why is it so hard to believe

[why_nutt]

In Atlanta, Georgia, John and Patsy Ramsey, their lawyer, and two polygraph experts hold a press conference. The two experts explain the results of a polygraph test of the Ramseys, which they passed, revealing that they were truthful.

Enough is known about "lie" detectors by now to state that they have no bearing on whether a person is being honest. A "lie" detector is really more of a biofeedback detector, tracking whether people are capable of controlling their own breathing and heart rates at will. Any person who frequents an environment where control over one's emotional expressions is expected, such as in a dignified church setting or in front of people whom one wants to impress, can summon the ability to appear physically calm, even if they are in possession at that time of the very worst of secrets they do not want to get out. Patsy was positively groomed to appear outwardly calm while being inwardly nervous about herself and whether she was saying things which would convince other people that she meant what she said. This is the essence of the Miss America pageant, right? To say things the judges want to hear, and to appear poised and calm while saying those things, even if they are not true? Skills which would benefit a person strapped into a lie detector, where the ability to remain calm is a bigger prize than any mere crown could be?

 

[tipper]

[...]Patsy was positively groomed to appear outwardly calm while being inwardly nervous about herself and whether she was saying things which would convince other people that she meant what she said. This is the essence of the Miss America pageant, right? To say things the judges want to hear, and to appear poised and calm while saying those things, even if they are not true? Skills which would benefit a person strapped into a lie detector, where the ability to remain calm is a bigger prize than any mere crown could be?

I'm not making any judgements about the validity of polygraphs. However, there is a difference between appearing 'outwardly calm' and actually remaining calm as to heart rate etc.

We know from other events (the flood, the golf club incident, the kidnapping note) that Patsy doesn't remain calm in adversity. I suspect she would have difficulty faking calmness on the inside.

 

[britgirl]

this is my first post on this forum so be nice,:truce: I personally dont think that the ramseys killed jon benet, i just dont understand why its so hard to believe that someone on the outside preyed on her and was driven by their perversion and did this to her and got away with it!? I have read alot of the " jon benet " books and i have never thought that the parents did it, but of course thats my opinion.......

Hi Michelle, I'm firmly in the "Ramseys are innocent" camp. This is a very emotive case; sadly doesn't look like being solved any time soon.

 

[Mama-cita]

I'm not making any judgements about the validity of polygraphs. However, there is a difference between appearing 'outwardly calm' and actually remaining calm as to heart rate etc.

We know from other events (the flood, the golf club incident, the kidnapping note) that Patsy doesn't remain calm in adversity. I suspect she would have difficulty faking calmness on the inside.

Some time, do a google search on "How to beat a polygraph." This has nothing to do with remaining outwardly or inwardly calm, it has to do with step by step actions that can trick the machine. When did the Ramseys take them anyway? If it was after the fact, by that time, they would have told their "story" so many times, it was like 2nd nature to them and wouldn't appear to the test to be a lie.

 

[Mama-cita]

Oh, I saw from the post. So it was what, almost 2 years after the fact? And it was in Georgia, quite a ways from the crime and crime scene. They also had a lot of times to tell their version and be comfortable with it. I would like to see if they would have passed in the days after JB was murdered...

 

[narlacat]

QUOTE>>This may not be fair, but I believe that Patsy killed JB in a fit of rage. I believe that she caught her husband doing something with JB and took it out on the child. <<
Well, what happened to JonBenet was not fair either. Most days I think what you said is true, that is the conclusion I am coming to. I dont agree that Patsy took it out on JonBenet though, I think it was an accident, not meaning to connect with JonBenet but John.
Other days I lean towards Burke. I think he was jealous of his little sister and all the attention she got. I don't discount that there may have been sex play going on between Burke and JonBenet and maybe other neighbourhood kids.

 

[sissi]

this is my first post on this forum so be nice,:truce: I personally dont think that the ramseys killed jon benet, i just dont understand why its so hard to believe that someone on the outside preyed on her and was driven by their perversion and did this to her and got away with it!? I have read alot of the " jon benet " books and i have never thought that the parents did it, but of course thats my opinion.......

Probably because we are a nation of consumers. We pay for our news, they know what we want. In the case of Jonbenet they did little more than a cross study of what most wanted to hear, and fed us daily through releases, tab mags, etc. What would be the most lucrative for the media to run with, a story of depravity among the upper class, or the bogey man. The bogey man scares us, we don't want to believe in him: depraved parents can't touch our lives ,we can hate them. We don't want to think that after our best efforts, the finding of the right neighborhood, the right friends, schools,church, etc. that some maniacal pervert could take all we believed in away. The good life! Nopey ,nope, we don't want any monsters under our beds.

 

[michelle]

Hi Sissy i am from Maryland too.......It would be nice if we didnt have any monsters in this world wouldnt it.....

 

[Eagle1]

Welcome to Michelle. That's my youngest grown-up daughter's name.

Quoting UK Guy:"So maybe the parents never did it, but that does not mean they themselves do not know who did it, just that finding out may open a bigger can of worms than what had transpired already!"

I've always felt there's such a BIG can of worms that the R's could not bring it up although it had taken a most precious family member and ruined their lives forever.

I'm basing that opinion on instinct and also I guess partly on The Patricia Letters which I think Patsy wrote, and I think I have a link in my faves list if anyone needs it. She can't resist dropping some hints about a caller during the Grand Jury who seemed uneasy, making some crazy noise that she felt was "not of this world" even though her family were against her saying anything. I sure hope she doesn't die before this person is revealed.

Possibly they had met him in Texas (Houston?) because Judith Philips I think said JonBenet seemed to have lost her innocence when they returned. Something had happened. What could it be?

Has Judith Philips made any further statements? (Correct me if it wasn't her.) There's a thread here about a new book coming out soon.

 

[Eagle1]

Although we don't know if anyone besides Judith Phillips noticed any change in JonBenet after the Texas trip, I'm GUESSING they met someone awfully corrupt who was making suggestions that the child should go ahead and act sexy in pageants, promised maybe that he had some important connections, could pull strings. Then either killed her or got her killed, and the parents feel a lot of guilt about having trusted him, would be opening too big a can of worms not only because of his position, but also exposing their extreme mistake to the world, which would be almost as bad as being thought guilty of murder.

Obviously they have a pretty good idea what actually happened.