A little quiz

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by icedtea4me, Jan 22, 2006.

  1. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    This is what John Ramsey said in the A&E documentary which aired on Aug 6, 1998-

    John Ramsey: The American public has been led to believe that we went to bed that night on Christmas, brutally beat JonBenet, sexually molested her, strangled her, woke up the next morning, wrote a three-page ransom note, called the police, sat around the house for four hours then I went down and discovered her body - Then was able to act distraught. Patsy was able to throw up that morning because of gut-wrenching anxiety - She faked it - Help me understand that. Where is our common sense as a society, as a race of people?

    Now that you have finished reading that, here is a multiple choice question for you to answer. John said...

    a. "...called the police, sat around the house for four hours then I went down and discovered her body" (5:52 a.m. + 4 hours = 9:52 a.m., round up to 10 a.m.)

    b. "...called the police, sat around the house for seven hours then I went down and discovered her body" (5:52 a.m. + 7 hours = 12:52 p.m., round up to 1 p.m.)

    c. "...called the police, sat around the house for ten hours then I went down and discovered her body" (5:52 a.m. + 10 hours = 3:52 p.m., round up to 4 p.m.)

    Is the answer a, b, or c?

    -Tea
     
  2. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Tea, I think it's "a" only because that is closest to the real time John went down to the basement himself and I believe discovered her body.

    He almost admits it in this statement doesn't he.

    "sat around for 4 hours.." He's right. He sat around for four hours, discovered her body, then continued the act until he discovered the body for a second time.
     
  3. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    But how can this be? I mean, he didn't find her body until 1 p.m., right? Right?

    Oh, wait a minute... I know now. Four is Ramsey-speak for seven! Of course! Well, there you have it. :)

    -Tea
     
  4. Greenleaf

    Greenleaf FFJ Senior Member

    IcedTea

    I think it's (d.), Tea.

    (d.) None of the above. The big clue: SBTC. (Screwed By The Timeline.)

    GL
    :leaf:
     
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    Definitley (d) SBTC = SAILED BOAT TO CHINA
     
  6. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I find it quite interesting and very telling that the Ramseys NEVER address the possibility of a non-intentional death for JonBenet. They always go over the top in their descriptions of what happened, make it pre-meditated and very graphic in order to juxtapose it with their self-proclaimed All-American decency.

    JonBenet was not brutally beaten in the strictest sense of the word. She had one horrific head wound. As terrible as that injury was, she was not "brutally" beaten all over as the phrase implies.

    I believe the Ramseys emphasize a pre-meditated and deliberate death for JonBenet because the opposite is true ... that her initial head injury was unintentional, but because of mitigating factors the Ramseys wished to cover up, the rest of story played out from there.
     
  7. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    You are absolutely correct. In fact, I will be making a post on this before long.
     
  8. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Well, to the contrary, that's not what I believe at all.

    In fact, I believe at least one of the Ramseys never went to bed that night, and the other one wasn't asleep long before s/he was awakened.

    Woke up the next morning, wrote a three-page ransom note? I don't believe that either. If they never went to bed, they certainly didn't wake up and write a three-page ransom note. They did that after JBR was killed in the very wee hours of the morning.

    Sat around the house for four hours? No, it wasn't four hours - it was more like seven hours before he "discovered" the body, unless he's talking about when he was in the basement earlier that same morning.

    "Then was able to act distraught. Patsy was able to throw up that morning because of gut-wrenching anxiety - She faked it - Help me understand that."

    Not so hard to understand if one considers JB's death an accident to begin with - an accident that happened during the commission of a felony that had to be covered up. Since no one ever meant to kill JB that night, of course no one would have to fake anything - the overwhelming grief was real. I suspect the guilt is too, but they've pretty much gotten over the guilt. Why spend the rest of their lives in prison for something they never meant to happen?

    After all, they aren't really murderers. It was an accident.
     
  9. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    I'll be waiting with held breath, Easywriter. At the moment, I'm more interested in the order John put those events in. He might be right about that, though he probably doesn't know it.
     
  10. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    What did JR mean when he said "as a race of people"? Does he mean as opposed to a race of monkeys? Dogs? A race of rabbits?

    I'm afraid I don't understand that, either.
     
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    See, that's what jumps out at me, the "sequence of events."

    He got those dead right (no pun intended.)

    I do think he "knows" it, as well. I'd be very surprised if the infamous team of Haddon and company never sat down with John Ramsey and told him, early on, JonBenet was molested, John, and it's at least arguable that she was molested BEFORE that night, so you're THE NUMBER ONE PRIME SUSPECT.

    John and Patsy love to act like their attorneys just patted them on the head and said oh, don't worry about the details of your child's murder, we will take care of everything, you just go grieve...and don't talk to LE, and tell all your family and friends not to cooperate openly with LE...and get Patsy her own lawyer...because if this comes down...the two of you are going to be each other's defense: "which one actually tied the garrote on and pulled the handle" is the final issue under Colorado law that will keep either of you from being indicted and tried. As long as they can't prove which one of you did that, they can't charge and try either of you.

    You see, that's why Patsy has always been numero uno in LE's eyes: they had her fibers in the garrote, on the duct tape. Whatever anyone believes happened, those have been John's ace in the hole: Patsy did it, I knew nothing. If it came to court, Patsy's lawyers would say no, those were simple transference from Patsy's jacket, and we admit Patsy lived in the home, was with JonBenet the night before, while wearing that very jacket. But it was JOHN who committed the acts, as the molestation proves. No mother would do that to her child! And the garrote was obviously made by a man who had military training, like John. (I know the arguments against this here, but I'm talking about the best defense firm in Colorado creating reasonable doubt with a jury, which would only require one person to say, yeah, either one could have done the actual deed, though I may feel one or the other PROBABLY did it. PROBABLY is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt. It IS reasonable doubt. Game over.)

    So...neither of them was ever going to prison as long as they had each other to create reasonable doubt.

    Think about it. We've been here for 9 years...and I can't think of anyone who states unequvically which person in that house did what. Most of us have various theories, considering the evidence, and most involve the Rams, but do most of us have the proof of what EXACTLY was done by whom? Not that I've seen.

    I think a jury would reach the conclusion Patsy wrote the note, as Cherokee's excellent analysis illustrates. But who struck the headblow? Who inserted the paintbrush in her, who then broke it and made the garrote on her? And who pulled the handle, strangling her to death? We have scenarios of what is most reasonable, or most likely, or what PROBABLY happened, but we see others who have equally reasonable scenarios that are different in who did what that night.

    If the Rams wanted to use that "good Southern common sense" (Wait a minute...did John say COMMON SENSE? Yes he did!), they'd have simply let LE question them all they wanted, separately but with their lawyers present, and if they were innocent, then LE would have been able to "move on" to the next suspects. It's a bit disingenuous to refuse to help LE ON ITS OWN TERMS and then complain for a decade LE blew the case because it wouldn't MOVE ON from the Rams as suspects. Everything the Rams did from day two insured they'd forever wear that umbrella over their heads. If they really wanted to find an intruder who murdered JonBenet, they'd have done anything LE wanted them to, and told their COUNSELORS to stand with them while they did.

    As JonBenet's parents, it was their responsibility to do everything they could to help LE and should have been their priority. It was not the job of their lawyers to find the intruder. John said as much when he admitted in his Wolf depo that, contrary to all the lies they'd told for years about their WORLD-CLASS DETECTIVES looking for the killer, in fact their detectives were actually preparing for their DEFENSE. And John KNEW IT.

    So speaking of common sense...what kind of common sense were the Rams using when they "let their lawyers made all their decisions," as they claim? BS! John Ramsey and Patsy both knew a great deal about this case, and everytime they feigned ignorance, they lied, as well. They would say, oh, we don't know the details, we don't want to know the details...and then, out of the blue...they'd pop up and start quoting the very same disinformation to the letter their defense team and Lou Smit have shilled all these years.

    I loved it when John and Patsy complained that they wanted to meet with LE and "share" information their detectives had...as long as LE "shared" with them...as ever. But Kane said no! Evil Kane! Yet when Kane asked Patsy in the Atlanta interviews WHAT INFO DOES YOUR INVESTIGATIVE TEAM HAVE THAT THEY WANTED TO SHARE, she says, hey, DON'T KNOW! I was going to find out with you at the meeting! Yeah, right, Patsy. There she is, face to face with the BPD and BDA, allegedly to HELP in the investigation. So...where's that inportant info? She doesn't know! Doesn't remember! Can't recall! Can't answer that, Wood says! Answers vaguely...changes her story when cued by her lawyer... Ask John. Now there's genuine cooperation!

    Speaking of falling on the head...I am not a medical examiner or forensics expert, but I don't believe JonBenet's cracked skull came from a fall. She has no other bruises that indicate a fall so devastating it would do that kind of damage, IMO. The entire cracking of the skull, the displaced portion, seemed to me to be pretty strong evidence that she was struck. With what? We speculate it was the Maglite, which is very heavy and long enough to swing, gaining the momentum needed to create such a mortal injury. Dr. Spitz did some experiments that are very compelling. The pictures he offered of this were online for years and may still be. I think some have said maybe it was a golf club...there were many in the home and there was a prior incident in Charlvoix with Burke that involved a golf club. The size and shape of the displaced portion of the skull fits this, as well. Then there are the bats...another possible source. But I can't think of anything in the home that would have caused that kind of injury in a fall, unless someone like Superman threw her across a room into a marble countertop edge. The displaced portion had to come from some defined edge, it seems to me, not a rounded bathtub edge or toilet, not even a bathtub faucet. There just isn't enough room to get the momentum that would have been necessary to crack her entire skull almost in half, I don't think. I could be wrong, but I haven't ever been able to reconcile those things.

    And the RST claims the headblow would have killed a 300 lb man, or would have required a 300 lb man...just smoke and mirrors. It might have KILLED a 300 lb man...but what's that got to do with this case? Did it require a 300 lb man? More smoke and mirrors: I've watched kids playing Little League ball...it's physics. Even a small child can do great harm swinging a long, hard object. It's why we don't let our kids play baseball in the house and make them wear helmets on the field. It's why we don't give them anything but nurf bats when they're young. Any Ramsey in that house that night had the physical ability to crack JonBenet's skull just like it was cracked, given the right weapon and the right circumstance. And did, IMO.

    But if any of you have a theory about how a fall could have happened that would produce that kind of head wound, I'm listening. I just haven't seen any cogent analysis of how that happened. A long fall, gathering momentum, on concrete steps, might have done it, but there would be lots of other bruising and possibly bone breaks or fractures. Not there, and I don't think there were any concrete steps around the Ramsey home. A fall down the spiral stairway? Or the front staircase? Still, no other bruising to indicate that. Wonder if she could have been pushed over an upstairs railing, or over the top of the spiral staircase handrailing at the top, and fallen onto the top of her head on the floor below. I've never thought of that one. Anyone got any ideas on that?

    See, here's the thing. I have often wondered if this really wasn't a family gone mad. Perhaps someone was molesting JonBenet and the family knew, or had just found out, someone within their inner circle, close. The tension was heavy at Christmas because of it. Plans got changed. Arguments took place. Anger was just leaping out here and there. The kids were jittery with nervous tension from the intensity of it all. Then there was an accident...maybe Burke...maybe Patsy...maybe John. But because of the prior molestation, taking JonBenet to the hospital was not an option, they reasoned. They'd be found out. LE would be controlling the situation. People would find out. Their position at the top of the social ladder would slide out of sight. She's not waking up. Maybe she's convulsing. They call Dr. Beuf. They call their lawyer. They make a choice: she's gone, one way or another, and they need to cut their losses, because a former problem of being labeled as the society family whose little girl was molested by her _______ (fill-in-the-blank) has now blown up into the society family that molested and then murdered their child. So the cover up begins.

    Now, that is ONE THEORY. I can think of other ones as or more plausible. I'm not sure it wasn't all deliberate. After reading Marilyn van Derbur's book, I am not so sure Patsy didn't have her own little secrets to cover up. Marilyn said for most of her life she would have killed to keep her own secret of incest. And Marilyn is as lovely, as loving, as kind and honorable a woman as you'll ever neet. Until she revealed the truth PUBLICLY in her late forties, NOBODY knew she had ANY HISTORY of such a thing. The number of people in her life who suspected what was happening to Marilyn in her youth, or what had happened, was ONE: HER YOUTH MINISTER. It took him years to figure it out, years of working with her as a teen, years of becoming her spiritual advisor, and years to reach the point where he could confront her with the truth. He knew for one reason and one reason only: he worked with abused kids. He knew the symptoms.

    Marilyn came from one of the most prominent, respected, and powerful families in Colorado. And she was not the only child her father molested. He molested her sister, as well. Until their 40s, NEITHER HAD EVER TOLD THE OTHER OR THOUGHT THE OTHER WAS A VICTIM. But more than that, after "coming out" about her father publicly, Marilyn had numerous women come to her and reveal her father had molested them as children, as well. This man had a wife, at least one decades-long mistress, and when lying in his coffin, Marilyn saw that he still had his middle finger manicured with the nail down to the quick: she realized he had never stopped. And he never once had to face LE over his crimes, as he was dead when Marilyn went public. Even knowing how crippled Marilyn was over what her father did to her, her own husband never once said a word to the man about it. They still attended family functions, acted like everything was fine, and MARILYN STILL LOVED HER FATHER.

    Well, this is all by way of saying, the "no history" balloon won't float. Incest is so taboo, any victim will tell you it seldom sees the light of day. Therapists and psychiatrists see it all the time, but they can't speak of it in details. They can't bring charges. They can't tell the press. In victim advocacy, there is one thing that is sacred: you cannot betray the confidence of the survivor. It's the survivor's choice who to tell or not tell, to confront or not, and how to handle it all. That's how they become empowered after years of feeling helpless and hopeless. It's theirs to control.

    So, now that I've bored everyone who's made it this far to tears, my point is that we don't know what dynamics were taking place that night. Deliberate or accident? WE REALLY DO NOT KNOW. All we know is the evidence is clear: Patsy wrote the note, her fibers are in the garrote, on the duct tape, there are no defensive wounds, the head blow came first, then the paintbrush was inserted into the child's vagina, I believe to cover up the prior molestation, which means the killer had to know about the prior molestation at that point, and then the garrote handle was tied on after the brush was broken ; then she was strangled to death, her hands tied and duct tape put on her mouth, then laid out on her blanket in the cellar room. The ransom note was written in the home, that's not disputed, and all indications are the killer knew JonBenet already was dead, because there was no kidnapping, and there was no ransom. Patsy Ramsey is all over that note, but John is as well, as his public interviews where he says "100% blahblah" and where's our "common sense," etc., indicate. So, IMO, either one or both of them wrote and/or dictated the note to get them out of the house by confusing LE, getting them to their lawyers and Atlanta and freedom. That was the goal of the note, IMO.

    Yeah, I think I'd be ready to throw up under the stress of that night and that morning. I believe their feelings were quite appropriate for parents who were trying to look innocent with the hell that was going on inside their brains, the memories that were burned there and resulted in them running from the house where all the good memories of the life of their child should have been prevalent, the child who was now dead, lying exposed on the floor in the obscene embrace of death's grotesque grip, now abandoned as Patsy covered her face and John and she separated again, driving away from the crime scene in separate cars with separate people.

    It's up to you, John, NOT US. We have done all we can. We come here day in and day out, saying WITNESS FOR YOUR CHILD. Considering that some of us believe the Ramseys will never tell the truth and JonBenet will lie in her grave WITHOUT JUSTICE ON EARTH, maybe we don't have a lot of common sense to keep advocating for this murdered child.

    But I come here for reasons that are simple enough: to speak out again and again and again against a killer; to speak out again and again and again against corruption that allowed that killer to run away from responsibility for such criminal and immoral acts; to speak out again and again and again so that the truth that many have paid much to bury does not get lost in the carelessness of a system so flawed and callous; and to witness for a little girl who was brutally abused and murdered when her own family and friends have abandoned her forever.

    If not us, who will do it? Not the Ramseys. All they talk about is how they have been wronged. JonBenet's suffering was buried in that cellar room that night for them. Not the BDA: they have the laws of Colorado to hide behind as long as the U.S. stands. Not Lou Smit. All he wants is the be the "lengendary detective" who saved the innocent Rams with his ignorant theories. And surely not jams, who only fell too easily for the attention and money she received from the upper class and professional world of lawyers and journalists which she never would have gotten but for this murder and her access to the Ramseys, all for the siimple price of spreading RST lies and disinformation without question.

    OK, off the soapbox now. Going to post without proofreading this for a while because my legs are turning blue. I'll come back later to edit mistakes, so please forgive until I get to it.

    LORD...I hate editing...but it's SO necessary. And I somehow lost my first edit. Sheesh...too much work!
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2006
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, since we're looking at what the Rams have said that, in hindsight, reveals just how deceptive they are, here are the transcripts of the LKL show they did two nights in a row when their book came out. See if you spot any more "language" from the ransom note in here.

    And even more, see if you can spot John Ramsey's total contradiction of their claims they "cooperated" with LE. Hint: look for his "monologue" about what their lawyers told them.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/28/lkl.00.html


    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/27/lkl.00.html
     
  13. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    When Dr. Hodges discusses this in his book, Who Will Speak for JonBenet, he brings up the possibility that John and Patsy had to go rest for a little while (a half hour? an hour?), to cool down because of what just transpired. And it was after this rest period that the note was written because I don't think it could've been written immediately afterwards.

    -Tea
     
  14. Greenleaf

    Greenleaf FFJ Senior Member

    Koldkase

    Another great post. I am ever facinated at the little nuggets of truth from your "streams of thought." I nearly always find something there that I had not thought of before. Thank you, dear Koldkase. You have a great sleuthing mind. I believe that if you, Cherokee and Easy Writer were to join forces, this case would be solved straightaway.

    GL
    :leaf:
     
  15. Elle

    Elle Member

    You're right Cherokee. they never do address the non-intentional death of JonBenét, because they can't reverse what they themselves now believe, that they weren't responsible for JonBenét's death. I honestly believe they have talked themselves out of the true fact, that they were responsible for her accidental death. There's no turning back for the Ramseys now, Cherokee. They just can't bring themselves to face the actual truth. They are both hell bent in carrying out this intruder fantasy.
     
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    KK: Delmar's analysis prove that, that handle could not be pulled to strangle anyone. There was no slip knot on this amateur ligature. The wrong knot was made on this ligature. The proper slip knot wasn't made, which would have allowed for the tightening of the cord. Pulling the handle would just have pulled JonBenét's body up from the floor. There wasn't a slip knot to carry out the strangulation. This is what Delmar's garrote analysis is all about.

    EDITED TO ADD:

    KK: As you can see EasyWriter (Delmar England) has replied to you and clarified a few points. I think I got some of it right. I was trying to simplify it. I knew it was the flesh that was swollen after death and moving into the cord and not the other way around. I knew cause of death was not just from strangulation, but with an association of the head injury. I wasn't trying to take his job away from him, just telling you like I saw it. :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 24, 2006
  17. wombat

    wombat Member

    neck ligature

    Are we sure that JonBenet's neck swelled post mortum? EasyWriter states that this is what happened, and when I look at the autopsy photo the cord is deeply embedded into her poor little neck. I always thought that the cord was pulled tight and caused damage to her trachea, etc., and choked her, although of course she was mortally wounded by the crack in her head. There are also bruises about her neck that do not appear to me to be made by the cord becoming embedded as she died and swelled.

    This is the first time I've been aware of possible post-mortem swelling.
     
  18. Elle

    Elle Member

    From the NE Police files. Can post the page later.

    I still can't get over the audacity of Patsy Ramsey, constantly trying to throw the detectives off the scent, when it came to the red and black plaid jacket Patsy wore over her red sweater to the White's party on the 26 December, 1996. When they asked Patsy about her red and black jacket, she replied, that Priscilla White had a jacket exactly the same as hers, and she may have picked up Priscilla's jacket that night. H-e-l-l-o! Talk about throwing one of your best friends under the bus!!
     
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    When you understand the noose around JonBenét's neck could not be tightened by the pulling of the handle, it had to be the swelling of the body after death which cut into the cord, not the opposite way around, the cord into the neck, because there was no slip knot present to tighten the cord around her neck.
     
  20. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks, Greenleaf. I finally got it halfway edited, as well! Makes a little more sense now.

    I believe if most of the detectives in this country got their hands on the entire case file, they could solve this straightaway. And did. But the DA really is the law in this case. If he/she won't charge and try the case, it's dead in the water.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice