Patsy and the 911 Call

Tipper (or any non RDI)- I would love to get your take on why they so blatantly ignored the RN.

I totally believe a Ramsey did it. I lean towards Burke, but sometimes think Patsy. For some reason, John gets a pass from me. Mostly because of Beth - I have never heard of anyone who enjoys their own children's funerals and somehow think it wasn't in him. Maybe because I get the feeling John wasn't 'bothered' by family problems (read:they were Patsy's department) enough to get that 'excited' by one incident.
I also believe it was an accident - I don't believe either of them deliberately murdered her.

I am not trying to bait anyone, just astounded at how non RDI's can not get 'hung up' on the points I consider to SCREAM one of them did it. And I love a good FRIENDLY discussion!

Thanks in advance!
 
tipper said:
I don't have the impression that Burke was the huggy, kissy type.

BUT since you say "WE know it wasn't JOHN " - how is then that John is said to be barking "We aren't talking to you?" in response to Burke saying something or other.

Wellll Tipper IF I can assume it was not JOHN's voice, I guess its ok for you to assume he was BARKING.

On the audio link of the un hung up part of the call, BlueCrab, do WE know if the volume range increased with the voices heard on it? IF the volume did not increase, I personally doubt there was BARKING done by the 'foreign faction' voice.

I fear that a few of the WE are not reading 'carefully' the posts that I do.

------
As for the huggy kissy comment in your quoted post above. HE should have at least been held close, since that was what Patsy recommended, to the ENTIRE FOREIGN GLOBAL family, er those in America that had CABLE TV.

A better choice for me would have been to go on a local NETWORK station where the common man might have seen something THAT night in Boulder that could have helped find the OUR elusive perp.

NOT well enough to talk to LE per the baby doc, but well enough to travel to CNN and be taken to a studio in a BAD looking courtesy car provided by CNN.


Hollyjokers
Sending Burke off to the Whites - Would you want your son in the house while police are combing through, while you are discussing kidnapping, a ransom note that mentions beheading & killing his sister?
In my very long post (dealing with just exactly where and what was heard by the family on that early AM) and that you said you had not fully digested.

Consider this again, IF IF Patsy coming down the stairs finding the note reading enough to know it was a KIDNAPPING, and IF she turns and runs UP the stairs to second floor screaming and hollering for JOHN, I AM ASSUMING that BURKE being a smart little guy came out of his room and ran down the hall to where the action was. He had to have known the WHAT of WHAT happened THEN.

This could have precipitated the unhung up phone voice question BUT I REALLY doubt it. WHY wouldn't HE have said that UPSTAIRS, WHY later?

Perhaps he did not hear the screaming, because there was none. Perhaps JOHN was not in the shower. Perhaps the note was on the floor AFTER being prepared and thrown to the floor.

Perhaps the young boy just heard the family up and about, with water running for JOHNS shower and happened downstairs WHEN PATSY was making the call.

Consider this: Perhaps JOHN was in the shower, when Patsy made the call to the police AND her friends. WE don't know that John was even on the first floor while the police call was being made.

I think that Patsy looked into JonBenets room when she got up that morning OR OR WHEN she went down for the midnight potty time ceremony, and discovered that she was NOT In her room. I think she may have called her name, and looked for her. I do think that Patsy would have gone to BURKES room to see if JonBenet was IN THERE. I think when she did not find her she went back to JOHN who was sleeping, and told him that she could not find JonBenet.

The moving light seen in the kitchen in the night by the neighbor, lets me think it is possible that Patsy had charge of THAT flashlight to assist and NOT wake JOHN when she went to JonBenet for her midnight potty break. 'The' flashlight was found on the kitchen counter, with zero fingerprints on it, or the batteries.

Is it possible that Patsy went to the basement and looked for JonBenet, I don't know, WE don't know.

DID she find JonBenet eating pineapple, when she went looking for JBR for the midnight potty trip, I don't know, WE don't know.

I think JOHN then searched the home and found JonBenet shortly after the midnight 'potty trip' that did not happen according to Patsy. I think all of the initial major trauma time happened then when the two of them OR JOHN found JonBenet. I think it was then that the white blanket was wrapped around her and the NOTE evolution began.

Then comes my theory that evolved about six years ago.
My suppositions are not truths, since NO ONE knows the real truth, and lies have been told all around.

Some of my thoughts are interjected with others so pick the ones that peak your interest.

.
nby-no baby yet.
 
Brefie said:
Tipper (or any non RDI)- I would love to get your take on why they so blatantly ignored the RN.

I totally believe a Ramsey did it. I lean towards Burke, but sometimes think Patsy. For some reason, John gets a pass from me. Mostly because of Beth - I have never heard of anyone who enjoys their own children's funerals and somehow think it wasn't in him. Maybe because I get the feeling John wasn't 'bothered' by family problems (read:they were Patsy's department) enough to get that 'excited' by one incident.
I also believe it was an accident - I don't believe either of them deliberately murdered her.

I am not trying to bait anyone, just astounded at how non RDI's can not get 'hung up' on the points I consider to SCREAM one of them did it. And I love a good FRIENDLY discussion!

Thanks in advance!
It's a good question Brefie. I'd like to ask you one thing though - you say you give John a pass because he had already lost a child and parents don't enjoy their own childrens' funerals.... yet you say you believe it was an accident. Isn't that a bit contradictory? - i.e. if it was an accident, then he wouldn't be thinking she would die like Beth had.

I don't believe Patsy was involved in Jonbenet's murder. I guess I think she was kind of easy-going and I believe her when she says that after having cancer, bedwetting just isn't important. I also think that her response when asked if she'd take a polygraph that she'd "take ten of them" is revealing.

I think John Ramsey has been responsible for most of the evasive and non-co-operative behaviour and therefore I find it harder to give him a pass. I think he's an extremely arrogant man though and his arrogance could also explain the refusal to be treated as common suspects.

EDITED TO ADD: I don't think Patsy would have stuck by John if she had suspected he was guilty. I think JonBenet was the light of Patsy's life.

Regarding "non-RDI". You can split us into two groups. I am "IDI" (intruder did it). I can see why many regard the ramseys as suspicious and I am frustrated and critical of much of their behaviour. However, there is also the "RST" (Ramsey spin team) who will attempt to rationalise every single
piece of non-intruder evidence and every instance of questionable Ramsey behaviour and they will always point the finger of blame elsewhere.

Please don't lump us together. I don't wear blinkers :-)
 
Sorry, Jayelles, I didn't mean to offend re: the IDI, RST and RDI. Please forgive me!!! :)
And - thanks for the response.

I should have been clearer about my opinion of John. If John were responsible for JB's death, I think (given that I work on the assumption it was an accident) 911 would have been called immediately. I also think that John wouldn't get in a violent rage with any of his children because of Beth's passing. I imagine that if a parent lost a child, it would soften them towards the remaining children. I apologize, I kinda merged those 2 thoughts together and ended up making no sense.

I have to say, though, even though I believe John is not the killer, I agree 100% about the arrogance of the man.

NOW, you say you find it hard to give John a pass, but think an IDI. Back atcha....which is it?? LOL

Also - in case this is not included in your theory - what is your opinion about the sexual abuse?
 
Brefie said:
Sorry, Jayelles, I didn't mean to offend re: the IDI, RST and RDI. Please forgive me!!! :)
And - thanks for the response.

I should have been clearer about my opinion of John. If John were responsible for JB's death, I think (given that I work on the assumption it was an accident) 911 would have been called immediately. I also think that John wouldn't get in a violent rage with any of his children because of Beth's passing. I imagine that if a parent lost a child, it would soften them towards the remaining children. I apologize, I kinda merged those 2 thoughts together and ended up making no sense.

I have to say, though, even though I believe John is not the killer, I agree 100% about the arrogance of the man.

NOW, you say you find it hard to give John a pass, but think an IDI. Back atcha....which is it?? LOL

Also - in case this is not included in your theory - what is your opinion about the sexual abuse?
I don't *think* John was involved in JBR's death, but on the basis that the man is a proven liar .... it's harder to make a judgment.

I tend to work on a process of elimination. I think it's extremely unlikely that a complete stranger decided on a whim to enter the ramsey home on Christmas evening. garotte a child and write a bizare three page ransom note. I think it's much more likely that it was either an embarassing accident or that someone hated Jonbenet enough to throttle the life out of her. I don't think that hating John Ramsey would be a good enough motive to kill a defenceless child. IMO, if a person was psycho enough to kill a child to "get at" her father, then the staging would have been much more elaborate and the ransom note would not have been so deferential to John Ramsey's business.

I have always feel that jonbenet's killer had feelings directed at Patsy Ramsey.
 
"I have always feel that jonbenet's killer had feelings directed at Patsy Ramsey."

Really? I have never heard that before...very interesting. Do you have a theory? Or just a hunch?

What then is you take on PRIOR sexual abuse?? Yay or nay? I have a hard time with this one. We have conflicting experts - do I have that right? But then there is all those doctor visits......

Also, would love to know what you think of the pageants - again - if they don't play into your theory.
 
Brefie said:
"I have always feel that jonbenet's killer had feelings directed at Patsy Ramsey."

Really? I have never heard that before...very interesting. Do you have a theory? Or just a hunch?

What then is you take on PRIOR sexual abuse?? Yay or nay? I have a hard time with this one. We have conflicting experts - do I have that right? But then there is all those doctor visits......

Also, would love to know what you think of the pageants - again - if they don't play into your theory.
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/bynum.html

SAWYER: But what about those reports that JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr Beuf, saw JonBenet 30 times in three years?

BEUF: Before your call, I sat down with her chart and counted. It was 27 times.

SAWYER: This is the first time Dr Beuf has gone over his records publicly.

And is that unusual to see a child that many times?

BEUF: Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of them were for sinus infections and for colds.

SAWYER: And by majority you mean?

BEUF: Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep throats, sinus infections.

SAWYER: So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.

How many times did you give her a vaginal examination?

BEUF: Well, it was five or six times in that three year period.

SAWYER: We asked him to specifically review all notes that might pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.

September 1993 a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated with recent diarrhea.

April 1994 a visit about a problem perhaps related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.

October 1994 a routine physical. No problems noted, though some indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25 percent of children that age wet the bed.

March 1995 abdominal pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem.

August 1996another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this number of complaints?

Would that be unusual?

BEUF: For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have 4yo kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age.

SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?

BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.

SAWYER: Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual abuse?

BEUF: No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are very acutely aware of.

SAWYER: And some other notes. Dr Beuf says he last saw JonBenet Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus infection. A couple of other things. Dr Beuf says he has turned in people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career, and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that with JonBenet Ramsey. And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was nothing unusual there for a girl her age. When we come back, we will take you to the Ramsey home






 
Tipper - you could have said 'no conflicting reports' - I would have believed you! I thought I heard somewhere another doctor said there had to have been prior abuse.

Now, Tipper.....about blatantly ignoring the RN??? LOL
 
Brefie said:
"I have always feel that jonbenet's killer had feelings directed at Patsy Ramsey."

Really? I have never heard that before...very interesting. Do you have a theory? Or just a hunch?

What then is you take on PRIOR sexual abuse?? Yay or nay? I have a hard time with this one. We have conflicting experts - do I have that right? But then there is all those doctor visits......

Also, would love to know what you think of the pageants - again - if they don't play into your theory.
Yes I have a theory, but I'm not allowed to post it here!

I think the prior sexual abuse is something that isn't hard evidence - i.e. there is another explanation for it. I could accept that she may have been abused on 23rd for the first time and that this could be an alternative (to mine) motive for her death. However because it isn't hard evidence, I think it could only be used as supporting evidence in the event of an arrest. I don't think JBR was abused by her father because she was too fond of him and missed him when he was away. I don't see John Ramsey as a child abuser.

I'm afraid I can't comment on the pageants. They are very, very alien to me - not part of my culture at all. I don't think it's fair to comment negatively on another culture.
 
I too think that JR did not abuse her.
Pageants are alien to me too. I must say, I wholeheartedly am disgusted by the clothing and make up on a 6 yr old, pageants or not - but the actual competitions I know nothing about.
 
Quote from Jayelles:
Yes I have a theory, but I'm not allowed to post it here!

Oh Jayelles!! .... you have me very curious!!

Okay ... I won't pressure you .. but with your above statement ... can I assume a suspect to your theory is a non-Ramsey?
 
capps said:
Quote from Jayelles:
Yes I have a theory, but I'm not allowed to post it here!

Oh Jayelles!! .... you have me very curious!!

Okay ... I won't pressure you .. but with your above statement ... can I assume a suspect to your theory is a non-Ramsey?
Yes, my theory has always been that a non-Ramsey killed JBR. I only earned the classification of "BORG" when I criticised jameson! Just goes to show how screwed up some people are eh?

I've not been around since the start because the case wasn't covered here in the UK until Summer 1999 (Tracey I). But I never felt the Ramseys did it. I do however think it is shameful the way they didn't co-operate with the investigation and I don't blame people for thinking they might be involved.

I've had my theory since about 2000 and as I have said, I have seen nothing to disprove it. It fits in every respect - motive, opportunity, post murder behaviour...
 
Jayelles said:
Yes, my theory has always been that a non-Ramsey killed JBR. I only earned the classification of "BORG" when I criticised jameson! Just goes to show how screwed up some people are eh?

I've not been around since the start because the case wasn't covered here in the UK until Summer 1999 (Tracey I). But I never felt the Ramseys did it. I do however think it is shameful the way they didn't co-operate with the investigation and I don't blame people for thinking they might be involved.

I've had my theory since about 2000 and as I have said, I have seen nothing to disprove it. It fits in every respect - motive, opportunity, post murder behaviour...

Thanks for sharing Jayelle,

I figured your theory included a non-Ramsey.
I don't think a Ramsey did it either.
 
capps said:
Thanks for sharing Jayelle,

I figured your theory included a non-Ramsey.
I don't think a Ramsey did it either.


Jayelles and capps,

Then why have the Ramseys been lying, obfuscating, refusing to cooperate with the investigation, and covering up since day one, if a Ramsey isn't somehow involved?
 
Brefie said:
Question for Zman...how do explain the fingerprints on the pineapple bowl? Of course you don't have to explain anything to me, but I am very curious about how the non RDI's come to that conclusion.
I admit the pineapple is a stumper.

Not so much the fingerprints because of two reasons.

1. PR and BR live in the house therefore they could simply be old fingerprints.

2. LE has shown that they are more than willing to "fake" evidence in order to pressure the R's into confession. I'm not sure they really have those prints.

However the pineapple is the one thing that won't fit into any scenario I have. Even when I had a RDI opinion. Pineapple did not fit there either.

I can force it into my theroy (or any theory for that matter) but I don't want to do that.

Sometimes I think once I (we, LE or whoever)can solve, disregard or make sense of this pineapple thing everything else may somehow fall into place.
 
BlueCrab said:
Jayelles and capps,

Then why have the Ramseys been lying, obfuscating, refusing to cooperate with the investigation, and covering up since day one, if a Ramsey isn't somehow involved?
My explanation for that is simply - John Ramsey's extraordinary arrogance. There was no way he was going to be treated like common suspects. He was used to calling the shots.

The Ramseys are nouveau riche. They climbed the social ladder and acquired their wealth fairly rapidly and they had a lot of fancy friends. Murder is dirty - being a murder suspect is dirty, that didn't fit with their social status and they were terrified of losing control and all their fancy friends and social status - therefore, they tried to call the shots - to control the investigation.

It backfired big time, but John Ramsey isn't the kind of guy who will hold up his hand and admit he blew it. His modus operandi is to blame others for his mistakes - which he did (and continues to do). IMO, their behaviour was all about their image and social status.
 
BlueCrab said:
Jayelles and capps,

Then why have the Ramseys been lying, obfuscating, refusing to cooperate with the investigation, and covering up since day one, if a Ramsey isn't somehow involved?

BlueCrab,

Here we go again ....
I rarely bring up my theory,but whenever I do,you bring up the SAME question,and I repeatedly have given you my answer,just for you to ask the same question again.Apparently,you disregard my posts,or don't read them.

Please refer to "Member's Theories" thread,or look through posts on this forum,where I have given you my answer to your question.
 
BlueCrab said:
Jayelles and capps,

Then why have the Ramseys been lying, obfuscating, refusing to cooperate with the investigation, and covering up since day one, if a Ramsey isn't somehow involved?
I will only comment that in my opinion the R's are guilty of none of the above accusations.
 
Then why not sit down with LE for an interview? Any idiot know that the more info LE and indeed the earlier, the more chance they have of catching the perp.

IF, indeed they felt they were being persecuted - SO WHAT? Cops could hound me to the grave and I would still cooperate FULLY with any investigation in my child's death (God Forbid).

T
 
BlueCrab said:
Burke pretending to be asleep is a red herring. It's irrelevant. What's important is BURKE WAS DOWNSTAIRS AT 5:52 AM DURING THE 911 CALL.

The enhanced final 4 seconds of the 911 tape contained the voices of Patsy, John, and Burke -- all of whom were in the kitchen and continuing a conversation that had obviously begun long before the 911 call was initiated. This is borne out by John's harsh voice in the tape directed at Burke, "We're not talking to you!"

Burke was the only person sleeping on the same floor as JonBenet that night. If the Ramseys were honestly searching for a missing JonBenet as they claim, why would their first comment to Burke be "We're not talking to you!"

Aso, all three Ramseys, who didn't know the cops had them on tape, lied during their individual interviews about Burke being in bed asleep until 7:00 AM. When finally confronted with the tape evidence they changed their story to say Burke was faking sleep. But that doesn't change the fact that the 911 tape proved Burke was DOWNSTAIRS at 5:52 AM, and therefore not even "faking" sleep (which is irrelevant anyway).

The lie the three Ramseys conspiratorily agreed upon ahead of time (all three answered the question the same way), but were trapped by the tape, shows they were hiding something significant from the cops. Why lie to the cops during a murder investigation if you aren't somehow involved in the murder?

BlueCrab
Just in an effort to eliminate misinformation there is no enhanced 911 tape that anyone can listen to. Only rumors that some LE officials have heard it. The R's have never been "confronted" or allowed to hear the enhanced 911 tape evidence or admitted to hearing any voices on such tape as far as any of us know and they have never changed their story about the events of that morning.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
772
Total visitors
840

Forum statistics

Threads
625,956
Messages
18,516,352
Members
240,905
Latest member
nexy9522
Back
Top