Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 25 to 36 of 36
  1. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    Karen, I think you make a very good point about not putting any stock in Patsy's interviews. I made a similar post, just today, on the pillow thread.I agree. I just look at the crime scene photos and try to decipher myself what it tells me....be darned if I'm going to pay attention to her....."uhh...ahhh....well, you know......I can't remember......".
    I answered your post and I have to tell you, you're the first person to agree with me about that.

  2. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    I agree. With Patsy, it's always was she lying then, or is she lying now?

    But I remember having a six year old in the house and a bed-wetting accident included the child pulling the underwear off immediately upon waking. So I posted what Patsy said because it was something that seems reasonably truthful on this point...?

    BTW, I am going to get to the Bonita Papers, I promise. Just got caught up with the "pillowcase" issue and went off on that tangent because it finally got through my thick skull that Burke could not have carried JonBenet down two flights of stairs to the basement if she were unconscious.

    You're also right on this score: one reason we can't get a handle on the most mundane things, so spin our wheels for 14 years just trying to figure out when the bedclothes were last changed, when did JB last take a bath, where and when did JB eat the pineapple, where did the size 12-14 Bloomies package and the size 6 underwear JB was actually wearing earlier in the evening go, etc., is because Patsy lied as much as she told the truth. John was pretty good at lying himself, IMO. John had an easier time passing the polygraph, after all...eventually.

    The good thing about reading the interviews, even Patsy's, is the questions that are put to Patsy by LE. Many times, their questions tell us something about the evidence or the importance of some of the evidence.

  3. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by learnin View Post
    the good thing about reading the interviews, even patsy's, is the questions that are put to patsy by le. Many times, their questions tell us something about the evidence or the importance of some of the evidence.
    ita.

  4. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    The good thing about reading the interviews, even Patsy's, is the questions that are put to Patsy by LE. Many times, their questions tell us something about the evidence or the importance of some of the evidence.
    Right. I also agree with Karen- Patsy's answers are rubbish, and LE lets her get away with a LOT- they stop the questioning when it gets too "close" to the truth and one of the R lawyers calls a recess. Then, LE forgets to go back to the question.
    Then, they reached a point where the R lawyers wouldn't allow their clients to be asked any questions they had previously been asked.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  5. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    Right. I also agree with Karen- Patsy's answers are rubbish, and LE lets her get away with a LOT- they stop the questioning when it gets too "close" to the truth and one of the R lawyers calls a recess. Then, LE forgets to go back to the question.
    Then, they reached a point where the R lawyers wouldn't allow their clients to be asked any questions they had previously been asked.


    And I think that was so stupid of the lawyers because a question or subject being gone over again and again would clue them in to what LE is looking at as evidence ( or KNOWS) and would allow the Ramseys a chance to make up an answer.
    Or well ,heck, Patsys answers were rubbish anyway so maybe they had already figured that out.

  6. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    [/B]

    And I think that was so stupid of the lawyers because a question or subject being gone over again and again would clue them in to what LE is looking at as evidence ( or KNOWS) and would allow the Ramseys a chance to make up an answer.
    Or well ,heck, Patsys answers were rubbish anyway so maybe they had already figured that out.
    Believe me, their lawyers knew what they were looking for. What they were trying to do was make sure the Rs didn't have to worry about saying something different from what they had previously said.
    Of course, if you are telling the truth, you don't have to remember what you said- because it will be he same thing every time.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  7. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    Believe me, their lawyers knew what they were looking for. What they were trying to do was make sure the Rs didn't have to worry about saying something different from what they had previously said.
    Of course, if you are telling the truth, you don't have to remember what you said- because it will be he same thing every time.
    But I thought the Ramseys got their prior statements to the police?

  8. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    But I thought the Ramseys got their prior statements to the police?
    Sorry- I am not following you. Do you mean that the Rs were provided with their prior statements? I know their lawyers asked for them, but I am nut sure they were given.
    That's why their lawyers wouldn't allow them to be asked the same questions.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  9. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    Sorry- I am not following you. Do you mean that the Rs were provided with their prior statements? I know their lawyers asked for them, but I am nut sure they were given.
    That's why their lawyers wouldn't allow them to be asked the same questions.
    Yes. That's what I meant. Thank you.

    In DOI (?) I remember reading Fleet White was furious because the Ramseys recieved the statements they gave to the police on the 26th and he was denied his.

  10. #34

    Default

    I'm thinking that one condition of the Ramseys' was they be given copies of their prior statements before they'd be interviewed by the BDA's "detectives" in June of 1998.

    Didn't the detectives ask Patsy/John during those interviews if they'd looked over their prior statements? Seems that's what I remember, though I have to say I've got so much mashed up in my head on this case, I might be confused.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  11. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    Karen, I think you make a very good point about not putting any stock in Patsy's interviews. I made a similar post, just today, on the pillow thread.
    I agree. I just look at the crime scene photos and try to decipher myself what it tells me....be darned if I'm going to pay attention to her....."uhh...ahhh....well, you know......I can't remember......".
    One thing I try to look for in the LE interviews is the pattern of "memory" when answering the questions put to them.

    For example, Patsy would not remember very important information, but while saying she didn't remember something critical like what JonBenet ate at the Whites', Patsy then went into great detail about what Priscilla served and how the tables were arranged and how odd it was that Priscilla did something very specific--that she'd put a plate of cracked crab for JonBenet--and isn't that now suspicious? But Patsy drew a blank on JonBenet actually sitting at those tables or eating from a plate prepared for her by the hostess, or if she washed her hands, etc.

    Same with the Bloomies found on JonBenet, whether JonBenet took a bath before dressing for the Whites' party, when she even last took a bath, what JonBenet's grooming habits on a daily basis were, what she wore to play in that day, if or what she ate for lunch, etc. Was she kidding? Patsy remember taking JB's clothes off in detail and not being able to find bottoms, but couldn't remember when JB's bed was last changed or where the white blanket was that night? She remembered arguing with JonBenet over what she wore to the Whites', but she had no idea that JonBenet had underwear on that could fit an average adult petite adult woman, or even Patsy?

    Red flag, IMO. Patsy knew the evidence already analyzed by the time she was answering those questions, even in April of 1997, and she knew where to "forget", IMO. Then she tried to cover up her attempt to confuse the evidence by providing details that were insignificant but took up time and thought. Just like the ransom note.

    One of my favorite BS stories Patsy spun in her '98 interview was about the "lost cell phone." Oh, lordy, she got deep in the doo doo with that one. Lost cell phone, my azz.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  12. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    One thing I try to look for in the LE interviews is the pattern of "memory" when answering the questions put to them.

    For example, Patsy would not remember very important information, but while saying she didn't remember something critical like what JonBenet ate at the Whites', Patsy then went into great detail about what Priscilla served and how the tables were arranged and how odd it was that Priscilla did something very specific--that she'd put a plate of cracked crab for JonBenet--and isn't that now suspicious? But Patsy drew a blank on JonBenet actually sitting at those tables or eating from a plate prepared for her by the hostess, or if she washed her hands, etc.

    Same with the Bloomies found on JonBenet, whether JonBenet took a bath before dressing for the Whites' party, when she even last took a bath, what JonBenet's grooming habits on a daily basis were, what she wore to play in that day, if or what she ate for lunch, etc. Was she kidding? Patsy remember taking JB's clothes off in detail and not being able to find bottoms, but couldn't remember when JB's bed was last changed or where the white blanket was that night? She remembered arguing with JonBenet over what she wore to the Whites', but she had no idea that JonBenet had underwear on that could fit an average adult petite adult woman, or even Patsy?

    Red flag, IMO. Patsy knew the evidence already analyzed by the time she was answering those questions, even in April of 1997, and she knew where to "forget", IMO. Then she tried to cover up her attempt to confuse the evidence by providing details that were insignificant but took up time and thought. Just like the ransom note.

    One of my favorite BS stories Patsy spun in her '98 interview was about the "lost cell phone." Oh, lordy, she got deep in the doo doo with that one. Lost cell phone, my azz.

    All excellent points! I was re-reading Furhman's chapter on the JBR murder and he made an excellent point along lines that you are making, here, kk.

    Furhman included some transcripts from Patsy's interviews. In one, where Patsy is being asked about the broken basement window, she remembers in detail about coming home and cleaning the glass up....keeps repeating how the kids play down there and the glass had to be cleaned up..goes into detail about how she had LHP follow behind her with a vacuum cleaner to make sure all fragments wer up "because you know the kids played down there".

    Then Trujillo asks her if she had the window replaced and, PRESTO, SUDDENLY SHE CAN'T REMEMBER! Are you kidding me? You remember every little minute detail about cleaning up the glass from the broken window but you can't remember if you called and paid for someone to replace the broken window????

    Furhman makes a big deal about this and I think he's absolutely right. You know what I think? I think the window was broken sometime that fall and IT WAS REPLACED....and I think it was re-broken that night for a staging!!!!!

    So, Patsy remembers about cleaning the glass up, in the fall, but, when she was asked if she replaced it, she didn't know what to say....so she suddenly couldn't remember....



Similar Threads

  1. Interesting DNA article (from Orphan)
    By Elle_1 in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: October 28, 2006, 12:35 pm, Sat Oct 28 12:35:21 UTC 2006
  2. This could get interesting
    By Barbara in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: August 22, 2006, 7:29 pm, Tue Aug 22 19:29:49 UTC 2006
  3. An Interesting Look Back--'98 FW Letter
    By Deja Nu in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 21, 2003, 3:24 pm, Sun Dec 21 15:24:39 UTC 2003
  4. P.I. uncovers interesting clue.
    By Tricia in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 6, 2003, 2:03 pm, Thu Mar 6 14:03:03 UTC 2003

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •