Was BR involved? #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
BBM. Because I think JonBenet was wearing the pull ups and the panties when she was killed. She was cleaned up and the panties placed back on her, pull up was disposed of.

The housekeeper had no way of knowing for sure what the little girl was put to bed in.

Putting big girl panties over the pull-up would for JonBenet's self-esteem...and Patsy's. Going to the trouble of buying a gift, having it gift wrapped, carrying it back to Colorado and then tossing it in the basement makes absolutely no sense to me.

Your BBM, no. Crime scene info tells us the sheets "reeked of urine"

So either she had an accident, or had some type of urine release b/c of being sexually abused, or possibly b/c she voided at that time from being killed in her bed.

As for the housekeeper, she know that JRB wasn't wearing pull-ups to bed, b/c according to her, PR would already have the sheets pulled off, b/c there had been an accident, and the dirty sheets would already be in the washer by the time she would arrive.

Lastly, there were a number of wrapped gifts being stored in the basement. PR probably sent gifts to people in the mail, or for those they would visit with after the holidays. One of which could have been this niece.
 
Your BBM, no. Crime scene info tells us the sheets "reeked of urine"

So either she had an accident, or had some type of urine release b/c of being sexually abused, or possibly b/c she voided at that time from being killed in her bed.

As for the housekeeper, she know that JRB wasn't wearing pull-ups to bed, b/c according to her, PR would already have the sheets pulled off, b/c there had been an accident, and the dirty sheets would already be in the washer by the time she would arrive.

Lastly, there were a number of wrapped gifts being stored in the basement. PR probably sent gifts to people in the mail, or for those they would visit with after the holidays. One of which could have been this niece.

Pull ups can leak. So can bodies as they die. The fact that the sheets reeked of urine is useless of anything at all.

The housekeeper wasn't there that night.
 
You mean from the tabloids they sued....nope


And then the Rs made a deal with the Globe as part of the settlement to do an interview....b/c you know, they needed to get their side of the story out!

Whatever happened to all the money?


I musta been tired the night we were discussing this!

I do remember the Ramsey's giving that interview!!! It was part of the "settlement" wasn't it?

LMAO!

I gotta refresh my memory and research this again! I remember Patsy talking about it in a depo...was hilarious the way it was being spun by her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

National enquirer?
 
Found the interview and the depo in one place!!!

National enquirer .... Interesting this is the first time publicly, they admit to being LIARS and that Burke was wide awake before the 911 call was made.

BEFORE the call was made;)

http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

1 that were made in the course of an interview,
2 formal interview with The National Enquirer?
3 A. It was an interview in conjunction
4 with some litigation for Burke that we were
5 involved with.
6 Q. If it was --
7 MR. HOFFMAN: See, this is why it is
8 a tricky area because for litigation, I don't
9 want to go into what the litigation was about,
10 and, naturally, if she gave it for the purposes
11 of the litigation, then she is required to by
12 law.
13 MR. WOOD: No, it was not given as a
14 requirement of the litigation as a matter of law.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, okay.
16 MR. WOOD: But I think what she is
17 saying is that the issue about the interview came
18 up in connection with actually the resolution of
19 some of Burke's claims.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Because I don't want to
21 get into it if this is part of the settlement.
22 If that is really what she is going to say, that
23 she agreed to this interview because it was part
24 of a settlement agreement --
25 MR. WOOD: I don't think that is

Page 158
1 what she said.
2 THE WITNESS: I agreed to the
3 interview because, I mean, we are not afraid to
4 face even our most vile opponent, of which I
5 consider The National Enquirer to be one of the
6 most vile.


^^^^^^
So much of that fits right in with the Burke did it theory!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Found the interview and the depo in one place!!!

National enquirer .... Interesting this is the first time publicly, they admit to being LIARS and that Burke was wide awake before the 911 call was made.

BEFORE the call was made;)

http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

1 that were made in the course of an interview,
2 formal interview with The National Enquirer?
3 A. It was an interview in conjunction
4 with some litigation for Burke that we were
5 involved with.
6 Q. If it was --
7 MR. HOFFMAN: See, this is why it is
8 a tricky area because for litigation, I don't
9 want to go into what the litigation was about,
10 and, naturally, if she gave it for the purposes
11 of the litigation, then she is required to by
12 law.
13 MR. WOOD: No, it was not given as a
14 requirement of the litigation as a matter of law.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, okay.
16 MR. WOOD: But I think what she is
17 saying is that the issue about the interview came
18 up in connection with actually the resolution of
19 some of Burke's claims.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Because I don't want to
21 get into it if this is part of the settlement.
22 If that is really what she is going to say, that
23 she agreed to this interview because it was part
24 of a settlement agreement --
25 MR. WOOD: I don't think that is

Page 158
1 what she said.
2 THE WITNESS: I agreed to the
3 interview because, I mean, we are not afraid to
4 face even our most vile opponent, of which I
5 consider The National Enquirer to be one of the
6 most vile.


^^^^^^
So much of that fits right in with the Burke did it theory!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Linda7NJ,
Oh my, just imagine that, BR was wide awake and walking about on the morning of 12/26/1996, just like I said.

Anyone spot the pattern: BR says he saw JonBenet walking into the house on the evening of 12/25/1996; PR and JR say JonBenet was carried into the house.

...

BR says he was awake the morning of 12/26/1996, PR and JR say he was sound asleep on the morning of 12/26/1996.

Boulder Police Department say they found no size-12 underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer, or for that matter, anywhere else in the house! Yet a set of size-12 undewear was found in a packing crate years later.

Get the pattern, if you care for large words its called revisionism or for those lighter of heart: tweaking the story.

BR never said anything, we never spoke to him etc, he is a quiet boy, i.e. don't bother asking him anything, we have told him to remain silent.

The interesting thing about the size-12 underwear is not the packaging, the size, Day Of the Week, or even that JonBenet was wearing them. Its whether prior to her interview did PR know JonBenet was found wearing them at the autopsy?

PR claims she did not know what style of underwear JonBenet was wearing before leaving for the White's Christmas Party, she also never noticed any underwear when she undressed JonBenet for bed!

So PR knows what she does not know, except maybe the size-12's, or does she, because in her interview on this subject she states she placed the size-12 underwear into JonBenet's underwear drawer for her use?

So big Q is: why would PR say such a thing if she redressed JonBenet in the size-12's?

For aficionados of the JonBenet case can you imagine the conversation between PR and JR?

PR: You messed up on the underwear John.

JR: Really dear, you reckon so?

PR: You bet, I had to lie through my teeth on that subject.

JR Don't worry dear, I'll have it sorted.

PR: Well you better, otherwise ...

Big clue here as regards the staging.


.
 
~RSBM~
So PR knows what she does not know, except maybe the size-12's, or does she, because in her interview on this subject she states she placed the size-12 underwear into JonBenet's underwear drawer for her use?

So big Q is: why would PR say such a thing if she redressed JonBenet in the size-12's?

For aficionados of the JonBenet case can you imagine the conversation between PR and JR?

PR: You messed up on the underwear John.

JR: Really dear, you reckon so?

PR: You bet, I had to lie through my teeth on that subject.

JR Don't worry dear, I'll have it sorted.

PR: Well you better, otherwise ...

Big clue here as regards the staging.


.

BBM - :floorlaugh:
 
BBM - :floorlaugh:

Exactly!!!!

PR claims she only noticed that JRB had panties on when getting dressed, and then when she was undressed she was still wearing panties. But if for some weird reason JRB DID put on the size 12 undies unbeknownst to Patsy, and she somehow failed to notice that the crotch of her daughter's panties were almost at her knees, she would surely have noticed something was amiss after she was dressed because...

1) the extra bulk of the too big panties would have made it seem JRB had stuffed something down her leggings, &&

2) they most definitely would have come off when PR pulled off the leggings when putting her to bed.

For any of us who have undressed a sleeping kid, even properly fitting underwear would likely come off with leggings, never mind panties that were FOUR sizes too big!!!!!
 
Wasn't the correct day of the week panties placed on the child? Am I the only one who finds the methodical, meticulous attention to detail a sign of a very sick mind?

Yes, the correct day of the week was put on JB. I don't necessarily think it is a sign of a sick mind, but it certainly the sign of an obsessive person, someone who needs everything to look perfect, regardless of circumstance. Patsy would be the kind of person who simply COULD NOT have JB wearing the wrong day. Dead or alive.
However, it has long been discussed here that there may be another reason for the Wednesday panties. JB was well known to ask anyone within earshot to help her wipe herself in the bathroom. I can totally see JB having a Wednesday pair on that day- in her own size (meaning Patsy bought 2 sets at Bloomies - one for her niece in size 12 and one for JB in her own size). These cute novelty panties would be something you'd notice on a child if you saw them, and probably remember. If there was a chance that JB has asked someone (other than her parents) to help wipe her at the White's, they might be asked by police if they remembered what she had been wearing that day and they might have remembered the panties and they might have remembered that they fit her the way they were supposed to. (especially if the person helping her was a woman). So it was important to replace JB's undies with an identical pair- of which there WAS one. (Jenny's gift set, handy right there in the winecellar wrapped up with some gifts).
Police found NO Bloomies panties of ANY size in the home. JB's undies were in her bathroom drawers, not in her bedroom (which actually makes sense if there are drawers in there).
BTW, I do not see BR doing any of the redressing, staging, opening the panty set with his Swiss Army knife, etc at ALL. This part is all the parents, IMO.

As far as the way the size 12s fit- anyone who has not done so should look at Jayelle's posts showing how the size 12 panties fit on a model of a child of JB's size. She purchased a set of Bloomies panties in girls' size 12 and placed them on a model of a child's torso. There is NO way a little girl would ever wear panties with the crotch hanging down to her knees. The entire pelvic and buttock area is actually uncovered, as the huge leg holes leave that area bare. Had these panties been word under a dress, they'd have been virtually useless as far as coverage. But under pants (as JB wore that day) they'd have been so bunched up with all the extra fabric that not only would the pants be uncomfortable, but you'd likely see all the fabric bunched up.
 
I think Patsy wanted her found in clean panties, not her usual stained up ones.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
DENVER — State residents Thursday rallied to Gov. Bill Owens for calling on the parents of slain child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey to "quit hiding" and return to Colorado to help find their daughter's killer.


But in strong language criticized by some attorneys, Owens also said the parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, should quit hiding behind their attorneys and public relations firm and "come back to Colorado and work with us to find the killers in this case, no matter where that trail may lead."

Police have said the parents remain under "an umbrella of suspicion," but the governor's remarks have been the most pointed to date.


He said that he also wanted Coloradans to know he has confidence in the team now working on the case and that new evidence has surfaced outside the grand jury, which recently ended its 13-month probe with no indictments. He has declined to discuss the evidence.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/29/news/mn-27420


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
more detail:

But Owens offered new insights into the investigation, saying the new evidence had not been presented to the grand jury and that the authorities were "targeting the right suspects," the first official confirmation that investigators believe more than one person might have been involved in the killing.

The governor also became the highest-ranking public official to criticize JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, for resisting efforts seeking their cooperation in the investigation.

After characterizing the killers as "very smart" in that they have "stonewalled effectively and covered their tracks well," Owens was asked what he would say to the Ramseys, who now live in Georgia.

He replied: "If I could speak to John and Patsy Ramsey, I'd tell them to quit hiding behind their attorneys, quit hiding behind their PR firm, come back to Colorado, work with us to find the killers in this case no matter where that trail may lead."

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/19...1_jonbenet-ramsey-patsy-ramsey-boulder-county

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
On December 27, 1996 detectives attempted to interview both Patsy and John Ramseys. John only agreed to a 45 minute interview as long as his brother, JonBenet's Pediatrician Dr. Beuf, and Rod Westmorland (who was John's financial adviser who introduced himself as an attorney), and a local lawyer named Mike Bynum were present. Dr. Beuf told authorities JonBent's brother Burke could not be interviewed. During the interview John did not ask any questions about the murder, the autopsy, or how JonBenet was killed. Feels more like criminals trying to defend themselves rather than parents concerned about helping the police investigators find the murderer of their child.

The pediatrician said Burke couldn't be interviewed?

How interesting.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Did the grand jury ever subpoena the pediatricians records???




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Did the grand jury ever subpoena the pediatricians records???




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have no way of knowing.

Kolar couldn't speak to that if they did, right? That's my understanding.

Off hand I can't recall if he attempts to allude to it one way or another?

Hmmm, however, he does make pointed reference of wanting to get at the records--BRs specifically--but ML is too concerned with "harming their relationship" to do anything about it.

Perhaps only JRBs were subpoenaed?
 
more detail:

But Owens offered new insights into the investigation, saying the new evidence had not been presented to the grand jury and that the authorities were "targeting the right suspects," the first official confirmation that investigators believe more than one person might have been involved in the killing.

The governor also became the highest-ranking public official to criticize JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, for resisting efforts seeking their cooperation in the investigation.

After characterizing the killers as "very smart" in that they have "stonewalled effectively and covered their tracks well," Owens was asked what he would say to the Ramseys, who now live in Georgia.

He replied: "If I could speak to John and Patsy Ramsey, I'd tell them to quit hiding behind their attorneys, quit hiding behind their PR firm, come back to Colorado, work with us to find the killers in this case no matter where that trail may lead."

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/19...1_jonbenet-ramsey-patsy-ramsey-boulder-county

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh the wording :banghead::banghead:

BBM

Definitely implies he knows who the killer(s) is, or at least the new evidence leads him to believe he knows. How else would he surmise they are smart, and have been effective in stonewalling, and covering their tracks?

And how I wonder does a killer "effectively stonewall?"

Oh yea, through lawyers.
 
Interesting reading....old National Enquirer articles on Burke Ramsey.

1998 NE Articles on Burke - Forums For Justice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some interesting tidbits...none of which we really know are true or not, and many I'm sure would argue its all rumor.

However, 2 small things I did pick up on that I didn't know.
1) his psych interview was played for GJ. Yes we don't know this for fact, but it certainly seems reasonable, and likely. According to Kolar's assessment, that likely wouldn't be a "favorable" piece of evidence.

2) he went to a private school in Atlanta. I had wondered about this. I checked out their web site...it's a high-end preparatory school, which means it's a pretty well controlled environment. It ain't no public school, which from my experience would favor the Rs regarding outside influences and or exposure.
 
Did the grand jury ever subpoena the pediatricians records???




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I doubt it. The Rs asked for and got an "island of privacy" for BOTH kids medical records. I can't see AH obtaining a warrant for the kids' medical records when he refused to get warrants for things like the phone records.
 
I doubt it. The Rs asked for and got an "island of privacy" for BOTH kids medical records. I can't see AH obtaining a warrant for the kids' medical records when he refused to get warrants for things like the phone records.

We really don't know. Kolar stresses how medical records were witheld "during the investigation," but we have no way of knowing if he is referencing any investigative actions undertaken by the GJ.

I do think its safe to conclude, however, that BRs records post murder were never subpoenaed or considered as part of the GJ process. He recounts in his written presentation to Beckner in Oct of 2008.....

John Ramsey noted during his June 1998 interview with Lou Smit, that he was taking medication that had been prescribed for him by Burke’s psychiatrist, Dr. Steven Jaffee of Atlanta, Georgia. The fact that John was taking medication to help him through those difficult times didn’t seem out of the ordinary to me. I did think it unusual, however, that Burke, who reportedly had not witnessed any of the events surrounding JonBenét’s kidnapping or death, was still being treated professionally nearly a year and a half after the event. Patsy had also made reference to Burke’s treatment during her 1998 interview with authorities, indicating that they didn’t want to him to wake up one day when he was forty, and have difficulties dealing with the repercussions of all that was going on with the events surrounding the murder investigation. Purported to have witnessed nothing related to his sister’s disappearance, or having nothing of import for a police interview, I could not help but wonder why Burke would require such extensive psychological counseling.

I also referenced statements made by Pam Paugh during a nationally televised interview that had taken place around the time that the grand jury had begun its inquiry in 1998. Paugh declared during that interview that Burke had been cleared of any involvement in his sister’s death by psychological testing. Worthy of note is that she felt it necessary to spontaneously provide his psychological treatment as an offer of proof that he could not have been involved in this crime of violence. I presented the argument to Beckner that Pam Paugh’s statements to the national audience about Burke’s psychological counseling, and his being cleared of any involvement in the death of his sister, may have voided the doctor-patient privilege. I believed that by raising the issue of his psychological testing and treatment, she had made the issue of his mental health treatment a matter of public record, interest, and concern. I wondered whether or not her public statements had opened the door to accessing his psychiatric records, for I felt that they needed to be evaluated in relation to any possible knowledge he may have had about the death of JonBenét. I concluded my letter to Beckner urging that he again consider involving the grand jury in the matter of JonBenét’s death and was hopeful that a new regime at the District Attorney’s office would consider this course of action.

And had previously brought this topic up in his presentation to ML in 2006, during which ML made the outrageous statement regarding her relationship with the Ramseys.

I pointed out that Ramsey attorneys had effectively withheld medical records from the prosecution during the investigation, and I specifically referred to John Ramsey’s interview of June 1998. I felt, that given the above information, we should be revisiting and intensifying our investigation of the involvement of the family. Among other things, we should be seeking the psychiatric records of Burke to determine if he had had any knowledge of the death of his sister, either through a grand jury or by asking the Ramseys for the information. I believed wholeheartedly that this was a viable investigative lead that deserved pursuit. If nothing came of it, then at least we could say that we had covered all of our bases. Mary Lacy’s response is something that I will have difficulty ever forgetting. She told me that she was unwilling to pursue that lead because she ‘didn’t want to harm her relationship with the Ramsey family.’

3628 & 5031-47

Eta: and once again there is reference to one of the parents being prescribed medication by their child's doctor. What is up with that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
4,366
Total visitors
4,537

Forum statistics

Threads
592,421
Messages
17,968,563
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top