"Listen Carefully..." New Book About the JBR Case Featuring WS and FFJ Members

New Posts

BoldBear said:
That was confusing to me as well. I actually stayed on thread topic for a change. This is about how Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case is referring to the 1st floor study. The book is by Cherokee and is the 2016 update of his 2003 work. I thought he was mistaken. Patsy was taken to the 1st floor study because it had a sofa and she could lay down. LA corralled everyone in that study. It wouldn't make sense if the body was placed under the tree and Patsy was in the sun room at the front of the house. Patsy would only be a few feet away from the body. No one would have needed to yell that they found the body because Patsy would have only been a few feet away. Cherokee is referring to the 1st floor study as a solarium.

When the body was found, Patsy was at the back of the house in the 1st floor study where they all should have been. John and Fleet went to the basement. Doug Stein stayed on the first floor and didn't follow John and Fleet into the basement. Reverend Holverstock was in the kitchen making tea. LA was on the 1st floor somewhere near the entry of the house. Everyone else was in the 1st floor study.

"Inexplicably, Patsy Ramsey remained in the solarium. Despite people yelling that JonBenét had been found, she sat motionless for several minutes."

Guild, True Crime Detectives. Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case (Kindle Locations 413-414). ALLFORONE. Kindle Edition.
Click to expand...

Doug Stein? Was he a victims advocate? Clearly you don't mean Doug Stine.


cottonstar
 
BoldBear said:
That was confusing to me as well. I actually stayed on thread topic for a change. This is about how Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case is referring to the 1st floor study. The book is by Cherokee and is the 2016 update of his 2003 work. I thought he was mistaken. Patsy was taken to the 1st floor study because it had a sofa and she could lay down. LA corralled everyone in that study. It wouldn't make sense if the body was placed under the tree and Patsy was in the sun room at the front of the house. Patsy would only be a few feet away from the body. No one would have needed to yell that they found the body because Patsy would have only been a few feet away. Cherokee is referring to the 1st floor study as a solarium.

When the body was found, Patsy was at the back of the house in the 1st floor study where they all should have been. John and Fleet went to the basement. Doug Stein stayed on the first floor and didn't follow John and Fleet into the basement. Reverend Holverstock was in the kitchen making tea. LA was on the 1st floor somewhere near the entry of the house. Everyone else was in the 1st floor study.

"Inexplicably, Patsy Ramsey remained in the solarium. Despite people yelling that JonBenét had been found, she sat motionless for several minutes."

Guild, True Crime Detectives. Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case (Kindle Locations 413-414). ALLFORONE. Kindle Edition.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's confusing. I believe the 'study' is also known as the den and the solarium. I’ve seen the room adjacent to the living room referenced as the sun room. Thus the confusion. Possibly JR’s study was originally titled the solarium on architectural plans. Anyway, ty, you've clarified the location of where the friends and Patsy were. This is also in agreement with LA during dialog with Katie Couric -
Arndt: "John was next to JonBenét and, he did, uh, I guess his good-bye. And, uh, I heard, a wail, just a guttural, moan, aching wail from the back area. And, it was, uh, probably one of the most pitiful things I've heard and anguished. And I saw the rest of the people; Patsy and the pastor and the four friends, come from the den towards the living room. And, there's just so much, there's so much pain. (long pause) And tears, and noise"

BTW, there's one small correction in your excellent post. The forward of the book “Listen Carefully” only states that the chapter on the Ransom Note was derived/included, by permission, from Cherokee’s work . My understanding from the Amazon authors page is that the Detectives Guild includes the work of investigators from different disciplines. IIRC, that is what was verified in Tricia’s podcast.

(DS is the son of SS and GS. JF (Fernie) was the friend who did not follow JR and FW to the basement.)
 
Oh, hell. This does look like an error on Cherokee's part. At the start of chapter 4.

"1. John was not seen at any time going near Patsy, or comforting her, from the time police entered the Ramsey house after the 911 call to when the Ramseys left that afternoon. Patsy sat in an overstuffed chair in the sunroom, sobbing."

Guild, True Crime Detectives. Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case (Kindle Locations 1242-1243). ALLFORONE. Kindle Edition.

She didn't stay in the sun room all of that time.
 
BoldBear said:
Oh, hell. This does look like an error on Cherokee's part. At the start of chapter 4.

"1. John was not seen at any time going near Patsy, or comforting her, from the time police entered the Ramsey house after the 911 call to when the Ramseys left that afternoon. Patsy sat in an overstuffed chair in the sunroom, sobbing."

Guild, True Crime Detectives. Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case (Kindle Locations 1242-1243). ALLFORONE. Kindle Edition.

She didn't stay in the sun room all of that time.
Click to expand...

From that sentence, I don’t know that the implication is that she was in the sunroom all that morning, but it’s not explicitly stated that that is where she settled after seeing JB’s body. Schiller claims Patsy was hyperventilating and vomiting in the study. Kolar says that according to French she was crying throughout the morning. (But French left the premises at one point in the morning.) What seems apparent, to me anyway, is that Patsy and friends were in the den and moved into the living room when JB’s body was placed by the tree. Then we have the scene of her raising her arms for Jesus. She may have just settled in the sunroom where she continued to sob, instead of returning to the study.

On another topic which perhaps should go into another thread, but since I wanted you to look at it, I’m posting it here. It’s another conundrum I’m not sure how to understand. You’ve heard the story of the My Twinn Doll and how JB was not very impressed with it. Patsy even used it to give an example of a premonition of JB’s death, that it was lying in the box with its eyes closed. (Untrue, btw, the My Twinn Doll eyes are produced with eyes open.) In DOI, Patsy relates that the doll was underneath the tree, and she asked her sister PP to bring it to her.

PP, iirc, was kept out of the basement because it was the crime scene. So as I was looking at photos I was startled by this one. I’ve asked a couple of other posters their opinion before bringing this here. It looks as though the My Twinn Doll was tossed into the wc and BPD took a photo of it. (This BPD photo found in PW book.) Then it looks as though it was shoved in a heap with the old bicycle of BR’s. Maybe I’m imagining that this is the My Twinn Doll. Bloody h**l, maybe I’m imagining that it contributes anything at all, since we already know that Patsy was a drama queen and they lied (lots). Thoughts?

winecellar2ab.jpg

wcsnip2.jpg
 
questfortrue said:
From that sentence, I don’t know that the implication is that she was in the sunroom all that morning, but it’s not explicitly stated that that is where she settled after seeing JB’s body. Schiller claims Patsy was hyperventilating and vomiting in the study. Kolar says that according to French she was crying throughout the morning. (But French left the premises at one point in the morning.) What seems apparent, to me anyway, is that Patsy and friends were in the den and moved into the living room when JB’s body was placed by the tree. Then we have the scene of her raising her arms for Jesus. She may have just settled in the sunroom where she continued to sob, instead of returning to the study.

On another topic which perhaps should go into another thread, but since I wanted you to look at it, I’m posting it here. It’s another conundrum I’m not sure how to understand. You’ve heard the story of the My Twinn Doll and how JB was not very impressed with it. Patsy even used it to give an example of a premonition of JB’s death, that it was lying in the box with its eyes closed. (Untrue, btw, the My Twinn Doll eyes are produced with eyes open.) In DOI, Patsy relates that the doll was underneath the tree, and she asked her sister PP to bring it to her.

PP, iirc, was kept out of the basement because it was the crime scene. So as I was looking at photos I was startled by this one. I’ve asked a couple of other posters their opinion before bringing this here. It looks as though the My Twinn Doll was tossed into the wc and BPD took a photo of it. (This BPD photo found in PW book.) Then it looks as though it was shoved in a heap with the old bicycle of BR’s. Maybe I’m imagining that this is the My Twinn Doll. Bloody h**l, maybe I’m imagining that it contributes anything at all, since we already know that Patsy was a drama queen and they lied (lots). Thoughts?

View attachment 111574

View attachment 111577
Click to expand...

I guess I have hard time seeing a doll in these pictures


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
^ I still don't see a doll either; it just looks like a ripped-open bag to me.
 
The linguistic analysis says that southerners are more likely to "bring" something to the bank than northerners who would ordinarily "take" it there. (Paraphrasing here.) Just wondering what the evidence for that is.

I realize that the words have different connotations. For instance, I told my daughter to be sure to bring her ID to the bank, but I probably take my checks there. I'm from the midwest so that must explain it.
 
fr brown said:
The linguistic analysis says that southerners are more likely to "bring" something to the bank than northerners who would ordinarily "take" it there. (Paraphrasing here.) Just wondering what the evidence for that is.

I realize that the words have different connotations. For instance, I told my daughter to be sure to bring her ID to the bank, but I probably take my checks there. I'm from the midwest so that must explain it.
Click to expand...
It's funny because I have a reaction to this statement by JR on Barbara Walters -

"Her hands were tightly bound, I couldn't get the knotuntied, I tried to get it untied, even before I brought her upstairs,"

There is a slight nuance I can't say I have ever really thought too much about, so usage is more instinctual. I think if I tried to explain it it would be something like bringing is more of an act of personal giving or delivering than taking is. I think he should have said before I took her upstairs. But it's one of those things that you can question if it is really so. Does it mean he had more of a relationship with the fact of her being there, than taking her would?
 
Tortoise said:
It's funny because I have a reaction to this statement by JR on Barbara Walters -

"Her hands were tightly bound, I couldn't get the knot untied, I tried to get it untied, even before I brought her upstairs,"

There is a slight nuance I can't say I have ever really thought too much about, so usage is more instinctual. I think if I tried to explain it it would be something like bringing is more of an act of personal giving or delivering than taking is. I think he should have said before I took her upstairs. But it's one of those things that you can question if it is really so. Does it mean he had more of a relationship with the fact of her being there, than taking her would?
Click to expand...


"I took her upstairs" sounds harsh and disrespectful to my ear, like she's an object. That being said, there are some instances when "take" would be bizarre. If we were together in a room and I asked you to take me the salt, you would probably take me to the hospital. Or maybe you would bring me.
 
fr brown said:
The linguistic analysis says that southerners are more likely to "bring" something to the bank than northerners who would ordinarily "take" it there. (Paraphrasing here.) Just wondering what the evidence for that is.

I realize that the words have different connotations. For instance, I told my daughter to be sure to bring her ID to the bank, but I would probably take my checks there. I'm from the midwest so that must explain it.
Click to expand...


The book refers the reader to five linguists, two of whom, Cassidy and Hall, are editors of the "Dictionary of American Regional English" so I checked out the entry there for "bring."

From what I can tell, the "substitution/confusion" of "bring" for "take" is primarily in Louisiana (as far as the South is concerned). I checked the other linguists' works as far as I was able and didn't find support for the book's contention about "bring" and "take." What am I missing?
 
Editor for a living here. The proper uses of all tenses of bring and take depend on the point of view of the narrator or person whose "scene" is being described. "Jamie asked George to take her to the hospital. George, having brought Jamie to the hospital, sat in the waiting room nervously reading magazines.") There is no issue of animate versus inanimate. JR standing in the cellar with JBR in his arms would be about to take her upstairs. JR in the living room (or remembering the event from that point of view) would correctly say he brought her there. The easiest way to remember which is correct is "take to, bring from."
 
887sMtreme said:
Editor for a living here. The proper uses of all tenses of bring and take depend on the point of view of the narrator or person whose "scene" is being described. "Jamie asked George to take her to the hospital. George, having brought Jamie to the hospital, sat in the waiting room nervously reading magazines.") There is no issue of animate versus inanimate. JR standing in the cellar with JBR in his arms would be about to take her upstairs. JR in the living room (or remembering the event from that point of view) would correctly say he brought her there. The easiest way to remember which is correct is "take to, bring from."
Click to expand...

Webster's Dictionary of English Usage would comment on your comment thus:

"Bring, take. Although one would imagine that most native speakers of English have mastered the directional complexities of 'bring' and 'take' by the time they are old enough to read, a surprisingly large number of usage commentators have felt it incumbent upon themselves to explain this subtlety to adults. The basic point they make is this: 'bring' implies movement toward the speaker and 'take' implies movement away. It is a point well made, and it holds for all cases to which it applies. It does not, alas, apply to all cases of actual use of these verbs, and hence the commentators' despair....Conclusion: a native speaker of English will hardly ever misuse 'bring' or 'take'; the problem exists in the minds of usage commentators, who have formulated incomplete rules for the use of 'bring.' The non-native speaker can easily follow the commentators' simple rules...."
 
fr brown said:
Webster's Dictionary of English Usage would comment on your comment thus:

"Bring, take. Although one would imagine that most native speakers of English have mastered the directional complexities of 'bring' and 'take' by the time they are old enough to read, a surprisingly large number of usage commentators have felt it incumbent upon themselves to explain this subtlety to adults. The basic point they make is this: 'bring' implies movement toward the speaker and 'take' implies movement away. It is a point well made, and it holds for all cases to which it applies. It does not, alas, apply to all cases of actual use of these verbs, and hence the commentators' despair....Conclusion: a native speaker of English will hardly ever misuse 'bring' or 'take'; the problem exists in the minds of usage commentators, who have formulated incomplete rules for the use of 'bring.' The non-native speaker can easily follow the commentators' simple rules...."
Click to expand...

The English language is nothing if not—er—fluid. That's what makes me want to put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger sometimes!
 
Yup. I am honestly in awe of people for whom Englsh is a second language, especially if they started learning it later in life. It’s dead difficult! But, OT. Back to JBR.
 
So LC states: "In some parts of the southern United States, it is common to use the verb 'bring' as a substitute for 'take.' This verb transfer is a clue to the identity of the author...." For more on the topic of American regionalisms, we're referred to works by five linguists, two of whom are editors of the "Dictionary of American Regional English." (DARE seems to be considered the definitive work in this area.) DARE informants, as they are called, from every region of each state were asked to complete statements by filling in the blanks. Assuming I'm interpreting the DARE entry correctly, presented with "John is going to _____ Mary to the dance," informants answering "bring" were from Iowa, Indiana. Minnesota, Massachusetts and New York. Additionally, field workers (if I'm interpreting "FW" correctly) reported that "confusion" about "bring" and "take" is widespread in southwestern Louisiana.

I'm wondering if there was another source supporting the quoted sentence from LC.
 
Okay, you have linguistic clues as to who may have written the note. There are always exceptions to rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 107 more.
Total: 3,691 (members: 108, guests: 3,583)

Online statistics

Members online
108
Guests online
3,583
Total visitors
3,691
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,629
Messages
17,972,110
Members
228,844
Latest member
butiwantedthatname
Back
Top