What Narrative Did The Ramseys Have In Mind Initially?

[madeleine]

the discussion was around Burke
and I find it very telling how she avoids answering the last question,changing the subject


24 TOM HANEY: So you said it wasn't

25 you and it wasn't John. Could it have been

0620

1 Burke?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: No. It wouldn't

3 have been Burke.

4 TOM HANEY: Why couldn't it?

5 PATSY RAMSEY: How do you believe

6 you saw (INAUDIBLE) a ten-year old, nine-year

7 old boy (INAUDIBLE). Plus the fact that he

8 loved his sister.

9 TOM HANEY: It's not unheard of for

10 a nine or ten-year old child?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: My child it is

12 unheard of.

13 TOM HANEY: And why is that? What

14 would make him different from some other nine or

15 ten-year old?

16 PATSY RAMSEY: Because he was not

17 raised in a family of violence. We are a very

18 loving family.

19 TOM HANEY: Could it have been an

20 accident?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I -- don't know.

22 TOM HANEY: Well you and I don't

23 know because we weren't there?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

25 TOM HANEY: So do you think it

0621

1 could have been, he could have pushed her down

2 the stairs--

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Burke Ramsey did not

4 do this, okay. He did not do this. Get off it.

5 TOM HANEY: How do you know that,

6 though? I mean, have you talked to him about

7 it?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, we are going

9 to find out who did this to JonBenet. He's been

10 in counseling, doctors say that he's handling this

11 the way that a child copes best with the death of

12 a very close family member. I doubt that a nine

13 or ten-year old child could harbor such a thing

14 for a year and a half.

 

[Darlene733510]

So......when he asks PR if it could have been an accident she says: "I don't know". Why didn't she just say no, if she thought BR was not involved?
Did she forget the time he hit JB in the face with the golf club?
Did she forget that when they were on vacation they had to keep the kids away from each other because BR was so mean to his Sister?
I sincerely believe that both the parents covered for BR. I doubt, that even to this day, he has no regrets. If he ever marries, I would guess, that he will be a wife abuser, because of the wall of protection the parents put around him. He was raised upon the basis that if you do wrong you will not suffer the consequences, and there will be no repercussion for his wrongdoing. From childhood to manhood JB' death meant nothing to him, other than the fact that it made him a wealthy man.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

So......when he asks PR if it could have been an accident she says: "I don't know". Why didn't she just say no, if she thought BR was not involved?
Did she forget the time he hit JB in the face with the golf club?
Did she forget that when they were on vacation they had to keep the kids away from each other because BR was so mean to his Sister?
I sincerely believe that both the parents covered for BR. I doubt, that even to this day, he has no regrets. If he ever marries, I would guess, that he will be a wife abuser, because of the wall of protection the parents put around him. He was raised upon the basis that if you do wrong you will not suffer the consequences, and there will be no repercussion for his wrongdoing. From childhood to manhood JB' death meant nothing to him, other than the fact that it made him a wealthy man.

It's very worrisome to me that he referred to his girlfriend as a "stupid b****" on his FB page because her car (that he was borrowing) ran out of gas.

 

[midwest mama]

It's very worrisome to me that he referred to his girlfriend as a "stupid b****" on his FB page because her car (that he was borrowing) ran out of gas.

A young "fat cat" trainee? Dad was a good mentor? Or are his peers the type to influence him? Wouldn't you like to know your daughter or son was running with this crowd??

Dad should be doing some interviews asking for prayer for his son.

 

[questfortrue]

So......when he asks PR if it could have been an accident she says: "I don't know". Why didn't she just say no, if she thought BR was not involved?
Did she forget the time he hit JB in the face with the golf club?
Did she forget that when they were on vacation they had to keep the kids away from each other because BR was so mean to his Sister?
I sincerely believe that both the parents covered for BR. I doubt, that even to this day, he has no regrets. If he ever marries, I would guess, that he will be a wife abuser, because of the wall of protection the parents put around him. He was raised upon the basis that if you do wrong you will not suffer the consequences, and there will be no repercussion for his wrongdoing. From childhood to manhood JB' death meant nothing to him, other than the fact that it made him a wealthy man.

If BDI, it’s doubtful one can “therapize away:” so horrific a purposeful harming. (The most notable attempt of this was by the actions of the parents of Van der Sloot, who to this day remains who he is.) With all due respect to BR’s psychiatrists, when a child/young adult does not have to face consequences, it becomes deeply ingrained in their personality that lying and deceit pays off.

There’s a commentator on a website called Chattuhbox.com who brings up something interesting. Two years before Kolar’s book was released the commentator makes a claim about the train track. Her claim is that the track was not a loose piece of train track, but one which was connected to an electrical source (to run the train). If so, this could explain the “burn” look to the abrasions on JB’s back. And, if true, it adds another element to Kolar’s claim of a very dark crime. moo

 

[wengr]

There’s a commentator on a website called Chattuhbox.com who brings up something interesting. Two years before Kolar’s book was released the commentator makes a claim about the train track. Her claim is that the track was not a loose piece of train track, but one which was connected to an electrical source (to run the train). If so, this could explain the “burn” look to the abrasions on JB’s back. And, if true, it adds another element to Kolar’s claim of a very dark crime. moo

This is not possible. All train transformers output levels that are safe to handle. They are toys after all. There is no way that the transformer could provide the amperage needed to burn the skin. And imo, it was not burned anyway.

 

[questfortrue]

Thank you, Wengr,
Apologize for putting something out which cannot be factually substantiated. I stand corrected.

 

[madeleine]

So......when he asks PR if it could have been an accident she says: "I don't know". Why didn't she just say no, if she thought BR was not involved?
Did she forget the time he hit JB in the face with the golf club?
Did she forget that when they were on vacation they had to keep the kids away from each other because BR was so mean to his Sister?
I sincerely believe that both the parents covered for BR. I doubt, that even to this day, he has no regrets. If he ever marries, I would guess, that he will be a wife abuser, because of the wall of protection the parents put around him. He was raised upon the basis that if you do wrong you will not suffer the consequences, and there will be no repercussion for his wrongdoing. From childhood to manhood JB' death meant nothing to him, other than the fact that it made him a wealthy man.

sometimes parents are the worst enablers....by not wanting to admit that maybe it was them who screwed up (education,how they raised the kids up)
I bet this kind of parents try to convince the kid he did nothing wrong because it's easier for them as well

 

[wengr]

So......when he asks PR if it could have been an accident she says: "I don't know". Why didn't she just say no, if she thought BR was not involved?

Very good observation.
PR's penchant for noncommital responses betrays her here.
There is a ransom note. And bindings, and a psuedo garotte. If she is truely unaware of the source of these things, then the obvious answer is an emphatic "NO".

 

[otg]

Other things to consider:

Burke peaking at presents at any time doesn't preclude Patsy looking for wrapped size 12 panties that night.

Burke caught looking for his birthday present could indicate Patsy lost her temper with him.

Burke being down there innocently since a nine-year-old boy peaking at presents isn't exactly incriminating in JonBenet's death.

Burke could have looked for the panties or was otherwise in the ante room to the wine cellar but at that time of night after an active, exciting day that was to be followed with early rising the next morning, it would be unlikely imo.

There are probably other innocent explanations but I've not decided exactly what Kolar was trying to say in his book. Some of his writing seemed obtuse. Imo, Steve Thomas's version still makes the most sense and perhaps Kolar tried to show that Burke had been abused too. It is futile to try to come to a conclusion without hearing/seeing all evidence involved in this case.

(bbm)
Obviously, there are many reasons for any one of the R’s to have been in the WC, or anywhere else in the basement -- they all lived there. But what invites suspicion are the things the parents chose to provide implausible explanations for, or what has later been found to be untrue. To wit:

1. Opening of presents in basement
2. Burke’s Hi-Tec shoes
3. The Santa Bear
4. The Maglite that “didn’t look like theirs”, completely wiped of prints
5. The baseball bat found outside with carpet fibers on it from the basement that they denied any knowledge of
6. PR’s changing her handwriting style after the RN was in police custody
7. JonBenet’s being asleep when brought inside the house
8. Size-12 panties for a 6yo girl weighing 45-lb.
   
9. Burke’s being asleep during the 911 call
10. Saying that BR saw nothing and knew nothing and later saying they hadn’t even talked to him about it

(These are simply the things that came to mind without much thought.)

Not any one of these things is an indication of guilt. It could have been that when they denied knowledge of something, they simply didn’t know. The Santa Bear debacle sent cops on a wild goose chase. Could have been they simply didn’t remember it --or it could have been a deliberate diversion to look for a possible intruder. Burke’s having a pair of Hi-Tec shoes could have been something they didn’t remember (Lord knows, I wouldn’t have remembered each of the brand names of any of my son’s shoes when he was young.). But then OTOH, it could have been their attempt at distancing him from anything that went on in the WC because of their knowledge of what actually happened.

But taken as a whole, all of their proven lies and attempts to divert attention add up to paint a picture. And the last half of the list are things that (IMO) could not have simply been a matter of forgetting. So the question in my mind becomes: Why lie about it, and what does it mean that they did?

 

[otg]

Ah..... I probably have to agree with you about a lay person coming to a conclusion that still doesn't leave some doubt or an escape hatch to a different conclusion if opinions about the evidence are challenged. Causes me frustration, to say the least, with my own versions of theory.

I am wondering from your take on Patsy's "hedging" when asked about the possibility of an accident, since she denies that any of the 3 of them killed JB - do you think the strangulation with the ligature happened accidentally, along with the blow to her head possibly being an accident which might have happened somehow also? Maybe in a tussle of some sort during the assault?
Do you think that Patsy knew who caused this, and that she simply saw one of the three of them as causing JB's "accidental death", and her mind this was not one of them "killing" her? Or, do you think Patsy had someone else in mind when saying she did not know if JB's death was an accident - maybe someone they knew, since I'm sure if she thought it was an intruder she never would have given the impression that she thought an intruder killed JB by accident.

(bbm)
BINGO!

 

[questfortrue]

It’s like a circular argument with no evident conclusion: If BDI, wouldn’t he have been closely questioned about what happened and they could have concluded it was simply an accident. The death of their beautiful daughter in an accident would have garnered them tremendous sympathy. (Unless PDI or JDI or it was an accidental strangulation by ligature, then it’s another ball game.) If PR saw this as accidental, then why the staging and cover up? No 911 call for help for their daughter. I still don’t get it.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

It’s like a circular argument with no evident conclusion: If BDI, wouldn’t he have been closely questioned about what happened and they could have concluded it was simply an accident. The death of their beautiful daughter in an accident would have garnered them tremendous sympathy. (Unless PDI or JDI or it was an accidental strangulation by ligature, then it’s another ball game.) If PR saw this as accidental, then why the staging and cover up? No 911 call for help for their daughter. I still don’t get it.

If Burke did it, I don't see how it was simply an accident. He took a blunt object and brought it up down with tremendous force on JonBenet's skull. It might not have been intentional, but he still killed her. I think people might have sympathy for the parents in the beginning but that would change. People would start to wonder what kind of home environment a child must be living in to kill his sister. And if the information about the prior sexual molestation came out, forget about it.

I think someone, possibly SuperDave, posted a theory here once that there's no way Patsy would "allow" JonBenet to die in a "simple" domestic accident. This might be why they didn't claim that she fell down the stairs or tripped in the bathroom.

 

[otg]

It’s like a circular argument with no evident conclusion: If BDI, wouldn’t he have been closely questioned about what happened and they could have concluded it was simply an accident. The death of their beautiful daughter in an accident would have garnered them tremendous sympathy. (Unless PDI or JDI or it was an accidental strangulation by ligature, then it’s another ball game.) If PR saw this as accidental, then why the staging and cover up? No 911 call for help for their daughter. I still don’t get it.

The problem with their just admitting it was an accidental (sort of) death was the sexual aspect which, despite their attempt at concealing it, was something they couldn't bear to allow being known if it was ever discovered that her brother was responsible for it. That's why (I believe) they had to hedge their bet about whether or not she had been sexually molested. Despite the AR findings, JR said in at least one interview he just didn't know that she was sexually assaulted. IOW, just in case the truth was discovered about who caused her death, he didn't want to admit that it was certain that she had been sexually assaulted before she died.

Can you imagine any other parent who, if they heard about what the coroner found, wouldn't have been at least a little outraged about it and been screaming for the pervert to be caught? Can you imagine anyone in the family with that knowledge saying that the person responsible should be forgiven?

Also, since you (and others) have brought up BR's questioning shortly after her death, let me remind you about this: When he was questioned first, the questioning was done by a psychologist while investigators observed from behind a two-way mirror. The purpose of the questioning at that time was to determine whether or not he should be removed from the family because of a threat to him. He was not considered at that time to be a suspect. But it was during this questioning by the psychologist that she (I think) brought out some things he said that she found "very disturbing" (like what caused JonBenet's death, like his knowledge about the knife, and like his response about "secrets").

 

[otg]

If Burke did it, I don't see how it was simply an accident. He took a blunt object and brought it up down with tremendous force on JonBenet's skull. It might not have been intentional, but he still killed her. I think people might have sympathy for the parents in the beginning but that would change. People would start to wonder what kind of home environment a child must be living in to kill his sister. And if the information about the prior sexual molestation came out, forget about it.

I think someone, possibly SuperDave, posted a theory here once that there's no way Patsy would "allow" JonBenet to die in a "simple" domestic accident. This might be why they didn't claim that she fell down the stairs or tripped in the bathroom.

(bbm)
Okay, that's why I hedge the "accidental (sort of) death". I believe the head blow was intentional. It was not an accident. But I believe it was also not premeditated and was not intended to deliberately kill her. It was just a quick reflexive reaction to stop her scream. But you can imagine the result if, when she collapsed, she had been restrained with a cord loosely tied around her neck with the opposite end tied to something overhead. I feel very sure that the resulting injuries to her neck and head would be exactly like every aspect of what we've seen in the leaked autopsy photos, and what we've read about in the AR.

 

[UKGuy]

(bbm)
Okay, that's why I hedge the "accidental (sort of) death". I believe the head blow was intentional. It was not an accident. But I believe it was also not premeditated and was not intended to deliberately kill her. It was just a quick reflexive reaction to stop her scream. But you can imagine the result if, when she collapsed, she had been restrained with a cord loosely tied around her neck with the opposite end tied to something overhead. I feel very sure that the resulting injuries to her neck and head would be exactly like every aspect of what we've seen in the leaked autopsy photos, and what we've read about in the AR.

otg,
The AR does not support this view. The ligature furrow is circumferential. The AR cites no internal damage to JonBenet's neck muscles, the coroner did cross-sectional analyis, also her hyoid bone was intact.

The ligature is there to mask prior neck contusions and abrasions, plainly visible beneath the circumferential furrow.

Two scenarios that I think better explain JonBenet's injuries are a fight with her abuser, who goes on to restrain her by the neck resulting in coma. This scenario explains her other bodily contusions and abrasions.

The other scenario is the same as above minus the fight, with JonBenet being restrained by the neck so others in the house are kept in ignorance of events.

The rest is staging, with the flashlight possibly being used in an attempt to fake death by a head injury. This failed so ligature asphyxiation was next on the list.

Three different people could have undertaken the above or two, but only one sexually assaulted JonBenet leading to her falling into a coma!


.

 

[UKGuy]

The problem with their just admitting it was an accidental (sort of) death was the sexual aspect which, despite their attempt at concealing it, was something they couldn't bear to allow being known if it was ever discovered that her brother was responsible for it. That's why (I believe) they had to hedge their bet about whether or not she had been sexually molested. Despite the AR findings, JR said in at least one interview he just didn't know that she was sexually assaulted. IOW, just in case the truth was discovered about who caused her death, he didn't want to admit that it was certain that she had been sexually assaulted before she died.

Can you imagine any other parent who, if they heard about what the coroner found, wouldn't have been at least a little outraged about it and been screaming for the pervert to be caught? Can you imagine anyone in the family with that knowledge saying that the person responsible should be forgiven?

Also, since you (and others) have brought up BR's questioning shortly after her death, let me remind you about this: When he was questioned first, the questioning was done by a psychologist while investigators observed from behind a two-way mirror. The purpose of the questioning at that time was to determine whether or not he should be removed from the family because of a threat to him. He was not considered at that time to be a suspect. But it was during this questioning by the psychologist that she (I think) brought out some things he said that she found "very disturbing" (like what caused JonBenet's death, like his knowledge about the knife, and like his response about "secrets").

otg,
Agree 100%, JonBenet's death is a sexually motivated homicide.


.

 

[otg]

otg,
The AR does not support this view.

We disagree.

The ligature furrow is circumferential.

Yes, the furrow is, but the white line below it is not. It disappears toward the back, and it is goes upwards from front to back. This is where the cord was when she died. The furrow was formed after the cord was attached to the paintbrush and the cord remained constricted around her neck while the neck swelled around it. That is why it is formed completely circumferentially with no “V” patterned absence.

The AR cites no internal damage to JonBenet's neck muscles, the coroner did cross-sectional analyis, also her hyoid bone was intact.

Damage to the neck muscles is not something that has to happen when a ligature cuts off blood circulation to the brain. Damage to the hyoid bone is rare in an adult strangulation victim -- and almost unheard of in a child, because of the lack of fusion within its structure and the flexibility of the undeveloped bone. (If you doubt this, I'll look for the information I have somewhere on incidence rates broken down between age and sex of victims.)

The ligature is there to mask prior neck contusions and abrasions, plainly visible beneath the circumferential furrow.

This is simply your opinion, and not one that is supported by what you yourself say. If it was there to “mask prior neck contusions and abrasions”, it didn’t do it very well because, as you say, they are “plainly visible beneath the circumferential furrow”. How is that masking the injuries?

Two scenarios that I think better explain JonBenet's injuries are a fight with her abuser, who goes on to restrain her by the neck resulting in coma. This scenario explains her other bodily contusions and abrasions.

How, in this scenario, did her abuser “restrain her by the neck”, and what makes you think she somehow went into a coma? Do you really understand what a coma is?

The other scenario is the same as above minus the fight, with JonBenet being restrained by the neck so others in the house are kept in ignorance of events.

So are you saying this is the same scenario as the other one except that the fight that “explains her other bodily contusions and abrasions” didn’t happen?

The rest is staging, with the flashlight possibly being used in an attempt to fake death by a head injury. This failed so ligature asphyxiation was next on the list.

The blunt force trauma to her head is not fake. By itself, it alone would have eventually caused her death. So do you think that after going into a comatose state from some sort of neck restraint, and then being bludgeoned over the head, the person doing all this looked at a list and saw that ligature asphyxiation was the next thing to try?

Three different people could have undertaken the above or two, but only one sexually assaulted JonBenet leading to her falling into a coma!

So are you saying now that the sexual assault is what caused her to go into a coma?

With all respect, UKG, I don’t see how any of what you have outlined in your post is supported by the evidence or the autopsy. But if I misunderstood anything you said, please let me know.

 

[Chrishope]

(bbm)
Okay, that's why I hedge the "accidental (sort of) death". I believe the head blow was intentional. It was not an accident. But I believe it was also not premeditated and was not intended to deliberately kill her. It was just a quick reflexive reaction to stop her scream. But you can imagine the result if, when she collapsed, she had been restrained with a cord loosely tied around her neck with the opposite end tied to something overhead. I feel very sure that the resulting injuries to her neck and head would be exactly like every aspect of what we've seen in the leaked autopsy photos, and what we've read about in the AR.

For the sake of discussion, I'll assume there actually was a scream, and that it was JBR screaming. I think the whole idea that she screamed is highly questionable, but we can return to that issue later, if desired.

The whole point of a "quick reflexive action" is that it isn't something deliberated. It isn't something done after careful consideration and weighing the pros/cons. It's something done in reaction. Quickly. Without much thought.

So, am I the only one who thinks a hand over the mouth is the most likely reflexive action that someone would take to stop the scream? A hand over the mouth would be possible only if her mouth were within hand's reach. So if the perp were near JBR, I'd opt for the hand over the mouth rather than grabbing some sort of instrument and rearing back and coming forward, as the hand over the mouth would be quicker, and IMO, more likely as a "quick reflexive action".

So, if she were clubbed, as a reaction to her scream, doesn't this mean the perp was far enough from the body that a hand over the mouth would have required some steps? IOWs the clubbing was done because it was quicker, given the distance from perp to victim?

Another problem, IMO, is that if activities were being engaged in, which might lead to a scream, why wasn't she gagged? (or was that what the tape was for? But if so, why did the tape fail to silence her?) If it was BR he may simply have failed to plan effectively. If it were JR, a gag might have transformed the scene form a "game" to something more sinister such that JBR was more likely to tell someone?

I'd be interested in your thoughts. Doesn't it seem that the perp must have been farther than arm's length if the blow was a reaction to a scream?

 

[Chrishope]

It’s like a circular argument with no evident conclusion: If BDI, wouldn’t he have been closely questioned about what happened and they could have concluded it was simply an accident.

Yes. If BDI, it could be an accident, or deliberate. He was too young to be prosecuted. Unless he admitted doing it deliberately, it would have been ruled an accident.

The death of their beautiful daughter in an accident would have garnered them tremendous sympathy. (Unless PDI or JDI or it was an accidental strangulation by ligature, then it’s another ball game.) If PR saw this as accidental, then why the staging and cover up? No 911 call for help for their daughter. I still don’t get it.

If PR saw it as an accident then she would not have participated in a coverup, she'd have called 911. The staging and coverup were done by someone other than PR.

No 911 call for an ambulance means that a deliberate decision not to call for help was made. Most likely this decision was made by the killer, not an innocent parent who found something dreadful had happened then almost immediately agreed to participate in a cover up.