Why I will never believe any IDI did it theory

[CloudedTruth]

CloudedTruth, I'm forgetting so mucn in this case, it's so old. Is that correct that they weren't interviewed by investigators for four months? If so, that is astounding. Wouldn't one of the first things that any detective a day out of "detective school" would do would be to separate the parents and interview them?

I'm not a detective, but that's what I would do. I think that's really what anyone would do, detective or not, because that's what makes sense. And I'd think it would be done immediately, whilst also running it as a real, live, outside, kidnapping situation. If I showed up to that house alone, I'd get backup yesterday, and have someone interview those parents separately. And they wouldn't be out of my sight until that was done. What am I missing?

They did answer some questions on the 26th while police were there searching the house, etc. But those were pretty basic questions, especially for the first several hours when it was thought to be a kidnapping. Nonetheless, this "allowed" JR & PR to claim they had been interviewed for 8 hours that day, which of course is not only a huge stretch of the truth, pretty much a downright lie. The following day police went to the Fernie's home where they had stayed that night, but were prevented from asking any questions. The R's did go to the police station to give hair and blood samples, and again falsely claimed that they were interviewed for a few hours on that day which again was not true.

So yes, by the time their lawyers negotiated their terms for allowing themselves to be interviewed 4 months had passed. And you are absolutely correct that normal protocol would've been for them to have been separated and interrogated / interviewed immediately. Perhaps it was the order from up the chain of command to treat them like "victims" that led to that. We know they wanted to follow protocol, but the didn't. But by EOD on the 26th they were already lawyered up and that was pretty much that.

I think it's also important to note that even if you are taken into custody for suspicion of having committed a crime, your Miranda rights supersede LE's rights to question you. Hiring an attorney is often then the next step for the accused. At this point, LE had suspicions about the Ramseys but no concrete evidence to base arrests on. They could not force interviews. But it should also be noted that the concessions made by the DA to Team Ramsey were unprecedented and didn't help matters. I can't recall who was involved from LE's side on the negotiations for interviews to happen, but the Ramsey attorneys were steadfast on some issues which the police capitulated to in order to get the interviews.

 

[GRT]

When these habitually repeated and identifiable characteristics were compared to known handwriting samples of Patsy Ramsey, Exhibits 2-10 (1-47), overwhelmingly agreement was found to exist to such an extent that they cannot be attributed to mere chance. Accordingly, it has been determined that Patsy Ramsey is the writer of the ransom note. - Larry A. Ziegler,Forensic Examiner of Forensic Documents,Retired FBI Examiner

There is no doubt that Patsy Ramsey is the author of the ransom note.
- Gideon Epstein, M.F.S. Forensic Document Examiner

It is the opinion of this examiner, with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that it is very highly probable, the three page ransom note was authored by the same author purported to be that of Patsy Ramsey.
- Donald L. Lucy C.D.E. Certified Forensic Document Examiner

It is highly probable that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.
- Cina L. Wong, Court certified/Board certified Document Examiner

And even those document examiners hired by the Ramsey's could not eliminate Patsy as the author of the ransom note. This statement of "4.5 points" that they keep telling everywhere is the only thing they have to hold on to. So I see why they keep preaching about it...

Because it's valid and the ones hired by LE had dozens of handwritten examples--many where PR was made to copy the words on the ransom note. The ones you listed above didn't have access to any original source samples. Plus, they worked from copies and that's unreliable because copy machines can make small distortions to text. And then, Wong at any rate, was not certified when she testified at Wolf/Ramsey case and she said so. I think she's much better now.

If I were suspected in something and I knew I had nothing to do with it I wouldn't wait for the police to come knock on my door asking for proof - I would be knocking on their door to provide photos, records, statements, items or what ever I have in my possession, that would show that I have nothing to do with it, because I would have nothing to be afraid of if I didn't do it. Even if they think that I am guilty of being involved I would still go for it - because then they can eliminate me faster and proceed with finding the real killer, not spending that precious time on me.
It would serve my interest. IMO

If you had an attorney--your attorney would advise you against that. That's how innocent people have ended up going to jail. The best course of action is not to talk to LE at all until your lawyer is present.

You can not compere something like that to a Valentines day or any other reoccurring holiday. Have you not been in a traumatic situation in your life? If you were, you would remember.

Two events come to mind, both very traumatic, but I have no clue what I was wearing during either one. One 17 years ago, the other 8 months ago.

It's not really fair of me to say that though, because my personal experience is an anecdotal fallacy--it doesn't mean anything one way or the other.

The best I can offer is that some folks might remember what they wore during a traumatic event, and some folks will not.

Only because you have decided so. I mean, if I remember correctly, you were on the Fleet did it camp, right? So if John and Fleet made phone calls before the 911 call that could prove Fleet's involvement, would it not matter?

That's a strawman argument. My point was that getting the phone records probably wouldn't have changed much in the investigation, not that phone records are never useful.

Just because we have not been able to hear those words said, does not prove that they do not exist.If you think the phone records would have made a big difference, what specific evidence do you believe they would have revealed?

RSBM...

Kolar:
Producing a previous set of handwritten notes, the technicians revealed their interpretation of the words spoken by the voices heard on the tail end of the tape. They all stared in amazement. Everyone who had listened to the enhanced version of the 911 tape had independently identified the same words and gender of the people speaking them. There were three distinct voices heard on the tape and the conversation was identified as follows:
Male (angry): "We're not speaking to you!"
Female: "Help me Jesus. Help me Jesus"
Young male: "Well, what did you find?"

This is your opinion only. You do not know the reasons behind their decisions.

I suspect the enhanced tape was really digitally altered. If someone could pull those words out back then with the technology that was available, it would be at least a hundred times easier today--and the results would be the same.

 

[Ponytale]

Because it's valid and the ones hired by LE had dozens of handwritten examples--many where PR was made to copy the words on the ransom note. The ones you listed above didn't have access to any original source samples. Plus, they worked from copies and that's unreliable because copy machines can make small distortions to text. And then, Wong at any rate, was not certified when she testified at Wolf/Ramsey case and she said so. I think she's much better now.

Who do you believe wrote the RN?
To me, it's more than just the handwriting that points to Patsy.

If you had an attorney--your attorney would advise you against that. That's how innocent people have ended up going to jail. The best course of action is not to talk to LE at all until your lawyer is present.

Possibly. I do not know what the statistics say regarding this.
But if that attorney prevents me to cooperate with the police when I'm an innocent parent who's only goal is to find the killer of my baby I'm not sure if I would stick to it. I'd go by my heart to do whatever is needed to get the monster who is behind this. I would show the LE and everyone in the world that I'm cooperating and providing all I have to help the police. Every day and night.

Two events come to mind, both very traumatic, but I have no clue what I was wearing during either one. One 17 years ago, the other 8 months ago.

It's not really fair of me to say that though, because my personal experience is an anecdotal fallacy--it doesn't mean anything one way or the other.

The best I can offer is that some folks might remember what they wore during a traumatic event, and some folks will not.

I agree it is not a rule that applies to all, as always, there are exceptions. But believing that both of them just suddenly forgot about things that are quite important and happened in 24 hours after an traumatic event, does not seem believable to me.

That's a strawman argument. My point was that getting the phone records probably wouldn't have changed much in the investigation, not that phone records are never useful.

Ok, I misunderstood. Sorry about that! But still - if they had gotten the phone records and seen that there were calls made but the Ramsey's lied about it, would change that the Police would have had a proof of a lie. And if they found out who the phone call(s) were made to would have possibly changed the suspect list. Let's say that the phone calls were made with the pediatrician - the police would have been more selective and thorough with their questions when interviewing him. Same with Fleet.

I suspect the enhanced tape was really digitally altered. If someone could pull those words out back then with the technology that was available, it would be at least a hundred times easier today--and the results would be the same.

The 9-1-1 call dispatcher actually said herself that she heard 2 other voices after the call "hung up". Do you believe that she lied? Why would she need to lie about it?

 

[Pseudonymph]

Now honestly. How can anyone believe that John Ramsey lost his cell phone and didn't replace it for a month? Seriously, that is one of the most unbelievable facts in this case that in my mind is just laughable. Oh, and, by the way: That happened the same month that his daughter was kidnapped by what was it? "A small, foreign faction"?

Having a cell phone was both pretty uncommon and considered an “extra” back then. I could absolutely see someone not bothering to replace it for a while because it would have been expensive and a pain and most people just didn’t use them that much. I had a cell back then and used it about 10 minutes a month. That was normal.

 

[Pseudonymph]

From Pseudonymph's post above: "She was very loved, by every account. They'd call 911 and figure out the rest later."
That is, of course, a statement of opinion. I can assure you that many of us have a very different opinion. Mine is that John and Patsy loved themselves. To Patsy, JBR especially, was a fulfillment of her own dreams. She lived vicariously through her. If dressing your precious, innocent, daughter up as a tart for the world to gaggle at, is representative of "love", well, I'm glad I didn't have any of it as a child. My parents did the opposite: They struggled each day to place the focus of life away from looks, from having me be the center of attention, from showing off myself. And it's not just the pageants. Some pageant children simply dressed up in adult makeup, etc., but PR specifically wanted JBR to do sexually suggestive moves. Huh? I'm sure there many men who lusted after her.

Then there are the Christmas tours of the house. A parent's main job, aside from the education and character formation of their child is to protect them. Patsy opened up their home every Christmas to the public, including her children's bedrooms. First of all, how dare she. How dare she invade her children's privacy like that? Even opening up the main part of the house where small children live is unconscionable. Those children have a right to a private home life. If Patsy and John wanted to show off their home to the public, so be it. But the children don't have a say. They don't have the ability to make that decision, so the parent has to wait and show off their home until they no longer have minor children living there. But their bedrooms? That's beyond the pale. This is even before considering the purient aspect of opening up the possibility of adult men who love to look at tarted up little girls dancing suggestively now having access to tour the child's bedroom. Then there's the safety issue. I'd think if Patsy and John wanted someone to come into their home and rape or kidnap their child, showing the public the layout of their house would be a great way to assist that.

No one will ever convince me that John or Patsy Ramsey loved their children. Their children were what many children are to their parents: Adornment for them.

So to sum up, you believe the pageants and the house tours are incontrovertible evidence on their own that they didn’t love their children? That seems extremely far-fetched to me.

 

[GRT]

From Pseudonymph's post above: "She was very loved, by every account. They'd call 911 and figure out the rest later."
That is, of course, a statement of opinion. I can assure you that many of us have a very different opinion. Mine is that John and Patsy loved themselves. To Patsy, JBR especially, was a fulfillment of her own dreams. She lived vicariously through her. If dressing your precious, innocent, daughter up as a tart for the world to gaggle at, is representative of "love", well, I'm glad I didn't have any of it as a child. My parents did the opposite: They struggled each day to place the focus of life away from looks, from having me be the center of attention, from showing off myself.

To each their own. I don't like pageants either, but the girls who participate often grow up to be self-confident adults who contribute to society.

And it's not just the pageants. Some pageant children simply dressed up in adult makeup, etc., but PR specifically wanted JBR to do sexually suggestive moves. Huh? I'm sure there many men who lusted after her.

Where did you get this? I've never seen evidence of this. Pageants dress up children as adults, and that in itself, is questionable, but "sexually suggestive moves?" Was she being made to twerk or something?

Then there are the Christmas tours of the house. A parent's main job, aside from the education and character formation of their child is to protect them. Patsy opened up their home every Christmas to the public, including her children's bedrooms. First of all, how dare she. How dare she invade her children's privacy like that? Even opening up the main part of the house where small children live is unconscionable. Those children have a right to a private home life. If Patsy and John wanted to show off their home to the public, so be it. But the children don't have a say.

In most communities, opening up one's home for the holidays is a gesture of sharing. Teaching one's children to share is not a bad thing. Teaching children to be community-minded helps them become well-centered adults.

This is even before considering the purient aspect of opening up the possibility of adult men who love to look at tarted up little girls dancing suggestively now having access to tour the child's bedroom. Then there's the safety issue. I'd think if Patsy and John wanted someone to come into their home and rape or kidnap their child, showing the public the layout of their house would be a great way to assist that.

Here we are in agreement -- a tiny bit.

Typically, homes that open for the holidays only open the living sections and entryways--not the private quarters, but any pedo with an interest in JonBenet could have taken advantage of the situation by scoping out part of the interior of the home.

The vast majority of those taking a tour, however, would have been people who wanted to see the decorations and share in the holiday spirit. In most communities, homes on a holiday tour are recruited by local charities and all proceeds go to those charities. The owners of the homes usually provide some refreshments.

Homes on holiday tours are not open for very long. The tour usually lasts just a few hours on one or two afternoons.

No one will ever convince me that John or Patsy Ramsey loved their children. Their children were what many children are to their parents: Adornment for them.

JBR was an adornment for Patsy; that's clear. And John indulged his wife's and daughter's interests, but didn't personally promote or take part in them.

I firmly believed they loved their children dearly. There's no real indication they didn't.

 

[Ponytale]

Having a cell phone was both pretty uncommon and considered an “extra” back then. I could absolutely see someone not bothering to replace it for a while because it would have been expensive and a pain and most people just didn’t use them that much. I had a cell back then and used it about 10 minutes a month. That was normal.

But John had the money to buy 100 new ones if he needed - and he must have needed at least one because he was a businessman. He had reasons to own one and use one.

But as I understand from the interviews, we are not talking about just one phone here. There were three different devices - the cellphone that was lost right before December 1996, for which the BPD did finally get records but they did not show anything. Than the replacement cellphone that John had his secretary order for him ( we don't have records for that phone). And finally a pre-activated Panasonic phone that Patsy ended up using like she states in her interview. We don't have the records for that one either. Plus the land line phone at the house.

There has been a rumor that there were calls made before the 9-1-1 call (not a fact!) but that those records are sealed.
Quoted from another forum:
"On a Peter Boyles show back in the 90s, Peter mentioned that he’d seen proof of the fact that a call to Bynum was placed prior to the 9-1-1 call. There is speculation that perhaps the records he saw were the records that James Rapp obtained illegally. In his book, Steve Thomas pointedly laments that the police were not allowed to use those records, since they had been obtained under false premises."

Thomas' book:
"We had had to wait almost a year to see them, which had given the Ramsey lawyers months to work through the limited documents. The woefully incomplete permission slip did not give up Ramsey's company phones, calls made with a telephone card, or records about calls before or after December." (pg. 232)

There are a lot of "coincidences" regarding the missing phone and missing records - that is a valid reason for suspicion.

 

[fridaybaker]

To each their own. I don't like pageants either, but the girls who participate often grow up to be self-confident adults who contribute to society.


Where did you get this? I've never seen evidence of this. Pageants dress up children as adults, and that in itself, is questionable, but "sexually suggestive moves?" Was she being made to twerk or something?

In most communities, opening up one's home for the holidays is a gesture of sharing. Teaching one's children to share is not a bad thing. Teaching children to be community-minded helps them become well-centered adults.

Here we are in agreement -- a tiny bit.

Typically, homes that open for the holidays only open the living sections and entryways--not the private quarters, but any pedo with an interest in JonBenet could have taken advantage of the situation by scoping out part of the interior of the home.

The vast majority of those taking a tour, however, would have been people who wanted to see the decorations and share in the holiday spirit. In most communities, homes on a holiday tour are recruited by local charities and all proceeds go to those charities. The owners of the homes usually provide some refreshments.

Homes on holiday tours are not open for very long. The tour usually lasts just a few hours on one or two afternoons.


JBR was an adornment for Patsy; that's clear. And John indulged his wife's and daughter's interests, but didn't personally promote or take part in them.

I firmly believed they loved their children dearly. There's no real indication they didn't.

The fact that some girls who are involved in pageants grow up to be “self-confident and contribute to society”, if true, well, so what? I wasn’t commenting on that. I was commenting on a parent who would sexualize a small child. The fact that some survive it, and I’m not sure that we know that they do, as often highly functioning adults are a mess inside, is irrelevant. And I ask then: What is it that you “don’t like” about pageants?

Yes, “sexually suggestive moves”. This has been talked about endlessly over 20 years here and elsewhere. These pageants often feature the little girls dancing suggestively, and the pageant director said that Patsy encouraged it. It’s all over these threads. Is that surprising? Why dress your child up as an adult with makeup and sexy outfits if that ISN’T the point?

Teaching children to “share” and be “community minded” has zero to do with inviting the public, literally strangers, into their private home, especially their bedrooms. In fact, I would say it teaches them other things, like a lack of proper boundaries. You know, like those that JBR exhibited, such as as asking grown men to wipe her. I also find that characterizing PR offering up her home as “sharing” and as “community minded” laughable. Showing off would be more like it. None of what you say about what home typically tours involve, I’m afraid, is apropos to any of my comments.

A person being viewed or treated as adornment for another is the epitome of selfishness. Love is the opposite. They are mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[fridaybaker]

Having a cell phone was both pretty uncommon and considered an “extra” back then. I could absolutely see someone not bothering to replace it for a while because it would have been expensive and a pain and most people just didn’t use them that much. I had a cell back then and used it about 10 minutes a month. That was normal.

Yes, I agree with the idea that cell phones weren’t used by everyone, everywhere, as they are now, though. Someone at JR’s level? Doing business? No, I don’t believe it for a second. Certainly, there’s no proof either way. I just don’t buy it.

I remember back then quite clearly and everyone I knew at around JR’s level of business relied on it every day. Either way, though, nice coincidence that he lost it right before his daughter was fake-kidnapped.

 

[fridaybaker]

So to sum up, you believe the pageants and the house tours are incontrovertible evidence on their own that they didn’t love their children? That seems extremely far-fetched to me.

We likely have a very different understanding of love. Some people see their children as extensions of themselves and live vicariously through them. That is love of self, not love of another person. I think Patsy Ramsey, especially, was deeply, deeply, in love with herself.

 

[GRT]

RSBM

And I ask then: What is it that you “don’t like” about pageants?

I don't like the focus on beauty rather than character. I'm sure the pageants offer value in that they teach a child to overcome inhibitions, but I (personally) prefer violin lessons.

Yes, “sexually suggestive moves”. This has been talked about endlessly over 20 years here and elsewhere. These pageants often feature the little girls dancing suggestively, and the pageant director said that Patsy encouraged it. It’s all over these threads. Is that surprising? Why dress your child up as an adult with makeup and sexy outfits if that ISN’T the point?

I've not seen even one "sexually suggestive move." I ask again, what is a sexually suggestive move in a pageant?

I've seen outfits that I thought were too skimpy, but realistically, do they show any more skin than a bathing suit?

Yes, Patsy encouraged the pageants. That's old history. And I question that because it seems shallow and superficial. But did she really want JBR to lure pedophiles? I don't believe that for a minute.

Teaching children to “share” and be “community minded” has zero to do with inviting the public, literally strangers, into their private home, especially their bedrooms. In fact, I would say it teaches them other things, like a lack of proper boundaries. You know, like those that JBR exhibited, such as as asking grown men to wipe her. I also find that characterizing PR offering up her home as “sharing” and as “community minded” laughable. Showing off would be more like it. None of what you say about what home typically tours involve, I’m afraid, is apropos to any of my comments.

A person being viewed or treated as adornment for another is the epitome of selfishness. Love is the opposite. They are mutually exclusive ideas.

If that's what you think holiday tours are all about -- I tend to think you haven't attended any.

Among many charitable events, our local civic club hosts the holiday tour every Christmas. Tickets this past year ran $25, and we made over $11K for Angle Wings. It's all about the Christmas spirit and doing for others while enjoying seeing how some folks decorate their homes. There is nothing to suggest the Ramseys did it for any other reason, and those who participate are to be thanked--not demeaned.

Did she want to show off?

Maybe, but who cares? It certainly doesn't make her a killer or an abusive parent. The world is full of show-offs. They are rarely killers.

Those who knew her before her child was killed, speak of how kind she always was to everyone. How involved she was with her children.

I just think it's awful how the media/tabloids created a false narrative about the Ramsey family.

 

[GRT]

We likely have a very different understanding of love. Some people see their children as extensions of themselves and live vicariously through them. That is love of self, not love of another person. I think Patsy Ramsey, especially, was deeply, deeply, in love with herself.

Yes, many parents live vicariously through their children, and that says more about the parents' insecurity than anything else.

Our friends—who are good people—just found out their son (in his first year of college) dropped out of football. He was there on a football scholarship, and he was a high school football star. The kid loved (or, seemed to love) football last year as a high school senior, and he was good! He was heavily recruited, and his dad was definitely living vicariously through him.

But, something changed and he dropped off the team. Then, he quit college and now, he's working at a Tractor Supply. His dad was so disappointed, but that's about the age when children go their own way. Sometimes, slightly earlier.

My point is that, from all the reports we've had about Patsy and JBR's pageants, JBR loved them as much as Patsy. It was something mother and daughter did together. There would very likely have come a time (had JBR lived) when she decided she wanted something else--as most children do.

While I wouldn't put my child in a pageant--it's not my place to judge other parents.

I don't believe for a minute that Patsy ever wanted JBR to draw the attention of grown pedophiles. I think she wanted her to be a little doll--the prettiest doll of all.

...and she was...

 

[GRT]

Thomas' book:
"We had had to wait almost a year to see them, which had given the Ramsey lawyers months to work through the limited documents. The woefully incomplete permission slip did not give up Ramsey's company phones, calls made with a telephone card, or records about calls before or after December." (pg. 232)

RSBM for focus...

Yes, it took a while to get those records, but they included the Ramsey's home phone and their cellular phone records. Only for the month of December, though.

 

[snarast]

Yes, many parents live vicariously through their children, and that says more about the parents' insecurity than anything else.

Our friends—who are good people—just found out their son (in his first year of college) dropped out of football. He was there on a football scholarship, and he was a high school football star. The kid loved (or, seemed to love) football last year as a high school senior, and he was good! He was heavily recruited, and his dad was definitely living vicariously through him.

But, something changed and he dropped off the team. Then, he quit college and now, he's working at a Tractor Supply. His dad was so disappointed, but that's about the age when children go their own way. Sometimes, slightly earlier.

My point is that, from all the reports we've had about Patsy and JBR's pageants, JBR loved them as much as Patsy. It was something mother and daughter did together. There would very likely have come a time (had JBR lived) when she decided she wanted something else--as most children do.

While I wouldn't put my child in a pageant--it's not my place to judge other parents.

I don't believe for a minute that Patsy ever wanted JBR to draw the attention of grown pedophiles. I think she wanted her to be a little doll--the prettiest doll of all.

...and she was...

I’m shocked at how narcissistic parents often are. It’s actually quite scary. In PR’s case, I think she envisioned JB how she would look in the future when PR was no longer there.,stage IV doesn’t come with good odds, and PR was a smart woman.
It’s hard to criticise that wish, even though if she could have turned back time, she probably would have avoided those contests. Obviously.

I find the outfits in those pageant outfits the opposite of attractive/cute, but that’s neither here nor there.

 

[Slebby]

I found a lengthy compilation of JBR pageant videos clips, I guess “sexually suggestive” is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t see winking coquettishly or participating in bathing suit competition to be ideal for small children, you may see it differently.

 

[fridaybaker]

RSBM

I don't like the focus on beauty rather than character. I'm sure the pageants offer value in that they teach a child to overcome inhibitions, but I (personally) prefer violin lessons.

I've not seen even one "sexually suggestive move." I ask again, what is a sexually suggestive move in a pageant?

I've seen outfits that I thought were too skimpy, but realistically, do they show any more skin than a bathing suit?

Yes, Patsy encouraged the pageants. That's old history. And I question that because it seems shallow and superficial. But did she really want JBR to lure pedophiles? I don't believe that for a minute.


If that's what you think holiday tours are all about -- I tend to think you haven't attended any.

Among many charitable events, our local civic club hosts the holiday tour every Christmas. Tickets this past year ran $25, and we made over $11K for Angle Wings. It's all about the Christmas spirit and doing for others while enjoying seeing how some folks decorate their homes. There is nothing to suggest the Ramseys did it for any other reason, and those who participate are to be thanked--not demeaned.

Did she want to show off?

Maybe, but who cares? It certainly doesn't make her a killer or an abusive parent. The world is full of show-offs. They are rarely killers.

Those who knew her before her child was killed, speak of how kind she always was to everyone. How involved she was with her children.

I just think it's awful how the media/tabloids created a false narrative about the Ramsey family.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to duck out of this debate. It seems like repeated, particularly willfully, mischaracterization of my statements, so we certainly won't get anywhere. As an example in the above comments alone:

"If that's what you think holiday tours are all about -- I tend to think you haven't attended any.

Among many charitable events, our local civic club hosts the holiday tour every Christmas. Tickets this past year ran $25, and we made over $11K for Angle Wings. It's all about the Christmas spirit and doing for others while enjoying seeing how some folks decorate their homes. There is nothing to suggest the Ramseys did it for any other reason, and those who participate are to be thanked--not demeaned."

My comments on the home tours had zero to do with home tours per se. They were about Patsy's reasons for doing them.
I also didn't offer her "showing off" as "making her a killer or an abusive parent". We all have many, many facets of our lives, many behaviors that, in and of themselves, don't mean much. In attempting to understand the dynamic of the Ramsey household, I tend to look at many things, and take them all in context. It's sort of like circumstantial evidence in a criminal court case: Any one of the pieces of evidence, in and of themselves, often don't mean a hill of beans. Put together, they often make a case far stronger than a "direct evidence" case.

You claim that there is "no evidence" that the Ramseys opened up their home for tours for any other reason than altruistic ones, such as "doing for others while enjoying seeing how some folks decorate their homes". Okay. You're welcome to your opinion, but I think there is, and it is to be found in a constellation of pieces of the Ramsey's lives that we've learned about over the years. Either way, though, there is no objective evidence of the reason PR did much of anything. We are free to come to our own conclusions.

 

[fridaybaker]

I found a lengthy compilation of JBR pageant videos clips, I guess “sexually suggestive” is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t see winking coquettishly or participating in bathing suit competition to be ideal for small children, you may see it differently.

Slebby, thanks for the video clip. Just to be clear, in case you're referencing my posts at all, I wasn't suggesting that JBR ever danced suggestively. However, it was discussed much in earlier threads that her pageant director, or whatever the title would be, was uncomfortable that PR wanted to introduce sexually moves into JBR's dance routines. Again, I've never said anything about that actually happening.

 

[Slebby]

Slebby, thanks for the video clip. Just to be clear, in case you're referencing my posts at all, I wasn't suggesting that JBR ever danced suggestively. However, it was discussed much in earlier threads that her pageant director, or whatever the title would be, was uncomfortable that PR wanted to introduce sexually moves into JBR's dance routines. Again, I've never said anything about that actually happening.

No, I would have replied to you specifically. I purposely replied to no one.
My comment is more to add actual footage to the discussion up thread about the merits or flaws, depending on one’s perspective, of participation in pageants in childhood. There had been more than one comment about whether there is a sexually suggestive element to these children’s pageants. This led me to go see for myself what pageant participation looked like for JBR. When I found it, I decided to share with others weighing in on the topic.
IMHO

 

[GRT]

You claim that there is "no evidence" that the Ramseys opened up their home for tours for any other reason than altruistic ones, such as "doing for others while enjoying seeing how some folks decorate their homes". Okay. You're welcome to your opinion, but I think there is, and it is to be found in a constellation of pieces of the Ramsey's lives that we've learned about over the years. Either way, though, there is no objective evidence of the reason PR did much of anything. We are free to come to our own conclusions.

RSBM for focus.

There is no evidence to suspect Patsy Ramsey allowed her home to be on the holiday tour other than for altruistic reasons.

Long-time friends described her as being very kind and compassionate. And, having been around these holiday events, I have a pretty good idea of the type of person who welcomes others into their home to share decorations. The Ramseys seem to have been very open and welcoming--until the tragedy.

Yes, we have heard many things over the years, but as my gram always reminded me--the best way to ruin a good story is to hear the other side.

I think one day, the real killer will be found, and he won't be related to the Ramseys.

 

[GRT]

No, I would have replied to you specifically. I purposely replied to no one.
My comment is more to add actual footage to the discussion up thread about the merits or flaws, depending on one’s perspective, of participation in pageants in childhood. There had been more than one comment about whether there is a sexually suggestive element to these children’s pageants. This led me to go see for myself what pageant participation looked like for JBR. When I found it, I decided to share with others weighing in on the topic.
IMHO

And, thank you for that. I'd seen tiny bits and clips over the years, but that puts it into better perspective.

The dances and songs she performed looked more like talent show numbers than the awful movie, "Cuties," that Netflix put out.

The costumes were not too bad, but I think what many might oppose is the makeup. It's not implicitly suggestive, but most parents don't allow their daughters to wear makeup until the high school years at the earliest.

But, to educate myself, I watched modern clips of young girls dancing in dance competitions--and all of them were wearing tons of makeup. Maybe it's a show thing.

Just my opinion, but if Patsy wanted JBR to perform sexually suggestive movements, we'd be seeing those.

Take away the makeup and JBR is just another kid in a talent show.

MOO