Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[Anyhoo]

It isn't plausible that JR committed this crime. Patsy wrote the note, and if JDI then she decided to cover up for John - and I think this is a fantastical idea. JDI theorists believe that Patsy would cover for John in order to maintain her status and her lifestyle. But, Patsy would have done great during a divorce, getting half of John's considerable assets plus child/spousal support.
Patsy did the crime (a rage/accident killing IMO), and John felt compelled to cover for Patsy because Patsy "had something" on John (she knew about the molesting, and she was always a risk to reveal this molesting if John ever dared think about telling the police the truth about Patsy doing the crime).
JDI is more plausible than IDI, but that isn't saying much. If I could break down a percentage of likelihood, it would be 90% PDI, 9% BDI and .99% JDI and .01% IDI The odds that John did it are very slim, but the odds of an intruder doing it are absolutely astronomical.
I can't rule Burke out completely - but he was 9 years old and has been very well-adjusted after this crime. I actually think Burke thinks his parents are innocent of any wrongdoing and that it really was an intruder. If Burke thought his parents did this, I can imagine him being more than willing to talk about it, especially since so many out there suspect him of doing the crime. In this case an innocent Burke who believes his parents (one, the other or both) killed his sister would be at some level angry that there are those calling him a killer. He'd talk.

It is plausible that JR was involved in the murder. I agree that PR wrote the RN. I also agree that PR would not cover up for JR.

If the murderer was PR, then PR did not need to have something on him for JR to want to cover for her. I believe JR would have covered for her anyway because he loved her and he felt empathy toward her.

Have you considered this scenario: PR does the head bash and JR the strangulation?

I believe BR knows exactly what happened to his sister, whether he was involved in the murder or not. I think BR was glad his sister was gone because now he could start getting some of the attention piled on her. I don't think BR loved his sister. IMO his lack of emotion regarding her was very revealing in that regard, but this does not indicate BR killed his sister. It indicates BR has some issues that are outside of normal.

 

[chlban]

Anyhoo;10160543]I believe BR knows exactly what happened to his sister, whether he was involved in the murder or not.

I can't imagine that if he was not the one that at least caused the head bash that he would "know" what happened. He might well suspect, but I cannot imgagine that, if he really was not the one that inflicted the head blow, that he would know the rest. Even horrid parents, like the Ramseys, would not, IMO, let their one remaing chid in on all the machinations to hide the killing of his sister. First, wouldn't me be a bit worried about his own safety if they did? Plus, you increase the chances of the truth getting out tremendously when you bring any 9 year old child in on a secret.

I still lean to PDI, although I can certainly see a case for BDI. Although in the BDI I only buy that he inflicted the initial injury and the rest was staging by the parents. But if it was PDI I don't think that Burke knows what happened. JMO.

I

think BR was glad his sister was gone because now he could start getting some of the attention piled on her. I don't think BR loved his sister. IMO his lack of emotion regarding her was very revealing in that regard, but this does not indicate BR killed his sister. It indicates BR has some issues that are outside of normal

I agree with that. His reaction to his sisters death was strange to be sure and he may not have really loved her. He may not even be capable of "love" who knows.

IMO, that was one messed up family. I wouldn't expect that Burke would be a completely normal kid and, unlike some people, the fact that he hasn't yet gone off the rails publicly, means nothing to me. Scott Peterson never went off the rails, at least publicly, either until he murdered his wife and unborn son. Ted Bundy was murdering girls for years while at the same time impressing people as such a great All American guy that many who knew him envisioned a future in politics.

 

[Mama2JML]

If Burke had knowledge of Mr./Mrs. Ramsey abusing &/or killing JonBenet, then why did his parents send him away, with LE, to the Whites on the 26th? He was interviewed by investigators, a psychiatrist, and testified to the GJ. The Ramseys could have contested any/all of this, but they didn't. I agree with Steve Thomas on this point, Burke didn't have a clue as to what happened that night.

 

[Linda7NJ]

If Burke had knowledge of Mr./Mrs. Ramsey abusing &/or killing JonBenet, then why did his parents send him away, with LE, to the Whites on the 26th? He was interviewed by investigators, a psychiatrist, and testified to the GJ. The Ramseys could have contested any/all of this, but they didn't. I agree with Steve Thomas on this point, Burke didn't have a clue as to what happened that night.

If Burke had anything to do with it, he could have been told to keep his trap shut. Burke would keep it shut IMO. Most kids don't like to implicate themselves for fear of getting In Trouble


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

If Burke had anything to do with it, he could have been told to keep his trap shut. Burke would keep it shut IMO. Most kids don't like to implicate themselves for fear of getting In Trouble


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ITA and I'm glad to see you back from your little "vacation", LindaNJ!

:loveyou:

 

[Linda7NJ]

ITA and I'm glad to see you back from your little "vacation", LindaNJ!



:loveyou:

Oh thank you
I got a tan and a t-shirt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teeandcee]

I'm no expert on this case, but why do so many believe Patsy wouldn't cover for John if he was molesting JB? Wives/girlfriends do this alllll the time. Spend any amount of time at any sexual abuse forum and you'll see how incredibly common it is. And money has nothing to do with it.

 

[borndem]

I'm no expert on this case, but why do so many believe Patsy wouldn't cover for John if he was molesting JB? Wives/girlfriends do this alllll the time. Spend any amount of time at any sexual abuse forum and you'll see how incredibly common it is. And money has nothing to do with it.

I absolutely think PR would definitely cover for JR -- without a doubt. Several reasons:

• Keeping up appearances with neighbors, church friends, pageant friends, relatives, and the world at large
• Keeping her place in society, and the lifestyle to which she had become accustomed
• To avoid any taint associated with JR that might "rub off" from JR onto her, and/or to avoid some folks thinking that she might have been involved as well

 

[PolyGraph]

Hi Guys, I have been away for a few years off this forum, I miss you all VERY MUCH. I have been busy being a single mom. I was reading about JB again, and watching some old videos and started crying all over again!!! This case has had me captivated for a long time, almost addiction like, I dont know why I never saw it before, but I came across the video with Linda A. who was first on the seen, the one where she was interviewed by a woman, and the fear in her eyes rocked me to the core. It seemed she really knew what was going on that day, but then Im not sure what is going on with her lately because I read so much about that bedside confession thing with Patsy and she was saying she would hold that a secret. Im behind in the times with this case really badly, can someone enlighten me more on what transpired (or what they think transpired) between her and PR on her death bed??? Im hoping to see her come out with the truth if that is what happened. Nice to me back to all my buddies here on Websleuths!!!! Love you guys!!!!

 

[Mama2JML]

LHP said she caught Burke & JonBenet playing doctor? I've not heard this before. When/where/to whom?...

 

[gramcracker]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7100038&highlight=linda+hoffman+pugh#post7100038

Patsy's housekeeper LHP said she had caught JB and BR under the covers in BR's room on several occasions. She'd open the door, and the kids would scream at her to get out!

If you google "Linda Hoffman-Pugh" it used to pull up that information. I haven't done it in a while, so hopefully it is still there. There are some early interviews with LHP on the web, as well as info on the book she had planned to write- and petitioned the courts to be allowed to divulge testimony she gave the Grand Jury. It was denied, and her book never came to be.

LHP said she would have done anything for Patsy, she looked up to her and loved JB. She was so shocked and hurt at being "thrown under the bus" by the Rs. She is a firm PDI. She witnessed Patsy's explosive temper first-hand. Patsy knew this, too. By fingering LHP for the crime from the start, the Rs though they had a perfect "patsy" (no pun intended). LHP was uneducated and from a lower socio-economic level. She was not educated and did not have the means to hire expensive defense attorneys. She knew the family intimately- that made her "dangerous" and best silenced right away.

Unfortunately for the Rs, there was not one shred of evidence that pointed to LHP as having committed this crime. Not a print, hair or fiber was found on the body or the crime scene. She passed writing samples and DNA testing.

I did find this - it seems she was granted permission?
http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm

That was in 2001, ten years ago. Something must have stopped her from writing- I had read she was denied, possibly after this was written?

Of course, the Rs lawyers would be all over her if she was going to finger Patsy in her book. Maybe that's why she never wrote it.

BBM
Yes, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court decision and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case without comment.
http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/handbook/cases/Hoffman-Pugh_v_Keenan.pdf

January 12, 2004
Also today, the Supreme Court:
Refused to hear a case involving the former housekeeper for the JonBenet Ramsey family who has sought to tell about her grand jury testimony in a book. The justices, without comment, refused to consider Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's free-speech challenge of Colorado grand jury secrecy rules.

Hoffmann-Pugh worked for John and Patsy Ramsey when their 6-year-old daughter was found strangled and beaten in the basement of their Boulder, Colo., home on Dec. 26, 1996. She testified before a grand jury that ended its term in 1999 without issuing an indictment, but is prohibited from disclosing details of the testimony.

Hoffman-Pugh has written a book, The Death of an Innocent. But her attorney told the Court that the secrecy rules have interfered with the publishing of it. Colorado lawyers told justices in a filing that the former housekeeper could still publish a book about her experiences, she just can't reveal what she told the grand jury.

The case is Hoffman-Pugh v. Keenan, 03-661.
http://archive.firstamendmentcenter.org/%5Cnews.aspx?id=12448

A federal judge Thursday gave grand-jury witnesses permission to talk about their secret testimony, prompting the Ramsey family's former housekeeper to declare that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old daughter.

The grand jury adjourned in October 1999 after 13 months. No indictments were issued. The grand jury, and then-District Attorney Alex Hunter, never issued a report about its investigation.

The Ramseys' attorney, L. Linn Wood, reached in Atlanta, said the ruling was only a step in the right direction.

"If the grand jury voted not to indict, I don't think (former District Attorney) Alex Hunter has the right to refuse to sign a no-true bill," he said. "If the grand jury voted not to indict ... clearly the Ramseys and the public have a right to know."

Wood said he is waiting for Hunter to return from a Hawaiian vacation to subpoena him to testify about any grand-jury votes. He says he expects Hunter to declare privilege against testifying, and that Wood will file a motion in court forcing him to testify.
http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm

the first chapter of LHP's book is at this link
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...&highlight=death+innocent+chapter#post8454796

 

[ZBob]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7100038&highlight=linda+hoffman+pugh#post7100038






A federal judge Thursday gave grand-jury witnesses permission to talk about their secret testimony, prompting the Ramsey family's former housekeeper to declare that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old daughter.

The grand jury adjourned in October 1999 after 13 months. No indictments were issued. The grand jury, and then-District Attorney Alex Hunter, never issued a report about its investigation.

The Ramseys' attorney, L. Linn Wood, reached in Atlanta, said the ruling was only a step in the right direction.

"If the grand jury voted not to indict, I don't think (former District Attorney) Alex Hunter has the right to refuse to sign a no-true bill," he said. "If the grand jury voted not to indict ... clearly the Ramseys and the public have a right to know."

Wood said he is waiting for Hunter to return from a Hawaiian vacation to subpoena him to testify about any grand-jury votes. He says he expects Hunter to declare privilege against testifying, and that Wood will file a motion in court forcing him to testify.
http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm

the first chapter of LHP's book is at this link
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...&highlight=death+innocent+chapter#post8454796

Thank you for sharing the first chapter link to LHP's book. She certainly describes the unhealthy family dynamics in a lot of first-hand detail. I would imagine that the GJ found this to be very compelling in terms of an insider's perspective, especially one with lots of involvement with the kids.

 

[Mama2JML]

Is there a link or a source available for the story about LHP finding Burke & JonBenet playing doctor? I may have missed it in the posts above...

 

[cherisa]

I have a hard time understanding how you came to the conclusions you have with regard to me. Regardless, we are adults, and there is no benefit to be gained if we engage one another as if we're teenaged girls. I don't know what your motive is, but I am not here to "fight", bully others, & gossip. I have no problem with RDIs in general. I do find the disposition of some, as evidenced by their treatment of others, to be highly counterproductive and likely detrimental to the reputation of the "whole", along with that of WS.

IM also curious if a link can be shared, you can't just say something without evidence to back it up. Even a 1st year law student knows this, someone made the comment about LPH, the burden of proof is on them to show that it is indeed a fact, not Mama to search for it. I'm calling shenanigans on RDI, heretofore...

<modsnip>

 

[beach]

:lurk:


:aktion1:

 

[Mama2JML]

Are you insinuating you would sue someone for deleting your posts?

Do you know the source for the statement attributed to LHP, a few posts back? If so, could you please share?

 

[Tawny]

Do you know the source for the statement attributed to LHP, a few posts back? If so, could you please share?

I don't, but I also didn't post it. I am unsure as to why you keep asking me specifically for sources to things I made no reference to. I'm speaking about this as well as the polls post you tagged me in. I feel like I missed something somewhere.

Am I one of the bad disposition posters you mentioned? I would like to change that if it's the case

 

[Mama2JML]

I don't, but I also didn't post it. I am unsure as to why you keep asking me specifically for sources to things I made no reference to. I'm speaking about this as well as the polls post you tagged me in. I feel like I missed something somewhere.

Am I one of the bad disposition posters you mentioned? I would like to change that if it's the case

I addressed you in my "polling" post, accidentally. I meant to tag NDP, IIRC. By the time I noticed, it was too late to edit my post. I thanked your reply to me, though! ...& I LOLed @ myself. Sorry. :blushing:

WRT to the LHP story, it's a story I've seen posted many times, and it seems to be "common knowledge" (sourced or not) @ WS. I thought you might know more about the source than I do. (...and I wanted to redirect the convo back to case & you were the most recent poster.)

Anyway, in all honesty, I want to know the source of the statement attributed to LHP, so I can evaluate the info & determine if it carries weight. ...with regard to my ever evolving hypotheses...

 

[gramcracker]

LHP said she caught Burke & JonBenet playing doctor? I've not heard this before. When/where/to whom?...

Is there a link or a source available for the story about LHP finding Burke & JonBenet playing doctor? I may have missed it in the posts above...

since I couldn't exactly remember the source (a magazine interview?), I used the advanced search feature and got 8 pages of results. I posted part of a conversation which included one quote pertaining to your question (albeit without a link) and others which provided context re LHP's book/no book: no book/no easy source for her recollection. was I remiss in not sifting through the remaining 7 pages to find links for you?

IMO a few questions re long-known facts from someone learning the case are within reason. beyond that the burden is on the one asking the questions. I lurked here for years before I posted and I spent untold hours reading the many/many "back pages." given that, my first very basic question (which I could/should have found the answer for during my reading) was responded to quickly/kindly. it never occurred to me that I was entitled to expect/demand that the forum members would continue to supply me with answers that are available via the search feature/time spent reading the archives

is it now a requirement that every post which mentions a circumstance/quote in this lengthy case should contain a link? IMO it is not argumentative to say to you or to anyone else here that "I am not your research assistant"

 

[Mama2JML]

since I couldn't exactly remember the source (a magazine interview?), I used the advanced search feature and got 8 pages of results. I posted part of a conversation which included one quote pertaining to your question (albeit without a link) and others which provided context re LHP's book/no book: no book/no easy source for her recollection. was I remiss in not sifting through the remaining 7 pages to find links for you?

IMO a few questions re long-known facts from someone learning the case are within reason. beyond that the burden is on the one asking the questions. I lurked here for years before I posted and I spent untold hours reading the many/many "back pages." given that, my first very basic question (which I could/should have found the answer for during my reading) was responded to quickly/kindly. it never occurred to me that I was entitled to expect/demand that the forum members would continue to supply me with answers that are available via the search feature/time spent reading the archives

is it now a requirement that every post which mentions a circumstance/quote in this lengthy case should contain a link? IMO it is not argumentative to say to you or to anyone else here that "I am not your research assistant"

IOW, a reliable source for this story does not exist? It's difficult to find something that just isn't there. I have wasted entirely too much time searching, reading, posting, etc. about this story's origin. It appears this story attributed to LHP has no factual basis.