The Case of JonBenet Ramsey-CBS Sept. 18 # 2

[YouWho]

http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/at...rt-accusing-burke-ramsey-of-killing-jonbenet/

re LW suit


@29:42


?: Burke Ramsey ....
What is his reaction?



LW: Well I have talked to Burke
since it aired.....
I have no problems in saying that
Burke did not watch it.
Burke is not, I'm sure for reasons
that are his own and reasons that
were John and Patsys........
He knows what this is
he didn't watch it
and He knows now what he's got to do.
Doing nothing is not an
acceptable option.
And so he is going to file this
lawsuit. BUT
I knew this was going to happen
and I talked to Burke about it before
it happened.
So nobody saw this and decided on
Monday morning or Tuesday morning.
'Oh Gosh Let's file a lawsuit',
I knew it was coming.
I was still shocked that CBS would make
this kind of a mistake....

I hope that Atlanta fat cat bully L.W. Goes down in flames.

 

[ThinkHard]

I have been observing that Burke does a lot of mimicking....reading above in the transcript where PR says "you know" I've read her using this phrase multiple times....and we hear Burke use it in his interviews, when to me he's trying to be extra convincing he's being genuine and relaxed.

He also uses the phrase that he's just moving on with his life, and we her JR utter a similar phrase at one point.

It's common in kids with issues that effect their social skills, to use other people's words as their own, they take them from what they observe, but mostly people in their life and movies.

I've been thinking about the ransom note....IF a 9 year old boy was going to write a ransom note, he would probably want to make it sound like an adult wrote it, so it would make sense to see a letter filled with phrasing he's heard previously by his own mother or father, or from movies.

Patsy coached. Him in penmanship....so is it not possible his could be a sloppier version of hers? Could he write with either hand?

Just pondering if it's even possible that BR could have done everything.

 

[BBB167893]

Just on that, the autopsy said nothing about prior sexual abuse.

Other medical experts offered opinions second hand after reading the report. And other medical experts disputed that opinion. Jonbenet's pediatrician, said that he had examined her in the past and found no sexual abuse evidence there. So, the only two places that she had been examined first hand have not reported 'chronic' sexual abuse. So, unless there is something else, I'll go with that.

But the autopsy report stated some sexual abuse in the time of her attack and killing.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence of Prior Sexual Abuse

There are other things. For one, they didn't just "read the report." The medical experts who said there was abuse also examined the microscopic tissue slides. The others did not. Moreover, JonBenet's doctor admitted that he never performed an internal exam. He's not the first pediatrician to miss signs of abuse. Sadly, he probably won't be the last, either.

 

[dizzychick]

Normal female pediatric exams do not involve looking for signs of sexual abuse or inspecting the genitals......so I'm curious why would her pediatrician have had cause to examine her for this previously?

I think she was getting UTI's a lot which could be a symptom of abuse too or wiping the wrong way

 

[YouWho]

But that didn't work. For many years PR & JR were suspects anyway so what good did that do?

It kept them out of jail.

 

[ThinkHard]

I think she was getting UTI's a lot which could be a symptom of abuse too or wiping the wrong way

Yes it is common in girls this age because of the wiping thing. But treating them doesn't typically involve the level of exam neccasary to determine if she had been sexually abused. I doubt the uti would have prompted the doctor to suspect abuse if she wasnt showing other signs. She's also still in the age range for night wetting to be common, so I don't think that would set off alarm bells.

So what caused the exam To be promoted in the first place. To me it feels like there must have been something else prompting it.

Either that or the pediatrician fibbed. And he never actually performed a thorough enough exam to determine that conclusion and made that statement based on never seeing overt signs of sexual abuse.

 

[ElleElle]

19 TOM HANEY: You made three calls to*20 Dr. Buff 's office on December 7.*[Haney probably said Dec. 17th; the transcriptionist worked from audio on videotapes.]*Okay. Just--21 PATSY RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE).22 TOM HANEY: Correct? Three in one*23 day. One at 6:28 p.m., one at 6:50 p.m., and*24 one at 6:59 p.m. Do you recall that day?25 PATSY RAMSEY: To the office or*05801 his home?2 TOM HANEY: To the office.3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't*4 remember.5 TOM HANEY: Would that have been*6 for something like this, to remember?7 PATSY RAMSEY: Seems like I would*8 have remembered, you know.9 TOM HANEY: Three times in less*10 than an hour?11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I just*12 don't --

As if she does not remember making 3 calls within 30 minutes.

 

[ElleElle]

I think she was getting UTI's a lot which could be a symptom of abuse too or wiping the wrong way

And Patsy also said she used desitin on her as she had irritation due to wiping issues.

 

[BBB167893]

Think through that. Hmmmm.....

What is the point of the family writing a fake ransom note if they know she is dead and they have placed her in the cellar?

Distraction. They can say, "this person did it. They said they did it. Why aren't you looking for them?"

John and/or Patsy kill her, or finish what Burke did. They make it look like someone else did it. And there she is down there.......then early in the morning PR calls the police to say her daughter is missing from her bedroom. The 911 person tells her to look all over the house. They "find" her, and then ring 911 again to tell them, as the police are on there way. So...that is the script - without the ransom note. The ransom note is a misdirect.

Except there's no explanation for WHY she's dead without it! Without it, all you have is a dead girl with sexual injuries in her own home. Ask Ron Walker who he'd go after for that!

I'm trying to think of what thought processes either one of them would have, though. It most definitely is a "misdirect" ploy.

Right. And frankly, I don't know if it's possible for any of us to understand their thought processes that night.

So that is what the plan is: misdirect away from the family. But on their own on their own notepad, using their own pen!?

Well, pardon me if I seem like a wise@$$, but whose notepad and pen were they supposed to use?!

Leaving the murder weapon (torch) there? If they were that scatterbrained in their thinking, its amazing they did not fall apart very quickly afterwards.

Don't ever make that assumption. There are people who've been in prison 20 years who say they didn't do it.

I would have thought making it look like a break in would seem to be 10 times more an effective at the time.

Maybe so, but how to do it? It wouldn't look very good to be heard or spotted smashing in your own door or window that night.

And not disposing of the murder weapon. That is hard to figure out.

If it was the murder weapon. I'm not 100%.

 

[BBB167893]

But that didn't work. For many years PR & JR were suspects anyway so what good did that do?

Depending on how you look at it, plenty of good.

 

[BBB167893]

But either way it would have been the same. BR was only 9 he wouldn't have been prosecuted and that wouldn't have had to do all that horrible stuff to her little girl that I think is even worse. I would have been more forgiving if an accident with a flashlight then all the rope and strangling, degrading torture and wood in her vagina.

That's a big part of it, Whiteorchids: I think the whole country would have been more forgiving. But, that's a lesson we as humans never seem to learn.

 

[BBB167893]

I hope that Atlanta fat cat bully L.W. Goes down in flames.

Don't bet against it, youWho. I don't use the comparison of Napoleon attacking Russia just for fun!

 

[carolinea]

Ok I know this is something most people aren't familiar with, and those who are don't usually discuss it.....even as someone who has worked with children extensively, I've only encountered it once, but know of a second occurrence through a fellow teacher.

But I had a female student once, age 4/5, who had a sensory processing disorder, was highly intelligent, and happen to take to masturbating like some take to thumb sucking. Mostly she used this as a self sooth measure, and it's unlikely she related this to it being "sexual" but rather just pleasurable. Most occurrences were during nap time, and the first time was brutally awkward! And I'm not talking just feeling your privates, I'm talking red cheeks, painting, eye rolling. When she would get really stressed doing school work she would also sometimes touch herself during class with her fingers or even sometimes objects, like pencils etc. yes

I was reading the autopsy report, and thinking of this....and just considering that perhaps SOME of the evidence of abdnormal vaginal findings on JBR could have been self inflicted?

This is from what I posted above: "All of the experts agreed that there was no way any of the recent or chronic abuse damage to the genitalia of the child was the result of masturbation."

As the one expert stated, at least one of the injuries would have been very painful. She wouldn't have done it to herself.

 

[singularity]

Is it possible that the suitcase was originally under JAR's bed and that is why the dust ruffle was out of place on the bed? From pulling it out?
Maybe they didn't even open the suitcase when they took it down there. Maybe they HAD planned on putting her body in the suitcase only to realize she would never fit so never opened the suitcase. Instead, using it as a prop for the IDI theory. Only later learning what the suitcase contained.
All of this is an opinion on a possible scenario. Just thinking out loud.
There is no perfect crime. I think they made a ton of mistakes but were able to muddy the waters enough to keep this case unsolved. Sadly.

If memory serves me correctly Lou Smit is the person we can thank for turning it into a piece of IDI evidence. I wish that guy had never been allowed on the case. It amazes me that any semi competent detective could look at that suitcase and consider its contents pretty much irrelevant to the case. Yes he asked JOhn about it but other than that, it just became a step out the window for an intruder even though there were chairs down there to use that would be much better to use as an escape instead of a suitcase that could easily tip over while trying to use it.

I agree with Frankie that there's a possibility it was initially under the bed and even if it wasn't, something was under there. I don't buy for a second that an actual person was hiding under there. IF someone was under there, it was Jonbenet trying to get away from a family member but its not really disturbed enough to insinuate that. Its as if someone just looked under there to see what was being kept under his bed.

In my humble opinion, I think that the Ramsey's were far more effective than they originally expected to be. I think they muddied the waters just enough to cast a little doubt. With the crime scene also being contaminated, this case has barely stood a decent chance at being solved. UNLESS the LE are holding very pointed evidence waiting for them to screw up enough to bring it to light. MOO

They're definitely holding back evidence. That is the most disappointing thing about this particular series. I was expecting them to finally show certain things that sleuths have wondered about over the years.

I see you've already been posting for a month but welcome to the forum.

It was also pointed out recently there was another roll Fleet was asked to retrieve very early on so there are plenty of pictures we have never seen.

While a couple of these shows did show a few pics and of course snippets of video that night, there was so much more they could have shown. I suppose its possible it is in the 2 hours we didn't get to see or maybe they just didn't want to. Would've been great to see those pics JOhn took to finish the roll of film before handing it to BPD for starters.

On top of the list of pics I wish they would show are the five pics of JAR's room that both Patsy and the interviewers didn't want to deal with so they skipped over them.

Hi PositiveLight

thanks! love your dog picture as well

To see the Coke cans go to part 2 and the video footage of the bathroom starts at around the minute mark 53

I do recall the knife and it's very telling he mentioned it during his interview even though it was not a public fact yet. I find very peculiar the special went to great detail replicating the house, even including that Elephant painting in the train room, one would assume they wanted to show everything as it truly was. Except they didn't.

The crime scene appeared to be just the blanket that covered JB on the floor, but we know the knife was also there, the barbie night gown and mostly, although they are not discussed very frequently: the doll and the pictures

"cutesy" pictures of JB as they have been described, which Patsy claimed shouldn't have been down there. Kolar was also pretty evasive about the doll being there, but we can see it in the pictures.

Why all of this was ignored and not discussed bewilders me.

I watched this show again as well as the ID show(I missed that one when it aired) and I am also disappointed by the lack of detail. They did a pretty good job I suppose but like you said, they didn't go far enough making it look as it did that night. I'd imagine it would be difficult doing an exact replica but that house was a mess top to bottom and in the replicated version, its as if it was whitewashed and sterile.

I was blown away by the Coke cans and when a member here posted the screenshot, it made me realize I missed some key spots due to going to the bathroom multiple times so I had to watch it again. Unfortunately its impossible to know exactly when those cans were placed there. It certainly implies that two people were drinking Coke. If so and they were placed there that night and not earlier in the day, why would either kid want a glass of tea? If you're still thirsty, wouldn't you just quickly grab another coke? I need to look at the list of items taken from the house again but I don't remember any items being taken from the fridge. Another mistake by BPD.

YOu bring up the possibility of Burke drinking them both. It is possible but at the same time I can just as easily imagine both kids finishing their Cokes and just tossing them in the sink. Having said that, its an odd spot to toss your soda cans although with how messy the entire house is and the housekeeper mentioning years ago how the kids would just toss whatever it is they have anywhere expecting someone else to clean it up, it wouldn't be out of left field.

One thing that particular placement of the Coke cans does is rule out John and/or Patsy drinking one of them as I find it hard to imagine an adult thinking its a good spot to dump your empty cans.

then they discuss pictures of what appears to be a scarf and the note pad

I wish the scarf pics had been shown. What I find so odd about the scarf issue is how it appears in different places depending on which photographs are being discussed. Who keeps moving it around....and why?

I do find it very odd that the investigators quickly glossed over the sexual assault evidence on the show, but maybe they were just playing it safe with regard to the impending lawsuit from the R's lawyer.

It was inexcusable to gloss over it. Playing it safe from a lawsuit?!? They named Burke as the killer. If they wanted to play it safe, maybe they should have not went in that direction or if doing so, actually make a solid case for it.

Mentioning abuse/sexual assault doesn't mean it was Burke doing it. There's a list of suspects as far as the abuse goes so its not like that spotlight would shine only on Burke. IMO that's why it was quickly glossed over. Bring up abuse or sexual assault and it causes the viewer to think about other people besides Burke.

Not sure how this lawsuit will play out......the show specifically posted a disclaimer basically saying its all just their opinion so they're not too confident in what they were saying to begin with.

"The killing of JonBenet Ramsey is a crime that, to this day, remains unsolved. The opinions and conclusions
of the investigators who appear on this program about how it may have occurred represent just some of a number of
possible scenarios. John Ramsey and Burke Ramsey have denied any involvement in the crime, including in recent
televised interviews. We encourage viewers to reach their own conclusions."

How much attention did they give to the swiss army knife, cigar box, doll and pictures supposedly left near/in the crime scene?

They didn't give it any attention. Its why some of us were so disappointed in this specific show as we expected them to practically blow the lid off this case that had been in limbo for so long.

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks!! I'm wondering if the missing items discussion was in the 2 hours they cut. Maybe they are holding on to that part in case they are sued. Then they can play it in court and in the process get Burke and John's reactions. I think it would be very telling. The one thing this family has never been able to master is the
ability to hide their body reactions when under extreme stress. Even good actors/actresses have weak points. I think that is their Achilles's heel. JMOO

When you have the time PL, read the full transcripts of Patsy and John from 97 and 98. While there are redactions of course and Patsy does an amazing job at manipulation, they both make some interesting slip ups and had better people been handling the interviews, they both would've been nailed to the wall.

Yes, seems like quite a bit was held back

One thing I distinctively remember from the trailer was how they seemed to attempt to approach Burke and he ignored them.

I'd like to see the full segments emerge to see what they left out and also find out if they tried to cover tons of info not present in the two programs

there were many more aspects of staging besides the garrote and the Ransom note they didn't mention at all. They might not be as famous but they are also evidence, and some of it is truly bizarre. (300 new words, the dictionary, the pictures thrown down at the basement, etc)

The special was GOOD but it does NOT answer ALL questions or make all the pieces suddenly fit.

Nobody has explained what Patsy was gasping at looking at the christmas morning pictures

the evidence I mentioned above

The December 23rd party (my personal obsession)

And nope, I do not believe any of this points to an intruder. I am NOT IDI. What I do believe, is that it all points to very severe dysfunction, and not all of it is strictly Burke Ramsey. They appeared to have given Patsy and John a free pass for many things and basically unloaded all the weight upon Burke and left both parents as mere stagers. I think it's a tad more complicated than that.

Absolutely. THis is why it blows my mind when I sometimes see a post these past few days saying "all questions have been answered".

There was a mountain of unanswered questions before any of these new series aired and now there's even more questions so I'm unable to comprehend how any were actually answered. A few things we always suspected like Burke being awake are now known but other than that, it's still a complex mystery just like it always was.

I also don't like how if you don't fall in line with all these supposed "answered questions", you get labeled as IDI by certain people.....which has happened to me twice the past couple days. Anyone who labels me IDI after reading my posts is as blind as Ray Charles.

Also bothers me that Burke states he's never read the ransom note, and now he's not watched any of the shows???

I don't believe for a second that he's never read that note. Amazing that he would claim such nonsense. I'd imagine his lawyer told him to say that although why they'd think an answer like that would help him only god knows why.

Hi everyone, I'm new to WS, been lurking for a bit. This case has always fascinated me. What an amazingly informative site.

If anyone wants to look up the books being referred to upthread for themselves...

According to Kolar's book (info taken from a KoldKase post on the FFJ forum http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...-s-book-about-Ramsey-case&p=190985#post190985):

• The Hurried Child – Growing Up Too Fast, by David Elkind;
• Children at Risk, Dobson / Bruer;
• Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong, Kilpatrick.


Edited to add: In my opinion, these books appear to be more about conservative Christian fear-mongering that moral values in society were degrading, how to protect your child from 'outside influences', the public school system etc.

FFJ is a great website. I wish they'd open it up to new registrations.

When taking my refresher course on the case earlier this year, I read a lot of their old discussions. Very few trolls were there and the discussions flowed very well.

And yet his parents quickly had him removed from that "safe place". Why send him to the White's house?

Because he was irrelevant to them at the moment and they needed to get the freak show rolling.

I'm watching Law and Order: SVU and I would not be surprised if this show or another fictional crime show does an episode based on this case this season. It will be based on the BDI theory, and it might even take place years after the crime.

This is the episode SVU aired in October 2006, two months after JMK was arrested:



They even had the young beauty queen on their show murdered on Halloween, instead of Christmas.

For anyone interested, there is also a Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode based on the Ramsey case titled 'Masquerade'. It was released not long after the JMK fiasco and includes that element into the case.

The CBS show is interesting. For veterans of the case the sequence of events might be crucial. So if it goes like this on the 911 call and I'm pretty certain otg was well looking for tissues when they did the audio analysis, e.g. PR, JR, BR? Have I got that wrong?

Meaning BR is saying what did you find? Like I've said before how would any 9-year know there was anything to be found?

.

Well he just heard his mom tell 911 there's a ransom note. If you were a kid walking in mid conversation, wouldn't you ask such a question?

 

[carolinea]

There's a simple explanation for the Coke cans. It's possible they were half-full and left sitting around the room. You're not going to put cans with liquid in them in the trash, so you go to the nearest sink (in this case his bathroom) and tip them over so the liquid goes down the drain. If there was a lot of liquid in them, you might leave them there with the intention of throwing them away later, once they're empty.

I find them like that in my kitchen sink all the time.

 

[questfortrue]

This part of the show surprised and distressed me. Spitz and Lee absolutely dismissed the sexual aspects and I do wonder if this was a legal problem - either they agreed with Wood not to touch that, or the CBS lawyers advised them "not to go there, buddy." A paint chip is not going to be transferred into her vagina, I don't care what size it was! They changed the subject so quickly I was momentarily stunned! The autopsy clearly showed vaginal damage, both prior to and during that night, so why did they skim over/dismiss that evidence? Still very puzzling.

Legal issues aside, Spitz at one time claimed that the paintbrush injury occurred peri- or postmortem. It’s my belief that there was a considered agreement (legal and other) not to pursue this. Also, it can’t be proven who perpetrated that obscenity. It could have been BR or perhaps a stager. (Could there have been another in the family who was interfering with JonBenét? Yes, according to Christine Courtois; it is not uncommon for there to be two molesters in a family.)

It’s interesting both BR and JR mention a pedophile intruder as the perpetrator. JR later denies in an interview knowing whether she was sexually injured. Confused whether he understands the term pedophile? Me, too. JR also attempted to trade interviews with the BPD in return for having the BPD disappear the ‘prior abuse’ conclusions. (IRMI)

 

[SandyQLS]

There are other things. For one, they didn't just "read the report." The medical experts who said there was abuse also examined the microscopic tissue slides. The others did not. Moreover, JonBenet's doctor admitted that he never performed an internal exam. He's not the first pediatrician to miss signs of abuse. Sadly, he probably won't be the last, either.

Let's learn together. Microscopic examination from the autopsy:

focal interstitial chronic inflammation - vaginal mucosa
interstitial chronic inflammation infiltrate - thyroid
mild chronic inflammation - trachea

vascular congestion - vaginal mucosa, lungs, thymus; and perhaps kidney (mild, only in cortex with no inflammation)

I think that many believe that the changes in the vaginal mucosa were evident on gross examination, but they were not - they were noted under microscopic examination.

What do all of those body parts have in common? It isn't "chronic sexual abuse" but rather remnants of the injuries immediately preceding death (vaginal mucosa) and the death by strangulation itself (thyroid, trachea, lungs, thymus) leading to vascular congestion and inflammation. JMO

 

[carolinea]

Just on that, the autopsy said nothing about prior sexual abuse.

Other medical experts offered opinions second hand after reading the report. And other medical experts disputed that opinion. Jonbenet's pediatrician, said that he had examined her in the past and found no sexual abuse evidence there. So, the only two places that she had been examined first hand have not reported 'chronic' sexual abuse. So, unless there is something else, I'll go with that.

But the autopsy report stated some sexual abuse in the time of her attack and killing.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence of Prior Sexual Abuse

As stated by someone above, they didn't just read the autopsy report. If you read what I posted, it gives great detail about what physical characteristics indicated abuse. Additionally, this was a panel comprised of some of the foremost experts on childhood sexual abuse.

If you can read that very technical information and still dismiss the possibility of abuse, AND ignore the opinions of multiple renowned experts, it's because you willfully don't want to believe it, not because of any proof or lack of proof.

My kid is the same age as JB would be today. I was physically sickened after realizing that BR did this to his sister. I had no idea of the horrible things he had done to her already. It all makes sense now. That poor little girl deserved better.

It's important to note that Burke also showed signs of abuse, and it's very possible someone else was abusing Jonbenet.

 

[SandyQLS]

There's a simple explanation for the Coke cans. It's possible they were half-full and left sitting around the room. You're not going to put cans with liquid in them in the trash, so you go to the nearest sink (in this case his bathroom) and tip them over so the liquid goes down the drain. If there was a lot of liquid in them, you might leave them there with the intention of throwing them away later, once they're empty.

I find them like that in my kitchen sink all the time.

It's CO, so I thought recycling. And of course they cannot be expected to walk their own cans to the proper bin likely in the kitchen area but rather the maid was supposed to collect them while cleaning?

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

I thought I saw or heard somewhere that the older Ramsey son was seen going into the house Christmas night... can anyone confirm or deny?

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Their neighbor, Barnhill - the guy who let John store Patsy's surprise bike for xmas and who took care of JB's dog - said he saw someone walking near the Ramsey home the night of the 25th and he assumed it was JAR but JAR was in Atlanta that night. I know some people think JAR's alibi was faked and everyone was lying for him but I don't find it believable myself.

This is from a Dec. 28th article: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-neighbors-joe-betty-barnhill.htm
Barnhill also said he saw John Ramsey's son from a previous marriage, a student at CU, come to the house.


This is from Steve Thomas's book:
Another reason to interview the Barnhills, however, was that Joe had told the police he had seen JonBenet’s older half-brother, John Andrew, in Boulder on the evening of December 25. John Andrew claimed to have been in Atlanta at the time. During the interview Barnhill sheepishly told us he had made a mistake and apologized, saying that he probably would not even recognize the young man in a crowd. That went a long way toward firming up John Andrew’s alibi.