to be there at the time.[/QUOTE]

Good point!

Some people, especially 2 who post here, just cannot fathom how a mother who otherwise showed love, compassion, and nurturing behaviors could do such a thing.

It reminds me of several decades ago when I worked for a social service agency advocating for at-risk youth. You simply cannot imagine the horrors I saw, the things that 'loving' family can do to family members. When I ran an emergency shelter for teenage girls, many of them were sexually abused by fathers who were in esteemed positions, such as pastors or civic leaders and who knew that their daughters would never be believed over them. I sometimes had to have police escorts to get these girls to the courthouse safely for their hearings when the "perpetrators" realized the gig really was up and it was about to "go public". Talk about homicidal anger and panic!

I had eventually had two children myself and had to give up this work because it wasn't healthy for my own children. I will say that I learned something unexpected: I once took a popular over-the-counter diet aid. ONCE. It made me so short-tempered that in those few hours alone I was afraid if one of my kids aggravated me, Icould hurt him. It thankfully passed, and I never took one again. But after that, in my social work, I always looked for possibility of diet-pill use, along with the illegal drugs that were so rampant.

Certain drugs AND stress can affect adrenaline. Anger also causes a flush of adrenaline. People with adrenaline flowing can often lift a car or heavy tree branch off a person who is pinned, etc. It is the same way with a person in a fit of anger. A push or shove in anger or a swing of he flashlight IN ANGER can be something entirely different than under other circumstances. People are OFTEN horrified at the things they did IN ANGER or UNDER THE INFLUENCE of drugs that they would never have done otherwise.

I don't find it too hard to believe that either PR or JR did something that night that they would never have done if not in anger, panic, or stress

OL, this post reminds me of something I did once that I truly have tried not to think about. I wasn't taking diet pills at the time, but I was taking Prozac. It was during a really stressful time for me and my 16 yo daughter (who had only had a car for about 1 month) stayed out all night! Of course she was spending the night with a friend..... Well, the friends mother called me because she didn't trust her daughter who was supposed to be spending the night with my daughter. That night was pure hell! I was convinced that my daughter had been kidnapped, was killed in a accident, carjacked at gunpoint, all the things every mother thinks when one of her own is "missing". The next morning my daughter walks in so nonchalantly, not knowing that I was onto her. I had her sit on the sofa and of course, I ranted and raved for 30 mins. Till this day I don't know what I said to her. She's sitting there, showing absolutely no remorse, actually looking rather bored, when she just stands up and starts walking upstairs to her room. She had no idea that I was right behind her and when she got to her door, she walked in and slammed the door in my face. I now know the meaning of seeing red. I kicked her door in and yanked her out into the hall. By this time my husband had ran upstairs and grabbed me to calm me down. I really don't know what I would have done had he not been there. I promise I have never even spanked my kids! I learned early on that all you had to do was put their nose in a corner for about 30 mins and they figured out what was wrong with their behavior. Sooo thankful that my husband was able to diffuse the situation as I probably could have hurt her and I never would have gotten over that. Sorry for the long post (again), but I do know what I'm talking about in regards to "rage".

 

[joeskidbeck]

This argument is necessary because neither PR nor JR had prior conviction, arrest, or even harsh word.

Had PR or JR been suspect BEFORE the murder, the argument would be 'where there's smoke..." and thats probably an understatement. I would pay more attention to that argument for sure.

How could you possibly know they never had harsh words? They were married long enough to have been off their honeymoon - they had harsh words.

 

[OneLove]

This argument is necessary because neither PR nor JR had prior conviction, arrest, or even harsh word.

Had PR or JR been suspect BEFORE the murder, the argument would be 'where there's smoke..." and thats probably an understatement. I would pay more attention to that argument for sure.

Oh my gosh, I'm glad for you that you have lived to this age with such sweet naivette. Among the parents with abuse so serious as to merit removing the children from their homes, almost NONE had prior convictions or arrests. SOME had parents that were leaders in their churches or were well known in civic endeavors.

The CAPACITY to be abusive is not especially saved for the most derelict criminals. But wouldn't it be grand if it were?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Oh my gosh, I'm glad for you that you have lived to this age with such sweet naivette. Among the parents with abuse so serious as to merit removing the children from their homes, almost NONE had prior convictions or arrests. SOME had parents that were leaders in their churches or were well known in civic endeavors.

The CAPACITY to be abusive is not especially saved for the most derelict criminals. But wouldn't it be grand if it were?

Please your condescening lecture is trite and boring.

There are many cases I'm sure of sudden parental rage, removing children from homes. The point is that your argument is moot when there are priors, and you raise the argument only because there are no priors. Otherwise it would be 'oh where there's smoke there's fire. When, in reality as you yourself said that even if there were prior arrests for sexual abuse, that still doesn't mean JR or PR killed JBR. Especially if such abuse is not 'saved for the most derelict', as it was the most derelict that undoubtedly brutally murdered JBR.

Arguments of what 'usually happens' usually happen when there's nothing concrete or case-specific.

 

[OneLove]

Please your condescening lecture is trite and boring.

There are many cases I'm sure of sudden parental rage, removing children from homes. The point is that your argument is moot when there are priors, and you raise the argument only because there are no priors. Otherwise it would be 'oh where there's smoke there's fire. When, in reality as you yourself said that even if there were prior arrests for sexual abuse, that still doesn't mean JR or PR killed JBR. Especially if such abuse is not 'saved for the most derelict', as it was the most derelict that undoubtedly brutally murdered JBR.
Arguments of what 'usually happens' usually happen when there's nothing concrete or case-specific.

Ahhhh.....your words. I truly hope they don't come back to choke you. Or is the saying haunt? :waitasec:

 

[MurriFlower]

Ahhhh.....your words. I truly hope they don't come back to choke you.

Hmmm, another case of UMI perhaps??

 

[WHITEFANG]

Ahhhh.....your words. I truly hope they don't come back to choke you. Or is the saying haunt? :waitasec:

Tasteful!
Inspector Clouseau to the rescue!
Moe, Larry and Curly.

Major symptoms of BPD? Last time.
Check your conscience and the truth will rise to your karma intuition.
This chick is cooking. Sheer profundity.
What is splitting, babe?
Theories on the causes of BPD? You don't know any? Please, tell me more.

 

[BOESP]

Quoting Holdontoyourhat

Oh my gosh, I'm glad for you that you have lived to this age with such sweet naivette. Among the parents with abuse so serious as to merit removing the children from their homes, almost NONE had prior convictions or arrests. SOME had parents that were leaders in their churches or were well known in civic endeavors. (End HOTYH quote)

The CAPACITY to be abusive is not especially saved for the most derelict criminals. But wouldn't it be grand if it were?

I agree OneLove and would like to suggest, too, that the greatest variety of "derelict criminals" may be found in various Federal Penitentiary institutions. Statistically, based on many sociological studies, if you land your behind in one of them and have been involved in the harmful treatment of a child, your behind is dead meat.

 

[daisydaisy]

I'm not looking to get involved in any "back and forth" - just wanted to make a general comment. All of us have--and are entitled to--our beliefs as to who is responsible for JB's murder.

I know the uncertainty of circumstantial evidence, but I also know that old saying, "If it looks like a duck..." With regard to the possible staging of the scene, it is not lost on me that "all the elements" of a scary, intruder-perpetrated crime are there. There are various "weapons" around (bat in yard, paint brush remnant, rope, flashlight, etc...clearly some directly related and others maybe not). There are multiple "mysterious" items the R's claim not to recognize as having been in their house before (Kleenex, Santa Bear, etc.) There's a note present with a motive. There's an entry/exit point (suitcase under open window right near the body).

So, if "all the elements" of this crime are there - plain as day...why are we still going round and round all these years later? If this was the way an intruder TRULY left the crime scene, all these things would be considered fact as to how it happened -- just without the "who." Does that make sense? On the surface, it looks like something that could have happened, but it's funny that with so many "easy" clues left behind, not many seem to actually believe it. Wonder why?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm not looking to get involved in any "back and forth" - just wanted to make a general comment. All of us have--and are entitled to--our beliefs as to who is responsible for JB's murder.

I know the uncertainty of circumstantial evidence, but I also know that old saying, "If it looks like a duck..." With regard to the possible staging of the scene, it is not lost on me that "all the elements" of a scary, intruder-perpetrated crime are there. There are various "weapons" around (bat in yard, paint brush remnant, rope, flashlight, etc...clearly some directly related and others maybe not). There are multiple "mysterious" items the R's claim not to recognize as having been in their house before (Kleenex, Santa Bear, etc.) There's a note present with a motive. There's an entry/exit point (suitcase under open window right near the body).

So, if "all the elements" of this crime are there - plain as day...why are we still going round and round all these years later? If this was the way an intruder TRULY left the crime scene, all these things would be considered fact as to how it happened -- just without the "who." Does that make sense? On the surface, it looks like something that could have happened, but it's funny that with so many "easy" clues left behind, not many seem to actually believe it. Wonder why?[/quote]

Not many? Hows the DA, the closest investigator LS, the GJ, and the media. Oh, and the FBI's last weigh-in was to help isolate and submit CODIS DNA of an unknown male intruder. BPD has had no non-IDI weigh-in at all lately.

 

[daisydaisy]

Not many? Hows the DA, the closest investigator LS, the GJ, and the media. Oh, and the FBI's last weigh-in was to help isolate and submit CODIS DNA of an unknown male intruder. BPD has had no non-IDI weigh-in at all lately.

Like I said, we are all able to form our own opinions. I didn't say no one believes it, and the people you mentioned can certainly side with the intruder theory. (Although, I'd stop short of grouping "the media" together.) LE should look at all the possibilities, and if some of them think they've reached a satisfactory conclusion, then so be it. But, I--and others--don't have to agree with them, given our own interpretations of the case. (Just like you don't have to agree with me.) I do hope more concrete evidence will present itself one day, but for now, we have to go on what we know and what they've released. Again, just making a general comment about MHO... :twocents:

 

[OneLove]

The absolute bottom line is that someone killed JonBenet. That person is either no longer living, or is still here among us. I believe if that person is still among the living, someone close to them knows or suspects. Usually, people in that capacity are extremely defensive and protective, pointing everywhere else but to the obvious. They often are so extremely defensive that they can seem ill themselves.

For all but the most extreme sociopaths, having committed this kind of crime will eat at their gut continually until signs of their physical and/or mental condition become apparent to others within their sphere. The inability to sleep soundly is particularly present. They often do not LIKE to sleep because of what happens within the subconscious mind when they do. Self-medication by whatever means is easy is also common. Sometimes perpetrators isolate themselves so that their self-hatred is not so easily noticed by others. Sometimes the ongoing sickness leads to a long, slow, decline towards a horrendously painful eventual death of immeasurable suffering; maybe this is better justice than any enforcement system can dole out.

Someone knows.

Both the perpetrator and those who KNOW are suffering, and will continue to do so until the final bell has rung.

Spellcheck me please Fang. I'm feeling a little lazy today. Feel free to add the correct punctuation also. I see that I'm leaving that out too.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

, but it's funny that with so many "easy" clues left behind, not many seem to actually believe it. Wonder why?

This is a vague generalization with zero statistical basis. I suppose that conducting a poll on this forum, you probably find most believe RDI. However the 'not many seem to actually believe IDI' is incorrect as far as those closest to the investigation. Your generalization is not valid with respect to those who are important to the case, those who are informed, those who matter most.

 

[daisydaisy]

This is a vague generalization with zero statistical basis. I suppose that conducting a poll on this forum, you probably find most believe RDI. However the 'not many seem to actually believe IDI' is incorrect as far as those closest to the investigation. Your generalization is not valid with respect to those who are important to the case, those who are informed, those who matter most.

Fair enough, Holdontoyourhat. I wasn't trying to make a statistically-supported, factual statement. (That's why I tried to preface it by saying that I was making a general comment.) If you want to replace "not many seem to actually believe it" with "some still don't seem to actually believe it," that would be fine with me.

I understand the distinction between those closest to the case and those of us just following from a distance, and I really wasn't thinking so much about the involved officials. So, I'm sorry for that confusion. Anyway, it's really more important to me to try and stay productive here to find out what happened; unnecessary/inappropriate generalization really wasn't my intention.