The Whites Party Photos and also When exactly did JBR die??

Nom de plume

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
730
Reaction score
21
So what do you think this means?



BM did have a license, as I recall. So you figure he might have been in Boulder, but Chris Stanley places both BM and JAR at the movies in Atlanta, so he has to be in on the conspiracy too. Then Lucinda and MR and her fiance have to be in on it as well, or else JAR slips into the house in the early morning hours w/o being noticed so that those 3 believe he'd been sleeping in the house all night. If Brad was not someone frequently in CO then his sighting may not have registered, but at the same time an unfamiliar face might stick out and draw attention? Which way do you read this? Additionally there is Harry Smiles who places JAR at Peachtree Presbyterian on the evening of the 25th for church services.



Ok, but there still has to be a flight plan, or a plane has to be landing at an airport "out of the blue" which would be noted. How many flights could there be from Boulder to Atl. ? Doesn't seem hard to check up on. Either they flew w/o filing a plan, then landed to refuel w/o a plan, then continued on w/o a plan and no air traffic controller ever spotted them or if they did never inquired who they were, or BM filed a plan neglecting to include BR as a passenger. Let's assume the latter as it's more likely than the former.



So after 16 years no one who knows the importance of JAR's presence in Boulder on 12/25/96 has come forward? OK, possible. How loyal must every one of BRs acquaintances be that not one came forward. Or did he only see close friends and was very careful not to be spotted, except by Joe B.



Your right, I messed up the arithmetic, I was still thinking about the Cessna. It's possible, if it was a jet. Did JR have a jet? Did a friend have a jet? Could be. As you point out, there needn't necessarily have been a return trip, but there would still be an airplane in Atlanta, with markings, which would have been in CO according to it's prior flight plan. Shouldn't be to hard to check up on. Either it had to be flown back out before being spotted or someone had to ask "hey, where the hell did this Lear Jet (or Cessna, or whatever type plane) come from, the one with the number XXXYYY111222?








It's definitely a conspiracy theory because at a minimum CS/BM/and HS have to be providing a false alibi for BR. For the JAR theory to fly (no pun intended) there had to be at least 3 people, aside from JAR, in on the plot. Depending on circumstances you might have to include Lucinda, MR, and Stewart Long.

IMO, MS isn't credible because she thought it might have been negative energy. She's a flake and I don't put much stock in what she claims to have heard.

What do you think the RST did to change Joe B's mind? Death threat? $$$? Either are possible. Or did they just explain to Joe that JAR wasn't in CO and he accepted that and changed his story? Doesn't have to be true, but why would he change his mind merely on suggestion unless he wasn't all that certain to begin with? So do we have the power of suggestion? Bribery? Threats?

As far as I can tell the idea that JAR was in CO that night is based on Joe B's sighting, and a complete lack of evidence: no one else who saw JAR coming forward, the possibility that a JAR and/or JR might have had a friend with a plane and a license and that authorities couldn't figure out if a plane flew from Boulder to Atlanta despite it appearing in Atlanta and the prior plan indicating it last landed in Boulder. Only so much can be inferred from the lack of evidence. We have Joe B's sighting to support a JAR theory, and BM/CS/HS/MR/SL/Lucinda to claim he was in Atlanta that night as late as 1am.

I have to say I think you are trying much too hard for this JAR theory. We know he got on a plane at 8am or so on the morning of the 26th. The flight took off at 8:30. There are 3 non-family witnesses placing JAR in Atlanta on the night of the 25th. There are 3 family members who do likewise, along with soon to be family member SL. There is one person in CO who claims to have seen JAR that day. It seems to me the scale tips in favor of JAR being in Atlanta that night.

But ok, I'll agree that Brad might have been in Boulder, and that he might have flown a borrowed plane to Atlanta, perhaps with BR slipping aboard not officially on the manifest. The appearance of an unfamiliar plane at a small private airport might not have aroused suspicion. It all strikes me as much less likely than JAR being at the movies with his buddies.

WRT the movie ticket stub. It's often been remarked that there is something suspicious about JAR hanging on to the stub. Either one of his co-conspirators bought a 3rd ticket (it must have been Chris if Brad was flying) to give him an alibi, or he just stuck the stub in his pocket and happened to find it again later. If he's innocent, maybe he hung on to it realizing the importance of proving where he was? It seems another one of those things that can be read both ways.

I don't know that he was there the night of the 25th or not. Do we know there wasn't a flight plan from Boulder to Atlanta, for any private plane that night? I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to go about checking for those records, if they're even still available. I just see so many red flags that to me don't add up.

*The lack of pictures & video (when JR says he ALWAYS took them, except conveniently IMO, not this year.)
*JB saying he saw him (and was very sure of this to begin with.)
*JR lawyering up JAR, MR & LR (WTH was this necessary unless he didn't want them questioned by LE? And why wouldn't he want them questioned by LE if JAR wasn't in Boulder?)
*JAR accounting for every second of his time (Seems too convenient. And why did the friend come back to spend the night with him at 1 am when he had to fly out shortly after 8am? Sounds like BS or else they had a more "personal" relationship.)
*JAR's suitcase being found so close to the body (with JB's fibers on the duvet & the Dr. Seuss book)

It's not one particular thing, it's everything added together, like the rest of this case. A lot of people think JR & the RST "influencing" the DA & his office is a conspiracy theory too, but the evidence is overwhelming that it did indeed happen. I'm not dead set on him being involved, but at this point I can't, IMOM, rule him out either.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,437
I don't know that he was there the night of the 25th or not. Do we know there wasn't a flight plan from Boulder to Atlanta, for any private plane that night? I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to go about checking for those records, if they're even still available. I just see so many red flags that to me don't add up.

*The lack of pictures & video (when JR says he ALWAYS took them, except conveniently IMO, not this year.)
*JB saying he saw him (and was very sure of this to begin with.)
*JR lawyering up JAR, MR & LR (WTH was this necessary unless he didn't want them questioned by LE? And why wouldn't he want them questioned by LE if JAR wasn't in Boulder?)
*JAR accounting for every second of his time (Seems too convenient. And why did the friend come back to spend the night with him at 1 am when he had to fly out shortly after 8am? Sounds like BS or else they had a more "personal" relationship.)
*JAR's suitcase being found so close to the body (with JB's fibers on the duvet & the Dr. Seuss book)

It's not one particular thing, it's everything added together, like the rest of this case. A lot of people think JR & the RST "influencing" the DA & his office is a conspiracy theory too, but the evidence is overwhelming that it did indeed happen. I'm not dead set on him being involved, but at this point I can't, IMOM, rule him out either.

Nom de plume,
IMO, JAR is possible given your assumptions. Then you have to ask why does JR, PR and BR cover for him?

The absence of Christmas images and that of those taken at the White's party is no coincidence.

They represent cogent forensic evidence so have been sealed.


.
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
I don't know that he was there the night of the 25th or not. Do we know there wasn't a flight plan from Boulder to Atlanta, for any private plane that night? I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to go about checking for those records, if they're even still available. I just see so many red flags that to me don't add up.

We don't know if there was a flight plan from Bldr to Atl that night. Might have been several, or none. If several, I assume authorities checked on those flights.

I don't know how to search those records either, but presumably the FAA does, and would do so for the police in murder investigation.

*The lack of pictures & video (when JR says he ALWAYS took them, except conveniently IMO, not this year.)

Out of character, I agree.

*JB saying he saw him (and was very sure of this to begin with.)

Eyewitnesses can be very unreliable.

*JR lawyering up JAR, MR & LR (WTH was this necessary unless he didn't want them questioned by LE? And why wouldn't he want them questioned by LE if JAR wasn't in Boulder?)

I agree it arouses suspicion.

*JAR accounting for every second of his time (Seems too convenient. And why did the friend come back to spend the night with him at 1 am when he had to fly out shortly after 8am? Sounds like BS or else they had a more "personal" relationship.)

I may have missed something, but my understanding is that he parked his car at Brads, making it necessary to return there to get the car. That's how Brad can say where JAR was until 1am.

*JAR's suitcase being found so close to the body (with JB's fibers on the duvet & the Dr. Seuss book)

I don't see how it implicates JAR at all. It's very unlikely he'd have a Dr. Seuss book, so someone else must have put it there. If JAR was in GA he'd have no control over who did what with the suitcase or the duvet.

It's not one particular thing, it's everything added together, like the rest of this case. A lot of people think JR & the RST "influencing" the DA & his office is a conspiracy theory too, but the evidence is overwhelming that it did indeed happen. I'm not dead set on him being involved, but at this point I can't, IMOM, rule him out either.

I agree, it's everything. All in all "everything" imo adds up to JAR being in GA on the 25th.

I'm not against conspiracy theories per se, but there has to be some evidence. You've got one piece of actual evidence, JB's claim that he saw JAR that day. On the other side are 6 people who claim he was in GA. And you have to have a flight that is either unrecorded (unlikely imo) or easily checked up on, which was presumably done.

I think there is a very low probability of JAR being in Boulder on Christmas. But we can agree to disagree.
 

Nom de plume

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
730
Reaction score
21
Nom de plume,
IMO, JAR is possible given your assumptions. Then you have to ask why does JR, PR and BR cover for him?

The absence of Christmas images and that of those taken at the White's party is no coincidence.

They represent cogent forensic evidence so have been sealed.


.

JR covers for the obvious reason, JAR is his son. (And IMO JR was just as involved) BR either doesn't know, or because JAR is his big brother and his parents told him to. PR either because she doesn't want the scandal, and doesn't want to lose JR, or because she was possibly involved as well.

BBM ITA!
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,437
JR covers for the obvious reason, JAR is his son. (And IMO JR was just as involved) BR either doesn't know, or because JAR is his big brother and his parents told him to. PR either because she doesn't want the scandal, and doesn't want to lose JR, or because she was possibly involved as well.

BBM ITA!

Nom de plume,
I reckon all were involved. but not at the same point in time. Hence the dumping of forensic evidence into the basement.

I think family members abused JonBenet from an early age. Once the balloon went up, everyone converged on a common family statement.

JAR might represent evidence of the above so had to be dumped or relocated. This aspect is lost on many and is only apparent to those that follow the case closely.

i.e. Evidence of JAR might represent evidence of familial abuse, with a photograpic collection to corroborate this assertion?


.
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
Nom de plume,
I reckon all were involved. but not at the same point in time. Hence the dumping of forensic evidence into the basement.

I think family members abused JonBenet from an early age. Once the balloon went up, everyone converged on a common family statement.

JAR might represent evidence of the above so had to be dumped or relocated. This aspect is lost on many and is only apparent to those that follow the case closely.

i.e. Evidence of JAR might represent evidence of familial abuse, with a photograpic collection to corroborate this assertion?


.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. It appears you are suggesting molestation by JAR and other family members because you used the plural s "members". Or am I just taking it too literally?

If this is what you are suggesting, why would JAR need to be relocated but not the other molester(s)?

There are already 3 people in the house who could have molested/killed. Why the need to remove the 4th person? Doesn't the cross fingerpointing defense work even better with more suspects?
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,437
I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. It appears you are suggesting molestation by JAR and other family members because you used the plural s "members". Or am I just taking it too literally?

If this is what you are suggesting, why would JAR need to be relocated but not the other molester(s)?

There are already 3 people in the house who could have molested/killed. Why the need to remove the 4th person? Doesn't the cross fingerpointing defense work even better with more suspects?

Chrishope,
Yes, theory allows for it. Relocation would be imperative since direct involvement would be evident from the photographs, contents of case, and bedroom artifact, etc.

The JonBenet case is not as simple as DocG outlines. His theory proposes an outcome not reached at some point in the morning of 12/25/96. Other theories take account of prior behaviour, a sort of Bayesian approach.

.
 

Nom de plume

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
730
Reaction score
21
UK Guy,
I think I'm following you, sort of. I agree all might have been involved, to some extent. How is it you're figuring photos of Christmas morning that might include JAR would indicate familial abuse?

I have to agree with Chrishope that if they're all involved, why is JAR the only one that needs to "disappear" from the Christmas morning scenario?

In my thinking, JAR would be primarily responsible, if in fact he was there at all, and that's why he would be whisked out of town. Obviously, if they were trying to hide the fact that he was there, pictures & video would have to disappear as well.

Could you please elaborate on your comment about the photographs, contents of case, and bedroom artifact, etc.? TIA
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
UK Guy,
I think I'm following you, sort of. I agree all might have been involved, to some extent. How is it you're figuring photos of Christmas morning that might include JAR would indicate familial abuse?

I have to agree with Chrishope that if they're all involved, why is JAR the only one that needs to "disappear" from the Christmas morning scenario?

In my thinking, JAR would be primarily responsible, if in fact he was there at all, and that's why he would be whisked out of town. Obviously, if they were trying to hide the fact that he was there, pictures & video would have to disappear as well.

Could you please elaborate on your comment about the photographs, contents of case, and bedroom artifact, etc.? TIA


Once the pictures/vids are destroyed (or disappeared somehow) then what need is there for JAR to disappear? He's family. He's supposed to be there.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,437
UK Guy,
I think I'm following you, sort of. I agree all might have been involved, to some extent. How is it you're figuring photos of Christmas morning that might include JAR would indicate familial abuse?

I have to agree with Chrishope that if they're all involved, why is JAR the only one that needs to "disappear" from the Christmas morning scenario?

In my thinking, JAR would be primarily responsible, if in fact he was there at all, and that's why he would be whisked out of town. Obviously, if they were trying to hide the fact that he was there, pictures & video would have to disappear as well.

Could you please elaborate on your comment about the photographs, contents of case, and bedroom artifact, etc.? TIA

Nom de plume,
JAR has to vanish so to stand up the R's version of events. Also any evidence relating to JAR also had to be relocated or destroyed, e.g. video, photos etc. Since this line of questioning would lead directly to JonBenet's chronic abuse.

The collection of photographs found in the basement might be JARS, the suitcase that JR offers a rationale for its relocation is self evident, including its content.

The collection of photos is bona fide evidence that some R had an obsession with JonBenet. So they were dumped into the basement so to avoid any tricky questions.

Pictures and videos might also vanish if JonBenet was wearing an article of clothing that contradicted the R's version of events, or if someone used the camera and video late that night of 12/25/1996 filming either JAR or a non-relative?

Again evidence has to be destroyed to keep the R's version of events consistent.


.
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
Nom de plume,
JAR has to vanish so to stand up the R's version of events.


But if they are making up a version of events, why not make one up that doesn't require flying JAR back to Atlanta? Nothing particularly suspicious about JAR being home for Christmas.

...Also any evidence relating to JAR also had to be relocated or destroyed, e.g. video, photos etc. Since this line of questioning would lead directly to JonBenet's chronic abuse.

OK.

The collection of photographs found in the basement might be JARS, the suitcase that JR offers a rationale for its relocation is self evident, including its content.

Yes it might.

The collection of photos is bona fide evidence that some R had an obsession with JonBenet. So they were dumped into the basement so to avoid any tricky questions.

It might have been better to destroy them, as they are still suspicious even in the basement.

Pictures and videos might also vanish if JonBenet was wearing an article of clothing that contradicted the R's version of events, or if someone used the camera and video late that night of 12/25/1996 filming either JAR or a non-relative?

It's clear that if such photos/video existed they need to disappear. It's not clear, at least to me, why JAR himself must disappear.

Again evidence has to be destroyed to keep the R's version of events consistent.


.

Again, they pretty much control the version of events they are going to present to authorities.
 

RocknessMonster

New Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Was there any confirmation photos exist or just speculation because everyone takes photos at events like this. Sorry if this has already been answered.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,437
Was there any confirmation photos exist or just speculation because everyone takes photos at events like this. Sorry if this has already been answered.

RocknessMonster,
Oh yes. A collection of photos with JonBenet as the subject were found in the basement.

No Ramsey wished to admit ownership of the collection!


.
 

cherisa

Active Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
86
Reaction score
112
RocknessMonster,
Oh yes. A collection of photos with JonBenet as the subject were found in the basement.

No Ramsey wished to admit ownership of the collection!


.

What were they? And why wouldn't they claim them?
 

Mountain_Kat

Heca, Firimar !
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
13,255
Reaction score
35,663
Here is an excerpt from an interview that PR did with Haney:

21 THOMAS HANEY: Did you take some

22 photographs of JonBenet in the basement laundry

23 room?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: You had presents in

0186

1 the basement laundry room, right?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

3 TRIP DeMUTH: So you wrapped

4 presents in the basement laundry room, right?

5 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

6 TRIP DeMUTH: So you were down in

7 the basement laundry room pretty often?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Depending on what

9 time of year it was, yeah, uh-hum.

10 TRIP DeMUTH: And do you remember

11 photographs being -- photographs of JonBenet

12 being in there?

13 PATSY RAMSEY: Taken of her in the

14 laundry room?

15 TRIP DeMUTH: No, no. Photographs

16 of her located in the laundry room?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, in the laundry

18 room, oh. I don't know, there was a bunch of

19 stuff, I mean wrapping stuff and everything. I

20 don't remember any photographs.

21 TRIP DeMUTH: Is there any reason

22 why there would be photographs of JonBenet

23 located in the laundry room?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: No. Were there --

25 I mean, did somebody find them there?

1 TRIP DeMUTH: If there were, would

2 that be out of place for you?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: It would seem to be

4 out of place. I kept wrapping materials and

5 sometimes I worked, wrapping station, Christmas

6 paper and --

7 TRIP DeMUTH: Would -- who else had

8 access to the laundry room, who else would go in

9 there? I know everybody would have access, but

10 who else would use it? Would the boys play in

11 there? Would John go down there?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean anybody

13 could, but I mean the boys could come down and

14 go in the train room, we had the train set up.

15 In the far back in through there, you know. Not

16 in the laundry, really, area.

17 TRIP DeMUTH: Did anybody besides

18 you use that laundry room?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Sometimes Linda

20 would wash, if we were washing comforters or

21 something, because those were big heavy-duty

22 laundry machines, she'd take the things in

23 there, rugs and things, and wash them down

24 there.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

0188

1 THOMAS HANEY: So you don't recall

2 taking a photo of her down there?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.)

4 THOMAS HANEY: If she was doing

5 something really cutesy or something, would you

6 maybe run and get the camera, take one of her?

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Of her in the

8 laundry room?

9 THOMAS HANEY: Uh-hum.

10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.


That sure sounds to me like Haney is implying that, not only were pictures of JB located in the laundry room of the basement, but that at least one of those photos was a photo of JB taken IN the basement laundry room. And Patsy genuinely (for a change) didn't seem to have the first clue what he was talking about.

Which makes me wonder about JR's claim that no video's were taken of Christmas morning because he forgot to charge the video camera. Was something on that camera he didn't want anyone to see? Is it possible that something was going on between the kids, and JR (and/or PR) set up some kind of video surveillance in the basement to catch them (thus the dead batteries)? Were the kids maybe playing "photo-shoot" or something down there?

I don't know...just thinking aloud.
 

questfortrue

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
129
Here is an excerpt from an interview that PR did with Haney:

21 THOMAS HANEY: Did you take some

22 photographs of JonBenet in the basement laundry

23 room?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: You had presents in

0186

1 the basement laundry room, right?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

3 TRIP DeMUTH: So you wrapped

4 presents in the basement laundry room, right?

5 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

6 TRIP DeMUTH: So you were down in

7 the basement laundry room pretty often?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Depending on what

9 time of year it was, yeah, uh-hum.

10 TRIP DeMUTH: And do you remember

11 photographs being -- photographs of JonBenet

12 being in there?

13 PATSY RAMSEY: Taken of her in the

14 laundry room?

15 TRIP DeMUTH: No, no. Photographs

16 of her located in the laundry room?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, in the laundry

18 room, oh. I don't know, there was a bunch of

19 stuff, I mean wrapping stuff and everything. I

20 don't remember any photographs.

21 TRIP DeMUTH: Is there any reason

22 why there would be photographs of JonBenet

23 located in the laundry room?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: No. Were there --

25 I mean, did somebody find them there?

1 TRIP DeMUTH: If there were, would

2 that be out of place for you?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: It would seem to be

4 out of place. I kept wrapping materials and

5 sometimes I worked, wrapping station, Christmas

6 paper and --

7 TRIP DeMUTH: Would -- who else had

8 access to the laundry room, who else would go in

9 there? I know everybody would have access, but

10 who else would use it? Would the boys play in

11 there? Would John go down there?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean anybody

13 could, but I mean the boys could come down and

14 go in the train room, we had the train set up.

15 In the far back in through there, you know. Not

16 in the laundry, really, area.

17 TRIP DeMUTH: Did anybody besides

18 you use that laundry room?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Sometimes Linda

20 would wash, if we were washing comforters or

21 something, because those were big heavy-duty

22 laundry machines, she'd take the things in

23 there, rugs and things, and wash them down

24 there.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

0188

1 THOMAS HANEY: So you don't recall

2 taking a photo of her down there?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.)

4 THOMAS HANEY: If she was doing

5 something really cutesy or something, would you

6 maybe run and get the camera, take one of her?

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Of her in the

8 laundry room?

9 THOMAS HANEY: Uh-hum.

10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.


That sure sounds to me like Haney is implying that, not only were pictures of JB located in the laundry room of the basement, but that at least one of those photos was a photo of JB taken IN the basement laundry room. And Patsy genuinely (for a change) didn't seem to have the first clue what he was talking about.

Which makes me wonder about JR's claim that no video's were taken of Christmas morning because he forgot to charge the video camera. Was something on that camera he didn't want anyone to see? Is it possible that something was going on between the kids, and JR (and/or PR) set up some kind of video surveillance in the basement to catch them (thus the dead batteries)? Were the kids maybe playing "photo-shoot" or something down there?

I don't know...just thinking aloud.

Some interesting ideas in your post.

Regards photographs, I knew that a professional photographer RS shot photos of JB. He was recommended by PG (seamstress for JB’s pageant clothing), telling PR that when a pageant favored the seductive look, RS was the best. He could make a 6 year old look 20. So PR hired him for some professional shots.

JP, photographer and one-time family friend, also took photos of JB for her portfolio and for the family.

Also, someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but I thought that JR was the one who shot photos of the family at holiday time? Did BR or possibly JAR have a camera and shoot family photos?

Then this has been noted by past WS posters: From Presumed Guilty by Singular: "I told Hunter that I had recently been contacted by a woman who had seen a picture of JonBenet, months before the murder, in her parents' bedroom in the summer residence in Charlevoix, Michigan, during a tour of Charlevoix's finer homes. The photograph, the woman said, showed JonBenet with a provocative expression on her face, wearing nothing but make-up and a feather boa snaking around her torso. The woman was so taken aback by the image that she had gone home, called one of her relatives in Denver, and given a detailed account of what she had just seen."

If no one took ownership of the photos discussed in that interview, and ITA PR seemed surprised about the folder of photos, it does make one wonder if these photos were inappropriate or risqué? Also just thinking aloud. moo
 

pageantmom

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
163
Reaction score
16
I can't imagine any photos like that being needed for pageants or even allowed at pageants.
But, just imagine for a moment that there's a mother who is bent on her daughter getting glory, and, a well respected photographer leads that mother to believe that semi nude photos are the way to go.
Not because he honestly believes they'll work pageants (they won't) but because he personally wants to do this to feed his own sick mind.
And I'm sure there are some moms who might do whatever is suggested if they think it can make their kid a star.
I personally have never been asked to do anything inappropriate but I'm just thinking how easy it would be for a pedophile to convince a stage mom that this will be the best thing to do.
:(



Some interesting ideas in your post.

Regards photographs, I knew that a professional photographer RS shot photos of JB. He was recommended by PG (seamstress for JB’s pageant clothing), telling PR that when a pageant favored the seductive look, RS was the best. He could make a 6 year old look 20. So PR hired him for some professional shots.

JP, photographer and one-time family friend, also took photos of JB for her portfolio and for the family.

Also, someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but I thought that JR was the one who shot photos of the family at holiday time? Did BR or possibly JAR have a camera and shoot family photos?

Then this has been noted by past WS posters: From Presumed Guilty by Singular: "I told Hunter that I had recently been contacted by a woman who had seen a picture of JonBenet, months before the murder, in her parents' bedroom in the summer residence in Charlevoix, Michigan, during a tour of Charlevoix's finer homes. The photograph, the woman said, showed JonBenet with a provocative expression on her face, wearing nothing but make-up and a feather boa snaking around her torso. The woman was so taken aback by the image that she had gone home, called one of her relatives in Denver, and given a detailed account of what she had just seen."

If no one took ownership of the photos discussed in that interview, and ITA PR seemed surprised about the folder of photos, it does make one wonder if these photos were inappropriate or risqué? Also just thinking aloud. moo
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,437
Here is an excerpt from an interview that PR did with Haney:

21 THOMAS HANEY: Did you take some

22 photographs of JonBenet in the basement laundry

23 room?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: You had presents in

0186

1 the basement laundry room, right?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

3 TRIP DeMUTH: So you wrapped

4 presents in the basement laundry room, right?

5 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

6 TRIP DeMUTH: So you were down in

7 the basement laundry room pretty often?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Depending on what

9 time of year it was, yeah, uh-hum.

10 TRIP DeMUTH: And do you remember

11 photographs being -- photographs of JonBenet

12 being in there?

13 PATSY RAMSEY: Taken of her in the

14 laundry room?

15 TRIP DeMUTH: No, no. Photographs

16 of her located in the laundry room?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, in the laundry

18 room, oh. I don't know, there was a bunch of

19 stuff, I mean wrapping stuff and everything. I

20 don't remember any photographs.

21 TRIP DeMUTH: Is there any reason

22 why there would be photographs of JonBenet

23 located in the laundry room?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: No. Were there --

25 I mean, did somebody find them there?

1 TRIP DeMUTH: If there were, would

2 that be out of place for you?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: It would seem to be

4 out of place. I kept wrapping materials and

5 sometimes I worked, wrapping station, Christmas

6 paper and --

7 TRIP DeMUTH: Would -- who else had

8 access to the laundry room, who else would go in

9 there? I know everybody would have access, but

10 who else would use it? Would the boys play in

11 there? Would John go down there?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean anybody

13 could, but I mean the boys could come down and

14 go in the train room, we had the train set up.

15 In the far back in through there, you know. Not

16 in the laundry, really, area.

17 TRIP DeMUTH: Did anybody besides

18 you use that laundry room?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Sometimes Linda

20 would wash, if we were washing comforters or

21 something, because those were big heavy-duty

22 laundry machines, she'd take the things in

23 there, rugs and things, and wash them down

24 there.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

0188

1 THOMAS HANEY: So you don't recall

2 taking a photo of her down there?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.)

4 THOMAS HANEY: If she was doing

5 something really cutesy or something, would you

6 maybe run and get the camera, take one of her?

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Of her in the

8 laundry room?

9 THOMAS HANEY: Uh-hum.

10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.


That sure sounds to me like Haney is implying that, not only were pictures of JB located in the laundry room of the basement, but that at least one of those photos was a photo of JB taken IN the basement laundry room. And Patsy genuinely (for a change) didn't seem to have the first clue what he was talking about.

Which makes me wonder about JR's claim that no video's were taken of Christmas morning because he forgot to charge the video camera. Was something on that camera he didn't want anyone to see? Is it possible that something was going on between the kids, and JR (and/or PR) set up some kind of video surveillance in the basement to catch them (thus the dead batteries)? Were the kids maybe playing "photo-shoot" or something down there?

I don't know...just thinking aloud.

Mountain_Kat.
However you parse the above, Patsy does not seem to have an explanation for the photographs.

Given the subject matter was JonBenet, how could she not know?

My take on these photos is they belong to a person who molested JonBenet. This need not be the same person who molested her on 12/25/1996, but it might be?

The photos have been dumped in the basement, so to sever any connection with whomever owned them?

An interesting research query might be: Who among the male members of the Ramsey family took photographs, or had an interest in photography?

Obviously the R's did not want anyone to see what was on their video camera, which might suggest that the collection of photos could have been dumped into the basement when JR went missing?

Either someone we dont know, e.g. a friend of BR, or another R, was present or JonBenet said something which contradicts the R's version of events, or just as likely, given the collection dumped into the basement, someone had been using the video camera to film JonBenet in risque poses?

.
 

Mountain_Kat

Heca, Firimar !
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
13,255
Reaction score
35,663
John used a laundry chute for his dirty clothes. Where the heck did that dump out into? Anyone know?
 

SweetT

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
2,930
Reaction score
41
It sure would be nice if someone who sat on that Grand Jury back in the day would come out and let everyone know what all evidence they were privy to.
 
Top