The actual vs. desired outcome

[BOESP]

also the fact that even John's extended family,inc. his ex-wife,had her own lawyer.I haven't once read that anyone on Patsy's side did.

That was very odd. Why not furnish Patsy's family with the same consideration? Maybe he did and we don't know about it.

I also thought it odd John Andrew Ramsey t[SIZE=-1]old the investigators the killer deserved "forgiveness."[/SIZE]

 

[BOESP]

It's a video on YouTube. I don't know how to post a link to it but I'm sure if you search "John Ramsey tongue" it'll pop right up.

That is wayyyy toooo funny! I hope he had his tongue fixed too when he had his face lift.

 

[Solace]

Excellent post Solace and thank you so much. I enjoy reading your observations and conclusions. You have a way of putting things in good order, easily understood. The last paragraph, I think, says it all concerning John and his motives and plans. He did every thing but sign a statement saying he thought Patsy did it, in my opinion. CYA at it's CEO best.

You are absolutely one of the nicest people on this Board and I MEAN THAT.:blowkiss:

 

[rashomon]

Rash, there's an American expression that goes "Something is rotten in Denmark." In other words, a story stinks to high heaven. (I'm not sure how we distinguish high heaven from low heaven but, well, you get the picture.)

We also have this expression in German: "Etwas ist faul im Staate Dänemark" The orgin of that saying is from Shakespeare's Hamlet:
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." It was referring to foul play, the cover-up of the murder of Hamlets father.
And foul play can be observed in the Ramsey case too. This case reeked right from the start. Too bad DA Hnter was such a coward who let himself be intimidated by Team Ramsey. A tougher DA would have brought this case to triaI.

suppose before giving the CNN interview Patsy decided it wasn't a small foreign faction (the note writer and the two gentlemen watching over JonBenet). She claimed on CNN that it was the killer and one other person the killer confided in. At least she got that part right, in my opinion.

Amazing, isn't it, how the Ramseys completely disregarded their own small foreign faction 'group' concoction whenever they spoke about the killer? For it was always a lone killer "He is an evil person" John said for example.
Smit too always spoke of one killer.
And Patsy's comment about the killer and the one other person the killer confided in beats everything in that respect. John may have gotten quite a shock on hearing her say that ("OMG, is she going to confess now in front of millions ..?")

Too bad the Ramseys have never been asked this question: "You think it it was one lone killer. Then we can draw the conclusion that the ransom note speaking of a group of people was obviously faked. Would you agree that the note was a bogus note? Oh, how I would have loved to have seen their faces then!!

 

[Solace]

That is wayyyy toooo funny! I hope he had his tongue fixed too when he had his face lift.

It really is. :clap:

 

[JMO8778]

That was very odd. Why not furnish Patsy's family with the same consideration? Maybe he did and we don't know about it.

I don't know,Thomas didn't mention it,but then again,there is no mention of Patsy's father ever being interviewed,which I find really strange,to say the least.

I also thought it odd John Andrew Ramsey t[SIZE=-1]old the investigators the killer deserved "forgiveness."[/SIZE]

isn't it? I don't know what to make of that..it seems he thinks his dad may have done it? I don't think John would have said that,though,and I don't think he's the one who killed her.But I just can't imagine he would say that for Patsy's sake.

 

[BOESP]

It really is. :clap:

You would think with John Douglas and Lou Smit riding shotgun and all those lawyers and polygraphers and QDEs who worked with the Ramseys at least one of them would have advised John to keep his tongue in his mouth when discussing the circumstances of his daughter's death.

 

[Solace]

You would think with John Douglas and Lou Smit riding shotgun and all those lawyers and polygraphers and QDEs who worked with the Ramseys at least one of them would have advised John to keep his tongue in his mouth when discussing the circumstances of his daughter's death.

You would think. His perennial smile belies his feeling like I can't be touched. I have Lacy going after Karr, so stick that.

So was he abusing her? The autopsy says she was abused three days prior. It could have been rough cleaning by Patsy - could it not?

 

[BOESP]

You would think. His perennial smile belies his feeling like I can't be touched. I have Lacy going after Karr, so stick that.

So was he abusing her? The autopsy says she was abused three days prior. It could have been rough cleaning by Patsy - could it not?

Honestly, Sol, I don't know what to think about the molestation. The ME and other experts say "consistent with digital penetration." Their opinion, however, doesn't say by whom.

If John's shirt fibers had not be found on JonBenet's private areas and if he hadn't made a point to mention that he went to JonBenet's bedroom in his underwear to look under her bed, I might feel more inclined to make an opinion.

I do think Steve Thomas had information that made him think Patsy was rough with JonBenet and I can not exclude Patsy as the person may have digitally penetrated JonBenet for cleaning purposes.

I am on the fence about who molested JonBenet.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

...Patsy saying "Help me,Jesus"! repeatedly on the 911 tape,after she forgot to hang up ...

Really? She forgot to hang up and "Help me, Jesus" was repeated? Oh, that would certainly mean she did it, wouldn't it! Well that settles it then.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The autopsy says she was abused three days prior.

The autopsy says no such thing. I thought you were expert on this case but you sure don't know what the autopsy says. Are we just making this stuff up as we go along or what? Where in the autopsy does it say anything about three days??

 

[DeeDee249]

I can't say for sure how I would react in the same situation, but this thought had always bothered me. I know JR made comments about looking under JBR's bed in his underwear. But WHY would anyone do that? If she was simply MISSING (with no ransom note) I could understand why. But...there's the NOTE. The supposed RN said clearly it was a kidnapping. So she wasn't HIDING. Under the bed or anywhere else. So once again, the note is shown to be fake by the Rs themselves. So by his statement I can only conclude that he made that statement for the sole purpose of providing an excuse for his underwear fibers to be found in that room.
That RN points to the R guilt more than anything else in the case, followed by their lying about the pineapple. Those 2 things do it all for me.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

RDI loves to linger on JR 's call to arrange his flight out of town, as if that implies guilty behavior.

Were they being chased down the freeway by police cars? No.
Were they just targeted by an unknown and vicious killer? Yes.
Would they spend the next night in their house? No, would you?
Would they impose on a friend with a killer on the loose? No, would you?
Would they stay at the Holiday Inn? No, would you?

I think you're getting the point.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I can't say for sure how I would react in the same situation, but this thought had always bothered me. I know JR made comments about looking under JBR's bed in his underwear. But WHY would anyone do that? If she was simply MISSING (with no ransom note) I could understand why. But...there's the NOTE. The supposed RN said clearly it was a kidnapping. So she wasn't HIDING. Under the bed or anywhere else. So once again, the note is shown to be fake by the Rs themselves. So by his statement I can only conclude that he made that statement for the sole purpose of providing an excuse for his underwear fibers to be found in that room.
That RN points to the R guilt more than anything else in the case, followed by their lying about the pineapple. Those 2 things do it all for me.

I would expect any parent missing their child to leave fibers all over the house, regardless of how many ransom notes they find. Moot point, really.

 

[UKGuy]

I would expect any parent missing their child to leave fibers all over the house, regardless of how many ransom notes they find. Moot point, really.

Holdontoyourhat,
But, surely not in the crotch of their dead daughter, or in the knotting in the restraints, or on the underside of the tape affixed to her mouth? Especially when one parent stated she had not been in the basement!

Where are the intruder fibers, or did the intruder come dressed naked?

 

[JMO8778]

Holdontoyourhat,
But, surely not in the crotch of their dead daughter, or in the knotting in the restraints, or on the underside of the tape affixed to her mouth? Especially when one parent stated she had not been in the basement!

Where are the intruder fibers, or did the intruder come dressed naked?

yes,really,and don't forget the paint tote as well-and Patsy said she'd never painted while wearing that jacket.in fact the tote was put in the basement by the housekeeper a few days prior.

 

[JMO8778]

The autopsy says no such thing. I thought you were expert on this case but you sure don't know what the autopsy says. Are we just making this stuff up as we go along or what? Where in the autopsy does it say anything about three days??

it was Cyril Wecht,one of the top pathologists in the US,who said there was an injury about 72 hrs old.And the party was 3 days prior.One can only wonder,esp. with that odd 911 call that no one there can explain,the one Susan Stine didn't even open the door to when police arrived to check it out.

 

[JMO8778]

I do think Steve Thomas had information that made him think Patsy was rough with JonBenet and I can not exclude Patsy as the person may have digitally penetrated JonBenet for cleaning purposes.

I think so,too,and if JR had come clean about Patsy killing JB,he wouldn't have made himself appear possibly guilty on the molestation issue.He could have just said it all came from Patsy overdoing the cleaning on her.

 

[Solace]

RDI loves to linger on JR 's call to arrange his flight out of town, as if that implies guilty behavior.

Were they being chased down the freeway by police cars? No.
Were they just targeted by an unknown and vicious killer? Yes.
Would they spend the next night in their house? No, would you?
Would they impose on a friend with a killer on the loose? No, would you?
Would they stay at the Holiday Inn? No, would you?

I think you're getting the point.

Would they send their ten year old son to their neighbors house the morning of the kidnapping? YES!

 

[rashomon]

[Solace]
I think John hired his own lawyer and Patsy had her own lawyer and that was because John was not sure what was going to happen. I think he was going to back Patsy if he could, but if it looked like it was going to take him down, he was prepared. I just believe that he would think that way.

Excellent post Solace and thank you so much. I enjoy reading your observations and conclusions. You have a way of putting things in good order, easily understood. The last paragraph, I think, says it all concerning John and his motives and plans. He did every thing but sign a statement saying he thought Patsy did it, in my opinion. CYA at it's CEO best.

Just my opinioon too, Solace and BOESP.
It think the main reason why John let Patsy do most of the staging was that he initially didn't believe she would get away with it, therefore in case of an arrest he did not want to be implicated as having been her accomplice.