Was BR involved? #2

[gramcracker]

the worst things my southern-to-the-bone Nana could say about someone: shiftless, slovenly, slipshod, Tobacco Road. if she slammed them with all four, they were beyond redemption

 

[THE BUNK]

Shadow of the Moon by M.M. Kaye:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/shadow-of-the-moon/oclc/3635517

Doesn't look like the most masculine book to read. Seems more like a historical romance novel. Has anyone read this book or this author's work? Seems more like something Patsy would read, no?

 

[ukrberserker23]

M.M. Kaye also the author of " The Far Pavillions." Boring book,movie about colonial life in India.

 

[Mama2JML]

According to John Ramsey on 04.30.97:

Steve Thomas: "Okay. Sir, I have a question regarding the security of the home on the night of the 25th, which led to the morning of the 26th, and I don't know if you've had an opportunity to review the police reports that were provided to you?"

John Ramsey: "I scanned them."

Steve Thomas: "Did those, what you read in those, are those factual?"

John Ramsey: "Well....A couple of areas where I think there was some misunderstanding or wasn't correct. I did not check every door in the house the night before. I don't think I checked any door. I think I was tired, wanted to go to bed, get up early. Ah, and I think the other part I noted in there was they said I read to both kids before I went to bed, and that did not happened. What happened was the kids went to bed and then I read to myself in bed.

Steve Thomas: "John, let me ask you this. Do you attribute that to simply an officer's error in recollection or might you have said that and...."

John Ramsey: "I wouldn't have said that. I think it might have been, maybe the way I said it, that was misinterpreted, but we clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep, so we could get them up early the next morning, so...."​

 

[gramcracker]

CYA and tidying up, four months later, after reading the police reports

 

[bettybaby00]

According to John Ramsey on 04.30.97:

Steve Thomas: "Okay. Sir, I have a question regarding the security of the home on the night of the 25th, which led to the morning of the 26th, and I don't know if you've had an opportunity to review the police reports that were provided to you?"

John Ramsey: "I scanned them."

Steve Thomas: "Did those, what you read in those, are those factual?"

John Ramsey: "Well....A couple of areas where I think there was some misunderstanding or wasn't correct. I did not check every door in the house the night before. I don't think I checked any door. I think I was tired, wanted to go to bed, get up early. Ah, and I think the other part I noted in there was they said I read to both kids before I went to bed, and that did not happened. What happened was the kids went to bed and then I read to myself in bed.

Steve Thomas: "John, let me ask you this. Do you attribute that to simply an officer's error in recollection or might you have said that and...."

John Ramsey: "I wouldn't have said that. I think it might have been, maybe the way I said it, that was misinterpreted, but we clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep, so we could get them up early the next morning, so...."​

Beyond ridiculous IMO. Forget the reading to JRB/kids (which he did say) but WTH the BBM is a total lie. The reading thingy he may have only mentioned to one LEO, and maybe it was misinterpreted, but the doors.....no freaking way. He made those statements a number of different times, and was actually quite adamant about it. Does he actually expect us to believe that when He was asked about the previous night's events, no one wrote anything down? Grrrrrrrr. Unbelievable.

This is what happens when potential suspects are given copies of the police files, including their initial statements. Just imagine how it went down when he/they "scanned" them.

JRs lawyer: well john I see here you made several statements indicating you checked all the doors before you went to bed. Is that correct?

JR: yes, that's what I said, that's what happened.

Lawyer: are you sure john?

John: oh yes, I'm sure.

Lawyer: are you really, really sure? Like really sure? 'Cause you know, take a breath and think for a moment....are you really sure? If the doors were all locked, well.......

John: you know, now that I really think about it, I'm not sure....hmmm, you know I think I was really tired that night, and now that I think about it really hard, well I'm just not sure. "I think I was tired, wanted to go to bed, get up early." Maybe I forgot to check the doors?

SMH

 

[Mama2JML]

If RDI, why would the Rs say they checked all the doors & they were locked?

 

[otg]

If RDI, why would the Rs say they checked all the doors & they were locked?

Because that goes along with the original story told from the moment JonBenet's body was laid out on the floor: "It was an inside job." IOW, someone got in who had a key -- someone in need of money (rent, truck parts, family dental work) -- the first person named by the Ramseys as a suspect who might have a motive.

 

[Chrishope]

If RDI, why would the Rs say they checked all the doors & they were locked?

JMO, I go along with the DocG theory of the case. In that theory, the basement window was staged, incompletely, as the entry point. Because the staging was incomplete, and therefore it was obvious no one came in/out that window, it had to be unstaged.

JR could have said a door was unlocked, but then that seems quite convenient, and leads to questions such as -"Do you often go to bed w/o checking the doors?" Saying all doors were locked, then claiming to have broken the basement window himself some months prior, allows suspicion to be cast away from the family and on to anyone with a key - which turned out to be quite a few people. Of course it's also possible the mythical intruder had lock picking skills. I think the reason he didn't claim a door was unlocked is that it just isn't convincing enough.

 

[UKGuy]

Chrishope, JMO, DocG's theory is inconsistent and untestable since it relies on future events, and the 911 call scenario must be false since BR was present.I wonder if James Kolar's BDI theory has any legs, even why he might promote it since either of the parents appear stronger candidates?What if JonBenet went to bed first even in BR's room, i.e. she was wearing assymetric ponytails, where she was promised a pineapple snack in exchange for being assaulted? Did BR whack JonBenet on the head as she was sitting snacking on her pineapple? James Kolar suggests BR moved JonBenet down to the basement, later PR and JR can clean this crime-scene up. This BDI explains away both the pineapple snack and the assymetric ponytails, both items missed by the parents, it also factors in the flashlight. PR denied the pineapple snack completely, even saying some of the tableware did not belong to her!Did one of the parents fake a sexual assault on JonBenet by using the paintbrush handle, or did BR do this as part of some kind of childish ritual assault. Bear in mind the R's were a dysfunctional family, where PR described JonBenet's pageant appearances as part of PR's Project, maybe the alleged paintbrush assault reflects months of jealousy built up in BR due to percieved neglect by PR?

 

[bettybaby00]

You bring up a lot to consider!

Chrishope, JMO, DocG's theory is inconsistent and untestable since it relies on future events, and the 911 call scenario must be false since BR was present.

I've read his blog, and many believe in his theory. You bring up an interesting point regarding Burke being awake and how that does/doesn't fit into the scenario. I'm not sure I've ever seen him address that. I do know he doesn't believe BR was involved as he seems to be relying on the "he was only 9 at the time" argument.

An issue I have with his theory is his belief that PR was unaware of the abuse which he attributes to John. His theory goes on to assume that once she realized he had been abusing JRB, she had motivation to "stand by her man." Unwillingness to loose her social standing, coupled with the notion that as the perceived author of the note, she ultimately had no choice but to protect John. This never made sense to me. First IMO, it's hard to believe she would protect John b/c of worry over social standing, when one considers that if she threw him under the bus she would have been perceived as a true victim along with JRB. Poor devoted wife...her husband was a abusing their daughter, and then he killed her. That had the potential to garner a huge amount of sympathy with little to no downside for Patsy. Instead, if we believe DocGs theory, she will forever be known as the mother of a murdered child beauty queen, who just might be guilty of the crime. Also, being beholden to John b/c of the note doesn't make sense to me either, as any good lawyer could have created reasonable doubt at trial. It would have been a battle of conflicting experts. A jury would likely believe Patsy's experts when faced with evidence of sexual abuse perpetrated by John.

I wonder if James Kolar's BDI theory has any legs, even why he might promote it since either of the parents appear stronger candidates?What if JonBenet went to bed first even in BR's room, i.e. she was wearing assymetric ponytails, where she was promised a pineapple snack in exchange for being assaulted? Did BR whack JonBenet on the head as she was sitting snacking on her pineapple? James Kolar suggests BR moved JonBenet down to the basement, later PR and JR can clean this crime-scene up. This BDI explains away both the pineapple snack and the assymetric ponytails, both items missed by the parents, it also factors in the flashlight. PR denied the pineapple snack completely, even saying some of the tableware did not belong to her!Did one of the parents fake a sexual assault on JonBenet by using the paintbrush handle, or did BR do this as part of some kind of childish ritual assault. Bear in mind the R's were a dysfunctional family, where PR described JonBenet's pageant appearances as part of PR's Project, maybe the alleged paintbrush assault reflects months of jealousy built up in BR due to percieved neglect by PR?

Steve Thomas did a great deal in advancing this case, however, leaving when he did meant he was out of the loop for later developments. Given this IMO, Kolar's theory makes a hell of a lot of sense. Key points in favor of his theory:

*The stats regarding sibling incest are very compelling. And despite the shocking statistics, the actual numbers are likely much higher given how often such behavior goes unreported.
*he is privy to ALL the evidence (we on the other hand, know very little), including not only the GJ testimonies, but also the fact that the public was misled about the conclusions of the GJ, and that somehow, somewhere, signed TBs were rotting away in some sort of secret vault *rage*
*both parents covering for their child makes a lot more sense than one spouse covering for another, especially if john was both the perpetrator in JBs murderer and her abuser.

Kolar offers many other clues to support his theory, but these are the main ones. And although I don't agree with DocGs theory, I respect his efforts and dedication to the case

 

[UKGuy]

You bring up a lot to consider!I've read his blog, and many believe in his theory. You bring up an interesting point regarding Burke being awake and how that does/doesn't fit into the scenario. I'm not sure I've ever seen him address that. I do know he doesn't believe BR was involved as he seems to be relying on the "he was only 9 at the time" argument. An issue I have with his theory is his belief that PR was unaware of the abuse which he attributes to John. His theory goes on to assume that once she realized he had been abusing JRB, she had motivation to "stand by her man." Unwillingness to loose her social standing, coupled with the notion that as the perceived author of the note, she ultimately had no choice but to protect John. This never made sense to me. First IMO, it's hard to believe she would protect John b/c of worry over social standing, when one considers that if she threw him under the bus she would have been perceived as a true victim along with JRB. Poor devoted wife...her husband was a abusing their daughter, and then he killed her. That had the potential to garner a huge amount of sympathy with little to no downside for Patsy. Instead, if we believe DocGs theory, she will forever be known as the mother of a murdered child beauty queen, who just might be guilty of the crime. Also, being beholden to John b/c of the note doesn't make sense to me either, as any good lawyer could have created reasonable doubt at trial. It would have been a battle of conflicting experts. A jury would likely believe Patsy's experts when faced with evidence of sexual abuse perpetrated by John. Steve Thomas did a great deal in advancing this case, however, leaving when he did meant he was out of the loop for later developments. Given this IMO, Kolar's theory makes a hell of a lot of sense. Key points in favor of his theory:*The stats regarding sibling incest are very compelling. And despite the shocking statistics, the actual numbers are likely much higher given how often such behavior goes unreported. *he is privy to ALL the evidence (we on the other hand, know very little), including not only the GJ testimonies, but also the fact that the public was misled about the conclusions of the GJ, and that somehow, somewhere, signed TBs were rotting away in some sort of secret vault *rage**both parents covering for their child makes a lot more sense than one spouse covering for another, especially if john was both the perpetrator in JBs murderer and her abuser.Kolar offers many other clues to support his theory, but these are the main ones. And although I don't agree with DocGs theory, I respect his efforts and dedication to the case

bettybaby00,Sure lots to consider, I like to compare and contrast the various theories. Personally I reckon BDI is the most consistent theory, and as you suggest Kolar has seen most of the evidence we have not, which makes me suspect my own pet theory, in preference to Kolars?Another aspect to DocG's theory is that it does not address all the forensic evidence, only that which supports the DocG theory, any valid theory will explain away all the evidence.I reckon Steve Thomas' book was edited to avoid any litigation issues with the Ramseys, so it became a man against the system book rather than an explanation of a crime-scene.Kolar hints very indirectly at the childrens dysfunctional behaviour, i.e. self help books. This makes me wonder if he actually knows more but cannot tell? Did BR ritually sexually assault JonBenet after whacking her on the head, did BR release psychic energy during this episode, was it some kind of payback or retribution as seen through the distorted lens of a neglected child?That is Kolar offers no motive for whacking JonBenet on the head, no explanation of her sexual assault, but yet factors BR indirectly, why so?

 

[ukrberserker23]

Damn, I'm going to have to get Kolar's book. I came up with the same basic idea after reading otg's theory about Burke. The only theory that seems to fit all the evidence is that everyone in the house had to be involved. I used to feel the same as some people. No way would a 9 year old boy be involved. But that was long ago, without half the evidence we have now. Looks like it really was a " Family Affair."

 

[bettybaby00]

bettybaby00,Sure lots to consider, I like to compare and contrast the various theories. Personally I reckon BDI is the most consistent theory, and as you suggest Kolar has seen most of the evidence we have not, which makes me suspect my own pet theory, in preference to Kolars?Another aspect to DocG's theory is that it does not address all the forensic evidence, only that which supports the DocG theory, any valid theory will explain away all the evidence.

I think he subscribes to the idea of KISS, or as he puts it, "just the facts, ma'am." He relies on the belief that John was the abuser, and was wrongly eliminated as the author of the ransom note. In his view everything else is smoke and mirrors. I suspect that many of us here who believe RDI don't see it as that simple.

I reckon Steve Thomas' book was edited to avoid any litigation issues with the Ramseys, so it became a man against the system book rather than an explanation of a crime-scene.

He shouldn't of bothered considering they sued him anyway. It's understandable that in his book he rails against the system. He has first hand experience with how badly those in authority failed JonBenet.

Kolar hints very indirectly at the childrens dysfunctional behaviour, i.e. self help books. This makes me wonder if he actually knows more but cannot tell? Did BR ritually sexually assault JonBenet after whacking her on the head, did BR release psychic energy during this episode, was it some kind of payback or retribution as seen through the distorted lens of a neglected child?That is Kolar offers no motive for whacking JonBenet on the head, no explanation of her sexual assault, but yet factors BR indirectly, why so?

I'm not sure if I'm following your line of thought completely? Or what exactly mean by ritualistic sexual abuse?

Kolar uses SBP as the 'motivation' for the abuse. Learning about the disorder prompts him to more closely consider Burke, and the red flags his behaviors had raised. Also significant for Kolar is the realization that Burke was never seriously considered as having possibly played a role in the crime.

As you know, he doesn't give us his entire theory. I don't believe it was out of fear of being sued (I wouldn't be surprised if he relished that idea). IA that part of reason for the "gaps" is that he doesn't have all the answers and it's why he refers to it as an investigative theory. all he ever asked of ML was the ability to pursue this theory based on what he believes were the credible leads he developed.

He writes in the prologue:

I have undertaken this work not because I believe a prosecution of any perpetrator of this crime will likely result from it, but because I believe it will move public perceptions of this case closer to the truth. ​

Lacy was having none of it though :banghead:

 

[UKGuy]

I think he subscribes to the idea of KISS, or as he puts it, "just the facts, ma'am." He relies on the belief that John was the abuser, and was wrongly eliminated as the author of the ransom note. In his view everything else is smoke and mirrors. I suspect that many of us here who believe RDI don't see it as that simple. He shouldn't of bothered considering they sued him anyway. It's understandable that in his book he rails against the system. He has first hand experience with how badly those in authority failed JonBenet. I'm not sure if I'm following your line of thought completely? Or what exactly mean by ritualistic sexual abuse? Kolar uses SBP as the 'motivation' for the abuse. Learning about the disorder prompts him to more closely consider Burke, and the red flags his behaviors had raised. Also significant for Kolar is the realization that Burke was never seriously considered as having possibly played a role in the crime. As you know, he doesn't give us his entire theory. I don't believe it was out of fear of being sued (I wouldn't be surprised if he relished that idea). IA that part of reason for the "gaps" is that he doesn't have all the answers and it's why he refers to it as an investigative theory. all he ever asked of ML was the ability to pursue this theory based on what he believes were the credible leads he developed. He writes in the prologue:

I have undertaken this work not because I believe a prosecution of any perpetrator of this crime will likely result from it, but because I believe it will move public perceptions of this case closer to the truth. ​

Lacy was having none of it though :banghead:

bettybaby00,I was thinking along the lines that the SBP might cover the motivating behaviour but not say the post-assault phase. i.e. was JonBenet assaulted with the painbrush handle as part of the staging or some other factor?excerpt from Foreign Faction by James Kolar

A victim may be the object of revenge or anger and could beviewed as the parent’s “favored child” by the perpetrator.The incident that involved a blow to the head with a golf clubthat took place in Michigan was claimed to be an “accident” by theRamsey family, but it is interesting to note that this incident tookplace within a day or two of JonBenét’s birthday in August 1994.One can only wonder whether sibling jealousy or envy mayhave played any part in that instance, and whether these feelingsspilled over into the events of the Christmas holidays in 1996.I had also found it interesting that the Paugh’s had reportedlypurchased several books on childhood behavior for the Ramseyfamily. The titles of the books were intriguing:• The Hurried Child – Growing Up Too Fast, by David Elkind;• Children at Risk, Dobson / Bruer;• Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong, Kilpatrick.There were other police reports in the files that documentedwhat I thought could be viewed as related behavior. CSIs hadwritten about finding a pair of pajama bottoms in JonBenét’sbedroom that contained fecal material. They were too big for herand were thought to belong to Burke.Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had alsobeen observed to be smeared with feces. Both of these discoverieshad been made during the processing of the crime scene duringthe execution of search warrants following the discovery ofJonBenét’s body.I wondered whether fecal material observed in pajamasthought to belong to Burke, and smeared on the box of candy inhis sister’s bedroom, could have been related to the symptoms ofscatological behavior associated with SBP.I also contemplated the reasons why a box of JonBenét’s candywould have been smeared with human excrement.

 

[dodie20]

Yes, the 1st version I heard, was JR saying he read to JonBenet...which brings to mind the Dr. Seuss book found in the suitcase.

 

[bettybaby00]

bettybaby00,I was thinking along the lines that the SBP might cover the motivating behaviour but not say the post-assault phase. i.e. was JonBenet assaulted with the painbrush handle as part of the staging or some other factor?excerpt from Foreign Faction by James Kolar

Ah, now I get you

Well, we can't be sure if that was part of the staging, or if BR and JB were engaged in some sort of sexual activity/exploration prior to the head blow.

One thing I feel fairly confident of is that it wasn't done by an intruder.

According to Meyer, "he didn’t consider this injury the result of a particularly vicious assault with a foreign object. A very small splinter of material was discovered during microscopic examination, and more trauma to the site would have been expected if the perpetrator had been intent on physically torturing the child."

Kolar, Kindle edition location: 824

A vicious assault is what would have been expected by an unknown killer. The wiping down JRB and redressing her doesn't fit with an intruder either.

Moo, etc.

 

[dodie20]

this is from 'JonBenet, Inside the Murder Investigation', written by Steve Thomas with Don Davis Page 317: With his legs pulled up and his chin on his knees, Burke said he played some Nintendo on the afternoon of December 25. When showed a photograph of the pineapple and bowl, he recognized the bowl. That showed it belonged in the house and not brought in by an intruder. He recalled nothing unusual at the Whites' party other than getting a mild shock from the electric deer fence outside. He said his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and walked up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy. That was quite a difference from the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed. I felt that this poor kid was confused and that he really had no idea what had happened that night. He heard the house creaking during the night, he said, and when he awoke, his mother was turning on the lights and in a rush, saying, "Oh my gosh, oh my gosh," then his father turned the lights on and off again. Burke stayed in bed wondering if something had happened. He heard his father trying to calm his mother, then telling her to call the police. Burke told the detective he did not get out of bed that morning and that a policeman looked into his room. He recalled thinking that when the police arrived "we would probably be tied up all day" and that he was disappointed the family would not be going to Charlevoix as planned." This early version is a lot different than later stories, but imo, this does not point to BR being involved....more like he was telling the truth because he didn't realize what he was saying might cause problems. He recognized the pineapple bowl, he said he got a shock from the W's electrical fence, (which is beyond weird, if JB was later shocked), he said JB fell asleep in the car, but woke up to help deliver presents, and then walked slowly into their own house and then walked up the stairs to bed. He also said he heard the house creaking during the night. (what all did he see and hear? this makes me think of the psychological interview where he said JB was taken quietly down to the basement by someone and he/she took a knife out or hit JB on the head). He said he woke up to his mother and father turning lights on and off, (his lights?), and their voices. He said he heard his father tell his mother to call the police, and he admitted to being awake when a police officer looked into his room.

 

[UKGuy]

dodie20,
Yet we now know that much of that account is fiction. The R's stated themselves that BR was awake during the 911 call, and that his legend regarding his sleep pattern was fabricated. BR played a role in the staging and death of JonBenet. James Kolar seeks to highlight the dysfunctional aspects of the Ramsey lifestyle, which are not inconsistent with familial abuse, excepting only JonBenet's homicide, which might even be explained away as simple sibling rivalry, encouraged by PR?

 

[Tadpole12]

Doesn't look like the most masculine book to read. Seems more like a historical romance novel. Has anyone read this book or this author's work? Seems more like something Patsy would read, no?

Heyya THE BUNK

Shadow of the Moon
By M M Kaye:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jhr...wUwAA#v=onepage&q=Shadow of the moon.&f=false

I couldn't bear to read much of it.