TattleTeeny

The thing that is so weird to me is, whether they did it or not, if Burke had been awake and asking questions during this crazed morning, why not say so? There's nothing incriminating in and of itself about that, and it seems that the idea of him being in bed the whole time is more of a sticking point to many people.

That restaurant-bar is huge (it's the place with the "speakeasy" shown the first (?) episode this season); I feel like unless they actually filmed there on a night when it is actually full, it's always going to look empty and cavernous. I had to go in through the employee entrance on the bottom floor once and, I swear, I felt like I'd walked half a mile through a bunch of "behind-the-scenes" hallways--like in Goodfellas, haha!) before getting to the top-level terrace! (Also, we got stuck in the speakeasy--that stupid secret door would not open when we touched the book or the sconce or whatever the hell it was, and we had to use the boring old button.) The best part for me was when Rosie, probably thinking she had a real zinger, said, "I'm not going to beg," and Teresa simply said "good" or whatever. And yet again, it's them badmouthing her but then insisting they want to hang out with her more, then acting surprised and shocked that she isn't into it...when she already said she wasn't into it. It's like they push her into saying shit they don't want to hear, and then gasp in horror that she does. Surprisingly, Joe Gorga's breakup analogy made sense in this situation.

I agree, but I am trying to be open about it even as a "they didn't do it" proponent--because the panel is filled with people whose books I've read and whose opinions and knowledge I've always respected. Oy, this fuckin' case, man.

OK, this one reminded me of why I thought the Ramseys were guilty way back when. Still, though, so much points in the complete other way. But this was a much better-quality show than the others. I thought I heard at the end that the next episode is the conclusion--but I also thought this was supposed to be a six-hour thing?

Seriously, it is so hard not to conflate info with this case!

That's sort of what happened to me. I lost my phone and went to buy a new one, and the choices at AT&T were two ends of the spectrum as far as phone models: super-old and latest & greatest. I figured, just get the iPhone then, because going completely backwards in terms of technology was pretty silly (my last phone was kind of in-between, and I'm paying only $30 more per month anyway). I like it and all, and it's very helpful, but I have not found myself to be much more "into" the phone than I was before. For instance, it is not at my side right now; it's over there...somewhere...I think? And a couple of years after getting it, I still haven't explored all it has to offer. Unrelated: I love all of the fruits, adore brussels sprouts (you guys--roasted with a mustard marinade, oh my goodness!), and absolutely despise onions! Like, with a visceral fury. So bad...and unfortunately, so ubiquitous--and do not tell me that you can order a half-onion pizza without it affecting the non-onion half. Nope, that smell and taste wafts into the other half! And I can taste when tomato has been cut with a knife that has cut an onion. And what I hate even more? People who ask, "But what about Frech onion soup...onion rings...a blooming' onion?" The hell you say? How do you not realize what the main ingredient of those things is when you JUST SAID IT?! Aand the same goes for your grandma's holiday green-bean casserole no matter how good "everyone" says it is. Why is it so hard to process that someone doesn't like this particular food? Once, at stupid Sonic (before I quit meat), I had to send a burger back three times. It came with regular raw onions and was topped with an onion ring. I told them "no onions" but it kept coming back with the onion ring, as if they thought that was not made of...an onion!

I'm so sorry, WicketyWack & Jellybeans.

I liked the yellow dress--wouldn't wear it but I thought it came together well, and was nicely done. Roberi's I also would not wear (and I love a micro-mini) but it reminded me of Starry Night, which is a good thing.

Oh, I know--me too. Any "they," including these theys--haha, fun with pronouns! Honestly, they all are pretty similar even when there's a biased slant. I liked the Lou Smit one but I don't recall what network showed it.

Oh, I read Steve Thomas's book too--it feels like forever ago (why am I so old now?!). I guess I just think of the underwear as one more thing for my mental, ever-increasing "weird yet inconclusive" list about this case. Haha, just now I was flipping channels and one of the Ramsey shows was on and I heard the BF whisper, "no"!

But lots of things strain Patsy's credibility, and she could very well be delusional (that décor for one thing, and the holiday sweaters for another), and she didn't say they fit her. And of course a 6-year-old could open a package of underwear (and I refuse to type the "p" word, and I hated reading it 6,000 times on that website!) All it says to me is that she stuck some too-big underwear in a drawer once upon a time and maybe JonBenét or someone else opened the package. It's weird, OK, but many things are weird about the family, IMO. My family's weird as hell but no one's murdered anyone (yet). None of the above says "killer."

OK, maybe I am dumb but I just read the two links and found nothing particularly damning, nothing that says once and for all that this was not the underwear JonBenét started out wearing, and nothing that says the underwear was hidden somewhere that no one other than Patsy would know about. But even if Patsy was the only one who knew about the secret stash of underwear, I am unclear on what this is supposed to indicate as far as guilt on Patsy's part or that it was changed by the killer. Did I miss this? I suppose I could have; I've been proofreading all day at work (and that second link is to the ugliest and difficult to read website I may have ever seen).

Ooh, TY!

Not arguing this, but do you have a source? I'd love to read t! TY in advance!

Well, I have no great love for Patsy Ramsey, but to be fair, we don't know what "they usually" do if we don't personally know the "they" in question.

I have never heard this about the underwear. And she was found in long-john bottoms and the same shirt she'd worn to the Christmas party the night before--white with a glittery star. If it was supposed to be a kidnapping, she would likely be dressed, no? And, in keeping with the blanket, if this were done by someone who cared for her (in whatever capacity), that person almost certainly would not have allowed her to be found undressed. Definitely agree. However, I can also easily see how someone with the means would push back against a police department like this one.

Could someone wiser than I tell me if there is not some kind of punishment for the JMK's of the world for making uncoerced false confessions and causing all sorts of ruckus and mayhem in the process? I've been rolling this around in my head and I can only come up with partial answers to my own question (and then that thing happened where I'd overthought way too much about it and it all became absolute nonsense even though the answer is probably obvious and I'll soon feel really dumb), mainly that we don't 100% know if he's lying and, because the evidence didn't support his confession, there's was nothing to "get" him on and thus unconstitutional? Oh my goodness, what if we find out someday that JMK was friends with Michael Helgoth, haha! It would have been kind of awesome to see the junkyard guy say, "...he had this twitchy little friend with cartoony eyebrows, a thing for polo shirts, and a voice like Sheldon Cooper."

That is my exact issue with so many horror movies!

And at an age that would definitely imprint on him.

I'm glad other people are dismissing that "OMG big clue!" too, even if we are not of the same opinion as to the perp. I can say though that I have more clothes than I can wear over the course of two months and still I sometimes grab whatever pair of jeans already has a belt in it!

Plus, once that becomes a working theory that the public can read, maybe criminals would make an effort to not do it.

One thing that bugged me about this episode (and it has nothing to do with the case) was that, when the narrator was talking about Michael Helgoth, he said something like, "...and the most disturbing thing of all" in reference to M.H. hypothetically musing about cracking a human skull. Hell no, I beg to differ; I'd argue the most disturbing thing from that list of Helgoth's behavior was actually breaking the necks of small animals, thank you! And if that junkyard guy saw M.H. doing that, why the hell did he not stop him and/or quit being friends with the guy?! See, I find this a workable theory. Maybe they wanted to take her in the suitcase (which to me does not look big enough even for a little girl) for the ransom (if junkyard dude is to be believed that Helgoth mentioned a future windfall of cash), used a stun gun (which may have belonged to M.H., per the photo) to keep her quiet, realized they suitcase thing wouldn't work and/or she was waking up, nixed the kidnapping plan, and did the rest. As for the pineapple, I got nothin'--and also nothin' as to why they would not have come with a ransom not already from their own notebook. ETA: I forgot to add that maybe Michael Helgoth and/or his alleged partner was on that house tour?

Yeah! I personally find it odd for myself but who the hell knows what other people do (and I do put on the same jeans two days in a row, now that I think about it)? Weren't they about to get on a plane anyway? This family was generally unknown to the country at large before this happened, so we have no idea if this is something she never did before. And even if they had been well known prior, we still probably wouldn't know that.

The Hi-Tec (sp?) boot! I don't know how well I can articulate this but one thing I wonder is if JonBenét ate the pineapple herself (at whatever time of day or night)? I know that they found only fingerprints of Burke and Patsy on the bowl, but in light of the handling of the crime scene, I wonder. Unlikely, but she was 6, not 2, and capable of eating pineapple unaided. And also, while so much stuff like the notepad and the paintbrush and the pineapple, etc., do cause one to consider the family due to those things' all being items the family would know existed and where to quickly and easily grab them from, they still don't necessarily mean that someone else could not have. Again, I apologize if I am being inarticulate; lack of sleep (snoring BF!) and I just found out I have to buy 4 new tires--booo!

I just don't find that much of this stuff that weird. Ugh, I used to find the pineapple interesting way back when (I love stomach contents, haha!). Now I think it's interesting but that people may be making a mountain out of a molehill with it. And it's not that strange to me that a bowl would have the fingerprints of the people whose bowl it was on it. If it's strange that JonBenét ate pineapple in the middle of the night, OK, I can see that. But that pineapple really doesn't say as much as people think it does, IMO. Also, oh my goodness, so many of my FB friends think this pineapple info is new! Are these shows presenting it as such? When Burke was taken to the family friends' house, wasn't it still a presumed kidnapping? If he were told that, maybe he understood that no one yet knew what exactly happened. As for the police coming in with flashlights, he said that he heard the commotion and knew something was up and it was not necessarily good. If he's not a gregarious kid to begin with (and I don't know that he was or wasn't), maybe he figured it was best to sit tight? I think we've covered here that people express nervous/anxious habits for far less than stressful encounters talking about your sister's murder on TV (with Dr. Phil of all people, no less). He did that smile anytime he talked, whether it was about grisly things or not. I think he can't help it, and I don't think it's an indication of anything. If Burke's weird, he has plenty of reason to be, IMO. This has been interesting to me since whenever it was that I first heard it. However, no one seems to be able to confirm that there's a third voice. And while I don't know if or why the 911 lady would make it up, I also don't know that her word is the end all, be all either. You could posit that an intruder, who knew the Ramseys were at a party, could have time while lying in wait. I am not saying I think that's what happened, but that there was time for it. And where is the first draft (or the paintbrush pieces or the duct tape?) But what's the "coincidence"? I don't recall Burke saying he was in bed all night but I do recall his parents saying that, and John later saying that he'd actually had to corral Burke, who was playing with a toy, to bed. Last night, he said he didn't know if he used a flashlight. (Honestly, why any of these people would be using a flashlight in their own home is kind of weird to me, even if JonBenét was asleep when they brought her inside from the car). Again, what's the coincidence? And who is the "they"--police or other investigators (I thought it was Lou Smit who suggested it)? I believe that it was the police who suggested the marks were from a toy (right?), and the police were dead set on it being someone in the family. Those marks also look like stun-gun contact points, complete with one dot larger due to inconsistent contact with the skin (and wasn't it the police who pooh-poohed that theory?). And I am having a tough time putting together how the train track would be used in this injury (granted, I have not gotten a good look at the train track)--was this thing some kind of super-substantial heavy-duty metal? Was Burke, like, holding it like a sword and doing an "engarde!" kind of thing? And if he's bent on conking her with something really damaging, why bother with a train track piece--and twice? The note and handwriting stuff looks pretty damning (probably one of the more damning things in all this, IMO). But handwriting analysis still isn't an exact science (and a few exact sciences have lately been presenting questionable accuracy in crime investigations), and it's not like the police tested everyone who was in Boulder that night--I think it was maybe 9 or 10 people? And, oh my goodness, I cannot stress enough that not being ruled out (along with the term "not inconsistent with") is far from irrefutable evidence of guilt...and we should all be glad for that, whether or not we ever--god forbid--find ourselves in some kind of hot legal pickle like this.