The actual vs. desired outcome

[DeeDee249]

I tend to think it was that.Thomas thought the injuries came from corporal punishment/cleaning,and I believe he had basis for saying that.He also said he hoped JB was unconscious when the vag. wound occurred.
To me that leaves enough room for doubt that I think since a scream *was heard,and Thomas rules out a sexual assault,JB very likely could have been injured by Patsy's punishment cleaning and she screamed from the sheer pain of it.Perhaps that's why she said she had flashbacks of JB screaming?? And then the scream was said to have stopped suddenly,and so the head injury could have occurred then,as you say.
I do question whether this all occurred in JB's room or bathroom though...if so,then could it have still been heard by Stanton across the St? The basement was a much better conductor of sound in that direction.Perhaps Patsy took her to the basement for punishment,so BR wouldn't hear the daily bathroom brawls that LHP heard? And then since Stanton's husb. heard the scraping sound,it seems to me that was the paint cans being moved in the WC to make room for JB's body.
I also wonder if perhaps Patsy jabbed her w the paintbrush as punishment,or was that just an attempt to stage a sexual assault after she was unconcious?
I tend to agree with the Murder One comment;one thing Patsy said gets me to thinking that it was no accident...'I know in my heart I didn't do this'.I think what she meant was 'I know in my heart I didn't mean to do this'.So if she was in denial and trying hard to convince herself it was all an accident...it seems to me there was some intent there.And she could only live w herself if she convinced herself there wasn't.

There are so many twists and turns to this case- whenever I think that a certain set of events is the way it must have been (the scream occuring when PR was douching her) it leads to a brick wall. Or at least a closed door. LE did tests in the home to determine whether a scream would be heard from the basement. They had discovered a vent pipe in the area of the wineceller; after going across the street while other officers remained in the basement and on the third floor, they discovered that a basement scream could be heard more easily across the street (because of the vent pipe) than it could on the top floors of the home. I am not positive, but I think they found that a basement scream could also be heard on JBR's floor and in the parent's bedroom on the third floor. But across the street, it was loud and clear.
I can't see PR using a paintbrush on her daughter's vagina, even as punishment. I CAN see her using a douch in a rough manner. But then, I can't see her bringing JBR to the basement to douch her. One thing- I don't know if it was ever mentioned if anyone checked if JBR's bathroom window was open when the house was searched. If it was, then a scream from that location would be much more likely to be heard across the street. I sometimes open a bathroom window, even in winter.

 

[JMO8778]

There are so many twists and turns to this case- whenever I think that a certain set of events is the way it must have been (the scream occuring when PR was douching her) it leads to a brick wall. Or at least a closed door. LE did tests in the home to determine whether a scream would be heard from the basement. They had discovered a vent pipe in the area of the wineceller; after going across the street while other officers remained in the basement and on the third floor, they discovered that a basement scream could be heard more easily across the street (because of the vent pipe) than it could on the top floors of the home. I am not positive, but I think they found that a basement scream could also be heard on JBR's floor and in the parent's bedroom on the third floor. But across the street, it was loud and clear.
I can't see PR using a paintbrush on her daughter's vagina, even as punishment. I CAN see her using a douch in a rough manner. But then, I can't see her bringing JBR to the basement to douch her. One thing- I don't know if it was ever mentioned if anyone checked if JBR's bathroom window was open when the house was searched. If it was, then a scream from that location would be much more likely to be heard across the street. I sometimes open a bathroom window, even in winter.

Yes,I don't think it's beyond belief to think that perhaps she did open a window at some point to let some cool air in,or to get some fresh air;perhaps she had it a bit open from earlier in the day,esp. if maybe she'd colored her hair in JB's bathroom.I tend to think she did that while JB was taking a bath.It would have been convenient.
I do think it likely JB had a bath on the 25th;it's just that Patsy denied it so she could account for any R dna or prints on her.
I'm wondering if the house tended too get to hot sometimes from that type of heat;I recall Thomas saying sometimes her room would get so warm she would kick the covers off.

 

[Toltec]

What makes no sense is why JonBenet would allow the foreign intruder to dish out a bowl of pineapple and allow her to eat it.

"Eat up JonBenet because this is going to be your last meal."

How could any stranger/intruder/foreigner/pedophile get a six-year-old who John claims would "scream bloody murder" to eat pineapple without waking the familly?

The Whites did not serve pineapple....JonBenet had cracked crab and heaven knows what else....so why not cracked crab in her stomach/intestines? Why pineapple? Lets see....pineapple was the last meal Jonbenet ate.

The poor little thing was killed at the hands of her own Mother. Her Mother panicked, and instead of facing prison, she pulls this kidnapping scenario.

Patsy may have never seen the inside of a prison cell, but I believe God had a better plan for her.

 

[coloradokares]

What makes no sense is why JonBenet would allow the foreign intruder to dish out a bowl of pineapple and allow her to eat it.

"Eat up JonBenet because this is going to be your last meal."

How could any stranger/intruder/foreigner/pedophile get a six-year-old who John claims would "scream bloody murder" to eat pineapple without waking the familly?

The Whites did not serve pineapple....JonBenet had cracked crab and heaven knows what else....so why not cracked crab in her stomach/intestines? Why pineapple? Lets see....pineapple was the last meal Jonbenet ate.

The poor little thing was killed at the hands of her own Mother. Her Mother panicked, and instead of facing prison, she pulls this kidnapping scenario.

Patsy may have never seen the inside of a prison cell, but I believe God had a better plan for her.

Plan is one word... I can think of others. Finally ...justice for JonBenet. Even if it was in heaven not on this earth.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Funny I was just wondering what RDI was going to say when they finally realize that there's a bit too much going on here for it to be a filicide or accident or whatever.

Where did that garrote knot and 2nd ligature idea come from? JR? PR? You gotta b kiddn me! RDI still doesn't even know how JBR got her head bashed in, but they're ready to decide anyway.

RDI also doesn't know under what circumstances JBR ate pineapple. But they're ready to decide anyway.

Who owned the cord? Don't know that either.

What does SBTC stand for? Don't know that either.

Who is the owner of the handwriting or the CODIS DNA? Plenty of room for doubt. LE still testing suspects against the DNA.

There's a lot not known here to be rushing to judgement, presuming guilt and everything. Thats probably an argument in favor of abolishing the death penalty.

 

[DeeDee249]

What does it matter what circumstances JBR at the pineapple in? She had it in her digestive tract, there was a bowl of the SAME (it was tested) pineapple on the dining table with her mother's prints on it. Here's the suspicious part- PR denied buying pineapple (there was more in her fridge), denied owning the bowl (it was on a table in a photo of her party 3 days earlier). Denied feeding her daughter the pineapple. Why? What does that have to do with her death? Only that it fixes an approximate time of death, almost 3 hours AFTER her parents claim to have seen her last. They HAD to lie about the pineapple, or their whole timeframe falls apart.
That pineapple is one of the biggest red flags, for me, in this whole case.
Oh, yeah, and the dead child in the basement of her own home.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm surprised that PR's fingerprints on a bowl in her own house is even mentioned. This I think shows very clearly how biased thinking can become. Of course PR's fingerprints are going to be on a bowl in her own house! That she doesn't remember owning it amounts to case trivia, as does who bought the pineapple. After all its not like the pineapple was the murder weapon. Nobody hit JBR over the head with pineapple.

More importantly, how can RDI profess to know what happened here, when RDI doesn't even know what did hit JBR over the head. In other words, we don't even know what the murder weapon was! Thats a lot to not know! Add that to the mystery owner of the cord, handwriting, and CODIS DNA, and you have all the ingredients of an unsolved murder.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm surprised that PR's fingerprints on a bowl in her own house is even mentioned. This I think shows very clearly how biased thinking can become. Of course PR's fingerprints are going to be on a bowl in her own house! That she doesn't remember owning it amounts to case trivia, as does who bought the pineapple. After all its not like the pineapple was the murder weapon. Nobody hit JBR over the head with pineapple.

More importantly, how can RDI profess to know what happened here, when RDI doesn't even know what did hit JBR over the head. In other words, we don't even know what the murder weapon was! Thats a lot to not know! Add that to the mystery owner of the cord, handwriting, and CODIS DNA, and you have all the ingredients of an unsolved murder.

The point is there were ONLY PR's prints on it. I also find it hard to believe she couldn't remember owning a bowl that had been used at a party just 3 days before the murder. PR was very detailed as far as her decorating and hostessing. She KNEW that was her bowl. She has always has convenient amnesia as far as this case is concerned.
The truth is NEITHER RDI OR IDI know exactly what happened- or we'd solve the case for the Boulder police. What we are doing here is forming opinions and stating them- forming ideas about what could have happened.
We obviously view evidence differently.
And it's very hard to get RDI to turn to the Dark Side.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

And ONLY PR's prints being on the bowl is a bigger deal than one might realize because that means that JonBenet herself did not handle the bowl....someone had to have gotten it for her, and based on the prints, that someone is Patsy Ramsey. The Rs also said that JonBenet could not have gotten the bowl down from where it was kept by herself, nor that she was able to open the walk-in fridge by herself.

Patsy also distanced herself from the box of Kleenex that was on the breakfast table with the pineapple and glass with tea bag. She claimed it didn't look like it was hers because that wasn't the shape of box that she normally bought.

So are we supposed to believe that the intruder brought the box of Kleenex in? Apparently so, since Patsy conveniently doesn't recognize it.

Something happened at the table...something that makes Patsy want to completely deny everything about it. Maybe it was just that JonBenet was awake at a time when the Rs said she was asleep, and the table set up and pineapple in her intestine proves it...or maybe it was something else. Something that involved needing Kleenex, or why else would Patsy try to deny the tissues and distance herself from owning the box of them on her own table?

As once again - if the Rs didn't set up this midnight snack with the glass and tea bag and bowl of pineapple and it was the work of the intruder (complete with box of Kleenex he brought with him), why the heck didn't they see it when they got up in the morning, and tell police right away that someone had obviously been at the table and left stuff, and it wasn't them? Why just play stupid and not say anything at all to police until asked about it, like they did with the flashlight?

 

[DeeDee249]

As once again - if the Rs didn't set up this midnight snack with the glass and tea bag and bowl of pineapple and it was the work of the intruder (complete with box of Kleenex he brought with him), why the heck didn't they see it when they got up in the morning, and tell police right away that someone had obviously been at the table and left stuff, and it wasn't them? Why just play stupid and not say anything at all to police until asked about it, like they did with the flashlight?

Because, IMHO, they simply overlooked that stuff. They never realized that an autopsy would reveal the pineapple in her stomach, especially that it would be identified as pineapple. Frankly, I am not so sure they realized there would be an autopsy at all- their having provided a very obvious cause of death- the garrotte. They may have thought that alone would be enough for a coroner to identify a cause of death.
I just don't think that they ever thought the pineapple and the fact that the flashlight BATTERIES had been wiped down would ever be noticed nor asked about.
Innocent parents in this scenario would have noticed ANYTHING out of the ordinary that morning. But the Rs waited for LE to ask them IF they saw anything out of the ordinary. LE couldn't have made it any easier for the Rs. They let things pass that should have SCREAMED for further inquiry, and with the defense lawyers right there to prevent incriminating answers from being given, LE may as well have been "interviewing" the Rs for a job at Burger King instead of questioning them about their daughter's murder.

 

[JMO8778]

And ONLY PR's prints being on the bowl is a bigger deal than one might realize because that means that JonBenet herself did not handle the bowl....someone had to have gotten it for her, and based on the prints, that someone is Patsy Ramsey. The Rs also said that JonBenet could not have gotten the bowl down from where it was kept by herself, nor that she was able to open the walk-in fridge by herself.

Patsy also distanced herself from the box of Kleenex that was on the breakfast table with the pineapple and glass with tea bag. She claimed it didn't look like it was hers because that wasn't the shape of box that she normally bought.

So are we supposed to believe that the intruder brought the box of Kleenex in? Apparently so, since Patsy conveniently doesn't recognize it.

Something happened at the table...something that makes Patsy want to completely deny everything about it. Maybe it was just that JonBenet was awake at a time when the Rs said she was asleep, and the table set up and pineapple in her intestine proves it...or maybe it was something else. Something that involved needing Kleenex, or why else would Patsy try to deny the tissues and distance herself from owning the box of them on her own table?

As once again - if the Rs didn't set up this midnight snack with the glass and tea bag and bowl of pineapple and it was the work of the intruder (complete with box of Kleenex he brought with him), why the heck didn't they see it when they got up in the morning, and tell police right away that someone had obviously been at the table and left stuff, and it wasn't them? Why just play stupid and not say anything at all to police until asked about it, like they did with the flashlight?

exactly !
Hold,don't you think that ppl see right through the twisting businessman tactics??? Do you really think anyone is dumb enough to believe those tactics?? Because that is all they are...twisting tactics.We'd have to suffer a complete lack of common sense not to see the truth here.

 

[DeeDee249]

exactly !
Hold,don't you think that ppl see right through the twisting businessman tactics??? Do you really think anyone is dumb enough to believe those tactics?? Because that is all they are...twisting tactics.We'd have to suffer a complete lack of common sense not to see the truth here.

Too true! Isn't is sad how many people actually DO lack that common sense? Like the entire Grand Jury, and all of the IDIs.

 

[BBB167893]

Who is the owner of the handwriting

Actually, Holdon, a few years ago, there was a short film called "Who Killed JonBenet." It was a lot of their Wolf case depositions edited together. In one segment, Darnay Hoffman asks Patsy if she killed her daughter. Patsy says no. Okay. But she shakes her head "yes!" WHY??

More importantly, how can RDI profess to know what happened here, when RDI doesn't even know what did hit JBR over the head. In other words, we don't even know what the murder weapon was! Thats a lot to not know!

You make a good point, at least with me. People ask me, "what do you think happened?" And I tell them, "depends on what day you catch me on." So in all honesty, I guess I shouldn't expect to convince anyone else when I can't even convince myself! Please note: I'm not saying I don't know who did it. I'm saying I'm never sure HOW it happened. Still, it is a big stumbling block, "a stone upon which I must fall down, or else overleap, for in my way it lies."

But I would have to balk over your reasoning about an unsolved murder. See, trying a case like this usually boils down to the right prosecutor and the right jury. Obviously, the prosecutor isn't up to the job. And I don't hold out much hope for the next person, either. It's the culture, the nature of the beast, as it were. A sea change is needed here. Question is, what kind of jury would you need for a case like this? I remember back in college, for one of my law classes, we had a mock trial for the Rs. My closing argument really rocked the house. But it came back a deadlock anyway. (The majority was in my favor.)

 

[DeeDee249]

Didn't JR also do one of those "says NO but shakes head YES" things at one point?

 

[JMO8778]

Question is, what kind of jury would you need for a case like this?

one that isn't naive to the ways of the world....one that sees (unlike Smit),right through the Ramsey lies and charm...and knows that yes,unfortunately,a parent CAN do this !!

I was called 2x for jury duty in the past few yrs...each time I felt I was totally overlooked because I'd been a SAHM for quite awhile (nevermind I'd been to college and had worked,with a medical background)...I believe most thought I was just too naive to be up to the task..over and over again,I kept seeing the ppl with more worldly experience getting picked over me...(esp. military).And I thought that was just a darn shame...for often it is the homemakers and sahm's who are down to earth enough to be able to see the truth for what it is,and to be able to separate the lies from the truth.I say this because I want you prosecutors and attorneys out there who choose for jury duty to *remember that !

By the second time around,I'd figured out I might as well just be taking a nap,because no one was going to bother me ! lol.And I was right.


(btw,I think Jams DOES realize the truth in this case,but since she stands to gain from the untruth,she won't change her public opinion).

and yes,I know Patsy was picked for jury duty not long after the murder..but she did have a more worldly background than me,and I'm sure there might be times when the average sahm would be chosen,it's just that overall,that's NOT what I saw happening.

I remember back in college, for one of my law classes, we had a mock trial for the Rs. My closing argument really rocked the house. But it came back a deadlock anyway. (The majority was in my favor.)

If you have the time,would you mind sharing it w. us?? I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

 

[Solace]

Actually, Holdon, a few years ago, there was a short film called "Who Killed JonBenet." It was a lot of their Wolf case depositions edited together. In one segment, Darnay Hoffman asks Patsy if she killed her daughter. Patsy says no. Okay. But she shakes her head "yes!" WHY??

Fascinating how the subconscious works isn't it.

 

[BBB167893]

yeah!

 

[Rino]

Actually, Holdon, a few years ago, there was a short film called "Who Killed JonBenet." It was a lot of their Wolf case depositions edited together. In one segment, Darnay Hoffman asks Patsy if she killed her daughter. Patsy says no. Okay. But she shakes her head "yes!" WHY??

Fascinating how the subconscious works isn't it.

Yes :snooty:

 

[Solace]

Didn't JR also do one of those "says NO but shakes head YES" things at one point?

Yep, here is the link to an article about it.

http://eyesforlies.blogspot.com/2006/11/john-ramsey-interview.html

 

[Nuisanceposter]

And I thought that was just a darn shame...for often it is the homemakers and sahm's who are down to earth enough to be able to see the truth for what it is,and to be able to separate the lies from the truth.

As a sahm myself, I could not agree more. Most mothers develop a keen sense for lies and sketchy stories and scenarios that don't quite sound right, and they usually have fairly sharp observation skills - the proverbial "eyes in the back of the head." Quite often the job of Mom requires being able to think fast in any situation, and come up with diplomatic answers to soothe the most highly irrational and notoriously impatient people (toddlers and teenagers.)

That's one thing that's always bothered about Patsy talking about the heart on JB's hand, saying one day that she'd seen it and it was well-drawn, then announcing at the beginning of the interview first thing the very day that she had been mistaken and hadn't seen it after all, but must have read about it in the autopsy report (the same one her husband said they didn't read.)

How could she know how well-drawn it was to comment on that specific aspect of it if she'd never seen it...and didn't she have a less transparent way to correct the blunder she'd made it admitting she'd seen it than by using a tactic that is on the level of a grade school child? Who didn't see right through that?

I can guarantee you a sahm mom, or probably any mom present at that interview, would have zeroed in on that obvious attempt to do a complete turn-around and deny having actually seen it when she just said she had (and close/long enough to judge how well drawn it was) and asked Patsy the necessary questions to figure out if she saw it or not.

It's like this: suppose my 12 yr old daughter's teacher calls...some girls were caught passing notes, and it looks like my daughter was involved, but not clear. As I drive my daughter to school, I ask her about the note the teacher seized, and she tells me something she would only know if she had seen it herself - "It was written in very good penmanship." She goes to school and talks to her friends. They confer with each other, figuring out who knows what, who was asked what and by whom, what story was bunk and how to fix it, and by the time I pick my daughter up from school, she gets in the car and right away has a different story to tell. This time she tells me she was wrong - she hadn't seen the note after all, but she heard her teacher tell another teacher what it said in it.

First off, I'm tipped off that her story isn't right because she starts in on it without me even bringing it up. Obviously it's an issue of concern on her mind if it's the first thing she says as soon as she gets in the car. Second, it doesn't match with what she said yesterday...'what the note said'? She said it was written in very good penmanship...how do you go from knowing how well the letters were formed to only knowing the contents of the note by hearing one person rely the most basic info to another, without saying anything about the penmanship?

So then I'd be left asking myself...why is she changing her story? Why is she back-pedaling and denying she'd seen the note enough to assess a grade for penmanship, and why is it so important to her to start telling me that right away before I even ask her about it?

I think I know the answer in Patsy's case...she saw the heart, and admitted it when asked the first day. Then when she got done, she told JR and/or the attys what she'd said, and she realized she'd messed up bigtime by saying she'd not only seen the heart, but that she had got a good enough look to judge artistic ability...and then she was desperate enough to need to correct that admission that she either didn't realize or didn't care how obvious it was that she needed to change her story as soon as possible.

Wow, sorry for going on so long, but stuff that obvious in this case really boils my potatoes. Why weren't they tougher on the Rs? Why didn't they actually ask intense questions that require real answers that get somewhere, instead of make cordial conversation with them about the case and try to gain info in a round-about manner, taking care not upset poor, delicate, suffering, steel magnolia Patsy or cause stoic, detached JR to have to try to recall something clearly, or even know something about his own family?? ugh, like that interview with Smit where he practically supplies JR with the answers he wants to hear - what the hell. Send a woman in there, specifically a seasoned mother, and let her ferret out the plausible from the outright lies.