The Court of Public Opinion

[Roy23]

Well enough, I suppose. Whoever it was said it: this is just a propaganda offensive. Frankly, Chief Beckner's AMA told me all I needed to know, IF I hadn't already known it.

On a different note, back when it was released, you said you wouldn't read my book. I don't know if you changed your mind between then and now, but it doesn't really matter. If you want to read a book that will help you understand this case, I've got just the one: The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson. Even if it doesn't help you, it's still a heck of read!

Beckner's AMA is a very very interesting read. We agree. I may read your book or that book after I see what Burke has to say. I can however read between the lines as to what Beckner's theory is. I will also be reading between the lines with Burke.

 

[BBB167893]

Beckner's AMA is a very very interesting read. We agree. I may read your book or that book after I see what Burke has to say. I can however read between the lines as to what Beckner's theory is. I will also be reading between the lines with Burke.

I await what you have to say. I probably won't watch. If I want to shake up my nerves that bad, I'll play Russian Roulette.

 

[Roy23]

I await what you have to say. I probably won't watch. If I want to shake up my nerves that bad, I'll play Russian Roulette.

LOL, I hear ya.

I think he is making a stupid mistake if this interview is just a bunch of hogwash. But anyway you slice it, I despise everyone involved in this case at this point.

 

[BBB167893]

There was something I wanted to say. It's not on this or any other forum so much, but from reading the comments sections on Youtube or online magazines or the like, I'm rather upset by the fact that so many people say that Patsy's death from cancer was "God's justice." It's tough for me to put into words, given my rather unique history.

Now, I know that there are people who just read that who are rolling their eyes. They're thinking, "Oh, there goes ol' soft-hearted SD again." But you have to understand, in my weak moments, I have said similar things, and I'm still feeling guilty about it.

 

[singularity]

There was something I wanted to say. It's not on this or any other forum so much, but from reading the comments sections on Youtube or online magazines or the like, I'm rather upset by the fact that so many people say that Patsy's death from cancer was "God's justice." It's tough for me to put into words, given my rather unique history.

Now, I know that there are people who just read that who are rolling their eyes. They're thinking, "Oh, there goes ol' soft-hearted SD again." But you have to understand, in my weak moments, I have said similar things, and I'm still feeling guilty about it.

I find any negative comments towards cancer victims to be sickening. I might let comments slide(or even participate) in such things said about child rapists, child murderers(we don't know for sure Patsy killed her), people who torture animals, etc.

My grandpa died from cancer when I was a kid. Watching him go from perfect health to looking like an Auschwitz inmate in less then two years was a traumatic experience. The pain he suffered is unimaginable. I am dealing with a health scare at the moment and I think of his suffering towards the end and it scares the hell out of me.

No cancer is "God's justice". Its a horrifying disease that is in dire need of more research and a cure. Anyone who thinks cancer is God's justice needs to go check out some childrens hospitals.

youtube is full of trolls. When I watch videos on there I don't even bother reading the comments anymore. People on there say horrible things about everything. I wish youtube would change its platform and make people only be able to sign up using their real name. That will bring the trolling level down to 0%.

 

[BBB167893]

I find any negative comments towards cancer victims to be sickening. I might let comments slide(or even participate) in such things said about child rapists, child murderers(we don't know for sure Patsy killed her), people who torture animals, etc.

My grandpa died from cancer when I was a kid. Watching him go from perfect health to looking like an Auschwitz inmate in less then two years was a traumatic experience. The pain he suffered is unimaginable. I am dealing with a health scare at the moment and I think of his suffering towards the end and it scares the hell out of me.

No cancer is "God's justice". Its a horrifying disease that is in dire need of more research and a cure. Anyone who thinks cancer is God's justice needs to go check out some childrens hospitals.

youtube is full of trolls. When I watch videos on there I don't even bother reading the comments anymore. People on there say horrible things about everything. I wish youtube would change its platform and make people only be able to sign up using their real name. That will bring the trolling level down to 0%.

I guess you're right, singularity. I should consider the source, I know. But it's still pretty awful.

 

[BBB167893]

There's something else bothering me. Recently, and I forget who it was, someone here dredged up "Santa" Bill McReynolds as a suspect. Now, it's a fairly common refrain from IDI that the stress of the accusations caused Patsy's cancer to come back and kill her. But, wouldn't that also apply to Bill's death from heart failure?

 

[FrankieB]

I read the Santa post too. I think Dave, that while it's clear he did not murder Jonbenét he had a somewhat unhealthy interest towards her. The ripped up card and his insistence to hold the 23rd party are all things Singularity brought to my attention and they made me consider him part of the unfolding of events, not as the killer though.

 

[singularity]

There's something else bothering me. Recently, and I forget who it was, someone here dredged up "Santa" Bill McReynolds as a suspect. Now, it's a fairly common refrain from IDI that the stress of the accusations caused Patsy's cancer to come back and kill her. But, wouldn't that also apply to Bill's death from heart failure?

That's a fair point.

I actually wish he was still alive. That man knows a lot more than he ever told IMO. I have major doubts he was involved in the actual murder but his fascination with her needed a very close look and ruling him out so quickly pretty much caused that to die on the vine.

I think one team of investigators should have handled the murder itself while another team dealt with the abuse and went down the list of suspects.

Investigators needed to retrace her steps in the days/weeks leading up to her murder. He is in and out of her life in that time frame. I'd also like to know why he was so keen on having that infamous party and then leaves fairly early.

Are there still people around who think he was the actual murderer? If any are lurking, could you please jump in to this discussion? I'd like to know how they think he could pull this off and why the Ramseys(JOhn at least) would actually help in regards to the staging that day.

 

[FrankieB]

Hi Singularity. The 911 call was made at 6:48 right? At what time did Santa arrive and leave?

 

[fedfan4life]

The Ramseys contacted everyone and his/her brother, even in the face of a 'ransom note' threatening harm to their 'abducted' child. Come now, folks, of course the Ramsey adults are guilty. The details of the death can legitimately be scrutinized, but the culpability of the parents is without doubt.

 

[singularity]

Hi Singularity. The 911 call was made at 6:48 right? At what time did Santa arrive and leave?

Here's the quote...

Santa Claus had two engagements that night and so he came, I can’t remember whether it was like 5:30 or 4:30 or somewhere in there." [Patsy 4/97]

 

[Roy23]

The Ramseys contacted everyone and his/her brother, even in the face of a 'ransom note' threatening harm to their 'abducted' child. Come now, folks, of course the Ramsey adults are guilty. The details of the death can legitimately be scrutinized, but the culpability of the parents is without doubt.

Thanks for showing us that you are the smartest person on earth oh wise one.

 

[Roy23]

There's something else bothering me. Recently, and I forget who it was, someone here dredged up "Santa" Bill McReynolds as a suspect. Now, it's a fairly common refrain from IDI that the stress of the accusations caused Patsy's cancer to come back and kill her. But, wouldn't that also apply to Bill's death from heart failure?

Absolutely. Every so often a scenario crosses my mind as to who or whom may be involved but I think it is wrong for us to make accusations publicly. I am not referring to public officials who may be accused of doing their job poorly but only individuals being accused of murder by armchair detectives.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks for showing us that you are the smartest person on earth oh wise one.

Was that really necessary, brother? It's a shame that some people can't see the wisdom in it.

How does this hit you for wisdom, Roy: recently, someone (name isn't important) said that if the DNA really is irrelevant to the crime, then everyone who was "cleared" by it has to go back under the umbrella. Well, leaving aside everything else, lets say that it's true and everyone is back in play as a suspect. Maybe that's what this case needs: to go back to the beginning and start all over. Yes? No?

 

[BBB167893]

Absolutely. Every so often a scenario crosses my mind as to who or whom may be involved but I think it is wrong for us to make accusations publicly. I am not referring to public officials who may be accused of doing their job poorly but only individuals being accused of murder by armchair detectives.

I'm not saying I agree with that idea, Roy. Only that it cuts two ways.

 

[Roy23]

Was that really necessary, brother? It's a shame that some people can't see the wisdom in it.

How does this hit you for wisdom, Roy: recently, someone (name isn't important) said that if the DNA really is irrelevant to the crime, then everyone who was "cleared" by it has to go back under the umbrella. Well, leaving aside everything else, lets say that it's true and everyone is back in play as a suspect. Maybe that's what this case needs: to go back to the beginning and start all over. Yes? No?

Sorry so long in responding to this. WS had to give me a timeout. Yes, I do believe it should start over and everyone is under the umbrella. I hate watching folks pretend they know the Ramsey's were dysfunctional or guilty and it makes me ill, thus my timeout. But I feel I can reasonable and admit that maybe Mary Lacy made a mistake just like everyone else seems to have done in this case at some point in time.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Re: Santa Bill
As far as him being responsible for her abuse, I don't think he was around often enough for that to happen. Patsy relates to Haney that he showed up at their house the year before with a gingerbread house not wearing the Santa costume. Patsy: "...and I looked at him and I am going, 'what are you doing here, you're going to spoil the surprise.'" He told the kids he was Santa's brother. Maybe things changed after that but it doesn't seem he spent much time around the kids if they primarily knew him as "Santa," not Bill. Haney asks, "Was she ever alone with McReynolds?" and Patsy says, "I wouldn't say alone, no. I mean we had a Christmas party going on with other people all over the house, kids, you know, and -- alone, no." I wish she'd answered more generally as to whether he had opportunities to be alone with her in the months prior to the party. But Patsy's testimony plus the fact that he was primarily there to be video taped doing his Santa act* (so: little opportunity to sneak away) and his leaving early after being escorted around by his wife all night (due to supposedly being frail from his recent heart surgery) makes me think him molesting JB during the party is highly unlikely. Which raises the question: if the prior vaginal trauma (estimated to be at least 72 hrs old iirc) was indeed evidence of molestation, and Santa Bill is the molester, when did he have the chance? And how frequently could he have done it to cause two of the other major pieces of circumstantial evidence of sexual abuse: trips to the doctor for vaginal irritation and the wetting/soiling problem? If it was someone outside the family, I'd put my money on someone with more frequent access to JB.

But that's the thing that always got me about the molestation issue. The Ramseys were so determined to deny it ever happening as an unfounded attack on their character when it could just as easily have been pinned on one of their friend-suspects. There were tons of people with access to JB, and given the sexual assault on the night of the murder, wouldn't it stand to reason that if someone they knew was responsible that they may have had previous sexual contact with JB too? So why dismiss it out of hand? For example, JB's (odd) habit of calling anyone in to wipe her would have provided ample opportunity to a potential molester. Patsy expressed concern to Pam Archuleta about JB being "too friendly" and "flirting," so it seems like the idea that someone could take advantage of JB's "friendliness" at least crossed Patsy's mind. Yet, despite accusing plenty of friends and acquaintances of the horrendous crime of killing JB, they never considered that any of those potential sexually sadistic murderers previously molested their daughter. They were too busy trying to distance themselves from the charges.

About the question of when the McReynolds' left in relation to the 911 call, I don't have my copy of PMPT with me but I was just reading the section about the party the other day, and I noted that they left before the 911 call happened, I think within 15 - 30 minutes. Seems coincidental to me but ymmv.

*Courtesy of ACR: ""I had not planned to have a family Christmas party in 1996, but Bill McReynolds called me on the twentieth. He told me that Charles Kurault and his "On the Road" television program were going to be in Boulder and would be filming him as Santa. Bill wanted to include our party in the filming, if possible, and he strongly encouraged me to have the event. I agreed." [Patsy DOIpg95]" So to me, it's not all that weird that he wanted to include the Ramsey party, since he'd been to them before and it seems Patsy goes all-out for her Christmas events (eg, the tour of homes 2 years prior with specialized Christmas trees in every room; in fact, Patsy says he said the reason he brought them the gingerbread house was because he thought since "you all were into Christmas" they'd appreciate it), or that he wouldn't stay long. It was the first time his wife accompanied him to an event (she didn't even have a costume, iirc) because he was in poor health. But again, ymmv.

 

[reintarnation]

But that's the thing that always got me about the molestation issue. The Ramseys were so determined to deny it ever happening as an unfounded attack on their character when it could just as easily have been pinned on one of their friend-suspects. There were tons of people with access to JB, and given the sexual assault on the night of the murder, wouldn't it stand to reason that if someone they knew was responsible that they may have had previous sexual contact with JB too? So why dismiss it out of hand? For example, JB's (odd) habit of calling anyone in to wipe her would have provided ample opportunity to a potential molester. Patsy expressed concern to Pam Archuleta about JB being "too friendly" and "flirting," so it seems like the idea that someone could take advantage of JB's "friendliness" at least crossed Patsy's mind. Yet, despite accusing plenty of friends and acquaintances of the horrendous crime of killing JB, they never considered that any of those potential sexually sadistic murderers previously molested their daughter. They were too busy trying to distance themselves from the charges.

I could see PR and JR denying sexual abuse for many reasons. If they were causing it or were aware of it and knew that it was a link to the murder, then certainly they would want to distance themselves from those allegations (themselves or others). If JBR was being abused by someone else and they weren't aware of it, I could still see them denying it because they may feel like it reflected poorly on their ability to protect her. That, and it could be something they simply don't want to accept because it's too painful.

Now that's just me playing devil's advocate! In fact, it's legitimately debatable that the prior vaginal trauma was from sexually-motivated abuse at all (personally, I don't think it was). I believe that the crime scene was staged. The elements of staging point toward a sexually-motivated attack, and if the motivation for her murder was in any way related to a sexual assault or molestation, then what's the point of staging the scene that way, too? Isn't the point of staging to divert attention from the real perpetrator and motive?

Mulling over the purpose of staging led me to believe that the vaginal trauma was the result of abusive punishment at the hands of PR for JBR's toileting issues and a toileting accident preceded her accidental murder. In that scenario, they might deny the sexual abuse because it creates embarrassment for them and they don't want their daughter thought of that way. For others, it makes sense that BR was molesting JBR during inappropriate, experimental play. Then the denial of sexual abuse is because they are protecting BR. Still others think that JBR was being sexually abused but that the murder and that abuse aren't linked. In that case, the reasons for denial would be like what I stated above.

I see lots of motivations for JR and PR denying the sexual abuse that don't imply they were responsible for or aware of it, even though being more accepting of the possibility might have lent more credence to the various accusations they made against their "friends."

 

[otg]

(snipped for brevity)

I could see PR and JR denying sexual abuse for many reasons...

What a very thought-provoking and insightful (not to be confused with inciteful) post, reintarnation. You objectively covered several possible reasons for why the Ramseys might have denied the obvious sexual abuse that did happen. Kudos.