JonBenet Ramsey

[Chai]

From what I read online once a child has mastered toilet training and returned to bed wetting and especially soiling during the daytime it is a huge indication of sexual abuse. 

I agree that something was happening to JB right before the murder happened. It's so sad that this was happening to her, and no one was ever charged with this abuse. 

In my own opinion, I don't think there was ever an intruder. I think it probably was her father or brother and her mother was protecting Burke. That's why the staged crime scene and why Patsy never got undressed that night. I believe the grand jury got it right by wanting to charge the parents with child abuse resulting in death.

[TattleTeeny]

Oh my goodness, everyone, I'm reading Foreign Faction. While it is presented well, very detailed in an easy-to-understand way, and just generally a good read, the editing is seriously lacking--one of the worst examples I've ever seen, to be honest. This is so sad to me, and I keep wondering why it happened without settling on simply "bad editor, as I am one and know that sometimes shit happens--extremely tight deadline? Superiors who don't think editing is important (which I run into a lot, but then I don't work for an official publisher for which the editorial stage is crucial)? Maybe there was a ton of content editing that was a higher priority than grammar/spelling/punctuation? What could be the reason that this would be allowed to go to print like this?

Also, he keeps using the word "poon" (haha--"poon"!) to describe the sole of the Hi-Tec boot. POON? I have checked multiple dictionaries and I see no "poon" associated with footwear! Poon?!

Edited October 10, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[DangerousMinds]

They need to find some better editors. How hard is it to edit for both content AND grammar/spelling?

[TattleTeeny]

It's not always a matter of how hard it is because it's not hard at all (I've edited textbooks on topics I know absolutely zero about; it's not easy either, but it's not hard--it is tedious). But it depends on deadlines. True-crime books tend to have a crazy-fast production schedule (get 'em out before the public gets bored of the story!). It also can depend on whether there is a content editor and a proofreader. If they're one and the same, time could be an issue if a publisher prefers that solid facts take priority over apostrophes and misplaced modifiers. When I do this kind of work, I do content first by reading the book and making notes and queries. After that, I do a complete second pass for the other stuff. However, sometimes before the second pass, I have to wait for query responses from the author. If you try to do all of it in one pass, you're gonna miss a lot, no matter how good you are. Without knowing schedules or the people doing the editing (which could conceivably be inexperienced interns to save money), you can't just say the editors need to be "better," especially if the publisher is not willing to pay for "better." I deal with that all the time--people find one tiny missed error and assume that (a) they could do your job, or (b) you suck at said job...never mind the hundreds of other problems you found, sometimes stopped to research (which is not our job), and corrected.

For all I know, Foreign Faction was published under the same lax standards as the many lesser true-crime books that are pumped out like movies of the week within mere months of the investigations. I don't want to think so because it definitely is a higher-quality book. But who knows? It's definitely distracting...and disappointing to the specific kind of geek I am! Man, I'd really like for my job to be editing true-crime books!

Edited October 10, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[AZChristian]

TattleTeeny - I also went searching for the word "poon" for the context in which it's used in "Foreign Faction."  No luck here either.

I did find this when I did a Google search on "poon sole of shoe."  It was on a website about JB's murder, not a dictionary site:  "The imprint was of the "poon"-the area on the sole at the heel where the brand name is stamped. The size of shoe couldn't be determined from the imprint, since the poon is the same size in all shoes, the better to advertise brands. 

[TattleTeeny]

Haha, I got a little fixated on "poon"! I'm happy someone was with me on that!

[Ilovecomputers]

Like many, I have been reading about this case for a long time and I used to think Patsy probably killed JonBenet. That theory went something like, JonBenet had a bedwetting problem and after finding wet sheets again, Patsy snapped and clunked her over the head. A Boulder police detective on another show mentioned he subscribes to that theory and thinks JonBenet's head injury was caused by Patsy slamming JonBenet's head on the bathroom floor. After watching Part I I have come to believe that Burke killed her. I don't think he meant to kill her. When I think of all of the games we played when I was growing up (Jarts!) it's a wonder we're all not missing eyes or limbs, so I can kind of understand him hitting her with a flashlight not knowing what it could do. Maybe he was aggravated about the pineapple and hit her with the flashlight like they say. Much is made about her pageant life and the fact that John was gone all the time. I really believe jealousy ate away at him frequently. The flashlight on the kitchen counter was never explained. Listening to that enhanced 911 call didn't do a lot for me. I couldn't make out what "Patsy" was saying at all. I suppose you could insert any four syllable phrase and it would work. Yes, I did make out a childish voice saying something but to say, "What DID you find?" doesn't make much sense unless Burke overheard his mother talking about a ransom note and--after just clubbing his sister with a flashlight--he was confused about what she was saying. I noticed that no matter how much they slowed the audio down or filtered it, etc., the operator always sounded the same. Pattttsssssy? She has a little girl voice, too, which is spooky. Someone in this forum mentioned the "intricate" knots on the garrote and talked about Burke's Boy Scout training (which included knot tying), but it's worth mentioning that John and Patsy had a large boat and John probably knows how to tie many types of knots, too. Loved the linguist's analysis of the note; the maternal tone of it, etc. ("Be sure to bring an attache case of adequate size" or something. What kidnapper says that?) One last thing: Were John and Patsy ever compelled to testify under oath about the case?

[jaync]

Quote

When I read about this in the book I was stunned.

It's absolutely mind-blowing, and enough of a detail to totally convince me that John was involved in a cover-up.

[Jel]

3 hours ago, jaync said:

It's absolutely mind-blowing, and enough of a detail to totally convince me that John was involved in a cover-up.

There blog writer who is absolutely convinced that an intruder did it. She's done a pretty thorough summarizing of the details of the case and seems to know it inside and out, and that is the one detail that stymies her as well.

[Maharincess]

On 9/29/2016 at 1:43 PM, ghoulina said:

. 

Sorry for that damn quote box. 

I agree with you guys about the editing of Kolar's book.  I seriously cringe every time I read the word "publically" and that word is in there a lot. 

Edited October 10, 2016 by Maharincess

[TattleTeeny]

YES! And names are spelled wrong, sometimes within lines of each other (Klass/Klaas)! Lind Arndt!

[Maharincess]

@TattleTeeny, I have to say that I've enjoyed your posts on this topic more than any others.  At first you seemed adamant that none of the Ramsey family were involved.  It's been really interesting to read your thoughts on the case.   

You and @AZChristian have both been my favorite commenters.  I enjoy everybody's posts though.   The board seems to be slowing down a little bit, I have immensely enjoyed  hashing this out with all of you. 

Damn. How many times can I say "enjoy "in one post?!  Lol. 

[TattleTeeny]

Awww, thanks! I know I'm a flip-flopper (and who isn't with this shit, at least a little) but I am fine acknowledging new and/or forgotten info, even if that makes me wrong. I at least hope that even when I change my opinion, everyone knows that my previous one did not come from a specious place, or one that was obtusely contrarian. I just see lots of scenarios as being at least somewhat plausible, and I don't like to judge too soon, ya know?

[Maharincess]

From day one I thought Burke did it and the parents covered it up and nothing has swayed me from that. I just can not think of any other scenario that makes any sense.  

If Burke did do it, for his own sake I hope he comes clean some day.  Unless he's a complete sociopath something like this would weigh so heavily on someone's conscience. 

I agree Tattle Teeny that the things that are out there about this case can cause people to flip flop like crazy. 

[Joe Jitsu913]

I used to be 100% convinced an intruder did it.  I was reading a lot about Dennis Rader aka BTK and if there is one person who could have pulled off this type of crime, it would be him with his love of acronyms and stalking the victim before sneaking into their home.  He's the only killer I could think of who would be sick enough to pull this off. 

 

But then I read Foreign Faction and and Steve Thomas' book and looking at the likelihood that an intruder did this seemed less plausible. Perhaps if there was solid evidence of an intruder,  I could change my mind. This isn't some sort of pedophile who killed Jonbenet as they tend to take the victim away from the home.  A pedophile would have mentioned his attraction to JonBenet in his note or alluded to her pageants. 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Joe Jitsu913

[TattleTeeny]

Maybe O.J. did it.

[pamplemousse]

2 hours ago, Maharincess said:

From day one I thought Burke did it and the parents covered it up and nothing has swayed me from that. I just can not think of any other scenario that makes any sense.  

If Burke did do it, for his own sake I hope he comes clean some day.  Unless he's a complete sociopath something like this would weigh so heavily on someone's conscience. 

I'm not saying he's a complete sociopath, but if he did do it I don't think that it weighs heavily on his conscience. I remember several years ago, a mag rag like the dailymail or another of its ilk dug up pictures from Burke's myspace page and it showed some pictures of him in college at Purdue with girls in his lap and him sticking out his tongue as though to touch it to one girl's breast. And there were other pictures of him partying with his friends. He looked like a normal "frat boy" type guy boozing and partying it up in college and he seemed to have quite a number of friends. He's married now and has, by all accounts, a good job. He seems to be able to function fine despite his bizarre behavior in the Dr. Phil interview. Sociopaths are often quite socially and economically successful despite being off-putting cold conscience-less liars because they are so good at manipulating others and faking at being a good contributing member of society. Again, not saying he's a sociopath, but it makes me wonder. As do his parents, apple...tree and all that.

Edited October 11, 2016 by pamplemousse

[bannana]

4 hours ago, Maharincess said:

From day one I thought Burke did it and the parents covered it up and nothing has swayed me from that. I just can not think of any other scenario that makes any sense.  

If Burke did do it, for his own sake I hope he comes clean some day.  Unless he's a complete sociopath something like this would weigh so heavily on someone's conscience. 

I agree Tattle Teeny that the things that are out there about this case can cause people to flip flop like crazy. 

So you believe Burke killed JB, which I think is plausible, or at least he mortally injured her; then who garrotted her to death?  Burke? or John?  This is the one thing that I cannot wrap my head around.  If Burke garrotted her, holy shit, someone needs to deal with him, as he is clearly a sociopath.  If he is just a kid who didn't mean to kill his sister, then JB's father garrotted his beloved daughter to death?  I just don't see that happening.

[Maharincess]

After all of the news stories about the horrible things that parents have done to their children it always surprises the hell out of me when people don't think a parent could/would do something like this.  The stories are EVERYWHERE!!   

Edited October 11, 2016 by Maharincess
Because my first comment made no damn sense.

[bannana]

28 minutes ago, Maharincess said:

After all of the news stories about the horrible things that parents have done to their children it always surprises the hell out of me when people don't think a parent could say a parent couldn't/wouldn't do something like this.  The stories are EVERYWHERE!!   

I understand your point. I have seen/experienced some ugly stuff in my own childhood.  I am not saying that I cannot believe parents would do this to a child.  But the scenario here is Burke accidentally/not accidentally killed his sister and then the solution JR came up with is, let's garrotte her to death?

[TattleTeeny]

I never subscribed to the Burke idea until so, so recently--basically the last few weeks during which all of us here watched so much "together." My reasoning before was based only on the info we solidly (or se we thought) had in front of us. I mean, I'd read speculations and theories and arguments and suspicions, but until recently nothing (to me) had that perfect storm of plausibility, detail, cohesion, timeline, etc. (plus, as I mentioned before, the Burke scenario so often came from people who were not familiar with the case like most of us here are; I always got the idea that those people suspected Burke because of the salaciousness of that opinion).

Before, it was like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle thrown all over the floor--some are upside-down, some ended up under the couch, and some may be from a completely different puzzle while others are missing altogether (and I still feel this way to an extent). And some are not even puzzle pieces at all--they're metaphorical loose buttons, old keys, a handful of dirty pennies, and whatever other disparate ephemera that might be in a junk drawer. And maybe these puzzle pieces were messily tossed in at different times; it was hard to keep track of whether we had all the puzzle pieces at any one time, or if some had been taken away, over the course of all these years. 

Now, though, with the Burke theory laid out by the one show, which I wish had not been shrunken down to four hours, these things are presented together (granted with a few loose ends that could be nothing...or could maybe be everything), a picture has definitely emerged--not slowly, piece by piece but almost more like a "ta-da!" unveiling all at once--and, to me, that picture is indeed plausible as presented, especially with the assertion that it was more or less an accident. (However, I should say that I still do believe that there is more than ample reason for Burke's weird demeanor and mannerisms, even if he is innocent of this.)

Edited October 11, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[AZChristian]

10 hours ago, pamplemousse said:

I'm not saying he's a complete sociopath, but if he did do it I don't think that it weighs heavily on his conscience. I remember several years ago, a mag rag like the dailymail or another of its ilk dug up pictures from Burke's myspace page and it showed some pictures of him in college at Purdue with girls in his lap and him sticking out his tongue as though to touch it to one girl's breast. And there were other pictures of him partying with his friends. He looked like a normal "frat boy" type guy boozing and partying it up in college and he seemed to have quite a number of friends. He's married now and has, by all accounts, a good job. He seems to be able to function fine despite his bizarre behavior in the Dr. Phil interview. Sociopaths are often quite socially and economically successful despite being off-putting cold conscience-less liars because they are so good at manipulating others and faking at being a good contributing member of society. Again, not saying he's a sociopath, but it makes me wonder. As do his parents, apple...tree and all that.

I've googled and can't find anything that says he's married.  Do you have a link?  John said in an interview "He's got a good job and an IRA."  Seems strange that he didn't say "lovely wife."

I can't get past his grinning through the whole Dr. Phil interview, even when describing JB in her coffin.  John says, "He's a happy kid.  He grins a lot.  I'm happy.  I grin."  Sorry, but grinning for hours of interviews about a family crisis is NOT normal, no matter how "happy" you are.  There is something not right about Burke.  It's been evident since the early interviews.

[glowbug]

5 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

Now, though, with the Burke theory laid out by the one show, which I wish had not been shrunken down to four hours,

We may just get to see the extended version. On their podcast, Jim and Laura said they're in talks with Netflix/Amazon/Hulu about selling the streaming rights to the six hour version. They seemed pretty confident that it would happen.

They also mentioned on the podcast that the bagels were brought by the victim advocates. I know it was suggested here that Patsy had left out bagels from Christmas morning but she wasn't that much of a slob. 

[TattleTeeny]

Oh my goodness--"poured" for "pored" over and over and over...

Yeah, I'm reading the book on my monitor here at work. Bad me.

E.T.A.
Seriously?! I'm kind of thinking that they skipped the proofreading stage altogether. Even someone bad at apostrophes, spelling, etc., would find this.

Edited October 11, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Mabinogia]

8 hours ago, AZChristian said:

John says, "He's a happy kid.  He grins a lot.  I'm happy.  I grin."  Sorry, but grinning for hours of interviews about a family crisis is NOT normal, no matter how "happy" you are.

I get grinning during his day to day life, like the myspace pictures, his time in college, generally walking down the street, but not when recalling the brutal murder of his little sister. Even if he was nervous and is a nervous grinner, was he saying "sorry, I'm nervous and I get like this" or did he just leave people with the impression that he just didn't give a shit about his sister's murder? I know which one I fall into. I saw no sign that he cares at all about her death. Doesn't necessarily make him the killer (though I do think he is) but damn! That's cold.

[Jel]

9 hours ago, glowbug said:

We may just get to see the extended version. On their podcast, Jim and Laura said they're in talks with Netflix/Amazon/Hulu about selling the streaming rights to the six hour version. They seemed pretty confident that it would happen.

They also mentioned on the podcast that the bagels were brought by the victim advocates. I know it was suggested here that Patsy had left out bagels from Christmas morning but she wasn't that much of a slob. 

Thank you for mentioning that, Glowbug. It was me who said it, and I later read that the victim advocates had brought them in. I meant to come back and correct it, but didn't get around to it. I still think Patsy was a secret slob, but those bagels are not any kind of evidence for my theory.

[ghoulina]

One thing that's really bugging me lately - the fibers found on the sticky side of the duct tape that was over her mouth. They come from Patsy's sweater/jacket, whatever she was wearing that day. Now, we know from talking about trace DNA how easily things can be transferred. But, the roll of duct tape was supposed to have come from outside the house. And I don't believe any other fibers were found under it? I can understand if maybe some of Patsy's fibers got on JB's clothing, just from normal interaction, and the child struggled, and somehow they ended up there. But A. Apparently she DIDN'T struggle when the tape was being applied, which is evidenced by the perfect lip print also found on the sticky side. And B. Why would ONLY Patsy's clothing fibers be found there? Why not some from the kidnappers themselves? This leads me to believe that Patsy was the one who placed the tape, after the child was dead, as part of the staging. 

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

I still think Patsy was a secret slob, but those bagels are not any kind of evidence for my theory.

The house did look messy in places to me too--oh, and never repairing the basement window after all that time. But then again, holiday season, two kids, blah-blah...who even knows?

Edited October 12, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Jel]

Some things that bother me about the case:

As mentioned by other posters, John's "unavoidable super important business meeting" the morning he discovered his daughter dead.

Burke's reaction to the pineapple.

The Ramsey's behavior. We are taking the word of the BPD that she peered at them through splayed fingers, but that I remember from the time, was rather damning. (But the BPD have a record of giving the public misleading info about this case). That aside, just their behavior in interviews seemed off. 

Evidence of practice notes on the pad come from impressions underneath the pages in the pad, but the note was written with a Sharpie marker, which, unlike a ballpoint pen, requires virtually no pressure to write with. 

The fact that there was no Ramsey DNA, trace or otherwise, found on JB's body or clothes when both John and Patsy had held her after finding her body. 

Police "leaks" of damning info like "no footprints in the snow" when there wasn't any snow on the ground, but the rest of the world assumes there would be because it's Colorado in the winter. And the one about how they were searching John's computer for evidence of pornography, which they didn't find. Why even say these things to the public? Why the need for this if they were actively investigating other suspects as they claimed they were?

Some items found in the guest bathroom and its condition -- doors and drawers open, rope on floor that cannot be linked to the Ramseys.

The fact that Patsy was not planning to have a Christmas party that year but that "Santa" encouraged Patsy to have a Christmas by telling her he was a friend of Charles Karault's and would invite Karault to come by the party (which he never did), so she relented.  Seems like a big carrot to dangle for someone like Patsy.

The attempt to not only prevent Lou Smit (an IDI theorist) from presenting evidence to the grand Jury, but to have that evidence destroyed. Smit eventually presented his evidence to the Grand Jury and they still voted to indict, so zero sum game, but why the desire, and the effort, to have it omitted?

Lou Smit evidence -- he said it looked like someone had been hiding under a bed and crawled out (based on the position of the bed skirt); the "hand print" on the basement window sill, the disturbed foliage in the window well.  As I recall, back then the BPD said no one could fit through the window, and I the spider web evidence was only brought up later in this tv show, but I am not certain about that: I don't recall any spider web evidence at the time, but it may have been there all along.

Finger nail marks on JB's neck which appear to be nail marks and indicate she was not near dead/or dead but alive when she was strangled. If she was alive and fighting back when she was strangled, and not dead at Burke's hand, why the need to stage a crime scene?

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

The attempt to not only prevent Lou Smit (an IDI theorist) from presenting evidence to the grand Jury, but to have that evidence destroyed. Smit eventually presented his evidence to the Grand Jury and they still voted to indict, so zero sum game, but why the desire, and the effort, to have it omitted?

This baffles me to no end as I believe it was Alex Hunter who wanted to keep Lou Smit from the grand jury hearing (please correct me if I'm wrong--or elaborate on the rules of grand juries); Alex Hunter, it seems, also was pretty bent on exonerating the Ramseys...so why try to keep Lou out?

Quote

Finger nail marks on JB's neck which appear to be nail marks and indicate she was not near dead/or dead but alive when she was strangled. If she was alive and fighting back when she was strangled, and not dead at Burke's hand, why the need to stage a crime scene?

There's some talk about her shirt being grabbed from behind, as if she'd been running away, and creeping up her neck, which had a big abrasion that could have resulted from the friction of the fabric. It's been posited that that's when the fingernail marks happened.

[ghoulina]

11 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

This baffles me to no end as I believe it was Alex Hunter who wanted to keep Lou Smit from the grand jury hearing (please correct me if I'm wrong--or elaborate on the rules of grand juries); Alex Hunter, it seems, also was pretty bent on exonerating the Ramseys...so why try to keep Lou out?

Yea, I don't get that either. I wonder if Lou at some point deviated, that we don't know about. Or maybe he was still IDI, but Hunter knew that something he had found would point a different way, or easily have holes poked in it? I really don't know what to make of it. 

[Jel]

AFAIK, TattleTeeny, it was Alex Hunter who tried to prevent Smit from presenting evidence to the grand jury. This is from a forum post, that copies a 2000 article from the Rocky Mountain News. Perhaps this is the reason:

"A source close to the case said prosecutors were concerned Smit, a former homicide investigator in Colorado Springs, would offer grand jurors only theories in the case and not present any factual evidence."

I don't really know what to make of it either. Generally, I am skeptical of any BPD leaks, since they seemed to have an agenda attached.  Is a source close to the case and the prosecutors someone in the BPD? Or is this the actual reason? Once again in this case, the explanation raises more questions than it answers!

Here's the link to the forum -- (sorry, I am feeling too lazy to look around for the archived newspaper article)

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T6B08VDAFFIMEGTOV

[Court]

Hunter felt Smit had become too close to the Ramsey's and was acting as a friend. Not an independent investigator. Many believe the Ramsey's manipulated him with his faith. For example, when he was scheduled to meet them, there was a prayer circle going on. He attended church a few times with them.

There's been rumors he shared confidential information with the Ramsey's. 

The print on the wall is useless. Could it have come from an intruder? Maybe. But it could be from John when he broke into his house.

[Jel]

Lou Smit was a well respected and professional detective; I am not sure he would have been manipulated in that way. I think he genuinely believed in the innocence of the Ramseys and thought they were getting railroaded.

I think any citizen should be really concerned with the fact that a professional police department "leaked" things that were misleading to the media. WTF is up with that? Why would they do it, what does public opinion of Ramsey guilt have to do with their investigation. It's protesting too much. That is a red flag to me. 

And Linda Arnt, on day one, mentally counting her bullets because she knew (as she said in a later interview) that John was the killer. She knew that, without a thorough investigation. That's pretty concerning to me.  And the FBI telling them that in cases like these, it's usually a family member (like 70% of the time) does not mean it was a family member in this case. For you to prove it was a family member, you need some evidence that proves that; statistics, compelling as they might be, are not sufficient.  Somehow I think BPD didn't get that memo.

Given what we know of the case, the BPD handling of it, bungling it really, the lack of incriminating evidence, and with Ramsey money for lawyers, I think it's incredibly unlikely that either one of them would have been convicted of anything in a criminal case. I mean, OJ Simpson had a trail of blood leading from the crime scene to his car to his home, and that wasn't enough. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Jel
changed "untrue" to "misleading" if you must know! ;)

[Court]

Smit resigned from the prosecutors office because he felt too close to the case. He then went to work for the Ramsey's. 

It's pretty telling to me that the DA who hired him who also wanted the Ramsey's exonerated didn't want him near the case any longer.

[Jel]

I am pretty sure I read (or saw him interviewed, or his daughter interviewed, or sumpthin) that Smit resigned because he couldn't abide what he saw as the rail roading of innocent people.  

If I have the time, and this googling laziness I am currently feeling passes, I will look into it a little more and see if I can find a quote somewhere (because I do think he said words to that effect, but just don't remember where.

[Maharincess]

Well of course he nor his daughter will tell the truth, that he screwed the case up by becoming John and Patsy's best friend.  Nobody railroaded inncocent people. In these cases the  family are the first suspects. Most innocent people will do whatever they can to help the case and prove their innocence. The Ramsey parents did none of that. 

In my opinion Smit is one of the main people who messed up the investigation.  He became overly personally involved with the Ramsey family and from what I've read in many places he put up roadblocks every time the investigators wanted to do anything.  

He should be ashamed at how he ran this case. I think that's why he resigned, because he knew he was wrong. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Maharincess

[Jel]

Sure, if the Ramseys actually did it, he should be ashamed. And if they didn't, he's a hero.

[Valmarmar]

It may not have been this show, but one fact has come out that I had never heard.  Burke came downstairs to play with his toys once everyone was asleep.  I need to watch the Dr. Phil interviews, but I believe he said it to Dr. P, as well.   It may have nothing to do with anything, but my gut reaction to the info was heavy.

[TattleTeeny]

The missing roll of duct tape and the broken paintbrush pieces* are still two things that give me pause even though I have definitely veered into the BDI camp. After reading in James Kolar's book about Patsy's sister being asked by John to retrieve his golf bag from the house (which I just cannot recall if I knew before; while it didn't seen completely unfamiliar when I saw it in J.K.'s book, it also made me go "OOH!" so...), in the immediate aftermath of his daughter's brutal murder and in the middle of winter, and I'm now wondering if those things were in that golf bag. I want to assume the cops checked but I haven't heard anything that they had (not that that means they didn't, of course) but I assume we would know if those things had been found. 

* And I guess it's possible that the paintbrush could have been broken prior to that night, and the pieces tossed out then...though why not ditch all of them? Ugh, I don't know!

Edited October 13, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Ilovecomputers]

I wish I had kept an analysis I read many years ago about the ransom note but basically the analyst concluded that Patsy wrote it.  The article said that Patsy was able to write with both her left and right hands (no big deal; so can I) and it was believed that she wrote the note with her non-dominant hand.  Honestly, though, if I thought someone suspected me of murder and then asked for my handwriting sample, I would definitely use a different writing.  For example, I typically print in all uppercase letters--my handwriting isn't very readable.  If I were asked for a handwriting sample, I would switch to what I was taught in grade school, the upper and lowercase stuff.  The analysis also pointed out the acronym at the bottom of the note--can't recall what it said now; SBTC or something?  Patsy was known to love using acronyms.  For a time she signed her name PPRBAJ (Patsy Paugh Ramsey Bachelor Arts Journalism) and some of her friends said she used SBTC in some sort of social clique she was a part of (the B stood for Boulder).  I'm going to have to buy "Foreign Faction" and the book by Steve Thomas since my library doesn't carry them.  I in the BDI camp.  If true, it must be a tremendous burden for John and Burke to carry around and I'm surprised Patsy never made a deathbed confession to someone.

[ghoulina]

I think her initial handwriting samples were taken from existing writings found in the house. That might have been why they were able to do a better comparison. I thought I read that she did later try to change her handwriting. 

[Joe Jitsu913]

1 hour ago, ghoulina said:

I think her initial handwriting samples were taken from existing writings found in the house. That might have been why they were able to do a better comparison. I thought I read that she did later try to change her handwriting. 

She did write differently after the murder, most noticeably her letter 'a'. She used to write a hooded 'a' (found in the ransom note)  to all cursive.  She even denied writing captions found in some of the Ramsey family photo albums, claiming she had no clue whose handwriting it was. 

[TattleTeeny]

I don't think it's as easy as "[using] a different writing" though. It's not only the appearance that analysts are looking at.

[SSAHotchner]

On 10/3/2016 at 5:30 PM, Mabinogia said:

I just think, if you're going to go through the trouble of doing your hair and makeup you're going to put on clean clothes too. It just seems odd. Did she lay her party clothes from the night before out on a chair planning on re-wearing them? Did she grab them out of the hamper? why? Did she pick them up off the floor in a rush? She just doesn't strike me as the type of person who is going to wear party clothes from the night before on a plane ride but then go through the trouble of doing her hair showing that she did care how she looked that morning. It's just so weird, like every single thing about this family.

If this were a fictional tv show it would have been cancelled for being far to unbelievable because none of it is normal behavior.

I can see her getting up and seeing to breakfast without showering if she was planning on getting cleaned up and dressed later, but who doesn't shower when they get up? And no way do I believe she'd put on clothes she wore the day before. I'm sorry but this whole part of the story just says to me that she never changed out of her clothes the night before, never even went to bed. 

[SSAHotchner]

On 10/7/2016 at 0:43 PM, Giant Misfit said:

Burke, quoted in the link above: 

 

I always love the, "I cried ... (but you couldn't see me)" excuse. I would bet the $150 million dollars that Burke will never see (because, like AZChristian I don't think this will ever get to court) that Burke never shed a tear about any of this. There's also the little matter of he did say he had "moved on" then. It's right there. On the video tape. He said it when he was what? Nine? Eleven? 

And this rich quote from Lin Wood:

 

 

HA HA HA HA! Tell that to your client who couldn't find an acquaintance or employee of his in Boulder he wasn't throwing under the bus every five seconds. 

I see they've yet to file their lawsuit against CBS (network). Ain't gonna happen. 

It's going to be hard to convince folks he was crying when all the videos show him smiling and laughing. Don't get me wrong. There's a part of me that feels sorry for him for his family situation and that the parents, seemingly, did not get that something was wrong with him or seek help, but I also think that he is involved in the attack on Jon Benet and that even now his disturbing behavior suggests some kind of personality disorder.

 

On 10/10/2016 at 9:29 AM, TattleTeeny said:

Oh my goodness, everyone, I'm reading Foreign Faction. While it is presented well, very detailed in an easy-to-understand way, and just generally a good read, the editing is seriously lacking--one of the worst examples I've ever seen, to be honest. This is so sad to me, and I keep wondering why it happened without settling on simply "bad editor, as I am one and know that sometimes shit happens--extremely tight deadline? Superiors who don't think editing is important (which I run into a lot, but then I don't work for an official publisher for which the editorial stage is crucial)? Maybe there was a ton of content editing that was a higher priority than grammar/spelling/punctuation? What could be the reason that this would be allowed to go to print like this?

Also, he keeps using the word "poon" (haha--"poon"!) to describe the sole of the Hi-Tec boot. POON? I have checked multiple dictionaries and I see no "poon" associated with footwear! Poon?!

Yes! I asked my husband if he had ever heard that term for the sole of the shoe and he hadn't. He is quite well-read. I will continue to accept it while reading the book but I'm never going to use it in public myself. :) I have to get back to the book. I haven't picked it up in a while. I spend too much time on forums like this one and watching TV. Also, I kind of don't want to read it right before I go to bed. It can be disturbing. I don't want to think about abused and murdered kids when I'm falling asleep at night. 

[MsJamieDornan]

On 10/12/2016 at 1:36 PM, Jel said:

And Linda Arnt, on day one, mentally counting her bullets because she knew (as she said in a later interview) that John was the killer. She knew that, without a thorough investigation. That's pretty concerning to me

Someone tell Linda Arnt that wasn't a thorough investigation,,, that was NO investigation.  

[SSAHotchner]

11 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

The missing roll of duct tape and the broken paintbrush pieces* are still two things that give me pause even though I have definitely veered into the BDI camp. After reading in James Kolar's book about Patsy's sister being asked by John to retrieve his golf bag from the house (which I just cannot recall if I knew before; while it didn't seen completely unfamiliar when I saw it in J.K.'s book, it also made me go "OOH!" so...), in the immediate aftermath of his daughter's brutal murder and in the middle of winter, and I'm now wondering if those things were in that golf bag. I want to assume the cops checked but I haven't heard anything that they had (not that that means they didn't, of course) but I assume we would know if those things had been found. 

* And I guess it's possible that the paintbrush could have been broken prior to that night, and the pieces tossed out then...though why not ditch all of them? Ugh, I don't know!

Like maybe they had a recollection of how OJ was supposed to have gotten evidence away from his home by having it in the golf bag? You know I watch all kinds of cop programs and films and have read mysteries since I was quite young. It's easy to say they should have done this or that, but sadly I don't think the average PD, especially the smaller the city, is well-trained on how to deal with a homicide. If those parents had been separated from the get-go and interviewed separately and then demanded to speak to Burke, no matter how young he was just to ask him, "what did you do last night? Did you hear anything out of the ordinary? What time did you go to sleep. Did you come downstairs after the rest of the family went to their bedrooms?"They could have gotten a sense of his emotional state and seen how his story stood up to what his parents said happened. 

[bannana]

http://www.westword.com/news/burke-ramsey-lawsuit-jonbenet-family-lawyer-rips-cbs-docuseries-and-more-8390450

Edited October 14, 2016 by bannana

[AZChristian]

54 minutes ago, SSAHotchner said:

Like maybe they had a recollection of how OJ was supposed to have gotten evidence away from his home by having it in the golf bag? You know I watch all kinds of cop programs and films and have read mysteries since I was quite young. It's easy to say they should have done this or that, but sadly I don't think the average PD, especially the smaller the city, is well-trained on how to deal with a homicide. If those parents had been separated from the get-go and interviewed separately and then demanded to speak to Burke, no matter how young he was just to ask him, "what did you do last night? Did you hear anything out of the ordinary? What time did you go to sleep. Did you come downstairs after the rest of the family went to their bedrooms?"They could have gotten a sense of his emotional state and seen how his story stood up to what his parents said happened. 

I read somewhere that Boulder only has 1-3 homicides per year, so they definitely don't have the experience of larger PDs.  But if I live to be 100 (which isn't that much longer), I will not understand how the Ramseys were able to avoid being formally interviewed within a couple of days of the murder.  I, too, watch a lot of real-life murder stories and cop shows, and I've NEVER heard of "people of interest" having the freedom to say, "Oh, I'm so medicated from the trauma of losing my loved one that I'm in no shape to be interviewed."  And then they get a lawyer and avoid, avoid, avoid.  If this were my child, I'd be camped out at police headquarters to make sure they were working their butts off to find the killer.