JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY'S DISAPPOINTING AND INSULTING RESPONSE TO CINA WONG

New Posts

GoBuckeyes said:
I was surprised recently when I listened to a True Crime Garage podcast episode featuring Joseph Scott Morgan, one of my criminal profiler heros. He claims that during his interactions with the Ramseys, he concluded unequivocally that they were not responsible. That they "could not have done it."

I believe the episode was in November or December 2021. Has anyone else listened to it, and what are your thoughts? TIA
Click to expand...
 
Morgan certainly has the credentials to make a definitive statement about the Ramseys not committing the crime. As a forensics psychologist with zero hands on knowledge of the case, I too feel they were definitely a strange family but still feel it is quite possible that it is someone who knows the family or is a member of the family inner circle. I wish I had the experience of sitting in a room with the Ramseys.
 
Tricia said:
A couple of weeks ago I attempted to have a mature conversation (on Twitter under the name Websleuths) about the evidence in the Ramsey case with JonBenet's older half-brother John Andrew Ramsey.

Via a tagged tweet from Websleuths I invited him to listen to our live stream with Cina Wong and I pointed out how many matches Ms. Wong made between Patsy's writing and the writing of the ransom note.

Cina Wong is a very well respected and professionally recognized handwriting expert who has testified in over 65 court cases.

In response to my tweets John Andrew blocked me, called me a troll, and proceeded to attempt to attack Cina Wong and her credentials in a very immature manner.

John Andrew tweeted and asked if Cina Wong knew Henry Lee. WTH?
It never occurred to me the obvious reason for asking this question. There is only one reason why he would say this. Think about it.

I am posting here the responses to John Andrews's accusations about Cina Wong. If you have any trouble following what is going on please post your questions.

These same screenshots will be tweeted out by Websleuths and we will make John Andrew aware of these answers if he is curious to know the truth.

JAR's behavior is so disappointing. He is acting like a spoiled rich kid frat boy.

Please take a look at the tweets and responses.

Tricia
PS. I did make a crack about Lin Wood when JAR tweeted he would record my stream and send it to "Lin". "GOOD" I replied then suggested that perhaps the intruder also stole the election. That is my part but hey, using Lin Wood as a threat opens one's self up to t
Click to expand...

Tricia said:
A couple of weeks ago I attempted to have a mature conversation (on Twitter under the name Websleuths) about the evidence in the Ramsey case with JonBenet's older half-brother John Andrew Ramsey.

Via a tagged tweet from Websleuths I invited him to listen to our live stream with Cina Wong and I pointed out how many matches Ms. Wong made between Patsy's writing and the writing of the ransom note.

Cina Wong is a very well respected and professionally recognized handwriting expert who has testified in over 65 court cases.

In response to my tweets John Andrew blocked me, called me a troll, and proceeded to attempt to attack Cina Wong and her credentials in a very immature manner.

John Andrew tweeted and asked if Cina Wong knew Henry Lee. WTH?
It never occurred to me the obvious reason for asking this question. There is only one reason why he would say this. Think about it.

I am posting here the responses to John Andrews's accusations about Cina Wong. If you have any trouble following what is going on please post your questions.

These same screenshots will be tweeted out by Websleuths and we will make John Andrew aware of these answers if he is curious to know the truth.

JAR's behavior is so disappointing. He is acting like a spoiled rich kid frat boy.

Please take a look at the tweets and responses.

Tricia
PS. I did make a crack about Lin Wood when JAR tweeted he would record my stream and send it to "Lin". "GOOD" I replied then suggested that perhaps the intruder also stole the election. That is my part but hey, using Lin Wood as a threat opens one's self up to these types of answers.
Click to expand...
well OBVIOUSLY he was going be be annoyed you basically invited him to a session were yous were all going to sit there and accuse his mother of being a part of it!!!!!!! OMG and your actually shocked and cant believe he responded like that WOW!!!!! Dont get me wrong im not sticking up for him because i believe his parents were a part of it and i believe they were the ones who wrote the ransom note aswell.A john is a bit of an odd guy but i just really dont get why your so shocked and surprised that he responded like that when you basically just asked him to join yous in a discussion about how his mothers hand writing matches the writing on the ransom note!!!lolololol OMG (here john do you fancy joining this discussion session with a handwriting expert so we can show you how your own mother was a part of it and how she wrote the note,,oh come on john dont be like that shes a profesional).
 
jamie85 said:
well OBVIOUSLY he was going be be annoyed you basically invited him to a session were yous were all going to sit there and accuse his mother of being a part of it!!!!!!! OMG and your actually shocked and cant believe he responded like that WOW!!!!! Dont get me wrong im not sticking up for him because i believe his parents were a part of it and i believe they were the ones who wrote the ransom note aswell.A john is a bit of an odd guy but i just really dont get why your so shocked and surprised that he responded like that when you basically just asked him to join yous in a discussion about how his mothers hand writing matches the writing on the ransom note!!!lolololol OMG (here john do you fancy joining this discussion session with a handwriting expert so we can show you how your own mother was a part of it and how she wrote the note,,oh come on john dont be like that shes a profesional).
Click to expand...
Um, you need to read the rules about dealing with other WS members.
 
jamie85 said:
well OBVIOUSLY he was going be be annoyed you basically invited him to a session were yous were all going to sit there and accuse his mother of being a part of it!!!!!!! OMG and your actually shocked and cant believe he responded like that WOW!!!!! Dont get me wrong im not sticking up for him because i believe his parents were a part of it and i believe they were the ones who wrote the ransom note aswell.A john is a bit of an odd guy but i just really dont get why your so shocked and surprised that he responded like that when you basically just asked him to join yous in a discussion about how his mothers hand writing matches the writing on the ransom note!!!lolololol OMG (here john do you fancy joining this discussion session with a handwriting expert so we can show you how your own mother was a part of it and how she wrote the note,,oh come on john dont be like that shes a profesional).
Click to expand...
Not his mother. His father's wife. I believe you are thinking of Jonbenet's brother, not the halfbrother.
 
jamie85 said:
well OBVIOUSLY he was going be be annoyed you basically invited him to a session were yous were all going to sit there and accuse his mother of being a part of it!!!!!!! OMG and your actually shocked and cant believe he responded like that WOW!!!!!
Click to expand...
As the above poster pointed out, Patsy was his stepmother, not mother. Also, John Andrew Ramsey is a fully grown, 48 year-old man, and as someone who (as per his Twitter page) is "currently hunting a child killer," should have his mind completely open to any possibilities / evidence presented to him as to who his half-sister's killer(s) were, however uncomfortable it may be to have to consider. In regards to a deceased step-parent, there might be a knee-jerk impulse to honor Patsy and defend her reputation in death - but it honestly just makes him, and by extension the rest of the Ramsey family, look pretty bad. They were already looking bad, extremely defensive and trying to play the victim (more so than acknowledging the actual victim in this whole case)... seem to be on a sort of highfalutin crusade to demand the public believe rabidly prove their innocence over the years - writing multiple books, interviews on national TV, social media posturing.

Reading the description of John Ramsey's book The Other Side of Suffering, I was both amazed and highly amused at the grandiosity exhibited: "The untold story of how John Ramsey survived unspeakable tragedy and learned to hope again. Like the biblical Job, John Ramsey had it all—wealthy, social position, a loving family. And like Job, Ramsey was destined for great affliction, as many of the most precious things in his life were cruelly taken from him."

Now, I don't know if it was the publisher who came up with that description, rather than John Ramsey himself, but it's just so cringe. Comparing yourself to the biblical Job? "Great affliction"? Many people lose their kids and loved ones who aren't multi-millionaires and don't feel the need for these kinds of theatrics. It just reeks of a persecution complex / self-centeredness, and positions him as the protagonist of all of this, rather than the focus being on JonBenet and IDing her killer.
 
I recall John Andrews feelings regarding JB, odd by his school mates while attending College in Boulder. They stated he was obsessed with her. Also, I believe they stated he was odd, keeping their distance. I cannot recall where I read this. It was soon after the murder.
Anyone have this information?
Perhaps it was ST; although I believe it was an article on the net.
 
PremeditatedCrime said:
Hello, I think you need to look at motive. And also to remember that this was a premeditated crime. (Also the Burke and Patsy theories are not medically sound. We know that JB was already dead when she received the head injury, which is why there was almost zero internal bleeding.)

So given that this was a premeditated crime, as a woman, I do not want to give John or John Andrew (at least one is a sexual abuser) a free pass, and blame Patsy or Burke. It's also worth nothing that if Patsy or Burke had accidentally killed JB (which is not medically sound), the family could have claimed that the little girl fell and hit her head.

It's important to remember that John and John Andrew WANT us to believe that Patsy and Burke committed the crime, which is has been not possible due to medical evidence.

So, since it was a premeditated crime, we must look at motive:

1) To silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse, including what may have occurred on December 23, 1996. (And fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found in JB's bed; not sure if they were also found in Burke's bed.) The police were called on December 23, 1996. However, the person who opened the door said that the police had been called by mistake.

JB was intelligent, articulate, and outspoken. Had she reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, she would be taken very seriously. Had Burke reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, he would not be taken as seriously. (I believe Burke was autistic.)

Therefore the MOTIVE to silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse is stronger than any MOTIVE to silence Burke.

2) To frame Patsy, or at least to discredit her. Obviously a judge or jury would not convict Patsy, but she was discredited and disgraced. People were willing to blame Patsy, claim that she killed JB by accident, and yet give John or John Andrew (at least one of whom is a sexual abuser) a free pass. Talk about sexism and bias.

There was an obvious MOTIVE to frame Patsy: ransom note included some of her expressions and choice of words. Also Patsy's notepad and writing pen were used. Patsy's paintbrush was actually used to strangle JB. (JB died from strangulation, and was already dead when she received the head injury). Now, if Patsy herself had strangled JB (and we know that she did not do this), she would have the intelligence to hide or throw out the paintbrush. (And would Patsy write a note to incriminate herself? She was an intelligent woman.)

Patsy's items that were used: paintbrush, notepad, writing pen. Plus the ransom note cast suspicion on Patsy.

What motive would John Andrew have to frame or at least cast suspicion on Patsy? He would want his father to reunite with his mother, NOT because he cared if his parents got back together, BUT due to John's WEALTH.

Therefore, John Andrew would have the above two motives. Remember that John Andrew's suitcase was found near JB's body. The suitcase contained a semen-encrusted blanket (semen belonged to John Andrew), a children's book called Dr. Seuss, and some other items. So, why was the suitcase near JB's body? Because someone (likely John the father) had every intention of disposing of JB's body, but also of disposing of the incriminating suitcase.

As previously mentioned, fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found on JB's bed.

Lastly, there has been some suspicion that JB told Melinda (her older half-sister) about the sexual abuse. However, I like to think that Melinda would have done the right thing, and reported this to police.

I believe that John Andrew also had a key to the house.

You need to also ask why John the father was not framed for the crime - only Patsy the mother!

And let's use common sense: a routine "sexual predator" would be more interested in framing the father than the mother!
Click to expand...
What is an EA device?
 
SurrealisticSlumbers said:
As the above poster pointed out, Patsy was his stepmother, not mother. Also, John Andrew Ramsey is a fully grown, 48 year-old man, and as someone who (as per his Twitter page) is "currently hunting a child killer," should have his mind completely open to any possibilities / evidence presented to him as to who his half-sister's killer(s) were, however uncomfortable it may be to have to consider. In regards to a deceased step-parent, there might be a knee-jerk impulse to honor Patsy and defend her reputation in death - but it honestly just makes him, and by extension the rest of the Ramsey family, look pretty bad. They were already looking bad, extremely defensive and trying to play the victim (more so than acknowledging the actual victim in this whole case)... seem to be on a sort of highfalutin crusade to demand the public believe rabidly prove their innocence over the years - writing multiple books, interviews on national TV, social media posturing.

Reading the description of John Ramsey's book The Other Side of Suffering, I was both amazed and highly amused at the grandiosity exhibited: "The untold story of how John Ramsey survived unspeakable tragedy and learned to hope again. Like the biblical Job, John Ramsey had it all—wealthy, social position, a loving family. And like Job, Ramsey was destined for great affliction, as many of the most precious things in his life were cruelly taken from him."

Now, I don't know if it was the publisher who came up with that description, rather than John Ramsey himself, but it's just so cringe. Comparing yourself to the biblical Job? "Great affliction"? Many people lose their kids and loved ones who aren't multi-millionaires and don't feel the need for these kinds of theatrics. It just reeks of a persecution complex / self-centeredness, and positions him as the protagonist of all of this, rather than the focus being on JonBenet and IDing her killer.
Click to expand...
This is the entire MO of JR passing the torch on to JAR! Has to keep the murder relevant so his legacies can continue to CASH IN on another couple of books. Disgusting.
 
Tricia said:
A couple of weeks ago I attempted to have a mature conversation (on Twitter under the name Websleuths) about the evidence in the Ramsey case with JonBenet's older half-brother John Andrew Ramsey.

Via a tagged tweet from Websleuths I invited him to listen to our live stream with Cina Wong and I pointed out how many matches Ms. Wong made between Patsy's writing and the writing of the ransom note.

Cina Wong is a very well respected and professionally recognized handwriting expert who has testified in over 65 court cases.

In response to my tweets John Andrew blocked me, called me a troll, and proceeded to attempt to attack Cina Wong and her credentials in a very immature manner.

John Andrew tweeted and asked if Cina Wong knew Henry Lee. WTH?
It never occurred to me the obvious reason for asking this question. There is only one reason why he would say this. Think about it.

I am posting here the responses to John Andrews's accusations about Cina Wong. If you have any trouble following what is going on please post your questions.

These same screenshots will be tweeted out by Websleuths and we will make John Andrew aware of these answers if he is curious to know the truth.

JAR's behavior is so disappointing. He is acting like a spoiled rich kid frat boy.

Please take a look at the tweets and responses.

Tricia
PS. I did make a crack about Lin Wood when JAR tweeted he would record my stream and send it to "Lin". "GOOD" I replied then suggested that perhaps the intruder also stole the election. That is my part but hey, using Lin Wood as a threat opens one's self up to these types of answers.
Click to expand...


People can say a whole lot about Lin Wood - one thing they can’t say….he’s not good at his job. He did an unbelievably amazing job for the Ramseys
He & I tangled years ago on Twitter before he blocked me
 
txsleuth70 said:
What is an EA device?
Click to expand...

PremeditatedCrime said:
Hello, I think you need to look at motive. And also to remember that this was a premeditated crime. (Also the Burke and Patsy theories are not medically sound. We know that JB was already dead when she received the head injury, which is why there was almost zero internal bleeding.)

So given that this was a premeditated crime, as a woman, I do not want to give John or John Andrew (at least one is a sexual abuser) a free pass, and blame Patsy or Burke. It's also worth nothing that if Patsy or Burke had accidentally killed JB (which is not medically sound), the family could have claimed that the little girl fell and hit her head.

It's important to remember that John and John Andrew WANT us to believe that Patsy and Burke committed the crime, which is has been not possible due to medical evidence.

So, since it was a premeditated crime, we must look at motive:

1) To silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse, including what may have occurred on December 23, 1996. (And fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found in JB's bed; not sure if they were also found in Burke's bed.) The police were called on December 23, 1996. However, the person who opened the door said that the police had been called by mistake.

JB was intelligent, articulate, and outspoken. Had she reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, she would be taken very seriously. Had Burke reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, he would not be taken as seriously. (I believe Burke was autistic.)

Therefore the MOTIVE to silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse is stronger than any MOTIVE to silence Burke.

2) To frame Patsy, or at least to discredit her. Obviously a judge or jury would not convict Patsy, but she was discredited and disgraced. People were willing to blame Patsy, claim that she killed JB by accident, and yet give John or John Andrew (at least one of whom is a sexual abuser) a free pass. Talk about sexism and bias.

There was an obvious MOTIVE to frame Patsy: ransom note included some of her expressions and choice of words. Also Patsy's notepad and writing pen were used. Patsy's paintbrush was actually used to strangle JB. (JB died from strangulation, and was already dead when she received the head injury). Now, if Patsy herself had strangled JB (and we know that she did not do this), she would have the intelligence to hide or throw out the paintbrush. (And would Patsy write a note to incriminate herself? She was an intelligent woman.)

Patsy's items that were used: paintbrush, notepad, writing pen. Plus the ransom note cast suspicion on Patsy.

What motive would John Andrew have to frame or at least cast suspicion on Patsy? He would want his father to reunite with his mother, NOT because he cared if his parents got back together, BUT due to John's WEALTH.

Therefore, John Andrew would have the above two motives. Remember that John Andrew's suitcase was found near JB's body. The suitcase contained a semen-encrusted blanket (semen belonged to John Andrew), a children's book called Dr. Seuss, and some other items. So, why was the suitcase near JB's body? Because someone (likely John the father) had every intention of disposing of JB's body, but also of disposing of the incriminating suitcase.

As previously mentioned, fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found on JB's bed.

Lastly, there has been some suspicion that JB told Melinda (her older half-sister) about the sexual abuse. However, I like to think that Melinda would have done the right thing, and reported this to police.

I believe that John Andrew also had a key to the house.

You need to also ask why John the father was not framed for the crime - only Patsy the mother!

And let's use common sense: a routine "sexual predator" would be more interested in framing the father than the mother!
Click to expand...
Respectfully, while you raise some interesting points here, I do disagree that the murder was premeditated. If it had been, I would think that they would / could have done a much better job of covering it up. Instead, it was a jumbled, chaotic mess that made little sense and had to rely heavily on LE making a lot of mistakes early on and throughout the investigation.

I do agree that JB was being molested, and it's very likely that BR was too. It is my belief that this was a pattern of behavior for JR that may very well have been a reason, if not the reason for the divorce from wife #1. Of course there are also indications that he cheated on Lucinda. The whole scenario with the first daughter Elizabeth and JR's seeming obsession with her leads me to think that she was also molested. And I think that perhaps JAR was being groomed in his father's footsteps. I think BR may have been too young at the time to be groomed, but there was definitely something going on there and I'm betting that grooming may have been in his future. The bed wetting by both kids seems to point to abuse. And in BR's case, his history of scatolia certainly points to issues.

I think that JR was a very smart and manipulative man who may have gotten in over his head with certain associations in order to promote his business aspirations and fit in with the Boulder community. Witness accounts from various persons who worked for the R's in the house report that he was very caught up and preoccupied with his work. He was absent a lot. We also know that PR was very ill for some time and for her immunity had to be isolated from the rest of the family.This likely put a lot of strain on the marital relationship. And it also meant that when JR was home, time spent with the kids would have been without PR around. Opportunity.

At some point PR's cancer goes into remission and she is back spending more time with the kids, at least JBR. I found interviews with the housekeeper very interesting as to what the family dynamic was at that time. She describes a household busy with activities for the kids, this is the period that PR and JBR become really involved in the pageant stuff. BR has a good circle of friends and he spends a lot of time hanging out with them. JBR does not have that many friends, although she is described as the most outgoing. She occasionally sleeps over at Daphne White's house (Fleet & Priscilla's daughter) but JBR never reciprocates with Daphne or anyone else with a sleepover at the R's house. The relationship between JR and PR is described as distant, almost transactional. As if PR were more like a secretary than a wife. And while the relationship between mother and daughter has been described as "close", I see some signs there that point to that not necessarily being true. PR had definite ideas about how she wanted things to look to those looking in on the R family. JBR had a bit of a rebellious streak and was starting to exert herself more as to what she wanted to wear, regardless of what PR thought she should wear. PR at one point admits that JBR is really a tomboy at heart, the whole pageant thing was PR's attempt to regain those days when that was her thing, and it feels very much like it was somewhat forced upon JBR. It would be interesting to see had she lived, if she would have started to push back on that. But I digress. I think that PR at some point must've guessed that JR was abusing at least JBR, but she didn't want to rock the boat and lose her breadwinner or her societal status. So she kept quiet, as far as we know. But all of the doctor visits for JBR must have been at the very least troubling, if not a big clue. I very much doubt that JBR would have said anything to PR about this. I also doubt that JBR said anything to Melinda. Melinda has been very adamant about defending her father and her family. And she does seem like the kind of person who might have tried to do the right thing. Perhaps this is why as I believe, she did not share the same experience as her two siblings ER and JAR.

I do think what happened to JBR on that fateful night was accidental. And I think that JR had let someone else in the house that night and whoever this person was /is most likely went overboard with EA. Panic ensued and they initiated the cover up. PR at some point became aware, perhaps by JBR's scream that a neighbor heard. She would have been furious, but also recognized the need for a cover up. JR likely to a certain extent blackmailed her into writing the RN along with assisting with the cover up. And while the RN absolutely points to PR and to some extent incriminates her, some of what is said in the note also reveals an anger and contempt for JR. They staged JBR's body in the basement along with the suitcase. An interesting side note is that the Dr. Suess book that was found in the suitcase is actually a book written for adults, not children. It would be interesting to know if they were aware that the book and the blanket with JAR's semen on it were in the suitcase. JAR most likely did have a key to the house, but it was proven that he was not in Colorado when this occurred. By the time of the murders, JR and LR had been divorced for almost 18 years. She had remarried. I doubt very much that anyone was under any delusion that JR and LR would reunite. Both MR and JAR enjoyed time with JR and he was not neglecting them financially. And very doubtful that he would leave them out of any will. Getting him back with LR would serve no purpose.

If JR had intended to dispose of the body, why didn't he? He had all night in order to do so. More likely the suitcase was planted there to look as if the "intruder" needed it to help climb out the window, or for that person to dispose of the body. But why didn't they? Instead we are to believe that the "intruder" after killing JBR takes the time to pen the ridiculously long RN, putting themselves at more risk of someone waking up and finding them there, leaves behind the note and the body, which surely he would have taken and disposed of if he really wanted $$$ for a kidnapping. It makes no sense. If that was premeditated, someone didn't have their thinking cap screwed on very well.

There is also still debate as to when the head injury occurred. There was internal bleeding found, so the experts disagree as to if the blow to the head came first or after she was strangled. What makes the most sense to me is that she was struggling with her abuser(s) and she screamed. She then was hit in the head to subdue her and shut her up. I don't think it was intended for her to die. JR and PR wanted to continue to play perfect, happy family. But playing with EA is dangerous, especially with a child.

Patsy wasn't framed, per se. But JR made sure she was implicated because he knew that LE would look at the parents first. He wanted to make sure she stayed team JR instead of turning against him. And he rightly judged who she was because she was much the same as he was.....more concerned about appearances and maintaining social status than either one of them were about the lives and well being of their own children. Ironically, in the end it all backfired. They put themselves under suspicion by refusing to cooperate with LE, didn't listen to the advice of friends who told them they needed to cooperate, and threw all those friends under the bus thereby ensuring their own ostracization from that very society. The business had to be sold, the money and privilege were gone.

I want to underscore here that this is just my opinion. Obviously everyone has their own opinion about what happened and who might be guilty or not.
 
CloudedTruth said:
Respectfully, while you raise some interesting points here, I do disagree that the murder was premeditated. If it had been, I would think that they would / could have done a much better job of covering it up. Instead, it was a jumbled, chaotic mess that made little sense and had to rely heavily on LE making a lot of mistakes early on and throughout the investigation.

I do agree that JB was being molested, and it's very likely that BR was too. It is my belief that this was a pattern of behavior for JR that may very well have been a reason, if not the reason for the divorce from wife #1. Of course there are also indications that he cheated on Lucinda. The whole scenario with the first daughter Elizabeth and JR's seeming obsession with her leads me to think that she was also molested. And I think that perhaps JAR was being groomed in his father's footsteps. I think BR may have been too young at the time to be groomed, but there was definitely something going on there and I'm betting that grooming may have been in his future. The bed wetting by both kids seems to point to abuse. And in BR's case, his history of scatolia certainly points to issues.

I think that JR was a very smart and manipulative man who may have gotten in over his head with certain associations in order to promote his business aspirations and fit in with the Boulder community. Witness accounts from various persons who worked for the R's in the house report that he was very caught up and preoccupied with his work. He was absent a lot. We also know that PR was very ill for some time and for her immunity had to be isolated from the rest of the family.This likely put a lot of strain on the marital relationship. And it also meant that when JR was home, time spent with the kids would have been without PR around. Opportunity.

At some point PR's cancer goes into remission and she is back spending more time with the kids, at least JBR. I found interviews with the housekeeper very interesting as to what the family dynamic was at that time. She describes a household busy with activities for the kids, this is the period that PR and JBR become really involved in the pageant stuff. BR has a good circle of friends and he spends a lot of time hanging out with them. JBR does not have that many friends, although she is described as the most outgoing. She occasionally sleeps over at Daphne White's house (Fleet & Priscilla's daughter) but JBR never reciprocates with Daphne or anyone else with a sleepover at the R's house. The relationship between JR and PR is described as distant, almost transactional. As if PR were more like a secretary than a wife. And while the relationship between mother and daughter has been described as "close", I see some signs there that point to that not necessarily being true. PR had definite ideas about how she wanted things to look to those looking in on the R family. JBR had a bit of a rebellious streak and was starting to exert herself more as to what she wanted to wear, regardless of what PR thought she should wear. PR at one point admits that JBR is really a tomboy at heart, the whole pageant thing was PR's attempt to regain those days when that was her thing, and it feels very much like it was somewhat forced upon JBR. It would be interesting to see had she lived, if she would have started to push back on that. But I digress. I think that PR at some point must've guessed that JR was abusing at least JBR, but she didn't want to rock the boat and lose her breadwinner or her societal status. So she kept quiet, as far as we know. But all of the doctor visits for JBR must have been at the very least troubling, if not a big clue. I very much doubt that JBR would have said anything to PR about this. I also doubt that JBR said anything to Melinda. Melinda has been very adamant about defending her father and her family. And she does seem like the kind of person who might have tried to do the right thing. Perhaps this is why as I believe, she did not share the same experience as her two siblings ER and JAR.

I do think what happened to JBR on that fateful night was accidental. And I think that JR had let someone else in the house that night and whoever this person was /is most likely went overboard with EA. Panic ensued and they initiated the cover up. PR at some point became aware, perhaps by JBR's scream that a neighbor heard. She would have been furious, but also recognized the need for a cover up. JR likely to a certain extent blackmailed her into writing the RN along with assisting with the cover up. And while the RN absolutely points to PR and to some extent incriminates her, some of what is said in the note also reveals an anger and contempt for JR. They staged JBR's body in the basement along with the suitcase. An interesting side note is that the Dr. Suess book that was found in the suitcase is actually a book written for adults, not children. It would be interesting to know if they were aware that the book and the blanket with JAR's semen on it were in the suitcase. JAR most likely did have a key to the house, but it was proven that he was not in Colorado when this occurred. By the time of the murders, JR and LR had been divorced for almost 18 years. She had remarried. I doubt very much that anyone was under any delusion that JR and LR would reunite. Both MR and JAR enjoyed time with JR and he was not neglecting them financially. And very doubtful that he would leave them out of any will. Getting him back with LR would serve no purpose.

If JR had intended to dispose of the body, why didn't he? He had all night in order to do so. More likely the suitcase was planted there to look as if the "intruder" needed it to help climb out the window, or for that person to dispose of the body. But why didn't they? Instead we are to believe that the "intruder" after killing JBR takes the time to pen the ridiculously long RN, putting themselves at more risk of someone waking up and finding them there, leaves behind the note and the body, which surely he would have taken and disposed of if he really wanted $$$ for a kidnapping. It makes no sense. If that was premeditated, someone didn't have their thinking cap screwed on very well.

There is also still debate as to when the head injury occurred. There was internal bleeding found, so the experts disagree as to if the blow to the head came first or after she was strangled. What makes the most sense to me is that she was struggling with her abuser(s) and she screamed. She then was hit in the head to subdue her and shut her up. I don't think it was intended for her to die. JR and PR wanted to continue to play perfect, happy family. But playing with EA is dangerous, especially with a child.

Patsy wasn't framed, per se. But JR made sure she was implicated because he knew that LE would look at the parents first. He wanted to make sure she stayed team JR instead of turning against him. And he rightly judged who she was because she was much the same as he was.....more concerned about appearances and maintaining social status than either one of them were about the lives and well being of their own children. Ironically, in the end it all backfired. They put themselves under suspicion by refusing to cooperate with LE, didn't listen to the advice of friends who told them they needed to cooperate, and threw all those friends under the bus thereby ensuring their own ostracization from that very society. The business had to be sold, the money and privilege were gone.

I want to underscore here that this is just my opinion. Obviously everyone has their own opinion about what happened and who might be guilty or not.
Click to expand...
Based on this post, I think @Googlebutts seems to have been right to guess EA stands for ”erotic asphyxiation.” I guess that term’s relevance in this case relates to the garrote.
 
Yes. AKA the choking game. I think it could be significant that a garrot was used. Either to prevent the possibility of hand/fingerprints being left on the neck, or as part of “the game”. Garroting was a popular method of carrying out death sentences during the crusades. Apparently if done correctly it can lessen the time needed for death to occur by strangulation. But placement is more specific than using one’s hands, or so I’ve read. It could I suppose be considered more exotic than just hands, hence enhancing the erotica for the user?
 
Tricia said:
A couple of weeks ago I attempted to have a mature conversation (on Twitter under the name Websleuths) about the evidence in the Ramsey case with JonBenet's older half-brother John Andrew Ramsey.

Via a tagged tweet from Websleuths I invited him to listen to our live stream with Cina Wong and I pointed out how many matches Ms. Wong made between Patsy's writing and the writing of the ransom note.

Cina Wong is a very well respected and professionally recognized handwriting expert who has testified in over 65 court cases.

In response to my tweets John Andrew blocked me, called me a troll, and proceeded to attempt to attack Cina Wong and her credentials in a very immature manner.

John Andrew tweeted and asked if Cina Wong knew Henry Lee. WTH?
It never occurred to me the obvious reason for asking this question. There is only one reason why he would say this. Think about it.

I am posting here the responses to John Andrews's accusations about Cina Wong. If you have any trouble following what is going on please post your questions.

These same screenshots will be tweeted out by Websleuths and we will make John Andrew aware of these answers if he is curious to know the truth.

JAR's behavior is so disappointing. He is acting like a spoiled rich kid frat boy.

Please take a look at the tweets and responses.

Tricia
PS. I did make a crack about Lin Wood when JAR tweeted he would record my stream and send it to "Lin". "GOOD" I replied then suggested that perhaps the intruder also stole the election. That is my part but hey, using Lin Wood as a threat opens one's self up to these types of answers.
Click to expand...
Hi!!!
I am so glad JPR responded. His tone and veracity, or whomever responded for him, is very similar to numerous comments posted on various sights included in JBR content. He has a right to do so, of course, - but I always keep in mind the blue suitcase in the basement, its contents and subsequent forensic results, and the seeming dismissal about any direct relevance to the case.
Over the years there have been many comments around JR and PR efforts to protect their son, their family. My conclusion is that they are protecting their secret(s). And despite the heroic efforts of the earnest law enforcement officials, perhaps they were facing the secrets of members of their government and community. Not to imply grand conspiracy here, but a whole lot of something ain’t right….
I look forward to your channel content. So very grateful to the community you have built and maintained. Thank you!
 
ScotchRabbit said:
Hi!!!
I am so glad JPR responded. His tone and veracity, or whomever responded for him, is very similar to numerous comments posted on various sights included in JBR content. He has a right to do so, of course, - but I always keep in mind the blue suitcase in the basement, its contents and subsequent forensic results, and the seeming dismissal about any direct relevance to the case.
Over the years there have been many comments around JR and PR efforts to protect their son, their family. My conclusion is that they are protecting their secret(s). And despite the heroic efforts of the earnest law enforcement officials, perhaps they were facing the secrets of members of their government and community. Not to imply grand conspiracy here, but a whole lot of something ain’t right….
I look forward to your channel content. So very grateful to the community you have built and maintained. Thank you!
Click to expand...
Given the prominent and powerful figures who were involved in Team R, from lawyers to PR folks, etc. I do not think it's a stretch to think that the protection of secrets beyond the family may have been at play here. The comment "a whole lot of something ain't right" is spot on. Something is rotten in Denmark......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 133 more.
Total: 3,551 (members: 134, guests: 3,417)

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
3,417
Total visitors
3,551
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,567
Messages
17,971,143
Members
228,818
Latest member
TheMidge
Back
Top