You, the jury

[WHITEFANG]

Those were two examples off the top of my head.



That's right. It was roughly a year ago when someone refered to her as a "cow." I condemned that very strongly and took a lot of heat for it, but I had to remain true to myself.

Remember, you are arguing with someone who will not acknowledge "love" as a viable component in this debacle. It is a non-factor.
FANG--You mean, "acknowledged quite extensively" in a single paragraph in an unpublished manuscript, and stating when you joined here and after Patsy died you were glad she and JonBenet were reunited? Plus, "Also, if someone insults PR in a particularly grievous manner, I'm the first one to jump on it."

Supe,
Sorry, bro.
The sentence to which you responded originally, points out you do not acknowledge "love" as a viable component in this, the murder of JonBenet, debacle; Even to the point of accusing yours truly of using it to "play" on the emotions of others.

Not at all, you insist. Quite the contrary! You have acknowledged it extensively. You believe P was a good mom, lots of personality and nice looking. Too, she was reunited with JB for which you were glad. Someone, about a year ago, stooped so low as to call her a cow, for which you let him have it.

Astonishingly, this is what you term your "quite extensive acknowledgment."

That's not good enough. You cannot begin to understand this nightmare.

Become a dad, hold your newborn, and try again to solve this mystery.

 

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
"PEOPLE" - is this your evidence, "People maintain that there were no such strips". What people might these be and on what basis to they maintain the absence of such strips of tape?
SD: Sorry, MurriFlower. I forgot you're not familiar with the US legal system. "People" refers to the prosecution, since they represent "the people." Thus, I meant that the prosecution maintains.

Oh, so you just say in court in the US that 'The People maintain' (something) and that's as good as real evidence?? Pleeasssseee! I asked for evidence not heresay of these unnamed 'people'.

Quote:
There was no question about the adhesive quality of the tape. It DEFINATELY WOULD HAVE evidence of a previous use had that occurred. If it had fibers adhered to it, then there would be other material as well, so it's adhesive qualities were not in question.

SD:Agreed, with reservations.

Quote:
This needs clarification. We have no evidence of any missing doll. Whose doll was it and from where was it missing? Who was supposed to have delivered it to JR's office and for what purpose?

SD:One thing at a time. DD answered the question about what doll quite aptly. As for who delivered it, I can't say.

No, DD said merely that it had 'been talked about at length' presumably by these mysterious 'people'. I have asked for some link to this information, but have received none so far.

Quote:
Please provide the report or the testimony of the person who provided this evidence.

SD:KBC already did it.

KBC provided only an "I think".

Again anything in novels written by third parties about this case are suspect. During ST's deposition, it became abundantly clear that he used quite a bit of 'poetic license'. When questioned by the R's Attorney, he was unable to back many of the 'facts' stated in his book. As for Dr Lee, this would have to be something he testified, as I don't think he has written a book about the case (yet)?

Quote:
Please provide the report or the testimony of the person who provided this evidence. What trauma would have been incurred by the placement of tape with rubber adhesive around the mouth with or without resistence?

SD: Very well. The FBI mentioned this. PMPT, page 306:

Ditto re the novel PMPT. We can't accept as testimony someone else's interpretation of events written exclusively for sensationalism and in an attempt to profit financially.

SD: Skin trauma would be evident if she had been alive. Coroner Meyer had not reported any trauma to the skin around JonBenet's mouth.

As for what trauma, from personal experience, it would have caused stretching of the skin from trying to fight against it.

You were trying to tell the court just a moment ago there were questions about the quality of the adhesive, now you maintain it would have caused trauma.

Quote:
Please provide the report or the testimony of the person who provided this evidence. Please include the size of "fairly small" and "very impractical" from the point of view of an expert in this field.

SD: Well, the tape was a square piece, 2x2 inches roughly. And from what the FBI mentioned, it's typical for the kidnapper to wrap it all around the head.

Yes, well as I've previously presented, this apparently 2" x 2" BLACK TAPE was not that adhered to be blanket.

Quote:
Please provide the report or the testimony of the person who provided this evidence, particularly as it applies to the mucous and upon which side of the tape it was found.

SD" ST, page 241:

Pictures showed that bloody mucus in the mouth area had been covered by the tape.

See comments about the ST novel above.

Quote:
Your assertion of cui bono ignores the obvious answer and that is that the family of the deceased have no potential benefit from the death of their relative.

SD: You misunderstand. The question was not whether or not the family would benefit from her death (which is a whole other keg of beer); rather, the question is, "who benefits from placing duct tape on a dead person?"

Ok, and the answer is? In fact, as WF maintained, what benefit of putting tape upon a pair of dead lips only to rip it off again and then there is the problem of disposing of the roll. Best not to have put it on in the first place if you are really looking for a benefit.

 

[DeeDee249]

I haven't heard about it. Can you please provide a link to this information as I don't remember reading anything about it either. Is it a bona fide piece of evidence or just a tabloid idea or something read in a novel written about the crime?

The doll itself isn't evidence because the original doll wasn't found. The replacement doll isn't much good. However, there were "tan" or "brown" cotton fibers found at the crime scene, and the dolls have tan cotton bodies. The dolls don't come with the tape, that has to be added by whoever buys the doll. I posted a link here over a year ago or longer on a thread discussing the doll, showing a photo of an American Girl doll depicting the cord. You might be able to find it here using a search feature. The "mysterious" people discussing it was US. (LE didn't seem to be interested) I don't believe I ever read anything about the doll in a tabloid.

As far as I know, there were no novels written about the crime and I don't read novels anyway. I prefer non-fiction.

Your condescending attitude is wearing thin.

 

[MurriFlower]

The doll itself isn't evidence because the original doll wasn't found. The replacement doll isn't much good. However, there were "tan" or "brown" cotton fibers found at the crime scene, and the dolls have tan cotton bodies. The dolls don't come with the tape, that has to be added by whoever buys the doll. I posted a link here over a year ago or longer on a thread discussing the doll, showing a photo of an American Girl doll depicting the cord. You might be able to find it here using a search feature. The "mysterious" people discussing it was US. (LE didn't seem to be interested) I don't believe I ever read anything about the doll in a tabloid.

As far as I know, there were no novels written about the crime and I don't read novels anyway. I prefer non-fiction.

Your condescending attitude is wearing thin.

Ok well as you probably know I don't know anything about the doll. What has it to do with JBR's killing?

I call them 'novels' because I don't believe they are factual. Some facts probably do exist in them, maybe a lot, maybe not so much. Separating the real from the imagined would be the problem. After reading ST's depo and the stuff he was picked up on that was not supported or was just made up, I find it difficult to think PMPT (on which he collaborated) would be any more factual. And publishers like a good story better than they like a factual story, so the pressure is on the author to make it a good read. I'm more inclined to think the R's book would be closer to the truth (although I'm sure there's a bit of poetic license there too). Funnily enough, I found the raw, unedited, unchanged first chapter of LHPs book to be very interesting. Probably reveals more of her than of the story though.

Some of the attitude I've experienced here leave a lot to be desired too. As ye sow, so shall ye reap!

 

[DeeDee249]

Ok well as you probably know I don't know anything about the doll. What has it to do with JBR's killing?

I call them 'novels' because I don't believe they are factual. Some facts probably do exist in them, maybe a lot, maybe not so much. Separating the real from the imagined would be the problem. After reading ST's depo and the stuff he was picked up on that was not supported or was just made up, I find it difficult to think PMPT (on which he collaborated) would be any more factual. And publishers like a good story better than they like a factual story, so the pressure is on the author to make it a good read. I'm more inclined to think the R's book would be closer to the truth (although I'm sure there's a bit of poetic license there too). Funnily enough, I found the raw, unedited, unchanged first chapter of LHPs book to be very interesting. Probably reveals more of her than of the story though.

Some of the attitude I've experienced here leave a lot to be desired too. As ye sow, so shall ye reap!

Certainly you don't mean MOI.

The doll may or may not play a part.
1. If JB's doll had a piece of tape (put by the parents, of course, as suggested by the manufacturer) over the the knot of the cord holding the doll's head on the cloth body, that could be the source of the tape used on JB.
2. If the tan fibers found on the body are a match to the cotton doll body, that is another link to the doll having been at the crime scene. Of course, a doll that is played with by a child would be expected to shed fibers, but the combination of the tape and the fibers from the doll make the likelihood of the tape coming off the doll a bit more possible.
3. If the doll WAS the source of the tape, that may explain why it went missing.
4. Because it would be seen as suspicious for the doll to be missing, a replacement was ordered (and the new doll would have no tape residue on her neck). I can't think of a reason why the doll would be ordered after JB's death because it wasn't just a matter of it arriving after her death.

 

[MurriFlower]

Certainly you don't mean MOI.

MOI??

The doll may or may not play a part.
1. If JB's doll had a piece of tape (put by the parents, of course, as suggested by the manufacturer) over the the knot of the cord holding the doll's head on the cloth body, that could be the source of the tape used on JB.
2. If the tan fibers found on the body are a match to the cotton doll body, that is another link to the doll having been at the crime scene. Of course, a doll that is played with by a child would be expected to shed fibers, but the combination of the tape and the fibers from the doll make the likelihood of the tape coming off the doll a bit more possible.
3. If the doll WAS the source of the tape, that may explain why it went missing.
4. Because it would be seen as suspicious for the doll to be missing, a replacement was ordered (and the new doll would have no tape residue on her neck). I can't think of a reason why the doll would be ordered after JB's death because it wasn't just a matter of it arriving after her death.

1. If a doll did have a piece of tape, it may have been put there by the grandmother, babysitter, housekeeper, person who gave her the doll, the mother of the kid down the road. You would then need to prove that this particular piece of tape had been on the doll before being used on JBR. Then that it could have only been accessed by the parents. If it was on the bed when she as taken by an intruder, then the tape could have been used by that intruder. Why they would then take the doll is anyone's guess?

2. If the doll was the source of any fibers and if the doll was the source of the tape, is potential evidence that neither proves or disproves RDI or IDI. I think it's unlikely though to have had anything to do with the killing.

3. See 1.

4. Well it would only seem suspicious if the doll were in fact missing. Now, who would be most likely to know that a doll was missing? Who reported the doll missing? I think that would have been the parents, but it's unlikely they would mention it if they were the killers don't you think?

This whole thing sounds like a fabrication to me.

 

[BBB167893]

Supe,
Sorry, bro.
The sentence to which you responded originally, points out you do not acknowledge "love" as a viable component in this, the murder of JonBenet, debacle; Even to the point of accusing yours truly of using it to "play" on the emotions of others.

I stand by that accusation.

Not at all, you insist. Quite the contrary! You have acknowledged it extensively. You believe P was a good mom, lots of personality and nice looking. Too, she was reunited with JB for which you were glad. Someone, about a year ago, stooped so low as to call her a cow, for which you let him have it.

Just what about that do you not understand?

Astonishingly, this is what you term your "quite extensive acknowledgment." That's not good enough.

I didn't think it WOULD be!

You cannot begin to understand this nightmare.

Become a dad, hold your newborn, and try again to solve this mystery.

Oh, yeah. That's not playing on emotions much. Tell you what, Fang: that's something I look forward to dearly. I just hope you won't mind if I don't rush out and do it too soon.

 

[BBB167893]

Oh, so you just say in court in the US that 'The People maintain' (something) and that's as good as real evidence??

No, MurriFlower. That's not how it works, obviously. If this were a REAL court, I'd clearly call a rebuttal witness.

No, DD said merely that it had 'been talked about at length' presumably by these mysterious 'people'. I have asked for some link to this information, but have received none so far.

There was a whole website devoted to this issue. Sadly, it seems to have vanished. But, all is not lost. Perhaps you can use this:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/Duct-Tape-on-Mouth?SearchFor=American+Girl+doll&sp=5

Again anything in novels written by third parties about this case are suspect.

That's convenient. Somebody remind me again how I'm the one who dismisses and minimizes things?

During ST's deposition, it became abundantly clear that he used quite a bit of 'poetic license'. When questioned by the R's Attorney, he was unable to back many of the 'facts' stated in his book.

Unfortunately, MF, as the National Review article I posted a while back said, attorneys in civil cases are like bulls in a china shop. Moreover, since he didn't have his reference materials with him at the time as he did when he wrote the book, his answers were what I'd expect.

As for Dr Lee, this would have to be something he testified, as I don't think he has written a book about the case (yet)?

He talked about it in his book, "Cracking More Cases." He made the comment in a CNN interview as well.

Ditto re the novel PMPT. We can't accept as testimony someone else's interpretation of events written exclusively for sensationalism and in an attempt to profit financially.

But they're all we've got.

You were trying to tell the court just a moment ago there were questions about the quality of the adhesive, now you maintain it would have caused trauma.

Anything adhesive will cause some trauma when applied to a struggling person. I'd focus more on the lip prints.

Yes, well as I've previously presented, this apparently 2" x 2" BLACK TAPE was not that adhered to be blanket.

I believe you are referring to the alleged other strips?

See comments about the ST novel above.

I saw.

Ok, and the answer is?

The person staging the scene. And I think Wendy Murphy said it best: an intruder would not stage a crime scene to LOOK like an intruder.

In fact, as WF maintained, what benefit of putting tape upon a pair of dead lips only to rip it off again

Two reasons:

1) It contaminates the scene even more.

2) It provides a dramatic scene for the person watching. I have no doubt that if FW had not been there, JR would not have done it.

and then there is the problem of disposing of the roll.

Any number of possibilites exist.

Best not to have put it on in the first place if you are really looking for a benefit.

How do you figure that? I'm serious, too. Even IF you're right, that's really easy to say 14 years later sitting calmly at a computer.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I stand by that accusation.
Just what about that do you not understand?
I didn't think it WOULD be!

Oh, yeah. That's not playing on emotions much. Tell you what, Fang: that's something I look forward to dearly. I just hope you won't mind if I don't rush out and do it too soon.

Were there emotions, powerful emotions, tied inextricably to this tragedy?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Not at all, you insist. Quite the contrary! You have acknowledged it extensively. You believe P was a good mom, lots of personality and nice looking. Too, she was reunited with JB for which you were glad. Someone, about a year ago, stooped so low as to call her a cow, for which you let him have it.

Just what about that do you not understand?

Do you think it is more insulting to be called a "cow" or a "killer of her own child" "someone staging her death" to appear like strangulation "in order to guarantee the press coverage at her funeral would be enormous," to ensure that she received the kind of attention and celebrity she deserved in life, but hadn't yet achieved? If you were a mother, which do you think you'd prefer? To be a cow or the other?

 

[WHITEFANG]

I feel like I'm trying to educate someone, (an adult?), who keeps flunking remedial, pre-nursery, summer school.

 

[BBB167893]

Were there emotions, powerful emotions, tied inextricably to this tragedy?

I believe unequivocally that there were.

Do you think it is more insulting to be called a "cow" or a "killer of her own child" "someone staging her death" to appear like strangulation "in order to guarantee the press coverage at her funeral would be enormous," to ensure that she received the kind of attention and celebrity she deserved in life, but hadn't yet achieved? If you were a mother, which do you think you'd prefer? To be a cow or the other?

I get what you mean, Fang. You have a point. But it depends on the different context. I realize you won't agree, but what I have to say comes from a good place. The person who made that comment was not coming from a bad place. Maybe you haven't noticed, but I engage in this discourse--no matter how distasteful we BOTH find it--without hatred or malice.

Let me put it another way. It's one thing to call someone a child-killer out of hatred, to hurt that person, to insult them and run them down for it. But I'm coming from a different angle. I'm saying it's possible to believe that a good person has done a terrible thing.

In short, if I were truly the man you make me out to be, do you think I would have cried when she died? Do you think I'd CARE when someone runs her down?

Think about it, man.

 

[BBB167893]

I feel like I'm trying to educate someone, (an adult?), who keeps flunking remedial, pre-nursery, summer school.

That would be an improvement from here. I feel like I'm trying to teach someone how to BREATHE, and they're not getting it.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I get the feeling most of what you say falls into that category.

You don't. Okay, look. Let's take this one step at a time. I'll take responsibility and say that I misunderstood what you meant. I guess the reason you haven't seen much of that in what I say is because I believe that this all came about in a situation where all of that was forgotten in one horrible instant. (No, that's where you are wrong. That's what you believe, apparently, but that isn't how love works. There simply is no hint before or after, that they did this. A Rorschach test pad displaying this "picture" would, no doubt, find people, even experts, convinced they see the image you do. But, the picture in this case is like lenticular printing. The image changes into something completely different by moving it, letting light fall across it from different angles. The love between parents and kids, most of the time is stronger than just about anything else.) And as for her not displaying guilt or shame, I guess that's a matter of opinion. Just about everything they did can be read one way or another. And I believe she truly wanted to bare her soul. I realize that to you I'm not considering a lot of factors. But that cuts both ways.

Oh, I get the point better than you realize. I let emotions rule my thinking before. Not again.

Don't let your emotions rule your thinking. This is not about that, at all. At all! It is about comprehending how emotions are important in this horrible tragedy. It can't be anything but emotional for them. It doesn't have to be emotional to us. We must consider the depth of the emotions they felt, not what we feel, necessarily.

It's a rotten case, isn't it? if you believe in them, you're foolish. If you don't, you're heartless. Those seem to be the choices.

Don't take it personally, Fang. I've been that way as long as I can remember.

It's not easy for some people, Fang. None of the men in my family have been good with those kinds of emotions. Me least of all, I'm sorry to say.

You'd think so. But there were a lot of different factors involved. I think one of the cops said it best: "she's totally rationalized this in her mind and can vizualize an intruder."

That's true. But guilt is only one of many emotions. And some have more power than others.

You cannot examine this situation from a healthy perspective, a healthy frame of reference because you don't have one. You cannot assess with accuracy the intrinsic dynamics of this crime. The innate part of us that knows the value of human relationships, particularly among moms and dads and their kids, is missing. And, unfortunately it is like trying to describe color to someone blinded from birth.

Could you visualize your mother in the role of P, having done what you accuse P of doing, with an affect similar to hers as she appeared during the LKL interviews and others?

Let me assure you of this. Even my mother couldn't have pulled off what you are convinced P did. You may remember what I said about her. Now, there was a bona fide, brutal monster; physically she was extremely powerful and muscular, brilliant, summa--laude ivy league university graduate, photographic memory, a surgeon and an Admiral in the United States Navy heritage, with a vicious, a voracious temper, who did not want kids. Even she could not have made it through that kind of public exposure without giving off vibes of guilt.

Like it or not, Fang, but the answers I've just given you are the only ones I cOf course it is. No one can deny that with a straight face. But this is a bit like how polys work, supposedly. No matter how hard we try to suppress painful thoughts and memories, no one can do what you say they did unless they are sick.
That's a whole other issue, Fang.an give you.

 

[MurriFlower]

You cannot examine this situation from a healthy perspective, a healthy frame of reference because you don't have one. You cannot assess with accuracy the intrinsic dynamics of this crime. The innate part of us that knows the value of human relationships, particularly among moms and dads and their kids, is missing. And, unfortunately it is like trying to describe color to someone blinded from birth.

Guys, I've gotta admit finding this tedious. Not that I want to tell you what to discuss, this is between you two though, I'm just skimming (if at all).

But I think we're talking about love and guilt?

You see, from the IDI point of view, I can barely understand how much guilt PR (and JR probably in a different way) must have felt. This I guess is for those mothers with children. I'm not saying men don't feel strongly about their children, but it's women who have the market cornered in guilt when it comes to their kids and them coming to harm.

Imagine how you would cope:

If you slept soundly and woke to find your baby had kicked off the covers and was cold and crying, you would feel very guilty.

or

If you slept soundly and woke to find your baby had died in its bed (from SIDS), you would feel enormously guilty.

or

If you slept soundly and woke to find your baby had been taken from her bed by someone and held for ransom, you would feel overwhelmingly guilty (and panic stricken for her safety).

or

If you slept soundly and woke to find your baby had been taken from her bed by someone, taken to the basement of your own home, tortured sexually, bashed on the head and strangled with a chord, you would feel the overwhelming kind of guilt, anger, sadness, fear, that is indescribable and your ability to function would be impaired probably permanently.

then

Imagine this happening and then the tabloids, TV chat shows, news broadcasts, internet groups, neighbours, friends, people you don't know, seemingly the whole world, all thinking or saying you did this yourself?

Give it a go. Put yourself in Patsy's shoes for a while.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Guys, I've gotta admit finding this tedious. Not that I want to tell you what to discuss, this is between you two though, I'm just skimming (if at all).

But I think we're talking about love and guilt?

You see, from the IDI point of view, I can barely understand how much guilt PR (and JR probably in a different way) must have felt. This I guess is for those mothers with children. I'm not saying men don't feel strongly about their children, but it's women who have the market cornered in guilt when it comes to their kids and them coming to harm.

Imagine how you would cope:

If you slept soundly and woke to find your baby had kicked off the covers and was cold and crying, you would feel very guilty.

or

If you slept soundly and woke to find your baby had died in its bed (from SIDS), you would feel enormously guilty.

or

If you slept soundly and woke to find your baby had been taken from her bed by someone and held for ransom, you would feel overwhelmingly guilty (and panic stricken for her safety).

or

If you slept soundly and woke to find your baby had been taken from her bed by someone, taken to the basement of your own home, tortured sexually, bashed on the head and strangled with a chord, you would feel the overwhelming kind of guilt, anger, sadness, fear, that is indescribable and your ability to function would be impaired probably permanently.

then

Imagine this happening and then the tabloids, TV chat shows, news broadcasts, internet groups, neighbours, friends, people you don't know, seemingly the whole world, all thinking or saying you did this yourself?

Give it a go. Put yourself in Patsy's shoes for a while.

MF, once again you have surpassed expectations. You point out with distinction what I have been trying to say. On the one hand they were amateurs, just well to do snobs seeking social status. On the other they are credited with street smarts, criminal behavior, legal savvy of seasoned, hardened ex-cons. They can't win. If they had been able to recall and articulate just what happened in each situation asked about, they would be tarred and feathered for being too calm. If they had cried, you know who would say they were crocodile tears. If they misspeak, they are killers. If J has a quirky look on his face, he's the devil. They are not allowed to win, period.

They refuse to do as you suggest, but would be so helpful. Put yourself in her shoes. Go, right now, and find your six old year tied up, head broken in, dead, cold, blue. See how you handle the worldwide media barrage and the cops' unrelenting pursuit of you as their primary suspect. No one will. They'll blow this off and without hesitation continue on their merry way blasting her as if she was a Nazi war criminal.

See TWELVE ANGRY MEN.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Hey SD, Did you call off the dogs?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Remember, you are arguing with someone who will not acknowledge "love" as a viable component in this debacle. It is a non-factor. Fang

Quote:
That's not it. I acknolwedge it quite extensively. SD

So, would it be fair to say that your response was absolutely untrue?

 

[WHITEFANG]

a cop said, "she's totally rationalized this in her mind and can vizualize an intruder." SD

what's his name?

 

[BBB167893]

No, that's where you are wrong. That's what you believe, apparently, but that isn't how love works.

That I'll grant you. But you can't deny that we often hurt the ones we love, even when we don't mean to.

There simply is no hint before or after, that they did this.

That's your opinion, not mine.

A Rorschach test pad displaying this "picture" would, no doubt, find people, even experts, convinced they see the image you do. But, the picture in this case is like lenticular printing. The image changes into something completely different by moving it, letting light fall across it from different angles.

You won't get any argument from me there.

The love between parents and kids, most of the time is stronger than just about anything else.) And as for her not displaying guilt or shame, I guess that's a matter of opinion.

You may be right. And I'm not sure she didn't, at least to a degree.

Just about everything they did can be read one way or another.

True enough.

Don't let your emotions rule your thinking.

Not with something like this.

This is not about that, at all. At all!

Then just what is it about, man?

It is about comprehending how emotions are important in this horrible tragedy. It can't be anything but emotional for them. It doesn't have to be emotional to us. We must consider the depth of the emotions they felt, not what we feel, necessarily.

That's a fair point.

You cannot examine this situation from a healthy perspective, a healthy frame of reference because you don't have one. You cannot assess with accuracy the intrinsic dynamics of this crime. The innate part of us that knows the value of human relationships, particularly among moms and dads and their kids, is missing. And, unfortunately it is like trying to describe color to someone blinded from birth.

Nuts on that. Just because I haven't got children doesn't mean I'm in no position to make a call on this case.

Let me assure you of this. Even my mother couldn't have pulled off what you are convinced P did. You may remember what I said about her. Now, there was a bona fide, brutal monster; physically she was extremely powerful and muscular, brilliant, summa--laude ivy league university graduate, photographic memory, a surgeon and an Admiral in the United States Navy heritage, with a vicious, a voracious temper, who did not want kids. Even she could not have made it through that kind of public exposure without giving off vibes of guilt.

At least not without help. Maybe that's the key here.

Hey SD, Did you call off the dogs?

Which "dogs" would those be?

So, would it be fair to say that your response was absolutely untrue?

No, it would not. Not in the least. I've never once doubted that PR loved JB the very best she could.

a cop said, "she's totally rationalized this in her mind and can vizualize an intruder." SD

what's his name?

Her name is Jane Harmer. And the exact quote was:

"Patsy's in total denial. She's rationalized this in her mind and can visualize an intruder."