Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Tobiano8th, Aug 13, 2020.
No, you wouldn't, but would you write a confession?
There is an important difference between "she will die" and "she dies". The first of these is, of course, in the future. Something that may occur. The latter is present tense, which becomes clear, when the prior conditions laid down in the RN are eliminated. This indicates that the author of the RN knew that JB was dead.
On a pedantic note, "she will die" and "she dies" are both grammatically incorrect, as the statements are conditional; and so, they require the subjunctive. It ought to be "she shall die". Journalism major PR most likely would have been aware of this use of tenses, which is another attempt at her disguise.
i don't see how "she dies" doesn't suggest that she is alive and "her dying" is possible in the future... obviously, the whole RN was probably fiction anyway... i don't follow the logic of "she dies"........
i can't remember if Scorpio DH "she dies" was from the movie DH near the start or towards the end. was the girl they found buried alive the same crime as DH having to run all over SF with the attache case?........... or am i confusing it with The Enforcer? (awesome but lesser known DH movie. Tyne Daly)
i think it's poor grammar
i'm a PR RN person, but another explanation for "will die" vs. "shall die" is that it wasn't written by journalism major........... here i'm just devil's advocate. that note screams journalism major to me.
I don’t think anyone can put themselves into a dramatic situation after the fact. It is amazing what people can do in a traumatic situation. People lift up cars, soldiers sacrifice their lives. People can and will do anything in a traumatic situation.
But I did. From Scorpio to Harry in Dirty Harry (according to wikiquote): "If you talk to anyone, I don't care if it's a Pekinese pissing against a lamppost, the girl dies"
What are all the other Dirty Harry quotes/paraphrases?
But isn't that what we're here for? Police,jurors and lawyers do this every day otherwise everyone would be found innocent, every crime could be called a 'crime of passion'. I guess most crimes could be traumatic situations, so evidence would mean nothing if 'people can and will do anything' in such situations..
i think most unbiased observers think PR wrote the note......THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE to say it was her. i'll give u that.
so much stuff points to the R's knowing what happened to JBR............ and then if it's highly unlikely that IDI, then RDI. and one of the R's wrote the RN
lawyering up so quickly is basically acknowledgement that they know what happened to JBR IMHO. these are not poor black men who are going to be abused by the police. there was no hostility to the R's nor anyone pointing the finger when they hired lawyers.. in fact, they complain about people jumping to conclusions and then point the finger at others.
i was involved in something where many people were interviewed over a controversial matter. .... i will say that the people who had NO questionable conduct in the affair all did NOT hire lawyers. "why do i need to hire a lawyer when i'm 100% innocent?"....... everyone else hired lawyers.
here are 2 biggies,
1) PR phone call to police didn't cut off properly ... her demeanor seemed completely different off the phone than on the phone........... didn't even mention the the RN mentioned "no police".... the police dispatcher thought it was odd.
2) the 11 am ransom deadline came and went with the R's seemingly not concerned about that.. is that because they knew there was no real kidnapping?
basically, i don't think you will find airtight evidence that PR wrote the note.... but there's tons of good evidence that she did (some evidence possibly contradicts it too, i think)...........
i think most believe it is implausible that IDI (or something similar.. "business revenge person did it").... ERGO, if no IDI, then R's are responsible (likely accidential incident). and then PR/JR wrote the note.... i realize this is inductive reasoning.
FBI had never seen a note like that....... nor had they ever had a fake kidnapping with a dead body in the family's house before........ never
the ransom demand deadline coming and passing with no Ramsey interest in it is potentially very damning...... hope that's correct.... i will say i'm surprised BPD didn't mention it, but maybe they wanted to see if R's mentioned it.
have been reading about Lou Smit, a first-rate detective (at one time) and in this case, R's biggest defender........ it concerns me that 1) he thought R's were guilty until he did prayer circle with them - yikes!!, 2) he was involved in some media work where content that was clearly false was presented... Lou is so sure of his opinion that he needs false information to argue his case. i need to find the specifics......
The first suspect John named, when asked by Whitson, was Jeff Merrick.
I was replying to people who say parents could not do this, Patsy couldn’t write the note, no parent would violate their child or stage a crime. In that situation you can not judge what a person would or wouldn’t do.
Lt.Lewis-Rowe said: ↑
I don't believe the 'cover-up' theory... or that Patsy wrote the note.... if your daughter had just been killed... by accident or whatever, even if you were not the most maternal person in the world, you're not going to be in a state to write such a long, detailed ransom letter... leaving your handwriting open to professional analysis, when "WE HAVE YOUR DAUGHTER" would have done the same job. The less writing, the less to question...
a bit repetitive on my part,
why would anyone write that note?........ why would a deranged pedophile or business revenge person write a long note deflecting attention away from the R's?.... why would IDI or revenge person write any note? the note references a "fake kidnapping".
PR, if she wrote it, was in a state of complete panic when she wrote. she needed desparately to shine the light away from her family...... it's arguable a simple note would have done that just as well. but she decided to add more color. a worrier would definitely append more and more, i think.
as per parents actions, why not just phone the police?
unfortunately, i am starting to see some terrible explanations that tie facts together quite well...... like some with the ransom letter, i don't want to believe these explanations....
i am always asking or mentioning what BPD detectives thought... i think we have to keep in mind that eventually they are trying to build a specific case. so alot of "it could have been this...... it could have been that" is abandoned... but as outside observers, we should still hold on to these possibilities..... like JR being asleep until RN was "found". it kills alot of theories.
i'm rambling now........ is it likely that PR killed JBR by accident then did all the elaborate staging without waking JR. ..............same question if BR did it. i assume a child wouldn't stage like that.... so did PR stage either PDI/BDI without waking JR?
BPD claim fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt were found on JonBenet's genital region.
Fibers from Patsy's jacket were found embedded into the knotting of the ligature.
John is also offering explanations for other items found in the basement, e.g. Partially Opened gifts, broken window, chair in front of the door, Samsonite suitcase, etc.
His latest revelation was on the Dr. Phil show where Dr. Phil said John used the flashlight to put Burke to bed.
Get that a multi-millionaire needs a flashlight rather than flicking a light switch, same with the Samsonite, he employed the housemaid to put stuff like that in the basement.
None of what John says rings true because it is all allegedly fabricated to hide what really took place.
The case obviously breaks down to:
1. JDI with Patsy assisting.
2. BDI with Patsy and John assisting.
3. PDI with John assisting.
IMO it seems as if the parents arrived late on the crime-scene, e.g. JonBenet's bedroom. They probably had just arose for their vacation flight.
This is the reason why the staging is so amateurish, why JonBenet is wearing size-12 underwear and Burke's longjohns, is simply because the person who redressed her was totally inexperienced with crime and the ways of the world.
Is it not curious that the millionaire Ramsey's would dream up a staged crime-scene where money is assumed to be the main motive?
Whilst all along they must have known the sexual motive would eventually reveal itself so how would that square with the character of an employee such as Jeff Merrick patently a law abiding citizen?
The most likely explanation is that the RN and the rest of the staging were intended to cover up the sexual abuse. Of course the Rs knew that this aspect would be revealed; but, they attempted to make it appear that a crazed intruder was responsible. The pineapple turned out as a major chink in this scenario.
JR finding the body is quite incriminating, given the complicated evidence and timeline. IMO JR had the best motive and the most suspicious crime scene activities.
Yes. The passing of the 10AM deadline without any reaction from the Rs is rather stupid, if nothing else. However, I am surprised that PR didn't take her cue at 10AM, and give an hysterical performance.
A common assumption is that the killing was accidental, no matter who did it. But, it could have been premeditated, especially with JR in the picture. The RN could have been ruminated upon for awhile, and not be spontaneous as many opine. Taking time to consider how to compose the RN would have made it quicker to jot down.
In "Dirty Harry", the kidnapped girl 'dies'.