What's eating you alive re this case?

[UKGuy]

If JR and PR were covering for Burke, then why the need for the story of her sleeping and going straight to bed? Instead they could have said they could have played tag or tickles as they came downstairs for a quick snack of pineapple which would have covered him from touch evidence and the pineapple. Why did they lie and say Burke was asleep when the phone call was made?
Because John that's why. John needed a story which involved his clothing going all over her (carried her up) and he needed Burke 'asleep' so the police didn't ask him too many questions until John got the stories straight.

Is there more to the above posted BR interview? It seems to indicate that the story about John being the loving father helping Burke put together a toy is a later addition to the script as BR says they put on their pjs and went to bed? Again another indication that John is setting the scene to cover his own butt ie. "Patsy changed JonBenet's clothes alone in the bedroom". Innocent John was downstairs helping his son - (but neither can say which special toy it actually was)?

Veronica Lodge,
straight to bed is part of the staging, that you are speculating means it worked.

So the parents are never going to say Burke and JonBenet just went to bed after playing, i.e. which bed?

Their version of events minimizes any need to remember a long list of facts, although both Patsy and John slipped up initially, and of course Burke had excellent memory recall where he helpfully told investigators JonBenet walked into the house after returning from the White's

BPD patently have forensic evidence linking Burke to the basement, which is why he produced the story about returning back downstairs once everyone was in their bedroom.

Dr Phil has an audio book available, I was tempted to purchase, but decided against as I was certain it would all be psychobabble about self-improvement,etc.

The other aspect to John assisting Burke with the toy, is that Dr Phil quotes John saying he took the flashlight upstairs to put Burke to bed, but nothing is said about who took it back downstairs, e.g. possible link to above BPD evidence!

Its also possible that its John who has been identified, say by dna profiling, as being linked to the flashlight, so he has produced an explanation?

 

[10ofRods]

There are?

Yes. You can see a stain (with use of the Jaffe method for urine detection) near the art tray and golf clubs in at least one forensic photo. The stain is probably around 10 inches in diameter, roughly oval, consistent with a child voiding their bladder while lying on the floor.

Urine stain on basement carpet

The golf clubs were apparently not in that position, originally.

Two explanations for this stain have been offered: 1) that this is where JBR died and 2) there was enough urine on the long johns to create a stain while she briefly lay on the floor.

To me, it appears that perhaps the art tray and some other objects were covering the stain in initial crime scene photos. I assume that something made the police test this area (smell, dampness?)

 

[10ofRods]

If JR and PR were covering for Burke, then why the need for the story of her sleeping and going straight to bed? Instead they could have said they could have played tag or tickles as they came downstairs for a quick snack of pineapple which would have covered him from touch evidence and the pineapple. Why did they lie and say Burke was asleep when the phone call was made?
Because John that's why. John needed a story which involved his clothing going all over her (carried her up) and he needed Burke 'asleep' so the police didn't ask him too many questions until John got the stories straight.

Is there more to the above posted BR interview? It seems to indicate that the story about John being the loving father helping Burke put together a toy is a later addition to the script as BR says they put on their pjs and went to bed? Again another indication that John is setting the scene to cover his own butt ie. "Patsy changed JonBenet's clothes alone in the bedroom". Innocent John was downstairs helping his son - (but neither can say which special toy it actually was)?

Defense attorneys frequently get clients to pare their story down to the barest details, to avoid having difficult issues arise on cross-examination/deposition. Since the Ramseys both deviated from their original accounts of what happened (JR more than PR IMO), this technique was drilled into them. It would have made more sense to the rest of us if Patsy had admitted to feeding JBR the pineapple (or she had plainly stated that it was Burke, if it was, as I'm sure she knew), but the "we don't remember anything, JR was never alone with JBR in her room, etc" narrative is paramount to them. Way fewer details to remember/to form leading questions/timeline.

 

[reedus23]

Been a while since I've been on here but to get to the original question of what eats at me most about this case (besides the fact that it hasn't been solved), I'd have to say it's the fact that so many people develop their personal theory and then search for facts that fit that theory as opposed to following the facts and letting the facts develop the theory.

 

[UKGuy]

Been a while since I've been on here but to get to the original question of what eats at me most about this case (besides the fact that it hasn't been solved), I'd have to say it's the fact that so many people develop their personal theory and then search for facts that fit that theory as opposed to following the facts and letting the facts develop the theory.

reedus23,
This is human nature, as a teenager I did this all the time, looking avidly for evidence to confirm my latest hunch, boy did I think I was clever, not!

Its not entirely invalid as we learn mostly by induction which relies on repetition and reinforcement via observation of evidence.

You just have to walk folks through their evidence and highlight any anomalies.

.

 

[Occams Razor]

Right now what's eating me alive is what Fleet White referred to as the "flavor of the week," i.e. the constant trickle of new/exciting leads & suspects in the media. None of which ever pans out, of course. Even though I'm firmly RDI I'm guilty of getting sucked in by some of these, such as the latest: pedo photographer Randall Simons. (Not necessarily that I think he killed JBR but it's just an interesting possible connection to the case).

But there have been so many others: Helgoth, Oliva, Fleet White himself, Santa, the maid, Glen Meyer, John Mark Karr... All of these are given headline status by mainstream media & the tabloids as if they were breaking news but none lead anywhere. It's almost like it's timed to happen every few years or something! It has the effect of throwing less devoted people off the Ramseys' trail, which I suspect is the intended goal. What I don't understand is how John & Co. have managed to twist the arms of big media players like Barbara Walters, CNN, A&E, Dr. Phil & *so* many others who have been kissing their rears since Day 1.

Maybe it's not that deep--perhaps the reporters are just regurgitating what they've read/heard elsewhere when they repeat these pro-Ram stories. I honestly don't know. But it's not doing the case any favors.

 

[jeena]

What eats me alive is where are cell phone, landline, and computer records usage of the Rams after JBR was killed? What were the utility usage records of the Rams house that night? Was the electric usage unusually high that night if they were up doing the staging?
Why did Burke tell Dr. Phil he left a door open and felt guilty about it, but he never mentioned it before? Why are there no fingerprints on the flashlight or the batteries?
Why did JR hand over the notepad to LE if PR wrote the note? Does FW know more than he let on? Why did the GJ think JBR was put in danger by the Rams?
Why did the Rev. state he heard JR say, "he didn't mean it" after JR carried JBR up the stairs, then reneged on it (if I remember correctly).