The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey

[GaT]

2 hours ago, reggiejax said:

Why do I think the bowl of pineapple is essentially useless? Because the general belief is that the pineapple was used to lure JonBenet and get her trust before she was murdered.

And that stretches reason no matter what theory one believes in.

If it was her parents, the pineapple simply would not have even been needed. Not to mention, it is generally believed that if her parents murdered her, it was in a fit of rage. So the bowl of pineapple, which indicates premeditation, just doesn't fly.

Also, while the stereotype of a pedophile is some weirdo luring kids with treats, that wouldn't be the case here if the murderer was a stranger.  For lack of a better term, the "soft approach" is usually utilized in a public or outdoor setting. It is done to lessen the chance of a scene being made. But here we have someone who went to the trouble of breaking into a residence. In that situation, it reverses, and the soft approach becomes riskier. Why take the time and effort when the chances are higher the child will scream. No, someone who breaks in is going to take her quickly and forcefully, subduing her and/or gagging her.

As for prints on the bowl, if those of a member of the Ramsey family were found, that is essentially worthless. Their prints on a bowl they owned and used have no value.

If it was an intruder, then yes, it had value. But I think I have outlined why I believe that just wasn't going to be the case.

Quite honestly, I don't believe the bowl of pineapple had anything to do with the murder, nor could it have broken the case.  

Having said that, I do agree that the police should have gathered it as evidence. There is no argument from me about the piss poor job the police did.

This is exactly my point, all we can do is guess & state opinions. If the police had done their job correctly, we wouldn't have to guess, we would have facts. Even if the fact was that the pineapple had nothing to do with it, we would at least now know for sure. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by GaT

[Court]

Spoiler

 

The bowl was fingerprinted. It had Burke's and Patsy's prints on it. It doesn't mean a thing except that one of them and not a stranger gave her the pineapple. It doesn't eliminate a stranger/intruder as a killer.

If it was an intruder, why did it happen in the home? Why not remove her from the home? It's never made sense to me that the killer would kill her in a home with other people and then go home. It seems very risky that way. What is the theory around that? 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Court

[AZChristian]

On the NBC show last night, they addressed one possible answer to that, Court.  There was some thought (and perhaps fiber evidence) that JonBenet had been put in that suitcase that was found under the open window, as the killer was trying to remove her from the house in the suitcase.  However, he found that if he was able to get the suitcase up through the window and into that little area still below ground level, there was no room for him to get out.  So he killed her in the house and left her there.

Nothing in that show changed my mind.  I still don't want to believe that her parents were involved, but . . . 

[Guest]

However, he found that if he was able to get the suitcase up through the window and into that little area still below ground level, there was no room for him to get out.  So he killed her in the house and left her there.

Right, but why would an intruder leave via the same window? I can understand getting in that way - but to try and exit that way? With a body? When there are several doors to the outside he could walk through? Nope. No intruder. No kidnapper.

[tobeannounced]

Regarding the pineapple, John Douglas said he thought the Ramseys not having a story for the pineapple pointed to their innocence.  If they were guilty, they'd just come up with a lie to satisfy the police.

[AZChristian]

18 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

 

Right, but why would an intruder leave via the same window? I can understand getting in that way - but to try and exit that way? With a body? When there are several doors to the outside he could walk through? Nope. No intruder. No kidnapper.

Our security system chirps whenever someone goes in or out of a door, whether it's "set" or not.  When we tried to set it once, a window wasn't fully latched, so the system wouldn't set . . . but it still chirped every time the door was open.  Just an idea.  I really don't know.  This case has a lot more questions than answers.

[glowlights]

Well this thread is called What We Already Know, and I know close to diddly-squat, but here are two questions for anyone who is more well-read on this case:

- What were John and Patsy wearing when the PD showed up? And was Patsy made up or bare faced?

- According to John and Patsy, Burke slept through everything. According to Burke, he was awakened by Patsy coming in his room saying "Where's my baby?" and he elected to just keep quiet. Does anyone else think it's odd that Patsy and John had just found a ransom note saying their daughter was kidnapped, but they did not (apparently) check with Burke to make sure he was alive and okay, and then ask him if he had seen or heard anything? And then they left him alone in his bed even though for all they knew the kidnapper could still be in the house? There seemed to be very little care or concern for Burke's safety on the part of John and Patsy, and very little attempt to get info about the alleged kidnapping from the one person who had been sleeping on the same floor, and therefore possibly within ear shot (or eye shot).

Things that make me go hmmmmm.....

[jenrising]

I do think they lied about Burke. But then it begs the question why. To cover for him? To keep him from talking to the cops? To try and protect him? Who knows. 

Nothing about this case makes any sense.

[glowlights]

28 minutes ago, jenrising said:

I do think they lied about Burke. But then it begs the question why. To cover for him? To keep him from talking to the cops? To try and protect him? Who knows. 

Nothing about this case makes any sense.

Including the ransom note. Even if it was a planned abduction that went awry, that note makes no sense. For starters, a kidnapper would have asked for WAY more money imo. The Ramsays had a boat, a plane, two homes, billion dollar software company, etc. Why ask for 118k?

[AZChristian]

Patsy was wearing the same outfit she had worn the day before.  One of her close friends was on last night's Dateline show, and said that Patsy was a real fashion plate and would never wear the same outfit two days in a row.  She was out visiting friends the day and evening before (Christmas Day), and they were going to fly to Michigan on the 26th.  I don't know if I'd wear the same clothes for two such different activities.  But - as with almost everything in this case - it's all conjecture.

[AZChristian]

6 minutes ago, glowlights said:

Including the ransom note. Even if it was a planned abduction that went awry, that note makes no sense. For starters, a kidnapper would have asked for WAY more money imo. The Ramsays had a boat, a plane, two homes, billion dollar software company, etc. Why ask for 118k?

The ransom note was as bizarre as everything else in the case.  What kidnapper says, "We represent a small foreign faction . . ."?  And it appears to have been written by someone who likes to repeat phrases and never uses one word when 10 will do.  Which reminds me, have you ever seen an interview with Patsy Ramsay?  Oh, and by the way - she knows exactly how much John's upcoming bonus was going to be . . . in the neighborhood of $118,000.

[glowlights]

18 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Patsy was wearing the same outfit she had worn the day before.  One of her close friends was on last night's Dateline show, and said that Patsy was a real fashion plate and would never wear the same outfit two days in a row.  She was out visiting friends the day and evening before (Christmas Day), and they were going to fly to Michigan on the 26th.  I don't know if I'd wear the same clothes for two such different activities.  But - as with almost everything in this case - it's all conjecture.

Thanks! BUT here's the thing, I thought she claimed to have gotten out of bed before everyone else to do some last minute laundry before they left for vacation, and that's when she found the note - when she walked from her bedroom to the laundry. She got dressed up in the previous day's clothes to do laundry?

Was John in his pajamas or also clothed?

Why did I let myself get sucked in to this story. *sigh*

Edited September 10, 2016 by glowlights
clarity

[tobeannounced]

As far as her clothes, maybe she had already packed a bunch of her clothes for the trip since they were leaving so early and that was the easiest thing to put on.  I think this is where the police and their campaign to make the Ramseys look bad comes in.  They had tunnel vision and were jumping to conclusions about every little thing to support their theories.

[AZChristian]

They were going to their second home in Michigan (similar weather to Colorado).  Wouldn't she have a lot of stuff there already and not pack "a bunch" of clothes to travel in their private jet?  And from what I've read, she could pack "a bunch" of clothes and STILL have more stuff left in her closet than most of us on this board (combined).  

I'm not arguing you with you . . . just stating the other option.  It just strikes me as unlikely to dress for travel (casual) the same way as an upper-class person would wear for Christmas Day visits to other upper-class friends.  Although her friend did say last night that Patsy was ALWAYS dressed to the nines.

[walnutqueen]

17 hours ago, Court said:

The bowl was fingerprinted. It had Burke's and Patsy's prints on it. It doesn't mean a thing except that one of them and not a stranger gave her the pineapple.

NO, it does NOT mean that.  Anyone with a fork, spoon or spork could eat or feed that stupid  fuckin' pineapple, including lil miss JBR all by her lonesome.

All it MEANS is that Burke & Patsy (among others whose fingerprints weren't identifiable) touched the bowl.  PERIOD.

[Court]

@AZChristian I watched that about an hour after I posted. Thanks! So, was the suitcase the Ramsey's? Or it wasn't? 

I guess that doesn't really matter. It just shows the intruder was very familiar with the house. 

I thought Dateline did a much better job of balancing their coverage ad opposed to the A&E special.

Two things I found interesting in my googling last night. Fleet White one of the friends had said he already checked the wine cellar when John checked the house again. I now want to know more about him.

The D.A. Alex Hunter thought Smit became too close to the Ramsey's and therefore the case. That he was influenced by his friendship he developed with them and that they were Christians like him.

[GaT]

18 hours ago, Court said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The bowl was fingerprinted. It had Burke's and Patsy's prints on it. It doesn't mean a thing except that one of them and not a stranger gave her the pineapple. It doesn't eliminate a stranger/intruder as a killer.

If it was an intruder, why did it happen in the home? Why not remove her from the home? It's never made sense to me that the killer would kill her in a home with other people and then go home. It seems very risky that way. What is the theory around that? 

Was the bowl fingerprinted before or after it was washed? 

Maybe he hadn't planned on killing her, maybe he lost control & did it & that's why he left the body.

[Court]

Just now, GaT said:

Was the bowl fingerprinted before or after it was washed? 

Maybe he hadn't planned on killing her, maybe he lost control & did it & that's why he left the body.

I took it as before but I'm not sure they specifically said that. Dateline said the friends went behind the fingerprint tech and cleaned up each time. 

Ultimately, their fingerprints on the bowl make sense. Maybe they gave it to her but as I said above. It doesn't eliminate the intruder being a possibility. 

1 hour ago, walnutqueen said:

NO, it does NOT mean that.  Anyone with a fork, spoon or spork could eat or feed that stupid  fuckin' pineapple, including lil miss JBR all by her lonesome.

All it MEANS is that Burke & Patsy (among others whose fingerprints weren't identifiable) touched the bowl.  PERIOD.

Like I said in the post, I don't think it means anything and it doesn't eliminate an intruder being a possibility. 

I was mainly saying it was fingerprinted. 

[walnutqueen]

9 minutes ago, Court said:

I took it as before but I'm not sure they specifically said that. Dateline said the friends went behind the fingerprint tech and cleaned up each time. 

Ultimately, their fingerprints on the bowl make sense. Maybe they gave it to her but as I said above. It doesn't eliminate the intruder being a possibility. 

Like I said in the post, I don't think it means anything and it doesn't eliminate an intruder being a possibility. 

I was mainly saying it was fingerprinted. 

Actually, you said :

 

1 hour ago, walnutqueen said:

It doesn't mean a thing except that one of them and not a stranger gave her the pineapple.

[Court]

On 9/10/2016 at 0:27 AM, Court said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The bowl was fingerprinted. It had Burke's and Patsy's prints on it. It doesn't mean a thing except that one of them and not a stranger gave her the pineapple. It doesn't eliminate a stranger/intruder as a killer.

If it was an intruder, why did it happen in the home? Why not remove her from the home? It's never made sense to me that the killer would kill her in a home with other people and then go home. It seems very risky that way. What is the theory around that? 

I did say that. But the sentence directly following that also says this.  We agree that it doesn't mean a thing anyways.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Drogo
Quote formatting.

[formerlyfreedom]

A three part investigation of the unsolved JonBenét Ramsey murder begins. Original investigators and new experts re-examine evidence and offer new theories as to who may have killed the 6-year-old girl in her family's Boulder, CO, home.

[Stampiron]

On 9/10/2016 at 0:00 PM, glowlights said:

Well this thread is called What We Already Know, and I know close to diddly-squat, but here are two questions for anyone who is more well-read on this case:

- What were John and Patsy wearing when the PD showed up? And was Patsy made up or bare faced?

- According to John and Patsy, Burke slept through everything. According to Burke, he was awakened by Patsy coming in his room saying "Where's my baby?" and he elected to just keep quiet. Does anyone else think it's odd that Patsy and John had just found a ransom note saying their daughter was kidnapped, but they did not (apparently) check with Burke to make sure he was alive and okay, and then ask him if he had seen or heard anything? And then they left him alone in his bed even though for all they knew the kidnapper could still be in the house? There seemed to be very little care or concern for Burke's safety on the part of John and Patsy, and very little attempt to get info about the alleged kidnapping from the one person who had been sleeping on the same floor, and therefore possibly within ear shot (or eye shot).

Things that make me go hmmmmm.....

I'm not sure what John was wearing, but he'd already gotten out of the shower when Patsy yelled for him. Patsy was wearing the same outfit that she was wore to the White's the night before. That's considered very suspicious by most people. Patsy has stated that she reapplied her makeup when she got up that morning.

But it's your second point that I want to emphasize because I asked the exact same question over in the Dateline thread. I've been browsing JBR forums for a couple of years and this point doesn't get nearly enough (if any) attention.

Ask almost anyone who's been the victim of a simple burglary and they'll tell you that they felt paranoid and uncomfortable in their own home afterwards. A kidnapping of your child must be that times infinity. And they just left their other child sleeping alone in his bed. As you said, I'd think anyone in that situation would want to wake the other child up to see if they saw, heard or knew anything, but they'd also want to keep that other child as close as possible until the police arrived. Sure, different people react to things in different ways, but the Ramsey's behavior here seems inexplicable. 

They hustled Burke out of the house at 7am and when a police officer stopped them they insisted he'd been asleep all night and didn't know anything. How did they know that?  And according to Fleet White, who drove him over to his house, Burke didn't ask him any questions about what was going on.

[Pollock]

On 05/09/2016 at 4:40 AM, AZChristian said:

I'm watching the Barbara Walters interview with the Ramseys from a few years after the murder.  Something that seemed strange to me:  When John brought her up from the basement, he put her body on the floor in the living room.  It seems to me that if I had found my child's body, (1) I would not let it go for anything, or (2) I would put her on a couch or something - NOT on the floor.

Does anyone else find that strange?

I didn't find that strange at all. I think he could have been still clinging to the idea he could help her, like doing first respondant things and you can't do that on a soft surface to my knowledge (but don't count on me to help save your life, I just have tv training on those). Silly idea of course but it's consistent with a panicked father rushing up the stair with his daughter in his arms, after ripping off the tape off her mouth to help her breathe of some sort.

On 06/09/2016 at 7:40 PM, Arynm said:

I am not well versed in this case, but these two items really make me think they had something to do with the murder. God Forbid this ever happens to me, but I would be glued to the clock waiting for the call. Who could ever forget that? Some of the other stuff I could chalk up to people grieve differently i.e. putting her body on the floor etc. but the ransom call? Never in a million years unless you knew it was never coming.

During one of the specials, don't remember which, another witness to the scene said it was very tense, everybody was waiting for the phone call so I'm not sure who to believe. Is there a definitive source about that specific time?

On 10/09/2016 at 6:27 AM, Court said:

  Hide contents

 

The bowl was fingerprinted. It had Burke's and Patsy's prints on it. It doesn't mean a thing except that one of them and not a stranger gave her the pineapple. It doesn't eliminate a stranger/intruder as a killer.

Yeah, to me, the simpler explanation is that Burke gave her sister a piece of the pineapple. During the *cough*Dr*cough* Phil interview, he said he was downstairs at one point, after everybody got to bed, playing with some toy. It's new information if Reddit is to be believed. 

I've known of this case for three days now (not American, never heard of it before) and I've read a lot of shit and watched all the specials (I clearly had no life this week). I really don't have a definitive opinion on the case, one way or another but damn, that pineapple really has everybody in shambles and I don't get why either! Implying the parents lied about it when they could just not know their children at that point went downstairs seems a lot more plausible that lying about it in part of a cover-up or even forget about it. I know I went from time to time in the kitchen while my mother was asleep because I wanted chocolate or a piece of cheese... 
I mean, you strangle your daughter, you take the time to molest her and make the evidence disappear (wherever timeline you want to put on those events), you'd think those masterminds would have come up with something to explain a fucking bowl of fruit. 

On 10/09/2016 at 7:29 PM, Giant Misfit said:

 

Right, but why would an intruder leave via the same window? I can understand getting in that way - but to try and exit that way? With a body? When there are several doors to the outside he could walk through? Nope. No intruder. No kidnapper.

There was an alarm if I read correctly, it wasn't set but how an intruder would have known it wasn't set? It's a true question, I'm not arguing the point at all. I never had an alarm at work or home so I have no idea if you can tell from inside!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Pollock said:

There was an alarm if I read correctly, it wasn't set but how an intruder would have known it wasn't set? I

Good question! But if I were some loony toon criminal, the last place I'd attempt to leave with a 65-lb dead body would be through an overhead small window in a basement. I guess I would just make a run for it out the front door. And if this was a kidnapping, the guy would  have had a car, right? What was he going to do with the child (living or dead)? Run a couple miles down the street with her as if no one would notice? Or, if the "stuff her in the suitcase" is to be believed, what then? Would he have lugged a 65-lb suitcase around with him until he found a ride? 

I really want to believe there's something there to the intruder theory -- I just can't find any logic in any of it though. 

[Pollock]

1 hour ago, Giant Misfit said:

Good question! But if I were some loony toon criminal, the last place I'd attempt to leave with a 65-lb dead body would be through an overhead small window in a basement. I guess I would just make a run for it out the front door. And if this was a kidnapping, the guy would  have had a car, right? What was he going to do with the child (living or dead)? Run a couple miles down the street with her as if no one would notice? Or, if the "stuff her in the suitcase" is to be believed, what then? Would he have lugged a 65-lb suitcase around with him until he found a ride? 

I really want to believe there's something there to the intruder theory -- I just can't find any logic in any of it though. 

I don't either but I can't believe for one second that some people, even as off as the Ramseys (because they are off imho but I've "known" them only through interviews post the most traumatic time of their lives...), would cover up the death of their favored child to save the black sheep in such an horrific, horrific manner. I mean I can, they are horrible people in this world, I'm not naive, but really, with all the elements, I don't see how that could be but I don't see a full picture of the "Intruder Did It" theory either!
I don't know if people would see you in that neighborhood, Christmas night. It's not Halloween, people are most likely to be home with family ? Did the street even had lights ? I don't see any of those old photos http://www.acandyrose.com/s-neighbors-boulder.htm
But yes it seems unlikely a intruder would take that risk. Not impossible but really unlikely.

But still, it seems likely JonBenét was at one point into that suitcase. 
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682468/Evidence of an Intruder (this site is really good at listing evidences and pro and cons. Sadly, some of the links for sources are no longer online but still, there is valuable informations).

"The suitcase contained a pillow sham, duvet and Dr. Seuss book. These items belonged to defendants, but they have indicated that the items were not normally stored in the suitcase. (SMF P 146; PSMF P 146.) A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 32).

But even that could be interpreted in favor of RDI as well as IDI. And why the Seuss Book if you plan to rape and murder a child you kidnap? One can even argue that Burke and his sister had a plan to run away from their house, had a snack before, took some items to not get cold but the plan went horribly wrong when she changed her mind and Burke killed her in a fit of rage, smashing her with the flashlight they took to go in the basement. And at the end it was indeed a cover up from the parent(s).  
That case is mind boggling. Thank you Some Officers of the Boulder Police! They should contact Manitowoc, seems like they could exchange some awesome tips about efficient police work...
Everything is so weird, from the panties she had on two sizes too big for her to the inaptitude of the responding officers.

On another subject, the bed wetting is, a sign of abuse sure, but it's, before that, a sign of anxiety (sure, the abuse provokes anxiety, but you get my point!). I wet my bed until my teen years and I have never ever ever been molested in my childhood. I had anxiety due to a number of things, first of all the shouting between my parents and then the divorce. I can imagine, without any problem, that JonBenét had anxiety : her mother battling cancer and the turmoil of the household it surely provoked would be one source for sure.  But here I'm not saying either the abuse didn't happen, just that the bed wetting if a sign, is not a certainty either.

Anyway, I'm all over the place sorry, but having just met the case, it's truly hard to have a coherent thought given the amount of material leading nowhere!

Edited September 15, 2016 by Pollock

[Maharincess]

What does RDI and IDI mean? 

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, Maharincess said:

What does RDI and IDI mean? 

I think it means "Ramseys did it" and "Intruder did it." Shorthand for those that don't want to spell it out, I guess.

[Maharincess]

Thanks @GHScorpiosRule.  I really miss whole words. 

[Epeolatrix]

Quote

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682468/Evidence of an Intruder (this site is really good at listing evidences and pro and cons. Sadly, some of the links for sources are no longer online but still, there is valuable informations).

The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine might help with some of the missing references.

[Pollock]

6 hours ago, Maharincess said:

Thanks @GHScorpiosRule.  I really miss whole words. 

Ooops, sorry, I prefer whole words too! I just read so much forums yesterday where those were used, it came subconsciensly!

[Tara Ariano]

Quote

Conclusion. The unsolved JonBenét Ramsey murder is investigated by original investigators and new experts, who re-examine evidence and offer new theories as to who may have killed the 6-year-old girl in her family's Boulder, Colo., home on Dec. 26, 1996.

[glowlights]

On 9/13/2016 at 1:15 PM, Stampiron said:

I'm not sure what John was wearing, but he'd already gotten out of the shower when Patsy yelled for him. Patsy was wearing the same outfit that she was wore to the White's the night before. That's considered very suspicious by most people. Patsy has stated that she reapplied her makeup when she got up that morning.

But it's your second point that I want to emphasize because I asked the exact same question over in the Dateline thread. I've been browsing JBR forums for a couple of years and this point doesn't get nearly enough (if any) attention.

Ask almost anyone who's been the victim of a simple burglary and they'll tell you that they felt paranoid and uncomfortable in their own home afterwards. A kidnapping of your child must be that times infinity. And they just left their other child sleeping alone in his bed. As you said, I'd think anyone in that situation would want to wake the other child up to see if they saw, heard or knew anything, but they'd also want to keep that other child as close as possible until the police arrived. Sure, different people react to things in different ways, but the Ramsey's behavior here seems inexplicable. 

They hustled Burke out of the house at 7am and when a police officer stopped them they insisted he'd been asleep all night and didn't know anything. How did they know that?  And according to Fleet White, who drove him over to his house, Burke didn't ask him any questions about what was going on.

Thanks! Upon further reading, it seems John showered and dressed first while Patsy skipped the shower and simply reapplied her makeup and put on the same clothes. She claimed she did that a lot - tossed yesterday's clothes on the tub and put them back on in the morning. Hey, it's a free country I guess. They were taking their private plane to Michigan where they planned a second Christmas with John's family. So my next question is: were they going straight to the party when they got off the plane or were they first going to their vacation home? I could believe she would go "dirty" on the plane if she planned to shower and change at the vacation home, but I don't believe this proud, looks-obsessed beauty queen would go dirty all the way to Michigan and then to a Christmas party. Especially where she would be photographed - friends have said she prided herself on never wearing the same thing twice.

I'm with you on the Burke thing. I can't for the life of me imagine leaving a child alone in bed without even checking to see if he's injured or scared. Never mind that the intruder could still be in the house. They didn't seem too worried about Burke, did they. :(

It's astounding that not only did they not ask him if he'd heard or seen anything, but also did not let the police try to get info from him. Their daughter is missing, why not try to get ANY info possible, no matter how small.

[Stampiron]

2 hours ago, glowlights said:

...They were taking their private plane to Michigan where they planned a second Christmas with John's family. So my next question is: were they going straight to the party when they got off the plane or were they first going to their vacation home? I could believe she would go "dirty" on the plane if she planned to shower and change at the vacation home, but I don't believe this proud, looks-obsessed beauty queen would go dirty all the way to Michigan and then to a Christmas party. Especially where she would be photographed - friends have said she prided herself on never wearing the same thing twice...

 

They weren't going to a party per se, they were going to their vacation home where at some point they would celebrate a second Christmas with John's son and daughter, who they were picking up in Minneapolis along the way (John's kids were flying commercial from Atlanta to Minneapolis.) As it was just them, there was no party to walk into.

I would bet that Patsy was wearing the same clothes because she never went to sleep, and that she'd never washed-off her make up from the night before, but by itself the fact that she's wearing the same clothes doesn't represent, to me, the smoking gun that some people characterize it as. 

The line used in the Kolar book is "Friends say Patsy wouldn't be caught dead wearing the same outfit two days in a row." Ok, but that's true of most people. The key word is "caught." As you said, if Patsy was flying out of town on a private flight at 8am, nobody was going to see her wearing the same clothes. If she'd only worn that outfit for a few hours the night before, it's not out of the question that she might think "why dirty a whole new set of clothes for a plane trip?" 

That said, you don't look at evidence in isolation, you look at it as part of a whole. And given the totality of the evidence, while Patsy's attire may not be damning, it's certainly suspicious.

[glowlights]

5 minutes ago, Stampiron said:

They weren't going to a party per se, they were going to their vacation home where at some point they would celebrate a second Christmas with John's son and daughter, who they were picking up in Minneapolis along the way (John's kids were flying commercial from Atlanta to Minneapolis.) As it was just them, there was no party to walk into.

I would bet that Patsy was wearing the same clothes because she never went to sleep, and that she'd never washed-off her make up from the night before, but by itself the fact that she's wearing the same clothes doesn't represent, to me, the smoking gun that some people characterize it as. 

The line used in the Kolar book is "Friends say Patsy wouldn't be caught dead wearing the same outfit two days in a row." Ok, but that's true of most people. The key word is "caught." As you said, if Patsy was flying out of town on a private flight at 8am, nobody was going to see her wearing the same clothes. If she'd only worn that outfit for a few hours the night before, it's not out of the question that she might think "why dirty a whole new set of clothes for a plane trip?" 

That said, you don't look at evidence in isolation, you look at it as part of a whole. And given the totality of the evidence, while Patsy's attire may not be damning, it's certainly suspicious.

Thanks for the info re: the Christmas plans! If I had a private plane I'm pretty sure I would fly in my pajamas and flip-flops, so I'm no one to judge a gal who picked up the same clothes while getting ready to leave. It sounds out of character for her given that they were meeting with John's kids and no doubt there would be photos (being "caught") but whatever. Like you said, these little details only seem so odd when trying to put the whole picture together. What a sad, crazy story.

[Arynm]

I have some trouble with the putting back on the same clothes from last night. Wasn't she at a party? Christmas party attire doesn't seem to be the same as private jet attire to me. I think she never changed or took her makeup off.

[AZChristian]

2 minutes ago, Arynm said:

I have some trouble with the putting back on the same clothes from last night. Wasn't she at a party? Christmas party attire doesn't seem to be the same as private jet attire to me. I think she never changed or took her makeup off.

Yes!  If she had put JB to bed, got busy with putting stuff together for the next day's trip, and hadn't gone to bed yet, that would explain a lot.  JB got up, having wet the bed, PR went off on her and hit her in the head.  She thought JB was dead, so started building a case for kidnapping - including spending a lot of time on the ransom note.  Then she realized that JB wasn't dead, and PR and JR finished her off and hid her to further the "intruder/kidnapper" ruse to protect them from not getting help for an injured child and/or not having to go to prison for killing her.

[RedheadZombie]

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 3:07 PM, AZChristian said:

Many, if not all, the people in the home were parents.  If I were sitting on a couch and a friend carried his dead daughter into the room, I couldn't sit there on the couch and watch him put her on the floor.  IMO, a natural parental instinct would be to put her on a soft surface.  Unless he's the person who left her in a cold basement room on a concrete floor overnight.  In that case, the rug WOULD seem softer.

I do NOT want to believe they are responsible, but I can't come to any other conclusion.  There are (disputed) reports that after Patsy thought she'd disconnected the 911 call, Burke's voice is heard in the background, and then John barks at him, "We're not talking to you.  Go back to bed."  And yet, the official story is that Burke was either still asleep, or had at least stayed in his room.  

We may never know.  The Ramsays don't seem like murderers, but they sure have enough money to pay for the best advisors (defense lawyers) in the world.  

Per NBC news, both the FBI and the Secret Service analyzed the 911 call, and dismiss "Burke's voice".  It didn't happen.  It's a fallacy that has been repeated as truth ad infinitum. 

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe John Ramsey took Jon Benet to her mother and the Boulder cop, which resulted in the gathering on the floor.  I think it was a real and genuine reaction.  It would be much falser if John calmly walked into the room, asked someone to vacate the couch, then layed his dead daughter down.  This part always gets on my nerves (not aimed at the OP).  The same criticism is given to John Ramsey for deliberately "contaminating" the scene where Jon Benet was murdered.  Because there's no parent - none - who wouldn't have snatched that tape right off her face, and taken her into their arms. 

[RedheadZombie]

30 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Yes!  If she had put JB to bed, got busy with putting stuff together for the next day's trip, and hadn't gone to bed yet, that would explain a lot.  JB got up, having wet the bed, PR went off on her and hit her in the head.  She thought JB was dead, so started building a case for kidnapping - including spending a lot of time on the ransom note.  Then she realized that JB wasn't dead, and PR and JR finished her off and hid her to further the "intruder/kidnapper" ruse to protect them from not getting help for an injured child and/or not having to go to prison for killing her.

Another misnomer endlessly repeated - JB was "damaged" by an impulsive enraged blow to the head (by Patsy or Burke), and then a sexually sadistic scene was manufactured as cover up, complete with the garrote.

The truth - Jon Benet was very much alive and fighting for her life when the garrote was applied.  She clawed at her throat in an attempt to breathe.  Therefore, she was conscious and alert, not damaged by an impulsive blow to the head.  The head injury was catastrophic, and would not have allowed her to be alert enough to fight the garrote.  The blow must have come very near the end of her life.  Therefore no need to cover up and stage the false kidnapping.

And it's frustrating how people want to dismiss the unknown male DNA found on Jon Benet.  How is it humanly possible to have brutally killed this little girl, and removed every minute trace of the guilty Ramsey - from her underwear, under her nails, on the duct tape, the garrote, and the rope.  Just wiped it away completely, yet managed not to remove this unknown male DNA that magically landed on JB from an imagined production line, manufacturer, or sales associate.  I mean just think about the impossibility.  I'm not sure a scientist with a microscope could painstakingly complete this task so perfectly.  It borders on the absurd.

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 1:45 PM, tobeannounced said:

Regarding the pineapple, John Douglas said he thought the Ramseys not having a story for the pineapple pointed to their innocence.  If they were guilty, they'd just come up with a lie to satisfy the police.

Exactly!  These are just fiendishly brilliant people.  They committed this crime by removing their DNA 100% from the body, and the instruments of binding and torture (somehow without removing JB's blood), followed by somehow contaminating her with an unknown male DNA.  Yet they leave the pineapple on the table, ignore feeding it to JB (done in the midst of an enraged attack because she wet the bed), immediately hand over handwriting samples on the very pad the ransom note was written on, name John's bonus (rather than a million dollars or so, as always portrayed in TV/Movies/Books), and leave the practice ransom notes sitting around.  It defies logic.  They left the practice ransom notes conspicuously at the scene.  Yet they removed all traces of the duct tape, the rope, and the missing part of the paintbrush, as well as the shoe that left the footprint in the dirt outside the broken window.

As to the pineapple, I mentioned this elsewhere, but sexual sadists have been known to provide comfort in the midst of their torture.  The BTK killer not only ensured a victim's children were safe in the bathroom, he actually got her a glass of water in the midst of his rape, torture, and murder.  No one, not one person who has speculated the Ramseys are guilty, has ever claimed they were sexual sadists.  From a profiler standpoint, that in itself rules the Ramseys out.

Edited September 18, 2016 by RedheadZombie
grammar

[AZChristian]

Just saw something on TV that I hadn't heard before.  The Grand Jury came back with TWO indictments against John and Patsy; one for abuse of a child, and a second for covering up a crime.

But Alex Hunter wouldn't sign the indictment and tried to cover it up under the guise of they didn't have enough evidence to charge anyone beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Primetimer]

The most prestigious of the recent phalanx of case programming debuts at last, and it does not disappoint -- but should you watch the whole thing?

View the full article

[ExplainItAgain]

This was much more compelling and interesting than the others that have been on recently. The only part that was disturbing was watching that 10-year-old bash the pigskin skull. I hope he was talked to about exactly what he was doing and why.

The audio analysis was interesting - you could kind of make out some of the words. What would be the significance of Burke saying "What did you find?" with the emphasis like that? It seems weird they made a point to emphasize the word did (this reminds me of that Seinfeld ep where the meaning of the sentence changes depending on the emphasized word).

[AZChristian]

I agree that this is much more interesting.  They agree with a lot of the things I believe.  The note was bogus.  You don't put your dead child on the floor.  And who in the heck fills their house with friends (except someone who wants to be coddled and pitied).  

Something I noticed on a different show today.  When they showed the early TV interview when Patsy is obviously drugged and says (with tears in her voice but not in her eyes), "Keep your babies close to you," John is mouthing the words as she says them . . . almost as though they were both memorizing the same script.

[Guest]

This is the first time I've heard that John Ramsey went missing for 1.5 hours that morning. That's ... interesting.

I'm not sure what the 911 operator would have told the grand jury though. She can't testify as to her feelings -- only facts. Did I miss something there -- did she have something to add to the 911 call? (Not including the enhanced call.)

This series' production values reminds me of those terrible History Channel reality shows. Why the fuck did we need that whole scene with the producer and the cameramen and the hosts discussing why the Whites wouldn't appear on camera? (I've a feeling they will before this is over.) And why couldn't Scotland Yard lady make all those phone calls to reluctant witnesses (?)/friends (?) from an office? Why did she need to be driving all over the place in that Suburban? (Was Chevrolet a sponsor?) 

And going back to the Whites -- when they hosts left their home, apparently Fleet mentioned that he had so much to say. Yeah, well, you're there, people! ASK HIM WHAT HE HAS TO SAY! Are we to assume whatever they discussed wasn't worthy of inclusion on this show? Then why bother to even include this segment on the show? Just to say they talked to the Whites?

17 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Patsy is obviously drugged and says (with tears in her voice but not in her eyes)

Excellent way of stating that. 

[absolutelyido]

38 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

This series' production values reminds me of those terrible History Channel reality shows. Why the fuck did we need that whole scene with the producer and the cameramen and the hosts discussing why the Whites wouldn't appear on camera? (I've a feeling they will before this is over.) And why couldn't Scotland Yard lady make all those phone calls to reluctant witnesses (?)/friends (?) from an office? Why did she need to be driving all over the place in that Suburban? (Was Chevrolet a sponsor?) 

I agree. For all the experts they have gathered this doesn't seem like a thorough investigation to me but, rather, a presentation of selected evidence to support the investigators theory that someone in the family killed JonBenet. It is coming across (to me) like one of those conspiracy shows in which they prove the Loch Ness Monster is real or that UFOs landed in area 51. I thought the A&E special was more convincing in presenting evidence supporting that it was an intruder. 

1 hour ago, ExplainItAgain said:

The audio analysis was interesting - you could kind of make out some of the words. What would be the significance of Burke saying "What did you find?" with the emphasis like that? It seems weird they made a point to emphasize the word did (this reminds me of that Seinfeld ep where the meaning of the sentence changes depending on the emphasized word).

The audio analysis was unconvincing to me. I couldn't make out anything that was being said. Yes, they could have been saying what the investigators believe they said, or not.

This really reminded me of another child murder case from many years ago. Unfortunately, I can't remember much of the details, but there was a Dateline or 48 Hours or one of those shows on it. A baby was killed or was taken from her home, I can't quite remember, but the police suspected the parents so got a subpoena to bug their kitchen. They recorded the parents discussing what they had done to the child as well as extensive drug use. They read a transcript of what the police heard the parents say. However, a jury acquitted the parents after hearing the tapes (or it may have been a judge dismissed the charges after hearing the tapes, I can't recall the details). Then they played the tapes on the show, in which the parents talking was completely indecipherable which was why the charges were dismissed. The police were convinced the parents did it so "heard" what they wanted to hear on the tapes. I wish I could remember more about this case. I want to say the baby was named Serena but could be wrong. Does anyone remember this? Anyway, I thought the investigators on this show did the same thing. They already believe that someone in the family killed JonBenet, so have interpreted what is said on the tape to support that belief.

Edited September 19, 2016 by absolutelyido

[TattleTeeny]

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?

[AZChristian]

And Henry Lee and every other forensic pathologist that I've ever heard of has said that the blow to the head came first.  If she were injured but not dead, she might have begun to come around a bit, and her reflexes would have caused her to claw at her neck if someone were cutting off her air.  

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, absolutelyido said:

Unfortunately, I can't remember much of the details, but there was a Dateline or 48 Hours or one of those shows on it. A baby was killed or was taken from her home, I can't quite remember, but the police suspected the parents so got a subpoena to bug their kitchen.

Sabrina Aisenberg! I think you remembered a great deal of the details. Haven't thought about that case in years.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Guest

[AZChristian]

4 minutes ago, absolutelyido said:

This really reminded me of another child murder case from many years ago. Unfortunately, I can't remember much of the details, but there was a Dateline or 48 Hours or one of those shows on it. A baby was killed or was taken from her home, I can't quite remember, but the police suspected the parents so got a subpoena to bug their kitchen. They recorded the parents discussing what they had done to the child as well as extensive drug use. They read a transcript of what the police heard the parents say. However, a jury acquitted the parents after hearing the tapes (or it may have been a judge dismissed the charges after hearing the tapes, I can't recall the details). Then they played the tapes on the show, in which the parents talking was completely indecipherable which was why the charges were dismissed. The police were convinced the parents did it so "heard" what they wanted to hear on the tapes. I wish I could remember more about this case. I want to say the baby was named Serena but could be wrong. Does anyone remember this? Anyway, I thought the investigators on this show did the same thing. They already believe that someone in the family killed JonBenet, so have interpreted what is said on the tape to support that belief.

Sabrina Aisenberg.

[tobeannounced]

We'll, I'm really disappointed in this so far. At one point, Henry Lee says to let him play devil's advocate. This would have been a lot more compelling to me if they had some different points of views and challenged each other's assumptions. Total tunnel vision. Mom didn't say what you think she should have said on the 911 call, so let's form the facts to fit our narrative instead of following the evidence where it leads.

[absolutelyido]

Thank you, Giant Misfit and AZChristian. Yes, it was Sabrina Paige Aisenberg.