Questions you'd like answers to...

[AlGx]

I haven't seen the photo you mention showing her mouth closed, so I don't know.

I believe that picture is the picture of JB taken in the house where she is on her side with the paper bags on her hands.

 

[Cottonstar]

Likely never. He said on Phil McGraw's show he had never even read his mother's RN.

DP: Does that look like her handwriting?

BURKE: (nervous laughter) Honestly, looking at that she would always bug me about having good handwriting. She would like make me re-write stuff to try and make me have good handwriting. I think it's too sloppy.

How is it too sloppy if he never read it?

Is there a no in his answer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

DP: Does that look like her handwriting?

BURKE: (nervous laughter) Honestly, looking at that she would always bug me about having good handwriting. She would like make me re-write stuff to try and make me have good handwriting. I think it's too sloppy.

How is it too sloppy if he never read it?

Is there a no in his answer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cottonstar,
That is a definite NO using Burkian Logic, e.g. Mom wrote real neat, that is sloppy writing, so cannot be Mom's writing. Note he never says I saw my Mom writing or I read something she wrote.

Burkian Inference for family and close buddies: It's an Intruders Ransom Note since its not my Mom's writing.

All the R's, the White's, the Paugh's, the Stine's, etc, will have read that Ransom Note, not once but multiple times, and will have formed an opinion on its author.

.

 

[CorallaroC]

Just for a moment, imagine the same answer being given to DP if he had asked BR: "Is that Your handwriting?"

IMO his roundabout answer would make a bit more sense.

 

[UKGuy]

Just for a moment, imagine the same answer being given to DP if he had asked BR: "Is that Your handwriting?"

IMO his roundabout answer would make a bit more sense.

CorallaroC,
I agree. Its sloppy enough to be his, since Mom made him re-write. yet all those fancy words, e.g. attache case. Don't grow a brain John how would Burke know all that, plus the structure, syntax and grammar at his age?

Is Burke playing devils advocate on national TV, knowing it will never come to court?

I wonder if Burke lives in the US all year round? Socialising might be difficult for him, all the looks and fingers pointing?

.

 

[CorallaroC]

CorallaroC,
I agree. Its sloppy enough to be his, since Mom made him re-write. yet all those fancy words, e.g. attache case. Don't grow a brain John how would Burke know all that, plus the structure, syntax and grammar at his age?

Is Burke playing devils advocate on national TV, knowing it will never come to court?

I wonder if Burke lives in the US all year round? Socialising might be difficult for him, all the looks and fingers pointing?
.

Hi UKGuy,

playing devils advocate? maybe so. I also sensed that when BR denied the pineapple - with his caveat something like "unless someone erased my memory." And same feeling when JR in one of his tv interviews said that the case could be solved someday( paraphrased) "if someone gets mad at somebody and tells"

tells? someone tells? that sounded childishld IMO

I get hung up on little things like that

 

[UKGuy]

Hi UKGuy,

playing devils advocate? maybe so. I also sensed that when BR denied the pineapple - with his caveat something like "unless someone erased my memory." And same feeling when JR in one of his tv interviews said that the case could be solved someday( paraphrased) "if someone gets mad at somebody and tells"

tells? someone tells? that sounded childishld IMO

I get hung up on little things like that

CorallaroC,
Just as well too. Reminds me of Columbo with his Last Question. What you outline reflects what I saw too. it was as if Burke knew everyone else in his circle knew the truth, including the Paughs, etc, no response from them, just silence; so he skirts round awkward questions with these elliptical answers that really make it look like he was involved but cannot admit to having a point of contact with JonBenet's death, e.g. I slept all night ...

.

 

[Cottonstar]

As I understand it he said that in his 1997 interview, but on the 26th Dec he told officers he had read to both children before putting them to bed. I believe it's in ST's IRMI book.

He told both Arndt and French. He later denied it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cottonstar]

The couple must have thought the police were even more stupid than they actually turned out to be. They must have thought they had covered all the bases and were home dry.

It obviously did not occur to them that the police may take the notepad and look right the way through it.

I wouldn't mind betting that when the police officer (Whitson?) told JR he wanted handwriting samples John went out into the hall and handed him the (innocent) pad - but Whitson had already picked up the pad from the kitchen because he saw Patsy's scribblings and doodles on it. He put both pads in the evidence bag.

John deliberately handed over Patsy's pad to LE that morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

John deliberately handed over Patsy's pad to LE that morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why? Why would he go through all that trouble to stage the crime and prevent attention on BR, only to illuminate attention on PR? Seems illogical to me.

 

[UKGuy]

John deliberately handed over Patsy's pad to LE that morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cottonstar,
IMO that's John trying to avoid being seen as a main suspect early on, he is attempting to put down verbal markers, after all he probably knows outright that Patsy asphyxiated JonBenet and that he did not sexually assault JonBenet, but thinks on that latter count he could become a prime suspect, something he hopes to sidestep?

BTW as I see it Patsy staged for Burke and JR partially staged for Patsy, so throughout the case John is at pains to distance himself from aspects of the crime-scene, that is until he bites the bullet and finds JonBenet conveniently contaminating the crime-scene by carrying her body upstairs!

.

 

[Userid]

People always want to assume that every single thing that happened in this case has reason to it, which is a mistake. Not every single thing that occurred in this crime was 100% purposeful.

It's quite possible JR panicked and handed over the notepad because it would have looked incredibly suspicious if he didn't hand it over, especially if he knew police had already seen it.

It's also possible that he wasn't in PR's presence while she wrote the note (he was busy staging in the wine cellar), so he didn't realize it was written on that particular pad. Maybe he assumed PR wouldn't have been stupid enough to put the pad back.

 

[Cottonstar]

People always want to assume that every single thing that happened in this case has reason to it, which is a mistake. Not every single thing that occurred in this crime was 100% purposeful.

It's quite possible JR panicked and handed over the notepad because it would have looked incredibly suspicious if he didn't hand it over, especially if he knew police had already seen it.

It's also possible that he wasn't in PR's presence while she wrote the note (he was busy staging in the wine cellar), so he didn't realize it was written on that particular pad. Maybe he assumed PR wouldn't have been stupid enough to put the pad back.

I've written about this before. I'll try and find it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cottonstar]

In order for you to see JRs motive in voluntarily and purposely giving PRs pad to LE, you must take yourself into their minds, as they were staging the death of their daughter to make it look like an intruder had came in their home that night, and killed her.

We see how they went to the ends of the earth to distance themselves, in particular, Pasty from the ransom note. We see it in her coming up with a grand story of how she jumped over the note on her way down the spiral staircase that morning, or in her own words "somehow got around it", instead of just picking up the pieces of paper that were spread out before her. She then says she bounded back up the stairs, without ever touching the note to check JB room and called for John. Then somehow they arrived on the floor with no creases, bends, fingerprints, or any signs of handling, all spread out perfectly on the floor when Officer French arrived 7 minutes after the 911 call.

Where are the creases? Where are the signs of the parents clutching the note, reading word for word?, where are the parents fingerprints?
Kinda convienant how Patsy somehow avoided touching the note on her way down the stairs, and on her way up the stairs, even though this note says "we have your daughter". Kinda too convienant that JR was on his hands and knees, reading the note as it "lay on the floor". So as you can see the parents did everything they could to not touch the note once their gloves were off and were awaiting LE to arrive. Why?

So when LE asks for handwriting samples that morning, JR purposely gives them a pad that he wrote on, and then gives them the ransom note pad, which was Patsy's pad, that had some of her writings, lists, etc...You may ask yourself why would JR purposely give LE the incriminating pad?
It's for the same reason why they left two practice notes in the trash bin(Dr.Henry Lee)and one practice note in the pad.

Still confused? JR and PR had to paint a picture for LE that an intruder had done this. So here is the reasoning:
JR knew that LE would find Patsy's fingerprints all over the notepad(which they did, 5 of her prints were found on the notepad). JR and PR knew that her prints were not on the ransom note, or the practice ones that were found. So by this fact, they made it look like an intruder had came in the house, sat down and with gloves on, wrote the note and when he "messed" up, he just tossed away the practice notes(showing he was there taking his time). The Ramsey's could now say that her prints are all over the pad but not the note therefore it proves she didn't write it, or her prints would be on it. JR could also say, I gave you that pad, do you think if we did it, I would have given you that pad? I'm not that dumb! This was a reverse psychology move. Now don't you see how it all comes together? Now do you see why it was so pertinent that they tell a story of how Patsy never touched the note? They tried to distance themselves from the ransom note bc they knew it was going to be hard to overcome. They did the same thing with the flashlight. They left it out on purpose for LE to find, but completely wiped it of prints to distance themselves from it. They overthought it.

I called it a "reverse psychology move" when I wrote this. It is a form of plausible deniability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cottonstar]

In order for you to see JRs motive in voluntarily and purposely giving PRs pad to LE, you must take yourself into their minds, as they were staging the death of their daughter to make it look like an intruder had came in their home that night, and killed her.

We see how they went to the ends of the earth to distance themselves, in particular, Pasty from the ransom note. We see it in her coming up with a grand story of how she jumped over the note on her way down the spiral staircase that morning, or in her own words "somehow got around it", instead of just picking up the pieces of paper that were spread out before her. She then says she bounded back up the stairs, without ever touching the note to check JB room and called for John. Then somehow they arrived on the floor with no creases, bends, fingerprints, or any signs of handling, all spread out perfectly on the floor when Officer French arrived 7 minutes after the 911 call.

Where are the creases? Where are the signs of the parents clutching the note, reading word for word?, where are the parents fingerprints?
Kinda convienant how Patsy somehow avoided touching the note on her way down the stairs, and on her way up the stairs, even though this note says "we have your daughter". Kinda too convienant that JR was on his hands and knees, reading the note as it "lay on the floor". So as you can see the parents did everything they could to not touch the note once their gloves were off and were awaiting LE to arrive. Why?

So when LE asks for handwriting samples that morning, JR purposely gives them a pad that he wrote on, and then gives them the ransom note pad, which was Patsy's pad, that had some of her writings, lists, etc...You may ask yourself why would JR purposely give LE the incriminating pad?
It's for the same reason why they left two practice notes in the trash bin(Dr.Henry Lee)and one practice note in the pad.

Still confused? JR and PR had to paint a picture for LE that an intruder had done this. So here is the reasoning:
JR knew that LE would find Patsy's fingerprints all over the notepad(which they did, 5 of her prints were found on the notepad). JR and PR knew that her prints were not on the ransom note, or the practice ones that were found. So by this fact, they made it look like an intruder had came in the house, sat down and with gloves on, wrote the note and when he "messed" up, he just tossed away the practice notes(showing he was there taking his time). The Ramsey's could now say that her prints are all over the pad but not the note therefore it proves she didn't write it, or her prints would be on it. JR could also say, I gave you that pad, do you think if we did it, I would have given you that pad? I'm not that dumb! This was a reverse psychology move. Now don't you see how it all comes together? Now do you see why it was so pertinent that they tell a story of how Patsy never touched the note? They tried to distance themselves from the ransom note bc they knew it was going to be hard to overcome. They did the same thing with the flashlight. They left it out on purpose for LE to find, but completely wiped it of prints to distance themselves from it. They overthought it.

I called it a "reverse psychology move" when I wrote this. It is a form of plausible deniability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More on plausible deniability. I like to use this example from TDAC by Van der Leek and Wilson:

In Sharon Stone's sizzling mystery crime thriller Basic Instinct(released in 1992)Stone playing millionaire author and seductress wryly notes to Michael Douglas as Detective Nick Curran:

"I'd have to be pretty stupid to write a book about killing and then kill him the way I described in my book. I'd be announcing myself as the killer. I'm not stupid."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cottonstar]

Let's try this on Patsy:

"I’d have to be pretty stupid to murder my child in my own home and then write a Ransom Note using a notepad and pen from my own home. I’d be announcing myself as the killer. I’m not stupid.

This is plausible deniability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cottonstar]

Just the mere fact that JonBenet is found dead in the Ramsey home is massively damning. That fact alone is a huge hurdle for them. The Ransom Note is both massive misdirection to someone outside of the family but with intimate knowledge of the house and also an enormous giveaway. Patsy was doubtless aware of this, which is why some effort is made to disguise not merely the handwriting style, but the psychology of the author. Hence the initial spelling mistakes. Patsy's entire note is also "plausible deniability": "It's not my handwriting, It's not neat enough, I wouldn't make those spelling mistakes. Why would I write a Ransom Note in my own kitchen, with my own pen on my own writing pad?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cottonstar]

And you can follow their schema of deception. Here's JR's version of plausible deniability:


HOFFMAN: Now, Mr. Ramsey I'm going to once again have you take a look at it and ask you in looking at it, whether or not you see any similarity between your wife's handwriting, and the handwriting in the ransom note?

JOHN: Patsy writes very neatly. She's a feminine writer. There is misspellings in the note. She graduated at the top of her class. She doesn't misspell words like business and possession."

Well, John. That's exactly what she did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

^Thanks, it's not a terrible theory, but I disagree. If they were doing their best to separate themselves from the note, as you suggest in your first couple paragraphs, then they wouldn't have taken the risk of providing the direct source of the letter voluntarily. If that really was the plan, then they wouldn't have left the "Mr. & Mrs. I" page in the same notepad; they would have thrown that one away with the other two notes, because that one page directly implicates PR (since it was left in her tablet and not JR's). Providing the pads would have sufficed without that "Mr. & Mrs. I" page, with regard to "proving" they didn't write the note. All that "Mr. & Mrs. I" page does still in that pad, is directly implicate PR.

 

[Userid]

And you can follow their schema of deception. Here's JR's version of plausible deniability:


HOFFMAN: Now, Mr. Ramsey I'm going to once again have you take a look at it and ask you in looking at it, whether or not you see any similarity between your wife's handwriting, and the handwriting in the ransom note?

JOHN: Patsy writes very neatly. She's a feminine writer. There is misspellings in the note. She graduated at the top of her class. She doesn't misspell words like business and possession."

Well, John. That's exactly what she did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, the misspellings could have been purposeful; but I don't believe the pad-submitting was purposeful. I believe that JR simply wasn't expecting the police to ask for handwriting samples of he and PR....he was completely caught off guard by that request, so he panicked in a way and acted haphazardly.