921 users online (184 members and 737 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    42

    Ramsey's on CNN

    Hi all,

    I'm sure this video has been discussed here before but I was wondering what your thoughts on it were:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WomIOTN9UiQ"]March 27, 2000 - YouTube[/ame]

    I find it PARTICULARLY interesting that John says in this interview that they were never asked to take a polygraph, yet in PMPT it says that in 1997 the police asked the Ramsey's if they would take a polygraph and Patsy said she would take 100 but John said 'I have never been so insulted in all my life' and refused to take it! He then says in this interview that he would of course take one! Caught in a lie?

    I also find their body language interesting, as many of the comments note, and at some points it almost looks like their smiling!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    142
    Obviously the odd thing is they've "been through this a hundred times" and as King reminds them "wrote a book" about this but they "can't remember" basic facts like how John got the note.

    Also, at the beginning of the interview, JR parses the polygraph question in Bill Clinton like fashion. If you look at the way Steve Thomas phrased the polygraph question in 1997 you can say JR's answer is somewhat technically true, but this intelligent man is willfully ignoring the spirit of that question.

    I think in this interview you can see the nervousness of the Ramseys -- nervousness about their lies. As usual John appears more nervous than Patsy, which leads me to believe that Patsy is the more psychologically disturbed person and the likely killer/stager.

    One reason I don't believe BDI is that if Burke had been molesting his sister and then later on accidentally or deliberately killed her, I think the Ramseys would be better liars. If they were "protecting" their son and they felt that loving parents would do this, they wouldn't evince so much guilt in their body language and word choice. They'd also evince anger at Burke in subtle ways, which they never really do. If BDI and the parents covered it up, they have extraordinary skills of forgiveness -- doubtful.

    I have a question: is there full video of the Jan 1 1997 interview? There is a short clip on Youtube. The transcript is available. But I feel like this full video would be a treasure trove of body language evidence.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Patsy was very likely drugged or tranquilized for here TV interviews. In some, she seems more spaced out than others. It isn't necessarily because she is more disturbed than JR.
    Klonipin was found in their medicine cabinet. JR reportedly said that Patsy was on medication for "anxiety" after the murder, but not before.
    However, I KNOW that cancer patients are given anti-depressants and similar meds as part of their treatment and I believe Patsy was on something at the time JB was killed.
    Many of these drugs, and even more innocuous drugs like sleep aids, have horrible side effects. Suicidal or homicidal thoughts, irrational behavior. The list if possible side effects is pretty frightening.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    653
    She always sounds spaced out, but I put that down to a cross between her accent and her arrogance.

    Also, if you speak slowly, it gives you more time to think of what you're saying....allegedly

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    4,217
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderllama View Post
    She always sounds spaced out, but I put that down to a cross between her accent and her arrogance.

    Also, if you speak slowly, it gives you more time to think of what you're saying....allegedly
    Good point and if you repeat the question, that too gives you more time to think of an answer.

    I think what always bothered me the most when I would hear this couple rehash the death of their daughter, Jon Benet, they always referred to her as "that child."

    Honestly, that gives me the creeps. As if they want to distance themselves from her.

    jmo
    The Hokey Pokey Clinic - A good place to turn yourself around:

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    Obviously the odd thing is they've "been through this a hundred times" and as King reminds them "wrote a book" about this but they "can't remember" basic facts like how John got the note.

    Also, at the beginning of the interview, JR parses the polygraph question in Bill Clinton like fashion. If you look at the way Steve Thomas phrased the polygraph question in 1997 you can say JR's answer is somewhat technically true, but this intelligent man is willfully ignoring the spirit of that question.

    I think in this interview you can see the nervousness of the Ramseys -- nervousness about their lies. As usual John appears more nervous than Patsy, which leads me to believe that Patsy is the more psychologically disturbed person and the likely killer/stager.

    One reason I don't believe BDI is that if Burke had been molesting his sister and then later on accidentally or deliberately killed her, I think the Ramseys would be better liars. If they were "protecting" their son and they felt that loving parents would do this, they wouldn't evince so much guilt in their body language and word choice. They'd also evince anger at Burke in subtle ways, which they never really do. If BDI and the parents covered it up, they have extraordinary skills of forgiveness -- doubtful.

    I have a question: is there full video of the Jan 1 1997 interview? There is a short clip on Youtube. The transcript is available. But I feel like this full video would be a treasure trove of body language evidence.
    sandover,
    All the evidence does point to Patsy, its difficult to find anything to redeem her, so could Patsy be a prior victim carrying all the psychological baggage that such psychopathology might suggest?

    Strangling your own daughter is just what most people cannot believe!



    .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    42
    Another thing I noted whilst reading PMPT last night was a Ramsey attourney (Hal Haddon) releasing a picture to the press of a door jamb with pry marks or something similar and saying that this was a clear indication of an intruder; however Linda Hoffman Pugh said that those marks were from where a metal plate had fallen off the door leaving those marks. She took the plate to Patsy but Patsy didn't bother to get it replaced. Surely if Hoffman Pugh remembers this the Ramsey's must remember what the marks are from, but they have tried to use it as evidence of an intruder. Interesting! Did the police ever extensively interview Hoffman Pugh? Because I think she would have been an invaluable asset to the case - who knows the Ramsey's better then a fly on the wall in their house?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    sandover,
    All the evidence does point to Patsy, its difficult to find anything to redeem her, so could Patsy be a prior victim carrying all the psychological baggage that such psychopathology might suggest?

    Strangling your own daughter is just what most people cannot believe!.
    I do think Patsy could be a prior victim. Her obsession with the surface (the pageants, the decorating) indicates an inability to think about the inner world, where past trauma lives. But JonBenet might have represented "the return of the repressed" with Patsy -- evidence of her own sexual abuse and the trauma that followed in its wake. (The wetting and soiling spoils the perfect surface and while it may not have been the reason for the murder that night, it probably did represent an intolerable truth to Patsy about her own trauma.)

    Why people can't believe that a parent would murder their child when some of the most famous Greek myths are about just this astonishes me. This is a story civilization has been telling since the very beginning of time.

    John was also obsessed with surfaces: cars, boats, jets. He had lost his beloved daughter but also seems, from what we know, highly limited in his ability to process inner trauma.

    So when you have two psychologically disturbed parents who seem obsessed with surfaces, trying to deny their trauma while it's becoming replayed in their daughter's life (for Patsy, the trauma of childhood abuse, for John the trauma of having lost Beth) then it's no surprise that one or both could have murdered JonBenet to try to further avoid the painful inner worlds they could not tolerate.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    I do think Patsy could be a prior victim. Her obsession with the surface (the pageants, the decorating) indicates an inability to think about the inner world, where past trauma lives. But JonBenet might have represented "the return of the repressed" with Patsy -- evidence of her own sexual abuse and the trauma that followed in its wake. (The wetting and soiling spoils the perfect surface and while it may not have been the reason for the murder that night, it probably did represent an intolerable truth to Patsy about her own trauma.)

    Why people can't believe that a parent would murder their child when some of the most famous Greek myths are about just this astonishes me. This is a story civilization has been telling since the very beginning of time.

    John was also obsessed with surfaces: cars, boats, jets. He had lost his beloved daughter but also seems, from what we know, highly limited in his ability to process inner trauma.

    So when you have two psychologically disturbed parents who seem obsessed with surfaces, trying to deny their trauma while it's becoming replayed in their daughter's life (for Patsy, the trauma of childhood abuse, for John the trauma of having lost Beth) then it's no surprise that one or both could have murdered JonBenet to try to further avoid the painful inner worlds they could not tolerate.
    sandover,
    Why people can't believe that a parent would murder their child when some of the most famous Greek myths are about just this astonishes me. This is a story civilization has been telling since the very beginning of time.
    Sure, and the old testament is full of such references, including debt bondage, sexual slavery, sale of daughters to other families, not to forget temple prostitiution, LOL, what nice world!

    Yes, you put it nicely, Patsy and John repeating their prior sins over and over, dissasociation by proxy, the ease with which both John and Patsy played out their roles is, for me, an eye-opener.


    .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    I do think Patsy could be a prior victim. Her obsession with the surface (the pageants, the decorating) indicates an inability to think about the inner world, where past trauma lives. But JonBenet might have represented "the return of the repressed" with Patsy -- evidence of her own sexual abuse and the trauma that followed in its wake. (The wetting and soiling spoils the perfect surface and while it may not have been the reason for the murder that night, it probably did represent an intolerable truth to Patsy about her own trauma.)

    Why people can't believe that a parent would murder their child when some of the most famous Greek myths are about just this astonishes me. This is a story civilization has been telling since the very beginning of time.

    John was also obsessed with surfaces: cars, boats, jets. He had lost his beloved daughter but also seems, from what we know, highly limited in his ability to process inner trauma.

    So when you have two psychologically disturbed parents who seem obsessed with surfaces, trying to deny their trauma while it's becoming replayed in their daughter's life (for Patsy, the trauma of childhood abuse, for John the trauma of having lost Beth) then it's no surprise that one or both could have murdered JonBenet to try to further avoid the painful inner worlds they could not tolerate.

    While I'm firmly in the RDI camp, I don' t think this reasoning is very sound. - specifically wrt "surfaces".

    PR was a pageant queen, a former Miss W.VA. Pageants were a big part of her life, and no doubt she wanted JB to grow up and be Miss CO. Had she been the W.VA. state chess champion, no doubt she'd have coached JB in chess.

    The decorating is just what women with lots of money do. It doesn't necessarily suggest an inability to think about the "inner world".

    Same with JR. He's a very wealthy man. How many men with his kind of money do not have cars, boats, and even planes?
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    While I'm firmly in the RDI camp, I don' t think this reasoning is very sound. - specifically wrt "surfaces".

    PR was a pageant queen, a former Miss W.VA. Pageants were a big part of her life, and no doubt she wanted JB to grow up and be Miss CO. Had she been the W.VA. state chess champion, no doubt she'd have coached JB in chess.

    The decorating is just what women with lots of money do. It doesn't necessarily suggest an inability to think about the "inner world".

    Same with JR. He's a very wealthy man. How many men with his kind of money do not have cars, boats, and even planes?
    What any RDI has to explain is WHY -- and the WHY in murder always has to do with something in the inner world.

    Even if PR or JR went to hit JB and somehow caused her death -- we still need to explain why there was any physical violence at all, even if it wasn't intended to to kill her.

    And then there is possibility/likelihood she was being abused, depending on which medical experts you believe.

    I'd like to hear what your theory is about motivation since you find mine unconvincing. What was happening in the inner world of PR or JR to make them do this?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    What any RDI has to explain is WHY -- and the WHY in murder always has to do with something in the inner world.

    Even if PR or JR went to hit JB and somehow caused her death -- we still need to explain why there was any physical violence at all, even if it wasn't intended to to kill her.

    And then there is possibility/likelihood she was being abused, depending on which medical experts you believe.

    I'd like to hear what your theory is about motivation since you find mine unconvincing. What was happening in the inner world of PR or JR to make them do this?

    First, my objection to your theory is simply with respect to what you call "surfaces". The Rs may or may not have been really twisted weird people, but being involved in pageants, decorating, having nice cars, boats, and a plane does not indicate anything wrong with their "inner world". I'll bet Bill Gates has his own plane. I'll bet most millionaires/billionaires do. One of my uncles had a nice boat and there was nothing wrong with his "inner world".

    Second, I disagree that we have to explain WHY. I'm sure a jury would like to hear something about motive, but this isn't a trail, and you don't always have to prove motive, even in a trial.

    I think we start getting into flights of fancy when we start to consider motive. What we have, on the face of it, actually looks pretty good from an IDI perspective. Two people with no known history of mental illness, no history of child abuse, no history of domestic violence and one day, we have a dead girl in the basement, and a RN.

    I think one of the Rs (or both) did it because almost all the forensic evidence points to them. WHY did they do it? I have no idea. Most of what we "think" about the Rs is pure speculation. We start speculating to fill in the missing motive. We don't need to do that. It would be wonderful if we could figure out the motive, but are we figuring it out or making it up?

    The fibers, and other materials used in the crime/staging point to the Rs. The only thing that points to IDI is touch DNA and we all know that didn't have to come from a killer, or even accomplice. (Though it is certainly possible, though IMO not probable.)

    I don't think there is any need to explain motive in order to be RDI.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Very often there IS no motive. Motive usually occurs in First Degree Murder. It implies premeditation. I do not believe that was the case here. Especially if this was an accidental death, there really is no motive for the death. There is, however, a motive for the coverup. While the assault(s) were intentional, JB's death as a result was probably not.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    First, my objection to your theory is simply with respect to what you call "surfaces". The Rs may or may not have been really twisted weird people, but being involved in pageants, decorating, having nice cars, boats, and a plane does not indicate anything wrong with their "inner world". I'll bet Bill Gates has his own plane. I'll bet most millionaires/billionaires do. One of my uncles had a nice boat and there was nothing wrong with his "inner world".

    Second, I disagree that we have to explain WHY. I'm sure a jury would like to hear something about motive, but this isn't a trail, and you don't always have to prove motive, even in a trial.

    I think we start getting into flights of fancy when we start to consider motive. What we have, on the face of it, actually looks pretty good from an IDI perspective. Two people with no known history of mental illness, no history of child abuse, no history of domestic violence and one day, we have a dead girl in the basement, and a RN.

    I think one of the Rs (or both) did it because almost all the forensic evidence points to them. WHY did they do it? I have no idea. Most of what we "think" about the Rs is pure speculation. We start speculating to fill in the missing motive. We don't need to do that. It would be wonderful if we could figure out the motive, but are we figuring it out or making it up?

    The fibers, and other materials used in the crime/staging point to the Rs. The only thing that points to IDI is touch DNA and we all know that didn't have to come from a killer, or even accomplice. (Though it is certainly possible, though IMO not probable.)

    I don't think there is any need to explain motive in order to be RDI.
    You certainly don't need motive, but when you don't have enough evidence motive is inevitably part of what an investigation tries to determine.

    Would you tell Steve Thomas that his attempt to find motive was irrelevant and pointless?

    I am just trying to do what the detectives did.

    No, nothing about being in a pageant or owning a boat is inherently pathological.

    But the proximity of profound traumas (JR's losses, PR's cancer), possible sexual abuse (JB's vaginal injuries), obsessive attention to surface details (participation in pageants leading friends to prepare to stage an intervention with PR, extravagant house tours that locals found appalling) all combine to paint a picture about what might have led to these horrifying events...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Very often there IS no motive. Motive usually occurs in First Degree Murder. It implies premeditation. I do not believe that was the case here. Especially if this was an accidental death, there really is no motive for the death. There is, however, a motive for the coverup. While the assault(s) were intentional, JB's death as a result was probably not.
    An accident -- JB slipping -- has no motive. But a true accident would inspire no coverup, unless it was a pure accident and the coverup had to do with hiding the sexual abuse of JB -- a possibility for sure. But even there the motive is complex and significant (to cover up family sexual abuse).

    If PR or JR or BR "hit" JB with a flashlight, they may not have intended to kill her, but there is still a motive in that something MOTIVATED the violence. Hitting someone deliberately is not an "accident" even if it isn't intended to kill.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Patsy Ramsey
    By ginzy in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 2638
    Last Post: 06-25-2017, 12:34 AM
  2. Ramsey's how to do
    By Ravyn in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 08:18 PM
  3. Ramsey's Dog-2 things
    By ellen13 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-23-2005, 05:11 AM
  4. Another Ramsey article
    By Barbara in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-23-2004, 12:14 PM