NIV Study Bible - listen carefully/SBTC

It’s from the doc JonBenet Ramsey: What really happened?

It is shown for about one second on the crime scene video.

Judging by the white space, that foreground page is Psalm 36 with its commentary, which takes up the bulk of the page. The opposite page then would be the end of Psalm 35 and the beginning of Psalm 36. Just what I would expect, but I couldn't tell from the other blurry crime scene photo I've seen.

The ballpoint pen is a surprise. It isn't in the other photo.

I'm surprised that shot was in the show because Team Ramsey never mentions that Bible.

Thanks for posting that.
 
Last edited:
It’s from the doc JonBenet Ramsey: What really happened?

It is shown for about one second on the crime scene video.

Judging by the white space, that foreground page is Psalm 36 with its commentary, which takes up the bulk of the page. The opposite page then would be the end of Psalm 35 and the beginning of Psalm 36. Just what I would expect, but I couldn't tell from the other blurry crime scene photo I've seen.

The ballpoint pen is a surprise. It isn't in the other photo.

I'm surprised that shot was in the show because Team Ramsey never mentions that Bible.

Thanks for posting that.
 
Last edited:
Judging by the white space, that foreground page is Psalm 36 with its commentary, which takes up the bulk of the page. The opposite page then would be the end of Psalm 35 and the beginning of Psalm 36. Just what I would expect, but I couldn't tell from the other blurry crime scene photo I've seen.

The ballpoint pen is a surprise. It isn't in the other photo.

I'm surprised that shot was in the show because Team Ramsey never mentions that Bible.

Thanks for posting that.
If you look at the old photo of the Bible photo I believe you can see the pen. Do you see the black portion on the very top and then it turns white and then black at the bottom where the cap of the pen would be?
Maybe, maybe not.
 
If you look at the old photo of the Bible photo I believe you can see the pen. Do you see the black portion on the very top and then it turns white and then black at the bottom where the cap of the pen would be?
Maybe, maybe not.

You're right. That must be it. I had no idea what that was.
 

Attachments

  • F9836EE4-4739-4EE8-AAFE-FDF3A1F394A0.jpeg
    F9836EE4-4739-4EE8-AAFE-FDF3A1F394A0.jpeg
    178.6 KB · Views: 69
Fr Brown-
For your collection.

Thanks!

It's hard for me to make out, but I see that it makes reference to Healed of Cancer by Dodie Osteen and the possible connection of Psalm 118:27 (the "bind the sacrifice with cords" bit) to the ransom note. But of the 40 "healing scriptures" in Healed of Cancer, only one is from Psalm 118, and it's 118:17: "I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord."
 
Of the family members, only BR would need to look up 'incest'. if indeed that word was being sought out. On the other hand, it could be an intended frame up by an adult.
 
I do not.

I've seen a photo of a coffee table with some books on it which from the shape of the room must be the first floor study. (That's the room Thomas says the dictionary was in.) None of the books look open, though.

There may be other coffee tables in the room.
 
Last edited:
I have a copy of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary from 1961. Incest is the last entry in the right-hand column of the left-hand page so Thomas' description of the "corner of the lower left-hand page" folded and pointing at incest is absolutely feasible for this edition of this dictionary.

And there's no indication in JonBenet that the dictionary is of more recent vintage. (It would make sense that the entry for incest would migrate to other pages and other positions on other pages in later editions.)
 
I watch "The Behavior Panel" on youtube from time to time. One of the things they watch for is words like and then and then when people are retelling an important event because it signals "missing time." (They also look for just.) For fun I decided to look at Patsy's and John's interviews and there are a lot of and then's and justs.

I don't think TBP would say that and then is necessarily deceptive, just that it flags a period of time that warrants a drill-down. To be fair, the Patsy's and John's interviewers are also heavy-duty and-theners. Context is important. I think the uhs and ums would be thinking pauses.

Patsy from '97:
Um, we got up at about 5:30, I think. I think John got up first and I got up just right behind him and he went to his bathroom and shower. I went to my bathroom. I did not shower that morning and I just put my clothes on and uh, did my hair and makeup and uh and then I started down the stairs, John was still in the bathroom and went uh, I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area um, and I remember the ironing board was up I think and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenet’s cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area and uh, um then I started down the spiral staircase there. I came, I had come back down, I’d come down the back bedroom stairs there from my bathroom. Um, I started down the spiral stairs and when I got nearly to the bottom I saw these three pieces of paper, like notebook size paper, on, on the run of the stairs and uh, I went on down and turned around and started reading, reading it And uh, I, I remember reading the first couple of lines and I kind of, didn’t know what it was or uh, and then I (inaudible) you know after the first couple of lines I, it dawned on me, it said something about, ‘We have your daughter’ or something. And I uh, screamed for John. He was up in our bedroom still and he came running down and uh, I told him that there was a note that said she had been kidnapped. And uh, uh, I think he, he said, I said, ‘What should I do. What should I do,’ or something and he said, ‘Call the police,’ and I think somewhere, I remember I said something about, you know, check Burke or something and I think he ran back and checked burke and I ran back down the stairs and then he came downstairs. He was just in his underwear and he uh, took the note and I remember him being down hunched on the floor read, with all three pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, ‘Call 911’ or ‘Call the police,’ or something and then I did. I called them and uh, and then I called the Whites and the Fernies and told them that she had been kidnapped or said come over quickly or something and they came over and the policeman came and uh, then the Whites and the Fernies were there and uh... Oh, I think the policeman was asking, you know, he kind of like, I think he kind of got us (inaudible) in the sun room or something.
 
I watch "The Behavior Panel" on youtube from time to time. One of the things they watch for is words like and then and then when people are retelling an important event because it signals "missing time." (They also look for just.) For fun I decided to look at Patsy's and John's interviews and there are a lot of and then's and justs.

I don't think TBP would say that and then is necessarily deceptive, just that it flags a period of time that warrants a drill-down. To be fair, the Patsy's and John's interviewers are also heavy-duty and-theners. Context is important. I think the uhs and ums would be thinking pauses.

Patsy from '97:
Um, we got up at about 5:30, I think. I think John got up first and I got up just right behind him and he went to his bathroom and shower. I went to my bathroom. I did not shower that morning and I just put my clothes on and uh, did my hair and makeup and uh and then I started down the stairs, John was still in the bathroom and went uh, I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area um, and I remember the ironing board was up I think and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenet’s cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area and uh, um then I started down the spiral staircase there. I came, I had come back down, I’d come down the back bedroom stairs there from my bathroom. Um, I started down the spiral stairs and when I got nearly to the bottom I saw these three pieces of paper, like notebook size paper, on, on the run of the stairs and uh, I went on down and turned around and started reading, reading it And uh, I, I remember reading the first couple of lines and I kind of, didn’t know what it was or uh, and then I (inaudible) you know after the first couple of lines I, it dawned on me, it said something about, ‘We have your daughter’ or something. And I uh, screamed for John. He was up in our bedroom still and he came running down and uh, I told him that there was a note that said she had been kidnapped. And uh, uh, I think he, he said, I said, ‘What should I do. What should I do,’ or something and he said, ‘Call the police,’ and I think somewhere, I remember I said something about, you know, check Burke or something and I think he ran back and checked burke and I ran back down the stairs and then he came downstairs. He was just in his underwear and he uh, took the note and I remember him being down hunched on the floor read, with all three pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, ‘Call 911’ or ‘Call the police,’ or something and then I did. I called them and uh, and then I called the Whites and the Fernies and told them that she had been kidnapped or said come over quickly or something and they came over and the policeman came and uh, then the Whites and the Fernies were there and uh... Oh, I think the policeman was asking, you know, he kind of like, I think he kind of got us (inaudible) in the sun room or something.

fr brown,
I reckon you are spot on. You can almost hear Patsy as she confabulates her way through her virgin version of events.
Um, we got up at about 5:30, I think. I think John got up first
Does the above not reveal Patsy thinking out aloud?

Also, the we translates into John first, a slip up? I reckon both parents were late to the crime scene?
.
 
Of the family members, only BR would need to look up 'incest'. if indeed that word was being sought out. On the other hand, it could be an intended frame up by an adult.

proust20,
I reckon none of them needed to lookup incest as they all knew what was going on long before Christmas Night and what its name was, particularly Burke, more so if it can be demonstrated he was undergoing therapy?

Burke strikes me as the kind of child who would have had a dictionary in his bedroom, so why would he be opening another one, given the sensitivity of the subject?

Do we know whose dictionary it was that Steve Thomas referenced?

I reckon you have to eliminate all the other words on the two facing pages and the back page of the dog-eared one to be certain which actual word was being marked?

On the other hand assuming they all knew, i.e. I reckon they did, could be they were not certain what category Playing Doctor fell into legally?

So one of the parents checked the dictionary to confirm precisely what kind of case they were involved in?

Hence the staging away of any sexual assault?

.
 
There is a theory that, as the invitees of the 26th were unobserved by BPD, one of this group, suspecting incest, could have marked that particular page as a clue. But, it could be merely coincidental.
 
I asked if Bible photo was from Discovery+ documentary, but then I did find it there. Can't seem to remove my post entirely unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Ramsey: No, I think that was just a bit of a coincidence. That was my net bonus after tax. And it wasn't exactly 118; it was 118 and something… I mean, the closest that I've come to have some believability is this theory that Father Rol came up with. There were psalms, which were circled in the Bible, which apparently were fairly vengeful psalms. 118 Psalms was a vengeful psalm in the King James Bible. It talked about victory (INAUDIBLE). I think I've read it a hundred times, I guess, (INAUDIBLE). I guess I would accept that kind of a tie more than I would the bonus amount.
I've read the more recent posts with pictures of the bible and how claims that the bible was open to this page were not substantiated.
What really stands out to me is John's thinking. He's speculating that someone came into his house, found a note pad and pen, wrote a 3-page RN, including cryptic references to the bible, found his bible, circled a passage relevant to the cryptic biblical reference, took his daughter from her bed, struck a fatal blow to her head, and then tied up her body in the basement. Intentionally leaving so many clues is absurd. In a crime like that or even in a mundane engineering project, plans start needing revision as soon as you start executing them. The more intriguing clues the perpetrator intentionally leaves, the greater the chance of getting caught. It makes for great fiction, where the criminal purposely leaves cryptic clues, but in reality they generally just commit the crime and get away. They're not highlighting bible passages that explain parts of a cryptic ransom note.

It's mind-boggling to me that John could suggest to the police that the criminal found John's bible and highlighted passages relevant to the crime.
 
I've read the more recent posts with pictures of the bible and how claims that the bible was open to this page were not substantiated.
What really stands out to me is John's thinking. He's speculating that someone came into his house, found a note pad and pen, wrote a 3-page RN, including cryptic references to the bible, found his bible, circled a passage relevant to the cryptic biblical reference, took his daughter from her bed, struck a fatal blow to her head, and then tied up her body in the basement. Intentionally leaving so many clues is absurd. In a crime like that or even in a mundane engineering project, plans start needing revision as soon as you start executing them. The more intriguing clues the perpetrator intentionally leaves, the greater the chance of getting caught. It makes for great fiction, where the criminal purposely leaves cryptic clues, but in reality they generally just commit the crime and get away. They're not highlighting bible passages that explain parts of a cryptic ransom note.

It's mind-boggling to me that John could suggest to the police that the criminal found John's bible and highlighted passages relevant to the crime.

It might have been John's pastor, Rol Hoverstock, who suggested that Psalm 118 was significant and parts of Psalm 118 we're circled. They weren't circled, as far as I know.

The Bible was open to Psalms 35/36 according to Steve Thomas and others. If Thomas was lying about that, the Ramseys would have let us know a long time ago.

This game of telephone got started because of the "118" in the ransom demand.
 
Last edited:
[The bible passages] weren't circled, as far as I know.
Regardless of whether the bible was open or circled, I find it crazy John would even go along with the idea that the killer left weird clues, like highlighting a passage in a book found in the house.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
1,503
Total visitors
1,686

Forum statistics

Threads
587,125
Messages
17,876,217
Members
226,967
Latest member
spiderx
Back
Top