Patsy Ramsey

[bettybaby00]

she was unyielding about not going there because something happened after they arrived home/in the middle of the night which Cannot Be Named. that is the crux of the matter IMO

Once some small detail is disproved, it can't be shoved back under the rug. Unfortunately in this case, some revelations came too late after the fact.

If the Rs steadfastly stick to..

She was asleep when we got home, never saw, heard anything after she was put to bed...if it's repeated often enough--especially when there is no "arguing for the other side,"--the narrative became whatever the Rs pushed within the public arena.

 

[questfortrue]

Yes, that's strange. IMO. Where has this been reported?

It was reported by poster Icetea4me back in 2006/2007, who saw it on a '48 hours' program. The pineapple decor was in the remodeled Atlanta kitchen.

 

[Mama2JML]

Did the Ramseys have "pineapple wallpaper"in their ATL home, after the murder? I haven't found any information to corroborate the sources referenced

"The pineapple wallpaper can be seen in the Oct 2002 48 Hours program on the Ramsey case

-Tea"​

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...m-note-listen-carefully&p=1289710#post1289710

" 'In the home of the Ramseys just sold in Atlanta, Patsy had put up wall covering that displayed pineapples', said an inside source. Pineapple was JonBenet's favorite treat.

.........from the National Enquirer"​

​

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?1841-National-Enquirer-9-27-02/page3
If there's a link, a photograph, a video, etc. confirming this claim, please post it...

 

[InstantProof]

she was unyielding about not going there because something happened after they arrived home/in the middle of the night which Cannot Be Named. that is the crux of the matter IMO

With an intruder leaving no real evidence behind it's also to their advantage to say "I don't know what that is/ how that got there" and so on IMO.

 

[chlban]

But still, why not just go along with the idea that, yeah, sure there was pineapple in the house, but I did not get any out or serve any to JB that night? There would be no way to prove or disprove that she did, it would acknowledge the item in the house and I would think they would have moved on. What more would there be to say? JonBenet was not an infant, she was capabe of getting food out I am sure.

I don't see how it proves something happened, nor does it disprove it. Pineapple on it's own is pretty neutral. If your going to lie, why not lie in the way that makes the most sense?

 

[DeeDee249]

Curious to know ... What do you think prompts some IDIs to become RDIs and some RDIs to become IDIs?

I am not familiar with many RDI's who jump the fence, but there are quite a few IDIs here who, after careful consideration and possibly coming to the realization that the parents are simply hiding too much to be coincidental, have sadly realized that the people JB loved most are implicated in her death.

 

[2 percent]

Why....its been mentioned many places...did you not know? :angel:

 

[Meara]

I am not familiar with many RDI's who jump the fence, but there are quite a few IDIs here who, after careful consideration and possibly coming to the realization that the parents are simply hiding too much to be coincidental, have sadly realized that the people JB loved most are implicated in her death.

Thanks, DeeDee. ITA. Early on in the case I myself was an IDI and changed my mind for exactly the reason you mention. The parents were covering up something and.......things just didn't smell right. :fishy:

I'm still curious about how THE BUNK might account for switching sides, though. Since he/she believes that people support one view over the other depending upon what is most comfortable/what they're willing to believe - not according to facts, logic, or justice - what makes them switch?

(THE BUNK, I know you're around ~ don't mean to treat you as third person invisible.)

 

[bettybaby00]

I go with people with no motive to lie, as a general rule. Someone that behaves as if they have nothing to hide.

I don't put my faith in the one whose stories change and are embroidered over time to benefit them and people those that aren't forth coming.

I tend to go with the earliest version as it's closest to the event in time and before memories of the mundane fade.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes on both counts IMO. The longer the case, and the interview process drags on, the easier it becomes to rely on,"I can't recall," and many will find it believable.

Kolar does a lengthy segment on the "evolution of johns 'story'.

And FW was interviewed 18 times, 18 TIMES. the Rs, not so much.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Curious to know ... What do you think prompts some IDIs to become RDIs and some RDIs to become IDIs?

A good question for Super Dave.

 

[THE BUNK]

Curious to know ... What do you think prompts some IDIs to become RDIs and some RDIs to become IDIs?

IDI to RDI - When beginning to look at a case, it makes sense to look at all theories in the beginning. You see in RDI, it's not like you have to identify your suspect. The Ramseys are all there. You know who they are and you can find information on them. The question then goes is the intruder theory also viable. I think many IDI's start out checking to see if the theory holds water. Problem is the more that they look into the IDI theory the more they realize how implausible it seems. That coupled with the so much suspicious circumstantial evidence on the case, leads to them switching from IDI to RDI

RDI to IDI. To me this is a lot simpler. A person starts as RDI out of pure laziness and just assumes that because the Ramsey's are the only suspects mentioned in the media, they must be guilty. In truth they never did any research to determine exactly why they are the best suspects and why they are most likely guilty. So they come in as RDI's with sketch information. Then what happens is they come across the DNA evidence and because they have watched every episode of CSI six times they assume this is the smoking gun and the Ramseys must be innocent. Bring in a little armchair lawyering some forum trolling and voila----you just moved from an RDI to an IDI.

 

[DeeDee249]

And of course it would be hoped that when the newly-minted IDI actually UNDERSTANDS that the "touch DNA" is useless until and unless a donor can be identified by NAME that they jump right back over that fence to RDI.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

But still, why not just go along with the idea that, yeah, sure there was pineapple in the house, but I did not get any out or serve any to JB that night? There would be no way to prove or disprove that she did, it would acknowledge the item in the house and I would think they would have moved on. What more would there be to say? JonBenet was not an infant, she was capabe of getting food out I am sure.

I don't see how it proves something happened, nor does it disprove it. Pineapple on it's own is pretty neutral. If your going to lie, why not lie in the way that makes the most sense?

Here's what I think:

The pineapple causes a problem in the timeline for the Rs. If JB ate it at the White's then she was killed closer to midnight than is comfortable and raises more questions.

If she didn't eat it there, when did she eat it? The Rs stated that JB was asleep when they came home and was put straight to bed. If she ate it when she came home then that makes their statement a lie and then you ask why lie about that?

If JB ate it after everyone was asleep that raises a whole bunch of difficult questions.

The Rs response to these difficult questions is often to deflect attention away from the house and the people in the house that night. That is the role of the ransom note - to make everyone look away from the house and the family. I believe there are other instances where Patsy (maybe John too) was shown photos of household items and she can't say if they are hers or not. I am sure people can help out with examples here (a tissue box comes to mind for some reason).

I think that by the time they were formally interviewed the Rs had learnt the problems with giving definite answers. They got caught out by the pineapple and when they said Burke was asleep during the phone call. So they don't say it is not theirs, not from their house, but they are not sure, can't remember etc. They distance themselves from the object without absolute denial.

All MOO of course.

 

[gramcracker]

:clap: :goodpost: :clap:

 

[Meara]

IDI to RDI - When beginning to look at a case, it makes sense to look at all theories in the beginning. You see in RDI, it's not like you have to identify your suspect. The Ramseys are all there. You know who they are and you can find information on them. The question then goes is the intruder theory also viable. I think many IDI's start out checking to see if the theory holds water. Problem is the more that they look into the IDI theory the more they realize how implausible it seems. That coupled with the so much suspicious circumstantial evidence on the case, leads to them switching from IDI to RDI

RDI to IDI. To me this is a lot simpler. A person starts as RDI out of pure laziness and just assumes that because the Ramsey's are the only suspects mentioned in the media, they must be guilty. In truth they never did any research to determine exactly why they are the best suspects and why they are most likely guilty. So they come in as RDI's with sketch information. Then what happens is they come across the DNA evidence and because they have watched every episode of CSI six times they assume this is the smoking gun and the Ramseys must be innocent. Bring in a little armchair lawyering some forum trolling and voila----you just moved from an RDI to an IDI.

Thanks, T.B. With this and your earlier post taken together, it sounds like you consider IDI -->RDI the best informed (over RDI, IDI, and RDI -->IDI) and therefore the Most Likely To Be Respectable choice. Interesting, and nearly guaranteed to spark protest!

and because they have watched every episode of CSI six times :giggle:

 

[redheadedgal]

Did the Ramseys have "pineapple wallpaper"in their ATL home, after the murder? I haven't found any information to corroborate the sources referenced... If there's a link, a photograph, a video, etc. confirming this claim, please post it...

i think it's safe to say that if people saw the show and posted about it, it's true. not everything is captured in a screencap.

but here is a possible link, should you wish to pay to watch: http://topmovies.cc/tv-series/321030-watch-48-hours-mystery-season-16-episode-3-online.html

 

[Anti-K]

IDI to RDI - When beginning to look at a case, it makes sense to look at all theories in the beginning. You see in RDI, it's not like you have to identify your suspect. The Ramseys are all there. You know who they are and you can find information on them. The question then goes is the intruder theory also viable. I think many IDI's start out checking to see if the theory holds water. Problem is the more that they look into the IDI theory the more they realize how implausible it seems. That coupled with the so much suspicious circumstantial evidence on the case, leads to them switching from IDI to RDI

RDI to IDI. To me this is a lot simpler. A person starts as RDI out of pure laziness and just assumes that because the Ramsey's are the only suspects mentioned in the media, they must be guilty. In truth they never did any research to determine exactly why they are the best suspects and why they are most likely guilty. So they come in as RDI's with sketch information. Then what happens is they come across the DNA evidence and because they have watched every episode of CSI six times they assume this is the smoking gun and the Ramseys must be innocent. Bring in a little armchair lawyering some forum trolling and voila----you just moved from an RDI to an IDI.

I am genuinely curious as to what you base this on. Is this in anyway empirical or is it just your opinion? I’m curious because I’ve often considered the same question, and I still don’t know the answer.

It would be nice to think that people go from one side to the other because of a gathering of evidence and careful consideration. The more we learn the closer to the truth we become (I wish ).

Before we can understand how someone came to go from one to the other we need to at least understand how they came to their original position, and how firmly that position was held.

I wouldn’t characterize RDI as the “lazy” position, but I think it is the default position. It’s the starting point. Unfortunately, confirmation bias is also a default setting. Because of this, I think that we should see more RDI than IDI, and we should see fewer RDI conversions. Why? Confirmation bias.

I wonder if there is anyone here who converted and recognized themselves or identify with your explanations for conversion.
...

AK

 

[Detective Pinkie]

I am genuinely curious as to what you base this on. Is this in anyway empirical or is it just your opinion? I’m curious because I’ve often considered the same question, and I still don’t know the answer.

It would be nice to think that people go from one side to the other because of a gathering of evidence and careful consideration. The more we learn the closer to the truth we become (I wish ).

Before we can understand how someone came to go from one to the other we need to at least understand how they came to their original position, and how firmly that position was held.

I wouldn’t characterize RDI as the “lazy” position, but I think it is the default position. It’s the starting point. Unfortunately, confirmation bias is also a default setting. Because of this, I think that we should see more RDI than IDI, and we should see fewer RDI conversions. Why? Confirmation bias.

I wonder if there is anyone here who converted and recognized themselves or identify with your explanations for conversion.
...

AK

Another one for Super Dave.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I have switched sides 100 times on this case, last night even I woke up to yet more reasons to land on the RDI side .. It's the damn note that does it every time for me, even though I've struggled with any of the Ramsays killing JBR in the manner in which she died. The above switching description in one path (of many) I have taken.

 

[Anti-K]

I have switched sides 100 times on this case, last night even I woke up to yet more reasons to land on the RDI side .. It's the damn note that does it every time for me, even though I've struggled with any of the Ramsays killing JBR in the manner in which she died. The above switching description in one path (of many) I have taken.

And, yet, for IDI it is also the “damn note,” every time.
...

AK