The danger of a closed mind

[rashomon]

I don't think putting the hair up in that awkward manner, tying the cord that tight around the neck, placing cords on the wrist, no matter how loose one of them was, and placing the body in such an inhospitable place qualifies as UNdoing. That looks more like doing to me.

To me, it looks more like doing a staging. Wrist ligatures which did not restrain, a garrote which obviously did not do the strangling (the cord was knotted around JB's neck), and a duct tape which was placed on a lifeless body.
Wrapping JB in the blanket would point to undoing. So there seem to have been two motives at work at the same time: staging and undoing.
And doesn't this just scream that the parents were involved?
For an intruder could neither have had an interest in staging a scene nor in undoing his crime.

 

[aussiesheila]

This secret Santa business started with the torn up letter in JonBenet's bedroom wastebasket. A letter was written and thought to have come with the little bear she received from AmeriKids.

Patsy also mentions Secret Santa sbut I have to look that up.

I don't think what you say is correct Toltec. In PMPT it was reported that JonBenet told a friend of hers and her friend's mother that Santa was paying her a visit after Christmas and that it was a secret.

 

[Toltec]

I don't think what you say is correct Toltec. In PMPT it was reported that JonBenet told a friend of hers and her friend's mother that Santa was paying her a visit after Christmas and that it was a secret.

Yes aussie...hence the secret santa letter.

 

[sissi]

Jonbenet was just finishing kindergarten, I doubt she could have read a secret letter. Someone "TOLD" her Santa was coming after Christmas.

 

[Paradox]

Jonbenet was just finishing kindergarten, I doubt she could have read a secret letter. Someone "TOLD" her Santa was coming after Christmas.

"After Christmas", now what happened "after Christmas"? Oh ya, gurgle, bash, JonBenet dies! And of course the small foreign faction is responsible for that. So, the small foreign faction told JonBenet that Santa would visit her. No wonder JonBenet commented on the visit, small foreign factions can be impressive.

 

[sissi]

"After Christmas", now what happened "after Christmas"? Oh ya, gurgle, bash, JonBenet dies! And of course the small foreign faction is responsible for that. So, the small foreign faction told JonBenet that Santa would visit her. No wonder JonBenet commented on the visit, small foreign factions can be impressive.

I'm not sure what you are "getting at", however it has been documented that Jonbenet told her friend's mom that she was ,indeed, expecting a visit from Santa on the very night she died and that it was a secret.

 

[ellen13]

Just what was JonBenet's schedule? Specifically, day by day.

I don't put much importance on the friends planning to talk to Patsy. I'm kind of sorry it didn't happen since I'd be curious to know if she'd send them packing with a flea in their ear. Ultra-PC Boulder vs Ultra Anti-PC Atlanta.

I remember sometime in the mid-90s getting a request to bring a goodie to one of my kids elementary school class parties. The list of what not to bring (candy, cupcakes, cookies sweetened with sugar) was hysterical. I said 'screw-it' and sent in cookies made with the dreaded real sugar. I'm sure if I had continued my wicked ways they would have considered me a candidate for an 'intervention' too.

Tipper,
I can appreciate your feeling of screw-it. However, when you're with the kids all day as an educator, the sugar level sends those kids bouncing off the walls. We always fed them veggies in dip and things without a lot of sugar. But, I can understand your need to say screw-it. Just giving you another perspective.

 

[aussiesheila]

Yes aussie...hence the secret santa letter.

Toltec, in your post 39 you stated "This secret Santa business started with the torn up letter in JonBenet's bedroom wastebasket." I don't think this is correct.

I think the secret Santa business started with her friend's mother reporting what JonBenet had told this friend. I'm not even sure that a secret Santa letter was ever produced. I have a feeling that it was just another story doing the rounds. Does anyone remember?

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Well, the intervention was about more than disregarding the suggested treat list for a classroom birthday celebration.

ST's book hb pg 58

Some friends of Patsy's were concerned about how JonBenet was being groomed for pageants with the heavy make-up, the elaborate costumes, and the recent addition of platinum-dyed hair. It was creating a "mega JonBenet thing," and some friends had planned to have a talk about it with patsy after Christmas.


I'd really like to know which friends were planning this talk, and what they planned to say, and how serious they were about it. It appears to me that they had every reason to think perhaps they should say something to Patsy - that kind of thing (grooming for pageants) IMO isn't healthy for a child when it's to the extent that Patsy was going to. As much as Patsy tried to downplay their involvement in pageants, I think people can tell it was a lot more than just a few Suinday afternoons. Participating in pageants entails thousands of dollars on costumes and hair and make up not to mention all of the hours spent in training and lessons and rehearsing.

And to the people who claim JonBenet wanted to be in pageants - of course she did, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily her choice. When you're six years old you want to do what your parents want you to do, and when you come from a family where your mother, aunt, and grandmother are all fixated on pageants and want you to not only be in them but win, that's what you want to do, whether you really want to do it or not.

 

[Toltec]

The torn up letter was discussed during interrogation of John Ramsey.

Priscilla confronted Patsy in Atlanta and asked to speak to her. Priscilla told Patsy she had information she should know. Patsy brushed her off telling her "how could you know". Her daughter had just been murderered and as a parent, I would welcome any information, gossip or otherwise. What does that tell you???

 

[Jayelles]

I'd like to add something here about closed minds.

One of the reasons I like Websleuths is because there is a broad mix of posters who bring different viewpoints and ideas to the discussion. Unlike other forums, this mix of opinions is encouraged and protected. No-one is allowed to be shot down because of their opinion and as far as I can see, the only rule is that no-one names a private individual as a suspect. That's just basic common sense.

I was therefore deeply saddened to see one of our regular members here post at jamesons that she thought jamesons was "the best" because of the brainstorming and lateral thinking. I don't always agree with this poster's viewpoint, but I thought she would surely understand the concept of brainstorming and the meaning of lateral thinking.

As we all know, jameson's forum is strongly biased. Any post which questions Ramsey innocence or behaviour is attacked and this only results in the discussion being sidetracked - inevitably, the thread disintegrates. I don't see that as effective brainstorming - unless of course, you don't want your thinking to be challenged and you consider brainstorming to be a meeting of similar ideas (which it should not be). The fact is that NO idea or opinion should be rejected in a brainstorming exercise. EVERYTHING is considered and that is definitely not what happens at jameson's. Posting there is like walking on eggshells.

Simialrly, lateral thinking is an ability to think out of the box - an ability to consider the unthinkable and its many and varied consequences. That is definitely not going to be achieved as long as the majority of a group refuse to "go there" and will attack anyone who does as a troublemaker.

The FACT is, that the Ramseys were in the house when jonbenet died and it has not been proved beyond any doubt that anyone else was. Only the killer can tell us what the motive was. All intruder "evidence" is undatable - including the foreign DNA in her underwear. Had that DNA been a stronger sample, then it would have strengthened the case for it being her killer's but it was fragmented and possibly old. The Ramseys have not been cleared of involvement in her murder.

I don't think the Ramseys killed their daughter, but I won't give them "a pass" based on the "kind of people we are" and I won't be bullied into it by anyone calling me a "BORG". I think we owe it to Jonbenet to keep an open mind. I think she deserves that.

 

[Eagle1]

I'd like to add something here about closed minds........

Simialrly, lateral thinking is an ability to think out of the box - an ability to consider the unthinkable and its many and varied consequences. That is definitely not going to be achieved as long as the majority of a group refuse to "go there" and will attack anyone who does as a troublemaker.........

I don't think the Ramseys killed their daughter, but I won't give them "a pass" based on the "kind of people we are" and I won't be bullied into it by anyone calling me a "BORG". I think we owe it to Jonbenet to keep an open mind. I think she deserves that.

"Out of the box", that's sometimes me. I think. And since it's a holiday, I'm just kidding around as, okay, I often do.

Seriously, I don't think the Ramseys killed their daughter either, but if I'm proven wrong, it certainly will not hurt me, just them. I for one am keeping an open mind that they simply made a wrong choice of some friend, and may have an idea who it is but can't say, any more than we could name him.

 

[rashomon]

I'd like to add something here about closed minds.

One of the reasons I like Websleuths is because there is a broad mix of posters who bring different viewpoints and ideas to the discussion. Unlike other forums, this mix of opinions is encouraged and protected. No-one is allowed to be shot down because of their opinion and as far as I can see, the only rule is that no-one names a private individual as a suspect. That's just basic common sense.

I was therefore deeply saddened to see one of our regular members here post at jamesons that she thought jamesons was "the best" because of the brainstorming and lateral thinking. I don't always agree with this poster's viewpoint, but I thought she would surely understand the concept of brainstorming and the meaning of lateral thinking.

As we all know, jameson's forum is strongly biased. Any post which questions Ramsey innocence or behaviour is attacked and this only results in the discussion being sidetracked - inevitably, the thread disintegrates. I don't see that as effective brainstorming - unless of course, you don't want your thinking to be challenged and you consider brainstorming to be a meeting of similar ideas (which it should not be). The fact is that NO idea or opinion should be rejected in a brainstorming exercise. EVERYTHING is considered and that is definitely not what happens at jameson's. Posting there is like walking on eggshells.

Simialrly, lateral thinking is an ability to think out of the box - an ability to consider the unthinkable and its many and varied consequences. That is definitely not going to be achieved as long as the majority of a group refuse to "go there" and will attack anyone who does as a troublemaker.

The FACT is, that the Ramseys were in the house when jonbenet died and it has not been proved beyond any doubt that anyone else was. Only the killer can tell us what the motive was. All intruder "evidence" is undatable - including the foreign DNA in her underwear. Had that DNA been a stronger sample, then it would have strengthened the case for it being her killer's but it was fragmented and possibly old. The Ramseys have not been cleared of involvement in her murder.

I don't think the Ramseys killed their daughter, but I won't give them "a pass" based on the "kind of people we are" and I won't be bullied into it by anyone calling me a "BORG". I think we owe it to Jonbenet to keep an open mind. I think she deserves that.

The people at Jameson's forum are not interested in discussing the evidence at all. They remind me of religious fanatics, with whom one can't discuss objectively either. Their agenda is attacking people who happen to disagree with their blind belief in the Ramseys' innocence. They even sniff around on other message boards and then attack people who don't even post on their own forum. And the rhethoric of that fanatical clique reminds me of brainwashing tactics.

 

[Rupert]

Well put, Jayelles. That's why I'm here and enjoy the forum.

If it was an intruder - what a mystery!
It it wasn't - then there indeed is a mystery as to why it happened.

We are all looking for that one thing that snags it and hits the ball out of the park.
Maybe it will just be that so much weighs in one direction.

 

[Jayelles]

The people at Jameson's forum are not interested in discussing the evidence at all. They remind me of religious fanatics, with whom one can't discuss objectively either. Their agenda is attacking people who happen to disagree with their blind belief in the Ramseys' innocence. They even sniff around on other message boards and then attack people who don't even post on their own forum. And the rhethoric of that fanatical clique reminds me of brainwashing tactics.

i.e. brainWASHING instead of brainSTORMING - LOL

 

[sissi]

There are debates that go on everywhere, this forum is certainly not the worst, or the best, in controlling personal attacks. IMO , each of us has something to say, because we ARE interested in justice for Jonbenet. Ideas can be attacked until the literal cows come home, and that's fine, it's when the "person" is ridiculed that I find offensive. Yes, it has happened to me often, and I do respect the moderator for "normally" removing it. I enjoy debate, we can ditch a lot of misinformation on both sides by pulling up evidence to back our stand. But, there can be no debate if the ideas are quelled by belittling the person.

 

[sissi]

btw, I would love to see some brainstorming on here. Most on here are very good at writing interesting paragraphs that are grammatically correct, spell checked and ready for press, but if Patsy did it, convince others by shouting out the very behaviors that you believe led up to her murdering her child. I would like to see the lies pointed out. I would like to have it explained why Steve Thomas withdrew all of his information during a deposition, and why he got the "pass" to either lie or suffer from memory loss and why a traumatized victim , a mother of a murdered child , medicated and destroyed must remember every detail of what was in the drawer and what was on the table.

 

[rashomon]

btw, I would love to see some brainstorming on here. Most on here are very good at writing interesting paragraphs that are grammatically correct, spell checked and ready for press, but if Patsy did it, convince others by shouting out the very behaviors that you believe led up to her murdering her child. I would like to see the lies pointed out. I would like to have it explained why Steve Thomas withdrew all of his information during a deposition, and why he got the "pass" to either lie or suffer from memory loss and why a traumatized victim , a mother of a murdered child , medicated and destroyed must remember every detail of what was in the drawer and what was on the table.

But that 'traumatized victim', as you call her, had no problems at all in telling the national television audience a few days after the death of her daughter that she was not angry at the killer and that she wanted to move on with her life.
This was probably one of the few occasions where Patsy told the truth: she was not angry at the killer (= herself)!

 

[sharpar]

Sissi -
Unlike RR I cant give you chapter and verse of lies or things but I will
give you my theory. These are my opinions.

Patsy I believe was sexually abusing JB for two reasons; It was punishment for the bedwetting ( that is what patsy told herlef I believe) and by punishing JB she quieted the psychological anxiety in her own mind. The bedwetting wasnt the reason but if offered her the excuse to do what made patsy felt she needed to do to feel calmer better less anxious.
The only household chore Patsy did was launder JB wet sheets and she had to be fustrated by it . Getting her up and trying to get her to go during the night , cleaning her up when she was too late. The whole ordeal . I believe that Patsy herself was abused as a child and the abused find someone or something to abuse if the issues are never dealt with sometimes even when they are. The sexual abuse was not for sexual gratification but offered some sort of relief psychologically to Patsy. By punishing JB it had a direct benefit to Patsy .

Hand in Hand with these issues was an inability to decphier the boundaries between herself and her daughter. A good example: Sexualizing your 6 year old for crowns and sashes. JB was being groomed to achieve a goal that was denied her mother and her aunt. JB was serving as a tool to satisfy her mothers failed ambitions.
Wanting to dress her daughter just like her can be harmless or it can be
an indication of a mother not recognizing her daughter is not a mirror of herself but a unique and separate person. I dont think it was benign in Patsy' s case. The my twin doll can also be seen as an indicator, Patsy thought it was " the gift " JB was said not to be enthralled with it .

Mommy produced a replica - a lifeless parody of the real girl . A replica that looked like her but had none of the issues - the doll didnt wet the bed -the doll wore what patsy had instructed the maker to put on her and the doll would not be desirable to the abuser of patsy as a girl .

What triggered the murder ? No one will know for sure until the murderer
tells but i suspect along with all the other things going on in the family
that the childhood abuser of patsy was going to be on the scene sometime
during the holiday. That he either suggested an activity that precluded patsy's own abuse or JB was at the age the abuse started for Patsy. Whatever set the murder into play the impact was monumental and horriffic.
Patsy may have been furious with JB because JB now had the attention of the abuser. He was going to be around her at christmas and its JB fault. If the abuse happened to patsy because she craved the attention of the abuser and she may have gone out the way to attract his attention as a child in a innocent way and thus assumes JB has done the same thing. Alot of these emotions and feelings arent logically rational but at play all the same.
JB murder had little to do with JB and everythng to do with the Patsy's emotional psychological state of mind.

 

[Toltec]

JonBenet's own sexual abuse by an unknown triggered something in Patsy. My belief is that Patsy discovered the molestation of JonBenet by her own father on the 23d of December. She may have confronted her father because next thing you hear, he flies to Atlanta standy-by on the 24th of December.

This incident must have affected Patsy in the worst way. Her childhood memories of abuse, coupled with the stress of an uncooperative JonBenet, of packing for three back-to-back trips. She had to stop what she was doing, wake up a kicking and screaming JonBenet, and clean up JonBenet and her sheets on her wet bed. She snapped and hit her over the head with the flashlight.