No intruder?

[Agatha_C]

Well, HOTYH, it's not like we haven't said this a million times before, but I'll thank you to remember that the 20 experts you speak of, by JR's OWN ADMISSION, were not there to conduct an investigation, but rather to muddy up the waters and keep him and PR out of prison by any means necessary.

I just thought it would help to remember that.

:yourock:

 

[BBB167893]

Beck,

The Rs never seemed able to say her name, its all part of the distancing I guess.

CLASSIC distancing, Agatha.

There are so many things that bother me about LKL, interviews. I especially dislike how easy LK was on them.

It comes from being dead for the last 15 years.

 

[joeskidbeck]

:shocked2: :yes:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

One thing at a time, please.

Yes, I DID skip the second question. With good reason: in order to tackle the second question, we have to establish the answer to the FIRST question, don't we?

I didn't know there were so many rules going on. Maybe ask one of your entourage for help if you are unable to tackle these by yourself?

It seems that the obsession with movies is in fact the primary lead provided by the 20 or so experts plus the R's that were hot on the case. It was the first and most distinctive profile characteristic that was published in 1997 by investigators fresh on the case. It seems BPD published zero profile characteristics.

Your claim that they each had an ulterior motive is, well, just a claim and can be added to your list of chronic RDI claims. You know, the ones that are made but can't be proved?

Thanks for all your help, and have a Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I didn't know there were so many rules going on. Maybe ask one of your entourage for help if you are unable to tackle these by yourself?

It seems that the obsession with movies is in fact the primary lead provided by the 20 or so experts plus the R's that were hot on the case. It was the first and most distinctive profile characteristic that was published in 1997 by investigators fresh on the case. It seems BPD published zero profile characteristics.

Your claim that they each had an ulterior motive is, well, just a claim and can be added to your list of chronic RDI claims. You know, the ones that are made but can't be proved?

Thanks for all your help, and have a Merry Christmas everyone!

The movie references were the primary lead? What, by the Ramseys? lol. Well, they were hardly going to say "Yeah, um, we did it guys" were they? Thus, they would chase any lead, however silly (and all fake leads were silly) so as to make it appear they were looking for an intruder.

You're conflating two things -- just because there were movie references does not mean that whoever wrote the note was an obsessive movie type.It certainly doesn't mean that an intruder was an obsessive movie type.Did you ever consider that perhaps the movie references were included by say, Patsy, in order to add in silly info to confuse the Police for when they would read the note?

You are assuming that the ransom note was wrote by an intruder -- can I please ask what source you have which proves this?

I guess it isn't from the handwriting experts who refused to rule out Patsy as the ransom note author..............................after analysing 70+ suspects.

 

[UKGuy]

The movie references were the primary lead? What, by the Ramseys? lol. Well, they were hardly going to say "Yeah, um, we did it guys" were they? Thus, they would chase any lead, however silly (and all fake leads were silly) so as to make it appear they were looking for an intruder.

You're conflating two things -- just because there were movie references does not mean that whoever wrote the note was an obsessive movie type.It certainly doesn't mean that an intruder was an obsessive movie type.Did you ever consider that perhaps the movie references were included by say, Patsy, in order to add in silly info to confuse the Police for when they would read the note?

You are assuming that the ransom note was wrote by an intruder -- can I please ask what source you have which proves this?

I guess it isn't from the handwriting experts who refused to rule out Patsy as the ransom note author..............................after analysing 70+ suspects.

Let_Forever_Be,
My take on the RN is that , assuming it was authored by Patsy, the movie references allow Patsy to use the movie quotes as a way to avoid using her own particular idiom for say , dont try to grow a brain etc.

Since the quotes are from mass media and not some obscure rare manuscript or religious tract then identifying the author is made more difficult.

And since the RN is staging just like the wine-cellar is staged then it cannot tell you much about JonBenet's final moments.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I must be somehow mistaken...but I can't convince myself 100%.

I finished reading Patsy's interview with Michael Kane...no reference there, but I did hear a couple of interesting things regarding Burke's Grand Jury testimony:

Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots with with a compass on them...

Bat found outside the Butlers Pantry was indeed Burkes.

These are answers Burke gave during Grand Jury proceedings.

Toltec,
Yes Burke cannot be entirely excluded, I have an ancilliary theory that includes Burke, since in general I find Patsy less credible as a suspect than either John or Burke.

These pink bottoms interest me, alike in a Holmes book when the hound never barked.

A few questions follow: if the pink top was under the pillow why were the bottoms not there?

Was the pink top placed there after JonBenet's death?

Are the pink bottoms missing in the same sense that the size-6 underwear is missing?

Patsy clearly states that she could not find the bottoms so went hunting for a replacement e.g. the longjohns, so if we think it is all staged then she must have knowledge that the bottoms are missing? Or are the bottoms missing simply to make the story about the longjohns consistent? Seems to me if the bottoms were available and you want to portray a bedtime abduction then pink pajamas seem to fill the bill?

Something does not quite add up here?


.

 

[otg]

Let_Forever_Be,
My take on the RN is that , assuming it was authored by Patsy, the movie references allow Patsy to use the movie quotes as a way to avoid using her own particular idiom for say , dont try to grow a brain etc.

Since the quotes are from mass media and not some obscure rare manuscript or religious tract then identifying the author is made more difficult.

And since the RN is staging just like the wine-cellar is staged then it cannot tell you much about JonBenet's final moments.

(my bold)

Exactly, UKG, which is why we should first look at what we know to be evidence and see what it tells us. Then if we are correct in our conclusions, the other things that don't make sense, will.

Toltec,
Yes Burke cannot be entirely excluded, I have an ancilliary theory that includes Burke, since in general I find Patsy less credible as a suspect than either John or Burke.

These pink bottoms interest me, alike in a Holmes book when the hound never barked.

A few questions follow: if the pink top was under the pillow why were the bottoms not there?

Was the pink top placed there after JonBenet's death?

Are the pink bottoms missing in the same sense that the size-6 underwear is missing?

Patsy clearly states that she could not find the bottoms so went hunting for a replacement e.g. the longjohns, so if we think it is all staged then she must have knowledge that the bottoms are missing? Or are the bottoms missing simply to make the story about the longjohns consistent? Seems to me if the bottoms were available and you want to portray a bedtime abduction then pink pajamas seem to fill the bill?

Something does not quite add up here?

And couldn't we use someone like Sherlock now, UKG? I don't think all these clues will tell us what happened, unless we have someone like Holmes who can deduce from the circumstances exactly what happened. But even if we were able to deduce the answer, it would not be enough to get a conviction. Can you imagine trying to tell a jury about how the pink pajama bottoms were first here, and then they were moved to this location because of this reason, so therefore "Soandso" must have killed JonBenet?

 

[BBB167893]

I didn't know there were so many rules going on.

It's not a rule; it's a request.

Maybe ask one of your entourage for help if you are unable to tackle these by yourself?

1) I didn't know I HAD an entourage.

2) Since when do I NEED help?

3) As for unable, we can't talk about the second thing until we establish the first thing, now can we?

It seems that the obsession with movies is in fact the primary lead provided by the 20 or so experts plus the R's that were hot on the case.

"Hot on the case?" Your mileage may vary. That said, I'm sure it was, possibly as an attempt to play on popular fears. Don't forget: the mid-90s was the height of Middle American fears over videogame and movie violence churning out a generation of psychopaths.

It was the first and most distinctive profile characteristic that was published in 1997 by investigators fresh on the case.

Which should tell you something...

It seems BPD published zero profile characteristics.

Meaning what, HOTYH?

Your claim that they each had an ulterior motive is, well, just a claim

I don't know about that, HOTYH. Look, I don't know for sure who came up with this profile information or what their motives were, but in the end, it makes no difference. For all I know, the person who came up with it may have had motives as pure as driven snow. But that doesn't matter, because they were still working for a suspect and a lawyer who KNEW the WHOLE TIME that the purpose of this exercise was not to find a killer, but to keep the prime suspects out of prison. And we KNOW that, because all parties involved have admitted it!

Let me lay this illustration on you: my dad was a US Marine serving in Vietnam. He had to face two enemies: the Army of North Vietnam, which was trying to conquer South Vietnam, and the Viet Cong, southern terrorists allied with the North. The VC claimed to be (and were portrayed as) a local uprising battling the corrupt forces of the SV gov't. The truth was that, while the average VC grunt may have believed that, the VC was nothing more than a puppet of the NV gov't, and its leaders acting on the North's behalf. It didn't matter if the average grunt truly believed himself to be a freedom fighter. His ideals were merely useful tools to his bosses.

Is everybody getting what I'm trying to say here?

and can be added to your list of chronic RDI claims.

It's a LONG list. And I'm not through yet.

You know, the ones that are made but can't be proved?

Just you WATCH me!

Thanks for all your help,

If I thought for a minute that you actually WERE grateful for everything I've tried to do around here, maybe I wouldn't be so upset.

and have a Merry Christmas everyone!

You too, brother. And I mean that.

 

[BBB167893]

The movie references were the primary lead? What, by the Ramseys? lol. Well, they were hardly going to say "Yeah, um, we did it guys" were they? Thus, they would chase any lead, however silly (and all fake leads were silly) so as to make it appear they were looking for an intruder.

You're conflating two things -- just because there were movie references does not mean that whoever wrote the note was an obsessive movie type.It certainly doesn't mean that an intruder was an obsessive movie type.Did you ever consider that perhaps the movie references were included by say, Patsy, in order to add in silly info to confuse the Police for when they would read the note?

You are assuming that the ransom note was wrote by an intruder -- can I please ask what source you have which proves this?

I guess it isn't from the handwriting experts who refused to rule out Patsy as the ransom note author..............................after analysing 70+ suspects.

That's about how I'd say it, too.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,
My take on the RN is that , assuming it was authored by Patsy, the movie references allow Patsy to use the movie quotes as a way to avoid using her own particular idiom for say , dont try to grow a brain etc.

Since the quotes are from mass media and not some obscure rare manuscript or religious tract then identifying the author is made more difficult.

And since the RN is staging just like the wine-cellar is staged then it cannot tell you much about JonBenet's final moments.

.

I agree 100%.

The ransom note had an overly contrived nature to it which was deliberate in its attempt to confuse the police and create a diversion/ruse to the real crime.

The part of the note which says "we are a small foreign faction.." is just really odd. Why would a perpetrator emphasise that they are small? -- its a clue to who they are which goes against the blatant attempts to disguise themselves via cleaning flashlight batteries etc.

I think that phrase is really a reflection of the inner machinations of Patsy's mind pouring out over the note -- as she was writing the note, she was thinking who would actually put out a ransom?. Her idea was that a small foreign-faction would do it -- thus she wrote it down. But in truth it added a detail which an intruder probably wouldn't reveal of themselves.

 

[SunnieRN]

Hi Sunnie! For fun sometime, read the transcription of the LKL episode that featured the Ramseys and Steve Thomas and just start counting how many times they refer to JonBenet as "that child" or "this child".

I have Beck. Problem is, that is not the only example of their choice in 'endearments'.. They always refer to Jon Benet as 'that girl', 'that child', this child', etc. Very, very sad.

I don't think I have ever heard ANY other victims parents refer to their child that way.

 

[DeeDee249]

Toltec,
Yes Burke cannot be entirely excluded, I have an ancilliary theory that includes Burke, since in general I find Patsy less credible as a suspect than either John or Burke.

These pink bottoms interest me, alike in a Holmes book when the hound never barked.

A few questions follow: if the pink top was under the pillow why were the bottoms not there?

Was the pink top placed there after JonBenet's death?

Are the pink bottoms missing in the same sense that the size-6 underwear is missing?

Patsy clearly states that she could not find the bottoms so went hunting for a replacement e.g. the longjohns, so if we think it is all staged then she must have knowledge that the bottoms are missing? Or are the bottoms missing simply to make the story about the longjohns consistent? Seems to me if the bottoms were available and you want to portray a bedtime abduction then pink pajamas seem to fill the bill?

Something does not quite add up here?


.

If JB had wet or soiled those pink bottoms, then they'd be missing like the size-6 panties are missing. And they were probably taken from the house along with them. IT has not been established as fact that the pink bottoms were in BR's room. I can't believe that would not be considered important to the case. BUT- with BR as the perp, it makes perfect sense that the pink bottoms in his room were "ignored".

 

[UKGuy]

If JB had wet or soiled those pink bottoms, then they'd be missing like the size-6 panties are missing. And they were probably taken from the house along with them. IT has not been established as fact that the pink bottoms were in BR's room. I can't believe that would not be considered important to the case. BUT- with BR as the perp, it makes perfect sense that the pink bottoms in his room were "ignored".

DeeDee249,

Missing alike the size-6's? So why has BPD not told us this, no mention in Steve Thomas' book either, this is very curious.

Do you mean "ignored" in the legal sense e.g. minimum age of criminal responsibility?

Looks more probable that JonBenet was wearing the pink pajamas at some point, then when the staging was amended e.g. red turtleneck, which was then changed to the white gap top to match a minimal account of events.

So if Patsy enters JonBenet's bathroom opens a drawer and removes a pair of longjohns then why not another pair of clean size-6's underwear, she must have known a pair was required. Instead she opts for the size-12's?

Patsy says the pink bottoms are missing so why not take out a different set of pajamas, why opt for longjohns, or keep it simple and just leave JonBenet bottomless in her size-6 underwear and socks?

Looks like the pink pajama bottoms might be missing precisely because they contain forensic evidence?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

Missing alike the size-6's? So why has BPD not told us this, no mention in Steve Thomas' book either, this is very curious.

Do you mean "ignored" in the legal sense e.g. minimum age of criminal responsibility?

Looks more probable that JonBenet was wearing the pink pajamas at some point, then when the staging was amended e.g. red turtleneck, which was then changed to the white gap top to match a minimal account of events.

So if Patsy enters JonBenet's bathroom opens a drawer and removes a pair of longjohns then why not another pair of clean size-6's underwear, she must have known a pair was required. Instead she opts for the size-12's?

Patsy says the pink bottoms are missing so why not take out a different set of pajamas, why opt for longjohns, or keep it simple and just leave JonBenet bottomless in her size-6 underwear and socks?

Looks like the pink pajama bottoms might be missing precisely because they contain forensic evidence?

.

I don't think they ARE missing, I think they could be. I find it odd that they are not listed as having been taken into evidence. If they were found in BR's room, or wherever they were found, pajama bottoms belonging to a murdered child that also had indications of sexual assault WOULD be very important. It would be a tremendous error to have not taken them into evidence (nothing surprises me, though).
So I think that they could be "ignored" from a legal aspect because they were in BR's room. And as far as this case- BR has to be legally "ignored".
As far as Patsy- if she couldn't find the pink bottoms and grabbed the longjohns because they were handy, it doesn't mean she had to go to a drawer to get them. In the Rs messy house, they could have been lying around JB's room. At that point, assuming JB was changed into the longjohns before the events of the night, there might not have been a need for clean panties at that point, so the questions regarding Patsy getting the longjohns versus pajamas, etc. may not be part of the events of the night. As to why not leave JB bottomless- kids don't always stay covered under blankets as they sleep. I wouldn't have left my child bare legged overnight either. So I doubt that would have been something Patsy would have done.
Another point is why didn't the "intruder" leave her bottomless? An intruder doesn't need to redress the child they have just killed. Nor do they have to wipe her down, or cover her with a blanket, or put a doll or favorite nightie near her. Even an intruder who knew her.
But a parent probably would do these things.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't think they ARE missing, I think they could be. I find it odd that they are not listed as having been taken into evidence. If they were found in BR's room, or wherever they were found, pajama bottoms belonging to a murdered child that also had indications of sexual assault WOULD be very important. It would be a tremendous error to have not taken them into evidence (nothing surprises me, though).
So I think that they could be "ignored" from a legal aspect because they were in BR's room. And as far as this case- BR has to be legally "ignored".
As far as Patsy- if she couldn't find the pink bottoms and grabbed the longjohns because they were handy, it doesn't mean she had to go to a drawer to get them. In the Rs messy house, they could have been lying around JB's room. At that point, assuming JB was changed into the longjohns before the events of the night, there might not have been a need for clean panties at that point, so the questions regarding Patsy getting the longjohns versus pajamas, etc. may not be part of the events of the night. As to why not leave JB bottomless- kids don't always stay covered under blankets as they sleep. I wouldn't have left my child bare legged overnight either. So I doubt that would have been something Patsy would have done.
Another point is why didn't the "intruder" leave her bottomless? An intruder doesn't need to redress the child they have just killed. Nor do they have to wipe her down, or cover her with a blanket, or put a doll or favorite nightie near her. Even an intruder who knew her.
But a parent probably would do these things.

DeeDee249,

I don't think they ARE missing, I think they could be.

Like the president's brain, is it missing in action? Lets put it this way, there appears to be no documentation stating they exist. Yet we know they did exist!

So here we have them on the 25th.
Patsy's 1997 BPD Interview, excerpt

PR: No, not exactly.

TT: Okay, how about JonBenet. What kind of pajamas was she wearing?

PR: She was wearing, that day, she was wearing pink little kind of insulated underwear sort of . . .

TT: Tops and bottoms.

PR: Tops and bottoms, you know.

I seriously doubt BDP would ignore the pajama bottoms, its evident they may be relevant. Patsy makes them so by stating she could not find them.

The question is did Patsy make the pajama bottoms disappear due necessity? Just as the size-6's seems to have vanished.

if she couldn't find the pink bottoms and grabbed the longjohns because they were handy, it doesn't mean she had to go to a drawer to get them. In the Rs messy house, they could have been lying around JB's room.

Patsy stated in her interview that she went to JonBenet's bathroom and fetched those longjohns e.g.

Patsy's 1997 BPD Interview, excerpt

TT: Did you have to wake her up to get her inside or. . .

PR: Well, she was just really zonked and John carried her up to her room.

TT: Okay.

PR: And I uh, you know, ran up behind him and, or in front of him, I can’t remember. Maybe, or it might have been in front of him to turn the bed down.

TT: Um hum.

PR: And he laid her down and I got her undressed and put her, I left her shirt on her and uh, went in the bathroom and tried to find some pajama pants and all I could find was some, like long underwear pants. . .

TT: Um hum.

PR: . . .and put those on.

TT: What color of top did she wear to bed that night? What color top was she wearing actually to the White’s house like?

PR: Well she wore this little outfit that I had gotten her at the Gap. We had a little, little riff over that, cause I wanted her to wear, I was wearing a red sweater and I wanted her to wear this red sweater with her black velvet pant, cause I was wearing black velvet paths and it was Christmas and all that.

As per Patsy's account JonBenet should have been found wearing socks, not unless we have an intruder with both an underwear and socks fetish, not unknown but stretching it?


For me the pink pajama bottoms remain relevant!



.

 

[RTC]

OMG this is the first time I read that her pajama bottoms are not accounted for. I have only read about the long johns, and barbie nighties. WTH? I guess the intruder took pj bottoms with him too?

 

[MurriFlower]

OMG this is the first time I read that her pajama bottoms are not accounted for. I have only read about the long johns, and barbie nighties. WTH? I guess the intruder took pj bottoms with him too?

Unless that's them on the floor of the wine cellar where they were gathered up in the blanket when it was taken off her bed to wrap her in. You know, the pink object, the same colour as the pj top that was still on the bed, and that we have seen in the pictures on Christmas morning.

 

[BBB167893]

Another point is why didn't the "intruder" leave her bottomless? An intruder doesn't need to redress the child they have just killed. Nor do they have to wipe her down, or cover her with a blanket, or put a doll or favorite nightie near her. Even an intruder who knew her.
But a parent probably would do these things.

:clap: Yes, they would, wouldn't they?

 

[UKGuy]

:clap: Yes, they would, wouldn't they?

SuperDave,

And if they would, and they could is it deliberate staging e.g. are the longjohns there to mask a prior assault, is the blanket there to avoid forensic transfer?


Why not leave JonBenet bottomless it is meant to be a sexually motivated homicide?


.