Heart in Hand

We both go back to April 2001

I know we go back to April 2001, Thor,when we both landed in CN2000 for the first time. I've met Peggy (Little)...time I met you! Can you believe we've been on several JonBenét forums for almost three years. I know you were juggling quite a few forums at one time. I'm just on C and J and this one. That's all I have time for.

Yes, I like all the posters here too, Thor. They have a lot of fun bantering with each other in between the serious discussions of JonBenét and other sad cases.

 

here is how i see the heart on jonbenet's hand

i etched the heart i see.

my only point....
is that it looks like a child drew that heart....

patsy would have drawn a
more perfect heart.......
in my opinion.

jmo,
purr

 

it may be a J. on her hand..not an F.

see what you think?

 

thanks to justincase for sending

me the pic.

so ...........discuss..........

i am always interested in what you all think,
purr

p.s. i can tell you this....when
i started to etch on her hand.......
i couldnt do it at first.

my stomach tightened up.......
and i got sick to my stomach.

it took me awhile before i could
etch on her hand.

and i got very, very sad.

that poor child!

 

JIC, I believe both the Ramseys said in their 2000 interviews that Christmas Day, prior to the Whites' party and after the children opened their presents, the house was filled with neighborhood children. I think JB got a jewelry-making kit and the little girls were playing with it most of the afternoon. This could explain where the heart on her hand came from and who drew it, and why you have the impression it was a child's artwork.

 

Purr,
I had the same impression minus the two bumps at the top, good catch on the J. I can still see where the cursive F was crossed in the middle, it's likely JonBenet did it herself or one of her friends could have...

Dejanu
You could be right , but I don't think a child drew this heart I think Putsy did it while she was still wobbly from the Chablis to make it look like anyone but herself did it; add that to the theory that Bill McReynolds did it and you have yourself a sickening theory. YUCK

 

Yes, Moab, This is the way it was. John Ramsey and Fleet White were on the floor at the White's party, with his daughter Daphne and JonBenét. They were playing with jewelry. JR was laughing because he and Fleet were making little beads and then threading them.


John Ramsey did go to the airport on Christmas afternoon to check up on his plane for the flight the next day.

When questioned about the heart by the detectives Patsy Ramsey told them that JonBenét and Daphne were always drawing on themselves with Patsy discouraging this because they often had to do what she called the "pageant scrub."

Of course we all know the routine Patsy went through with telling the detective she saw the heart on JonBenét's hand in the morning, and then later changing this story to she may have read about it and thought she had seen it.

I cannot understand why this woman got away with changing her story at every chance she got. Why not charge her on the spot
for all her lies?

 

Charge her with what, Elle? Lying to the cops is what just about every guilty party does, but it's not a crime in and of itself.

 

Lying to an FBI Agent is in and of itself a crime... I think that lying to a police officer investigating a crime is obstruction of justice unless the lie has nothing to do with the crime.

 

I was thinking along these lines, Shadow. The Ramseys have lied about important information relating to the death of their daughter. All the evidence leads to them.

 

Shadow: "Lying to an FBI Agent is in and of itself a crime... I think that lying to a police officer investigating a crime is obstruction of justice unless the lie has nothing to do with the crime."

You're right, Shadow, lying could be an obstruction depending on evidence or showing of truth to contrast the lies, but a far lesser crime than murder. But where you don't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove homicide, you automatically don't have sufficient evidence to prove obstruction. Foundation for obstruction, IOW, is lacking. For a small example, PR says that JR was reading the RN in his underwear, but we've calculated that only 3 minutes later, he let Officer French in the front door fully clothed after JR says he ran upstairs to dress. Now common sense says that's impossible, but we have no hard evidence to prove JR was clothed at all times in that scenario. So this inconsistency is unproveable at this point. At best it's only value is impeachment, or proving PR is lying. And it's not proof that either or both of the Rs are good for the murder.

That's the of this whole thing with all the Ramseys' inconsistencies. Until they can come up with sufficient evidence for a homicide charge, they can't charge the Rs with obstruction. But if the day ever comes where any homicide charges are brought against the Rs, they'll also be charged with obstruction. So for now, all that can be proven is that their stories keep changing. From that perspective, the inconsistencies are just lies and so far not a crime. To try to prosecute them now for obstruction would be as disastrous an outcome as the CW case was.

 

Your right Moab,

Does anyone remember Patsy saying JonBenet went back to a jewelry making kit on Christmas morning too? Right after she tells us the story about how JonBenet didn't like the MyTwinn, Patsy said:
DOI hardback pg. 4
"she quickly returned to a jewelry craft set which she had previously opened."

This little craft kit get's around!! I'm wondering if JonBenet liked the jewelry set so much that she carted it over to the Whites house; I can see Patsy being angry that she didn't want to bring My Twinn...

 

JIC, go back and check the 2000 interviews Spade posted here at FFJ. I believe both the Rs offered testimony that their house was filled with kids all afternoon Christmas Day and that JB and the girls were playing with the jewelry-making kit while the boys were playing Nintendo. Once again, more inconsistencies....

 

DejaNu – It sounds like you are saying that if the police can’t charge someone with a crime, then someone obstructing the investigation can’t be charged. I was told many years ago by a Fairfax County detective that attempting to hinder the discovery, apprehension, conviction or punishment of anyone who has committed a crime is obstruction of justice. I got the impression that it didn’t matter whether anyone has been or ever will be charged with the crime. I may have misunderstood. He also said that "misleading conduct" that includes outright lying or omissions can get you charged with obstruction of justice. It would appear to me that if it’s ever proven that JR and Burke were on the 911 tape, JR and PR are lying. Seems to me whether anyone is ever charged with killing JBR, the Ramseys at least were guilty of "misleading conduct."

I know that you have a much better knowledge of law than I or my detective buddy has - can you clarify this for me.

 

Trying to prove the Ramseys lied about everything, DejaNu, is like trying to prove donkeys fly.

 

SEE!!!
Good God, where does it end??
So what does this mean?? There's the possibility that it was a hot item in '96 and JonBenet's best friend Daphne got one of these sets too; or is this just something they used as a 'blanket' present, we've heard about it in at least three different scenario's now and one included seriously hurting Patsy's feelings by simply wanting to use that over playing with My Twinn. I think this is worth looking into, too bad the completely inept Boulder DA has better things to do like speak out against a crime she doesn't have the gumption to prove.

S-P-I-N-E-L-E-S-S OR JUST RETARTED, you decide.

 

Shadow: "DejaNu – It sounds like you are saying that if the police can’t charge someone with a crime, then someone obstructing the investigation can’t be charged. I was told many years ago by a Fairfax County detective that attempting to hinder the discovery, apprehension, conviction or punishment of anyone who has committed a crime is obstruction of justice. I got the impression that it didn’t matter whether anyone has been or ever will be charged with the crime. I may have misunderstood. He also said that "misleading conduct" that includes outright lying or omissions can get you charged with obstruction of justice. It would appear to me that if it’s ever proven that JR and Burke were on the 911 tape, JR and PR are lying. Seems to me whether anyone is ever charged with killing JBR, the Ramseys at least were guilty of "misleading conduct.

I know that you have a much better knowledge of law than I or my detective buddy has - can you clarify this for me."

You flatter me, Shadow. I would hope that your Fairfax detective buddy would know criminal law inside and out! LOL But cops see the law in a different way than lawyers, especially prosecutors, which is what leads to the notorious dissention between them. While cops know criminal law, they look at evidence because their focus is on solving the crime. When they've done a good job at collecting evidence, they look at their case and say, "Proven!" but it's to their own standards and satisfaction.

But when the prosecutors who know the law look at the evidence collected by the cops, they look at sufficiency for a successful prosecution. While the cops may believe they've solved the case, the prosecutor has to convince 12 people UNANIMOUSLY with the evidence that's been collected, and do it according to an established set of rules that the cops and public don't have. Much bigger task, two totally different objectives, with two totally different threshholds of proof. That's why it's always important for the cops and DAs to work together, because both accomplishments are needed in any criminal case.

LE and the public use logic to solve a case. If it smells like a rose, it's gotta be a rose. But it could be just rose-scented perfume. Lawyers can't rely on logic alone, and I know that sounds strange. Most trial lawyers, if honest, will tell you they consider juries "idiots." I can paint a picture for a jury of what I want them to see, but that might not be the way it really is. If I do a good enough job at painting, the jury will buy my song and dance and an innocent person may hang. I would refer you to the wonderful number Richard Gere did in the movie "Chicago"-give 'em the ole razzle dazzle. That's why the Rules of Criminal (and Civil) Procedure were written, so that the presumption of innocence is well served at trial, and conscientious trial lawyers play the game fairly.

Your statement "It would appear to me that if it’s ever proven that JR and Burke were on the 911 tape, JR and PR are lying" in essence answers your own question. It's all about proof in a court of law. While on their face, the inconsistencies in the Ramseys' own statements may be lying hands down to cops and the public, from a prosecutor's standpoint, he/she would say, "How do we know that? How can I prove that?" Proof--it's the monumental necessity in an obstruction charge, a homicide charge, etc.

We can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt John was dressed when he read the ransom note. We can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy wrote the note. We can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that playmates of JB's didn't draw the heart on her hand, we can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that some intruder committed the crime or that the Ramseys had knowledge of a crime or committed the cover up. All we have is evidence, not sufficient proof of anything, and that's why AH was so damned chickenshit about filing charges. Sometimes, in cases as complex as this one, more evidence is needed to prove prior evidence. Evidence is not always "proof" but can lead to conclusive proof if lucky.

Obstruction can't be proven with inconsistent statements. "I can't remember," "I don't know," may well be an inability to remember or lack of knowledge. The same thing is true when they contradict themselves, which is why both of these defense strategies are routinely employed. Haddon Morgan knew that BPD and AH didn't have enough to charge the Rs early on in the case. That's why they instructed their clients to respond in this fashion. The cops needed to get more evidence to support prior evidence, but the Rs didn't give it to them. It's evasive, it's useless information except for impeachment value, and it's underhanded but legal strategy. So unless we can prove intent to deceive, mislead or wilfully obscure/hide the truth, it's just impossible to prove obstruction. We would have to prove that the Rs knew the truth and intentionally set about to mislead. How do we do that unless we have an objective third party witness or something of that nature that doesn't rely on the Rs' own integrity?

Now if they were making statements as definitive as "McDonald's doesn't sell hamburgers" and we can easily prove McDonald's main revenue source is hamburgers, then we have an obstruction. See the difference?

So Shadow, what we have is cops saying "charge the Ramseys with obstruction!" And the prosecutors anywhere else but Boulder saying, "Ok, but how can we prove obstruction if we can't prove who did or didn't do what!" Their inconsistent testimonies aren't proof of anything in a court of law. Only other hard, tangible evidence to the contrary of their statements would suffice for a successful prosecution, like eye witness statements, photos, etc. It would be disastrous to charge them on obstruction then fail to make the case, because LW would turn that around, just like Keenan's statement of support re the Carnes ruling, that once again the Rs have been proven innocent!

 

Death of Innocence Paperback/Hardback

Justincase.

Recently I bought a used DOI from Barnes and Noble for $3.00 ...postage cost more! I felt it would be easier to research than the paperback I bought in 2001. If I hadn't bought this book on my way to Myrtle Beach, I may never have got involved in this case on the net. I remembered seeing it on TV at the time it happened, Christmas 1996.

The Acandyrose index is for the Hardback, and therefore makes it much easier to research, because the pages are not numbered the same in the PB, but I noted yesterday as I was researching about the broken window, the following information is not the same in each book.

Knowing you have a copy of "Death of Innocence" you can check this out.

Page 21 Hardback DOI. Copyright is dated 2000 John and Patsy

This is the first time where the page numbers "are" the same.

John Ramsey: I don't look further after finding the possible entry point but go back upstairs.

John Ramsey makes no mention of closing the window here.

Page 21 Paperback DOI. Copyright is dated 2000, 2001

John Ramsey: I don't look further after finding the open window, but I carefully close it before going back upstairs.

Should be interesting if I come across more like this while browsing. He must have requested these changes.

 

Good find Elle,

They definately did add that little blip in there after the fact, the 2000-2001 copyright tells us that it was not the first print of the book, IMO they added that in there because it seemed suspicious.