Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 69 of 69

Thread: Inconsistencies

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Ames View Post
    No, I believe that it took place in JB's bathroom.
    oh,yep,you are right,i just read somewhere that the scream could have been heard also if it came from there.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Ames View Post
    Yeah, good catch! I wonder though..if the first part that you wrote in blue font...where it says...Christmas Day....maybe he means that MORNING. He really wasn't specific.
    This is true Ames, but I do not believe for a second that she would forget whether or not she helped JB get dressed that morning OR before they went to the Whites. She would not forget it - it would be written in her mind as one of her last memories.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Ames View Post
    No, I believe that it took place in JB's bathroom.
    ..I wonder if the window there was open,at the time.I believe the type of heat they had might have a tendency to make the house feel overheated.Plus,if Patsy was becoming enraged,then she could have opened it just from that.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    JMO8778,
    Interesting that. Just like JonBenet's underwear, any pair of size-6's found on her would have been consistent with her lifestyle, particularly a pageant princess. Similarly any flashlight discovered with either Patsy's or John's fingerprints would have been unremarkable, since both could cite valid reasons for recent use.


    Wiping the flashlight clean, just as wiping her genital area clean and redressing her in those ludicrous size-12's tell us something does not add up here, because as per the staging neither cleaning event contributed to the staging. They actually detracted from it and set the alarm bells ringing.


    Also neither the size-12's nor the flashlight suggest an intruder was involved, intuitively the opposite is highlighted.


    The flashlight is not staging since it was removed from the staged crime-scene, that it was wiped clean suggests alike the potentially missing size-6's it held incriminating forensic evidence , not fingerprints, but say blood or hair fibers from JonBenet?

    Another thought is that it formed part of a prior staging where it was wiped clean and left at a staged crime-scene to indicate why JonBenet had died from a head blow? Subsequent staging revised this to the kidnapping scenario so the flashlight was removed and simply relocated?


    .
    good thoughts,UK.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,587
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    ..I wonder if the window there was open,at the time.I believe the type of heat they had might have a tendency to make the house feel overheated.Plus,if Patsy was becoming enraged,then she could have opened it just from that.
    Actually, in one of JR's depositions, he mentions that the house did sometimes get too hot- he said JBR sometimes slept with her bedroom window open- and he also said that the basement window was sometimes opened because the basement got too hot also.
    Those houses on 15th Street are a lot closer than you realize. It wouldn't be hard to hear a scream from next door or even across the street. The basement had a vent pipe that led right outside, that is the pipe that was tested in the basement by LE when they did their "scream test". They found that a scream COULD be heard across the street by Mrs. Stanton's house, and she herself said she always slept with her bedroom window open. Though she later recanted (twice) and moved away from Boulder because of this case, I believe she was awoken by the scream.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    ..sure,and the thing that gets me wondering is,could a scream be heard from JB's bedroom if the window was closed? someone should have checked that as well.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,587
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    JMO8778,
    Interesting that. Just like JonBenet's underwear, any pair of size-6's found on her would have been consistent with her lifestyle, particularly a pageant princess. Similarly any flashlight discovered with either Patsy's or John's fingerprints would have been unremarkable, since both could cite valid reasons for recent use.


    Wiping the flashlight clean, just as wiping her genital area clean and redressing her in those ludicrous size-12's tell us something does not add up here, because as per the staging neither cleaning event contributed to the staging. They actually detracted from it and set the alarm bells ringing.


    Also neither the size-12's nor the flashlight suggest an intruder was involved, intuitively the opposite is highlighted.


    The flashlight is not staging since it was removed from the staged crime-scene, that it was wiped clean suggests alike the potentially missing size-6's it held incriminating forensic evidence , not fingerprints, but say blood or hair fibers from JonBenet?

    Another thought is that it formed part of a prior staging where it was wiped clean and left at a staged crime-scene to indicate why JonBenet had died from a head blow? Subsequent staging revised this to the kidnapping scenario so the flashlight was removed and simply relocated?


    .
    Excellent points.
    The there are certain things that raise a red flag to me- and have right from he beginning.
    One was the wiped flashlight and batteries- why wipe it down when it belonged to you? Well at first they tried to say that it wasn't theirs, though they admitted having one just like it but they couldn't provide it.
    Two was the denial of the pineapple, even going as far as denying owning the bowl (which was shown on the table at their party 3 days before). Why lie about a pineapple snack? It had nothing to do with the murder itself..but it DID fix a time of death and point to her being awake when after they returned home. For their "kidnapping gone wrong" cover up to work- they had to say she was asleep when they got home. I have never understood their point in saying this. What would they say differently if they had admitted she was awake and that yes, she had been given pineapple before bed. They could still have "found " the RN and said the same things. I still can't figure out what they felt they gained in lying about the pineapple.
    The third thing was the panties. A true intruder/killer would not have changes the panties. They'd have left her nude, or bloodied.
    The other thing about the panties besides their size was that EVERY other pair of JBR's panties in the house had evidence of fecal staining. Every one, except the pair she was found dead in. They were brand new. The ONLY brand-new panties found in the home. The other 6 pairs of NEW panties in the set were removed from the home by either the Rs that day when they left or by Aunt P when she raided the house.
    Four- why lie about BR being awake that morning? If you are innocent, what is the big deal if LE knows he was awake or questions him? If you are guilty....well, that is the MAIN reason why you won't want him questioned about what he may have seen or heard.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,430
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Excellent points.
    The there are certain things that raise a red flag to me- and have right from he beginning.
    One was the wiped flashlight and batteries- why wipe it down when it belonged to you? Well at first they tried to say that it wasn't theirs, though they admitted having one just like it but they couldn't provide it.
    Two was the denial of the pineapple, even going as far as denying owning the bowl (which was shown on the table at their party 3 days before). Why lie about a pineapple snack? It had nothing to do with the murder itself..but it DID fix a time of death and point to her being awake when after they returned home. For their "kidnapping gone wrong" cover up to work- they had to say she was asleep when they got home. I have never understood their point in saying this. What would they say differently if they had admitted she was awake and that yes, she had been given pineapple before bed. They could still have "found " the RN and said the same things. I still can't figure out what they felt they gained in lying about the pineapple.
    The third thing was the panties. A true intruder/killer would not have changes the panties. They'd have left her nude, or bloodied.
    The other thing about the panties besides their size was that EVERY other pair of JBR's panties in the house had evidence of fecal staining. Every one, except the pair she was found dead in. They were brand new. The ONLY brand-new panties found in the home. The other 6 pairs of NEW panties in the set were removed from the home by either the Rs that day when they left or by Aunt P when she raided the house.
    Four- why lie about BR being awake that morning? If you are innocent, what is the big deal if LE knows he was awake or questions him? If you are guilty....well, that is the MAIN reason why you won't want him questioned about what he may have seen or heard.
    DeeDee249,
    One was the wiped flashlight and batteries- why wipe it down when it belonged to you? Well at first they tried to say that it wasn't theirs, though they admitted having one just like it but they couldn't provide it.
    Well you wipe it down if it was involved in the homicide, staged or not, but when the cleaned item is not discovered at the staged crime-scene that can only mean one of two things, it was intended as part of the staged crime-scene to indicate a cause of death and/or it was the cause original head blow? Why so, no intruder needs to wipe the batteries, only the exterior!

    Two was the denial of the pineapple, even going as far as denying owning the bowl (which was shown on the table at their party 3 days before). Why lie about a pineapple snack? It had nothing to do with the murder itself..but it DID fix a time of death and point to her being awake when after they returned home. For their "kidnapping gone wrong" cover up to work- they had to say she was asleep when they got home. I have never understood their point in saying this. What would they say differently if they had admitted she was awake and that yes, she had been given pineapple before bed. They could still have "found " the RN and said the same things. I still can't figure out what they felt they gained in lying about the pineapple.
    Its simple, the discovery of the pinapple both inside JonBenet and in the bowl on the table rendered the Ramsey's version of events e.g. all three residents, contradictory. They had no choice but to deny ownership of the pineapple bowl, even Burke must have been told to amend his version of events to conform to this revision. Their lawyers would have told them we will worry about this if it ever goes to court.

    A true intruder/killer would not have changes the panties. They'd have left her nude, or bloodied.
    Which is what makes the case for a sexual assault staging backfire.

    The other thing about the panties besides their size was that EVERY other pair of JBR's panties in the house had evidence of fecal staining.
    So had Nedra brainwashed Patsy into thinking JonBenet being the victim of an unforseen accident must be wearing clean fresh underwear? Bear in mind the underwear lying on her bathroom floor was visibly stained, so they must have known a quick look in her panty drawer would reveal that the pageant princess possessed fecal stained underwear? Presumably the fibers discovered on the inside of JonBenet's black velvet pants worn to the White's would match samples taken from her size-6's, whereas those from the size-12's might not?

    I reckon the simplest , not always correct though, explanation is that the size-12's represent a change of plan, a decision was made to revise the staging, so rather than presenting a sexual molestation gone wrong as the result of some perverted intruder, who whacked her on the head with the flashlight. Its changed to look as if JonBenet has been abducted from her bed then killed in the wine-cellar, hence her wearing the size-12's, which also act to conceal any prior injury, but just to make certain the longjohns are added, who knows JonBenet may have originally been wearing the barbie-gown, which is now removed in favor of covering up her lower regions. To back this up the story about JonBenet being placed sleeping to bed is invented.

    Four- why lie about BR being awake that morning? If you are innocent, what is the big deal if LE knows he was awake or questions him? If you are guilty....well, that is the MAIN reason why you won't want him questioned about what he may have seen or heard.
    Burke has to be asleep that morning otherwise he would be liable for questioning about anything he had heard when awake e.g. corroborating his parents version of events.

    It looks like the person who revised the staging made the big mistake of adding the size-12's to the mix, he/she was probably thinking pragmatically, and not about the consistency of the staging, which is how most staged crime-scenes are discovered, since they tend to reflect the stagers naive model of how a crime-scene should look.

    e.g. Why would an intruder bother with Wednesday panties, can you see Patsy or John thinking that one up, also since the intruder wiped JonBenet clean then she must be redressed in clean panties, cue for the size-12's to enter stage right, can you see Patsy or John thinking that one up. But wait for it the intruder also removes the remaining 6-pairs of clean size-12's, why so, when seven pairs are available at Bloomingdales? So what is happening here, imo, this is a veiled attempt to hide the possibility that JonBenet's size-6's were removed from the crime-scene because they contained forensic evidence just as the flashlight did?

    I would contend that the size-12's do not have any real significance or that they are a Wednesday pair beyond their use as staging to hide a prior injury, and deflect attention away from the missing size-6's.



    .

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,587
    Of course, my questions were rhetorical. I know why they lied about the flashlight, pineapple and BR being awake.
    But the panties...they are a puzzle, and I know you disagree with me but I feel they DO have a significance. I think that she was wearing a Wednesday pair that day to the White's - her OWN pair in her OWN size. I think the Rs feared that someone at the White's may have seen them, if they had helped her in the bathroom (as she was known to ask). Later on, when the description of her clothing became public- someone could have come forward to say that when THEY saw her, she was wearing something different. I don't think they were worried that her own clean (albeit stained) panties from her panty drawer had fecal staining- as they all did. I think what they were worried about was that they needed an "unbloodied" identcial pair that also said "Wednesday". The size didn't matter- to THEM. They thought it wouldn't matter to anyone else either.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  10. #60
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Of course, my questions were rhetorical. I know why they lied about the flashlight, pineapple and BR being awake.
    But the panties...they are a puzzle, and I know you disagree with me but I feel they DO have a significance. I think that she was wearing a Wednesday pair that day to the White's - her OWN pair in her OWN size. I think the Rs feared that someone at the White's may have seen them, if they had helped her in the bathroom (as she was known to ask). Later on, when the description of her clothing became public- someone could have come forward to say that when THEY saw her, she was wearing something different. I don't think they were worried that her own clean (albeit stained) panties from her panty drawer had fecal staining- as they all did. I think what they were worried about was that they needed an "unbloodied" identcial pair that also said "Wednesday". The size didn't matter- to THEM. They thought it wouldn't matter to anyone else either.
    Hi DeeDee, ok I have a question maybe you know the answer to. I have read that JB didn't know how to read. I don't know where I read it, something about Burke helping her read the names on gifts when she was passing them out Christmas morning, I think. Anyway, do you think Patsy helped her get dressed to go to the Whites? I think Patsy has said no. But then of course there is that story of the fight about JB not wanting to wear what Patsy wanted her to wear. I know my thoughts are all over the place here. What my question is is if Jonbenet didn't know how to read and Patsy didn't help her get dressed then how did she happen to be wearing the Wednesday panties in her own size that day? If she were wearing them it means Patsy lied(imagine that) and did help her get dresed that day, or Jonbenet actually could read and picked them out and got herself dressed without Patsys help. Which do you think it is and BTW do we know for sure that she was wearing the Wednesday panites in her own size that night?

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,430
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Of course, my questions were rhetorical. I know why they lied about the flashlight, pineapple and BR being awake.
    But the panties...they are a puzzle, and I know you disagree with me but I feel they DO have a significance. I think that she was wearing a Wednesday pair that day to the White's - her OWN pair in her OWN size. I think the Rs feared that someone at the White's may have seen them, if they had helped her in the bathroom (as she was known to ask). Later on, when the description of her clothing became public- someone could have come forward to say that when THEY saw her, she was wearing something different. I don't think they were worried that her own clean (albeit stained) panties from her panty drawer had fecal staining- as they all did. I think what they were worried about was that they needed an "unbloodied" identcial pair that also said "Wednesday". The size didn't matter- to THEM. They thought it wouldn't matter to anyone else either.
    DeeDee249
    You may be correct over the size-12's but would they not have to be the same color too? Although you suggest the size does not matter, what about any alleged witness who saw them, would they not note the size, e.g. JonBenet would not need to take of her size-12's they would just fall to the floor?

    imo to stage a crime-scene using those size-12's, then to remove the remaining pairs, particularly when you are setting up an intruder scenario, is simply counter-productive. I reckon the Wednesday detail is probably a consequence of it being available, and not the main reason why she was redressed in size-12's.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    well,another thought comes to mind;just as they wanted LE to SEE BR was 'asleep',they wanted LE to SEE JB was wearing Wed. panties...therefore as such she was properly dressed for a bedtime abduction of the very same night.And that's probably only one reason she was said to be already 'asleep' when arriving home;no chance of her changing clothes on her own.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,430
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    well,another thought comes to mind;just as they wanted LE to SEE BR was 'asleep',they wanted LE to SEE JB was wearing Wed. panties...therefore as such she was properly dressed for a bedtime abduction of the very same night.And that's probably only one reason she was said to be already 'asleep' when arriving home;no chance of her changing clothes on her own.
    JMO8778,
    But what relevance does Wednesday have to LE, what does that tell anymore than a Tuesday pair would? Also they were hidden beneath the longjohns, and why would any intruder redress JonBenet after sexually assaulting her, what significance does Wednesday have for the intruder, as Mr. Spock might say It does not compute Captain?

    Then the intruder makes off with the remaining 6-pairs of size-12's, where does that fit in to the LE perception?


    therefore as such she was properly dressed for a bedtime abduction of the very same night.
    It would be more consistent if she had been wearing the barbie-gown, or had she?


    .

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,587
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie View Post
    Hi DeeDee, ok I have a question maybe you know the answer to. I have read that JB didn't know how to read. I don't know where I read it, something about Burke helping her read the names on gifts when she was passing them out Christmas morning, I think. Anyway, do you think Patsy helped her get dressed to go to the Whites? I think Patsy has said no. But then of course there is that story of the fight about JB not wanting to wear what Patsy wanted her to wear. I know my thoughts are all over the place here. What my question is is if Jonbenet didn't know how to read and Patsy didn't help her get dressed then how did she happen to be wearing the Wednesday panties in her own size that day? If she were wearing them it means Patsy lied(imagine that) and did help her get dresed that day, or Jonbenet actually could read and picked them out and got herself dressed without Patsys help. Which do you think it is and BTW do we know for sure that she was wearing the Wednesday panites in her own size that night?
    I am sure PR did help her get dressed for a Christmas dinner at someone else's home. She micro-managed every aspect of her daughter's life, ESPECIALLY how she was dressed and coiffed. I would be amazed if she 'd let get get ready for a party without her help. This doesn't necessarily mean that she physically put the clothes on her (though I believe she did) . She could have laid her clothes out for her to put on, underwear included.
    Yes, I also read that she couldn't read. Many kids can't read at 6. Some do, but it isn't unusual that a child of 6 can't read.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,587
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249
    You may be correct over the size-12's but would they not have to be the same color too? Although you suggest the size does not matter, what about any alleged witness who saw them, would they not note the size, e.g. JonBenet would not need to take of her size-12's they would just fall to the floor?

    imo to stage a crime-scene using those size-12's, then to remove the remaining pairs, particularly when you are setting up an intruder scenario, is simply counter-productive. I reckon the Wednesday detail is probably a consequence of it being available, and not the main reason why she was redressed in size-12's.
    I have seen those Bloomies Day of the Week panty sets. They still sell them. The colors are identical in the set, regardless of the size. (for example- ALL the Wednesday pairs had pink flowers, all the Thursday pairs had yellow, etc.) The same fabric is used for all the sizes.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  16. #66
    PMPT,571

    Patrick Burke argued that if threir clients cooperated,it would give credence to the idea that they were involved in the death of their daughter.
    NO SH **!!!

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    28,436
    This is something I found because of a different thread and thought some of you might want to take a look at it. It was kind of fun looking around the site.

    http://www.*************.com/ramsey.htm

    Have fun,

    Salem

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    This is something I found because of a different thread and thought some of you might want to take a look at it. It was kind of fun looking around the site.

    http://www.*************.com/ramsey.htm

    Have fun,

    Salem
    That was really interesting. Reminded me of the "Paul is dead" thing with the Beatles in the 70s.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    This is something I found because of a different thread and thought some of you might want to take a look at it. It was kind of fun looking around the site.

    http://www.*************.com/ramsey.htm

    Have fun,

    Salem
    it is an interesting site.Mark McClish's statement analysis is a good one,too.


    www.statementanalysis.com/cases/


    What is interesting is I also applied this to some of the ufo 'alien abduction' cases,and,(no surprise there),they came out as lies.But then if you study those using true crime techniques,it's easy to see how their stories are fakes.Some of them run like clockwork..just one lie after another.
    Some of those are from ppl whom you wouldn't normally think would lie..but the evidence is there.I think ppl forget that no one is accusing them of any type of crime...only of being guilty of lying.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •