JonBenet's bond with Patsy

[BrotherMoon]

Oh, come on, BrotherMoon. Just because Maxi's not here anymore doesn't mean you should feel free to ridicule other posters. Disagreeing is one thing, but ridiculing is another. Do you want the JBR forum to end up a war zone like some other forums here at WS? I don't.

IMO

Better that than a junior high school girl's clique. :blowkiss:

 

[BrotherMoon]

Sounds like Christian logic to me...

How so?

 

[Blazeboy3]

Patsy might have been one who needed HER mother's approval to validate her (Patsy's) self worth. In order for JB to be accepted, for lack of a better word, by Nedra, Patsy might have been trying to control how JB appeared to Nedra. There's a book called "My Mother, Myself", an interesting read. JMO

Imon128...IMHO Patsy did need approval from anyone because of the loss in the pagents (and the reminder of such in her "early" in her 40th birthday) ... still can't figure out why it was "early." I've read the above-referenced book and it's a must-read IMHO it helped me appreciate/communicate with my mother.

 

[BlueCrab]

Hey Bluecrab - can you identify some of the lying and covering up that has gone on to protect Burke? I believe there has been too - but perhaps you could elaborate.
Thanks.

Angel, you know a book could be written just on the lying and covering up that went on to try to make Burke look innocent. Here's a few examples:

1. The Ramseys lied to the 911 dispatcher at 5:52 A.M. about Burke being in bed asleep in an early effort to distant him from the crime.

2. Burke was given his own personal attorney.

3. The Ramseys, by using the threat to sue anyone who suggests Burke killed JonBenet, erected an "umbrella of intimidation" over everyone on earth.

4. The religious Ramseys were asked by Steve Thomas "Without confession, there is no forgiveness. Do you think God will forgive the person who did this?" The Ramsey's response: "That's up to God". So the Ramseys don't believe the killer needs to confess, not even to be forgiven by God.

5. John and Patsy each agree they wouldn't cover for the other spouse but have a forgiving perspective when it comes to a child. John: "It's a tougher question to think through". IOW, they would at least consider a coverup if they knew Burke had killed JonBenet.

6. During a deposition in 1998 John Ramsey was asked under oath to name his friends. He provided the list, but it didn't include Glen and Susan Stine. Even though the Ramseys had lived with the Stines for 5 months following JonBenet's death, and the Stines were the Ramseys biggest defenders, and the Ramseys and the Stines went together on social trips out of town before and after the murder, and the Stines were the last people to see the Ramsey family that night when the Ramseys stopped by to leave off a Christmas gift, and Burke and Doug were best friends, and the Stines pulled up stakes to leave home and jobs behind and followed the Ramseys to Georgia -- John nevertheless left the Stines OFF his list of friends. John was obviously lying and covering up a strong link between the Ramseys and the Stines so as to short circuit any follow-up questions linking Burke and Doug as best friends. Why else would John lie?

7. The lie detector examinations the Ramseys passed in 2000 included the seemingly unnecessary term "for sure" in the wording of the specially formulated questions asked. It suggests the Ramseys could know there was more than one person involved in the murder, but didn't know "for sure" which one was the actual killer because Burke had never told them, and they really didn't want to know the truth. This would allow them to pass the "for sure" test without showing deception.

JMO

 

[Toltec]

...Oedipal conflicts occur around age 5-6...JonBenet's age. I'm pretty sure JonBenet has told her Daddy once or twice that she is going to marry him. Mother Patsy is the enemy and must be eliminated, hence the "riffs" and kicking of the shins.

Patsy told LE that JonBenet did not want to wear the red turtleneck because in her own words..."And she didn't want to wear the red shirt just because I was wearing it.."

Sounds to me that JonBenet was no longer "little Patsy"...but a child who was becoming independent. No "MY TWINN DOLLS"...No "DRESS-ALIKE".

JonBenet was becoming JonBenet.

 

[Eagle1]

Clearly, JonBenet was feeling "I've Gotta Be Me".

But if she were a teacher w/ a master's, would she still be on guard like that against Patsy's absorbing her? Maybe.

 

[Honeybee]

I somehow missed where the Ramseys told the 911 dispatcher that Burke was asleep. Could you point out where I can find that particular bit? Thanks.

 

[Shylock]

I somehow missed where the Ramseys told the 911 dispatcher that Burke was asleep. Could you point out where I can find that particular bit? Thanks.

They didn't tell the 911 dispatcher. They told the police who arrived at the house shortly after the call that Burke was sleeping and hadn't gotten up yet. The 911 tape proves otherwise because a third voice can be heard in the background. If it isn't Burke, then the intruder stayed for coffee and some of Patsy's famous pancakes (topped with fresh pineapple of course!)...

 

[philamena]

Bluecrab,
great post with great info.

 

[BlueCrab]

I somehow missed where the Ramseys told the 911 dispatcher that Burke was asleep. Could you point out where I can find that particular bit? Thanks.

You are right. I phrased it wrong. The 911 call proved the Ramseys were lying when they told the cops Burke was asleep in bed during the 911 call. The statement that he was in bed asleep was not made during the 911 call; it was made by John after the cops got to the house, and during separate interviews later by all three Ramseys -- John, Patsy, and Burke -- before the cops let them know they had Burke's voice on the 911 tape. The police let all three Ramseys contradict themselves before informing them about the enhanced tape.

JMO

 

[DocWatson]

Angel, you know a book could be written just on the lying and covering up that went on to try to make Burke look innocent. Here's a few examples:

1. The Ramseys lied to the 911 dispatcher at 5:52 A.M. about Burke being in bed asleep in an early effort to distant him from the crime.

This is a fiercely disputed point. Steve Thomas claims this is true, but he also asserts many things that you yourself find ridiculous (e.g., PDI). There are very solid scientific reasons for believing the alleged voices at the end of the tape are nothing more than mechanical sounds.

2. Burke was given his own personal attorney.

This is no proof of a cover-up. On the contrary, it might just as easily be viewed as proof that Ramseys had nothing to hide since they would have much less control over an attorney hired to defend Burke's interests even if these ran counter to those of the parents. A simple counterfactual will suffice: had Ramseys used the same attorney to represent everyone's interests, you would have pointed to THIS as evidence of cover-up on grounds that it proved they were trying to "control" the story and make certain everyone was on the same page.

3. The Ramseys, by using the threat to sue anyone who suggests Burke killed JonBenet, erected an "umbrella of intimidation" over everyone on earth.

This too is not proof of cover-up, since presumably even completely innnocent parents also would have been motivated to go after individuals who shamefully and shamelessly were promoting BDI theories without a single shred of evidence to support them. The fact that Ramseys have won EVERY SINGLE SUIT SO FILED should tell us a great deal about where the "weight of the evidence" actually lies in this case.

4. The religious Ramseys were asked by Steve Thomas "Without confession, there is no forgiveness. Do you think God will forgive the person who did this?" The Ramsey's response: "That's up to God". So the Ramseys don't believe the killer needs to confess, not even to be forgiven by God..

This in no way is proof of coverup. If you polled the average American on this question, you might discover millions who agree with Ramseys on this point: does that make them complicit in a cover-up?

5. John and Patsy each agree they wouldn't cover for the other spouse but have a forgiving perspective when it comes to a child. John: "It's a tougher question to think through". IOW, they would at least consider a coverup if they knew Burke had killed JonBenet..

This in no way is proof of coverup. If you polled the average American parent on this question, you might again discover millions who agree with Ramseys on this point: does that make them complicit in a cover-up?

6. During a deposition in 1998 John Ramsey was asked under oath to name his friends. He provided the list, but it didn't include Glen and Susan Stine. Even though the Ramseys had lived with the Stines for 5 months following JonBenet's death, and the Stines were the Ramseys biggest defenders, and the Ramseys and the Stines went together on social trips out of town before and after the murder, and the Stines were the last people to see the Ramsey family that night when the Ramseys stopped by to leave off a Christmas gift, and Burke and Doug were best friends, and the Stines pulled up stakes to leave home and jobs behind and followed the Ramseys to Georgia -- John nevertheless left the Stines OFF his list of friends. John was obviously lying and covering up a strong link between the Ramseys and the Stines so as to short circuit any follow-up questions linking Burke and Doug as best friends. Why else would John lie?.

Well I guess this transparent effort at covering up the "strong link" failed pretty miserably, didn't it? It's pretty obvious that John himself DIDN'T view Stines as good friends. I know lots of married couples who might spend lots of time with each other because the SPOUSES are friendly but in which the males wouldn't list each other as good friends. This "evidence" actually proves the opposite of your claim. According to your theory, John "lawyered up" and was carefully coached before daring to submit to police questioning. But since all this background info relating Stines to Ramseys already had seen PLENTY of press play by the time John finally was deposed in 1998, wouldn't any good lawyer caution John AGAINST such a transparent effort to create "distance"? The mere fact of leaving Stines off such a list might invite suspicion (just as it did you!). It's quite clear that John either answered forthrightly (from his own perspective--which might well differ from Patsy's--Stines were not HIS good friends) or he inadvertently forgot about including them (think about it: if you were asked this question on the spot out of the blue and then we all got to "Monday morning quarterback" about it, don't you think there's at least one person you might inadvertently leave off the list?). In either case, this behavior would be exculpatory rather than incriminatory. The fact that you "filter" information such as this only in the direction of your own favorite theory of cover-up suggests just how strongly biased you are in this case.

7. The lie detector examinations the Ramseys passed in 2000 included the seemingly unnecessary term "for sure" in the wording of the specially formulated questions asked. It suggests the Ramseys could know there was more than one person involved in the murder, but didn't know "for sure" which one was the actual killer because Burke had never told them, and they really didn't want to know the truth. This would allow them to pass the "for sure" test without showing deception..

Think about this for a minute. According to your theory, the Ramseys embarked on an irreversible lifelong path of cover-up and potential obstruction of justice on behalf of their son, knowing he was implicated in the death of their own beloved daughter. And they don't want to KNOW the truth????? Get real. ESPECIALLY if there were others involved, they would desperately want to know the truth. For all they knew, the "fifth man" might break and spill the beans 2 years later, at which point they might be in severe legal jeopardy for having misled investigators about what they knew and when they knew it. What rational parents would go down that road with a blindfold on, ESPECIALLY if they were wealthy enough to "lawyer up" and get the strongest possible advice against that path? The reality is, if your theory were true--a 20-something either "induced" some 9-year olds into letting him sexually assault and kill JBR (whether through malevolence or AEA game gone awry scarcely matters)--the parents would have had means, motive and opportunity to NAIL that perp, revealing Burke to be the innocent victim of that adult's twisted taking advantage of a 9-year old. Doing so would have gotten the police off their backs and would have led to an outpouring of public sympathy for their plight. Instead, according to your logic, they have settled for their current state of hell in which technically they are regarded as innocent, but literally millions of Americans are convinced they somehow are involved. Makes NO logical sense.

 

[Shylock]

There are very solid scientific reasons for believing the alleged voices at the end of the tape are nothing more than mechanical sounds.

"Solid scientific reasons"? Give us a break! That's nothing but a bunch of nonsense invented by some yahoo poster over on the swamp who refuses to post anywhere else where his crap can be challenged.

How gullible can people be--"mechanical sounds" that just happen to immitate a female voice of a person who is KNOWN to call out to Jesus for help?...yeah, right. What's next, mechanical sounds reciting the Gettysburg Address?...ROFL!

Anyone with ears and a decent sound system can now hear Patsy's "help me jesus" cries, thanks to Keenan releasing the version on CD. They can also hear the 4-second gap following Patsy's voice where John and Burke's voices were redacted.

Burke was up that morning during the 911 call. The Ramseys lied about it. LE knows it, the DA knows it, and WE know it.

 

[TLynn]

Actually, the Ramseys now admit Burke was awake (since he revealed it) - and that they didn't know. :doh:

Can you imagine your daughter missing from the house and not waking up your son to ask if he heard or saw anything...?!

And just why was Burke pretending to be asleep (according to him)?

I'm not sure if Burke was involved or not - but he's certainly suspect as he was in the house. And, I don't think ST was so absurd with his PDI theory - somebody did it and Patsy's all over that crime.

 

[BlueCrab]

There are very solid scientific reasons for believing the alleged voices at the end of the tape are nothing more than mechanical sounds.

And there are solid scientific reasons for believing there is the voice of Burke Ramsey on the 911 tape. Aerospace Corporation engineers Mike Epstein and Jim Roeder and BPD detective Melissa Hickman heard Burke's voice on the enhanced tape while still at El Segundo, California; and so did many detectives and other authorities in Boulder, including a judge, hear Burke's voice on the tape when the tape was brought home.

Once the court turned over a copy of the tape to Burke Ramsey prior to his grand jury testimony, the reasonable chain of custody ended. Lord only knows what tampering of the tape went on after that.

JMO

 

[Shylock]

Can you imagine your daughter missing from the house and not waking up your son to ask if he heard or saw anything...?!
And just why was Burke pretending to be asleep (according to him)?

No, I can't imagine them not waking up Burke to ask if he heard anything.

But more importantly, I just can't imagine a 10 year old, laying there in bed listening to all that commotion, and not getting up to see what was going on.
Remember it was Christmas--Why would a kid not think the voices downstairs were relatives or friends who might have gifts for him?

Too many things about the Ramsey story just defy normal logic.

 

[TLynn]

Too many things about the Ramsey story just defy normal logic.

And there you have it!

 

[BlueCrab]

No, I can't imagine them not waking up Burke to ask if he heard anything.

But more importantly, I just can't imagine a 10 year old, laying there in bed listening to all that commotion, and not getting up to see what was going on.
Remember it was Christmas--Why would a kid not think the voices downstairs were relatives or friends who might have gifts for him?

Too many things about the Ramsey story just defy normal logic.

And can you imagine not searching the house, including the basement and outside, before calling 911? With a six-year-old missing, every second counted. She could be suffocating or freezing to death. OF COURSE they searched the house!

The truth of the matter is they DID search the house, just like you, me, and everyone else would have done. And if they searched the house then they had to have found JonBenet, and that would have been LONG before, probably more than an hour before, they placed the 911 call.

That's why John was already madder than hell at Burke during the 911 call.

JMO

 

[SisterSocks]

Too many things about the Ramsey story just defy normal logic.

And there you have it!

Good point Tlynn---- Thats one reason I'm still fence sitting ...
Socks

 

[Toltec]

First reaction for a boy that age who hears screams is to get out of bed and find Mommy and Daddy. No way, now how is Burke going to stay in bed pretending to be asleep.

I've read this portion of the NE tapes and maybe I am interpreting it wrong, but is Patsy referring to Burke when she talks about "he was by the phone?"

...I ran upstairs, and I think-I think-I-I can't remember if-I think asked him to check on Burke, one of us checked on Burke, and I just remember seeing him at the phone, trying to-and then I looked down and John came down...

 

[TLynn]

Sounds like she meant "John" at the phone, tried to... while she went to check on Burke.

However, "John came down" would mean from the 3rd story bedroom...? Making it Burke on the phone.

Either way, was someone on the phone...before 911?