DOI - The Murderer

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by icedtea4me, Jan 27, 2006.

  1. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    Would anyone care to discuss and analyze what is in this chapter?

    -Tea
     
  2. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I would, IcedTea, but I'm at work and don't have my book with me. If you start the ball rolling, I'm sure others will join in.
     
  3. wombat

    wombat Member

    Me too - at work without the book. Could play over the weekend though.

    DOI was the final nail in Patsy's coffin for me. Especially the chapter where they describe December 26th in present tense and using double interior monologue -"I get up, I remember my shower's broken, just put on what I wore yesterday...." What piffle that is.

    The book is so revealing.
     
  4. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Exactly, Wombat, but it's worse than piffle, it's absolute crap. Anyone with with half a brain can see through Patsy's transparent attempt at damage control for not bathing and wearing the same outfit the morning of December 26th that she wore the night of December 25th.

    John's separate shower was just a few steps across the room from Patsy's. Why couldn't she have used his? Or the one across from Burke's room just one floor down? Or the shower in the tub next to JonBenet's room or John Andrew's room, ALSO just one floor down? Patsy had access to FOUR working showers that morning, yet she chose not to use any of them.

    But even MORE glaring is the fact that Patsy says she remembers her shower is broken. Patsy infers the shower was broken before that morning, otherwise, how would she have known it was not working?

    Okay. So if the shower was already broken on the morning of December 26th, then it must have quit working on December 25th or earlier. So then, what shower did Patsy use on the 25th?

    If her shower was broken, she must have used John's shower, or one of the three located just one floor down. Obviously, John's shower was in good working order as he says he used it the morning of December 26th.

    So why didn't Patsy just use the same shower on December 26th she used on the morning of December 25th, WHICHEVER ONE IT WAS?

    Another thing. If you didn't have five showers and five bathtubs in your home (like the Ramseys did), or even running water, but you wanted to do the best you could to be clean for the day, you would AT LEAST put on a fresh set of clothes. You wouldn't wear the same sweaty outfit you wore the day before, especially if you were going on a trip with family to be with MORE family for a special occasion.

    What the Ramseys expect us to swallow is an insult to our intelligence.
     
  5. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Ahhhhh, but the devil in in the details. Does Patsy mean she got up and put on the same clothes from day before? Period?

    I've always been upset because the Ramseys were not pressed for a lot more detail in their interviews. This is just one example. I noticed during one of Patsy's interviews that she said she "probably" washed her face, "probably" brushed her teeth. Come on, did she or didn't she take a washcloth and wash up before she donned her clothes, at least hitting some of the vital parts on her body. Details - did she use deodorant? What about her hair? Patsy Ramsey doesn't get out of bed with bed hair like the rest of us? She just magically runs a brush or comb through her hair and it's perfectly styled? Uh-huh, I don't think so.

    But, that damn makeup had to go on. Since she says she "probably" washed her face, I guess she had a clean face on which to apply makeup. Did she use moisturizer? In one interview she says it took her "probably" 20-30 minutes to get ready. That's applying her makeup and jumping in her clothes. Did she brush her teeth? I don't want to hear "probably." She knows whether she washed up and brushed her teeth that morning. What's with all the "probablys"? Patsy needed to be nailed down on all the details, and she never was.

    Details - she couldn't remember if they had eaten lunch on Christmas day. "Probably not," she said, but she couldn't remember. No one nailed her down on anything - she couldn't remember, or it was "probably would have."

    One thing she did remember which she recanted the very next morning was that she saw the heart on JBR's hand the morning of December 26. She was adament about that - she said it was a very nice heart or a well-drawn heart. The next day she said she must have read about the heart or something like that. They should have nailed her down on that right then and there - interrogated her like they would have any other suspect.

    The Ramseys were treated with kid gloves in their interviews. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
     
  6. Elle

    Elle Member

    I think Patsy had the same clothes on because they were never taken off. It's possible that fibers from the red top or jacket she still had on came in contact with JonBenét during an argument, and this is why she still had to wear the same outfit, because she does throw herself on top of JonBenét when her body was placed in front of the tree.

    I feel the Ramseys went over this plan while they were up the whole night concocting the staging. Everything went according to their plan, including the invited contamination group.

    Her excuse about the shower was ridiculous, but she had to say something for still having the same clothes on. More or less, she was going to be flying and could always change when she arrived at Charlevoix. What a load of bumf going through all that kerfuffle for her 40th birthday. Not much sense between the two of them (?).
     
  7. Greenleaf

    Greenleaf FFJ Senior Member

    Please check out

    Greenleaf's Corner. I have something new there.

    "Patsy Meets The Devil."

    GL
    :leaf:
     
  8. Elle

    Elle Member

    Tea,

    John Ramsey starts off Chapter 33 "The Murderer" page 361 HB, by asking the reader:

    Paraphrasing, John states this creature may look normal, but on the inside his brain is boiling and in a turmoil. He might even be the nice quiet neighbor, yet may be a vicious monster who by his actions left many clues to his identity, and by continued actions will identify himself to someone some day. We need that someone to recognize him and come forward, before he kills another innocent child.

    John talks about the murder of JonBenét not being this killer's first crime, and it won't be the last. He didn't turn into a monster on 25 December. and return to being a normal person. His previous crimes, and the ones in the future will help lead us to him.

    John then draws attention to the "midnight burglaries" in Boulder, prior to the murder, which ceased on December 25, 1996. Could they be related. John writes: Possibly!

    John also draws attention to a house-sitter in a home across the alley from their own home.

    It seems to me, Tea, that John works very hard to put a picture in the mind of his readers that the killer of JonBenét is everyone and anyone, but Patsy and John Ramsey. Now we have all the burglaries, the normal people walking past your door, and the house-sitter across the alley, to consider as suspects.

    Note that John does not describe a woman in his description above.
     
  9. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    It was not just in the official police interviews. They ran the
    whole show from start to finish, LE and the media.

    There are a lot of folks, including myself, who would like a
    shot at asking questions and making the result public knowledge.
    My primary list of those I wish to interrogate is: John Ramsey,
    Patsy Ramsey, Lin Wood, Lou Smit, Mary Keenan and Judge Carnes.
    I’m betting that no amount of money can hire any of them for this
    kind of career-ending speaking engagement.
     
  10. Elle

    Elle Member

    Greenleaf, I just finished "Patsy Meets The Devil" and as I read this, I was watching it as a video in black and white. It reminded me of the first "Scrooge" movie I saw with Alistair Sim as Scrooge. Seeing hell projected the way some of the scenes were in that movie. I enjoyed myself. It was well written, and you sure have a great imagination. Your acronyms were excellent.

    I apologize for not browsing the threads more on FFJ, and missing your corner, because my icon took me straight to the JonBenét thread, but having found your corner due to your last write-up, I must find time to go through everything you have written.

    I hope you don't mind me putting the url here for "Patsy Meets the Devil"
    and it will be easy to access for others. More power to you, Greenleaf!

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6660
     
  11. Elle

    Elle Member

    How right you are, WY, when you say "Patsy needed to be nailed down on all the details, and she never was." She couldn't remember a damn thing So frustrating! So many inconsistencies, and they were never addressed.
    There is something wrong with this whole scene, and it makes me spit more tacks all over the place! Is it any wonder Steve Thomas left LE?
     
  12. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Here's something I was wondering

    Re: that morning and LE interviewing the Ramseys. Those parents are not the first parents to have a child murdered. And I realize that Patsy was drugged to the hilt or pretending to be drugged and swooning with hurt. They should have been separated and questioned period. They were not. I realize that Boulder doesn't have a lot of child murders but protocol is protocol. Is the only reason they weren't questioned because of Patsy's being almost incoherent? Oh what an oportunity was missed right there. Some gentle questioning and getting something down on the books so to speak would have gone a long way to helping in this case. Yes, they were treated with kid gloves and more. Yuck!
     
  13. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    This is a good place to start, Elle-

    Patsy and I know one thing for certain: this deranged assailant of children walks among us, for the moment, undetected by the authorities.

    Now, is this the way John is saying this, or could it be like this, with the emphasis placed on "us"?

    ...this deranged assailant of children walks among us, for the moment, undetected by the authorities.


    Now, let's see what's on pg 398 (PB version). John wrote-

    He may be part of a gang or from a foreign country where the use of a garrote would be familiar.

    John knows damn good and well that no gang member killed JonBenet. Gang members do not write three page ransom notes and their method of killing is usually with a firearm, like in a drive-by. Someone from a foreign country? Oh, puh-leeeze! What foreign person is going to have any knowledge that John has any connection to the South? I think we need to take a look at the term "gang" because it is also defined as "a group of people associated or working together. When John was stationed in the Phillipines, a country with a history of garroting its foes, wasn't he part of a public works crew?


    Skipping ahead a little bit, John wrote-

    After the murder, the killer's strange mannerisms would have been noticeable to those around him. He would have seemed agitated and emotionally upset. He would have taken extreme interest in the case. He watched all the television reports on the murder and read all the newspaper accounts he could find.

    How could the killer be emotionally upset when John stated on pg 397 that the killer's "conscience does not operate well, if at all"? And did John say "He (the killer) may have watched all the television reports..." or "It's possible he (the killer) could have watched all the television reports..." No, he said "He (the killer) watched all the television reports...." Now, how would John know that, unless he is referring to himself or Patsy?


    -Tea
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2006
  14. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    Pg 400 - We know that the basement window was found open on the morning of December 26, and the butler pantry door, which led to the outside, was found unlocked and open. Most likely the killer entered or left by one of these routes.

    If this "intruder" entered via the butler door, then there would be no need to place a suitcase under the basement window. Furthermore, this "intruder" could have left with JonBenet out the door, too. If said intruder came in through the window and exited the same way, then the butler door should still be closed. And if said intruder entered via the window and left via the door, then the suitcase shouldn't be under the window as a step.


    Pg 403 - I had discovered a hard Samsonite suitcase standing up against the wall under that window on the morning of the twenty-sixth. Was this suitcase used as a step to get in or out of the window, which was five feet off the floor?

    Used as a step to get in the window? How can this be because earlier in the
    book John wrote-

    pg 20 - The pane is still broken, and the window is open, with a large old Samsonite suitcase sitting right under it. Odd, I think. This doesn't look right. This suitcase is not normally kept here.

    How could the suitcase be used as a step to get in the window when it normally wasn't kept there, as John stated?


    -Tea
     
  15. Elle

    Elle Member

    Yes, Tea, John Ramsey keeps putting his foot in it throughout this book, from the open door etc., to the suitcase (John Andrew's). Several policemen checked all doors and windows in the Ramsey home, early morning on 26 December, 1996, and no break-ins were recorded.

    You will be able to fill a few pages with similar data, all in the name of "backing up" the Ramsey story - "We were not involved in JonBenét's death." We, the posters of FFJ have another story to tell, where this is concerned, don't we?
     
  16. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    Pg 402 - His original intent, I believe, was to kidnap JonBenet. I'd like to ask the police if they ever considered that something could have gone wrong--something that turned a botched kidnapping attempt into a murder.

    What botched kidnapping attempt? JonBenet was "stun-gunned", tied up, had duct tape covering her mouth, and the butler kitchen door was found open, like you said, John. Botched kidnapping attempt, my a$$!


    Pg 402 - The foreign DNA under her fingernails would indicate to me that she must have awakened at some point and fought her attacker.

    But then on pg 406 is this-
    1. DNA evidence. Foreign DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails. Some prosecutors have described this evidence as a "problem." I look at it as a huge clue, and I'm grateful we have it. If JonBenet fought with her killer, she may have given us his DNA, which will ultimately be his downfall.

    What does he mean by "If JonBenet fought..."? Shouldn't it be "When JonBenet fought..."? And what if she didn't fight? He goes from "She got the DNA under her fingernails by fighting her attacker" to "Well, maybe she fought him and maybe she didn't".


    -Tea
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2006
  17. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    Pg 403 - While I can only speculate, I think that several things must have occurred between the scream and this man leaving the basement.
    Pg 404 - Her scream must have frightened the killer into believing he was about to be discovered, so he pulled the garrote too tight so she wouldn't scream again, and she died.

    Let's take a look at the several things John conveniently omitted-

    1. application of the duct tape
    2. wiping down of the body
    3. redressing the body (i.e. underwear and longjohns were pulled back up to the waist)
    4. wrapping the body up in a blanket

    And the killer could leave the basement, yet still be in the house, simply by walking up the stairs.

    -Tea
     
  18. Elle

    Elle Member

    John Ramsey keeps contradicting himself, doesn't he, as you have pointed out, over and over, Tea?

    As for the DNA under her fingernails, I wonder if it could have come from her playmates that afternoon (?). Patsy was unsure if JonBenét had a bath that afternoon (?).

    Patsy calls the children to come in and get ready for the Whites, but when questioned, couldn't recall if JonBenét had a bath. What mother wouldn't know if her child had a bath or a shower before a party? I'll guarantee she would have known before a beauty pageant, because they went through a beauty pageant scrub.

    I would say she was one very neglectful mother, who never went out of her way to help her little girl through her bed wetting problem, in spite of the help there is out there on the market today.

    edited to add, it has never been proved JonBenét was stun gunned. There are quite a few posters out there who disagree with this because of technical reasons.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 29, 2006
  19. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    Yes, and it's quite maddening.

    It's possible she had contact with one of the neighborhood boys who were around racing their cars. Who knows.



    I know that she wasn't stun-gunned, Elle. That's why I put the term in " " marks.

    -Tea
     
  20. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    Pg 403 - Maybe the killer discovered that he couldn't force JonBenet through the window opening, and she could have seen his face during the attack. Possibly the fear of her later identifying him or his inability to shove JonBenet through the window precipitated her death.

    Once again, John said the butler kitchen door was found unlocked and open, so there would be no need for this "intruder" to shove her through the basement window. And as far as her being able to see her attacker... Hello! Duct tape, anyone? Why weren't her eyes covered with duct tape? Even the kid in the Ransom movie had that done to him. Even Homer Simpson had a burlap sack put over his head when he was kidnapped while the family was in Brazil. Sheesh!

    -Tea
     
  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