My take was the question caught her off guard. Her reply didn't sound confident; her body language shows her "retreating" and slumping. All together, tone and body language, made me think she spoke too soon.
Why did IDI experts focus on JDI?
- Thread starter madeleine
- Start date
My take was the question caught her off guard. Her reply didn't sound confident; her body language shows her "retreating" and slumping. All together, tone and body language, made me think she spoke too soon.
Don't hold me to this, folks. But Jann Scott, a CO-based radio host claimed that he viewed the tapes of PR's depo and when she was asked if she wrote it, she nodded her head "yes."
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
That's really interesting. I have seen so little of the audio-visual material in this case that the thoughts of people who have seen most of the material fascinate me.
One thing, I am sure I recall an interview in which Patsy was listening to John talking with a sort of heroin-eyed, eyes downcast a la Princess Diana in full victim mode. Suddenly, he said something about (I believe) the intruder profile, and she flashed him a look of pure, raw, palpable hatred (again, a la Diana letting her face slip). Can anyone think where I'd have seen this? I've looked for it many times and can only think that I dreamt it...
If I remember correctly, it was on a religious program broadcast from Hawaii in three parts. The minister's television ministry had all three episodes on line at one time.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
ty, BOESP: I'll try to find that.
Sophie, use this link then count up nine episodes from the bottom of the page:
http://www.enewhope.org/nhn/nhn-archive.php
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
That was an interesting one.At some point JR seems like trying to push her off the couch.And amazing,she still is proud of the pageant thingy.
I remember the B.Walters interview,she was asked about it,something like don't you feel responisble for exposing her if it was a pedo.She doesn't say YES!
They only say they were naive:waitasec: and would have done some things diferently.Excuse me,JR was in the military,he was an executive....and he's telling me that he was just a naive dad thinking the world is a beautiful pink cloud?Yeah right.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
That was an interesting gone.At some point JR seems like trying to push her off the couch.And amazing,she still is proud of the pageant thingy.
I remember the B.Walters interview,she was asked about it,something like don't you feel responisble for exposing her if it was a pedo.She doesn't say YES!
Excuse me,JR was in the military,he was an executive....and he was naive thinking the world is a beautiful pink cloud?Yeah right.
LOL. That's so true!
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
very interesting
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/singular/theories_4.html
Other Theories
Q: In the past months, the Boulder authorities have alluded to "new evidence" that has supposedly been uncovered by Dr Henry Lee. Do you know what evidence they are referring to?
I don't think it's new evidence. It's forensic evidence, of the sort mentioned above, which doesn't match the Ramseys. Until someone starts talking or until the authorities can match that foreign DNA on JonBenet's body to a known human being, they have no case.
Q: The most curious piece of evidence seems to be the ransom note and its mention of the unusual figure of $118,000, which seems to indicate someone close to the family is responsible. How does that fit with your theories?
I believe that the child was removed from the house that night, for the seemingly innocent purpose of photographing her or exploiting her in some way, and she was killed at another location. At least one parent knew this removal had taken place. I think that JonBenet was then returned home and the crime was covered up by someone inside the family. Both parents, in my opinion, do not have the same information about what occurred that night.
The unmatched hard evidence mentioned above excludes the Ramseys as the killers and most likely excludes their home as the scene of the crime. The death was "accidental" in that no one intended for her to be hurt, let alone killed.
Q: If that's the case, why not dispose of the body completely and claim that the child was abducted? Why would anyone go to the trouble of providing an elaborate ransom note to suggest a kidnapping when the body was found in the house? Can you provide any hypothetical scenarios to explain how and why this may have occurred?
I'm suggesting that the Ramseys loved their child deeply, despite what happened to her. To get rid of her on a cold night in December, by tossing her in a ditch or something of this sort, would have been a very difficult thing for a parent to do. I'm also suggesting, more significantly, that both parents did not participate in this cover-up. Only one. And the cover-up primarily intended to fool not the cops but the other parent. So it had to look credible while accomplishing other things: keeping the child in the house, even though she was dead, and making it look as if someone who knew their family and hated the father had come in and done all this to JonBenet. Also, one parent could not easily have left the house that night with the body. Something had to be done immediately that would occur in the home and be believable. According to John Douglas, the ex-FBI profiler who examined the Ramseys briefly after the murder and concluded they were not child killers, only one parent knew that John Ramsey had recently received a $118,000 bonus and that parent was the father. I believe that a husband's inability to confront his wife at a critical moment — because of his desire to protect her feelings — played an important role in this case. It is possible to be afraid of the cops, but terrified of your wife.
Q: Isn't it possible that JonBenets murder was perpetrated by someone whose sole purpose for committing the crime was to implicate John Ramsey?
Then why won't John Ramsey pursue information that could get him off the hook? Why does he brush it aside?
Q: What do you think of Lou Smits "intruder theory"?
I don't think an intruder killed JonBenet. I don't think either of the two prevalent scenarios — the Ramseys did it or an intruder did it — can explain both the hard evidence coming from outside the family and a ransom note that appears to have come from within the house. Three-and-a-half years into the case, both scenarios have led nowhere. This is an extremely complicated case, which is what the police and the media have never wanted it to be. When Dr. Henry Lee, the world's foremost forensic specialist, tells you that law enforcement needs "luck" to solve this case, he's telling you that they haven't put the pieces together and figured out what happened to JonBenet.
Q: What about an intruder who was an active pedophile who also knew John. Someone who lusted after JonBenet to the extent that they gained entry to the house while the family was out to dinner with the sole intention of abusing JonBenet while the parents were sleeping? Isn't it possible that someone like that could lose control of such a situation and kill the child accidentally while involved in some perverse sexual act and then decide to use their privileged information regarding John's bonus payment to implicate the Ramseys and draw suspicion away from themselves?
That could have happened. But if it had, I suggest that the Ramseys would at some point have come forward and offered some useful information to the police and to the public about a real suspect — because there were adults in JonBenet's life who were paying attention to her in ways that was not quite appropriate. But the parents have never done this. They've never said or done anything truly useful in terms of finding the killer. And now we have it on the record that they don't want potentially very good information about dangerous pedophiles in Boulder — precisely the kind of person who fits your scenario mentioned above. This tells me that at least one parent has no interest in seeing the case solved.
Q: A recent news item has alleged that a girl from JonBenet's dance class had been sexually molested in her bedroom by an intruder just months after JonBenet's murder. If the report is true, doesn't this suggest that a sexual predator with a possible link to the pageant circuit was active in the area at the time?
It could. What it suggests more strongly is that the police never followed this lead or its possible connection to the Ramsey case — any more than they followed the other things I've been talking about. They key question in this murder is not: Who killed JonBenet? It is: Why won't the authorities open up their investigation to the natural place it belongs — the criminal subculture of child abuse and exploitation that touched JonBenet's life and may have ended it.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/singular/theories_4.html
Other Theories
Q: In the past months, the Boulder authorities have alluded to "new evidence" that has supposedly been uncovered by Dr Henry Lee. Do you know what evidence they are referring to?
I don't think it's new evidence. It's forensic evidence, of the sort mentioned above, which doesn't match the Ramseys. Until someone starts talking or until the authorities can match that foreign DNA on JonBenet's body to a known human being, they have no case.
Q: The most curious piece of evidence seems to be the ransom note and its mention of the unusual figure of $118,000, which seems to indicate someone close to the family is responsible. How does that fit with your theories?
I believe that the child was removed from the house that night, for the seemingly innocent purpose of photographing her or exploiting her in some way, and she was killed at another location. At least one parent knew this removal had taken place. I think that JonBenet was then returned home and the crime was covered up by someone inside the family. Both parents, in my opinion, do not have the same information about what occurred that night.
The unmatched hard evidence mentioned above excludes the Ramseys as the killers and most likely excludes their home as the scene of the crime. The death was "accidental" in that no one intended for her to be hurt, let alone killed.
Q: If that's the case, why not dispose of the body completely and claim that the child was abducted? Why would anyone go to the trouble of providing an elaborate ransom note to suggest a kidnapping when the body was found in the house? Can you provide any hypothetical scenarios to explain how and why this may have occurred?
I'm suggesting that the Ramseys loved their child deeply, despite what happened to her. To get rid of her on a cold night in December, by tossing her in a ditch or something of this sort, would have been a very difficult thing for a parent to do. I'm also suggesting, more significantly, that both parents did not participate in this cover-up. Only one. And the cover-up primarily intended to fool not the cops but the other parent. So it had to look credible while accomplishing other things: keeping the child in the house, even though she was dead, and making it look as if someone who knew their family and hated the father had come in and done all this to JonBenet. Also, one parent could not easily have left the house that night with the body. Something had to be done immediately that would occur in the home and be believable. According to John Douglas, the ex-FBI profiler who examined the Ramseys briefly after the murder and concluded they were not child killers, only one parent knew that John Ramsey had recently received a $118,000 bonus and that parent was the father. I believe that a husband's inability to confront his wife at a critical moment — because of his desire to protect her feelings — played an important role in this case. It is possible to be afraid of the cops, but terrified of your wife.
Q: Isn't it possible that JonBenets murder was perpetrated by someone whose sole purpose for committing the crime was to implicate John Ramsey?
Then why won't John Ramsey pursue information that could get him off the hook? Why does he brush it aside?
Q: What do you think of Lou Smits "intruder theory"?
I don't think an intruder killed JonBenet. I don't think either of the two prevalent scenarios — the Ramseys did it or an intruder did it — can explain both the hard evidence coming from outside the family and a ransom note that appears to have come from within the house. Three-and-a-half years into the case, both scenarios have led nowhere. This is an extremely complicated case, which is what the police and the media have never wanted it to be. When Dr. Henry Lee, the world's foremost forensic specialist, tells you that law enforcement needs "luck" to solve this case, he's telling you that they haven't put the pieces together and figured out what happened to JonBenet.
Q: What about an intruder who was an active pedophile who also knew John. Someone who lusted after JonBenet to the extent that they gained entry to the house while the family was out to dinner with the sole intention of abusing JonBenet while the parents were sleeping? Isn't it possible that someone like that could lose control of such a situation and kill the child accidentally while involved in some perverse sexual act and then decide to use their privileged information regarding John's bonus payment to implicate the Ramseys and draw suspicion away from themselves?
That could have happened. But if it had, I suggest that the Ramseys would at some point have come forward and offered some useful information to the police and to the public about a real suspect — because there were adults in JonBenet's life who were paying attention to her in ways that was not quite appropriate. But the parents have never done this. They've never said or done anything truly useful in terms of finding the killer. And now we have it on the record that they don't want potentially very good information about dangerous pedophiles in Boulder — precisely the kind of person who fits your scenario mentioned above. This tells me that at least one parent has no interest in seeing the case solved.
Q: A recent news item has alleged that a girl from JonBenet's dance class had been sexually molested in her bedroom by an intruder just months after JonBenet's murder. If the report is true, doesn't this suggest that a sexual predator with a possible link to the pageant circuit was active in the area at the time?
It could. What it suggests more strongly is that the police never followed this lead or its possible connection to the Ramsey case — any more than they followed the other things I've been talking about. They key question in this murder is not: Who killed JonBenet? It is: Why won't the authorities open up their investigation to the natural place it belongs — the criminal subculture of child abuse and exploitation that touched JonBenet's life and may have ended it.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 42
Patsy was the one teaching her the sexy moves and such...the dance instructor couldn't believe her eyes when she saw that...she said 'you don't do that to a child!'
IMO Patsy had been sexually abused as a child,and this was one such thing that leads me to believe so.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 42
the only thing about her being removed form the house is that the neighbor heard a child's scream.and then,combined with Patsy's comment that she had flashbacks of JB screaming,imo whatever happened,happened at their house.
I don't equate the scream with her being removed from the house. First, I don't think she was removed from the house, either after her death, or before with the parent(s) knowledge. They returned home late Christmas night, with an early flight the next morning. I doubt they'd have allowed someone to take her out late that night, regardless of the reason. Whatever it was could have waited till they got back, assuming it was something the parents were aware of.
Second, the scream most likely came from inside the house, and IMO was related to whatever caused the vaginal trauma. I don't mean the vaginal trauma that was staged, but whatever caused the original injury that night. That original injury occurred when she was alive.
Tests were done in the basement, where there was a vent pipe to the outside in the area outside the wineceller. Police confirmed that a scream could be heard across the street by Melanie Stanton's house as well as in the master bedroom of the Ramsey home. If she screamed, not only could Stanton have heard it (she said she slept with her bedroom window open) but the parents could have heard it upstairs in their room as well.
Second, the scream most likely came from inside the house, and IMO was related to whatever caused the vaginal trauma. I don't mean the vaginal trauma that was staged, but whatever caused the original injury that night. That original injury occurred when she was alive.
Tests were done in the basement, where there was a vent pipe to the outside in the area outside the wineceller. Police confirmed that a scream could be heard across the street by Melanie Stanton's house as well as in the master bedroom of the Ramsey home. If she screamed, not only could Stanton have heard it (she said she slept with her bedroom window open) but the parents could have heard it upstairs in their room as well.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
I must admit to having wondered about that JMO. Dr Hodges talks about all three Paugh sisters being prone to weight gain and comfort eating, two of them massively so, which, he says, is sometimes associated with sexual abuse. Nedra also appears to have emphasised looks and weight control as being critical to 'keeping your man' (see Judith Phillips's comments on this) so if they were raised with this mantra, you might argue that they were sexualised in this way, too.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
I agree, Madeleine. I don't imagine the Ramseys condoning anyone outside the family using JonBenet for sexual purposes or anything of that ilk but, and God forgive me since it's not a pleasant notion, I can see Patsy and A.N.Other orchestrating a fake kidnapping to get some sort of attention or even as some sort of mad jape and that this went horribly wrong. I can even imagine a non-Ramsey candidate who might be part of such a scheme, too. On one of the forums, someone or other was adamant in her theory that Patsy thought that JBR surviving a 'kidnapping' would give her a leg up in the pageants as well as giving Patsy the attention she needed since the cancer sympathy had dried up. Sounds mad, but that's often how Munchausen's by proxy type things start....
I know that's way out there and I don't really believe it but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that it happened, either.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
I SO agree with the last part.I've always said that if you wanna solve this case you GOTTA start with prior abuse!Prior abuse&murder,that's just NOT a coincidence!Especially since she was assaulted again that night!WTH,NOBODY looked into it???SOmething's wrong here.It's either they weren't sure re prior or I dunno what it is!
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
Wouldn't surprise me either,Sophie!So many experts said it and ITA,this case is not as simple as it looks.God knows how many things we don't even know.I often thought about Munchausen too,all the drama,the attention seeking in PR's behaviour...............makes a lot of sense actually!
It was only a matter of time before that came up.
It's not just that, Sophie. As I mention in the book, as far as I know, Pam never got married or had children. And it's not just Hodges who says that. He's in good company, psychologically.
Let's take it a step further. It's said that women marry their fathers. Not literally, but in the sense that they marry men who remind them of their fathers. Maybe JR was like her dad in all the wrong ways. Just spitballing.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 130
- Guests online
- 1,601
- Total visitors
- 1,731