Since her murder....I always considered JAR a major factor in her life even back when I straddled the fence and would lean more towards IDI....even to the point IF it was IDI, the dots would somehow connect back to him. I am now firmly entrenched in RDI and I don't care if JAR was spotted on Mars the night of the 25th/26th, the crime scene points to people in the house(even IF an intruder(s)) focusing on his area of the house, and items from his room wound up down there. You also pointed out how when Patsy is being asked questions about JAR's area of the house, she does not handle the exchange very well. They should have kept on her. There are strange items in his room and the descriptions of these items leave a lot to the imagination. I think there are redactions in these exchanges. They also gloss over several photos taken of his room which is interesting since they'd sit there with Patsy discussing irrelevant photos they've already went over before and know she isn't changing her story yet skip these. Why? What is in them? There were bottles of cleaning fluid in his room and objects with very brief descriptions.You know, before this conversation I never gave much thought to JAR, but I do find it very odd many of his items were discarded (and others Patsy claimed she couldn't recognize in pictures)
THis info has always baffled me. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a man mourning the death of his older daughter even years after the fact and having pictures is to be expected. Some parents of dead children create things bordering on a shrine and also keep that child's room exactly as it had been when the child died. THis information is a bit on the quirky side. I don't understand the need to have these pictures of her in his bathroom. Obviously there's one thing we imagine him doing in a bathroom setting with these pictures and its quite disturbing.nobody explained why there was a collage of John's deceased daughter in his bathroom.
I agree and I also think things started "clicking" in Fleet's mind that day, whether he was connecting dots to the 23rd party, something before that, the bizarre basement sequence as it unfolded, or linked Jonbenet's inappropriate behavior,etc. to her murder and he blew a gasket.We know Patsy's inner circle wanted to do an intervention for her Jonbenét obssession, it's also possible Fleet was concerned for the child sometime before the murder is it not?
On the topic of Fleet, I also read here that during Jonbenét's funeral, Fleet was seen arguing with John, shaking his shoulders. I guess they started screaming because somebody told them to behave. And then it was all downhill from there for their friendship. That event only confirms Fleet certainly knew more or at least suspected something was wrong from the very start.
Could someone please point me to the source for these inappropriate photos? How about a reliable source too?
Gee... You'd think someone would've posted a source by now.
This guy ^ knows what he's talking about. UK and I may disagree on the Burke angle but he's my favorite poster here. Instead of claiming something an "outrage" or telling people to do more research who have researched the case up, down, and sideways, he likes to stick to the facts when discussing the case instead of trying to talk down to people.
Newcomers to the case/forum should pay close attention to his posts.
UK wasn't it a pile of photographs in the basement and not actually contained in a photo album? I realize there were photo albums but when it comes to the pictures being discussed, I'm pretty sure they were tossed down there quickly and were not in family photo albums. I also believe that second cigar box that Fleet White noticed and John tried to distance himself from contained photographs of Jonbenet, NOT cigars.
Frankie, there were many inappropriate photos of her. It's sickening and what makes it even worse is they dodged the issue in the transcripts....although there are redactions so maybe we just aren't privy to their explanations.
Meh. I didn't take his specific request as genuine. Anyone who has followed this case to such a length to the point of quoting various transcripts certainly has read about the issue of these photographs. It's an attempt to derail discussion and/or run in circles....a tactic I loathe, have seen many times, and a reason I bailed on these JBR forums years ago.
In fact, I've read posts of yours at FFJ discussing this very issue yet that is your response here now. In other words, you've read about it,participated in discussions on the subject, yet now need "sources" all of a sudden.
Not playing that game. Someone else can.
I have no problem digging through transcripts, articles, etc. for someone just recently getting interested in the case or coming back to it after a lengthy absence from it like Frankie, FF, etc. but I can sense rhetorical, disingenuous forum tactics a light year away.
singularity,
Although I'm not 100% on this, from memory there was an album of photos, i.e. an organized collection focused on JonBenet, I'll see if I can find the source for you.
Also the photographs were not pornographic I think the were described as inappropriate, or something of that nature, i.e. the poses and postures were not that of your school face book,
.
10 TRIP DeMUTH: And do you remember
11 photographs being -- photographs of JonBenet
12 being in there?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Taken of her in the
14 laundry room?
15 TRIP DeMUTH: No, no. Photographs
16 of her located in the laundry room?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, in the laundry
18 room, oh. I don't know, there was a bunch of
19 stuff, I mean wrapping stuff and everything. I
20 don't remember any photographs.
21 TRIP DeMUTH: Is there any reason
22 why there would be photographs of JonBenet
23 located in the laundry room?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: No. Were there --
25 I mean, did somebody find them there?
0187
1 TRIP DeMUTH: If there were, would
2 that be out of place for you?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: It would seem to be
4 out of place. I kept wrapping materials and
5 sometimes I worked, wrapping station, Christmas
6 paper and --
One of the items collected during this second search was a photo album which had handwritten captions with some of the photos. THAT is the reason for collecting the photo album from Charlevoix, and most here have seen a few of the photos in that album with printing on them that Patsy denied knowledge of while under deposition.
We’ve all seen some of the “glamour shots” taken of JonBenet (along with some that included Burke) where she has that “sultry, pouty look”. I agree that they are very suggestive for kids that age and I can’t help but wonder how the photographer managed to get “that look” on JonBenet’s face. Where did JonBenet get ideas about how to pose like that? (IMO probably from the same source that caused her to say that for Halloween she wanted to be a “sexy witch” -- not a “good witch,” not a “bad witch,” -- a “sexy witch.”Personally, I don't think I would have my children posing like the ones I'm referring to, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them "pornographic." Others might feel even more strongly than I do about them, but that is just personal opinion.
Chiiling indeed.
Having said that, what exactly constitutes child? Obviously the waters get very muddy on this issue, even in extreme cases where people are arrested with tons of it on their computers.
A child having sex would certainly qualify but once you go further down the ladder, it can get confusing. Parents have been arrested for developing film of their children taking baths. Extreme example certainly but that is NOT child.
I forgot who in the investigation said this(I'm sure someone can jump in with the source) but it has been claimed no ACTUAL childwas found in the Ramsey home. I believe it. I don't believe JOhn was/is a pedophile(IF so, situational) and I doubt they were recording/photographing any sex acts with anyone. These people were dysfunctional but there are limits to any family dysfunction.
Having said that, an elephant still exists in the basement......"inappropriate" pics of a six year old murder victim dumped within fairly close proximity of her body. There were also similar pics in the family's other home. 1+1=2 here... at least one person had a seriously inappropriate infatuation with her. IMO more than one person did but its most likely that only one person(in the family) was taking these pictures and collecting them. I believe the photographer to be John Andrew.....his area of the house looks like Yucca Flats after the blast and was definitely a key area of the house that night. Do I think he was there? NO. However, I do believe the other adults in the house knew of his fixation on her and realized there were probably things in his room that needed to be dumped in the godforsaken hellhole of that basement.
"Inappropriate" and "cutesy" can mean many things. Any photo of a child nude, partially nude, or in the act of taking their clothes off, provocative posing(even fully clothed), Doing suggestive things with their mouth, tongue, or an object, etc. would fall under that broad umbrella.
I'm sure many of you who have followed this case for years and even those doing just basic research have stumbled upon articles detailing the child pageant and modeling world. Things going on there can fall under that umbrella as well.
THis is why I have always wanted a description of the photographs found in the basement and the few on the roll of film taken that day. The pictures tell a story. They not only reveal which person(s) had such an interest in her, what type of interest(such as fetishes), they can help indicate how long that interest was, the mood of the victim in these pictures, etc. A profile of sorts could be made of the photographer and victim based on these photographs. I have serious doubts the BPD or DA even attempted such a thing. I would hope the FBI had a very, VERY close look at these photographs.
My intentions were to stick with the rules of Websleuths. There was no intention to derail your topic. You just needed to stay within the rules. If there would have been any such photos, don't you think the tabloids would have run with it? Your answer was that the Ramsey machine was so big it squashed that evidence from ever coming out. That's an assumption I don't accept. You need a credible source.
There was also a claim that Santa Bill showed-up with the gingerbread house because he was interested in abusing JB. That's as valid assumption as any other, but gosh, there couldn't have been any other reason for him wanting to butter-up Patsy. He couldn't have possibly wanted to be paid to do another Christmas party. Right? I don't know how much he got paid, but $500 to $1000 is a lot of money to someone on a limited income especially around Christmas. There was also a possibility that the bakery that made the gingerbread house would also get business from Patsy...and surprise! They made gingerbread houses at the 1996 Christmas party.
Next the conversation has gone to JB having multiple abusers. If she had multiple abusers, would someone please explain how the evidence never went from went from digital penetration to penile penetration?
You'll never find me denying the evidence that she was abused, but what I've been reading here is that there's been a parade of abusers. If that's someone's theory, that's fine too. I find it as credible as any IDI theory.
And the Ramseys avoided answering questions about JAR's room. Okay. This room was one of many areas they were avoiding. Hell, Patsy apparently spent a few hours in that room packing, but really couldn't recall anything about it. We're also supposed to believe that a short length of rope was used by JAR because he liked the outdoors. There isn't any part of that that makes sense unless the police follow-up with JAR and ask him if it was his rope and what he used it for. There are many questions about this room that had vague or no answers.
I have a theory about this too. If I didn't, I would have left long ago and left the hill to the kings. I'm just not going to present it until it's ready. Then I expect it to be torn to shreds. After that, I'll be able to put this thing back in the box and get away from it. I don't think obsessing over the murder of a little girl is good for me.
I wish I could remember the exact source of this info but it was too many years ago but I assume one of the people here for years might remember....
Supposedly when they seized various items in the Charlevoix home, one of the photographs taken was of Jonbenet on the bed wearing nothing but cowboy boots. It gave me a chill. I had always thought someone in that family had a cowgirl or boot fetish and hearing about that just reinforced it.
If that info is/was not supposed to be posted in the open, moderators should delete it. LIke I said, I don't remember the exact source. Too many years/drugs ago.
THis is speculation obviously but I always felt that someone was doing something to her and one of the other guests walked in on the assult in progress, and out of shock instinctively dialed 911 but then hung up out of fear or someone else in the house hanging the phone up on them.
Also agree that it likely led to her murder.
I may have confused it with one of their other discussions about Santa. It might have even been John who said it. Not going through those right now looking for it.
I do find it interesting that you think his unhealthy interest in a 5-6 year old girl is ok as long as it doesn't include a walk. Under no circumstances whatsoever is what Patsy just described normal. Any man who will go to such lengths to hang out with a child needs to be several light years away from that child. Period.
Linda Wilcox, Ramsey housekeeper from 1993 through 1995. JonBenet was four years old at the time she said it. Wilcox talked about it on the Peter Boyles radio show in July, 1998. Transcript of interview is here (And my memory was incorrect -- she said she was "going to be a good, sexy witch."):I had never heard about this, thank you. Is there anything more to it? do we know know she said this to? thanks!
singularity,
Maybe it was just a pile of photos, here is the reference:
Patsy 1998 BPD Interview
.
[FONT="]0206[/FONT]
[FONT="] 1 THOMAS HANEY: Today is Wednesday,[/FONT]
[FONT="] 2 June 24, 1998 and the time is approximately[/FONT]
[FONT="] 3 9:03 a.m. Again we are present in the[/FONT]
[FONT="] 4 Broomfield Police Department. Present is[/FONT]
[FONT="] 5 Patricia Ramsey (INAUDIBLE) and how did you[/FONT]
[FONT="] 6 spend yesterday, how did you feel?[/FONT]
[FONT="] 7 PATSY RAMSEY: Fine, great. I[/FONT]
[FONT="] 8 think, a couple of things that I thought about,[/FONT]
[FONT="] 9 that I wanted to clarify maybe. You were asking[/FONT]
[FONT="]10 about -- particularly about the pictures of[/FONT]
[FONT="]11 JonBenet in the basement, and I remember that I[/FONT]
[FONT="]12 had taken some Xerox copies of her portfolio[/FONT]
[FONT="]13 pictures, you know, studio head shots. And[/FONT]
[FONT="]14 there was a paper cutter down there, and that I[/FONT]
[FONT="]15 used, and that --[/FONT]
[FONT="]16 TRIP DeMUTH: That could be it?[/FONT]
[FONT="]17 PATSY RAMSEY: That could be it.
http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm[/FONT]
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.